Introduction - s3.amazonaws.com file · Web viewCross-cultural Design and Development of Courses for Faculty. Anne-Marie ArmstrongArturo Ocampo. Universidad Autónoma del Estado de

Cross-cultural Design and Development of Courses for Faculty

Anne-Marie ArmstrongArturo Ocampo

Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo (UAEH)Mexico

[email protected]@gmail.com

Abstract: Working with counterparts in a bilingual context has many challenges and rewards. Designing and developing courses that are relevant and sustainable is a product of true cross-cultural cooperation and collaboration. This paper includes a descriptive outline of the research, design and development used to develop one course, Mobile Learning, as part of a professional development initiative for a Mexican university. The research, theories and methodologies that were considered in the design, development and assessment of the course for faculty preparation for English and IT certification included Transactional Distance, technological appropriation and the community of inquiry framework. For example, technological appropriation directly applies to the m-learning course as the power negotiation changes the relationship between the instructor and the learner. The instructor becomes a guide and mentor, a facilitator. Transactional Distance theory was used because it is not just a geographical or temporal distance between teachers and students and instruction can be changed to overcome distances. Thirdly, the Community of Inquiry framework describes three types of presences in the learning process: social, cognitive and teaching. The CoI was considered in the course development as well in the assessment of the effectiveness of the course. Additionally the course was meets UNESCO standards for using English in the classroom to enhance those skills. Keywords: m-learning,professional development,cross-culture

IntroductionDuring the academic year of 2017-2018, the jefe del departamento de competencias en TIC, Arturo Ocampo López at the Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo (UAEH) and Dr. Anne-Marie Armstrong, a Peace Corps Response Volunteer assigned to that department, designed and developed a course for faculty development around the theme of mobile learning or m-learning. The Information Technology Department (TIC) of the Dirección de Superación Académica (DiSA) at the Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo (UAEH) was implementing a program with the objective of creating a sustainable model to increase and improve the use of English in the university professors’ classrooms. Using English in the classroom is aligned with the UNESCO Best Practices (2005) which anticipate graduate students’ needs to communicate in English during conferences and academic studies abroad. DiSA adopted a strategy of using English for the faculty development technology courses including documents, videos, and presentation material when possible.

Working with counterparts in a bilingual context has many challenges and rewards. Designing and developing courses that are relevant and sustainable is a product of true cross-cultural cooperation and collaboration. Following is a descriptive outline of the research, design and development used to develop one course and the plan for its evaluation.

BackgroundTIC used the following frameworks and guidelines when developing the curriculum for increasing the use of technology in courses within UAEH.

Policy Framework for the UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers;Guidelines on Adaptation of the UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers;UNESCO Institutional Strategy for Teacher Training on ICT-pedagogy Integration;International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) Standards for Educators;Reflections on and outlook for Higher Education in Latin America, Final Report Tuning Latin America Project 2004-2007

TIC developed a curriculum which included 9 courses that would lead to certification for faculty. The first six functioned in a bilingual online environment

1. Tools for Teaching and Learning2. Internet in Teaching3. Design of Educational Environments with the Use of ICT4. Social Networks in Teaching5. Evaluation in the use of ICT6. Teaching Learners in a Digital World7. Teaching Materials in the digital era8. Mobile Learning9. Blended Learning

Research and Review of LiteratureThe research, theories and methodologies that were considered in the design and development of this m-learning course included Transactional Distance, technological appropriation and the community of inquiry framework.

Transactional Distance Theory Transactional Distance is not just a geographical or temporal distance between teachers and students that cannot be changed. The Transactional Distance Theory (Moore, 1997) also includes:

•Size of Psychological and Communication Space between instructor and learners•Amount of structure and organization of content and resources•Amount of learner control of content and process•Occurrences and Operators of Interactions (Gay, et al., 20020)

With separation there is a psychological and communications space to be crossed, a space of potential misunderstanding between the inputs of the instruction and those of the learner. It is this psychological and communications space that is the transactional distance. (Moore, 1997, p.22)

In Park, Y. (2011)

The extent of transactional distance in an educational programme is a function of these three sets of variables. These are not technological or communications variables, but variables in teaching and in learning and in the interaction of teaching and learning. These clusters of variables are named Dialogue, Structure, and Learner Autonomy. (Moore, 1997, p.23)

The mediation provided by mobile devices positively impacts Transactional Distance. M-Learning devices contain affordances to overcome distance and time and create more interactions and links to resources. Even more importantly, m-learning devices already contain the hardware, software, and technological capabilities of synchronous and asynchronous communication. Dialogue between participants is already a practiced behavior. Moore (1997) stated

By manipulating the communications media, it is possible to increase dialogue between learners and their teachers, and thus reduce the transactional distance. (Moore, 1997, p. 25)

M-learning devices are suitable for furthering learning under the transactional distance theory because for the following reasons:

1. Portability means that the users have a choice of where and when and what2. Screen sizes can vary from small to bigger; from convenient to utilitarian3. Computing power and capacity mean instant power /off on and instant selection of

applications4. Data synchronization with other devices and the ability to discover and capture data from

world-wide sources is possible for both group and individual work5. The devices have a broad range of applications, textual, visual, social, and

communicative6. The devices have organizational capabilities (calendars, to do lists, note taking).

7. Separate hardware input devices are not needed; the only digits on one’s hand are needed8. Users become both receivers and producers of information 9. Users are already aware of the devices’ functionalities and have experienced its usability10. The devices allow collaboration among learners and teachers, including f2f collaboration11. Ownership of a device equals more involvement in learning

Next because the course development takes place in Mexico which has a long history of cultural appropriation a look at the widespread use and mobile devices throughout that country gives even further rationale for m-learning.

Technological Appropriation in Mexico

Francois Bar, et. al (2016) describe various types of cultural appropriation strategies used in the past and present in Latin America. They further state that these strategies can be applied to technological appropriation, particularly the application and use of mobile telephony. Of the three types of cultural appropriation pinpointed in Latin America, baroque infiltration, creolization and cannibalism. Mexico and Cuba are identified as creators and users of baroque infiltration.

Fourth, we argue that just as the power negotiation that took place with cultural appropriation was uniquely creative, the experimentation that characterizes technological appropriation is uniquely innovative. Thus, as a user-driven re-negotiation of power relations, the technological appropriation process is fundamental to innovation. It challenges the initial power structure embedded in the technology and results in new practices and new technological implementations. Technology providers –device makers and service providers—then face an important choice. They can choose to suppress the resulting innovation if they find it too antagonistic to their business or political goals. But

they can also choose to co-opt it, learn from it, and embed it into successive generations of their technological products and services, thus re-appropriating their users’ inventions. As a result, the choices they make will clearly affect the subsequent technological trajectory. (Bar, et al., 2016, p.4)

If one takes this appropriation a step further to m-learning, the power negotiation then changes the relationship between the instructor and the learner. The instructor becomes a guide and mentor, a facilitator. The learner becomes directly responsible for creation of content and for participation in the learning dialogue. This dialogue becomes more positive, more social and more effective as predicted in transactional distance theory.

Recently the Community of Inquiry framework has been used to structure online and blended learning courses and to evaluate the amount of social, cognitive and teaching presence found in individual courses.

Community of Inquiry (CoI)The community of inquiry (CoI) framework has its roots in the teachings of Dewey who believed that learning was a both a social activity and a collaboration between the public and the individual. Constructivism was later used to describe the type of learning that took place within learners and additionally it explores the use of inquiry with peers and teachers. (Swan, et al., 2009). The CoI framework describes three types of presences in the learning process: social, cognitive and teaching. The framework was originally used to assess the effectiveness and student perceptions of online learning. Later it was found effective for assessing blended learning as well.

As Garrison and Archer (2000) note “construction of meaning may result from individual critical reflection but ideas are generated and knowledge constructed through the collaborative and confirmatory process of sustained dialogue within a critical community of learners” (p. 91 cited in Swan, et al, 2009).

Figure 1

Survey-based measures written in English of the three dimensions have undergone analysis and review using exploratory factor analysis via principal components analysis resulting in reliability alphas of .86 or higher (Arbaugh, 2007). Following a cross-cultural and language translation project at UAEH a Spanish version of the instrument was submitted to similar analysis. The instrument was translated by two teams of native speakers and the resulting versions were compared by a separate team of native speakers acting as referees or judges. The judgment of the versions included both the syntax and the meaning in the target language and target culture (Mexico).

Native SpeakersTranslation processing

1. Comprehend the source material in language one2. Transfer our comprehension to language 23. Express our comprehension in generally comparable target language material

Judges:Judged by fluency, modern, widely-used, standard Spanish for intended audienceSyntax faithful to Spanish usage when possible

This new translated version of the CoI was piloted and used to assess the cognitive, teaching and social presence in the TIC developed courses within the curriculum. A copy of the validated Spanish version of the CoI is in Appendix B.

Design and Development of Mobile Learning (m-Learning) Course for UAEH

The new course, Mobile Learning, would follow the plan used for those preceding courses-- La planeación de la estrategia didáctica elaborada (Appendix A, Plan for Teaching Strategies).

Twelve of 25 elements of the TIC plan for Teaching Strategies were used in the course design and can be measured using the CoI instrument:

1. Indicate the sequence of instruction2. List and describe the instructional activities to be used3. Include a guiding question for each planned instructional activity4. Indicate type of work mode, i.e., group, pairs, individual for each activity5. Define and describe the evaluation criteria used6. Specify required evidence of completion or success7. State and describe the evaluation instrument to be used8. Describe any self-evaluation or peer evaluation to be used9. Describe the evaluation instrument for any group or project assignment10.Describe at least one activity that will require the use of one other type of

software, e.g., Wordle, Mindmaps, Infographics, Repurposing, etc.11.Describe and use web-based collaboration and communication tools

12.Indicates participation rules related to feedback, netiquette and substantiated contribution: Number of contributions, argumentation, writing, spelling, moderate use of capital letters and others

Figure 2

Instructional Goals of courseIn this course participants will examine and apply the concepts and instructional strategies that are used in Mobile or m-Learning and create a lesson plan within their content area that can be used in a m-learning environment. Differences and similarities with eLearning will be presented, discussed and analyzed. New technologies appropriate for m-learning will be explored and

Community of Inquiry

Transactional Distance Theory

Occurrence\Operators Interactions

Learner Control

Content structure organizationPsychological \ Communication Space

Mobile Learning Activities

applied to different content areas. Each participant will design and develop a lesson plan appropriate for their teaching area and reflect on its use within his or her course.

Learning Objectives—Participants will be able to:Distinguish m-learning from other learning typesState which learning theories can be applied to m-learningList advantages and possible problems found in m-learningName and use m-learning apps to present a lesson or course materialState which learning principles can be applied to m-learning http://home.umltta.org/home/theories/25pProvide examples of applying the learning principles to m-learningCompare and contrast m-learning to m-banking, m-health and other mobile applicationsHypothesize future uses for m-LearningProvide lesson plan that uses m-Learning for instructionDescribe student differences that may affect their success using m-learningDevelop an evaluation plan for an assignment that includes the use of mobile devicesDevelop a lesson plan that includes the use of mobile devices

ActivitiesWiki collaboration of key words and phrasesShort paper on the differences between e-learning and m-learningComparison table showing advantages and disadvantages of m-learning, e-learning, classroom learningComparison table of the functions, designs and differences of m-learning, m-banking, m-healthStoryboards and short video introduction for lesson using Spark, Quicktime or another toolExample of m-learning principle using an appropriate m-learning tool. Discussion board on key questions including dual code theory, student differences, universal designCompleted lesson plan for m-learning including use of Bloom’s Taxonomy for Digital LearningCompleted assessment plan for m-learning lesson

Figure 3

Guiding QuestionsIs m-learning different from classroom, blended and e-learning?Which educational theories apply to m-learning?How do you use your mobile device?What are some examples of using your mobile device to learn?What variables differentiate a presentation of information on a mobile device?Which is more important, the learner or the device?How are information, context, exploration, and conversation part of the m-learning process?•How is m-learning related to m-banking and m-health?•What inhibitors to m-learning exist?•How will m-learning exist and/or change in the future?•What are some of the usability problems in m-learning?•Can learning shift from being episodic and reactive to continuous and proactive?•How can one apply social distance theory in m-Learning to increase its effectiveness?

ResourcesVarious readings on m-learning and m-learning techniquesvarious videos on m-learningAdobe Spark on web https://spark.adobe.com/sp/sStoryboard worksheetjob aid for using Adobe Sparkblank lesson plansrelevant photos, videos, graphics for use in building lesson planslist of tools for creating m-learning and me-learning resources

key words and phrasesQuicktime for screen casting Other video capturing application

StrategiesLearn by using and Learn by doingExamplesPeer learningGuidanceFeedback on written assignmentsAssessmentsParticipation in wikiRubrics for short paperRubric for Table of Advantages and DisadvantagesRubric for VideoRubric for Example of learning principleRubric for discussion board participationRubric for use of learning toolRubrics for lesson plan creation and lesson assessment

Figure 4

Figure : screenshot of M-Learning course in UAEH e-learning system

Standards UNESCO, ISTE

I E-readinessA. Access and use of basic ICT facilitiesB. ICT enhanced content developmentC. Innovative pedagogical management

II. Teacher Pedagogical ContentA. Instructional Design

1. Learning Objectives2. Measurements3. Strategies, Methods, Tools

B. Implementing Lesson1. Events of Instruction2. Prepare Content 3. Gain Attention 4. Set Objectives 5. Engage Students 6. Promote Creativity 7. Implement online/classroom8. Assess/Evaluate/Give Feedback9. Review, redesign, redevelop

C. Integrating ICT into curriculumD. Collaborate with colleaguesE. Learning and Profession al Development

III Teacher ICT CompetencyIV. Stages

A. EmergingB. ApplyingC. InfusingD. Transforming

ReferencesArbaugh, J. B. (2007). An empirical verification of the community of inquiry framework. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 73-85.

Bar, F., Weber, M. S., & Pisano, F. (2016). Mobile technology appropriation in a distant mirror: Baroquization, creolization, and cannibalism. new media & society, 18(4), 617-636. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, and is part of the abaporu project on technology appropriation (http://abaporu.net)

Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2000). A transactional perspective on teaching-learning: A framework for adult and higher education. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Gay, G., Rieger, R., & Bennington, T. (2002). Using mobile computing to enhance field study. In Cscl (Vol. 2, pp. 507-528)

Kurubacak, G. (2007). Identifying Research Priorities and Needs in Mobile Learning Technologies for Distance Education: A Delphi Study. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19(3), 216-227.

Moore, M. G. (1997). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22-38). NY: Routlege Studies in Distance Education.

Park, Y. (2011). A pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing educational applications of mobile technologies into four types. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(2), 78-102.

Sergio, F. (2012) 10 Ways That Mobile Learning Will Revolutionize Education, https://www.fastcodesign.com/1669896/10-ways-that-mobile-learning-will-revolutionize-education

Storm, R. 2017. Peer Learning, Peer Support, Peer Observation, International Language-Culture Congress 2017, (CIL), Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo, Pachuca, Mexico

Swan, K., Garrison, D. R. & Richardson, J. C. (2009). A constructivist approach to online learning: The Community of Inquiry framework. In Payne, C. R. (Ed.) Information Technology and Constructivism in Higher Education: Progressive Learning Frameworks. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 43-57.

UNESCO (2005) cited in Casarini Ratto, M. (1999). Teoria y diseño curricular. Trillas.

ApéndicesAppendix A, Dirección de Superación Académica (DiSA) at the Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo (UAEH) Appendix A La planeación de la estrategia didáctica elaborada

Steps for planning your teaching strategies

1. Name and contact information of instructor2. State the instructional problem and instructional goals3. Describe the learning objectives or competencies expected for the

participants4. Indicate the sequence of instruction5. List and describe the instructional activities to be used6. Include a guiding question for each planned instructional activity7. Indicate type of work mode, i.e., group, pairs, individual for each

activity8. Indicate where/how instruction will take place, i.e., online, classroom,

blended, video, voice recorded9. Indicate the duration of time for each proposed activity10. Specify any prior knowledge or skill needed to develop each

proposed activity11. List the software or hardware needed for the proposed activities12. Define and describe the evaluation criteria used13. Specify required evidence of completion or success14. List any weighting in percentages15. State and describe the evaluation instrument to be used16. Describe any self-evaluation or peer evaluation to be used17. Describe the evaluation instrument for any group or project

assignment18. Indicate the use of word processing for a minimum of one

activity19. Indicate the use of a spread sheet with formula, functions and

graphics for a minimum of one activity20. Describe at least one activity that will require the use of

presentation software21. Describe at least one activity that will require the use of one

other type of software, e.g., Wordle, Mindmaps, Infographics, Repurposing, etc.

22. List and define various valid sources for citation and following copyright laws

23. Describe and use web-based collaboration and communication tools

24. Indicates participation rules related to feedback, netiquette and substantiated contribution: Number of contributions, argumentation, writing, spelling, moderate use of capital letters and others

25. Describe the best practices for integrating and managing projects

Appendix B. Translated version of CoI

Encuesta de participación de la versión en español de "The Community of Inquiry"El propósito del presente instrumento es aplicar la versión en español de "The Community of Inquiry", propuesto por Arbaugh, J. B., ClevelandInnes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., y Swan, K. P. (2008).

Los datos recopilados son solo para fines de investigación y las respuestas se analizarán de acuerdo a los autores, siendo la principal finalidad identificar la idea original del modelo de "comunidad de investigación" compuesta por tres elementos esenciales de una experiencia educativa; la presencia cognitiva, social y docente.

Requerimos de su apoyo para contestar en su totalidad las 50 preguntas que requieren de su respuesta en una escala de Liker (muy en desacuerdo, en desacuerdo, neutral, de acuerdo, muy de acuerdo) para lo cual requiere de un tiempo de 20 minutos en promedio.

AtentamenteDepartamento de formación y actualización en competencias TIC

* Required

1. Email address *

Departamento de formación y actualización en competencias TIC

2. Seleccione el último curso en que ha participado *Mark only one oval.

Curso 1: Herramientas básicas para la docencia

Curso 2: Internet en la docencia

Curso 3: Diseño de entornos educativos con el uso de las TIC

Curso 4: Redes sociales en la docencia

Curso 5: Evaluación con el uso de las TIC

Curso 6: Tools for teaching and learning

Curso 7: Digital learning

3. GéneroMark only one oval.

Masculino Femenino

4. Fecha

Example: December 15, 2012

5. 1. El docente comunicó claramente el objetivo general del curso.Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

muy en desacuerdo muy de acuerdo

6. 2. El docente comunicó claramente el contenido temático del cursoMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

7. 3. El docente dió claramente las instrucciones de como realizar las actividades de aprendizaje.Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


8. 4. El docente indicó claramente las fechas de entrega de las actividades de aprendizaje (que además el participante puede observar en la plataforma)Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


9. 5. El docente me ayudó a aprovechar el entorno en línea para fortalecer mi aprendizajeMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


10. 6.El docente fomentó un ambiente apropiado (respeto y cordialidad) con los estudiantes para el trabajo en el entorno de aprendizaje en líneaMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


11. 7. El docente tuvo la disposición para guiar la sesión hacia el entendimiento de los temas, que ayudaron a mi aprendizajeMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


12. 8. Las aportaciones de los participantes fueron útiles para identificar los acuerdos o desacuerdos, lo que me ayudó a fortalecer mi aprendizajeMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


13. 9. El docente tuvo la disposición para guiar la sesión hacia el entendimiento de los temas, que ayudaron a mi aprendizajeMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


14. 10. El docente reconoció la participación del estudiante en el cursoMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


15. 11. El docente alentó a los estudiantes a explorar los conceptos en el cursoMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


16. 12. El docente ayudó a mantener a los estudiantes comprometidos con la participación en un diálogo productivoMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


17. 13. El docente apoyó a mantener enfocados a los participantes de forma tal que ayudó con mi aprendizajeMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


18. 14. La calidad de la interacción con mi instructor en línea fue muy alta en este cursoMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


19. 15. El docente presentó contenido o preguntas que ayudaron con mi aprendizajeMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


20. 16. El docente ayudó a enfocar la discusión en asuntos relevantes de una manera que ayudó con mi aprendizajeMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


21. 17. El docente brindó explicaciones que ayudaron con mi aprendizajeMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


22. 18. El docente ayudó a mejorar mi forma de pensar

Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


23. 19. Otros participantes ayudaron a mejorar mi forma de pensarMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


24. 20. El docente brindó información útil de diversas fuentes que me ayudaron a aprenderMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


25. 21. Los cursos en línea son un medio excelente para la interacción socialMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


26. 22. Me sentí cómodo conversando en línea a través de la plataformaMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


27. 23. El docente creó un sentido de comunidad en líneaMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


28. 24. Me sentí cómodo al interactuar con otros participantesMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


29. 25. Sentí que mi punto de vista fue reconocido por otros participantes del cursoMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


30. 26. Pude formar impresiones distintas de algunos participantes del cursoMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


31. 27. Pude aplicar el conocimiento creado en este curso en mis tareas de claseMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


32. 28. He podido aplicar el conocimiento creado en este curso a mi trabajo u otras actividades no relacionadas con la clase.Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


33. 29. Puedo describir formas de probar y aplicar el conocimiento creado en este cursoMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


34. 30. Podré aplicar el conocimiento creado en este curso al trabajo futuro u otras actividades no relacionadas con la claseMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


35. 31. Las acciones del docente reforzaron el desarrollo de un sentido de comunidad entre los participantes del cursoMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


36. 32. El docente proporcionó comentarios que me ayudaron a entender mis puntos fuertes y débiles en relación con las metas y los objetivos del cursoMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


37. 33. El docente proporcionó comentarios de manera oportunaMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


38. 34. El docente me ayudó a conocer a otros participantes y di un sentido de pertenencia en el cursoMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


39. 35. La comunicación en línea o basada en la web es un medio excelente para la interacción socialMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


40. 36. Me sentí cómodo al estar en desacuerdo con otros participantes del curso y al mismo tiempo al mantener un sentido de confianzaMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


41. 37. Las discusiones en línea me ayudan a desarrollar un sentido de colaboraciónMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


42. 38. Los problemas planteados aumentaron mi interés en los temas del cursoMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


43. 39. Las actividades del curso despertaron mi curiosidadMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


44. 40. Me sentí motivado para explorar preguntas relacionadas con el contenidoMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


45. 41. Utilicé una variedad de fuentes de información para explorar los problemas planteados en este cursoMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


46. 42. La lluvia de ideas y la búsqueda de información relevante me ayudaron a responder las preguntas planteadas en las actividades del cursoMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


47. 43. Las discusiones en línea fueron valiosas para ayudarme a apreciar diferentes perspectivasMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


48. 44. La combinación de nueva información ayudó a responder las preguntas planteadas en las actividades del curso

Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


49. 45. Las actividades de aprendizaje me ayudaron a construir explicaciones / solucionesMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


50. 46. La reflexión sobre el contenido del curso y las discusiones me ayudaron a comprender conceptos fundamentales en esta cursoMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


51. 47. He desarrollado soluciones a problemas del curso que se pueden aplicar en la prácticaMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5


© Creative Commons, Information Technology Department (TIC) of the Dirección de Superación Académica (DiSA) at the Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo (UAEH)

Documents

Introduction - s3.amazonaws.com file · Web viewCross-cultural Design and Development of Courses for Faculty. Anne-Marie ArmstrongArturo Ocampo. Universidad Autónoma del Estado de