IntroductionThe implementation of the EHEA involves a series of profound changes at different levels of the university teaching practice: setting the curricula around professional profiles, education planning based on competencies derived from these profiles , the use of different teaching methodologies and diversified competencies-based assessment systems , the development of a monitoring system to support the student in the teaching-learning process in order that he / she becomes the main learning actor/actress (Alvarez et al, 2004). The faculty is a key factor for the development of this methodological change in teaching. And so you can carry out this qualitative leap, the implementation by the faculty of a set of new professional teaching competencies is required.
Implementation of changes arising from the European Teaching Convergence policy implies, therefore, a shift in the conception of the role of teachers, what generates a sense of uncertainty (Michavila, 2005).This transformation mainly means implementing changes in teaching strategies (López, 2005; Caballero, 2007, Calderon and Ladder, 2008, Martinez and Echeverria, 2009), with the difficulty that it must be developed in teaching contexts that do not quite fit to these new approaches (Tagel et al. 2004; Raventos, 2005, Alvarez et al., 2009). For the new intended teaching pattern, it is not enough for teachers to master a subject content, because it is understood that a quality teaching requires that teachers have developed a set of professional-action competencies (‘know’ content-knowledge, ‘know-how’, ’ know-to-be’) of their own professional profile. There is no a divorce between content-knowledge and competences, as it has been stressed by some objections raised from the academic world on regarding competency-based education. There is no a gap between professional training and the scientific-academic education. The concept of competence alludes to a ”collection” of knowledge, skills and attitudes that allows the practice of a profession in a social context, solving problems and flexible professional action. Training and professional development of the teaching staff forms a key element of quality university teaching. Nevertheless, for the effectiveness of professional development of the teaching staff, it is necessary to combine the opportunities that the institution offers with the personal demands of the teachers. It is required, therefore, to identify on one side the professional competencies involved in the teacher’s profile, and on the other side identify the training needs felt and perceived by each faculty member. Among the freshly studies and proposals performed to identify teacher’s professional competencies could be stressed those conducted by Smith and Simpson (1995); González y Wagenaar (2003); Zabalza (2003); Tigelaar y otros (2004); Gillis et al. (2008); Perrenoud (2008) o Yániz (2008). As a sample, we can mention core teaching competencies identified by Zabalza (2003), which are related with planning a process of teaching and learning; choosing and managing disciplinary content; supplying information by means of understandable and well-organized explanations; using of ITC for educational purposes; implementing teaching methods; interacting with the students; supporting and tutoring students learning processes; assessing the learning outcomes; conducting a systematic inquiry on their own teaching practice; improving group work, and students integration in the university institution. Despite the value of these studies, it is still necessary to search what are the teaching competencies that teachers themselves perceive as ‘core teaching competencies’, in order to reorient their teaching practices in the new university landscape. They have already been developed some work trying to identify what these competences could be, and also aimed to set up university faculty training needs, such as those of Margalef and Alvarez (2005), Murillo et al. (2005), Gonzalez Sanmamed (2006), De Pablos et al. (2006); Meroño and Ruiz (2006), Troiano, Elijah and Amengual (2006), Alvarez et al. (2007), More and Ruiz (2007), Roelof and Sanders (2007); Valcárcel (2007), Gonzalez Sanmamed and Raposo, (2008, 2009); Saravia Gallardo (2008); Bozu and Song (2009) and Delgado (2010 ). Actually in this paper we present an evaluation of faculty training needs related with teaching competences; this inquiry has been conducted within the framework of an institutional research -lated entitled "Profiles for the EHEA teachers: design of a virtual resource to help university professors for the development of teaching competences.” The main objective of this research was the analysis of the teaching competences of university teachers, required by the EHEA, and, secondly the development and empirical validation of a computer resource that helps the faculty to improve those competences. As part of the first objective, it had been undertaken a process of identifying faculty training needs, whose phases and main results are presented in this work MethodObjectives In the first phase of the project Profiles for the EHEA teachers: design of a virtual resource to help faculty to develop teaching competences (SEJ2007-67 526 - MEC/FEDER) on had been carried out a series of research activities aimed at determining two basic results: a) The teachers’ profiles perceived by the same teachers as required to fulfill the EHEA requirements in Spanish universities; b) The set of key teaching competences should be developed by teachers to address the task of implementing the European Space requirements in higher education Once these profiles and competencies defined, in the second phase of the project it has been conducted an analysis of training needs, as perceived by teachers, in order to master key teaching competences properly defined at the first stage of the research project. The objectives pursued by the need analysis were as follows: 1. Describe competences training needs as expressed by teachers. 2. Analyze the differences observed in terms of training needs, depending on the area of knowledge or teaching, and of current faculty professional levels.
Variables The variables considered in the study were those that were identified and validated in the first phase of research, referred to above, i.e., training-related needs with the competences to give: a) Teaching Planning; b ) Development of Teaching, c) Learnings’ Evaluation, d) Tutoring Learning Processes e), Management, and f) Life-long Learning Management. Participants and procedures for data collection and data analysis. Obtaining teacher perceptions about their own training needs carried out by applying the Needs Assessment Protocol: Teachers’ Training Needs for Adapting Teaching to the EHEA, which was accessible on the website of the University of Sevilla and completed on-line at the following address: http://portalapps.us.es/opina/c/1809. The protocol consisted of 45 items relating to the six variables under study, as stated in the following table.
Each item was measured on a 6-point scale (1: I do not need training; 6: I need a lot of training) The recruitment process of teachers was as follows. A first appeal was sent to 700 teachers for fulfill the protocol, who were distributed among the five universities (Seville, Granada, Cádiz, Complutense of Madrid and País Vasco universities) sponsoring the research project. The teachers’ proposed sample was conformed taking into account the following criteria: a) all the 5 major Knowledge Areas for university degrees (Health Sciences, Social Sciences & Law, Natural Sciences, Engineering, Humanities) should be represented in it; b) the 7 types of current faculty professional levels should be represented as far as possible in the teachers sample of each area (Professors, Lecturers, PhD Assistants, PhD Hired Teachers, Faculty Partners, Associate Lecturers, Assistants); c) the staff that participated in the first phase of the research (as members of the Discussions Groups or DACUM workshops) should not be invited because they already had provided their training needs as research data. Taking into account these criteria, 10 faculty appeals were assigned to each type of staff member (7); so the theoretical sample for the 5 sponsor universities was as shown in table 1. Table 1. Sample size for every university
In a few cases, the appeal was made personally (by phone call or e-mail). Most teachers, however, were contacted through the OPINA Platform, which is the survey management service of the University of Seville (http://www.us.es/servicios/sic/servusus/opina?searchterm=OPINA). Subsequently, regarding the number of actually fulfilled protocols, a second appeal-reminder was sent through the same procedure. Table 2 shows the distribution of the teaching staff actually taken part in the research. Table 2. Faculty members’ replies to the Scale/Protocol
Faculty distribution by Areas of Knowledge appears in table 3. Table 3. Replies Distribution by Knowledge Areas
Difficulties opposed locating appropriate faculty to appeal to participate in the research, was the reason of differences between the proposed, and the actual samples inside every university. In Table 4 you can see both, the invited sample and the sample of actually respondents. Table 4. Distribution of invited sample and sample of respondents
Research outcomes presented in this article are those obtained from the 504 faculty replies to the Protocol of Assessment (total of replies, minus lost cases) in the 5 universities sponsoring the research project. To fulfil the research objectives previously outlined, data analysis has been conducted by means of descriptive statistics (percents, mean and standard deviation), and applying techniques like the analisis of variance, in order to analize any significnant differences due to Knowledge Areas or faculty professional levels. Outcomes Replies’ outline Faculty answered the questions by means of a scale from 1 to 6, and rated the need of further training in every block of content. As you can observe in Table 5, the average value of need expressed by faculty ranged approximately from 2.48 for the highest (competence for management) to 2.02 for the lowest (the development of teaching). Not one of the average values even reached the mid-point of the 1 to 6 scale. Table 5. Means and standard deviations obtained for everyblock of the scale
So, it seems that teachers perceived to have no great training need in every of the six teaching functions being asked about. This can be clearly seen in Figure 1. Figure 1. Means obtained for every content block of the scale Training needs data related with Knowledge Areas (Figures 2 to 7), show that faculty in most need of training is located in Social Sciences and Law area (planning, development, management and life-long learning) while lower levels of need are found in the areas of Humanities (development, evaluation, life-long learning) and Engineering (planning, management and life-long learning). The Engineering’ are the ones manifesting the greatest demand of competences for tutoring, while the Health Sciences area are this that reach the upper half in the demand for assessment competences. In short, and taking into account that the maximum mean value obtained is 2.79, on a scale of 1 to 6, main training needs in every Knowledge Area would be so: - Humanities: Management, tutoring and life-long learning. - Natural Sciences: Tutoring, management and development of teaching - Engineering: Tutoring, management and life-long learning - Health Sciences: Management, life-long learning and evaluation - Social Sciences and Law, management, life-long learning and tutoring. According to data, faculty seems to have better control of competencies related to traditional teaching functions (teaching and assessment), while demanding far more training in those related to "new" functions impliying greater levels of accountability (management, tutoring and openness to life-long learning). Let us now analyze the demands in training on competences, taking into account the various types of teachers who are actually teaching in the universities where the study was performed; we have found outcomes shown in Table 7.
Figures 2 to 7 Means obtained for every content block of the scale, in every knowledge area Table 7. Means and standard deviations obtained for every content block of the scale, by faculty professional levels
By comparing the averages obtained for the first four teachers’ categories (Professor, Lecturer, PhD Hired Teacher and PhD Assistant), we can see that there is an increase in the demand for training courses as the level of teaching experience decreases. Therefore, teaching experience and professional stability seem to be elements that help teachers feel more prepared and confident in order to meet the specific demands of their role as teachers. Competences for teaching planning The distribution of replies to the 10 items of this content block is reflected in table 8. Data are presented in descending order of achieved average. Table 8. Replies distribution to the ítems of the Teaching Planning content block.
As shown in table 8, training needs on competences required at the moment of teaching planning, show the lowest values (1.30) when they deal with content-related aspects of the subject matter (control- item 1-, selection- item 2- and structure –item 3). Otherwise, the highest values were found over the tasks of designing learning activities to promote responsibility (2.67) and self-learning (2.61). Those data mean teachers perceive they accurately dominate disciplinary content – as it have been acquired alongside their university studies -; however, they feel themselves more lacking of those competences that require specific training for the exercise of their profession: teaching. Moreover, the competence perceived gap is even greater when it comes to competences that have to do with specific methodological demands of the EHEA, as for example, planning and develop a teaching-learning student-centered process – no more in subject matter content -, or promote student independent learning. Competences for development of teaching The competences for the development of teaching most in demand are, again, those relating to the promotion of independent learning of students, and the development of cross competences: how to make the students take responsibility for their learning, how to motivate them, how to develop critical skills and teamwork among the learners ... The lowest averages are found in those items (1, 2, 4, 13) which relate to knowledge contents, its adaptation and delivery to students (see Table 9), i.e., the tasks being traditionally developed by faculty. Table 9. Replies distribution for the Development of Teaching content block
Competences for learnings’ evaluation The issues of concern to teachers in relation to the competencies for evaluation (Table 10) are especially focused on the assessment of their own teaching, or in the search of different techniques that are consistent with new teaching methodologies (or its implementation). Teachers’ interest highlights some priorities as the review of their teaching, the analysis of teaching practice, and improvement of teaching and learning. They refer, again, to functions that have not been generally carried out by teachers, who have been more concerned with the assessment of student learning in terms of knowledge acquisition. The lowest averages are found in areas that somehow are more "clearly legislated": establish evaluation criteria, monitoring of student progress and information delivery about the students performance, i.e., functions traditionally being performed by faculty. Table 10. Replies Distribution for Learnings’ Evaluation content block
Competences for tutoring learning processes Four competencies have been analyzed in the section on tutoring (table 11). The only one that requires the most training is that which refers to the field of professional development, with an average of 2.44. It should be noted firstly that the requirements of training on competences for the block of Tutoring present the highest average values of demand (2.29), followed by the requirements relating to the block of Management, as well as the block of Life-long Learning, both with similar values. Table 11. Replies distribution for the Tutoring content block
These competences are directly related to the teaching functions that deal with the practice of teaching focused on students needs, and with their personal development. The competences that require less training, as in the previously mentioned blocks, are those related to aspects that teaching staff is more accustomed to perform, in this case the academic advising of student work. Management competences This is the block of competences on which the teaching staff perceives ownself to have higher training needs. Taking into account all the aspects of this block, included in the questionnaire, much training is demanded for ‘the establishment of relationships with other universities’ (3.01). We can find (see table 12) a pattern of ‘decreasing training need’ in this block, related to the more o r less proximity of relationships on attention — ranged from University level, through other research teams, and their own research team, till their own department level. But EHEA specifically demands faculty to be implied in a complex and increasingly ample web of relationships. Again and not surprisingly, faculty needs of training are more related to new or unpracticed teaching patterns. Table 12. Replies distribution for the Management content block.
Competences for life-long learning management In-service training (table 13) is another subject of concern (2.30) for faculty. As we have been observing, teachers are conscious of the new teaching demands and subsequently express their interest in a permanent updating of teaching methods (2.49), and above all, on the use of TIC (2.60) in teaching settings. Given the importance of their research function, they also call for training on areas related to it (research methodologies, publish research findings). Otherwise, they feel themselves accurated for life-long learning planning. Table 13. Replies distribution Life- Learning content block
Inferential analysis of replies. Analysis of data collected was carried out taking into account two variables, Knowledge Areas and Types of current Faculty Professional Levels. We looked for differences between groups through one-way ANOVA test and post hoc contrasts, performed by Tukey's HSD test. Comparisons based on the Knowledge Areas As shown in Table 14, the area of Humanities is the one with lower training needs means in four of the six blocks of competences (planning, development, evaluation and tutoring).Related to competences for management and training, faculty of Natural Sciences express higher needs. By contrast, teachers of Social Sciences and Law area on one side, and of Health Sciences, on the other, are the least concerned with training needs. Table 14. Means and standard deviations of block, by Knowledge Areas
ANOVA outcomes (Table 15) lead us to see significant differences in all fields of competence, except that of to tutoring. Table 15. ANOVA outcomes on differences in replies to blocks, by Knowledge Areas
Post hoc contrasts (table 16) have revealed significant differences for all blocks between the area of Humanities and the area of Social Sciences and Law, as well as with the area of Health Sciences, in three blocks of content - development of the teaching, evaluation and training. In every block the needs expressed by the faculty of Humanities are lower than those of other areas’ teachers. Faculty needs of Natural Sciences area are significantly higher in some blocks than those outlined, respectively, by teachers of Health Sciences (evaluation, life-long learning) and Social Sciences and Law (evaluation, management, and life-long learning). Table 16. Post hoc outcomes of ANOVA contrast on block, by Knowledge Areas
Comparisons related to Types of current Faculty Professional Levels Taking into account faculty professional levels, comparisons have been established between 9 groups. Nevertheless, It must be noted that although the mean values reflected are about nine groups, only 6 groups have been taken into account for the inferential analysis, because the size of the remaining 3 groups’ samples is very limited (table 17). Table 17. Blocks’ Means, by faculty professional levels
ANOVA oucomes show that significant differences have not been encountered, neither in competences for the development of teaching, nor in the competences for tutoring (tables 18 and 19). Table 18. ANOVA outcomes on blocks, by faculty professional levels
Notice that Professors express significantly less need of training in four blocks of competences than PhD Assistant (teaching planning), Associate Lecturers (evaluation, management, life-long learning,) and Faculty Partners (life-long learning). Lecturers show, too, significantly less needs for training on management than the Associate Lecturers. It seems again, that the more teachers’ teaching experience and professional stability, the less needs for training. Table 19. Post hoc test outcomes of blocks, by faculty professional levels
Conclusions and discussionThe development of the EHEA demands faculty put into practice new teaching skills. Some profiles of teaching competences in EHEA context have been stated by a previous research (Alvarez Rojo et al., 2009); these profiles were the starting point we have used to establish, in this second research, faculty´s training needs on teaching competencies. Research outcomes point out, that faculty perceives a greater need for training on teaching competences that have to do with most innovative elements of the EHEA; teaching staff presents more shortcomings on competencies to facilitate the development and evaluation of a teaching-learning process ‘focused on the student’ (students development of generic competencies, using teaching methodologies to facilitate students independent learning, tutoring learning processes, assessment of the teaching-learning process) - instead of on the content of a subject matter. Otherwise, it seems that teachers have less training needs in areas that have traditionally been regarded as specific teaching functions (control, selection and transmission of subject matter content, summative assessment of students’ learnings). Those findings are consistent with outcomes obtained by Troiano, Elias and Amengual (2006), pointing out that, teaching methodologies focused on subject matter content, are mostly used in university sittings, instead of active teaching-learning methodologies. Matching the principles of the EHEA new culture, tutoring learning processes, and personal and professional guidance competences, are perceived by faculty as one of the competency blocks on which is require more training. Otherwise, faculty shows his openness to life-long learning; teachers realise they must acquire specific competencies to adapt themselves to the new teaching demands, with regard to the use of ITC for educational purposes, and the implementation of new teaching methodologies. Quality teaching management and accreditation, and openness to interdisciplinary and collaborative work with other teams and universities, are becoming requirements increasingly important in university settings. It seems faculty is far more concerned to that demand, for management competences block has showed the highest level of training needs. The larger the operational range of institutional relationships demanded (from relationships with other universities to those generated in teaching departments), the larger the training needs expressed by faculty. Self-assessment of teaching, in order to improve it, is also a main requirement of quality teaching. Research findings show faculty consciousness of this matter, because teachers subsequently stated training needs about it. Research outcomes above quoted, are coincident with those findings of Murillo et al. (2005) and of Delgado (2010), related to training needs of fresh faculty; as well as with those of Gonzalez Sanmamed and Raposo Rivas (2008), related to training needs of faculty as a whole. It had yet been stated by Mas and Ruiz (2007), among others, that every knowledge area has a set of specifities, and so, every one shows different levels on competences for teaching. Findings of our research confirm this diversity, and point out that faculty of Social Sciences and Law, and Health Sciences areas have the highest set of training needs; lowest levels of needs are found among teachers of Humanities and Natural Sciences areas. Further research is needed to establish the causes of this difference among areas. Getting into glimpse faculty professional levels, it seems that teaching experience is backing the lesser amounts of training needs on teaching competencies outlined by senior faculty. Finally, we can sum up stating that faculty call for training, to put into practice a new teaching paradigm, and new teaching functions. Our research findings point out the same direction as those of Saravia Gallardo (2008), as well as those of Bozu y Canto (2009), to look for an institutional concern about faculty teaching competences, as well as on their scientific competencies. Times are gone when only subject matter competences were mainly required for one teacher to teach a university course. Degrees and life-long learning trainings must be on professional teaching competencies, too. Findings above quoted, have been taken into account to design FORCOM (http://www.proyectoforcom.org), faculty life-long learning Website; teachers can there find and share teaching procedures, teaching devices and didactic tools, theoretical teaching models, practical cases of teaching with new methodologies, and so on. It is intended to be a useful tool to aid faculty on planning, and developing teaching processes, in any university teaching settings. ReferencesÁlvarez, V., García, E.; Gil, J.; Romero, S. (2004). La enseñanza universitaria. Planificación y desarrollo de la docencia. Madrid. EOS. Álvarez, V., Gil, J.; Rodríguez, J. & Romero, S. (2007). Necesidades del profesorado de la Universidad de Sevilla respecto a las metodologías de enseñanza de cara a la adaptación al EEES. Propuesta de plan de mejora. Sevilla: ICE – Vicerrectorado de Docencia. Álvarez-Rojo, Víctor; Asensio-Muñoz Inmaculada; Clares, José; del-Frago, Rakel; García-Lupión, Beatriz; García-Nieto, Narciso; García-García, Mercedes; Gil, Javier; González-González, Daniel; Guardia, Soledad; Ibarra, Marisol; López-Fuentes, Rafael; Rodríguez-Diéguez, Antonio; Rodríguez-Gómez, Gregorio; Rodríguez-Santero, Javier; Romero, Soledad; Salmerón, Purificación (2009). Perfiles docentes para el espacio europeo de educación superior (EEES) en el ámbito universitario español. RELIEVE, v. 15, n. 1. http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v15n1/RELIEVEv15n1_1.htm. [Consulta 2009, 15 julio]. Bozu, Z. & Canto, P. (2009). El profesorado universitario en la sociedad del conocimiento: competencias profesionales docentes. Revista de Formación e Innovación Educativa Universitaria, 2 (2), 87-97. Bunk, G.P. (1994). La transmisión de las competencias en la formación y el perfeccionamiento profesionales en la RFA. Revista Europea de Formación Profesional, (1), 8-14. Caballero, M.A. (2007). La adaptación al Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior como escenario para la reflexión sobre el proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje en el ámbito universitario: algunas propuestas para un cambio significativo. Revista Española de Orientación y Psicopedagogía, 18 (2), 167-177. Calderón, C. & Escalera, G. (2008). La evaluación de la docencia ante el reto del Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior. Educación XX1, (11), 237-256. De Ketele, J.M. (2003). La formación didáctica y pedagógica de los profesores universitarios: luces y sombras. Revista de Educación, (331), 143-169. De Pablos Pons, J. (coord.) (2006). El proceso de integración en el Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior: Necesidades y demandas del profesorado de la Universidad de Sevilla. Sevilla: Secretariado de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Sevilla. Delgado, M. (2010). El profesorado universitario novel y sus necesidades formativas. El caso de la Universidad de Huelva. I Congreso Internacional Virtual de Formación del Profesorado, 9-10 diciembre. http://congresos.um.es/cifop/cifop2010 [Consulta 2011, 15 de febrero] Echeverría, B. (2002). Gestión de la competencia de acción profesional. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 20 (1), 7-42. Gillis, A., Clemet, M. – Laga, L. y Pauwels, P. (2008) Establishing a competence profile for the role of student-centred teachers in Higher Education in Belgium. Research in Higher Education, 49(6), 531-554. González, J. y Wagenaar, R. (2003). Tuning Educational Structures in Europe. Final Report – Phase One. Bilbao. Universidad de Deusto. En http://www.relint.deusto.es/TUNINGProject/index.htm [Consulta 2009, 15 de julio] González Sanmamed, M. (Dir.) (2006). O EEES: perspectiva do profesorado das universidades galegas. Santiago de Compostela: ACSUG. González Sanmamed, M. y Raposo Rivas, M. (2008). Necesidades formativas del profesorado universitario en el contexto de la convergencia europea. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 26 (2), 285-306. González Sanmamed, M. y Raposo Rivas, M. (2009). Valoraciones del profesorado universitario sobre las acciones que pueden favorecer el proceso de convergencia europea. Revista de Educación, 349, 361-390. Le Boterf, G. (2001). Ingeniería de las competencias. Barcelona: Ediciones Gestión 2000. Lévy-Leboyer, C. (1997). Gestión de las competencias. Barcelona: Ediciones Gestión 2000. López, V.M. (2005). Presentación. Evaluación, Aprendizaje y Docencia Universitaria. Su relación con el Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 8 (4), 1-4. Margalef, L. y Álvarez, J.M. (2005). La formación del profesorado universitario para la innovación en el marco de la integración en el Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior. Revista de Educación, (337), 51-70. Martínez, P. y Echeverría, B. (2009). Formación basada en competencias. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 29, 1, 125-147. Mas, O.; Ruiz, C. El profesor universitario en el nuevo Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior. Perfil competencial y necesidades formativas. I Congreso Internacional Nuevas Tendencias en la formación permanente del profesorado. http://webs2002.uab.es/paplicada/DOCyPDF/MASyRUIZ_FODIP2007_v2.pdf [Consulta 2011, 15 de febrero] Meroño, A.L. y Ruiz, C. (2006). Estrategias de adaptación al Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior a partir del conocimiento y actitud del profesorado universitario. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 24 (1), 281-298. Mertens, L. (1996). Competencia laboral: sistemas, surgimiento y modelos. Montevideo: Cinterfor/OIT. Michavila, A. (2005). No sin los profesores. Revista de Educación, 337, 37-49. Murillo, P. et al.(2005). Las necesidades formativas docentes del profesorado universitario. Fuentes, 6. http://www.revistafuentes.es Perrenoud, Ph. (2008). Construir las competencias, ¿es darle la espalda a los saberes?. Red U. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, número monográfico II: Formación centrada en competencias (II). Disponible en http://www.redu.m.es/Red_U/m2 [Consulta 2009, 15 septiembre] Raventos, A. (2005). La implantación del crédito europeo con ratios inadecuadas: una experiencia en la Diplomatura de Turismo. Revista de Enseñanza Universitaria, 25, 53-67. Roelofs, E.; Sanders, P. (2007). Towards a framework for assessing teacher competence. European Journal of Vocational Training, 40 (1), 123-139. Saravia Gallardo, M. A. (2008). Calidad del profesorado: un modelo de competencias académicas. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 26 (1), 141-156. Smith, K.S. y Simpson, R.D. (1995). Validating Teacher Competencies for Faculty members in Higher Education: A national study using the Delphi method. Innovative Higher Education, 19 (3), 223-234. Tigelaar, E.H. et al.(2004). The development and validation of a framework for teaching competencies in Higher Education. Higher Education: the International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 48 (2), 253-268. Troiano, H.; Elías, M.; Amengual, A. (2006). Las misiones de la Universidad y su influencia en las prácticas docentes. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 24 (2), 595-614. Valcárcel, M. (Dir.). (2007). Evaluación de las competencias de los estudiantes de los futuros grados de la rama de conocimiento de Ciencias. Madrid: MEC. Estudios y Análisis. http://82.223.160.188/mec/ayudas/CasaVer.asp?P=29__36. [Consulta 2010, 15 de enero] Vargas, F. (2000). De las virtudes laborales a las competencias clave. Un Nuevo concepto para antiguas demandas. Boletín Cinterfor, 149, 9-23. Yáñiz, C. (2008). Las competencias en el currículo universitario: implicaciones para diseñar el aprendizaje y para la formación del profesorado. Red U. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, número monográfico I: Formación centrada en competencias. http://www.redu.m.es/Red_U/m1 [Consulta 2009, 15 de julio] Zabalza, M.A. (2003). Competencias docentes del profesorado universitario. Madrid: Narcea.
AcknowledgementsThis work includes parcial results of the Project Teaching Profiles for the EHEA¨design of a virtual help resourse to university faculty for the development of teacher competencies¨, approved by the MEC/ERDF in the call for projects of R&D 2006-2007 (SEJ2007-67526 /EDUC)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(
format
ARTICLE RECORD / FICHA DEL ARTÍCULO
|
Reference / Referencia |
Álvarez-Rojo, Víctor; Romero, Soledad; Gil-Flores, Javier; Rodríguez-Santero, Javier; Clares, José; Asensio, Inmaculada; del-Frago, Rakel; García-Lupión, Beatriz; García-García, Mercedes; González-González, Daniel; Guardia, Soledad; Ibarra, Marisol; López-Fuentes, Rafael; Rodríguez-Gómez, Gregorio, Salmeron-Vilchez, Purificación. (2011). Teachers’ needs for teaching in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). RELIEVE, v. 17, n. 1, art. 1. http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v17n1/RELIEVEv17n1_1eng.htm |
|
Title / Título |
Teachers’ needs for teaching in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). [Necesidades de formación del profesorado universitario para la adaptación de su docencia al Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior (EEES)]. |
|
Authors / Autores |
Álvarez-Rojo, Víctor; Romero, Soledad; Gil-Flores, Javier; Rodríguez-Santero, Javier; Clares, José; Asensio, Inmaculada; del-Frago, Rakel; García-Lupión, Beatriz; García-García, Mercedes; González-González, Daniel; Guardia, Soledad; Ibarra, Marisol; López-Fuentes, Rafael; Rodríguez-Gómez, Gregorio, Salmeron-Vilchez, Purificación. |
| Traslators / Traductores | Meghan Zarbo & Fabian Villanueva |
|
Review / Revista |
RELIEVE (Revista ELectrónica de Investigación y EValuación Educativa), v. 17, n. 1 |
|
ISSN |
1134-4032 |
|
Publication date / Fecha de publicación |
2011 (Reception Date: 2011 February 23 ; Approval Date: 2011 June 16. Publication Date: 2011 June 17). |
|
Abstract / Resumen |
This paper presents some findings of a research study conducted in five Spanish universities about teachers needs for teaching in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). A survey procedure has been applied to a sample of teachers in the five university scientific areas. Aimed to establish teaching needs, data analysis of this research has poured a big amount of specific topics referring to six teaching blocks of competences: planning and developing teaching and conducting evaluation and tutoring, besides organizing teaching and lifelong learning. We have compared the result from the five scientific areas, and different teachers’ categories. En este trabajo se presentan los resultados de una investigación llevada a cabo en cinco universidades españolas para diagnosticar las necesidades de formación en competencias del profesorado universitario. Utilizando técnicas de encuesta, aplicadas a una amplia muestra d profesorado de las cinco áreas de conocimiento, se han detectado necesidades de formación en seis bloques de competencias: a) la Planificación de la Docencia; b) el Desarrollo de la Docencia; c) la Evaluación; d) la Tutoría; e) la Gestión; f) la Formación Continua. Se han hallado diferencias significativas en las necesidades en función del área de conocimiento y las categorías profesionales. |
|
Keywords / Descriptores |
Needs assessment, competences, teacher training, competence-bases teaching, European Higher Education Area. Evaluación de necesidades, competencias, formación del profesorado, formación basada en competencias, Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior |
|
Institution / Institución |
Universidad de Sevilla, Complutense de Madrid, País Vasco, Granada y Cádiz (España). |
|
Publication site / Dirección |
|
|
Language / Idioma |
Español (Title, abstract and keywords in English & Spanish) |
© Copyright, RELIEVE. Reproduction and distribution of this article is authorized if the content is no modified and its origin is indicated (RELIEVE Journal, volume, number and electronic address of the document).
© Copyright, RELIEVE. Se autoriza la reproducción y distribución de este artículo siempre que no se modifique el contenido y se indique su origen (RELIEVE, volumen, número y dirección electrónica del documento).
[ ISSN: 1134-4032 ]
|
|
|
Revista ELectrónica de Investigación y EValuación Educativa E-Journal of Educational Research, Assessment and Evaluation
|
Statistics
Estadísticas