Model for the Evaluation of Teaching Competences in Teaching–Learning Situations
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Method: Process and Sources for Model Configuration
3. Model for Evaluation of the Teaching Competences
4. Conclusions and Prospective
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Torres, A.D.; Badillo, M.; Valentín, N.A.; Ramírez, E.T. Las competencias docentes: El desafío de la educación superior. Innov. Educ. 2014, 14, 130–145. [Google Scholar]
- Tejada, J. Competencias docentes. Profr. Rev. Currículum y Form. Profr. 2009, 13, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Education and Science. Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 mayo, de Educación. Boletín Of. Estado 2006, 106, 17158–17207. Available online: https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2006/05/04/pdfs/A17158-17207.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2021).
- Oriola, S.; Montoya, A.; Faure, A. Adquisición de Competencias Básicas en la Formación de Futuros Docentes. In Proceedings of the Congreso In-Red, Valencia, Spain, 19–20 July 2018; Universidad Politécnica de Valencia: Valencia, Spain, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Sonnleitner, P.; Kovacs, C. Differences Between Students’ and Teachers’ Fairness Perceptions: Exploring the Potencial of a Self-Administered Questionnaire to Improve Teachers’ Assessment Practices. Front. Educ. 2020, 5, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perrenoud, P. Cuando la Escuela Pretende Preparar para la vida. ¿Desarrollar Competencias o Enseñar Otros Saberes? Graó: Barcelona, Spain, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Pimienta, J.A. Las Competencias en la Docencia Universitaria. Preguntas Frecuentes; Pearson Educación: Madrid, Spain, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Zabalza, M.A. Ser profesor universitario hoy. Cuest. Univ. 2009, 5, 68–80. [Google Scholar]
- Cañadas, L.; Santos-Pastor, M.L.; Castejón, F.J. Competencias docentes en la formación inicial del profesorado de educación física. Retos 2019, 35, 284–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Del Pozo, R.; De Juanas, A. La formación inicial en competencias valorada por los maestros en activo. REIFOP 2009, 12, 59–69. [Google Scholar]
- Iranzo-García, P.; Camarero-Figuerola, M.; Barrios-Arós, C.; Tierno-García, J.M.; Gilabert-Medina, S. ¿Qué opinan los Maestros sobre las Competencias de Liderazgo Escolar y sobre su Formación Inicial? Rev. Iberoam. Calid., Efic. Cambio Educ. 2018, 16, 29–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osorio-Romero, J.A.; Herrero-Torres, L.; Lorenzo-Quiles, O. Competencias docentes de los profesores en formación según opinión de los docentes formadores. Diálogos 2016, 17, 35–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mishra, P.; Koehler, M.J. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teach. Colleg. Rec. 2006, 108, 1017–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cabero, J.; Llorente, M.C.; Morales, J.A. Evaluación del desempeño docente en la formación virtual: Ideas para la configuración de un modelo. RIED 2018, 21, 261–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- García-Cabrero, B.; Luna, E.; Cisneros-Cohernour, E.J.; Cordero, G.; García, M.H. Las competencias docentes en entornos virtuales: Un modelo para su evaluación. RIED 2018, 21, 343–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zabalza, M. Competencias Docentes del Profesorado Universitario. Calidad y Desarrollo Profesional; Narcea: Madrid, Spain, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Torra, I.; De Corral, I.; Pérez, M.J.; Triadó, X.; Pagès, T.; Valderrama, E.; Màrquez, M.D.; Sabaté, S.; Solà, P.; Hernàndez, C.; et al. Identificación de competencias docentes que orienten el desarrollo de planes de formación dirigidos a profesorado universitario. REDU 2012, 10, 21–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baelo, R.; Arias, A.R. La formación de maestros en España, de la teoría a la práctica. Tend. Pedag. 2011, 18, 105–130. [Google Scholar]
- National Quality Assessment and Accreditation Agency of Spain (ANECA) Libro Blanco Título de Grado en Magisterio (volúmenes 1 y 2). Available online: http://www.aneca.es/var/media/150404/libroblanco_jun05_magisterio1.pdf (accessed on 3 April 2021).
- Martínez, A. Análisis de las competencias en las prácticas escolares de Grado en Educación Infantil. Rev. Educ. Incl. 2013, 6, 21–39. [Google Scholar]
- Von Treuer, K.M.; Reynolds, N. A Competency Model of Psychology Practice: Articulating Complex Skills and Practices. Front. Educ. 2017, 2, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ministry of Education and Science. El Profesorado del Siglo XXI. XXI Encuentro de Consejos Escolares Autonómicos y del Estado; Secretaría Técnica General: Madrid, Spain, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Álvarez, C. La relación teoría-práctica en los procesos de enseñanza-aprendizaje. Educ. Siglo XXI 2012, 30, 383–402. [Google Scholar]
- Carr, W. El Docente Investigador en Educación; Colección Selva Negra; Universidad de Ciencias y Artes de Chiapas: Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Chiapas, México, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Colén, M.T.; Castro, L. El desarrollo de la relación teoría y práctica en el grado de Maestro en Educación Primaria. Rev. Curric. Form. Profr. 2017, 21, 59–79. [Google Scholar]
- Coll, C. La centralidad de la práctica y la dualidad de conocimiento teórico/conocimiento práctico. J. Study Educ. Dev. Infanc. Aprendiz. 2010, 33, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Snoek, M. Scenarios for Dutch teacher education. A trip to Rome: Coach bus company or travel agency? Europ. J. Teach. Educ. 2003, 26, 123–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez, R.; Castellanos, M.A.; Chacón, J.C. Métodos de Investigación en Psicología; EOS Universitaria: Madrid, Spain, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- López-Noguero, F. El análisis de contenido como método de investigación. Rev. Educ. 2002, 4, 167–179. [Google Scholar]
- Sáez, R.; Padrón, J. Consideración Teóricas en el Diseño de Modelos. Interacción Perspect. 2013, 3, 37–61. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, H. La Formación Inicial del Profesorado de Educación Primaria Desde la Perspectiva de Las Competencias Profesionales Docentes: Visión Supranacional y Estudio Comparado Entre España y China. Ph.D. Thesis, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Education and Science. Real Decreto 1393/2007, de 29 de Octubre, Por el que se EsTABLEce la Ordenación de las Enseñanzas Universitarias Oficiales. Boletín Of. Estado 2007, 260, 44037–44048. Available online: https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2007-18770 (accessed on 24 April 2021).
- Ministry of Education and Science. Orden ECI/385472007, de 27 de Diciembre, Por la Que se Establecen los Requisitos Para la Verificación de Los Títulos Universitarios Oficiales que Habiliten Para el Ejercicio de la Profesión de Maestro en Educación Infantil. Boletín Of. Estado 2007, 312, 53735–53738. Available online: https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2007-22446 (accessed on 24 April 2021).
- University of Murcia. Ficha de la Materia del Módulo de Prácticas Externas del Título de Grado en Educación Infantil (Fac. de Educación de la Universidad de Murcia). Available online: https://www.um.es/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=5f26be14-ce4f-42ce-a03f-9e511bc8fc88&groupId=299436 (accessed on 24 April 2021).
- Mateo, J.; Martínez, F. Medición y Evaluación Educativa; La Muralla: Madrid, Spain, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Cubo, S. Validez y Técnicas de Control de las Fuentes de Variación. In Métodos de Investigación y Análisis de Datos en Ciencias Sociales y de la Salud; Cubo, S., Martín, B., Ramos, J.L., Eds.; Pirámide: Madrid, Spain, 2011; pp. 137–172. [Google Scholar]
Competences | Areas of knowledge |
---|---|
C1. To know the scientific, mathematical and technological foundations of the curriculum of this stage as well as the theories about the acquisition and development of the corresponding learning. | NS, SS, M |
C2. To know didactic strategies to develop numerical representations and spatial, geometric and logical development notions. | M |
C3. To understand mathematics as sociocultural knowledge. | M |
C4. To know the scientific methodology and promote scientific thinking and experimentation. | NS |
C5. To acquire knowledge about the evolution of thought, customs, beliefs and social and political movements throughout history. | SS |
C6. To know the most outstanding moments in the history of science and technology and their significance. | NS, SS |
C7. To elaborate didactic proposals in relation to the interaction between science, technology, society and sustainable development. | NS, SS |
C8. To promote interest and respect for the natural, social and cultural environment through appropriate educational projects. | NS, SS |
C9. To promote initiation experiences to information and communication technologies. | NS, SS, M |
Competences | Realization of the Competence in the Teaching Practice | Levels of Development |
---|---|---|
In relation to the curricular foundations | ||
C1. To know the scientific, mathematical and technological foundations of the curriculum of this stage as well as the theories about the acquisition and development of the corresponding learning. | C1.1. To select specific elements (objectives, content and evaluation criteria). | L1. Does not choose a suitable set of specific elements (type, quantity, etc.). |
L2. Chooses a suitable set of specific elements but with little relevance and variation. | ||
L3. Chooses a suitable, varied and relevant set of specific elements. | ||
C1.2. To formulate specific elements (objectives, contents and evaluation criteria). | L1. Has too many mistakes in the formulation of the specific elements. | |
L2. Has some specific mistakes in the formulation of the specific elements. | ||
L2. Has no mistakes in the formulation of specific elements. | ||
In relation to the curricular foundations | ||
C1. To know the scientific, mathematical and technological foundations of the curriculum of this stage as well as the theories about the acquisition and development of the corresponding learning. | C1.3. To justify the specific elements (objectives, contents and evaluation criteria) in a coherent way. | L1. Does not justify adequately or coherently with the curriculum. |
L2. Uses the curriculum appropriately to justify all the specific elements although there is no coherence between all of them. | ||
L3. Uses the curriculum appropriately to justify all the specific elements although there is no coherence between all of them. | ||
In relation to learning theories | ||
C1.4. To delimit the necessary prior knowledge of child students. | L1. Does not state questions for the detection of prior knowledge. | |
L2. States questions for the detection of previous knowledge, which are of a general nature or with little repercussion for the subsequent didactic design. | ||
L3. States questions for the detection of previous knowledge, whose results are relevant for the subsequent didactic design. | ||
In relation to learning theories | ||
C1. To know the scientific, mathematical and technological foundations of the curriculum of this stage as well as the theories about the acquisition and development of the corresponding learning. | C1.5. To consider different levels of depth in the proposal. | L1. Does not consider different levels of depth in the proposal. |
L2. Raises variations in the proposal, linked to specific students or ideas directed to the group/class that are not accompanied by planning. | ||
L3. Raises different levels of deepening in the proposal, dealing with the group and individual characteristics of the students and designing responses to hypothetical situations in the implementation. | ||
C1.6. To determine the difficulties associated with the understanding of knowledge. | L1. Does not indicate the difficulties associated with the understanding of knowledge or, if it does, they lack solidity. | |
L2. Indicates difficulties associated with the understanding of knowledge, easily applicable to any other content. | ||
L3. Delimits specific difficulties of the knowledge being dealt with and of the proposed activities. | ||
In relation to learning theories | ||
C1. To know the scientific, mathematical and technological foundations of the curriculum of this stage as well as the theories about the acquisition and development of the corresponding learning. | C1.7. To act appropriately in the face of difficulties. | L1. Does not indicate any type of response to the difficulties raised, or does not recognize such difficulties in advance. |
L2. Indicates a change in the teaching practice, this being a specific action not associated with the specific content or a response that does not require deep reflection. | ||
L3. Indicates responses to difficulties, the result of deep teaching reflection and contextualized in the teaching–learning situation. | ||
C1.8. To justify with bibliographic sources the difficulties encountered. | L1. Does not use bibliographic references about the difficulties. | |
L2. Uses a bibliographic reference that does not add substantial value to the understanding of the difficulty. | ||
L3. Uses one or more bibliographic references that contribute to the understanding of the difficulties and possible answers to them. | ||
C2. To know didactic strategies to develop numerical representations and spatial, geometric and logical development notions. | C2.1. To apply logical-mathematical strategies (problem solving, reasoning and proof, communication, connections and/or representation) in the didactic proposal. | L1. Does not apply logical-mathematical strategies to the proposal. |
L2. Applies overly directed logical-mathematical strategies in the proposal. | ||
L3. Applies logical-mathematical strategies in the constructivist proposal. | ||
C2.2. To develop mathematical content (logic, numbers and operations, geometry, measurement and/or statistics-probability) to identify, define or recognize. | L1. Does not develop mathematical content in which students must identify, define or recognize. | |
L2. Develops some mathematical content through simple identifications, definitions or recognitions. | ||
L3. Develops some mathematical contents through simple identifications, definitions or recognitions. | ||
C2.3. To develop mathematical content (logic, numbers and operations, geometry, measurement and/or statistics-probability) to relate or compare. | L1. Does not develop mathematical content in which students must relate or compare. | |
L2. Develops some mathematical content through simple relations. | ||
L3. Develops some mathematical contents through simple identifications, definitions or recognitions. | ||
C2. To know didactic strategies to develop numerical representations and spatial, geometric and logical development notions. | C2.4. To develop mathematical content (logic, numbers and operations, geometry, measurement and/or statistics-probability) to operate, change or transform. | L1. Does not develop mathematical content in which students must operate, change or transform. |
L2. Develops some mathematical content through simple operations, changes or transformations. | ||
L3. They develop several different mathematical contents through operation, change or transformation. | ||
C3. To understand mathematics as sociocultural knowledge. | C3.1. To associate mathematical knowledge in activities of daily living. | L1. Does not raise activities connecting mathematical knowledge with situations of daily living. |
L2. Proposes some activity that connects mathematical knowledge with examples of everyday situations in a representative way. | ||
L3. Proposes real or simulated daily activities to work on mathematical knowledge in a comprehensive way. | ||
C3.2. To consider the phases (mathematization of the context, previous work in the classroom, work in context and later work in the classroom) to teach mathematics from real contexts of everyday life. | L1. Does not contemplate in any activity the phases to teach mathematics from real contexts. | |
L2. Contemplates in some activity almost all the phases to teach mathematics from real contexts. | ||
C3. To understand mathematics as sociocultural knowledge. | C3.2. To consider the phases (mathematization of the context, previous work in the classroom, work in context and later work in the classroom) to teach mathematics from real contexts of everyday life. | L3. Contemplates and clearly describes in an activity all the phases to teach mathematics from real contexts. |
C4. To know the scientific methodology and promote scientific thinking and experimentation. | C4.1. To include in the proposal any activity that requires observation, manipulation, experimentation, reflection and/or mental effort. | L1. Does not raise any activities promoting scientific thinking and experimentation. |
L2. Raises some activity with a certain manipulative and/or experimental basis, although this is excessively directed and with little depth. | ||
L3. Raises complete experimental activities for child students that require observation, manipulation, experimentation, reflection and mental effort. | ||
C4.2. To promote scientific attitudes of a general nature (curiosity, creativity, autonomy, patience, self-confidence and/or cooperative spirit). | L1. Does not promote scientific attitudes of a general nature in any case. | |
L2. Occasionally promotes some kind of general scientific attitude in some experimental activity. | ||
L3. Clearly promotes various scientific attitudes in experimental activities. | ||
C4. To know the scientific methodology and promote scientific thinking and experimentation. | C4.3. To facilitate the creation of mental representations (concepts) and language development. | L1. Facilitates the creation of mental representations (concepts) and language development. |
L2. Facilitates, through experimental activities, the creation of simple mental representations, although it does not help the development of language. | ||
L3. Facilitates, through experimental activities, both the creation of mental representations and the development of language. | ||
C5. To acquire knowledge about the evolution of thought, customs, beliefs and social and political movements throughout history. | C5.1. To include in the proposal some activity around change and continuity. | L1. Does not raise activities considering change and continuity as two compatible elements of the passage of time. |
L2. Raises some activity in which change and continuity are considered, although in a superficial or tangential way. | ||
L3. Proposes activities that consider change and continuity as compatible elements at the political, social and cultural levels. | ||
C5.2. To show knowledge of the first-order content (thought, customs, beliefs, social movements and/or political movements). | L1. Does not include content related to the social sciences or shows scarcity in their knowledge. | |
L2. Shows a general knowledge of the social science content included in the proposal. | ||
C5. To acquire knowledge about the evolution of thought, customs, beliefs and social and political movements throughout history. | C5.2. To show knowledge of the first-order content (thought, customs, beliefs, social movements and/or political movements). | L3. Shows a deep knowledge of the social science content included in the proposal. |
C6. To know the most outstanding moments in the history of science and technology and their significance. | C6.1. To incorporate events or figures relevant to social progress (historical relevance). | L1. Does not incorporate events or figures relevant to social progress in their proposal. |
L2. Incorporates events or figures relevant to social progress, tending towards topics or without reflection on their repercussions in its proposal. | ||
L3. Incorporates relevant events or figures into its proposal, deepening its contribution to social advancement. | ||
C6.2. To establish transcendent relationships between the elements that characterize social phenomena and human activities in the natural environment. | L1. Does not establish any relation between social phenomena and human activities in the natural environment. | |
L2. Establishes some superficial relation between social phenomena and human activities in the natural environment but without any kind of justification. | ||
L3. Establishes coherent and justified relations between social phenomena and human activities in the natural environment. | ||
C7. To elaborate didactic proposals in relation to the interaction between science, technology, society and sustainable development. | C7.1. To design a globalized proposal. | L1. Does not design a proposal based on the globalization of contents. |
L2. Designs a globalized proposal but integrating only content from the different areas. | ||
L3. Designs a globalized proposal integrating and contextualizing content from different areas, also taking into account the interests and needs of child students. | ||
C7.2. To sequence the didactic proposal (initiation, development, application and reflection). | L1. There is no adequate sequential order nor does it contemplate the suggested phases for the proposal. | |
L2. There is an adequate sequential order but it does not contemplate activities of all the phases suggested for the proposal. | ||
L3. There is an adequate sequential order and contemplates activities of all the phases suggested for the proposal. | ||
C7.3. To adapt evaluation techniques and instruments in the didactic proposal. | L1. Does not determine the technique and/or the evaluation instrument in the proposal. | |
L2. Determines the technique and the instrument but without specifying all the aspects of the evaluation process of the proposal. | ||
C7. To elaborate didactic proposals in relation to the interaction between science, technology, society and sustainable development. | C7.3. To adapt evaluation techniques and instruments in the didactic proposal. | L3. Clearly determines the evaluation technique and instrument, explicitly describing all aspects of the evaluation process of the proposal. |
C7.4. To evaluate the implementation of the proposal. | L1. Does not evaluate their practicum or does it incompletely, without reflection or omitting some section. | |
L2. Evaluates their practice in a descriptive and concise way, with little reflection. | ||
L3. Reflects on their practicum in an analytical and deep way, identifying strengths and weaknesses and formulating suggestions for improvement. | ||
C7.5. To consider the influence of the natural on the social and vice versa. | L1. A CTS approach is not considered in the proposal. | |
L2. A CTS approach is considered in the proposal, but without paying attention to the social conditions of the scientific-technological phenomenon. | ||
L3. A CTS approach is considered in the proposal, paying attention to the social conditions of the scientific-technological phenomenon and/or its social and environmental consequences. | ||
C7. To elaborate didactic proposals in relation to the interaction between science, technology, society and sustainable development. | C7.6. To integrate spheres for sustainable development in the didactic proposal. | L1. The proposal does not include any affective ties that promote sustainable development. |
L2. Contemplates some affective ties that can promote sustainable development in the proposal, but only in an expository way without intervention or action. | ||
L3. Contemplates in the proposal an affective bond that promotes sustainable development from intervention and action, respecting and caring for diversity. | ||
C7.7. To justify with bibliographic sources. | L1. Does not use bibliographic references to elaborate the proposal. | |
L2. Uses a bibliographic reference that does not add substantial value to the proposal. | ||
L3. Uses one or more bibliographic references that add substantial value to the proposal. | ||
C8. To promote interest and respect for the natural, social and cultural environment through appropriate educational projects. | C8.1. To promote attitudes of respect and care for the natural environment. | L1. Does not deal with any type of respectful attitude or care for the natural environment in the proposal. |
C8. To promote interest and respect for the natural, social and cultural environment through appropriate educational projects. | C8.1. To promote attitudes of respect and care for the natural environment. | L2. Does not include any type of respectful attitude and care for the natural environment in the proposal in an isolated way, not reaching its contribution in a comprehensive and lasting way. |
L3. Incorporates respectful attitudes and care for the natural environment, deepening in its importance for a comprehensive and lasting development of these values. | ||
C8.2. To promote attitudes for a peaceful coexistence and respect for others. | L1. Does not tackle the social competence in their proposal or any contents related to respect for others. | |
L2. Incorporates content related to social competence in their proposal, although this are limited to an action that is expected to have limited effects over time. | ||
L3. Incorporates the work of social competence in its proposal, anticipating repercussions over time according to the approach carried out. | ||
C8.3. To promote interest in their own cultural manifestations and recognition of identity. | L1. Does not include their own cultural manifestations in their didactic proposal. | |
C8. To promote interest and respect for the natural, social and cultural environment through appropriate educational projects. | C8.3. To promote interest in their own cultural manifestations and recognition of identity. | L2. Includes cultural manifestations in their proposal without these implying a deep knowledge of the element and a promotion of argued interest. |
L3. Includes own cultural manifestations in their proposal, deepening its knowledge and the interest they represent for the community. | ||
C9. To promote initiation experiences to information and communication technologies. | C9.1. To use CITs as a resource. | L1. Does not include CITs in their didactic proposal. |
L2. Includes CITs as a resource in the proposal but the students are mostly observers. | ||
L3. Includes CITs in the proposal as a resource and the majority of students use or manipulate them. | ||
C9.2. To use CITs as content. | L1. Does not include CITs in their didactic proposal as content. | |
L2. Includes CITs in the proposal as superficial content. | ||
L3. Includes CITs in the proposal as content in a relevant way. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
De Pro Chereguini, C.; Ponce Gea, A.I. Model for the Evaluation of Teaching Competences in Teaching–Learning Situations. Societies 2021, 11, 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc11020056
De Pro Chereguini C, Ponce Gea AI. Model for the Evaluation of Teaching Competences in Teaching–Learning Situations. Societies. 2021; 11(2):56. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc11020056
Chicago/Turabian StyleDe Pro Chereguini, Carlos, and Ana Isabel Ponce Gea. 2021. "Model for the Evaluation of Teaching Competences in Teaching–Learning Situations" Societies 11, no. 2: 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc11020056