Tertiary education learning outcomes, a case study: “You want us to think!”

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Margarita Mele Marrero, Andrés Rodríguez-Marrero
{"title":"Tertiary education learning outcomes, a case study: “You want us to think!”","authors":"Margarita Mele Marrero, Andrés Rodríguez-Marrero","doi":"10.6035/languagev.6125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Present perceptions about the poor production of university students in the last decades might be the same other professors had in previous centuries.  Nonetheless, more corseting forms of assessment and the irruption of new technologies can establish a difference. These factors serve the controversy when blamed for preventing intellectual development, or when also considering that ICTs are the personal mark of new generations of youths who face their outdated dinosaur teachers. \nThe purpose of this paper is to provide a tentative case analysis of the situation to validate what seems a generalized perception of the decay of tertiary education. Our data will be obtained from answers that students of the third year of a Humanities English degree could not provide. In our approach we will consider the difficulties students have in reaching the highest levels of taxonomies like Bloom’s (1956) or Dreyfus & Dreyfus (1980) with their further modifications. Collaterally we will tackle key competences and forms of assessment. Results will present the dichotomy of maintaining the present progression or, alternatively, think again and take some action.","PeriodicalId":36244,"journal":{"name":"Language Value","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language Value","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6035/languagev.6125","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Present perceptions about the poor production of university students in the last decades might be the same other professors had in previous centuries.  Nonetheless, more corseting forms of assessment and the irruption of new technologies can establish a difference. These factors serve the controversy when blamed for preventing intellectual development, or when also considering that ICTs are the personal mark of new generations of youths who face their outdated dinosaur teachers. The purpose of this paper is to provide a tentative case analysis of the situation to validate what seems a generalized perception of the decay of tertiary education. Our data will be obtained from answers that students of the third year of a Humanities English degree could not provide. In our approach we will consider the difficulties students have in reaching the highest levels of taxonomies like Bloom’s (1956) or Dreyfus & Dreyfus (1980) with their further modifications. Collaterally we will tackle key competences and forms of assessment. Results will present the dichotomy of maintaining the present progression or, alternatively, think again and take some action.
高等教育学习成果案例研究:“你想让我们思考!”
目前人们对过去几十年大学生成绩不佳的看法可能与前几个世纪其他教授的看法相同。尽管如此,更严格的评估形式和新技术的涌现可能会产生差异。当这些因素被指责阻碍了智力发展时,或者当还考虑到信息和通信技术是面对过时的恐龙老师的新一代年轻人的个人标志时,这些因素就引发了争议。本文的目的是对这种情况进行初步的案例分析,以验证人们对高等教育衰退的普遍看法。我们的数据将来自人文英语学位三年级学生无法提供的答案。在我们的方法中,我们将考虑学生在达到布鲁姆分类法(1956)或德雷福斯和德雷福斯分类法(1980)的最高水平时遇到的困难,并对其进行进一步修改。我们将顺理成章地处理关键能力和评估形式。结果将呈现维持当前进展的二分法,或者,重新思考并采取一些行动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Language Value
Language Value Social Sciences-Linguistics and Language
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
28 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信