Entornos educativos flexibles en educación superior tecnológica: percepción del estudiantado y áreas prioritarias de mejora
Flexible educational environments in technological higher education: students' perceptions and priority areas for improvement
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56712/latam.v7i4.6337Palabras clave:
educación superior tecnológica, entornos educativos flexibles, percepción estudiantilResumen
El objetivo de este estudio fue comparar las percepciones de los estudiantes sobre el entorno educativo en cuatro instituciones de educación superior tecnológica e identificar los factores en los que se concentraban las diferencias. Se empleó un diseño cuantitativo, no experimental y transversal con una muestra de 355 estudiantes. Los factores F1–F5 se analizaron mediante un análisis multivariante de covarianza (MANCOVA). La principal contribución de este estudio es la identificación del factor específico que concentra la brecha institucional, proporcionando así evidencia para priorizar estrategias de mejora. Se hallaron diferencias significativas en el perfil general de los factores F1–F5 (Traza de Pillai, p = 0,020). Los análisis posteriores indicaron que dichas diferencias se concentraban en el factor F4 (p = 0,024; η² parcial = 0,026), mientras que la edad mostró una asociación significativa con F1 (p = 0,002) y F4 (p = 0,001). Estos resultados respaldan la priorización de acciones institucionales centradas en la flexibilidad, la retención estudiantil y el apoyo institucional a la gestión educativa.
Descargas
Citas
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
Balderrábano-Saucedo, M., Quintero-Fuentes, M., Ocampo-Ayub, R., & Argüelles-Gil, G. (2025). Validación de contenido de un instrumento para entornos educativos flexibles a través del juicio de expertos. 593 Digital Publisher CEIT, 10(6), 42-56. https://doi.org/10.33386/593dp.2025.6.3587
Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, Article 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
Capili, B. (2021). Overview: Cross-sectional studies. American Journal of Nursing, 121(10), 59–62. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000794280.73744.fe
Cizek, G. J., & Bunch, M. B. (2007). Standard setting: A guide to establishing and evaluating performance standards on tests. SAGE Publications.
Díaz Rincón, M., Arango Franco, P. C., Vergel Torrado, J. A., & Lora Díaz, O. L. (2025). Content validation of a questionnaire on healthcare personnel’s perceptions of technologies. Revista Cuidarte, 16(1), e4145. https://doi.org/10.15649/cuidarte.4145
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
Fangonil-Gagalang, E., Kim, Y., Schneider, J., & Gregg-Chastain, R. (2026). Sense of belonging of bachelor nursing students: A descriptive-comparative study. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 21(1), e194–e199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2025.09.008
Indrayan, A. (2024). Study designs for making most of the limited resources. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, 70(4), 227–231. https://doi.org/10.4103/jpgm.jpgm_607_24
Jones, I., Pauli, R., Brewer, G., & Peat, J. (2025, June 20). Is flexibility in higher education just a matter of convenience? A critical literature review. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA).
Kiani, A. K., Naureen, Z., Pheby, D., Henehan, G., Brown, R., Sieving, P., Sykora, P., Marks, R., Falsini, B., Capodicasa, N., Miertus, S., Lorusso, L., Dondossola, D., Tartaglia, G. M., Ergoren, M. C., Dundar, M., Michelini, S., Malacarne, D., Bonetti, G., … Bertelli, M. (2022). Methodology for clinical research. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene, 63(2 Suppl. 3), E267–E278. https://doi.org/10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2022.63.2S3.2769
Kldiashvili, E., Al-Rustum, S., Zarnadze, M., Goderdzishvili, D., Tvildiani, M., & Mamiseishvili, A. (2025). Application of project-based and simulation-based approaches in medical curriculum. BMC Medical Education, 25, 1707. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-08196-2
Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
Lucero Mondaca, N., Muñoz-Quezada, M. T., Jeldres Cáceres, C., Castillo Fierro, B., Araya Galleguillos, F., Farmer Alduce, G., Vilasau Domínguez, R., Villegas Ríos, R., Yohannessen Vásquez, K., Camacho Monclova, D., & Iglesias Álamos, V. (2025). Adaptation and content validity of a battery of questionnaires for identifying occupational conditions among Chilean artisanal and small-scale miners. Medwave. https://doi.org/10.5867/medwave.2025.08.3105
Merino-Soto, C. (2023). Aiken’s V coefficient: Differences in content validity judgments. MHSalud, 20(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.15359/mhs.20-1.3
OECD. (2023). Equity and inclusion in education: Finding strength through diversity. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/e9072e21-en
Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., Pinedo, L., & Fernández-Castilla, B. (2023). Effects of rubrics on academic performance, self-regulated learning, and self-efficacy: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology Review, 35, Article 113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09823-4
Pereira, D. S., Florêncio, R. S., Cestari, V. R. F., & Moreira, T. M. M. (2023). Vulnerability to physical inactivity: Evidence of content validity and response processes. Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem, 76(Suppl 2), e20220563. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7167-2022-0563
Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. V. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(4), 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199
Romero Jeldres, M. (2023). A review of Lawshe’s method for calculating content validity ratio. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1271335. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1271335
Ryan, T., Henderson, M., Ryan, K., & Kennedy, G. (2022). Feedback in higher education: Aligning academic intent and student sensemaking. Teaching in Higher Education, 29(4), 860–875. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2022.2029394
Staring, F., Brown, M., Bacsich, P., & Ifenthaler, D. (2022). Digital higher education: Emerging quality standards, practices and supports (OECD Education Working Papers, No. 281). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/f622f257-en
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning. (2022). SDG 4: Flexible learning pathways in higher education—from policy to practice: An international comparative analysis. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000383069
UNESCO. (2023). Global education monitoring report 2023: Technology in education—A tool on whose terms? https://doi.org/10.54676/UZQV8501
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15430421TIP4102_2
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2026 María Guadalupe Balderrábano Saucedo, Martha Patricia Quintero Fuentes
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
