Enseñando Administración de Empresas con docencia basada en el trabajo en equipo de los estudiantes:ventajas, inconvenientes y propuestas de actuación

  1. Marin-Garcia, Juan A.
  2. Miralles Insa, Cristóbal
  3. García Sabater, Julio J.
  4. Vidal Carreras, Pilar I.
Zeitschrift:
Intangible Capital

ISSN: 1697-9818

Datum der Publikation: 2008

Ausgabe: 4

Nummer: 2

Seiten: 143-165

Art: Artikel

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen Access editor

Andere Publikationen in: Intangible Capital

Zusammenfassung

Son ampliamente conocidas las ventajas que proporciona el plantear una metodología basada en trabajo en grupo con alumnos universitarios. En este sentido, es conveniente disponer de un método que permita evaluar no solo el producto, sino también el proceso del grupo. Sin embargo, los profesores perciben ciertas carencias y desinformación, especialmente en lo relativo a la evaluación de los procesos de grupo. Por este motivo pretendemos responder a las siguientes preguntas de investigación: ¿Es posible medir el proceso del grupo, incluso en clases con muchos alumnos? ¿Se pueden evitar los comportamientos oportunistas? ¿Qué relación existe entre las notas de proceso y las que son producto del grupo? ¿Qué problemas surgen? Para ello hemos diseñado y probado una parrilla de observación del profesor, habiendo procesado un conjunto amplio de datos. Como principal aportación, el sistema propuesto parece frenar comportamientos oportunistas de los alumnos; mientras que su principal inconveniente, desde el punto de vista de los alumnos, es que éstos se ven obligados a trabajar más intensamente en la asignatura.

Bibliographische Referenzen

  • ANSON, C. M.; BERNOLD, L. E.; CROSSLAND, C.; SPURLIN, J.; MCDERMOTR, M. A.; WEISS, S. (2003). Empowerment to Learn in Engineering: Preparation Foran Urgently-Needed Paradigm Shift. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 7(2): 145-155.
  • 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.
  • BOLTON, M. K. (1999). The Role of Coaching in Student Teams: A "Just-in-Time" Approach to Learning. Journal of Management Education, 23(3): 233-250.
  • BREWER, W.; MENDELSON, M. I. (2003). Methodology and Metrics for Assessing Team Effectiveness. International Journal of Engineering Education, 19(6): 777- 787.
  • BROOKS, C. M.; AMMONS, J. L. (2003). Free Riding in Group Projects and the Effects Oftiming,Frequency,and Specificity of Criteria in Peer Assessments. Journal of Education for Business, 78(5): 268-272.
  • BROWN, G.; PENDLEBURY, M. (1992). Effective learning and teaching in higher education. Vol. 11 Assessing active learning. Sheffield: CVCP Universities' Staff Development and Training Unit.
  • CHRISTOFOROU, A. P.; YIGIT, A. S.; AL-ANSARY, M. D.; ALI, F.; ALY, A. A.; LABABIDI, H.; NASHAWI, I. S.; TAYFUN, A.; ZRIBI, M. (2003). Improving Engineering Education at Kuwait University Through Continuous Assessment. International Journal of Engineering Education, 19(6): 818-827.
  • DANCER, D.; KAMVOUNIAS, P. (2005). Student Involvement in Assessment: a Project Designed to Assess Class Participation Fairly and Reliably. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education: An International Journal, 30(4): 445-454.
  • DOCHY, F.; SEGERS, M.; SLUIJSMANS, D. (1999). The Use of Self-, Peer and CoAssessment in Higher Education: a Review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3): 331-350.
  • DODGE, B., (2001). Five Rules for Writing a Great WebQuest. International Society for Technology in Education.
  • FELDER, R. M.; F; FELDER, G. N.; DIETZ, E. J. (1997). A Longitudinal Study of Alternative Approaches to Engineering Education: Survey of Assessment Results. Proceedings Frontiers in Education Conference.
  • FRUCHTER, R. (2001). Dimensions of Teamwork Education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 17 (4-5): 426-430.
  • GATFIELD, T. (1999). Examining Student Satisfaction With Group Projects and Peer Assessment. Assesment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4): 365-377.
  • GUNASEKARAN, A.; FORKER, L.; KOBU, B. (2000). Improving Operations Performance in a Small Company: A Case Study. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 20(3): 316.
  • HOLTHAM, C. W.; MELVILLE, R. R.; SODHI, M. S. (2006). Designing Student Groupwork in Management Education: Widening the Palette of Options. Journal of Management Education, 30(6): 809-817.
  • HUMPHREYS, P.; LO, V.; CHAN, F.; DUGGAN, G. (2001). Developing Transferable Groupwork Skills for Engineering Students. International Journal of Engineering Education, 17(1): 59-66.
  • JENKINS, H.; LACKEY, L. W. (2005). Preparing Engineering Students for Working in Teams Through Senior Design Projects. IEEE International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings.
  • KALLIATH, T.; LAIKEN, M. (2006). Use of Teams in Management Education. Journal of Management Education, 30(6): 747-750.
  • LLORET, J.; MARIN-GARCIA, J. A. (2007). Novel and Stable Lecturers' Point of View About University Students Working Groups. In P. Dondon, et al., Mathematical Methods and Computational Techniques in Research and Education, (p. 368-373). Arcachon, France: WSEAS Press.
  • MAGIN, D. J.; HELMORE, P. (2001) Peer and Teacher Assessments of Oral Presentation Skills: How Reliable Are They? Studies in Higher Education, 26(3): 287-298.
  • MICHAELSON, R., (2003). Assessing Group Work. Briefing paper for LTSN-BEST. http://www.business.heacademy.ac.uk/publications/misc/briefing/groupwork/assessing%20group%20work%20-%20michaelson.pdf. Last accesed april 2007.
  • O'DOHERTY, D. M. (2005). Working As Part of a Balanced Team. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1): 113-120.
  • ORSMOND, P.; MERRY, S.; REILING, K. (1996). The Importance of Marking Criteria in the Use of Peer Assessment. Assesment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 21(3): 239-250.
  • RUGARCIA, A.; FELDER, R. M.; WOODS, D. D.; STICE, J. E. (2000). The Future of Engineering Education: A Vision for a New Century. Chemical Engineering Education, 34(1): 16-25.
  • SHEPPARD, K.; DOMINICK, P.; ARONSON, Z. (2004). Preparing Engineering Students for the New Business Paradigm of International Teamwork and Global Orientation. International Journal of Engineering Education, 20(3): 475-483.
  • SHTUB, A. (2001). A Framework for Teaching and Training in the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Era. International Journal of Production Research, 39(3): 567-576.
  • STRUYVEN, K.; DOCHY, F.; JANSSENS, S. (2005). Students' Perceptions About Evaluation and Assessment in Higher Education: A Review. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education: An International Journal, 30(4): 325-342.
  • SUZAKI, K. (1993). The new shopfloor management. New York: Free Press.
  • TARIQ, V. N.; STEFANI, L. A. J.; BUTCHER, A. C.; HEYLINGS, D. J. A. (1998). Developing a New Approach to the Assessment of Project Work. Assesment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(3): 221-240.
  • VAN DUZER, E.; MCMARTIN, F. (2000). Methods to Improve the Validity and Sensitivity of a Self/Peer Assessment Instrument. IEE Transactions on Education, 43(2): 153-157.
  • WATTS, F.; GARCÍA-CARBONELL, A.; LLORENS, J. (2006). Introducción a La Evaluación Compartida: Investigación multidisciplinar. In Watts, F. & GarcíaCarbonell, A., La Evaluación Compartida: Investigación Multidisciplinar (p. 1-9), Valencia: Editorial de la UPV.
  • WENGER, M. S.; HORNYAK, M. J. (1999): Team Teaching for Higher Level Learning: A Framework of Professional Collaboration. Journal of Management Education, 23(3): 311-327.
  • WILLCOXSON, L. E. (2006). “It's Not Fair!": Assessing the Dynamics and Resourcing of Teamwork. Journal of Management Education, 30(6): 798-808.
  • YOUNG, C. B.; HENQUINET, J. A. (2000). A Conceptual Framework for Designing Group Projects. Journal of Education for Business, 76(1): 56-60.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet