Efectos académicos de una enseñanza mixta versus metodología única centrada en el profesor y enfoques de aprendizaje

  1. Ana González Marcos 1
  2. Fermín Navaridas Nalda 1
  3. María Asunción Jiménez Trens 1
  4. Fernando Alba Elías 1
  5. Joaquín Ordieres Meré 2
  1. 1 Universidad de La Rioja
    info

    Universidad de La Rioja

    Logroño, España

    ROR https://ror.org/0553yr311

  2. 2 Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/03n6nwv02

Journal:
Revista de educación

ISSN: 0034-8082

Year of publication: 2021

Issue: 392

Pages: 123-154

Type: Article

DOI: 10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2021-392-481 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Revista de educación

Abstract

Recent research in the area of higher education appears to indicate that a mixed teaching methodology that combines direct instruction by the teacher and student-centered activities improves the quality of learning, as indicated by student satisfaction and academic performance. However, the successful implementation of such methodology depends to a great extent on the teacher¿s understanding of how students approach their learning. In light of this thesis, the present study seeks to: (1) identify the engineering students¿ approaches to learning; (2) determine if a mixed methodology that combines lectures and problem-based learning (PBL) activities improves the quality of students¿ academic results more than traditional teaching methodology that consists primarily of the teacher¿s explanations and assignments; and (3) explore the relationships between students¿ academic results and the approaches to learning and the teaching-learning methods that have been investigated. Utilizing a quasiexperimental design, 160 engineering students were divided into two groups: an experimental group where students completed the course with a mixed teaching methodology, and a control group wherein students attended a course following a more teacher-centered methodology. The analyzed results show that engineering students mainly adopt a deep learning approach. One of the main findings of this study is that a mixed methodology, such as the presented in this work, is more effective because it improves students¿ satisfaction and academic performance significantly. It also promotes deeper processing than a teacher-centered methodology that is based on lectures and individual practical assignments. In addition, it has been supported that the main approaches to learning that the students in the study used are not consistent. The methods that they use vary significantly depending on the requirements of the instructional context and how students understand it.

Bibliographic References

  • Azer, S. A. (2009). What makes a great lecture? Use of lectures in a hybrid PBL curriculum. Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences, 25(3), 109- 115.
  • Baeten, M., Dochy, F., & Struyven, K. (2013). Enhancing students´ approaches to learning: the added value of gradually implementing case-based learning. European Journal of Psychology Education, 28, 315-336.
  • Baeten, M., Dochy, F., Struyven, K., Parmentier, E., & Vanderbruggen, A. (2016). Student-centred learning environments: An investigation into student teacher´s instructional preferences and approaches to learning. Learning Environments Research, 19(1), 43-62.
  • Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Research Monograph. Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd.
  • Biggs, J. B. (1988). Assessing student approaches to learning. Australian Psychologist, 23(2), 197-206.
  • Biggs, J. B. (1993). From theory to practice: A cognitive systems approach. Higher Education Research and Development, 12, 73–86.
  • Biggs, J. B., Kember, D., & Leung, D. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133-149.
  • Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Open University Press.
  • Carriger, M. S. (2016). What is the best way to develop new managers? Problem-based learning vs. lecture-based instruction. The International Journal of Management Education, 14, 92-101.
  • Chin, C., & Brown, D.E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Researchs in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109-138.
  • De la Fuente, J., Pichardo, M. C., Justicia, F., & Berbén, A. (2008). Enfoques de aprendizaje, autorregulación y rendimiento en tres universidades europeas. Psicothema, 20(4), 705-711.
  • Dinsmore, D. L., & Alexander, P.A. (2012). A critical discussion of deep and surface processing: What it means, how it is measured, the role of context, and model specification. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 499–567.
  • Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 533–568.
  • Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Loyens, S. M. M., Marcq, H., & Gijbels, D. (2016). Deep and surface learning in problem-based learning: a review of the literature. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 21(5), 1087-1112.
  • Drew, S. (2001). Perceptions of what helps learn and develop in education. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(3), 309–331.
  • Ellis, R. A., Goodyear, P., Calvo, R. A., & Prosser, M. (2008). Engineering students’ conceptions of and approaches to learning through discussions in face-to-face and online contexts. Learning and Instruction, 18(3), 267–282.
  • Entwistle, N. (1987). Understanding classroom learning. Hodder & Stoughton.
  • Entwistle, N. (2009). Teaching for understanding at university. Deep approaches and distinctive ways of thinking. Palgrave Macmillan.
  • European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2018. The European higher education area in 2018: Bologna process implementation report. Publications Office of the European Union.
  • Gargallo, B., Garfella, P. R., Sahuquillo, P. M., Verde, I., & Jiménez- Rodríguez, M. A. (2015). Métodos centrados en el aprendizaje, estrategias y enfoques de aprendizaje en estudiantes universitarios. Revista de Educación, 370, 229-241.
  • Gargallo, B., Sahuquillo, P. M., Verde, I., & Almerich, G. (2018). ¿Qué ocurre cuando los profesores utilizan métodos centrados en el aprendizaje? Efectos en los enfoques de aprendizaje, en las capacidades del alumno y en su percepción del entorno de aprendizaje. Revista de Educación, 382, 163-197.
  • González-Marcos, A., Alba-Elías, F., Navaridas-Nalda, F., & Ordieres- Meré, J. (2016a). Student evaluation of a virtual experience for project management learning: An empirical study for learning improvement. Computers & Education, 102, 172-187.
  • González-Marcos, A., Alba-Elías, F., & Ordieres-Meré, J. (2016b). An analytical method for measuring competence in project management. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(6), 1324-1339.
  • Goodyear, P., Asensio, M., Jones, C., Hodgson, V., & Steeples, C. (2003). Relationships between conceptions of learning, approaches to study and students’ judgements about the value of their experiences of networked learning. Journal of the Association for Learning Technology, 11(1), 17-27.
  • Hernández Pina, F., García Sanz, M. P., & Maquilón Sánchez, J. J. (2004). Análisis del cuestionario de procesos de estudio-2 factores de Biggs en estudiantes universitarios españoles. Revista Fuentes, 6, 96-114.
  • Hernández-Pina, F., & Monroy, F. (2012). Cuestionario de procesos en el estudio (R-CPE-2F). Universidad de Murcia.
  • IPMA (2006). ICB: IPMA competence baseline. Version 3.0. International Project Management Association.
  • Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching, Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
  • Loyens, S. M. M., Jones, S. H., Mikkers, J., & van Gog, T. (2015). Problembased learning as a facilitator of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 38, 34–42
  • Marton, F. & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I. Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.
  • Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1997). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.). The experience of learning. Implications for teaching and studying in higher education (2nd ed., pp. 39–58).
  • Navaridas-Nalda, F., & Jiménez-Trens, M. A. (2016). Concepciones de los estudiantes sobre la eficacia de los ambientes de aprendizaje universitario. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 34(2), 503-519.
  • Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw- Hill.
  • Office of Government Commerce (2009). Managing successful projects with PRINCE2TM. The Stationary Office.
  • Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.
  • Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1993). More on improving service quality measurement. Journal of Retailing, 69(1), 140–147.
  • Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123–138.
  • Prosser, M., Martin, E., Trigwell, K., Ramsden, P., & Lueckenhausen, G. (2005). Academics´ experiences of understanding of their subject matter and the relationship of this to their experiences of teaching and learning. Instructional Science, 33, 137-157.
  • Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (2014). Qualitative variation in approaches to university teaching and learning in large first-year classes. Higher Education, 67, 783–795.
  • Romano, J., Kromrey, J. D., Coraggio, J., & Skowronek, J. (2006). Appropriate statistics for ordinal level data: Should we really be using t-test and Cohen’s d for evaluating group differences on the NSSE and other surveys?, in: Annual meeting of the Florida Association of Institutional Research.
  • Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., & Gielen, S. (2006). On the dynamics of students’ approaches to learning: the effects of the teaching/ learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16(4), 279-294.
  • Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Improving quality of student learning: The influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes. Higher Education, 22(3), 251-266.
  • Valle-Arias, A., González-Cabanach, R., Núñez-Pérez, J. C., Suárez-Riveiro, J. M., Piñeiro-Aguín, I., & Rodríguez-Martínez, S. (2000). Enfoques de aprendizaje en estudiantes universitarios. Psicothema, 12(3), 368-375.
  • Yadav, A., Subedia D., Lundebergb M. A., & Bunting C.F. (2011) Problembased learning: Influence on students’ learning in an electrical engineering course. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(2), 253– 280.
  • Zeegers, P. (2002). A revision of the Biggs study process questionnaire (R-SPQ). Higher Education Research and Development, 21, 73-92.
Data source: Dialnet