Agencia estudiantil y aulas interactivas: estimación del impacto académico mediante análisis predictivo comparado
Measuring the academic impact of student agency in tech-enhanced classrooms: a comparative predictive analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56712/latam.v6i4.4310Palabras clave:
ROI educativo, EdTech, 4.0, agencia cognitivaResumen
En el contexto educativo actual, donde la tecnología promete transformar las aulas, este estudio cuantitativo analiza los factores clave para el éxito de las aulas interactivas en Perú, basándose en una muestra de 270 estudiantes. El objetivo fue identificar cómo la agencia estudiantil, la inversión en tecnología y formación docente, y la gamificación integrada al currículo impactan en el rendimiento académico. Utilizando una metodología robusta que incluyó análisis de mediación y 10,000 simulaciones Monte Carlo, los hallazgos revelaron que: (1) la agencia estudiantil media el 38.7% del impacto en el rendimiento (β=0.35), pero solo cuando los docentes están capacitados para fomentarla; (2) una inversión equilibrada (US$80/alumno) en tecnología y formación triplica la autonomía (d=1.4) y genera un ROI académico de 2.7×; y (3) la gamificación, cuando se alinea con el currículo y la infraestructura, aumenta la retención un 23.8%. Además, se demostró que políticas centradas solo en dispositivos son menos eficaces (ROI=1.2×) y amplían brechas, mientras que un enfoque sistémico las reduce en 15%. Fundamentado en teorías como Bandura, SAMR y flow, el estudio propone un modelo de ecosistema educativo que combina capacitación docente (60% del presupuesto), dispositivos interactivos (30%) y diseño de experiencias (10%), ofreciendo una guía concreta para maximizar el impacto en entornos con recursos limitados.
Descargas
Citas
Alsaedi, A., & Ashraf, H. (2025). Student agency as an enabler in cultivating sustainable competencies for people-oriented technical professions. Education Sciences, 15(4), 469. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/15/4/469
Akbay, T., Sevim-Cirak, N., & Erol, O. (2024). Re-examining the effect of audience response systems on learning outcomes: evidence from the Last decade. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 40(17), 4550-4564. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2228526
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo [BID]. (2022). Tecnología educativa en América Latina: Análisis costo-beneficio. https://www.iadb.org
Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(6), 12-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1995.10544672
Biografía, G. (2015). ¿Qué es la educación? Para una pedagogía de lo humano. Universidad de Barcelona.
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED336049
Brickhill, M., Andrews, G., & Nieuwoudt, J. (2024). Developing student agency towards academic integrity through an educative approach: Exploring students’ experiences and perspectives. Journal of Academic Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09567-y
Collie, R. J., Martin, A. J., Flesken, A., et al. (2024). Personal agency among students from low socio-economic backgrounds: An examination of student profiles, perceived teaching support, and achievement. Social Psychology of Education, 27, 1705–1736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-023-09881-0
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.
D’Haro, K. T., Jiménez, M. F., & Robles, J. L. (2023). Learning analytics in supporting student agency: A systematic review. Sustainability, 15(18), 13662. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813662
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., García, D., & Velasco, F. (2022). Flipped classroom and gamification approach: Its impact on performance and academic commitment on sustainable learning in education. Sustainability, 14(9), 5428. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095428
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining "gamification". Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference, 9-15. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040
Elfeky, A., Elbyaly, H., & Alharbi, A. (2022). Students’ performance in interactive environments: An intelligent model. Journal of Educational Data Mining. (PMC) https://doi.org/10.1101/PMC10280397
Erss, X., et al. (2024). Upper secondary school students’ learning at work: The effect on agency in school. Social Sciences, 14(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14010017
Gómez, L. (2021). Mentoría entre pares y su impacto en la agencia estudiantil: Un estudio cuasi-experimental en colegios colombianos. Universidad Pedagógica Nacional.
Hermann, B., Zambrano, R., & Cruz, J. (2024). Incidence of metaphorical virtual classrooms and interactive learning objects in the interaction of online students: An Ecuadorian case study. Applied Sciences, 14(15), 6447. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14156447
Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom. Computers & Education, 80, 152-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.019
Hattie, J. (2017). *Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement*. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203887332
Hattie, J. (2023). *Visible learning: The sequel—A synthesis of over 2,100 meta-analyses relating to achievement*. Routledge.
Inouye, K., Lee, S., & Oldac, Y. I. (2023). A systematic review of student agency in international higher education. Higher Education, 86(5), 891–911. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00952-3
Jääskelä, P., Häkkinen, P., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2022). Teacher beliefs about student agency in whole-class playing: An exploratory study. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 44, 101024. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2022.2098264
Klemenčič, M. (2017). From student engagement to student agency: Conceptual considerations of European policies on student-centered learning in higher education. Higher Education Policy, 30(1), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-016-0034-4
Li, O. H., Huang, J. C., Huang, A. Y., & Yang, S. J. (2024). Evaluating the student performance prediction and action framework through a learning analytics intervention study. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12923-5
Mäkelä, E., & Luik, K. (2023). Individual stories of agency and employability during a pandemic: A longitudinal narrative study. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 13(2), 342–358. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-05-2023-0111
MacLaren, R., Tran, V. H., & Chiappe, D. (2024). Analyzing click data with AI: Implications for student performance prediction and learning assessment. Frontiers in Education. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1421479
Marín, V. I., de Benito, B., & Darder, A. (2020). Technology-enhanced learning for student agency in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17, 48. https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-045-001
Mameli, C., et al. (2023). Students’ agency profiles in relation to student-perceived teaching practices in university courses. International Journal of Educational Research, 103, Article 101631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101631
Mariz, C., Stephenson, J., & Carter, M. (2017). Interactive whiteboards in education: A literature scoping survey. Australian Educational Computing, 32(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00703.x
Moubayed, A., Injadat, M. N., Shami, A., & Lutfiyya, H. (2020). Relationship between student engagement and performance in e-learning environment using association rules. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (pp. 329–338). https://doi.org/10.1145/3375462.3375532
Ministerio de Educación del Perú [MINEDU]. (2023). Censo Escolar 2023: Informe nacional de infraestructura educativa. https://escale.minedu.gob.pe/censo-escolar
Nieminen, K., Lönnqvist, J., & Mäkinen, M. (2024). Developing student agency towards academic integrity in digital environments. Ethics and Education, 19(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09567-y
Peng, L., Deng, Y., & Jin, S. (2022). The evaluation of active learning classrooms: Impact of spatial factors on students’ learning experience and learning engagement. Sustainability, 14(8), 4839. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084839
Puentedura, R. R. (2010). SAMR and TPCK: Intro to advanced practice. http://hippasus.com/resources/sweden2010/SAMR_TPCK_IntroToAdvancedPractice.pdf
Roe, J., & Perkins, M. (2024). Generative AI and agency in education: A critical scoping review and thematic analysis. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.00631
Rudolph, A. L., Lamine, B., Joyce, M., Vignolles, H., & Consiglio, D. (2013). Introduction of interactive learning into French university physics classrooms. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 9(1), 010103. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.010103
Ozdel, S., Sarpkaya, C., Bozkir, E., Gao, H., & Kasneci, E. (2025). Examining the role of LLM-driven interactions on attention and cognitive engagement in virtual classrooms. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.07377
Sánchez, M., García, J., Steffens, E., & Palma, H. (2023). Student perceptions of interactive activities using H5P in higher education. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación Superior, 16(40), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.22201/iisue.20072872e.2023.40.1545
Stenalt, M. H., & Lassesen, B. (2022). Does student agency benefit student learning? A systematic review of student agency in higher education research (2010–2020). Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(4), 519–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1967874
Shi, Y., Yang, H., MacLeod, J., Zhang, J., & Yang, H. Y. (2020). College students’ cognitive learning outcomes in technology-enabled active learning environments: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Educational Psychology Review, 32(1), 157–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09503-2
Stenalt, M. H., & Lassesen, B. (2021). Does student agency benefit student learning? A systematic review of higher education research. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(5), 653–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1967874
Sellier, N., & An, P. (2020). How peripheral interactive systems can support teachers with differentiated instruction: Using FireFlies as a probe. In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 4(CSCW2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415192
Selwyn, N. (2016). Is technology good for education? Polity Press.
Stratton, E., Chitiyo, G., Mathende, A. M., & Davis, K. M. (2020). Evaluating flipped versus face-to-face classrooms in middle school on science achievement and student perceptions. Contemporary Educational Technology, 11(4), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.646888
Tamássy, R., Géring, Z., Király, G., Plugor, R., & Rakovics, M. (2024). The portrayal of the role and agency of students and higher education institutions in highly ranked business school discourses. Journal of International Education in Business, 17(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIEB-09-2022-0064
Tran, L. T., & Pham, L. (2023). A systematic review of student agency in international higher education. Higher Education, 85, 925–947. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00952-3
Tweed, A. D., & Reinders, H. (2023). Agency and affordances in study abroad. Education Sciences, 13(4), 327. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040327
Unidad de Medición de la Calidad Educativa [UMC]. (2023). Resultados de la Evaluación Censal de Estudiantes (ECE) 2022. https://umc.minedu.gob.pe/evaluaciones-estandarizadas/
UNESCO. (2023). Global education monitoring report: Technology in education—A tool on whose terms? https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000385723
Young, J., Hamilton, C., & Cason, M. (2017). Interactive whiteboards in mathematics spaces: An examination of technology integration in an urban middle school. Contemporary Educational Technology, 8(4), 303–318. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6201
Yang, W., Li, Y., Zhou, W., & Li, H. (2020). Learning to design research: Students’ agency and identity development in an undergraduate research methods course. Journal of Educational Change, 21(3), 345–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531120917163
Yang, L., Lee, S., & Oldac, Y. I. (2024). A cross-cultural exploration of students' agency in higher education: Lessons from a comparative study. Journal of Comparative and International Higher Education, 16(1), 50–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311241238233
Walker, G. J., Vos, A., Monjero, K., Sikas-Iha, T., & Alders, R. G. (2024). Participation, agency, and youth voice in establishing school gardens: Comparing cases from Kenya and Papua New Guinea. Frontiers in Communication, 9, Article 1359789. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1359789
Vieira, C., Magana, A. J., & Falk, M. L. (2021). Providing students with agency to self-scaffold: Designing interactive simulations to support autonomy. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 33(3), 570–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-020-09267-7
Vaughn, M., Jang, B. G., Sotirovska, V., et al. (2020). Student agency in literacy: A systematic review of the literature. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 69(1), 130–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381337720943612
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Vroom, K., Gehrtz, J., Apkarian, N., Elizondo, T. A., Ellis, B., & Hagman, J. (2022). Characteristics of interactive classrooms that first-year students find helpful. International Journal of STEM Education, 9, Article 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00354-y
Zhang, Q., Barnes, B., & Jing, M. (2021). Quantifying the effects of active learning environments: Separating physical learning classrooms from pedagogical approaches. Learning Environments Research, 24(1), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-020-09320-3
