Special Issue 01/2024: TEACHING IN ECONOMICS AND ITC

Special Number 01/2024: TEACHING IN ECONOMICS and ICT

 Guest Editors: Encarnación Moral Pajares y Leticia Gallego Valero (University of Jaén, Spain)

 

Colander (2007), in his work "the art of teaching economics", analyses the teaching of this discipline in university classrooms, referring to the contrast between a traditional approach, in which the contents of what is taught prevail over the form, versus to new approaches, focused on the way of teaching as active learning or collaborative learning. In the author's opinion, teaching well has to do more with the fact of motivating than with the way of teaching, referring to the fact that a large part of the problem of teaching economics is getting students to exercise their minds, talk informally with each other about economic issues and read about it. In this sense, it is convenient to take into account the use of ICT resources, widespread since the early 2000s, which is conditioning the levels of motivation and degree of interest that students present. For Amores-Valencia and Casas-Moreno (2019), students increase their motivation if they work with digital devices and tools, whether in the preparation of activities, in understanding concepts or in the search for information.

The use of resources based on information and communication technologies for the development of teaching implies significant changes in learning, new methods and ways of thinking based on practice, reinforcing educational environments based on permanent interaction, which that may be more effective (Morillas-Barrio, 2016; Moguel-Marín and Alonzo-Rivera, 2009). However, the content of what is taught is absolutely critical (Colander, 2007). The advancement of ICTs and social networks create a new training system in a technological society that is constantly changing, its development advancing faster than research (Paramio-Perez et. al, 2018).

In the EU, the eEurope 2020 initiative, adopted in December 1999, considers education to be the first priority line, with the aim of introducing the Internet and multimedia tools in the education and training process, adapting teaching to the digital age (Área, 2008). Subsequently, the eEurope 2005 Action Plan and the initiatives i2010-A and the European Information Society for growth and employment, Digital Agenda for Europe and Europe 2020 (Caridad et al., 2014), together with the European recovery Plan 2021-2027, include among its priorities the use of ICT resources in education and learning strategies (Gallego-Valero et al., 2022). On the other hand, the Bologna process and the implementation of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) from 2010 promote the adoption of teaching strategies of a dynamic and participatory nature, which promote motivational learning centered on the student, which does not develop only in person during the hours taught in the classroom (Pablos, 2005). The methodological renovation promoted by the EHEA implies a new didactic approach, giving greater importance to learning than to teaching, emphasizing the need to move from the teacher who teaches to the student who learns. In this process, ICT-based procedures have played an important role in the innovation of teaching functions.

The educational potential of computer networks and the application of new technologies to the field of education that have allowed, for example, the development of distance learning based on ICT or e-learning (Rivera-Vargas et al., 2017; García, 2020) force us to seriously reconsider the individual and collective dimension of the teaching processes, the factors that can influence motivation, the rhythms or learning times, the new ways of structuring information for the construction of knowledge, the tasks and teaching and student competences, etc. (Pablo and Villaciervos, 2005). In addition, the use of technological means, such as videos, educational simulations, self-assessment tests on virtual platforms, etc., is positively influencing the levels of motivation and degree of interest shown by students, favoring the achievement of educational and training results. (Sanchez and Espada-Mateos, 2018). The role of the teacher and the student is transformed, while the former is encouraged to become a facilitator and guide in the teaching-learning process, while the student is encouraged to have a more active role, greater autonomy and responsibility in the development of said process (Colas et al., 2018).

Along with the advantages derived from the use of technological tools in university education, there are drawbacks related to abusive employment, which can generate dependency (Aranda et al., 2017; Garrote-Rojas et al., 2018), addiction and lack of interactivity with classmates and teachers (Plaza, 2018; Puerta-Cortes & Carbonell, 2013; García del Castillo et al., 2008), negatively affecting the development of cognitive, analysis and synthesis skills. , and having an unfavorable impact on the teaching-learning process.

The integration of ICT in higher education institutions, in the context of the technological evolution that society is experiencing, contrasts, on occasions, with institutional deficiencies to promote change processes, difficulties in the use of technologies by students and, in addition, with unfavorable attitudes and aptitudes on the part of the teachers with a view to their incorporation, determining an eventual and little continuous use. For the teacher, the shortcomings are linked both to the perception of the effectiveness of the changes and to the development of new skills, behaviors and practices associated with the change. A reality that is due, among other reasons, to the complexity that planning work activities through technological tools entails for teachers and, in certain cases, the lack of training in their use, which limits their employment in the classroom (Morales et al., 2015; Amores-Valencia and Casas-Moreno, 2019; Venegas-Ramos, et al. 2020). These are all issues in which significant progress has been made during 2020, given the demands imposed on teaching in the COVID-19 scenario (Torrecillas, 2020).

Based on the aforementioned arguments, the objective of this special issue is to collect the most recent contributions in the field of university teaching in Economics and the use of ICT. Topics on which this issue is based include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Advantages and disadvantages of the use of ICT in teaching Economics
• Motivation of students from ICT.
• Internet resources for teaching.
• ICT tools for learning.
• Learning 4.0.
• ICT and teaching skills.

 Keywords:

Teaching, Economics, ICT, higher education, motivation, learning, Internet

References:

Aranda López, M., Fuentes Gutiérrez, V. & García-Domingo, M. (2017). “No sin mi Smartphone": Elaboración y validación de la Escala de Dependencia y Adicción al Smartphone (EDAS). Terapia psicológica, 35 (1), 35-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-48082017000100004.

Área, M. (2008). La innovación pedagógica con TIC y el desarrollo de las competencias informacionales y digitales. Revista de Investigación en la Escuela, 64, 5-17. https://idus.us.es/bitstream/handle/11441/60859/R64_1.pdf

Caridad Sebastián, M., Morales García, A. M., & García López, F. (2014). La alfabetización digital en España como medio de inclusión social: aplicación de un modelo de medición a través de indicadores. Historia y comunicación social, 18, 455-469. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_HICS.2013.v18.43980

Colander, D. (2007). “El arte de enseñar economía”, Revista Asturiana de Economía, 38, 23-38.

Colas-Bravo, M. P. Pablos Pons, J. de, & Ballesta Pagán, J. B. (2018). Incidencia de las TIC en la enseñanza en el sistema educativo español: una revisión de la investigación. Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED), 18 (56). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/red/56/2

García Aretio, L. (2020). Bosque semántico: ¿educación/enseñanza/aprendizaje a distancia, virtual, en línea, digital, eLearning?. RIED. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 23 (1), 9-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.23.1.25495

García del Castillo, J. A. Terol, M. C., Nieto, M., Lledó, A., Sánchez, S., Martín-Aragón, M., & Sitges, E. (2008). Uso y abuso de internet en jóvenes universitarios. Adicciones, 20 (2), 131-142. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20882/adicciones.277.

Garrote Rojas, D. & Jiménez-Fernández, S. (2018). Perfil motivacional en estudiantes del grado de Maestro en Educación Infantil y Primaria. Educar, 54 (2), 351-368. DOI: 10.5565/rev/educar.899

Garrote-Rojas, D., Jiménez-Fernández, S. & Gómez-Barreto, I. M. (2018). Problemas derivados del uso de internet y el teléfono móvil en estudiantes universitarios. Formación Universitaria, 11 (2), 99-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-50062018000200099.

Gallego-Valero, L., Pedrosa-Ortega, C. Martínez-Alcalá, C., Barreda-Tarrazona, R. & Moral-Pajares, E. (2022). TIC, motivación y estrategias de aprendizaje en la enseñanza: estudio bibliométrico. In La Docencia tiene Tic: un guiño al nuevo discente (pp. 201-213). Tirant lo Blanch.

Majó, P. & Marqués, P. (2002): La revolución educativa en la era internet, Barcelona: Praxis.

Moguel-Marín, S. F. & Alonso-Rivera, D. L. (2009). Dimensiones del aprendizaje y el uso de las TIC's. El caso de la Universidad Autónoma de Campeche, México. RIED. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 12 (1), 195-211. http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/ried.1.12.927

Morales Capilla, M., Trujillo Torres, J. M., & Raso Sánchez, F. (2015). Percepciones acerca de la integración de las TIC en el proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje de la universidad. Píxel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 46, 103-117. DOI: 10.12795/pixelbit.2015.i46.07

Pablos Pons, J. De (2005). El Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior y las Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación, en: Colás, P.; De Pablos, J.: La Universidad en la Unión Europea. El Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior y su impacto en la docencia. Málaga: Ediciones Aljibe, 57-75.

Pablos Pons, J. De & P. Villaciervos-Moreno (2005). El Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior y las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación. Percepciones y demandas del profesorado. Revista de Educación, 337, 99-124. https://redined.educacion.gob.es/xmlui/handle/11162/68034

Paramio-Pérez, G., Delagado-Morales, C. & Casas Moreno, P. de (2019). Revisión teórica sobre el uso de las TIC y el Smartphone en la docencia universitaria, en Casas-Moreno, Paramio-Pérez y Castro Zubizarreta, A.: Educación y Comunicación mediada por las tecnologías: tendencias y retos de investigación. Sevilla: EGREGIUS Editores, 91-145.

Plaza de la Hoz, J. (2018). Ventajas y desventajas del uso adolescente de las TIC: visión de los estudiantes. Revista Complutense de Educación. 29 (2). 491-508. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5209/RCED.53428

Puerta-Cortés, D. X., & Carbonell, X. (2013). Uso problemático de internet en una muestra de estudiantes universitarios colombianos. Avances en psicología latinoamericana, 31 (3), 620-631. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2021.39.121-140

Rivera-Vargas, P. R., Cano, C. A., & Sancho, J. M. (2017). Desde la educación a distancia al e-Learning: emergencia, evolución y consolidación. Revista educación y tecnología, 10, 1-13. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6148504

Sánchez, M. L.  & Espada-Mateos, M. (2018). Evaluación de un programa de intervención basado en el uso de las TIC para aumentar la motivación del alumnado en educación física. Revista Fuentes, 20 (1), 77-86. https://revistascientificas.us.es/index.php/fuentes/article/view/4050/4791

Torrecillas Bautista, C. (2020). El reto de la docencia online para las universidades públicas españolas ante la pandemia del Covid-19. ICEI paper,, 16. https://eprints.ucm.es/id/eprint/60050/

Venegas-Ramos, L. Luzardo-Martínez, H.J. & Pereira-Santana, A. (2020). Conocimiento, formación y uso de herramientas TIC aplicadas a la Educación Superior por el profesorado de la Universidad Miguel de Cervantes. Edutec. Revista Electrónica De Tecnología Educativa, 71, 35-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21556/edutec.2020.71.1405

 Proposed schedule:

• Original submission date: by August 30th 2023.
• Expected publication date: January 2024.