Comparison of quality supervision indicators in remote training

  1. Falla-Falcón, Nuria 1
  2. López-Meneses, Eloy 1
  3. Ramírez-Fernández, Miguel Baldomero 1
  4. Crespo-Ramos, Samuel 1
  1. 1 Universidad Pablo de Olavide
    info

    Universidad Pablo de Olavide

    Sevilla, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02z749649

Aldizkaria:
IJERI: International journal of Educational Research and Innovation

ISSN: 2386-4303

Argitalpen urtea: 2023

Zenbakia: 20

Mota: Artikulua

DOI: 10.46661/IJERI.7326 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openSarbide irekia editor

Beste argitalpen batzuk: IJERI: International journal of Educational Research and Innovation

Laburpena

This research analyzes the comparison of quality supervision indicators in non-face-to-face training due to the scenario of virtual teaching caused by COVID-19, through the EduTOOL@ and SulodiTOOL® instruments. It arises as a research line of the Chair of Education and Emerging Technologies, Gamification and Artificial Intelligence of the Pablo de Olavide University (Seville). This comparison reveals that there are dimensions, subfactors and indicators that are common to both tools, with a weighting difference of 30% higher in the first instrument, and vice versa, that is, indicators that are not common to both, with a weighting of 30% higher in the second instrument. In this line, the research performs a graphic analysis of areas of importance of the dimensions and indicators of both tools, created by the weightings of said indicators.

Erreferentzia bibliografikoak

  • Aguaded, J. I. (2013). The MOOCs revolution, a new education from the technological paradigm? Comunicar, 41, 7-8. https://doi.org/10.3916/C41-2013-a1
  • Arias, F. (2006). The research project: Introduction to scientific methodology. Episteme.
  • Baldomero, M. & Salmerón, JL (2015). An instrument for the evaluation and accreditation of the quality of MOOCs. [EduTool®: A tool for evaluating and accrediting the quality of MOOCs.]. Education XX1, 18(2), 97-123. https://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.13233
  • Baldomero, M., Salmerón, J.L. & López-Meneses, E. (2015). Comparison between quality evaluation instruments for MOOC courses: ADECUR vs UNE 66181:2012 Standards. RUSC. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 12(1),131-145. https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v12i1.2258
  • Balfour, S. P. (2013). Assessing writing in MOOCs: Automated essay scoring and Calibrated Peer Review. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8 (1), 40-48.
  • Bournissen, JM, Tumino, MC, & Carrión, F. (2018). MOOC: quality assessment and measurement of perceived motivation. IJERI: International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation, 11,18-32. https://www.upo.es/revistas/index.php/IJERI/article/view/2899
  • Cabero-Almenara, J., & Romero-Tena, R. (2020). Design of a t-MOOC for training in digital teaching skills: study in development (DIPROMOOC Project). Innoeduca. International Journal of Technology and Educational Innovation, 6(1), 4-13. https://doi.org/10.24310/innoeduca.2020.v6i1.7507
  • Cedeño-Viteri, N. (2012). Mixed research, a fundamental andragogical strategy to strengthen higher intellectual capacities. Revista Científica, 2(2), 17-36.
  • Conole, G. (2013). MOOCs as disruptive technologies: strategies to improve the learning experience and quality of MOOCs. Journal of Distance Education, 39, 1-17.
  • Chávez, N. (2004). Introduction to educative research. Venezuela: Editorial Gráficas SA.
  • Escobar, J. & Cuervo, A. (2008). Content validity and expert judgment: an approach to its use. Advances in Measurement, 6, 27-36.
  • Gordon Graell, R. (2022). Teaching skills for working in virtual learning communities. InterSedes, 23(48), 143–162. https://doi.org/10.15517/isucr.v23i48.49417
  • Glance, D.G., Forsey, M., & Riley, M. (2013). The pedagogical foundations of massive open online courses. First Monday, 18(5), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v18i5.4350
  • Guàrdia, L., Maina, M. & Sangrà, A. (2013). MOOC Design Principles. A Pedagogical Approach from the Learner's Perspective. eLearning Papers, 33, 1-6. https://openaccess.uoc.edu/bitstream/10609/41681/1/In-depth_33_4%282%29.pdf
  • Hernández, R., Fernández, C. & Baptista, M. (2010). Investigation methodology. McGraw Hill.
  • Hilera, JR & Hoya, R. (2010). E-Learning Standards: Reference Guide. University of Alcalá. http://www.cc.uah.es/hilera/GuiaEstandares.pdf
  • Hurtado, J. (2010). Investigation methodology. Venezuela: Quirón Editorial.
  • Jaén, D. (2005). A study system for the infovirtual campus. In FUCN (Comp.), Virtual education: reflections and experiences. (pp. 37-50). Northern Catholic University Foundation. https://www.ucn.edu.co/institucion/sala-prensa/Documents/educacion-virtual-reflexiones-experiencias.pdf
  • Martín, O., González, F. & García, MA (2013). Proposal for evaluating the quality of MOOCs based on the Afortic Guide. Campus Virtual, 2 (1), 124-132. http://www.revistacampusvirtuales.es/images/volIInum01/revista_campus_virtuales_01_ii-art10.pdf
  • McMillan, J. & Schumacher. S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based Inquiry. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
  • Standard UNE 66181 (2012). Quality Management of Virtual Training .https://eqa.es/certificacion-sistemas/une-66181
  • Organic Law 2/2006, of May 3, on Consolidated Education.https://www.boe.es/buscar/pdf/2006/BOE-A-2006-7899-consolidado.pdf
  • Ogunyemi, A.A., Quaicoe, J.S., & Bauters, M. (2022). Indicators for enhancing learners' engagement in massive open online courses: A systematic review. Computers and Education Open,3, 100088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100088
  • Oncu, S. & Cakir, H. (2011). Research in online learning environments: Priorities and methodologies. Computers & Education, 57 (1), 1098-1108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.009
  • Resolution of July 1, 2022, of the General Directorate of Territorial Evaluation and Cooperation, by which the Agreement of the Education Sector Conference on the certification, accreditation and recognition of teaching digital competence is published.
  • Rizo-Rodríguez, M. (2020). Role of the teacher and student in virtual education. Multi-Essays Journal, 6(12), 28-37. https://doi.org/10.5377/multiensayos.v6i12.10117
  • Roig, R., Mengual-Andrés, S. & Suárez, C. (2014). Evaluation of the pedagogical quality of MOOCs. Curriculum and Teacher Training, 18(1), 27-41,http://www.ugr.es/~recfpro/rev181ART2.pdf
  • Roldán, N. (2005). Communication and pedagogy for the art of learning. In FUCN (Comp.), Virtual education: reflections and experiences (pp. 51-67). Northern Catholic University Foundation.
  • Sánchez, B. & Guarisma, J. (1995). Research Methods. Maracay. Bicentenary University of Aragua Editions.
  • Stödberg, U. (2012). A research review of e-assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 37 (5), 591-604. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.557496
  • Vázquez Cano, E. & López Meneses, E. (2014). Evaluation of the pedagogical quality of MOOCs. Curriculum and Teacher Education, 18(1), 3-12. http://www.ugr.es/~recfpro/rev181ed.pdf
  • Vázquez-Cano, E., López-Meneses, E., Gómez-Galán, J., & Parra-González, ME (2021). Innovative university practices on the educational advantages and disadvantages of MOOC environments. Distance Education Journal (RED), 21(66). https://doi.org/10.6018/red.422141
  • Viñals, A. and Cuenca, J. (2016). The role of the teacher in the digital age. Interuniversity Journal of Teacher Training, 30(2), 103-114.https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/RIFOP/issue/view/2859/218
  • Zapata-Ros, M. (2013). MOOCs, a critical vision and a complementary alternative. The individualization of learning and pedagogical help. Campus Virtual, 1(II), 20-38.http://uajournals.com/ojs/index.php/campusvirtuales/article/view/26
Datuen iturria: Dialnet