Hace unos días comentábamos sobre las editoriales universitarias entre dos fuegos: ¿cambiar o morir?.
A continuación una serie de tres recientes artículos aparecidos en publicaciones especializadas que dan cuenta de las dificultades de diverso orden que deben sortear (o ante las cuales terminarán sucumbiendo) las casas editoras académicas:
— Books Aren’t Everything , Thomas Bacher, director of the University of Akron Press,
Inside Higher Ed, June 30, 2009
— A Manifesto for Scholarly Publishing, By PETER J. DOUGHERTY, Director Princeton University Press, The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 12, 2009
— The Future of Scholarly Publishing, The Chronicle of Higher Educayion, June 12, 2009, con la participación de un grupo seleccionado de directivos de algunas de las principales editoriales universuitarias de los EE.UU:
Douglas Armato, director, University of Minnesota Press; Joan Catapano, associate director and editor in chief, University of Illinois Press; Patricia Fidler, publisher (art and architectural history), Yale University Press; Wendy Lochner, senior executive editor (religion, philosophy, and animal studies), Columbia University Press; Charles T. Myers, executive editor and group publisher (social sciences), Princeton University Press; Niko Pfund, trade and academic publisher, Oxford University Press; Leila Salisbury, director, University Press of Mississippi; Doug Sery, editor (new media, game studies, and design), MIT Press; Alan G. Thomas, editorial director (humanities and sciences), University of Chicago Press; Lindsay Waters, executive editor (humanities), Harvard University Press; Eric Zinner, editor in chief, New York University Press
Archivo mensual: junio 2009
Hace unos días comentábamos sobre las editoriales universitarias entre dos fuegos: ¿cambiar o morir?.
La política de educación superior continua debatiéndose en clave CRUCH, lo cual revela, una vez más, los límites político-culturales e institucionales de la discusión. A fin de cuentas, ésta sigue entrampada en el estrecho círculo de intereses de las 25 universidades que forman parte del Consejo de Rectores de las Universidades Chilenas (CRUCH).
Ver más abajo las siguientes recientes intervenciones.
— Política de educación superior, El Mercurio, opinión editorial, 29 junio 2009
— Las universidades del Estado, Eduardo Dockendorff , Director del Instituto de Asuntos Públicos , Universidad de Chile, El Mercurio, columna de opinión, 29 junio 2009
— Consejo de Rectores, Carta, El Mercurio, 27 junio 2009, Víctor Pérez Vera, Vicepresidente Ejecutivo del Consejo de Rectores
— Polémica en Consejo de Rectores por diferencias en criterio de financiamiento, Radio Universidad de Chile, 26 junio 2009
— Juan Manuel Zolezzi, presidente del Consorcio de Universidades Estatales: “Con esta reunión el CRUCH se ha fortalecido”, Universia, 26 junio 2009
— El oficio de columnista, Leonidas Montes, La Segunda, columna de opinión, 25 de Junio de 2009
— Jiménez: “Lamento que haya un quiebre” en el Consejo de Rectores. Ministra de Educación aseguró que mientras una ley no diga lo contrario seguirán “entendiéndose” con dicha institucionalidad, La Tercera, 25 junio 2009
El Departamento de Educación de los EE.UU. ha dado a conocer un informe que –a partir de un meta-análisis de cerca de mil estudios empíricos– concluye que los alumnos de cursos superiores (enseñanza terciaria) on line muestran ventajas de aprendizaje respecto de aquellos que se limitan al aprendizaje cara a cara dentro de una sala de clase. Y que la mayor ventaja la pbtienen aquellos alumnos que participan en experiencias de educación mixta (blended instruction) que combinan interacciones educativas cara a cara con interaccuiones a distancia usando las tecnologías digitales.
Bajar el Informe aquí 820 KB
Comunicado oficial del Departamento de Educación del Gobierno de los EE.UU.
U.S. Department of Education Study Finds that Good Teaching can be Enhanced with New Technology
Analysis of Controlled Studies Shows Online Learning Enhances Classroom Instruction
Providing further evidence of the tremendous opportunity to use technology to improve teaching and learning, the U.S. Department of Education today released an analysis of controlled studies comparing online and face-to-face instruction.
A systematic search of the research literature from 1996 through July 2008 identified over 1,000 empirical studies of online learning. Of these, 46 met the high bar for quality that was required for the studies to be included in the analysis. The meta analysis showed that “blended” instruction – combining elements of online and face-to-face instruction – had a larger advantage relative to purely face to face instruction or instruction conducted wholly online. The analysis also showed that the instruction conducted wholly on line was more effective in improving student achievement than the purely face to face instruction. In addition, the report noted that the blended conditions often included additional learning time and instructional elements not received by students in control conditions.
“This new report reinforces that effective teachers need to incorporate digital content into everyday classes and consider open-source learning management systems, which have proven cost effective in school districts and colleges nationwide,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. “We must take advantage of this historic opportunity to use American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds to bring broadband access and online learning to more communities.
“To avoid being caught short when stimulus money runs out, school officials should use the short-term federal funding to make immediate upgrades to technology to enhance classroom instruction and to improve the tracking of student data,” Duncan added. “Technology presents a huge opportunity that can be leveraged in rural communities and inner-city urban settings, particularly in subjects where there is a shortage of highly qualified teachers. At the same time, good teachers can utilize new technology to accelerate learning and provide extended learning opportunities for students.”
Few rigorous research studies have been published on the effectiveness of online learning for K-12 students. The systematic search found just five experimental or controlled quasi-experimental studies comparing the learning effects of online versus face-to-face instruction for K-12 students. For this reason, caution is required in generalizing the study’s findings to the K-12 population because the results are for the most part based on studies in other settings, such as in medical, career, military training, and higher education.
“Studies of earlier generations of distance and online learning courses have concluded that they are usually as effective as classroom-based instruction,” said Marshall “Mike” Smith, a Senior Counselor to the secretary. “The studies of more recent online instruction included in this meta-analysis found that, on average, online learning, at the post-secondary level, is not just as good as but more effective than conventional face-to-face instruction..”
The study was conducted by the Center for Technology and Learning, SRI International under contract to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Policy and Program Studies Service, which commissioned the study.
Ver más abajo un comentario de Inside Higher Ed
Síntesis de conclusiones del Informe
The main finding from the literature review was that
• Few rigorous research studies of the effectiveness of online learning for K–12 students have been published. A systematic search of the research literature from 1994 through 2006 found no experimental or controlled quasi-experimental studies comparing the learning effects of online versus face-to-face instruction for K–12 students that provide sufficient data to compute an effect size. A subsequent search that expanded the time frame through July 2008 identified just five published studies meeting meta-analysis criteria.
The meta-analysis of 51 study effects, 44 of which were drawn from research with older learners, found that2
• Students who took all or part of their class online performed better, on average, than those taking the same course through traditional face-to-face instruction. Learning outcomes for students who engaged in online learning exceeded those of students receiving face-to-face instruction, with an average effect size of +0.24 favoring online conditions.3 The mean difference between online and face-to-face conditions across the 51 contrasts is statistically significant at the p < .01 level.4 Interpretations of this result, however, should take into consideration the fact that online and face-to-face conditions generally differed on multiple dimensions, including the amount of time that learners spent on task. The advantages observed for online learning conditions therefore may be the product of aspects of those treatment conditions other than the instructional delivery medium per se.
• Instruction combining online and face-to-face elements had a larger advantage relative to purely face-to-face instruction than did purely online instruction. The mean effect size in studies comparing blended with face-to-face instruction was +0.35, p < .001. This effect size is larger than that for studies comparing purely online and purely face-to-face conditions, which had an average effect size of +0.14, p < .05. An important issue to keep in mind in reviewing these findings is that many studies did not attempt to equate (a) all the curriculum materials, (b) aspects of pedagogy and (c) learning time in the treatment and control conditions. Indeed, some authors asserted that it would be impossible to have done so. Hence, the observed advantage for online learning in general, and blended learning conditions in particular, is not necessarily rooted in the media used per se and may reflect differences in content, pedagogy and learning time.
• Studies in which learners in the online condition spent more time on task than students in the face-to-face condition found a greater benefit for online learning.5 The mean effect size for studies with more time spent by online learners was +0.46 compared with +0.19 for studies in which the learners in the face-to-face condition spent as much time or more on task (Q = 3.88, p < .05).6
• Most of the variations in the way in which different studies implemented online learning did not affect student learning outcomes significantly. Analysts examined 13 online learning practices as potential sources of variation in the effectiveness of online learning compared with face-to-face instruction. Of those variables, (a) the use of a blended rather than a purely online approach and (b) the expansion of time on task for online learners were the only statistically significant influences on effectiveness. The other 11 online learning practice variables that were analyzed did not affect student learning significantly. However, the relatively small number of studies contrasting learning outcomes for online and face-to-face instruction that included information about any specific aspect of implementation impeded efforts to identify online instructional practices that affect learning outcomes.
• The effectiveness of online learning approaches appears quite broad across different content and learner types. Online learning appeared to be an effective option for both undergraduates (mean effect of +0.35, p < .001) and for graduate students and professionals (+0.17, p < .05) in a wide range of academic and professional studies. Though positive, the mean effect size is not significant for the seven contrasts involving K–12 students, but the number of K–12 studies is too small to warrant much confidence in the mean effect estimate for this learner group. Three of the K–12 studies had significant effects favoring a blended learning condition, one had a significant negative effect favoring face-to-face instruction, and three contrasts did not attain statistical significance. The test for learner type as a moderator variable was nonsignificant. No significant differences in effectiveness were found that related to the subject of instruction.
• Effect sizes were larger for studies in which the online and face-to-face conditions varied in terms of curriculum materials and aspects of instructional approach in addition to the medium of instruction. Analysts examined the characteristics of the studies in the meta-analysis to ascertain whether features of the studies’ methodologies could account for obtained effects. Six methodological variables were tested as potential moderators: (a) sample size, (b) type of knowledge tested, (c) strength of study design, (d) unit of assignment to condition, (e) instructor equivalence across conditions, and (f) equivalence of curriculum and instructional approach across conditions. Only equivalence of curriculum and instruction emerged as a significant moderator variable (Q = 5.40, p < .05). Studies in which analysts judged the curriculum and instruction to be identical or almost identical in online and face-to-face conditions had smaller effects than those studies where the two conditions varied in terms of multiple aspects of instruction (+0.20 compared with +0.42, respectively). Instruction could differ in terms of the way activities were organized (for example as group work in one condition and independent work in another) or in the inclusion of instructional resources (such as a simulation or instructor lectures) in one condition but not the other.
The narrative review of experimental and quasi-experimental studies contrasting different online learning practices found that the majority of available studies suggest the following:
• Blended and purely online learning conditions implemented within a single study generally result in similar student learning outcomes. When a study contrasts blended and purely online conditions, student learning is usually comparable across the two conditions.
• Elements such as video or online quizzes do not appear to influence the amount that students learn in online classes. The research does not support the use of some frequently recommended online learning practices. Inclusion of more media in an online application does not appear to enhance learning. The practice of providing online quizzes does not seem to be more effective than other tactics such as assigning homework.
• Online learning can be enhanced by giving learners control of their interactions with media and prompting learner reflection. Studies indicate that manipulations that trigger learner activity or learner reflection and self-monitoring of understanding are effective when students pursue online learning as individuals.
• Providing guidance for learning for groups of students appears less successful than does using such mechanisms with individual learners. When groups of students are learning together online, support mechanisms such as guiding questions generally influence the way students interact, but not the amount they learn.
In recent experimental and quasi-experimental studies contrasting blends of online and face-to-face instruction with conventional face-to-face classes, blended instruction has been more effective, providing a rationale for the effort required to design and implement blended approaches. Even when used by itself, online learning appears to offer a modest advantage over conventional classroom instruction.
However, several caveats are in order: Despite what appears to be strong support for online learning applications, the studies in this meta-analysis do not demonstrate that online learning is superior as a medium, In many of the studies showing an advantage for online learning, the online and classroom conditions differed in terms of time spent, curriculum and pedagogy. It was the combination of elements in the treatment conditions (which was likely to have included additional learning time and materials as well as additional opportunities for collaboration) that produced the observed learning advantages. At the same time, one should note that online learning is much more conducive to the expansion of learning time than is face-to-face instruction.
In addition, although the types of research designs used by the studies in the meta-analysis were strong (i.e., experimental or controlled quasi-experimental), many of the studies suffered from weaknesses such as small sample sizes; failure to report retention rates for students in the conditions being contrasted; and, in many cases, potential bias stemming from the authors’ dual roles as experimenters and instructors.
Finally, the great majority of estimated effect sizes in the meta-analysis are for undergraduate and older students, not elementary or secondary learners. Although this meta-analysis did not find a significant effect by learner type, when learners’ age groups are considered separately, the mean effect size is significantly positive for undergraduate and other older learners but not for K–12 students.
Another consideration is that various online learning implementation practices may have differing effectiveness for K–12 learners than they do for older students. It is certainly possible that younger students could benefit more from a different degree of teacher or computer-based guidance than would college students and older learners. Without new random assignment or controlled quasi-experimental studies of the effects of online learning options for K–12 students, policy-makers will lack scientific evidence of the effectiveness of these emerging alternatives to face-to-face instruction.
Desde nuestra última nota relativa al lento naufragio del CRUCH, se suceden los desencuentros y las cruzadas declaraciones polémicas entre los rectores universitarios que integran este organismo. A continuación una selección de dim es y diretes [ver textos completos más abajo].
— Cinco planteles no participarían del encuentro de hoy en Antofagasta: La marginación de “ues” privadas tensiona cita del Consejo de Rectores, El Mercurio, 25 junio 2009
— Plantean fin del Consejo de Rectores, Chile.com, 25 junio 2009
— Arrate plantea un nuevo concepto de universidad pública, Radio Universidad de Chile, 25 junio 2009
— “Llegó el momento de impulsar la creación de un referente que aglutine a todas las Universidades” , Universia, 24 junio 2009
— Se agudizan diferencias entre planteles estatales y privados: Universidades de red “Cruz del Sur” no concurrirán a la reunión de Consejo de Rectores, El Mercurio, 24 junio 2009
— USM reconoce quiebre al interior del Consejo de Rectores, El Mercurio de Valparaiso, 23 junio 2009
“El impacto de la Subvención escolar preferencial” fue el nombre del seminario con el que se lanzaron los dos primeros números de la serie en foco educación, a través de la cual Expansiva UDP y el Centro de Políticas Comparadas de Educación de la UDP (CPCE) publicarán los resultados de sus investigaciones conjuntas. En esta oportunidad se dieron a conocer dos estudios orientados a analizar el impacto de la Subvención Escolar Preferencial (SEP) desde la mirada de los sostenedores y del incremento del aprendizaje en las salas de clase (ver más sobre el seminario).
Ambos estudios arrojaron interesantes resultados. Algunos de ellos son: que en Chile existen aún cerca de 50.000 alumnos prioritarios que no poseen los beneficios que otorga la subvención; que mayoritariamente adhieren a ella los colegios del sector municipal; que los colegios católicos son los que menos probabilidades tienen de participar de la SEP, que la tarea pendiente de las políticas educacionales es la capacidad de gestión y la centralización de la asistencia técnica; y que pese a que la ley crea las Agencias Técnicas Educativas, la responsabilidad por mejorar la calidad de la enseñanza sigue estando en su mayor parte sobre los docentes y establecimientos.
Cabe destacar que la Ley de Subvención Escolar Preferencial (SEP), promulgada e implementada en enero 2008, tiene entre sus principales objetivos promover la equidad de la educación chilena, ofreciendo una subvención especial a los estudiantes de escasos recursos e incrementando entre un 50 y un 60% la subvención por alumno. Esta ley posee tres particularidades. La primera es que los colegios deciden voluntariamente si participan o no de la subvención; la segunda apunta a que entrega recursos, pero exige resultados; y la tercera es que clasifica a las escuelas en Autónomas, Emergentes y En recuperación. Cada uno de estos aspectos tiene implicancias directas en su implementación y en las posibilidades de que esta política pública se convierta en un aporte a la educación en Chile.
Te invitamos a descargar ambas investigaciones (ambas en versión PDF):
en foco educación N°1: La toma de decisiones de un sostenedor: Análisis a partir de la Ley SEP. Por Gregory Elacqua, Úrsula Mosqueira y Humberto Santos; del Centro de Políticas Comparadas de Educación de la UDP.
en foco educación N°2: ¿Cómo el programa de mejoramiento de la ley SEP puede ayudar a perfeccionar los aprendizajes? Por Ernesto Treviño, Miguel Órdenes y Karina Treviño, de la Facultad de Educación de la UDP.
De acuerdo con el ranking preparado por el Times Higher Education, EE.UU., China y el Reino Unido presiden la lista de los países con mayor volumen de publicaciones académicas en en el campo de las ciencias sociales.
Pero mientras Estados Unidos y el Reino Unido tienen además un alto impacto medida por las citas a dichos artículos, China tiene un impacto menor en relación a su volumen de producción.
Entre los 20 primeros países por producción sólo aparece Brasil de la región latinoamericana, ocupando el lugar 15.
El ranking ha sido elaborado sobre la base de Thomson Reuters, National Science Indicators.
Top 20 nations in output and world share for the sciences and social sciences
The Times Higher Education, 25 June 2009
Data provided by Thomson Reuters National Science Indicators (ESI fields) database, 1981-2008 (table based on data from 2004-08 only)
Nation / No of papers 2004-08 / % world output / Relative impact as % +/- world average
1 United States 1,513,797 31.11 +46
2 China 413,326 8.49 –38
3 United Kingdom 401,649 8.25 +36
4 Germany 386,903 7.95 +29
5 Japan 383,345 7.88 –2
6 France 276,104 5.67 +17
7 Canada 226,232 4.65 +23
8 Italy 214,709 4.41 +15
9 Spain 167,402 3.44 +3
10 Australia 147,081 3.02 +13
11 India 143,186 2.94 –44
12 South Korea 141,317 2.90 –30
13 Russia 125,778 2.58 –50
14 The Netherlands 123,456 2.54 +49
15 Brazil 101,263 2.08 –37
16 Switzerland 90,167 1.85 +63
17 Taiwan 89,268 1.83 –33
18 Sweden 87,466 1.80 +38
19 Turkey 78,809 1.62 –51
20 Poland 75,631 1.55 –30
The data above were extracted from the National Science Indicators database of Thomson Reuters. This database surveys only journal articles (original research reports and review articles) indexed by Thomson Reuters. Both articles tabulated and citation counts to those articles are for the period indicated.
Here, the ranking is by output, which is also expressed as world share in percentage terms. The number of indexed original research reports and review articles, for 2004-08, amounted to 4,865,868 items. For articles with multiple authors from different nations, each nation receives full, not fractional, publication credit. Noteworthy is China’s ranking in second place, resulting from a steep increase in output over the past decade.
Of interest, too, is the presence of Turkey and Poland at 19th and 20th positions; both now surpass in output Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, and Israel, to name a few.
The column at the far right provides a rough indicator of relative impact, meaning citations per paper for the nation in the sciences and social sciences as compared with the world average. Readers should view these figures, which are expressed as a percentage above or below the world average, with caution because individual nations show greater concentration of output in some fields than in others, and different fields, as shown in this space previously, exhibit the very different rates of citations per paper. To the degree a nation skews its output to fields with high rates of citation, such as molecular biology, it would score a higher number in this analysis. Also, if a nation focused its output in lower impact fields, its score would be dampened. On the other hand, because the numbers dealt with here are large and all 20 nations publish across all fields in the sciences and social sciences, there seemed some insight to be gained.
The US certainly stands out in relative impact, with a score 46 per cent higher than the world average. But that is not the highest among the 20: Switzerland and the Netherlands tally higher scores, at 63 per cent and 49 per cent more than the world average, respectively. Sweden, the UK and Germany follow according to this measure, at fourth, fifth and sixth places. Although China now ranks second in output, its relative citation score stands at 38 per cent below the world average. China’s output does, in fact, tilt more towards the physical sciences than the biological sciences, so this measure may be somewhat depressed. Still, China’s score, about that of Brazil, is higher than those of India, Russia and Turkey.
For more information on Thomson Reuters National Science Indicators database, see http://www.in-cites.com/rsg/nsi/index.html
UNESCO y el Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) de los EE.UU. han suscrito la declaración Toward Effective Practice: Discouraging Degree Mills in Higher Education, que busca contrarrestar la difusión de instituciones no acreditadas de educación superior que, en el mercdo internacional y en los mercados locales, operan como fabricantes de (falsos) certificados de grado.
Ver la Declaración aquí 275 KB
El Chronicle of Higher Education comenta hoy esta delcración en los siguientes términos.
June 24, 2009
Accreditation Group and Unesco Team Up to Take On Diploma Mills
The Council for Higher Education Accreditation and the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization put out a joint statement today with suggestions for combating diploma mills around the world.
The statement is short on details, instead outlining a set of general goals. For instance, it says that higher-education leaders should confirm that providers are “in good standing with recognized accreditation and quality-assurance bodies” in other countries. But often the rub is knowing which bodies are recognized and which are bogus.
It also suggests developing “an international network for information and alerts about degree-mill activity.” But how such a network would work — and who might run it — is left to the imagination.
The problem of international diploma mills is a thorny one. Because what amounts to accreditation varies from country to country, figuring out whether a foreign institution is legitimate often isn’t a simple matter, and shutting down illegitimate operators can be next to impossible.
Even in the United States, diploma mills have moved from state to state to avoid the authorities. In recent years, though, some states have gotten tougher on diploma-mill operators. Mississippi — once known as a haven for unaccredited colleges — passed a law in 2006 that cracked down on diploma mills, and it seems to be working.
Perhaps the best list of unaccredited colleges is maintained by Oregon’s Office of Degree Authorization. —Thomas Bartlett