Modelo metodológico integrado para la planificación didáctica universitaria: diseño y validación empírica a través de la investigación-acción

Luis Fernando Botero Mendoza; Manuel de Jesús Azpilcueta Ruiz Esparza; Raúl Coronado Aguirre; William Frank Español Sierra

doi:10.19136/etie.v9n17.6368

Authors

Luis Fernando Botero Mendoza International Community of Professors Cerebrote
Manuel de Jesús Azpilcueta Ruiz Esparza Chapingo Autonomous University
Raul Coronado Aguirre Universidad de Panamá
William Frank Español Sierra Universidad Metropolitana de Educación, Ciencia y Tecnología

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.19136/etie.v9n17.6368

Keywords:

didactic planning, higher education, teaching competencies, action research, constructive alignment

Abstract

Didactic planning in higher education faces critical challenges stemming from teaching improvisation, curricular disconnection, and the persistence of traditional practices, all of which negatively impact the quality of learning. The objective of this research was to design and empirically validate an integrated methodological model to optimize teaching planning based on the principle of constructive alignment. A qualitative Participatory Action Research (PAR) design was employed, implemented by four teacher-researchers across 12 university courses in different disciplines (engineering, education, and research) at institutions in Colombia, Mexico, and Panama during the 2023-2024 period. The model was structured into five sequential and interdependent phases: 1) formulation of competencies, 2) selection and hierarchy of content, 3) design of active methodological strategies, 4) determination of resources, and 5) planning of authentic evaluation. Results, gathered through participant observation, field diaries, and documentary analysis, evidence a significant transformation in teaching praxis. There was a shift from transmissive and disjointed models to active learning ecologies (Barron, 2006; González-Sanmamed et al., 2020), understood as didactic environments that integrate activities, resources and interactions oriented towards the cognitive participation of the student, achieving a qualitative increase in student participation and greater coherence between teaching and assessment. It is concluded that the model serves as effective scaffolding for reflective practice, allowing faculty to overcome bureaucratic planning to design deep and situated learning experiences.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ander-Egg, E. (1996). La planificación educativa. Magisterio del Río de la Plata.

Baartman, L., van Schilt-Mol, T., & van der Vleuten, C. (2024). Assessment and feedback in higher education reimagined: Using programmatic assessment to transform higher education. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 28(2), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2023.2283118

Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49, 193–224. https://doi.org/10.1159/000094368

Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (2nd ed.). Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2015). Feedback on assessment: Shaping academic development through sustainable assessment practices. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(2), 217–232. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5148923

Budke, A., Sánchez-Kirsch, N., & Quintero-Rivas, E. (2023). Long-term didactic innovations in higher education teaching caused by the coronavirus pandemic? Frontiers in Education, 8, 1204818. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1204818

Cejas, M., Liccioni, E., Gutiérrez, C., & Morales, J. (2023). Formación basada en competencias para estudiantes de Educación Superior en Ecuador: Factor clave en el campo de trabajo. Revista Ciencias Pedagógicas e Innovación, 11(2), 93–100. https://doi.org/10.26423/rcpi.v11i2.725

González-Sanmamed, M., Sangrà, A., Souto-Seijo, A., & Estévez, I. (2020). Learning ecologies in the digital era: Challenges for higher education. Publicaciones, 50(1), 83–102. https://doi.org/10.30827/publicaciones.v50i1.15671

Hailikari, T., Virtanen, V., Vesalainen, M., & Postareff, L. (2022). Student perspectives on how different elements of constructive alignment support active learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 23(3), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787421989160

Hernández-Carrasco, D. A., Rose-Gómez, C. E., González-López, S., López-López, A., García-Gorrostieta, J. M., & Borrego, G. (2022). A framework to assist in didactic planning at undergraduate level. Mathematics, 10(9), 1355. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10091355

Jackson, N. J. (2013). The concept of learning ecologies. In N. J. Jackson & G. B. Cooper (Eds.), Lifewide learning, education and personal development (Chapter A5). Lifewide Education.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research: Communicative action and the public sphere. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 559–603). SAGE Publications.

King, M. E., & Thibault, P. J. (Eds.). (2024). Learning as interactivity, movement, growth and becoming, volume 1: Ecologies of learning in higher education. Routledge.

Kozanitis, A., & Nenciovici, L. (2023). Effect of active learning versus traditional lecturing on the learning achievement of college students in humanities and social sciences: A meta-analysis. Higher Education, 86, 1377–1394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00977-8

Li, J., & Xue, E. (2023). Dynamic interaction between student learning behaviour and learning environment: Meta-analysis of student engagement and its influencing factors. Behavioral Sciences, 13(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13010059

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.

Loughlin, C., Lygo-Baker, S., & Lindberg-Sand, Å. (2021). Reclaiming constructive alignment. European Journal of Higher Education, 11(2), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2020.1816197

Manzanal Martínez, A. I., Islas Torres, C., Romero-García, C., & Carranza Alcántar, M. del R. (2022). Valoración de competencias del docente universitario: perspectiva comparada de México y España. Bordón. Revista De Pedagogía, 74(1), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.13042/Bordon.2022.89958

Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures, and software solution. Klagenfurt: Beltz. https://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173

Menzala-Peralta, C. C., & Ortega-Menzala, E. (2023). Evaluación basada en competencias en educación superior. Horizontes. Revista de Investigación en Ciencias de la Educación, 7(28), 836–849.

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Tobón, S. (2006). Formación basada en competencias: Pensamiento complejo, diseño y didáctica. ECOE Ediciones.

Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (2020). Exploring university teaching and learning: Experience and context. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50830-2

Zabalza, M. A. (2003). Competencias docentes del profesorado universitario: Calidad y desarrollo profesional. Narcea.

Zhang, H., Su, S., Zeng, Y., & Lam, J. F. I. (2022). An experimental study on the effectiveness of students' learning in scientific courses through constructive alignment—A case study from an MIS course. Education Sciences, 12(5), 338. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12050338