ABOUT THE OBTAINMENT OF DEMANDS AND NEEDS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM IN MEDICAL TRAINING
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18004/Keywords:
Perception, evaluation, assessment of learning, learning achievement, ParaguayAbstract
Given that the assessment in the FCM-UNA is expressed through a set of rules and regulations that reduce it to a mere formality, and not having clear policies that will provide a benchmark assessment framework; it becomes extremely important to know the perception of teachers on their evaluation processes.
In order to approach this institutional need and contribute to the solution, we have developed a qualitative research, with a hermeneutic approach and comprehensive/phenomenological interest. The study population were university teachers of the UNA; particularly, the sample was consisted of the academics of the FCM-UNA, because the object of study is the perception of teachers of the FCM-UNA on the assessment of learning achievements and the fundamental postulation of the problem is that the perception in relation to the assessment it is different depending on experience and academic standards in developing their teaching.
Therefore, in this study, six case studies have been determined which served researchers to approach relevant actors because they illustrate and allow to understand the perception of teachers in relation to the assessment of learning achievements.
From the research problem, the dimensions determined were: concept, object, way, modality, purpose and evidence of the assessment of learning achievement, the areas are organized and descriptors are built. The techniques used by researchers that suit the purpose of this research are: observation and semi-structured interview.
Direct observation was performed by following an exploratory purpose, in order to identify on-site some teaching practices. To achieve a deeper understanding of the problem interviews were conducted in order to collect, characterize, understand, signify, interpret and analyze the speech of teachers.
Content analysis is carried out, subordinated to the intent and to the research problem, following different stages: Validation of transcripts and coded data; categorization of information of observations and interviews; production of conglomerates of significants: matrixes; and the interpretation of results.
The interpretation of data allowed revealing that no critical reflection on the evaluation process is evident. The perception of this process shows that the educational possibilities of evaluation are put aside in favor of a rather metric and certifying meaning.
The emphasis made by some teachers about the benefits of formative assessment is evident, but in practice has been overtaken by the summative evaluation, with ignorance about the real purposes of evaluation, they do not perform feedback.
References
1. Ahumada, P (2005) "La evaluación autentica: un sistema para la obtención de evidencia y vivencia de los aprendizajes". Perspectiva educacional (pp. 11-24).
2. Aiken, Lewis R (1996). Tests Psicológicos y Evaluación. México. Prentice Hall.
3. Allen, D. (1998). Learning From Students Work, on Assessing Students Learning, From Grading to Understanding. New York: Teachers college press.
4. Alvarez Mendez, J M (2001) Evaluar para conocer, examinar para excluir. Madrid. Morata.
5. Arter, J. (1997). Using Assessment as a Tool for Learning. En R. Blum & J. Arter (Ed.), Student Performance Assessment. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
6. Biggs, J. (2003), Aligning teaching and assessing to course objectives. Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: New Trends and Innovations. University of Aveiro, (pp. 13–17).
7. Bück JY (2003). Le management des connaissances et des compétences en pratique. 2e éd. Paris: Ed. d'Organisation.
8. Clark C y Petersen P (1990). Procesos de pensamiento de los docentes. En Witrock Merlin: (1990). La investigación de la enseñanza III: profesores y alumnos. Barcelona: Paidós.
9. Condemarín, M. & Medina, A. (2000). Evaluación Auténtica de los Aprendizajes: Un medio para mejorar las competencias en lenguaje y comunicación. Editorial Andrés Bello. Santiago de Chile.
10. Conell, R. (1997). Escuelas y justicia social. Madrid, Morata.Díaz Barriga F y Hernández G, (2002) Estrategias docentes. Una interpretación constructivista (2 ed.).México: Mc Graw Hill.
11. Delgado J, M. y Gutierrez J. (1999) Métodos y técnicas de investigación cualitativa en ciencias sociales (pp. 12).
12. Diaz Barriga F y Hernández G. (2002) Estrategias docentes. Una interpretación constructivista (2ª. ed). México: Mc Graw Hill.
13. Dubet, F. (2006) La escuela de las oportunidades. Barcelona, Editorial Gedisa.
14. Foucault, M. 1977, Vigilar y castigar. Siglo XXI. México, (pp. 98-99)
15. Focault M (1993) "El examen" en Díaz Barriga, "El examen: textos para su historia y debate, UNAM, México.
16. Freire Pablo, (1994) Cartas a quien pretende enseñar en primeras palabras: Maestra Tía: la trampa, Edic Siglo XXI, Editores SA. Primera edición, (pp. 4-26).
17. Freire Paulo, (1996) Política y educación, ed. Siglo XXI: México; trad. Stella Mastránge.
18. Gimeno, J. (1991). El currículo: una reflexión sobre la práctica. Madrid: Morata.
19. Giordan, A. & De Vecchi, G. (1995). Los orígenes del saber. Sevilla: Díada.
20. Green, Madeleine F. (1997) «Transforming Higher Education. Views from Leaders Around the World». American Council on Education, Oryx Press. Phoenix, Arizona, (pp. 20).
21. Guba, E. G., Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). “The Coming of Age of Evaluation”. En: Guba, E.G., Lincoln, Y. S. (Ed), Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, Estados Unidos: Sage Publications.
22. Herman, J., Aschbacher, P., &WInters, L. (1992). A practical guide to alternative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
23. Hernández S, R; Fernández Collado, C; Batista Lucio, P (2006), Metodología de la investigación, Cuarta Edicion. Mexico, Mc Graw /Hill Interamericana Editores S.A. de C.V.
24. Herrigton, J y Herington, A. (1998) Evaluación autentica y multimedia ¿de qué manera los estudiantes responden a un modelo de evaluación autentica? Higher Education Research and Development, 17 (3) (pp. 305-322).
25. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates Morrison, J. (2003) ABC of learning and teaching in medicine: evaluation. BMJ, (pp. 326, 385 –387).
26. Krippendorf (1990) Metodología de Análisis de Contenido; Paidós, Buenos Aires, (pp. 28).
27. Kuznetsov, B. (1990) Einstein. Vida, Muerte, Inmortalidad, Progreso, (pp.591).
28. Maccario B (1982). Théorie et pratique de l’évaluation dans la pédagogie des APS. Paris: Vigot
29. Margalef L (2005). Los retos de la evaluación auténtica en la enseñanza universitaria: coherencia, epistemología y metodología. Chile: Revista, Perspectiva Educacional (pp. 45, 25-44)
30. Martínez Boom, A. (1990). La enseñanza como posibilidad del pensamiento. En Pedagogía, discurso y poder. Colombia: CORPRODIC.
31. Marzano, R. J. (1991). Creating an educational paradigm centered on learning through teacher directed naturalistic inquiry. In L. Idol & B. F. Jones (Eds.) Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implication for reform, (pp. 411-442)
32. Mc Kernan, J (1999).Investigación- acción currículu. Metodo y recursos para profesionales reflexivos .Segunda edición, España, Morata
33. Mella, O., (1998) Naturaleza y orientaciones teórico-metodológicas de la investigación cualitativa. Orlando Mella, (pp. 8).
34. Moreno Olivo T, (2011) Consideraciones éticas de la evaluación, REICE, Revisa Iberoamericana de calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en la Educación, vol9, n °2.
35. O'Malley, J. Michael, y Lorraine Valdez Pierce (1999). "Authentic Assessment for English Language Learning: Practical Approaches for Teachers". Nueva York, Addison - Wesley Publishing.
36. Perafán, G. & Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2002). Pensamiento y conocimiento de los profesores. Bogotá: Universidad Pedagógica Nacional-Colciencias.
37. Pozo, J., et al. (2006). Nuevas formas de pensar la enseñanza y el aprendizaje. Barcelona: Grao
38. Pruzzo, V (1999). Evaluación Curricular: Evaluación para el aprendizaje. Buenos Aires. Espacio, (pp. 101-102).
39. Robbins, S. (1998) Comportamiento organizacional. Octava Edición. Mc Graw-Hill. (pp. 128-130).
40. Rodríguez López, J. M. (2002). “La evaluación en la Universidad. La evaluación del aprendizaje de los alumnos universitarios”. En C. Mayor (Coord.), Enseñanza y aprendizaje en la Educación Superior. Barcelona: Octaedro.
41.
42. Ruiz de Pinto, L (2002).Evaluación-Tipos de evaluación. Revista de Posgrado de la VIa Cátedra de Medicina, (pp. 118)
43. Sluijsmans, D.; Dochy, F. & Moerkerke, G. (1999). Creating a Learning Environment by Using Self, Peer and Co- Assessment. Learning Environments Research, (pp. 1, 293-319).
44. Stake, R. (1998). Investigación con estudio de casos. Madrid, Morata, (pp. 99).
45. Tabulawa Richard (1998). Teacher`s perspectivas on classroom practice in Botswana: implications for pedagogical change. Qualitive studies in education. Vol. 11 Nº 2 (pp. 249-268).
46. Valdivia, Ibis Marlene (2008). La coevaluación como alternativa para mejorar la calidad del aprendizaje de los estudiantes universitarios: valoración de una experiencia. Edutec: Revista Electrónica de Tecnología Educativa, (pp. 28, 1-18).
47. Yorke, Mantz (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45 (4): (pp. 477-501).
