Estudio de una experiencia internacional de aprendizaje interactivo en la asignatura pequeñas empresas e iniciativa empresarial

  1. Millán Tapia, José María
  2. Millán Tapia, Ana
  3. Román Díaz, Concepción
Journal:
Aula de encuentro: Revista de investigación y comunicación de experiencias educativas

ISSN: 1137-8778,  2341-4847

Year of publication: 2017

Volume: 19

Issue: 2

Pages: 97-143

Type: Article

DOI: 10.17561/AE.V19I2.5 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Aula de encuentro: Revista de investigación y comunicación de experiencias educativas

Abstract

This paper describes and evaluates an international interactive learning experience carried out in the Seminar of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, which is one of the subjects of the Master in Entrepreneurship, Strategy and Economy of Organizations offered by the Faculty of Economics at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam. By means of a questionnaire, we analyse the students’ perception of the pedagogical benefits of the activities proposed (i.e., compliance with an interdisciplinary syllabus, carrying out works in groups made up of students from different nationalities, monitoring meetings with members of the teaching staff, public presentation of assignments, visit to a research centre, chats with real entrepreneurs and analysis of a real company), as well as their satisfaction with the teachinglearning methodology used, with the evaluation system and with the subject itself. The opinion of the teachers of the subject on these aspects is also collected and analyzed through a semi-structured interview.

Bibliographic References

  • Abbott, A., Butler, D., Gibney, E., Schiermeier, Q., & Van Noorden, R. (2016). Boon or burden: What has the EU ever done for science? Nature News, 53(7607), 307-309. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/534307a)
  • Arribas, J.M. (2012). El rendimiento académico en función del sistema de evaluación empleado. RELIEVE, Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa, 18(1), art. 3, 1-15. (Disponible en: https://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v18n1/RELIEVEv18n1_3.pdf)
  • Aggarwall, P & O’Brien, C.L. (2008). Social loafing on group projects: Structural antecedents and effect on student satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Education, 30(3), 255-264. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475308322283)
  • Arbizu, F., Lobato, C., & del Castillo, L. (2005). Algunos modelos de abordaje de la tutoría universitaria. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 10(1), 7-21. (Disponible en: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=17514745002)
  • Bacon D.R., Stewart, K.A. & Silver, W.S. (1999). Lessons from the best and worst student team experiences: How a teacher can make the difference. Journal of Management Education, 23(5), 467-488. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/105256299902300503)
  • Bolívar, A. (2007). La planificación por competencias en la reforma de Bolonia de la Educación Superior. Un análisis crítico. Educaçao Temática Digital, 9, 68-94. (Disponible en: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-73427)
  • Boud, D. & Falchikov, N. (2007). Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education. Learning for the Long Term. Oxon (Reino Unido): Routledge.
  • Brady, L. (1985). Models and Methods of Teaching. London (Reino Unido): Prentice-Hall. Cabrera, A.F. (2003). Evaluación de la Formación. Madrid: Síntesis.
  • Cohen, A.P., Kulik, J.A., & Kulik, C.C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A metaanalysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19(2), 237-248. (Disponible en: www.jstor.org/stable/1162567)
  • Chapman, K.J., Meuter, M., Toy, D. & Wright, L. (2006). Can’t we pick our own groups? The influence of group selection methods on group dynamics and outcomes. Journal of Management Education, 30(4), 557-569. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562905284872)
  • Crouch, C.H. & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Association of Physics Teachers, 69(9), 970-977. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1374249)
  • Cuevas-Salazar, O., García-López, R.I., Vales-García, J.J., & Cruz-Medina, I.R. (2017). Monitoring the results of the tutoring program in its face-to-face and virtual modalities on the academic achievement of students at a Mexican University. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(2), 169-181. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v6n2p169)
  • Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28, 122-128. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/356095)
  • Fagen, A.P., Crouch, C.H. & Mazur, E. (2002). Peer instruction: Results from a range of classrooms. The Physics Teacher, 40(4), 2006-2009. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1474140)
  • García, A. (2009). El desarrollo de competencias apoyado en trabajo en equipo, telemática interactiva y evaluación compartida. In J.I. Aguaded, & M.C. Fonseca (Eds), Huellas de Innovación Docente en las Aulas Universitarias. La Coruña: Netbiblo.
  • Hénard, F., Diamond, L. & Roseveare, D. (2012). Approaches to Internationalisation and Their Implications for Strategic Management and Institutional Practice: A Guide for Higher Education Institutions. OECD Higher Education Programme IMHE. (Disponible en: http://www.oecd.org/edu/imhe/Approaches%20to%20internationalisation%20- %20final%20-%20web.pdf)
  • Ingham, A.G., Levinger, G., Graves, J. & Peckham, V. (1974). The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10(4), 371-384. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(74)90033-X)
  • Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Objetivism vs. constructivism: Do we need a new paradigm? Educational Technology: Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296434)
  • Kafai, Y. & Resnick, M. (Eds.) (1996). Constructivism in Practice: Designing, Thinking and Learning in a Digital World. Mahwah, NJ (Estados Unidos): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • King, P.E. & Behnke, R.R. (2005). Problems associated with evaluating student performance in groups. College Teaching, 53(2), 57-61. (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.53.2.57-61)
  • Lage, M.J., Platt, G.J. & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. The Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30-43. (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220480009596759)
  • Lasnier, F. (2000). Reussir la Formation par Competences. Montreal (Canadá): Guerin.
  • López-Pastor, V.M. (2012). Evaluación formativa y compartida en la universidad: clarificación de conceptos y propuestas de intervención desde la Red Interuniversitaria de Evaluación Formativa. Psychology, Society, & Education, 4(1), 117-130. (Disponible en: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3961371)
  • Luján-Mora, S. (2013). De la clase magistral tradicional al MOOC: Doce años de evolución de una asignatura sobre programación de aplicaciones web. Revista de Docencia Universitaria 11, 279-300. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.4995/redu.2013.5557)
  • Marín-Díaz, V., Cabero-Almenara, J. & Barroso-Osuna, J. (2012). La rúbrica de evaluación en el proceso de formación del docente universitario. La propuesta del proyecto DIPRO 2.0. Educar, 48(2), 347-364. (Disponible en: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=342130839009)
  • Márquez, J., Roca, J., Solvas, M.J., Belmonte, T., Fernández, C. & Rodríguez, D. (2011). Resultados de aprendizaje en los nuevos títulos de grado. RED-DUSC, Revista de Educación a Distancia - Docencia Universitaria en la Sociedad del Conocimiento, 5, 1-16. (Disponible en: http://www.um.es/ead/reddusc/5/roca.pdf)
  • Mello, J.A. (1993). Improving individual member accountability in small work group settings. Journal of Management Education, 17(2), 253-259. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/105256299301700210)
  • Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte (2014). Estrategia para la Internacionalización de las Universidades Españolas 2015-2020. Secretaría General Técnica, Centro de Publicaciones, Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, Gobierno de España. (Disponible en: https://www.mecd.gob.es/educacion-mecd/dms/mecd/educacion-mecd/areas-educacion/universidades/politica-internacional/estrategiainternacionalizacion/EstrategiaInternacionalizaci-n-Final.pdf)
  • Nicol, D. & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090)
  • Nunes de Oliveira, J.M. (2011). Nine years of project-based learning in engineering. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 9(1), 45-55. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.4995/redu.2011.6179)
  • OCDE (2012). Indicator C4 – who studies abroad and where?. Education at a Glance 2012: OECD Indicators, 360-381. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2012-en)
  • Pfaff, E. & Haddleston, P. (2003). Does it matter if I hate teamwork? What impacts student attitudes toward teamwork. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(1), 37-45. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475302250571)
  • Román, C., Millán, A. & Millán, J.M. (2016). Writing to learn: An experience applied within the subject Intermediate Macroeconomics. Culture and Education, 28(2), 396–418. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/11356405.2016.1158450)
  • Strong, J.T. & Anderson, R.E. (1990). Free-riding in group projects: Control mechanisms and preliminary data. Journal of Marketing Education, 12(2), 61-67. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/027347539001200208)
  • Torres-Pérez, A. (2012). Presentaciones orales en clase: Retos y perspectivas. Textos de docència Obsei, 2, 51-60. (Disponible en: http://www.raco.cat/index.php/TextosObsei/article/view/251011/335892)
  • Weller, L.D. & Hartley, S.H. (1994). Teamwork and cooperative learning: An educational perspective for businesses. Quality Management Journal, 1(4), 30-41. (Disponible en: http://asq.org/pub/qmj/past/backissues/1994/july.html)
  • Weaver, M.R. (2006). Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’ written responses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 379-394. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500353061)
  • Williams, D.L., Beard, J.D. & Rymer, J. (1991). Team projects: Achieving their full potential. Journal of Marketing Education, 13(2), 45-53. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/027347539101300208)
Data source: Dialnet