Métricas alternativas
Métrica
Palabras clave
diseño pedagógico
equipos de diseño
adaptación transcultural
Innovación educativa Design for learning
Learning Design
Design teams
Cross-cultural
Innovation
Cómo citar
Resumen
Desde la perspectiva de la innovación educativa, el diseño didáctico es una de las tareas docentes más importantes y complejas a las que se enfrentan habitualmente y en todos los niveles educativos personas con y sin formación pedagógica previa. El marco y el toolkit ACAD (por sus siglas en inglés Activity-Centred Analysis and Design) fueron creados en el ámbito anglosajón para facilitar los procesos de discusión que fundamentan esos procesos de diseño y análisis didáctico.
Este artículo presenta el proceso de traducción y adaptación transcultural del toolkit ACAD al castellano. El proceso se ha realizado en dos fases: una doble ronda de traducción y una fase piloto realizada en cinco seminarios con profesionales de diversos contextos y grado de experiencia profesional, en dos países. El resultado es una versión completa del toolkit ACAD (lienzo de trabajo y de tarjetas), además de sugerentes conclusiones fruto de las discusiones de los seminarios.
Citas
Adell, J., & Castañeda, L. (2010). Los Entornos Personales de Aprendizaje (PLEs): Una nueva manera de entender el aprendizaje. En R. Roig-Vila & M. Fiorucci (Eds.), Claves para la investigación en innovación y calidad educativa. La integración de las Tecnologías de la Información y la comunicación y la Interculturalidad en las aulas. Marfil & Roma Tre.
Adell, J., & Castañeda, L. (2015). Las pedagogías escolares emergentes. Cuadernos de pedagogía, 462. https://bit.ly/3jwCLv6
Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000043065
Bartolomé, A., Castañeda, L., & Adell, J. (2018). Personalisation in educational technology: The ab-sence of underlying pedagogies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15, 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0095-0
Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the Process of Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Self-Report Measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186.
Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (2013). Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age. Taylor & Francis.
Biesta, G. J. J. (2010). Good Education in an Age of Measurement: Ethics, Politics, Democracy (1 edition). Routledge.
Biesta, G. J. J. (2011). Disciplines and theory in the academic study of education: A comparative analysis of the Anglo-American and Continental construction of the field. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 19, 175-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2011.582255
Bozkurt, A., Jung, I., Xiao, J., Vladimirschi, V., Schuwer, R., Egorov, G., Lambert, S., Al-Freih, M., Pete, J., Don Olcott, J., Rodes, V., Aranciaga, I., Bali, M., Alvarez, A. J., Roberts, J., Pazurek, A., Raffaghelli, J. E., Panagiotou, N., Coëtlogon, P. de, … Paskevicius, M. (2020). A global outlook to the interruption of education due to COVID-19 pandemic: Navigating in a time of uncertainty and crisis. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 1-126.
Carvalho, L. (2010). A sociology of informal learning in/about design [The University of Sydney]. https://www.academia.edu/3856863/Design_for_Pedagogy_Patterns_for_E_Learning
Carvalho, L., & Goodyear, P. (2014). Framing the analysis of learning network architectures. En Peter Goodyear & L. Carvalho (Eds.), The architecture of productive learning networks (pp. 48-70). Routledge.
Carvalho, L., Goodyear, P., & Laat, M. de (Eds.). (2016). Place-based spaces for networked learning. Routledge.
Castañeda, L. (2011). Analizar y entender la enseñanza flexible. Un modelo de análisis de desarrollo curricular. Píxel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 39, 167-195.
Chatteur, F. (2011). Design for Pedagogy Patterns for E-Learning [The University of Sydney]. https://www.academia.edu/3856863/Design_for_Pedagogy_Patterns_for_E_Learning
Dabbagh, N., & Castaneda, L. (2020). The PLE as a framework for developing agency in lifelong learning. Educational Technology Research and Development. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09831-z
Elen, J. (2020). “Instructional disobedience”: A largely neglected phenomenon deserving more systematic research attention. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(5), 2021-2032. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09776-3
Ellis, R. A., & Goodyear, P. (2019). The Education Ecology of Universities: Integrating Learning, Strategy and the Academy. Routledge.
Esteve Mon, Francesc Marc, F., Castañeda, L., & Adell, J. (2018). Un modelo holístico de compe-tencia docente para el mundo digital. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 32(1).
Go8 Space Management Definition Guide (2014). The University of Queensland. https://staff.uq.edu.au/files/6865/go8-universities-space-management.pdf
Goodyear, P. (1999). Pedagogical frameworks and action research in open and distance learning. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 2(1), Article 1. https://www.eurodl.org/?p=archives&year=1999&article=35
Goodyear, Peter. (2000). Environments for Lifelong Learning. En J. M. Spector & T. M. Anderson (Eds.), Integrated and Holistic Perspectives on Learning, Instruction and Technology: Under-standing Complexity (pp. 1-18). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47584-7_1
Goodyear, Peter, & Ellis, R. A. (2010). Expanding conceptions of study, context and educational de-sign. In R. Sharpe, H. Beetham, & S. de Freitas, Eds., Rethinking Learning for a Digital Age: How Learners are Shaping their Own (pp. 100-113). Rouledge.
Gros, B. (2015). La caída de los muros del conocimiento en la sociedad digital y las pedagogías emergentes. Education in the Knowledge Society (EKS), 16(1), 58. https://doi.org/10.14201/eks20151615868
Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C., & Beaton, D. (1993). Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quali-ty of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46(12), 1417-1432. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-N
Gunn, W., Otto, T., & Smith, R. C. (Eds.). (2013). Design Anthropology: Theory and Practice. Bloomsbury Academic.
Hamilton, D. (1999). The pedagogic paradox (or why no didactics in England?). Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 7(1), 135-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681369900200048
Hetland, L., Winner, E., & Veenema, S. (2013). Studio Thinking 2: The Real Benefits of Visual Arts Education. Teachers College Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press.
Law, N. W. Y. (2017). Education Professionals Need a Language for Learning Design. Sydney Ide-as: Education and Social Work Dean’s Lecture Series, Sydney, Australia. http://hub.hku.hk/handle/10722/252939
McDonnell, J. (2009). Collaborative negotiation in design: A study of design conversations between architect and building users. CoDesign, 5(1), 35-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880802492862
Networked Learning Editorial Collective (NLEC). (2020). Networked Learning: Inviting Redefinition. Postdigital Science and Education. Postdigital Science and Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00167-8
Pink, S. (2012). Situating everyday life: Practices and places. Sage.
Reeves, T. C., & Lin, L. (2020). The research we have is not the research we need. Educational Tech-nology Research and Development, 68(4), 1991-2001. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09811-3
Rose, J. (2016, septiembre 16). Training Room Layout: How to Set up a Room for a Class or Work-shop. Career Minded. http://careerminded.ca/training-room-layout/
Salinas, J. (2004). Innovación docente y uso de las TIC en la enseñanza universitaria. RUSC. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 1(1).
Simonsen, J., Svabo, C., Strandvad, S. M., Samson, K., Hertzum, M., & Hansen, O. E. (2014). Situated Design Methods. MIT Press.
TEFMA Space Planning Guidelines (p. 60). (2009). Tertiary Education Facilities Management Association (TEFMA) Incorporated.
UNESCO. (2019). Most influential theories of learning [Text]. International Bureau of Education. http://www.ibe.unesco.org/en/geqaf/annexes/technical-notes/most-influential-theories-learning
Yeoman, P. (2015). Habits & habitats: An ethnography of learning entanglement [The University of Sydney]. https://www.academia.edu/3856863/Design_for_Pedagogy_Patterns_for_E_Learning
Yeoman, P., & Carvalho, L. (2019). Moving between material and conceptual structure: Developing a card-based method to support design for learning. Design Studies, 64, 64-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.05.003
Yeoman, P., & Wilson, S. (2019). Designing for situated learning: Understanding the relations between material properties, designed form and emergent learning activity. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2090-2108. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12856
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
Derechos de autor 2021 Píxel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación