Teaching-learning in architectural design and education for sustainable development in the universities of Huancayo
Abstract
The aim of the study was to describe the variables teaching and learning, and education of architectural design for sustainable development in Huancayo Universities, also to establish their correlation relationships. This research was of correlational and descriptive level, not experimental, and had a cross-sectional design. The content analysis card was the instrument, it applied the Fleiss Kappa index to determine a value for both variables of 0,93 (almost perfect agreement). The Reliability test used the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient whose measure for both variables was 0,81 (very high). The sampling used was non probabilistic, namely by criterion. As results, both learning and teaching of architectural design and the SDE epistemological foundation variables had median distribution scores: UNCP Me = 0,155, UPLA Me = 0,14 and UC Me = 0,1375, showing that there are low agreements among these. In addition, the standard deviation ranged from 0,27 to 0,035 values that determined high dispersion and a tendency to low agreements between variables. To conclude, in accordance with the correlation coefficient there are low agreements between variables; and the teaching of architecture has minimal correlations, showing that regardless of the importance of Education for Sustainability, appropriate steps have yet to be taken.
References
1. Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura [Internet]. Santiago de Chile: UNESCO; [Citado el 20 de diciembre de 2009]. Década de la Educación para el Desarrollo Sostenible: 2005-2014 [1 pantalla]. Disponible en: http://www.unesco.org/new/es/santiago/education/education-forsustainable-development/decade-of-educationfor-sustainable-development-desd/
2. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [Internet]. Paris: UNESCO; [Citado el 20 de diciembre de 2009]. Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). Disponible en:
www.unesco.org/education/desd.
3. Palmer J. Environmental Education in the 21st Century. Theory, Practice, Progress & Promise. Londres: Routledge; 1998.
4. Villegas L, Marroquín R, Del Castillo V, Sánchez R. Teoría y praxis de la investigación científica. Lima: San Marcos; 2011.
5. Carrasco S. Metodología de la investigación científica. Lima: San Marcos; 2006.
6. Pino R. Metodología de la Investigación. Lima: San Marcos; 2008.
7. Hernández R, Fernández C, Baptista P. Metodología de la Investigación. 5ª ed. México: McGraw-Hill; 2010.
8. Naciones Unidas [Internet]. New York: Departamento de asuntos económicos y sociales; [Citado el 20 de noviembre de 2005]. Agenda 21 [1 pantalla]. Disponible en: http://www.un.org/spanish/esa/sustdev/agenda21/
9. World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future. Washington D.C. WCED/Oxford University Press; 1987.
10. Morin E, Ciurana ER, Motta RD. Educar en la era planetaria: El pensamiento complejo como un método de aprendizaje en el error y la incertidumbre humana. 1ª ed. Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid; 2003.
11. Osalde A. Nuevas formas de enseñar aprender el Diseño Arquitectónico en el Taller de Composición. México D.F.; 2009.
12. Sauvé L. Uma cartografía das correntes em educação ambiental. En: Sato M, Carvalho I. Educação ambiental, Pesquisa e desafios, São Paulo: Artmed; 2005.
13. Mosquera J. Epistemología y didáctica del proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje en arquitectura y diseño industrial. Revista Científica Guillermo de Ockham. 2009; 7(2): 33-49.
14. Morín E. Introducción al pensamiento complejo. 9ª ed. Barcelona: Antropos; 2003.
15. Pozo T, Benayas J, Gutiérrez J. Modelos de calidad y prácticas evaluativas predominantes en los equipamientos de educación ambiental. Tópicos en educación ambiental. 2011; 1(2): 49-64.
