| Research Article | | |
Pedagogical Strategy For The Appropriation Of The Sustainable Development Goals, Sdgs, In Students Of The Environmental Engineering Program Of The Technological Units Of Santander, Colombia.
Carlos Alberto Amaya Corredor, Carolina Hernández Contreras, Natalia Alexandra Bohórquez Toledo, Miguel A Avila A.  |  | Cited by (1) | | Abstract
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), promulgated in 2015 as the global commitment to development by 2030, constitute the environment for the analysis of reality for the approach of potential solutions framed in the goals proposed in each of the 17 SDGs. Knowledge of the SDGs in all social spheres is essential for all actors to find their belonging to global development and to be able to assertively engage in the vision of change and progress promoted by the UN to transform the world by 2030. One of these charms is higher education, as framed by UNESCO, Education for Sustainable Development, should be framed at all levels of education, in higher education is required in two areas, for institutions to transform their scope and two for graduates to include in their professional profile, the vision of sustainability and integrality of actions to prevent or at least mitigate the environmental impacts that humanity has been generating. A pedagogical strategy mediated by learning objects, focusing the process on the student, so that he/she, with the guidance and company of the teacher, understands, appropriates and promotes knowledge applied to improve his/her living environment, makes the articulation of the SDGs more proactive, by allowing the student to analyze how his/her environment will improve with the focus of actions in the SDGs. The process advanced in the Sustainable Development course of the Environmental Engineering program of the Technological Units of Santander in Colombia, showed that even though the students had some pre-knowledge in the environmental area, the recognition, validation and appropriation of the SDGs allowed them a comprehensive view of reality and a recognition of problems and solution possibilities, which contribute to the approach of goals that the 2030 Agenda proposes for the world. Key words: Sustainable Development, University Sustainability, Education for Sustainable Development ESD, Active Learning
| |
|
|
| REFERENCES | | 1. Dauphinee W, Blackmore D, Smee S, Rothman A, Reznick R. Using the judgments of physician examiners in setting the standards for a national multi-center high stakes OSCE. Advances in Health Sciences Education 1997;2(3):201-11. [DOI via Crossref] [Pubmed] | | | | 2. Ben-David M. AMEE Guide No. 18: Standard setting in student assessment. Medical Teacher 2000;22(2):120-30. [DOI via Crossref] | | | | 3. Pell G, Roberts T. Setting standards for student assessment. International Journal of Research & Method in Education 2006, 29(1):91-103. [DOI via Crossref] | | | | 4. Norcini J. Setting standards on educational tests. Medical Education 2003;37(5):464-69. [DOI via Crossref] [Pubmed] | | | | 5. Talente G, Haist S, Wilson J. A model for setting performance standards for standardized patient examinations. Evaluation & the Health Professions 2003;26(4):427. [DOI via Crossref] [Pubmed] | | | | 6. Barman A. Standard setting in student assessment: Is a defensible method yet to come? AnnAcad Med Singapore. 2008;37(11):957-63. [Pubmed] | | | | 7. Dwyer C. Cut scores and testing: Statistics, judgment, truth, and error. Psychological Assessment 1996;8(4):360-62. [DOI via Crossref] | | | | 8. Humphrey-Murto S, MacFadyen J. Standard setting: a comparison of case-author and modified borderline-group methods in a small-scale OSCE. Academic Medicine 2002;77(7):729. [DOI via Crossref] | | | | 9. Smee S, Blackmore D. Setting standards for an objective structured clinical examination: the borderline group method gains ground on Angoff. Medical education 2001;35(11):1009-10. [DOI via Crossref] | | | | 10. Wilkinson T, Newble D, Frampton C. Standard setting in an objective structured clinical examination: use of global ratings of borderline performance to determine the passing score. Medical Education 2001;35(11):1043-49. [DOI via Crossref] [Pubmed] | | | | 11. Kramer A, Muijtjens A, Jansen K, Düsman H, Tan L, van der Vleuten C. Comparison of a rational and an empirical standard setting procedure for an OSCE. Medical Education 2003;37(2):132-39. [DOI via Crossref] [Pubmed] | | | | 12. Wood T, Humphrey-Murto S, Norman G. Standard setting in a small scale OSCE: a comparison of the modified borderline-group method and the borderline regression method. Advances in Health Sciences Education 2006;11(2):115-22. [DOI via Crossref] [Pubmed] | | | | 13. Boursicot K. Setting standards in a professional higher education course: Defining the concept of the minimally competent student in performance-based assessment at the level of graduation from medical school. Higher Education Quarterly 2006;60(1):74-90. [DOI via Crossref] | | | | 14. Boulet J, De Champlain A, McKinley D. Setting defensible performance standards on OSCEs and standardized patient examinations. Medical Teacher 2003;25(3):245-49. [DOI via Crossref] [Pubmed] | | |
|
|
|
