skip to main content
10.1145/3434780.3436613acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesteemConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Research competencies to develop academic literacy in higher education students through innovative models

Published:22 January 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Research competencies have been gaining more importance in university spaces. At the undergraduate level, it is also essential that students achieve efficient development of academic literacy. This research aims to show how research skills can be fostered to develop academic literacy through innovative models. For the present study, the mixed research method was used. The design of this research was sequential explanatory Quan-Qual in two phases. It is intended that the results allow the design of an innovative training model that establishes research competences to develop academic literacy. The stages of this research correspond to the theoretical framework, contextual framework and an approach to the method.

References

  1. Tecnológico de Monterrey. Investigación: 2020. https://tec.mx/es/investigacion?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI24Ta0sTt6gIVBdbACh3YEgaGEAAYASAAEgLl3fD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. M. S. Ramírez-Montoya. 13 septiembre 2020. Resultados de la Semana i 2017: OpenergyLab Laboratorio de recursos educativos abiertos de sustentabilidad energética. Web site http://hdl.handle.net/11285/627906Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. F. J. García-Peñalvo, A. García-Holgado, and M. S. Ramírez-Montoya. 2019. Track 16: TEEM 2019 Doctoral Consortium. In TEEM’19 Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (Leon, Spain, October 16th-18th, 2019), M.Á. Conde-González, F.J. Rodríguez-Sedano, C. Fernández-Llamas and F.J. García-Peñalvo Eds. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 920-924. DOI:10.1145/3362789.3362958.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Tecnológico de Monterrey (2020). Semanas Tec, una pausa intensiva para tu crecimiento integral. Web site https://tec.mx/es/profesional/somostecGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. M.S. Ramírez-Montoya. 2016. Investigar: oportunidad para la generación de nuevo conocimiento. Competencias transversales para una sociedad basada en conocimiento. J.R. Valenzuela, ed. Cengage Learning Editors. 67–87.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. S. Figueroa, D. Granados, and J. López. (2019). Investigación en estudiantes universitarios de psicología: experiencia formativa intramuros. Enseñanza & Teaching, 37, 135–145. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.14201/et2019372135145Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. C. L. Scott. 2015. El futuro del aprendizaje 2 ¿Qué tipo de aprendizaje se necesita en el siglo XXI? Investigación y Prospectiva En Educación.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. J. de Pablos-Pons, P. Colás-Bravo, T. González-Ramírez, and J. Conde-Jiménez. 2015. Dimensiones en las que fundamentar la formación investigadora en Tecnología Educativa - Dimensions that support the research training in Educational Technology. RELATEC. Revista Latinoamericana de Tecnología Educativa, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.17398/1695-288X.14.1.57Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. C. Spinzi Blanco, D. Sosa, L. González and B. Aquino. 2015. A investigar se aprende investigando: Programa de Jóvenes Investigadores. Sinéctica. 44 (2015), 1–11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. M. Oropeza, A. Mena, y G. Soto. 2013. La formación y desarrollo de la competencia investigativa en docentes en ejercicio de la Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla * The Formation and Development of the Investigative Universidad Autónoma de Puebla. Revista de La Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales, 15, 43–59. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6622334Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2018). Identidad digital como investigadores. La evidencia y la transparencia de la producción científica [Digital Identity as Researchers. The Evidence and Transparency of Scientific Production]. Education in the Knowledge Society, 19(2), 7-28. doi:10.14201/eks2018192728Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. L. I. González-Pérez, M. S. Ramírez-Montoya, and F. J. García-Peñalvo. 2018. Identidad digital 2.0: Posibilidades de la gestión y visibilidad científica a través de repositorios institucionales de acceso abierto. In Ecosistemas del Conocimiento Abierto, J.A. Merlo Vega Ed. Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca, España, 197-206.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. P. Carlino. 2013. Alfabetización académica diez años después. Revista Mexicana de Investigacion Educativa, 18(57), 355–381.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. J. A. Beltrán, R. I. García, M. S. Ramírez-Montoya, and J. Tánori. 2019. Factores que influyen en la integración del programa de inclusión y alfabetización digital. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 21(3), 1-10. Web site https://redie.uabc.mx/redie/article/view/2088 Retrieved from: https://repositorio.tec.mx/handle/11285/636012Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Association of College and Research Libraries. 2016. Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. F. J. García-Peñalvo. 2018. Ecosistemas tecnológicos universitarios. In UNIVERSITIC 2017. Análisis de las TIC en las Universidades Españolas, J. Gómez Ed. Crue Universidades Españolas, Madrid, España, 164-170.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. A. García-Holgado and F. J. García-Peñalvo. 2017. A metamodel proposal for developing learning ecosystems. In Learning and Collaboration Technologies. Novel Learning Ecosystems. 4th International Conference, LCT 2017. Held as Part of HCI International 2017, Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 9–14, 2017. Proceedings, Part I, P. Zaphiris and A. Ioannou Eds. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, 100-109. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-58509-3_10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. A. García-Holgado and F. J. García-Peñalvo. 2019. Validation of the learning ecosystem metamodel using transformation rules. Future Generation Computer Systems 91, 300-310. DOI:10.1016/j.future.2018.09.011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. A. Ferrari. 2013. DIGCOMP: A Framework for Developing and Understanding Digital Competence in EuropeGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. M. Zabalza, and A. Zabalza. 2012. Innovación y cambio en las instituciones educativas. Homo Sapiens Ediciones.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. A. Cerezo-Narváez, I. de los Ríos Carmenado, A. Pastor-Fernández, J. L. Yagüe Blanco, y M. Otero-Mateo. 2019. Project management competences by teaching and research staff for the sustained success of engineering education. Education Sciences, 9 (1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9010044Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. K. Gallardo, A. Lozano, y J. Elizondo. 2019. Innovación educativa en estudios de psicología educativa: un mapeo sistemático. In M.S. Ramírez-Montoya and J. R. Valenzuela González (Eds.), Innovación educativa: tendencias globales de investigación e implicaciones prácticas (1st ed., pp. 23–37). Octaedro.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. J. M. Romero-Rodríguez, M. S. Ramírez-Montoya, I. Aznar-Díaz, and J. Hinojo-Lucena. 2020. Social appropriation of knowledge as a key factor for local development and open Innovation: A Systematic Review. Journal of Open Innovation. Technology, Marketing & Complexity, 6(44), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6020044 Retrieved from: https://hdl.handle.net/11285/636411Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. L. N. Ramírez-Ramírez, y M. S. Ramírez-Montoya. 2018. El papel de las estrategias innovadoras en educación superior: retos en las sociedades del conocimiento. Revista de Pedagogía, 39(104), 147-170. Web site http://hdl.handle.net/11285/630729Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. L. I. González-Pérez, L. D. Glasserman Morales, M. S. Ramírez-Montoya, and F. J. García-Peñalvo. 2017. Repositorios como soportes para diseminar experiencias de innovación educativa. In Innovación Educativa. Investigación, formación, vinculación y visibilidad, M.S. Ramírez-Montoya and J.R. Valenzuela González Eds. Síntesis, Madrid, España, 259-272.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. L. I. González-Pérez, M. S. Ramírez-Montoya, and F. J. García-Peñalvo. 2018. User experience in institutional repositories: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Human Capital and Information Technology Professionals (IJHCITP) 9, 1, 70-86. DOI:10.4018/IJHCITP.2018010105.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. L. I. González-Pérez, M. S. Ramírez-Montoya, F. J. García-Peñalvo, H. Gibrán Ceballos, and E. A. Juárez Ibarra. 2018. RITEC & CRIS: Interoperabilidad para visibilidad y medición del impacto de la producción científica energética. In Innovación y sustentabilidad energética: Implementaciones con cursos masivos abiertos e investigación educativa, M.S. Ramírez-Montoya and A. Mendoza-Domínguez Eds. Narcea, Madrid, España, 55-73.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. M. S. Ramírez-Montoya and F. J. García-Peñalvo. 2018. Co-creation and open innovation: Systematic literature review. Comunicar 26, 54, 9-18. DOI:10.3916/C54-2018-01.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. M. S. Ramírez-Montoya, F. J. García-Peñalvo, and R. Mcgreal. 2018. Shared Science and Knowledge. Open Access, Technology and Education. Comunicar 26, 54, 1-5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. B. Fecher and S. Friesike. 2014. Open Science: One Term, Five Schools of Thought. In Opening Science. The Evolving Guide on How the Web is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly S. Bartling and F. S. Eds. Springer, Cham, 17-47. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. J. Solé Blanch. 2020. The educational change in front of the technological innovation, the pedagogy of competences and the discourse of the emotional education. A critical approach. Teoría de La Educación, 32 (1), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.14201/teri.20945Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. S. Vincent-Lancrin, S. Kar, J. Urgel, and G. Jacotin. 2019. Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What has changed in the classroom? https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264215696-enGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. K. Panetta. 2017. Artificial intelligence, machine learning, and smart things promise an intelligent future. Smarter with Gartner.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. H. Tutar 2019. Management of innovations in education: student's satisfaction and career adoptability. Marketing and Management of Innovations. 4 (2019), 321–335. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2019.4-25.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. A. García-González, and M. S. Ramírez-Montoya. 2019. Systematic Mapping of Scientific Production on Open Innovation (2015–2018): Opportunities for Sustainable Training Environments. Sustainability.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. M. S. Ramírez-Montoya. 2020. Challenges for Open Education with Educational Innovation: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability, Sustainability, 12(17), 7053; doi:10.3390/su12177053Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. J. Creswell 2013. Best Practices for Mixed Methods Research in the Health Sciences John W. Creswell, Ann Carroll Klassen, Vicki L. Plano Clark, Katherine Clegg Smith for the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research: Qualitative Methods Overview Jo Moriarty. Qualitative Social Work. 12, 4 (2013), 541–545. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325013493540a.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. A. J. Onwuegbuzie, and J. P. Combs. 2015. Emergent Data Analysis Techniques in Mixed Methods Research: A Synthesis. SAGEGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. J. W. Creswell, and V. L. Plano Clark. 2011. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. SAGE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. M. Harwell. 2014. Research Design in Qualitative/Quantitative/Mixed Methods. SAGE Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. M.S. Ramírez-Montoya, and J. Lugo-Ocando. 2020. Systematic review of mixed methods in the framework of educational innovation. [Revisión sistemática de métodos mixtos en el marco de la innovación educativa]. Comunicar, 65, 111349. https://doi.org/10.3916/C65-2020-01 Web site: https://hdl.handle.net/11285/636432 https://hdl.handle.net/11285/636431Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. U. Flick. 2018. Doing triangulation and mixed methods research. London, England: SAGE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. D. Silvio-Donolo. 2009. Triangulación: Procedimiento incorporado a nuevas metodologías de investigación. Revista Digital Universitaria, 10(8), 2–10. Web site http://www.revista.unam.mx/vol.10/num8/art53/int53.htm%5Cnhttp://www.revista.unam.mx/vol.10/num8/art53/art53.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. N. K. Denzin. 1989. The research act (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. (Original work published 1970, 1st ed., Chicago, IL: Aldine).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    TEEM'20: Eighth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality
    October 2020
    1084 pages
    ISBN:9781450388504
    DOI:10.1145/3434780

    Copyright © 2020 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 22 January 2021

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate496of705submissions,70%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format