INNODOCT 16 Lean education and innovation

Editors Fernando Garrigós Simón Sofía Estellés Miguel Ismael Lengua Lengua José Onofre Montesa Carlos M. Dema Pérez Juan Vicente Oltra Rodríguez Yeamduan Narangajavana

INNO

DOCT

/16

INNODOCT/16“LEAN EDUCATION AND INNOVATION”

Colaboran

INNODOCT/16 “LEAN EDUCATION AND INNOVATION”

EDITORIALUNIVERSITAT POLITÈCNICA DE VALÈNCIA

En esta publicación se presentan los artículos presentados a la conferencia INNODOCT/16 que tiene como objetivo proporcionar un foro para académicos y profesionales donde compartir sus investigaciones, discutir ideas, proyectos actuales, resultados y retos relacionados con las Nuevas Tecnologías de Información y Comunicación, Innovaciones y Metodologías aplicadas a la Educación y la Investigación, y también sobre Educación Lean e Innovación


INNO

DOCT

/16


Colaboran





INNO

DOCT

/16


Colaboran




ISBN 978-84-9048-528-6

Editores: Fernando J. Garrigós Simón

Sofía Estellés Miguel Ismael Lengua Lengua José Onofre Montesa Carlos M. Dema Pérez

Juan Vicente Oltra Rodríguez Yeamduan Narangajavana

INNODOCT/16

“LEAN EDUCATION AND INNOVATION”

EDITORIAL

UNIVERSITAT POLITÈCNICA DE VALÈNCIA

Colección Congresos

Los contenidos de esta publicación han sido evaluados por el Comité Científico que en ella se relaciona y según el procedimiento que se recoge en http://www.innodoct.com

© Editores: Fernando J. Garrigós Simón Sofía Estellés Miguel Ismael Lengua Lengua José Onofre Montesa Carlos M. Dema Pérez Juan Vicente Oltra Rodríguez Yeamduan Narangajavana

Diseño portada: Ismael Lengua Lengua

© 2016, Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València

www.lalibreria.upv.es / Ref: 2070_06_01_01

ISBN: 978-84-9048-528-6 Impreso bajo demanda

Imprime: Byprint Percom, s.l.

La Editorial UPV autoriza la reproducción, traducción y difusión parcial de la presente publicación con fines científicos, educativos y de investigación que no sean comerciales ni de lucro, siempre que se identifique y se reconozca debidamente a la Editorial UPV, la publicación y los autores. La autorización para reproducir, difundir o traducir el presente estudio, o compilar o crear obras derivadas del mismo en cualquier forma, con fines comerciales/lucrativos o sin ánimo de lucro, deberá solicitarse por escrito al correo [email protected]

Impreso en España

LEAN EDUCATION AND INNOVATION INNODOCT/16

INDEX

EDITORS III

CHAIRS OF THE CONGRESS IV

CHAIRS OF PROGRAM COMMITTEE VI

PROGRAM COMMITTEE VI

CHAIRS OF THE SESSIONS VI

SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE VIII

PROLOGUE XI

INDEX PAPERS XIII

ENGLISH 1

CASTELLANO 243

PORTUGUÊS

I

597

SADAS

LEAN EDUCATION AND INNOVATIONINNODOCT/16

INNODOCT 2016. Valencia, Spain, on 18-20 May, 2016

LEAN EDUCATION AND INNOVATION

Editors / Editores

Fernando J. Garrigós Simón

Sofía Estellés Miguel

Ismael Lengua Lengua

José Onofre Montesa

Carlos M. Dema Pérez

Juan Vicente Oltra Rodríguez

Yeamduan Narangajavana

Organization Committee / Comité Organizador








III


Chairs of the congress / Presidentes del congreso

Garrigós-Simón, Fernando

Estelles-Miguel, Sofía

Chairs of program committee / Presidentes del comité de programa

Garrigós-Simón, Fernando

Estelles-Miguel, Sofía

Program committee / Comité de programa

Albarracín Guillem, José Miguel

Babiloni Griñón, Eugenia

Bañón Gomis, Alexis

Blanc Clavero, Sara

Dema Pérez, Carlos M.

Fernández Llorente, Ana

Guijarro Tarradellas, Ester

Herrero Blasco, Aurelio

JuárezTárrega, Amable

Lengua Lengua, Ismael

Loras Campos, Joaquín

Mesquita, Cristina

IV

SADAS


Montesa Andrés, José Onofre

Narangajavana, Yeamduan

Niccolas Morales, Heriberto

Oltra Badenes, Raúl

Oltra Gutiérrez, Juan Vicente

Palmer Gato, Marta Elena

Pedro, Rui

Pellicer Armiñana, Eugenio

Peris-Ortiz, Marta

Rius Sorolla, Gregorio

Rueda Armengot, Carlos

Santandreu Mascarell, Cristina

Verdecho Sáez, María José

Academic coordinators / Coordinadores académicos

Roberto Llorente Sáez

Francisco-José Ródenas Rigla

Javier Sánchez García

V


International coordinators / Coordinadores internacionales

Craig Webster

Ta-Yu Lin

Boris Choy

Daniel Neagu

Rui Pedro

Cristina Mesquita

Orlando E. Contreras

Alaberto Grájeda

Pimpika Thongrom

Stephanus Pretorius

John Cardif

Heriberto Niccolas Morales

Farzad Sattri Ardabili

Chairs of the sessions / Moderadores de las sesiones






VI

SADAS




Cristina Mesquita

Rui Pedro

Alberto Grájeda

Maria Morant

VII


Scientific Committee / Comité Científico

Alberto Grájeda (Universidad Privada Boliviana, Bolivia)

Ana Fernández Llorente (Universidad de Cantabria, Spain)

Amparo Fernández March (Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain)

Antonio Navarro-García (Universidad de Sevilla, Spain)

António Osório (University of Minho, Portugal)

Boris Choy (The University of Sydney, Australia)

Carlos Devece Carañana (Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain)

Carlos M. Dema-Pérez (Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain)

Carlos Rueda Armengot (Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain)

Chien-Fu, Yang (University of Kang Ning, Taiwan)

Christopher Lex (Fachhochschule Trier, Germany)

Craig Webster (Ball State University, U.S.A.)

Cristina Mesquita (Polytechnic Institute of Bragança, Portugal)

Cristina Vieira (University of Coimbra, Portugal)

Dag Bennett (London South Bank University, U.K.)

Daniel Neagu (University of Bradford, U.K.)

Desai Arcot Narasimhalu (Singapore Management University, Singapore)

Edson do Prado Pfutzenreuter (State University of Campinas, Brazil)

Eugenio Pellicer (Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain)

VIII

SADAS


Fernando J. Garrigós- Simón (Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain)

Francisco-José Ródenas Rigla (Universidad de Valencia, Spain)

Frederic Teulon (IPAG Paris, France)

Gary Tian (University of Wollongong, Australia)

Guilhermina Miranda (University of Lisboa, Portugal)

Heriiberto Niccolas Morales (Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo, México)

Ignacio Gil-Pechuán (Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain)

Ismael Lengua (Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain)

Javier Sánchez García (Universitat Jaume I, Spain)

Jean-Pierre Lévy Mangin (Université du Québec en Outaouais, Canadá)

Johan Gustav Bellika ((University of Tromsø, Norwey)

John Cardiff (Institute of Technology Tallaght, Ireland)

José Luís Galdón (Universidad Católica Santo Toribio de Mogrovejo, Peru)

José Mª Maiqués March. (Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain)

José Onofre Montesa (Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain)

Juan Ignacio Martín Castilla (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain)

Juan Vaca Estrada (Universidad de Guanajuato, México)

Juan Vicente Oltra Gutiérrez (Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain)

Larisa Dunai (Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain)

Lynn Alves (State of Bahia University,Brazil)

IX


Maria José Rodrigues (Polytechnic Institute of Bragança, Portugal)

María Teresa Méndez Picazo (Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain)

Manuel Armayones Ruiz. (Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Spain)

María de la Cruz del Río Roma (Universidad de Vigo, Spain)

María Pilar Conesa-Garcia (Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain)

Orlando E. Contreras (Universidad Industrial de Santander, Colombia)

Paul Willems (Saxion University of Applied Sciences, Netherlands)

Panuwat Phakdee-auksorn (Prince of Songkla University, Thailand)

Pimpika Thongrom (Rajamangala University of Technology, Thailand)

Sofía Estellés Miguel (Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain)

Yeamduan Narangajavana (Universitat Jaume I, Spain)

X

SADAS


PROLOGUE

It is a pleasure for me, as Dean of the Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Industriales (School of Industrial Engineering) de la Universidad Politécnica de Va-lencia, to write the prologue to this resume of the proceedings of INNODOCT 2016 (International Conference on Innovation, Documentation and Teaching Technologies), which took place in Valencia in May 2016 under the slogan Lean Education & Inno-vation.

We can confidently confirm that these initiatives help professors to show and share experiences related to the application of new trends in education and the utiliza-tion of new technologies.

Lean in Education is the adaptation of lean thinking to Higher Education both in administration and academic activities. Pioneering academic institutions include: Edinburgh Napier University (Scotland), Cardiff University (Wales), Michigan Tech-nological University (USA), University of Central Oklahoma (USA) and others. These universities are working within the area of continuous improvement, the use of best practices. The respect for people principle is required in order to sustain conti-nuous improvement.

The Universidad Politécnica de Valencia is immersed in this process and, like other Spanish and European universities, is undergoing a profound transformation that requires great effort from all involved.

For these reasons, initiatives like INNODOCT 2016 are a great help in genera-ting awareness of change and in showing different points of view that without doubt enrich the debate.

We encourage the organizers to persevere along this line safe in the knowledge that the Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Industriales will be alongside them offering support.

Jorge García-Serra García Dean of School of Industrial Engineering Director de la Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Industriales Universitat Politècnica de Valencia

XI

SADAS


INDEX / ÍNDICE

ENGLISH………………………………………………………………………………….………… 1

1. Managing and Assessing Team Projects in EconometricsAuthors: Ana Jesús López-Menéndez & Rigoberto Pérez-Suárez 3

2. A relational analysis between the effort in social policy and the im-pact on education in five OECD countries: Spain, Finland, UnitedKingdom, México and ChileAuthors: Gustavo Castillo, Carla Vidal, Jordi Garcés & Francisco Ródenas

17 3. Informal Networks of Learning and BDSM: The Munch as a BDSM

Event and the Role of Social MediaAuthors: Craig Webster Ph.D. & Molly Klasernerb 27

4. Training in smart metering technologies for construction site mana-gersAuthors: Francisco-Javier Cárcel-Carrasco & Elisa Peñalvo-López 39

5. How Social Network Analysis tools can improve of teaching on envi-ronmental issues? A view of brazilian academic stakeholders of LifeCycle Assessment (LCA)Authors: Filipe Barrosa & Salvador Capuz Rizo 51

6. Learning, having fun and competing: analysis of the success of a realexperience with an online business simulation gameAuthors: Jorge Matute-Vallejo & Iguácel Melero-Polo 63

7. The use of the educational portfolio as an assessment tool for trans-versal competencesAuthors: M. Salomé Moreno Navarro, Vicenta Eloïna García Félix, Ben-jamín Sarria Chust & Maria Morant Pérez 95

XIII


8. Advantages and disadvantages of Twitter in educationAuthors: Fernando J. Garrigos-Simon, Juan Vicente Oltra-Gutierrez,Yeamduan Narangajavana & Ismael Lengua 115

9. Motivational techniques as a method on education on industrialengineeringAuthors: Larisa Dunai, Ismael Lengua, José Alfonso Antonino Daviu &Fernando J. Garrigos-Simon 121

10. Measuring and sociodemographic description of the educationalexperience in formative aimed staysAuthors: Gonzalo Díaz Meneses & Cristina de Lorenzo Cáceres 129

11. Harnessing Social Pressure in Altruistic Domains: a TwitterCase StudyAuthors: Guillermo Belda Mullor, John Cardiff & Javier Sanchez García 139

12. Teaching Management for future Industrial Engineers: A practicalapproach from the beginning to the endAuthors: Orlando E. Contreras , Aura Cecilia Pedraza A. & AlejandraBarbosa Calderón 149

13. Technology, pedagogy and methods are all important, but what defi-nes a good teacher? Experiences from the university partners in theQIMSEE projectAuthors: Vuk Adžić, Miroljub Adžić, Robin Støckert & AleksandarKošarac 171

14. Project-Based Learning and Evaluation in Operations ManagementAuthors: Sofía Estelles-Miguel, José Miguel Albarracín Guillem, MartaPalmer Gato & Amable Juárez Tárraga 179

XIV

SADAS


15. Using the Back Bay Battery simulation to teach about disruptiveinnovationAuthors: Antoni Olive-Tomas, Lucinio Gonzalez-Sabate, & XavierJolonch-Palau 187

16. eHealth Perceptions of Biomedical Engineering StudentsAuthors: A Martinez-Millana, C Fernandez-Llatas, MP Sala Soriano,V Travera & C Dema 199

17. Technology-based impairments for elderly students in higher educa-tionAuthors: Roberto Llorente & Maria Morant 209

18. Divulgation of Nobel Prize women awarded in Science between 1901and 2015 using stampsAuthors: Beatriz Rivas-Murias 219

19. INTACT platform in professional courses: a case studyAuthors: Gonçalves, Vitor & Martins Maria Luzia 231

XV

SADAS


CASTELLANO………………………………………………………………………………………243

20. Estudio sobre la adquisición de los atributos actitudinales de la Edu-cación para el Desarrollo para la Ciudadanía Global como resultadodel Aprendizaje-ServicioAutores: Ana Cano-Ramírez y Francisco Cabrera-Suárez 245

21. Análisis de los aspectos simbólicos de la manifestación del trance en elXirê para la creación de un producto artísticoAutores: Alessandro Malpasso y Maria de Fátima Hanaque Campos 255

22. Innovaciones en educación. Contextualizando la fiesta y el territorio através de la música, las artes visuales y las ciencias experimentalesAutores: Ana María Botella Nicolás, Amparo Hurtado Soler, Rosa IsusiFagoaga y Silvia Martínez Gallego 265

23. Acciones formativas promovidas desde el ámbito local para la inser-ción laboral de las mujeres en condiciones de igualdadAutores: María del Rosario Castro González y Beatriz García Antelo 281

24. Transición al mercado laboral del alumnado universitario: relevanciade las iniciativas de información y orientaciónAutores: Beatriz García Antelo y María del Rosario Castro González 291

25. Creación de un sistema de respuesta de estudiante para mejorar lacoordinación de la docencia presencial en asignaturas divididas engruposAutores: César Morillas Barrio, Mario Muñoz Organero, Joaquín SánchezSoriano 301

XVI


26. Los requerimientos de aprendizaje de los gestores de obra deconstrucciónAutores: Francisco-Javier Cárcel-Carrasca y Elisa Peñalvo-López 313

27. Principales características de la dinamización de grupos en la ense-ñanza a través de la plataforma MoodleAutores: Josep M. Fernández Novell y Carme Zaragoza Domenech 325

28. Exámenes tipo test en la asignatura de Química en el primer curso delgrado de BioquímicaAutores: Josep M. Fernández Novell 333

29. Análisis del impacto de la red social educativa Edmodo® en términosde la experiencia de usuario en una asignatura de Ingeniería Indus-trial de la Universidad Industrial de Santander – ColombiaAutores: Angélica María Díaz Gómez, Eliana Marcela Peña Tibaduiza yLeidy Tatiana Rodríguez Torres 341

30. Aplicación de las TIC en la docencia universitaria. El caso de los pro-fesores de la carrera de QFB de la FES Zaragoza, UNAMAutores: M. Cruz-Millán, M. Aguilar-Santelises, A. García-del Valle yL. Aguilar-Santelises 353

31. Competencias específicas y transversales en la asignatura deMicroeconomía I: visión del alumno versus visión del profesorAutores: M.Luisa Martí Selva, Rosa Puertas Medina y Consuelo CalafatMarzal 363

32. ¿Mejora el flip teaching el resultado académico? Evidencia de la asig-natura de Economía PolíticaAutores: Consuelo Calafat Marzal, Rosa Puertas Medina y M. Luisa MartíSelva 373

XVII

SADAS


33. Aplicaciones didácticas del uso del póster y su idoneidad como instru-mento de evaluación de competencias transversalesAutores: M. Salomé Moreno Navarro, Vicenta Eloïna García Félix,Benjamín Sarria Chust y Maria Morant Pérez 385

34. El uso de la wikipedia como recurso docenteAutores: Ana Belén Escrig Tena, Juan Carlos Bou Llusar, Vicente RocaPuig, Inmaculada Beltrán Martín, Mercedes Segarra Ciprés, Miguel ÁngelLópez Navarro y Beatriz García Juan 395

35. Innovación docente en la formación sobre Alfabetización Digital paracolectivos en riesgo de exclusión socialAutores: Aquilina Fueyo Gutiérrez, Isabel Hevia Artime y Santiago FanoMéndez 403

36. Portfolios educativos: una posible metodología de evaluación en laeducación a distancia universitariaAutora: Esp. Julia Pereira de Lucena 413

37. Siempre hay tiempo. Formación flexible para alumnado inmigranteadulto. Proyecto de conciliación de la vida personal, laboral yfamiliarAutora: María Jesús Llorente Puerta 423

38. El efecto del feedback del profesor en foros de discusión en líneaAutores: Rochera, M.J.; Engel, A. y Coll, C. 431

39. Uso de los medios digitales por las y los estudiantes universitarios parasu aprendizaje académico: una experiencia formativa en secundariaAutora: Natalia Navas González 441

XVIII


40. Aprendizaje autónomo y significativo con TIC y su desafío con dere-chos de la Propiedad IntelectualAutores: Rueda, F. Pascual 449

41. Experiencia de uso de SAP como aplicación docente. Aplicación a laasignatura “Análisis de Costes y selección de inversiones industriales”Autores: Raúl Oltra-Badenes y Francisco de Borja Trujillo Ruiz 467

42. Flip Teaching: Combinando clases grabadas con docencia presencialAutores: Sofía Estelles-Miguel, José Miguel Albarracín Guillem, MartaPalmer Gato y Marta Peris-Ortiz 477

43. Teaching case: docencia e-learning en el curso community manager:nuevas vías de aprendizajeAutor: Ángel del Castillo Rodríguez 487

44. La importancia de los proyectos integradores en la formación de losingenieros industriales. Caso: Universidad Tecnológica de Tulancingo(Hidalgo, México)Autores: J. Bernalin Gregorio Chávez, Germán Reséndiz López, JaimeGarnica González, Heriberto Niccolas Morales, Luis García Lechuga yGildardo Godínez Garrido 503

45. Comparación del rendimiento en una asignatura de estadística de losalumnos de primera matrícula y repetidoresAutores: Úrsula Faura Martínez, Fuensanta Arnaldos García y MatildeLafuente Lechuga 517

46. Uso del Aula Virtual de los alumnos de la Facultad de Economía yEmpresa de la Universidad de MurciaAutores: Úrsula Faura Martínez, Matilde Lafuente Lechuga, FuensantaArnaldos García, Manuel Ruiz Marín y Pedro Juan Martín Castejón 527

XIX

SADAS


47. El Proyecto Integrador (PI) como dispositivo pedagógico para el desa-rrollo de competencias específicas y transversales en el estudiante deIngeniería IndustrialAutores: Ivanhoe Rozo Rojas y Heidi Patricia Camacho Grass 537

48. FLIP-Teaching con asignaturas de tamaño medio-grande. Desarrollode un caso particular: asignatura humanista para ingenierosAutores: Juan Vte. Oltra Gutiérrez, Fernando J. Garrigos-Simón yYeamduan Narangajavana 549

49. Gamificación dentro y fuera del aula: una experiencia. Deontología yProfesionalismo para informáticosAutores: Juan Vte. Oltra Gutiérrez, Fernando J. Garrigos-Simón,Yeamduan Narangajavana y José Onofre Montesa Andrés 559

50. Motivación, orientación de expectativas, y coaching dialógico: una ex-periencia orientada a la valoración positiva de la vocación docente enlos estudios de Máster en Educación SecundariaAutores: Fidel Rodríguez, Jesús Alcalá y Gemma Ruíz 567

51. Aprendizaje basado en proyectos como técnica para asentar conoci-mientosAutores: M. Rodríguez-Méndez y F.J. Cárcel-Carrasco 577

52. El uso de mapas conceptuales en el aprendizajeAutores: M. Rodríguez-Méndez y F.J. Cárcel-Carrasco 587

XX

SADAS


PORTUGUÊS……………………………………………………………………………..…………597

53. A investigação como estratégia de ensino-aprendizagem no 1.º Ciclodo Ensino BásicoAutores: Inês Silva & Cristina Mesquita 599

54. Utilização de estratégias de ensino e aprendizagem diversificadas: umestudo de caso no 1.º Ciclo do Ensino BásicoAutores: Joana Coutinho de Matos & Maria José Rodrigues 609

55. Atividades didáticas de arqueologia promotoras de educação ambien-talAutores: Susana Afonso Santos & Maria José Rodrigues 621

56. Ambientes de leitura promotores de desenvolvimento da consciênciafonológica e da descoberta e apreensão da funcionalidade da lingua-gem escrita na educação pré-escolar portuguesaAutores: Carla do Espírito Santo Guerreiro, Lídia Machado dos Santos &Luís Manuel Pinto Castanheira 631

57. Estudo Lexical: Os Canibais de Álvaro do CarvalhalAutores: Carla Sofia Lima Barreira Araújo 639

58. De antena ligada na “atenas brasileira”: um estudo de recepção mi-diática em torno da copa do mundo de 2014 sob olhares de jovens es-colares em São Luís-MaAutores: Alfredo Feres Neto & Ywry Crystiano da Silva Magalhães 651

XXI

SADAS


ENGLISH

1

Valencia, Spain, on 18-20 May INNODOCT/16

Managing and Assessing Team Projects in Econometrics

Ana Jesús López-Menéndeza & Rigoberto Pérez-Suárezb a University of Oviedo, Spain, [email protected], b University of Oviedo, Spain, [email protected]

Abstract In the context of Economics and Business degrees, Econometrics provide a wide variety of tools which appear to be narrowly related to several main com-petences such as information management, creativity, problem solving or de-cision-making. Furthermore, the need of analyzing and interpreting the fun-ctioning of the economy suggests the convenience of learning Econometrics by doing Econometrics.

Team projects can play a main role in the teaching-learning process, since they allow students cooperating in the development of econometric models, taking benefit from econometric software and ICT facillities, and also impro-ving their ability to work in team, as suggested by employers. Moreover, from the teachers´ perspective, the development of team projects represents a good opportunity to re-think some methodological aspects, also opening new cha-llenges in the management and assessment of the projects.

In this paper we summarize our experiences in supervising Econometrics team projects for more than a decade, describing the main pedagogical and organi-zational decisions. According to the available information (based both on ob-jective statistics and online students´ surveys) we confirm some strengths of the experience (such as the use of Gretl, the virtual campus, the continuous assessment or the oral presentation) but also some weaknesses, mainly refe-rred to organizational aspects and the improvement of critical and self-critical ability.

Keywords: Team Project, Econometrics, Gretl, Self-assessment, Peer-assess-ment, Surveys

Resumen En el marco de los actuales planes de estudios de Economía y Empresa, las asignaturas de Econometría propocionan una amplia variedad de herramien-

3


tas estrechamente relacionadas con competencias como el manejo de informa-ción, la creatividad, la resolución de problemas o la adopción de decisions. En este contexto, la necesidad de analizar e interpreter el funcionamiento de la economía sugiere la conveniencia de aprender Econometria haciendo Eco-nometría.

Los trabajos en equipo pueden desempeñar un papel fundamental en el pro-ceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje dado que permiten a los estudiantes colaboa-rar en el desarrollo de modelos econométricos, beneficiándose del uso del soft-ware Gretl y las nuevas tecnologías y mejorando sus habilidades para el trabajo cooperative tal y como demandan los empleadores. Además, desde la perspectiva de los profesores, la implementación de trabajos en equipo repre-senta una buena oportunidad para reflexionar sobre aspectos metodológicos y abre nuevos desafíos relativos al seguimiento y la evaluación de estos traba-jos.

En este trabajo resumimos nuestras experiencias desarrolladas durante más de una década y describimos las principales decisiones docentes y organizati-vas. La información disponible (que procede tanto de estadísticas objetivas como de encuestas realizadas a alumnos) confirma algunas de las principales fortalezas de la experiencia (como el uso de Gretl, el campus virtual la eva-luación continua o las presentaciones orales) y también algunas debilidades, referidas principalmente a los aspectos organizativos y las competencias re-lacionadas con la capacidad crítica y autocrítica.

Palabras clave: Trabajo en equipo, Econometría, Gretl, Autoevaluación, Eva-luación por pares, Encuestas.

Introduction

Econometrics provide a wide variety of tools which help students analyze and interpret the functioning of the economy. In fact, these tools appear to be narrowly related to several main instrumental competences (such as information management, problem solving or decision-making) but also interpersonal competences (critical and self-critical capability, team capa-bility) and systemic competences (learning capability, creativity, concern for quality and good work).

Team projects can play a main role in the teaching-learning process, since they allow students cooperating in the development of econometric models, taking benefit from econometric

4

Ana J. López-Menéndez & Rigoberto Pérez-Suárez

software and ICT facilities, and also improving their ability to solve problems and work in team, as demanded by employers.1

From the teachers´ perspective, the development of team projects represents a good opportu-nity to re-think some methodological aspects, also opening new challenges in the assessment of students, particularly regarding their collaborative activities.

In this paper we describe our experiences in managing and assessing Econometrics team pro-jects for more than a decade, describing the main pedagogical and organizational decisions and summarizing some empirical results.

With this aim, section two presents the academic framework, describing the methodology and mainly focusing on the software Gretl and the team projects. Afterwords, section three analyzes the management and assessment of these projects from teachers´ and students´pers-pective, proposing a straightforward methodology that includes peer and self assessment.

Section four summarizes the main empirical findings, testing the consistency of students´ answers and analyzing the adequacy of the proposed assessment system. The paper finishes with some concluding remarks.

Teaching-Learning Process in Econometrics

The degree of Economics aims training individuals capable of analyzing and interpreting the functioning of the economy, and includes Econometrics as a compulsory third-year subject with about 100 students divided into two groups for theoretical sessions, three groups for classroom practices and five grous for lab sessions. Within this framework, our blended lear-ning experiences in Econometrics at the University of Oviedo started sixteen years ago, when the virtual campus AulaNet was created, and since then the methodology has been progres-sively adapted to new technological resources (virtual campus platforms, econometric soft-ware, …) and new university degrees in the context of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), as described in López & Pérez (2011).

Our teaching-learning experiences have tried to be coherent with the student-centered lear-ning approach and therefore main efforts have been made with the aim of crossing borders

1 The development of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) emphasized the need to adapt students’ knowledge and capacities to the labour market requirements. According to two large scale surveys implemented in the framework of the European Project “Tuning Educational Structures in Europe”, employers, students, grad-uates and academics agree in ranking in the first positions the competence“Ability to apply knowledge in practical situations”. Nevertheless, employers and students also give a high priority to the competence “ability to work in team” (fifth place) while academics rank this competence in the eleventh position.

5


between “learning Econometrics” and “doing Econometrics”. Table 1 provides an overview of the learning resources and the related competences.

Table 1. Econometrics Learning Resources and Competences

Learning Resour-ces

Description Competences

Theoreti-cal Ses-sions

2 h/week (groups of 50 students). Lear-ning materials on vir-tual campus.

Ability for abstract thinking, analysis and reasoning, Capacity to learn and to stay up-to-date with learning.

Practical Sessions in Class-room

1 h/week (groups of 25 students). Solved and proposed pro-blems on virtual cam-pus.

Ability to apply knowledge in practical situations, Ability to identify, pose and solve problems.

Lab Ses-sions with Gretl

1 h/week (groups of 15 students). Workfi-les available online

Skills in the use of Information and Communication Technologies, Abi-lity to communicate in a second language, Ability to make reasoned de-cisions.

Team Project with Gretl

Groups of 3-4 stu-dents. Project propo-sal. Oral exposition. Online forum and tu-torials. Final report.

Capacity to generate new ideas (creativity), Ability to be critical or self-critical, Ability to communicate both orally and in writing in native lan-guage, Ability to search for, process and analyse information from a va-riety of sources, Ability to undertake research at an appropriate level, Abi-lity to work in a team, Interpersonal and interaction skills, Ability to plan and manage time, Ability to act on the basis of ethical reasoning.

Assess-ment

Continuous assess-ment, Team Project self and peer assess-ment, Final exam

Knowledge & understanding of the subject area, Ability to work auto-nomously

Source: Adapted from López & Pérez (2011)

The application of the described methodology leads to quite satisfactory results, according to both objective and subjective indicators. Regarding the rate of efficiency (computed as the ratio between passed and registrered credits), the Econometrics results exceed the average figures of the Deparment of Applied Economics and the School of Economics and Business and similar conclusions are found with regard to the rate of expectancy (examined/registe-red), the rate of success (passed/examined) and the proportion of students achieving high marks2.

2 The last figures, referred to academic year 2014/2015 provide a rate of efficiency of 58.2%, which can be obtained as the product

6

of the rate of expectancy (86.7%) by the the rate success (67.1%).


With regard to the subjective indicators, students´ online surveys detect a high level of agree-ment with the achieved competences and skills, especially those referred to information ma-nagement, computing and problem solving. Teamwork is also appreciated as a valuable al-though rather hard competence.

Three elements must be highlighted as determinants of this success: the advantages of the software Gretl, the role of the Team Project and the adequacy of the assessment system.

Gretl (Gnu Regression, Econometrics and Time-series Library) has proved to be a suitable software for educational purposes, as shown in the works by Baiocchi & Distaso (2003), Mixon & Smith (2006), Yalta & Yalta (2007), Rosembladt (2008), Cottrell (2009), Falat & Panciková (2012), Cottrell & Luchetti (2014) and Adkins (2014), among others. In a recent work [López & Pérez (2015)] we have implemented the “Four-F” test including the hypot-heses of Freedom, Flexibility, Functionality and Friendliness, finding that –according to both objective evidence and students´ subjective perceptions- Gretl clearly fullfils the require-ments of freedom, flexibility and friendliness, while some difficulties arise with regard to its functionality.

Team project is considered as a key point in the Econometrics learning process, providing our students with many competences. Since the management and assessment of these projects are the main goal of this paper, they are analyzed in more detail in the next section.

Finally, the assessment system has been designed by combining the continuous evaluation and the final exam. More specifically, according to this procedure the team project has a weight of 25%, while the final exam weights 60% and the remaining 15% corresponds to monthly assesment questions, collected in theoretical, practical and lab sessions. With the aim of rewarding students who regularly attend class, the continuous assessment grade is computed as the average of each student´s four best scores, thus providing some extra “de-grees of freedom”.

Managing and Assessing Team Projects

The inclusion of collaborative works into university courses is wide spread. In our case, as we have previously described, the team project plays an outstading role in the teaching-leaning process, since it provides our students with the opportunity to work with real infor-mation, thus becoming familiar with the main problems of econometric modeling and fore-casting.

The management and assessment of these team projects are challenging from both teachers´ and students´perspectives. Although Information and Communication Technologies can be a

7


great help in managing these projects, teachers undoubtedly assume an extra-effort and the need to develop new assessment procedures.

Moreover, students undertaking such projects need advice and support and they often express concern about the way in which marks are allocated to different members of the group, with different contributions to the project.

As described in table 2, our methodology is based on an intensive use of the virtual campus resources from the very beginning of the process. Once the course is started, students are asked to submit online their proposals, allowing them to freely choose both teammates and topic.

Since then, all communications referred to team projects are channeled through the corres-ponding forum (with 3-4 team members and the professors) starting with the feedback to the first proposal and finishing by sending the final report (together with the corresponding Gretl workfiles). Of course, students have free access to the software Gretl and a wide variety of online materials, and they are also welcome to face-to-face tutorials, but the use of the team forum provides outstanding advantages throughout the entire process: students can easily organize themselves, ask and solve questions, … while teachers have access to extremely useful information in order to evaluate not only the final result, but also the learning process.

With the aim of sharing experiences, oral presentations of the team projects are scheduled along the semester and, since they take place at different development stages, further debate is emphasized, trying to develop critical and self-critical abilities.

Table 2. Team Project Monitoring and Assessment

Week Activity and Monitoring Assessment (weight)

2-3 Team and Project Proposal (online) Grade assigned to project propo-sal (10%)

4 Team´ Forum Available, Feedback to first proposal, List of Projects Published

Forum Activity (10%)

4-14 Team Questionnaire and Oral Presentations Grade assigned to presentation (30%)

Final exam

Final report (forum) Grade assigned to final report (50%)

Final exam

Personal Questionaire (including self-assessment and peer-assessment)

Final grade assigned to team and members

Source: Own elaboration

Regarding the assessment, we have faced two main difficulties, referred to the aspects of the team project that should be assessed (the product and/or the process) and the assignment of a mark to each member of the group. With respect to the first aspect, we aim to evaluate not

8


only the product (the final report weights 50%) but also the process, which is rather more difficult, (weights of 10% are assigned to the initial proposal and forum activity while oral presentation weights 30%).

With reference to the criteria of assigning marks to different members of a group, the most simple option according to which all members of the group receive the same mark seems to be quite unfair when –as it is often the case- they do not contribute equally to the project.

In order to solve this problem, marks should be assigned to each member of the team accor-ding to their relative contributions, and the use of peer assessment is an interesting way for doing this. Since many academics have developed a variety of mechanism of peer assess-ment, sometimes combined with self-assessment and co-assessment, with different degrees of complexity3, in this paper we propose a straightforward approach according to which each student evaluates each member of the team, and also the team as a whole, using the standard scale from 0 to 10. In this way students are familiar with the grading system, hopefully in-creasing the accuracy of their answers, and the obtained results are fully homogeneous and comparable.

More specifically, according to our proposal and denoting the marks provided by teachers and students by X and Y respectively, the final grade assigned to a student i of a team t can be computed as follows:

Xi,t XtProposal10%Xt

Forum10%XtPr esentation30% Xt

Re port 50% Yi,t

Yt(1)

whereYi,t and Yt represent the average grades assigned to student i and team t by all the team

members.

In the next section we summarize the empirical results obtained with this procedure, testing the consistency of students´ answers and analyzing the system adequacy in order to achieve a better assessment.

3 Some proposals are based on the direct use of a standard grading scale while others require an assessment of the contribution of the other team members by allocating each a score out of 100. As explained by Kennedy (2005), according to this ‘constant sum game’ it is possible for a student to score over 100% if both their contribution and the group mark are very high.

9


Empirical Findings

Our experience provides interesting empirical evidence referred to three different aspects: consistency of the peer assessment results, consistency between self and peer assessment and impact of the assessment system on students´ grades.

The available information comes from teachers´ records and individual questionnaires pro-vided by a total of 88 students grouped in 24 teams4, allowing a wide variety of statistical analyses.

With reference to the consistency, table 3 collects the mean and standard deviation of the peer assessment grades (columns two and three), together with the same measures for the grades assigned to the team as a whole (columns four and five).

4 Although the initial number of teams was 26, two of then where excluded since their members either did not attend the examen or did not answer the required questionnaire.

10


Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Peer Assessment Grades

Grades assigned to each team member Grades assigned to the team

Team Mean STD Mean STD

1 6.3 1.4 6.5 0.7

2 6.8 1.6 7.2 1.6

3 9.1 0.3 9.0 0.0

4 8.3 1.4 8.3 1.2

5 7.5 1.7 7.5 0.0

6 8.2 1.4 8.2 1.6

7 6.8 0.3 6.8 0.4

8 7.3 1.4 7.4 1.1

9 9.0 1.5 9.0 1.7

10 7.4 1.2 7.5 1.3

11 8.0 1.1 8.0 0.8

12 9.1 1.5 8.7 1.5

13 7.3 0.7 7.7 1.2

14 9.3 0.5 9.5 0.5

15 8.1 0.3 8.0 0.0

16 7.6 1.1 7.8 0.4

17 5.7 2.1 5.8 1.1

18 6.0 4.2 8.0 1.4

19 7.6 0.7 7.6 1.0

20 9.0 0.8 9.0 0.7

21 8.0 1.5 8.1 1.1

22 7.5 0.5 7.5 0.7

23 8.3 0.7 8.5 0.0

24 8.4 0.9 9.0 1.0


11


According to this information students are able to discriminate between student grades, ins-tead of awarding equal marks5. However, the levels of dispersion are found to be moderate with the exception of group 18, where the mean grade is considered non-representative.

As expected, the dispersion between team members negatively affects the results of the group, as shown by the correlation coefficient between standard deviation and mean (-0.49). Furthermore, it can be seen that the average grade awarded to the team is in most of the cases (62.5%) higher than the one obtained from individual grades, thus suggesting the existence of a positive “team effect” which can be interpreted as the “team value added”.

A more detailed analysis of the individual answers detects a high level of coherence between members of the same team, since the peer assessments to a given member of the team are found to be quite similar. In fact, the Pearson Variation Coefficient results to be low in the vast majority of the cases (97.7%) confirming the representativity of the mean peer-assess-ment6.

In order to examine the consistency between self and peer-assessment, we have computed both absolute and relative self-assessment biases7, whose expressions are collected in table 4. The obtained results support in both cases the consistency hypothesis, since the differencesbetween self and peer-assessment for a given student are found to be non significant.

Table 4 Consistency between Self- and Peer-assessment

Expression Consistency Hypothesis p-value

Absolute bias ABYSelf YPeer H0 :AB 0

p=0.82

Relative bias (SAPA)

RB YSelf

YPeer H0 :RB 1p=0.69


5 Some authors suggest that students feel under pressure to award identical marks to their colleagues for friendship or reciprocity.

Obviously, under this hypothesis peer assessment would not be helpful in discriminating between student grades.

6 More specifically, 54.8% of the cases provide a variation coefficient lower than 0.1, while 42.8% of the results take values between

0.1 and 0.4 and only the remaining 2.4% are higher than 0.4 and therefore detecting non-representative mean values of the peer-assessment grades.

7 The relative bias is also known as Self to Peer Assessment ratio (SPA), and this factor is sometimes used as a weighting factor

used to change a team mark for an assessment task into an individual mark.

12


Finally we briefly examine the impact of the proposed assessment system on students´ gra-des. As expected, the team project final mark awarded to each student through expression (1) is usually lower than both the self-assessment and the peer-assessment grades, as it can be observed though the Self-Assessment to Teacher-Assessment (SATA) and the Peer-Assess-ment to Teacher-Assessment (PATA) ratios. The obtained results –summarized in table 5- are in both cases clearly significant, leading to the rejection of the unbiasedness hypotheses8.

Table 5 Self- and Peer-assessment unbiadness tests

Expression Consistency Hypothesis p-value

SATA

SATA YSelf

YTeacher H0 :SATA 1p=0.00

PATA

PATA YPeer

YTeacher H0 :PATA 1p=0.00


In spite of the existence of the previously detected biases, self- and peer-assessments result to be significant in explaining the team project final mark awarded to each student. In fact, the following least-squares model has been fitted, also confirming the negative impact of the group dispersion and providing a coefficient of determination of 47%.

X̂ 0.671 0.643YPeer 0.243YSelf 0.494STDY

(1.05) (0.12) (0.11) (0.25)(2)

This regression provides new interesting evidence about the relationships between teachers´ and students´ assessments, since the estimated parameters show the expected signs and they

fail to reject the hypothesis H0 :1

0,2

3

1, thus confirming the adequacy of the

proposed assessment procedure.

8 Te consideration of absolute biases leads to similar conclusions, leading to the rejection of the proposed hypothesis of null mean

absolute bias.

13


Concluding Remarks

The management and assessment of team projects are challenging from both teachers´ and students´ perspectives, requiring extra-efforts and new procedures. In this paper we have des-cribed our experiences in managing and assessing Econometrics team projects, that have pro-vided quite satisfactory results, according to both objective and subjective indicators.

The proposed methodology is based on an intensive use of the virtual campus resources from the first team project proposal until the final report, also including the oral presentation and the forum debate. Regarding the assessment, we aim to evaluate both the product and the process, and include self- and peer assessment in order to estimate the relative contribution of different members of a group.

According to the available empirical evidence, collected from 88 students grouped in 24 teams, some interesting facts can be observed, referred to the consistency of the peer assess-ment results, the consistency between self and peer assessment and the impact of the assess-ment system on students´ grades.

First, with regard to the consistency of the peer assessment results the available information confirms students´ ability to discriminate, also showing a negative effect of the dispersion between team members on the mean group result.

Furthermore, the comparison between the average grade awarded to the team and the one obtained from individual grades confirms the existence of a positive “team effect” while the analysis of the individual answers detects a high level of coherence between members of the same team.

The consistency between self and peer-assessments has been analyzed through the absolute and relative self-assessment biases. In both cases differences are found to be non significant, thus failing to reject the consistency hypotheses.

As expected, these conclusions substantially change when the comparison of self- and peer-assessment refers to the team project final mark awarded to each student. In this case, the obtained results lead to the rejection of the unbiasedness hypotheses, but nevertheless our results confirm the significant positive effect of self- and peer-assessments, as explanatory factors of the final grade awarded to each student, while the team dispersion shows a negative significant effect.

References

Adkins, L.C. (2014). Using Gretl for Principles of Econometrics, Oklahoma State University, http://www.learneconometrics.com/gretl/using_gretl_for_POE4.pdf

14


Alden, J. (2011). Assessment of Individual Student Performance in Online Team Projects. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15, 3, 5-20.

Baiocchi, G, & Distaso, W. (2003). Gretl: Econometric Software for the Gnu Generation. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18, 105-110.

Cottrell, A. (2009). Gretl: Retrospect, Desing and Prospect, In Econometrics with Gretl. Proceedings of the Gretl Conference 2009, Universidad del País Vasco, 3-13.

Cottrell, A., & Luchetti, R. (2016). Gretl User´s Guide. Gnu Free Documentation License, http://gretl.sourceforge.net/gretl-help/gretl-guide.pdf

Doyle, J.K., & Meeker, R.D. (2008). Team Projects and Peer Evaluations. College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal 4(5): 21-28.

Falat, L., & Panciková, L. (2012). Introduction to Statistical Modeling in Gretl and its Applications in Econometrics. Jounal of Information, Control and Management Systems, 10 (2), 165-172.

Holland, N., & Feigenbaum, L. (1998). Using Peer Evaluations to Assign Grades on Group Projects. Journal of Construction Education 3(3): 182-188.

Kennedy. G.J. (2005). Peer-assessment in Group Projects: Is It Worth It?, Australasian Computing Education Conference 2005, Newcastle, Australia. Conferences in Research and Practice in Infor-mation Technology, Vol. 42. Alison Young and Denise Tolhurst, Eds.

López, A.J., & Pérez, R. (2011). Blended Learning in Econometrics. Crossing borders between Lear-ning and Doing, China-USA Business Review 10 (1), 73-80.

López, A.J., & Pérez, R. (2012). University Challenges and Free Open Source Software (FOSS). Ope-ning Minds, Closing Gaps. Proceedings of the Edulearn Conference, Barcelona.

López, A.J., & Pérez, R. (2013). Challenges and achievements of Econometric software. The “Four-F” test. 6th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovations, ICERI, Sevilla.

López, A.J., & Pérez, R. (2015). Facing the “Four-F” test. Gretl achievements of challenges. IV Gretl Conference, Berlin.

Luchetti, R. (2009). Who uses Gretl? An Analysis of the SourceForge Download Data. In Econometrics with Gretl. Proceedings of the Gretl Conference 2009, Universidad del País Vasco, 45-55.

Mixon J.W. (2010). GRETL: An econometrics package for teaching and research. Managerial FiNance, 36 (1), 71-81.

Mixon J.W., & Smith, R.J. (2006). Teaching undergraduate Econometrics with Gretl. Journal of Ap-plied Econometrics, 21, 1103-1107.

Pérez, R., & López, A.J. (2009). Teaching and Learning Econometrics with Gretl. Summarising some experiences. In Econometrics with Gretl. Proceedings of the Gretl Conference 2009, Universidad del País Vasco, 191-201.

Pond, K., Coates, D.S., & Palermo, O. (2007). Student Experiences of Peer Review Marking of Team Projects. International Journal of Management Education 6(2), 30-43.

15

Para seguir leyendo haga click aquí

http://www.lalibreria.upv.es/portalEd/UpvGEStore/products/p_310-11-1

Documents

INNODOCT 16 Lean education and innovation