Una herramienta tangible para facilitar procesos de diseño y análisis didácticoTraducción y adaptación transcultural del Toolkit ACAD

  1. Peter Goodyear
  2. Lucila Carvalho
  3. Pippa Yeoman
  4. Linda Castañeda
  5. Jordi Adell
Revista:
Pixel-Bit: Revista de medios y educación

ISSN: 1133-8482

Año de publicación: 2021

Número: 60

Páginas: 7-29

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Pixel-Bit: Revista de medios y educación

Resumen

From the perspective of educational innovation, learning design is one of the most important and complex teaching tasks that people with and without previous pedagogical training usually face at all educational levels. The ACAD (Activity-Centred Analysis and Design) Framework and Toolkit were created in the English-speaking world to facilitate the discussion processes that underpin these learning design and analysis processes. This article presents the process of translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the ACAD Toolkit into Spanish. The process has been carried out in two phases: a double round of translation and a pilot phase carried out in five seminars with professionals from different contexts and levels of professional expertise, in two different countries. The result is a full version of the ACAD Toolkit (illustration and card set), as well as suggestive conclusions from the seminar discussions

Referencias bibliográficas

  • 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
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet