Nociones de calidad educativa y actitudes de los docentes hacia las tecnologías de la información

  1. Jon Olaskoaga Larrauri 1
  2. Carmen Enedina Rodríguez-Armenta 2
  3. Elia Marúm-Espinosa 2
  1. 1 Universidad del País Vasco, Espanya
  2. 2 Universidad de Guadalajara, México
Journal:
RIO: Revista Internacional de Organizaciones

ISSN: 1886-4171,  2013-570X

Year of publication: 2018

Issue Title: Género, trabajo y organizaciones

Issue: 20

Pages: 147-168

Type: Article

DOI: 10.17345/RIO20.147-168 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: RIO: Revista Internacional de Organizaciones

Sustainable development goals

Abstract

This paper gathers evidence of the relation between the preferences shown by scholars to different notions of quality in higher education and their perceptions of the usefulness of Information Technologies (IT) in their work. Evidence was gathered by the application of logit regressions to the answers of 911 scholars working in the University of Guadalajara (México). A double contribution comes out from the article: an enrichment of the Technology Acceptance Model with another antecedent of the usefulness of IT; and support for the hypothesis of the political nature of the concepts of quality in higher education.

€ View funding

Funding information

Este trabajo se ha beneficiado de la financiación otorgada por la Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU) al grupo de investigación ECUALE, a través de la convocatoria de grupos de investigación. Referencia GIU: 13/42, y del apoyo de la Universidad de Guadalajara.

Funders

Bibliographic References

  • Afshari, M.; Bakar, K. A.; Luan, W. S.; Samah, B. A. y Fooi, F. S. (2009). «Factors Affecting Teachers’ Use of Information and Communication Technology». International Journal of Instruction, 2(1): 77-104.
  • Agarwal, R. (2000). «Individual acceptance of information technologies». En R. G. Fichman y R. W. Zumond (eds.). Framing the domains of IT management: Projecting the future through the past. Pinnaflex Educational Resources Inc. Accesible en: <http://www2.be. eduMichman/Fichman>.
  • Agarwal, R. y Prasad, J. (1999). «Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new Information Tecnhnologies?». Decision Sciences, 30(2): 361-391.
  • Altbach, P. G.; Reisberg, L. y Rumbley, L.E. (2009). Trends in global higher education: tracking an academic revolution. A report prepared for the Unesco 2009 World Conference on Higher Education. París: Unesco.
  • Astin, A. (1980). «When does a college deserve to be called “high quality”?». Current Issues in Higher Education, 2(1): 1-9.
  • Barandiaran-Galdós, M.; Barrenetxea-Ayesta, M.; CardonaRodríguez, A.; Mijangos-Del-Campo, J. y Olaskoaga-Larrauri, J. (2012). «Attitudes of Spanish university teaching staff to quality in education». Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(6): 647-658.
  • Becher, T. (1999). «Quality Assurance and disciplinary differences». Australian Universities’ Review, 37(1): 1-7.
  • Birnbaum, R. (1989). «The cybernetic institution: toward an integration of governance theories». Higher Education, 18 (2): 239-253.
  • Davis, F. D. (1993). «User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts». International journal of man-machine studies, 38(3): 475-487.
  • Dishaw, M. T. y Strong, D. M. (1999). «Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs». Information and Management, 36: 9-21.
  • Downs, A. (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. Nueva York: Harper and Row.
  • Elken, M. (2007). QU Trends 1995-2006. Literature overview. Oslo: University of Oslo.
  • Ferlie, E.; Musselin, C. y Andresani, G. (2008). «The steering of higher education systems: a public management perspective». Higher Education, 56 (3): 325-348.
  • Fernández Lamarra, N. (2012). «Universidad y calidad en América Latina en perspectiva comparada. Interrogantes y desafíos». Avaliação, Revista da Avaliação da Educação Superior, 17(3): 661-688.
  • Goff, L. (2017). «University administrators’ conceptions of quality and approaches to quality assurance». Higher Education, 74: 179-195.
  • González Laskibar, X. (2015). Investigaciones sobre calidad, organización y satisfacción laboral en la universidad pública española. Tesis Doctoral. Departamento de Organización de Empresas. Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.
  • Harvey, L. y Green, D. (1993). «Defining Quality». Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 18 (1): 9-34.
  • Houston, D. (2008). «Rethinking quality and improvement in higher education». Quality Assurance in Education, 16(1): 61-79.
  • Igbaria, M.; Zinatelli, N.; Cragg, P. y Cavaye, A. (1997). «Personal computing acceptance factors in small firms: a structural equation model». MIS Quarterly, septiembre: 279-302.
  • Kessler, S. R.; Spector, P. E. y Gavin, M.B. (2014). «A Critical Look at Ourselves: Do male and female professors respond the same to environment characteristics?». Research in Higher Education, 55: 351-369.
  • Landford, T. (1991). «Left/Right orientation and political attitudes: a reappraisal and class comparison». Canadian Journal of Political Science, 24(3): 475-498.
  • Legris, P.; Ingham, J. y Collerette, P. (2003). «Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model». Information & management, 40(3): 191-204.
  • Li, N. y Kirkup, G. (2007). «Gender and cultural differences in Internet use: a study of China and the UK». Computers and Education, 48: 301-317.
  • Lipset, S. M. (1960). Political man. Nueva York: Doubleday.
  • Marshall, S. (2016). «Quality as sense-making». Quality in Higher Education, 22(3): 213-227.
  • Marúm, E.; Curiel, F.; Padilla, R.; Rosario, V. M.; Robles, M.ª L. y Partida, M.ª I. (2011). «El profesorado mexicano universitario ante la calidad de la educación superior: factores determinantes». En A. Cardona Rodríguez (coord.). Calidad en la educación superior. ¿Qué modelo y en qué condiciones? La opinión del profesorado en Argentina, España y México. Guadalajara: Editorial Universitaria. Universidad de Guadalajara.
  • Mijangos Del Campo, J.; Barandiaran Galdós, M.; Barrenetxea Ayesta, M.; Cardona Rodríguez, A. y Olaskoaga Larrauri, J. (2011). «El profesorado universitario español ante la calidad de la educación superior: factores determinantes». En A. Cardona Rodríguez (coord.). Calidad en la educación superior. ¿Qué modelo y en qué condiciones? La opinión del profesorado en Argentina, España y México. Guadalajara: Editorial Universitaria. Universidad de Guadalajara.
  • Moosmayer, D. C. (2011). «Professors as value agents: a typology of management academics’ value structures». Higher Education, 62: 49-67.
  • Mumtaz, S. (2000). «Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communications technology: a review of the literature». Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9(3): 319-342.
  • Neave, G. (1994). «The politics of quality: developments in higher education in Western Europe». European Journal of Education, 29(2): 115-134.
  • Olaskoaga Larrauri, J.; González Laskibar, X. y Barrenetxea-Ayesta, M. (2015). «Political nature and socio-professional determinants of the concept of quality». Higher Education, 69: 673-691.
  • Olaskoaga-Larrauri, J.; Barrenetxea-Ayesta, M.; CardonaRodríguez, A.; Mijangos-Del-Campo, J. y Barandiaran-Galdós, M. (2016). «Between efficiency and transformation: the opinion of deans on the meaning of quality in Higher Education». European Journal of Education, 51(2): 257-269.
  • Olaskoaga, J.; Marúm, E. y Partida, I. (2015). «La diversidad semántica y el carácter político de las nociones de calidad en la Educación Superior de México». Revista de la Educación Superior, XLIV(1): 85-102.
  • Quintanilla, M. A. (1999). «The quality challenge for universities: a view from Spain». Tertiary Education and Management, 5: 331-346.
  • Richardson, J. (2000). ICT implementation in education: an analysis of implementation strategies in Australia, Canada, Finland and Israel. Luxemburgo: Ministerio de Educación.
  • Skolnik, M.L. (2010). «Quality assurance in higher education as a political process». Higher Education Management and Policy, 22(1): 1-20.
  • Srikanthan, G. y Dalrymple, J. F. (2007). «A conceptual overview of a holistic model for quality in higher education». International Journal of Educational Management, 21(3): 173-193.
  • Taylor, T.; Gough, J.; Bundrock, V. y Winter, R. (1998). «A bleak outlook: academic staff perceptions of changes in core activities in Australian higher education, 1991-1996». Studies in Higher Education, 23(3): 255-268.
  • Venkatesh, V. y Davis, F. D. (1996). «A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test». Decision sciences, 27(3): 451-481.
  • Venkatesh, V. y Davis, F. D. (2000). «A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies». Management science, 46(2): 186-204.
  • Venkatesh, V. y Morris, M. G. (2000). «Why do not men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior». MIS Quarterly, 24 (1): 115-139.
  • Wittek, L. y Kvernbekk, T. (2011). «On the Problems of Asking for a Definition of Quality in Education». Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55(6): 671-684.
Data source: Dialnet