Individualizando la Tutoría del Alumno de Ingeniería

Referencias bibliográficas

• Ahlfeldt, S., Mehta, S., & Sellnow, T. (2005). Measurement and analysis of student engagement in university classes where varying levels of PBL methods of instruction are in use. Higher Education Research and Development, 24(1), 5–20.
• Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: recent developments and research questions. In M. G. Moore, & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 129–144). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
• Angeli, C., Valanides, N., & Bonk, C. J. (2003). Communication in a web-based conferencing system: the quality of computer-mediated interaction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(1), 31–43.
• Blasco-Arcas, L., Buil, I., Hern´andez-Ortega, B. & Sese, F.J. (2013). Using clikers in class. The role of interactivity, active collaborative learning and engagement in learning performance. Computers & Education, 62,102-110.
• Banks, D. A. (2006). Reflections on the use of ARS with small groups. In D. A. Banks (Ed.), Audience response systems in higher education (pp. 373–386). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
• Bannan-Ritland, B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication, e-learning, and interactivity: a review of the research. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 161–169.
• Beatty, I. (2004). Transforming student learning with classroom communication systems. Boulder, Colo: EDUCASE Center for Applied Research, available. http://www.educase.edu/LibraryDEtailPage/666?IDERB04033.
• Beatty, I. D., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., & Dufresne, R. J. (2006). Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching. American Journal of Physics, 74(1), 31–39.
• Beekes, W. (2006). The ‘millionaire’ method for encouraging participation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 7, 25–36.
• Bergtrom, G. (2006). Clicker sets as learning objects. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 2, Available in http://ijklo.org/Volume2/v2p105-110Bergtrom.pdf.
• Brewer, C. A. (2004). Near real-time assessment of student learning and understanding in biology courses. Bioscience, 54(11), 1034–1039.
• Bullock, D. W., LaBella, V. P., Clingan, T., Ding, Z., Stewart, G., & Thibado, P. M. (2002). Enhancing the student-instructor interaction frequency. The Physics Teacher, 40, 535–541.
• Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: current research and beastpractice tips. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9–20.
• Carnaghan, C., & Webb, A. (2007). Investigating the effects of group response systems in student satisfaction, learning, and engagement in accounting education. Issues in Accounting Education, 22(3), 391–409.
• Capel, M., Tomeu, A. & Salguero A. (2017). Teaching concurrent and parallel programming by patterns: An interactive ICT approach. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing (in press). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpdc.2017.01.010
• Chickering, A., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: technology as lever. AAHE Bulletin3–6, Available in http://www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven.html. October.
• Chou, C. (2003). Interactivity and interactive functions in web-based learning systems: a technical framework for designers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 265–279.
• Cotner, S., Fall, B., Wick, S., Walker, J., & Baepler, P. (2008). Instant feedback assessment methods: can we improve engagement, enjoyment, and preparation for exams in large-enrollment biology courses? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 437–443.
• Crossgrove, K. CurranUsing clickers in non-ajors and majors-level biology courses: student opinion, learning and long-term retention of course material CBE-Life Sciences Education, 7 (2008), pp. 146–154.
• Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970–977.
• R. D’Inverno, H. Davis, S. White. Using a personal response system for promoting student interaction. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 22 (2003), pp. 163–169.
• Draper, S. W., Cargill, J., & Cutts, Q. (2002). Electronically enhanced classroom interaction. Australian Journal of Educational Technology 18, 13–23. Available in http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/ilig/handsets.html.
• Draper, S. W., & Brown, M. I. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 81–94.
• Draper, S. W., Cargill, J., & Cutts, Q. (2002). Electronically enhanced classroom interaction. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 18, 13–23.
• Elliot, C. (2003). Using a personal system in economics teaching. International Review of Economics Education, 1(1), Available in http://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/iree/i1/elliot.htm.
• Erickson, J., & Siau, K. (2003). E-ducation. Communications of the ACM, 46(9), 134–140.
• Fies, C., & Marshall, J. (2006). Classroom response systems: a review of the literature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 101–109.
• S. Freeman, E. O’Connor, J.W. Parks, M. Cunningham, D. Hurley, D. Haak, et al. Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6 (2007), pp. 132–139.
• Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–108.
• Gallini, S. M., & Moely, B. E. (2003). Service-learning and engagement, academic challenge and retention. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning5–14, Fall.
• Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.
• Guthrie, R. W., & Carlin, A. (2004). Waking the dead: using interactive technology to engage passive listeners in the classroom. In Proceedings of the AMCIS, paper 358. New York: August.
• Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.). Handbook of reading research, vol. 3 (pp. 403–422). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a sixthousands student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74.
• Haseman, W. D., Polatoglu, V. N., & Ramamurthy, K. (2002). An empirical investigation of the influences of the degree of interactivity of user-outcomes in a multimedia environment. Information Resources Management Journal, 15(2), 31–48.
• Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2002). The conscientious consumer; reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 53–64.
• Hiltz, S. R., Coppola, N., Rotter, N., & Turoff, M. (2000). Measuring the importance of collaborative learning for the effectiveness of ALN: a multimeasure, multi-method approach. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(2), 103–125.
• Homme, J., Asay, G., & Morgenstern, B. (2004). Utilisation of an audience response system. Medical Education, 38(5), 575.
• Hoon Han & J. Finkelstein, A. (2013). Understanding the effects of professors’ pedagogical development with clicker assessment and feedback technologies and the impact on students’ engagement and learning in higher education. Computers & Education 65. 64-76
• Hu, J., Bertol, P., Hamilton, M., White, G., Duff, A., & Cutts, Q. (2006). Wireless interactive teaching by using key-pad ARS. In D. A. Banks (Ed.), Audience response systems in higher education (pp. 209–221). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
• Kay, R.-H., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 53, 819–827.
• Kennedy, G., & Cuts, Q. (2005). The association between students use and electronic voting system and their learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 260–268.
• Kennedy, D., Hyland, A., & Ryan, N. (2006). Writing and using learning outcomes: A practical guideIn The Bologna handbook, Available in http://www.bologna.msmt.cz/files/learning-outcomes.pdf
• Kenwright, K. (2009). Clickers in the classroom. TechTrends, 53(3), 74–77.
• Khan, B. H. (2000). Discussion of resources and attributes of the web for the creation of meaningful learning environments. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 3(1), 17–23.
• Knight, J. K., & Wood, W. B. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology Education, 4(4), 298–310.
• Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer supported collaborative learning environment: a review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 335–353.
• Kryder, L. G. (1999). Integrating computer literacy: why and what can be done. Business Communication Quarterly, 62(2), 81–86.
• Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE. Change, 35(2), 24–32.
• Lantz, M. E. (2010). The use of clickers in the classroom: teaching innovation or merely an amusing novelty? Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 556–561.
• Liu, Y. (2003). Developing a scale to measure the interactivity of websites. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(3), 207–216.
• Liu, T., Liang, J., Wang, H., Chan, T., & Wei, L. (2003). Embedding educlick in classroom to enhance interaction. In Proceedings international conference computers in education (ICCE) (pp. 117–125). Hong Kong, China.
• MacGeorge, E. L., Homan, S. R., Dunning, J. B., Jr., Elmore, D., Bodie, G. D., Evans, E., et al. (2008). The influence of learning characteristics on evaluation of audience response technology. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 19, 25–46.
• Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 153–184.
• Mayer, R. E., Stull, A., DeLeeuw, K., Almeroth, K., Bimber, B., Chun, D., et al. (2009). Clickers in collage classrooms: fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 51–57.
• Michaelson, L. K., Knight, A. B., & Fink, L. D. (2004). Team-based learning: A transforming use of small groups in college teaching. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
• Nicol, D., & Boyle, J. (2003). Peer instruction versus class-wide discussion in large classes: a comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom. Studies of Higher Education, 28, 457–473.
• Oncu, S., & Cakir, H. (2011). Research in online learning environments: priorities and methodologies. Computers & Education, 57, 1098–1108.
• Panitz, T. (1996). A definition of collaborative versus cooperative learning. Deliberations, Available in http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/deliberations/collaborative-learning/panitzpaper.cfm.
• Pratton, J., & Hales, L. (1986). The effects of active participation on student learning. Journal of Educational Research, 79, 210–215.
• Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? a review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 223–231.
• Resta, P., & Laferri`ere, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Education Psychology Review, 19, 65–83.
• Ribbens, E. (2007). Why I like personal response systems. Journal of College Science Teaching, 37(2), 60–62.
• Roblyer, M. D., & Wiencke, W. R. (2003). Design and use of a rubric to assess and encourage interactive qualities in distance courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 17(2), 77–98.
• Ryan, A. M. (2000). Peer groups as a context for the socialization of adolescents’ motivation, engagement, and achievement in school. Educational Psychologist, 35, 101–111.
• Shernoff, D. J., & Hoogstra, L. (2001). Continuing motivation beyond the high school classroom. New Directions in Child and Adolescent Development, 93, 73–87.
• Siau, K., Sheng, H., & Nah, F. F.-H. (2006). Use of classroom response system to enhance classroom interactivity. IEEE Transactions on Education, 49(3), 398–403.
• Stipek, D. (2002). Good instruction is motivating. In A. Wigfield, & J. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
• Stowell, J. R., & Nelson, J. M. (2007). Benefits of electronic audience response systems on student participation, learning and emotion. Teaching of Psychology, 34, 253–258.
• Thalheimer, W. (2003). The learning benefits of questions (white papers). Somerville, MA: Work Learning Research.
• Trees, A. R., & Jackson, M. H. (2007). The learning environment in clicker classrooms: student processes of learning and involvement in large university-level courses using student response systems. Learning, Media and Technology, 32, 21–40.
• Wit, E. (2003). Who wants to be. the use of a personal response system in statistics teaching. MSOR Connections, 3, 14–20.
• W.B. Wood. Clickers: A teaching gimmick that works. Developmental Cell, 7 (2004), pp. 796–798.
• Yoder, J. D., & Hochevar, C. M. (2005). Encouraging active learning can improve students’ performance on examinations. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 91–95.
• Yourstone, S. A., Kraye, H. S., & Albaum, G. (2008). Classroom questioning with immediate electronic response: do clickers improve learning? Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 6(1), 75–88.