Carmen Llorente-Cejudo, Antonio Palacios-Rodríguez, Victoria Fernández-Scagliusi
pp. 176 – 190, download
(https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-053-009)
Abstract
The digital educational breakout, as well as gamification, has become a methodological strategy that provides a multitude of benefits. The following study is presented, incorporating a gamified practice through the educational Breakout in the university context with the purpose of verifying the perception of this methodological strategy, as well as analyzing if it is perceived as useful for teachers in training, the degree of motivation and level of satisfaction experienced in participating in the training experience through the TAM model (Technology Acceptance Model) with 968 participants, teachers in training. The results show that the proposal is suitable for university teaching, and all study subjects perceived this strategy as valuable for their training, highlighting dimensions related to ease of use in the classroom, integration, or transformation of interest in learning as the variables more significant and, in addition, the TAM and its level of acceptance are high.
Keywords: Breakout, gamification, digital competence, teacher training, active methodologies, validation.
References
1. Parente, D.: Gamificación en la educación, in Gamificación en aulas universitarias, pp. 11–25, Institut de la Comunicació (InCom-UAB), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, (2016)
2. Díaz, J., Troyano, Y.: El potencial de la gamificación aplicado al ámbito educativo. In: III Jornadas de Innovación Docente. Innovación Educativa: respuesta en tiempos de incertidumbre (2013)
3. Schrape, N.: Gamification and governmentality, in Rethinking Gamification, pp. 21–46, Meson Press, Lüneburg, (2014)
4. Horizon Report Europe: The Horizon Report Europe: 2014 Schools Edition (2014)
5. Villalustre-Martínez, L., Del Moral-Pérez, M. E.: Gamificación: Estrategia para optimizar el proceso de aprendizaje y la adquisición de competencias en contextos universitarios, Digital Education Review, (27), pp. 13–31 (2015)
6. Kapp, K, M.: The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and strategies for training and education, Pfeiffer, (2012). https://doi.org/10.1145/2207270.2211316
7. Arias, D., Bustinza, O., Djundubaev, R.: Efectos de los juegos de simulación de empresas y Gamification en la actitud emprendedora en enseñanzas medias, Revista de Educación, 371, pp. 133–156 (2016)
8. Gros, B.: Análisis de las prestaciones de los juegos digitales para la docencia universitaria, Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 28(1), pp. 115–128 (2014)
9. Zichermann, G., Cunningham, C.: Gamification by Design, O’Reilly, (2011)
10. Cortizo-Pérez, J. C., Carrero-García, F. M., Monsalve-Piqueras, B., Velasco-Collado, A., Díaz del Dedo, L. I., Pérez-Martín, J.: Gamificación y Docencia: Lo que la Universidad tiene que aprender de los Videojuegos. In: VIII Jornadas Internacionales de Innovación Universitaria (2011)
11. Koivisto, J., Hamari J.: Demographic differences in perceived benefits from gamification, Computers in Human Behavior, 35, pp. 179–188 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.007
12. Romero, H., Rojas, E.: La gamificación como participante en el desarrollo del B-learning: su percepción en la Universidad Nacional, sede regional Brunca. In: Eleventh LACCEI Latin American and Caribbean Conference for Engineering and Technology, (2013)
13. Tornero, J. P., Varis, T.: Media literacy and new humanism, UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education, (2010)
14. Mills, K. A.: A Review of the “Digital Turn” in the New Literacy Studies, Review of Educational Research, 80(2), pp. 246–271 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310364401
15. Pelgrum, W. J., Voogt, J.: School and teacher factors associated with frequency of ICT use by mathematics teachers: Country comparisons, Education and Information Technologies, 14(4), pp. 293–308 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-009-9093-0
16. Cabero-Almenara, J., Palacios-Rodríguez, A.: Marco europeo de competencia digital docente «digcompedu». Traducción y adaptación del cuestionario «Digcompedu checkin», Edmetic, 9(1), pp. 213–234 (2020). https://doi.org/10.21071/edmetic.v9i1.12462
17. Williamson, B., Potter, J., Eynon, R.: New research problems and agendas in learning, media and technology: the editors’ wishlist. Learning, Media and Technology, 44(2), pp. 87–91 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2019.1614953
18. Domínguez-Díaz, A.: Aportaciones sobre el uso de gamificación y redes sociales en la educación universitaria: Efectos sobre el rendimiento académico, (2018)
19. Peñalva, S., Aguaded, I., de-Casas-Moreno, P.: El uso de la gamificación como metodología educomunicativa en el contexto universitario, in Gamificación en Iberoamérica. Experiencias desde la comunicación y la educación, pp. 191–210 (2018)
20. Molina-Álvarez, J. J., Ortiz-Colón. A. M., Agreda-Montoro, M.: Análisis de la integración de procesos gamificados en Educación Primaria. In: Innovación docente y uso de las TIC en educación. UMA Editorial (2017)
21. De Soto-García, I. S.: Herramientas de gamificación para el aprendizaje de ciencias de la tierra, Edutec, Revista Electrónica de Tecnología Educativa, (65), pp. 29–39 (2018). https://doi.org/10.21556/edutec.2018.65.1143
22. Flores-Lueg, C., Roig Vila, R.: Diseño y validación de una escala de autoevaluación de competencias digitales para estudiantes de pedagogía, Píxel-Bit, Revista de Medios y Educación, 12(48), pp. 209–224 (2016). https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2016.i48.14
23. Davis, F.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology, MIS Quarterly, 13(3), pp. 319–340 (1989). https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
24. Chen, F., Lui, A. M., Martinelli, S. M.: A systematic review of the effectiveness of flipped classrooms in medical education, Medical Education, 51, pp. 585–597 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13272
25. López-Bonilla, L., López-Bonilla, J.: Explaining the discrepancy in the mediating role of attitude in the TAM, British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(4), pp. 940–949 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12465
26. Cabero-Almenara, J., Barroso-Osuna, J., Llorente-Cejudo, C.: Technology acceptance model, & realidad aumentada: estudio en desarrollo, Revista Lasallista de investigación, 13(2), pp. 18–26 (2016). https://doi.org/10.22507/rli.v13n2a2
27. Cabero, J., Llorente, C.: La adopción de las tecnologías por las personas mayores: aportaciones desde el modelo TAM (Technology Acceptance Model), Publicaciones, 50(1), pp. 141–157 (2020). https://doi.org/10.30827/publicaciones.v50i1.8521
28. Venkatesh, V., Davis, A.: Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies, Management Science, 46(2), pp. 186–204 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
29. Venkatesh, V., Bala, H.: Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions, Decision Sciences, 39(2), pp. 273–312 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x
30. O’Dwyer, L. M., Bernauer, J. A.: Quantitative research for the qualitative researcher. SAGE publications, (2013). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335674
31. Bagozzi, R., Yi, Y.: On the evaluation of structural equation models, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, pp. 74–1694 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327
32. Hu, L., Bentler, P.: Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), pp. 1–55 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
33. Turpo-Gebera, O., Hurtado-Mazeyra, A., Delgado-Sarmiento, Y., Peréz-Postigo, G.: Satisfacción del profesorado con la formación en servicio online: aproximaciones desde la usabilidad pedagógica, Pixel-Bit, Revista de Medios y Educación, 62, pp. 39–70 (2021). https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.79472
34. Teo, T., Lee, C. B., Chai, C. S., Wang, S. L.: Assessing the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers in Singapore and Malaysia: A multigroup invariance analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Computers & Education, 53, pp. 1000–1009 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.017
35. Pelger, S., Nilsson, P.: Observed learning outcomes of integrated communication training in science education: Skills and subject matter understanding, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 59, pp. 195–208 (2018)
36. Arteaga, R., Duarte, A.: Motivational factors that influence the acceptance of Moodle using TAM, Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), pp. 1632–1640 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.011
37. Cabero, J., Marín, V., Sampedro, B.: Aceptación del Modelo Tecnológico en la enseñanza superior, Revista de investigación educativa, 36(2), pp. 435–453 (2018). https://doi.org/10.6018/rie.36.2.292951
38. He, T., Zhu, C.: Digital informal learning among Chinese university students: the effects of digital competence and personal factors, International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14, (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0082-x
39. Guillén-Gámez, F. D., Cabero-Almenara, J., Llorente-Cejudo, C., Palacios-Rodríguez, A.: Differential Analysis of the Years of Experience of Higher Education Teachers, their Digital Competence and use of Digital Resources: Comparative Research Methods, Technology, Knowledge and Learning, pp. 1–21 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09531-4
40. Cabero-Almenara, J., Romero-Tena, R., Llorente-Cejudo, C., Palacios-Rodríguez, A.: Academic Performance and Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) Through a Flipped Classroom Experience: Training of Future Teachers of Primary Education, Contemporary Educational Technology, 13(3), (2021). https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/10874
41. López-Cortés, F., Ravanal Moreno, E., Palma Rojas, C., Merino Rubilar, C.: Niveles de representación externa de estudiantes de Educación Secundaria acerca de la división celular mitótica: una experiencia con realidad aumentada, Pixel-Bit, Revista de Medios y Educación, 62, pp. 7–37 (2021). https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.84491