Skip to main content
  • Dossier “Education and Technology in Mexico and Latin America: Outlook and Challenges”
  • Open Access
  • Published:

Pedagogical models, collaborative work and interaction on online undergraduate programmes in Colombia: still some way to go

Modelos pedagógicos, trabajo colaborativo e interacción en programas virtuales de pregrado en Colombia: Un camino por recorrer

Abstract

This article presents the results of a study whose aim was to explore the experiences and perceptions that students, lecturers/tutors and coordinators had of the pedagogical models underpinning online undergraduate programmes in Colombia, and of the application of these models with regard to collaborative work and interaction. The study used qualitative and quantitative techniques to complement and contrast the participants’ perceptions. A total of 48 group and individual interviews were conducted, and 288 students and 44 lecturers answered an online survey. The results show that the programmes are based on constructivist principles and tend to use active pedagogies pertaining to that theory. However, the lecturers and students expressed uncertainty about the implementation of collaborative work and the fostering of interaction.

Resumen

El presente artículo expone los resultados de una investigación cuyo propósito fue explorar las percepciones y experiencias de estudiantes, docentes/tutores y coordinadores sobre los modelos pedagógicos que sirven de sustento para los programas de pregrado en modalidad virtual en Colombia y sobre la aplicación de esos modelos en relación con el trabajo colaborativo y la interacción. El estudio empleó técnicas cualitativas y cuantitativas para complementar y contrastar las percepciones de los participantes. Se realizaron 48 entrevistas grupales e individuales y una encuesta en línea a la que respondieron 288 estudiantes y 44 profesores. Los resultados revelan que los programas se fundamentan en los principios del constructivismo y tienden a utilizar pedagogías activas propias de esa corriente. Sin embargo, docentes y estudiantes manifiestan incertidumbres sobre la puesta en marcha del trabajo colaborativo y el fomento de la interacción.

References

  1. ARAYA, V.; ALFARO, M.; ANDONEGUI, M. (2007). “Constructivismo: Orígenes y perspectivas. Laurus. Vol. 13, No 24, pages 76–92.

    Google Scholar 

  2. AZEVEDO, R.; JACOBSON, M. (2008). “Advances in scaffolding learning with hypertext and hypermedia: a summary and critical analysis. Education Technology Research Development. Vol. 56, pages 93–100. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9064-3>

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. BARBERÀ, E. (2006). “Collaborative knowledge construction in highly structured virtual discussions” The Quarterly Review of Distance Education. Vol. 7, No 1, pages 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  4. BARKLEY, E.; CROSS, P.; HOWELL, C. (2007). Técnicas de aprendizaje colaborativo. Manual para el profesorado universitario. Madrid: Ediciones Morata, S.L. 236 pages.

    Google Scholar 

  5. BENITO, D. (2009). “Aprendizaje en el entorno del e-learning: estrategias y figura del e-moderador” [online article]. RUSC. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal. Vol. 6. No 2 [Accessed: 10 August 2012]. <http://rusc.uoc.edu/ojs/index.php/rusc/article/view/v6n2-benito/v6n2_benito

  6. BROWN, S. (2012). “Seeing Web 2.0 in context: A study of academic perceptions”. Internet and Higher Education. Vol. 15, pages 50–57. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.04.003>

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. COLL, C. (2004–2005). “Psicología de la educación y prácticas educativas mediadas por las Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación: una mirada constructivista”. Sinéctica. No 25, separate section.

  8. CHARMAZ, K. (2010). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. New York: SAGE Publications. 224 pages.

    Google Scholar 

  9. DEWIYANTI, S.; BRAND-GRUWEL; S.; JOCHEMSA, W.; BROERS, N. (2007). “Students’ experiences with collaborative learning in asynchronous computer-supported collaborative learning environments”. Computers in Human Behavior. Vol. 23, No 1, pages 496–514. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.021>

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. FALLOON, G. (2011). “Making the connection: Moore’s theory of transactional distance and its relevance to the use of a virtual classroom in postgraduate online teacher education”. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. Vol. 43. No 3, pages 187–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. GARRISON, D.; ANDERSON, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. New York: Routledge Falmer. 167 pages. <http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203166093>

    Google Scholar 

  12. HAM, V.; DAVEY, R. (2005). “Our first time: two higher education tutors reflect on becoming a virtual teacher”. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. Vol. 42, No 3, pages 257–264. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587910500168017>

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. KARAGIORGI, Y.; SYMEOU, L. (2005). “Translating constructivism into instructional design: Potential and limitations”. Educational Technology and Society. Vol. 8, No 1, pages 17–27.

    Google Scholar 

  14. KESIM, E.; AGAOGLU, E. (2007). “A paradigm shift in distance education: Web 2.0 and social software” Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education. Vol. 8, pages 66–75.

    Google Scholar 

  15. KOLLAR, I.; FISCHER, F. (2010). “Peer assessment as collaborative learning: A cognitive perspective”. Learning & Instruction. Vol. 20, pages 344–348. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.005>

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. LARU, J.; NÄYKKI, P.; JÄRVELÄ, S. (2012). “Supporting small-group learning using multiple Web 2.0 tools: A case study in the higher education context”. Internet and Higher Education. Vol. 15, pages 29–38. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.08.004>

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. MERRIAM, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. 320 pages.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ministerio de Educación Nacional-MEN. (2012). Sistema Nacional de Información de la Educación Superior, SNIES, estadísticas sectoriales de educación superior-matrícula por metodologia [online material]. [Accessed: 28 January 2013]. http://www.mineducacion.gov.co/sistemasdeinformacion/1735/w3-article-212400.html

  19. NÄYKKI, P.; JÄRVELÄ, S. (2008). “How pictorial knowledge representations mediate collaborative knowledge construction in groups”. International Society for Technology in Education. JRTE. Vol. 40, No 3, pages 359–387.

    Google Scholar 

  20. POWELL, K.; KALINA, C. (2009). “Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an effective classroom” Education. Vol. 130, No 2, pages 241–250.

    Google Scholar 

  21. PRENDES, M. P.; CASTAÑEDA, L. (2010). Enseñanza superior, profesores y TIC. Estrategias de evaluación, investigación e innovación. Bogotá: Ediciones de la U. 166 pages.

    Google Scholar 

  22. ROMÁN, C. (2009). “Sobre la retroalimentación o el feedback en la educación superior online” [online article]. Revista Virtual Universidad Católica del Norte. No 26. [Accessed: 14 February 2012]. http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/pdf/1942/194215516009.pdf

  23. SALINAS, J. (2004). “Innovación docente y uso de las TIC en la enseñanza universitaria” [online article]. RUSC. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal. Vol. 1, No 1, pages 1–16. [Accessed: 5 July 2011]. <http://www.uoc.edu/rusc/dt/esp/salinas1104.pdf>

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. SILVA, J.; GROS, B. (2007). “Una propuesta para el análisis de las interacciones en un espacio virtual de aprendizaje para la formación continua de docentes” [online article]. Revista Electrónica Teoría de la Educación y Cultura en la Sociedad de la Información. Vol. 8, No 1, pages 81–106. [Accessed: 3 May 2012]. http://campus.usal.es/teoriaeducacion/rev_numero_08_01/n8_01_silva_gros.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  25. SCHULLO, S.; HILBELINK, A.; VENABLE, M.; BARRON, A. (2007). “Selecting a virtual classroom system: Elluminate Live vs Macromedia Breeze (Adobe Connect Professional)”. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. Vol. 3, No 4, pages 331–345.

    Google Scholar 

  26. THOMPSON, J.; HESS, G.; BOWMAN, T.; MAGNUSDOTTIR, H.; STUBBS-GIPSON, C.; GROOM, M.; MILLER, J.; STEELMAN, T.; STOKES, D. (2009). “Collaborative graduate education across multiple campuses” Journal of Natural Resources & Life Sciences Education. Vol. 38, pages 16–26.

    Google Scholar 

  27. WESSNER, M.; PFISTER, H. R. (2007). “Points of cooperation: Integrating cooperative learning into web-based courses”. In: The role of technology in CSCL. studies in technology enhanced learning. New York: Springer. Pages 21–46. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-71136-2_3>

    Google Scholar 

  28. YANG, C.-H. (2012). “Fuzzy fusion for attending and responding assessment system of affective teaching goals in distance learning”. Expert Systems with Applications. Vol. 39, No 3, pages 2501–2508. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.08.102>

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clelia Pineda Báez.

Additional information

A project undertaken by the following research groups: Education and Educators group in the Faculty of Education, and Academic Technologies-Proventus group at the Centre for Academic Technologies. Funded by the University of La Sabana, Bogotá, Colombia (EDU 28-2009), and co-funded by Colciencias (1230-489-25380).

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pineda Báez, C., Hennig, C. & Segovia, Y. Pedagogical models, collaborative work and interaction on online undergraduate programmes in Colombia: still some way to go. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 10, 431–445 (2013). https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v10i2.1739

Download citation

Keywords

  • pedagogical model
  • e-learning
  • constructivism
  • collaborative work
  • interaction

Palabras clave

  • modelo pedagógico
  • educación virtual
  • constructivismo
  • trabajo colaborativo
  • interacción