Hacia la educación basada en la evidencia un método y un tema

  1. Camilli Trujillo, Celia 1
  2. Arroyo Resino, Delia 1
  3. Asensio Muñoz, Isabel Inmaculada 1
  4. Mateos Gordo, Patricia 1
  1. 1 Universidad Complutense de Madrid; España
Journal:
Revista Electrónica en Educación y Pedagogía

ISSN: 2590-7476

Year of publication: 2020

Issue Title: enero-junio

Volume: 4

Issue: 6

Pages: 69-85

Type: Article

DOI: 10.15658/10.15658/REV.ELECTRON.EDUC.PEDAGOG20.05040606 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Revista Electrónica en Educación y Pedagogía

Abstract

The review of research, when carried out systematically, is a methodology that can be embedded within existing paradigms - qualitative, quantitative or mixed - and aims to generate evidence: a) which reports research continuity in a given line of research, or b) which guides decision-making for the improvement of educational practices and policies. The article focuses on the characteristics, and stages of the methodological process of systematic review applied to a particular educational investigation, in order to illustrate its usefulness as a methodology for obtaining evidence. More precisely, an integrative and mixed method of systematic review is applied to a specific topic - the research on Final Degree Projects (FDP) Or Final Projects- as examples to answer the review question: What data collection and data analysis techniques are researched on FDP or Final Projects in the scientific literature? Both quantitative and qualitative results are presented. As a conclusion, in this research topic, practice and education policy continue to build on prevailing beliefs, and these beliefs do not always have as a basis the results of the research, from which evidence is generated. The limitations relating to the establishment of criteria for evidence calculation are highlighted, as well as the contributions of this methodology on both the research topic chosen as an example and, in general, for scientific advancement in education.  

Bibliographic References

  • Adderley; K. J. (April; 1975). Aims; objectives and criteria of undergraduate Project Work Incorporating Cai. International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education; 12(2); 165-176. doi: 10.1177/002072097501200219
  • Allison; J. & Benson; F. A. (November; 1983). Undergraduate projects and their assessment. IEE Proceedings a (Physical Science; Measurement and Instrumentation; Management and Education; Reviews); 130(8); 402-419. doi: 10.1049 / ip-a-1.1983.0073
  • Andrews; R. & Harlen; W. (November; 2006). Issues in synthesizing research in education. Educational Research; 48(3); 287 – 299.
  • Arar; K. (April; 2016). Using insider research in MEd final projects to bridge the theory/practice gap. International Journal of Leadership in Education; 21(4); 462-478. doi: 10.1080/13603124.2016.1157210
  • Arreman; I. E. & Erixon; P. O. (February; 2017). Professional and academic discourse–Swedish student teachers’ final degree project in Early Childhood Education and Care. Linguistics and Education; 37; 52-62. doi: 10.1016/j.linged.2016.10.001
  • Botella; J. & Zamora; Á. (julio -diciembre; 2017). El meta-análisis: una metodología para la investigación en educación. Educación XX1; 20(2); 17-38. doi: 10.5944/educXX1.19030
  • Bardín; L. (1986). El análisis de contenido. Madrid: Akal.
  • Blanco; A. (2012). Evidencia en educación. Normas; sistemas de calificación y prácticas de difusión adoptadas por algunas iniciativas institucionales. En M. Castro (Ed.); Elogio a la Pedagogía Científica. Un liber amicorum para Arturo de la Orden Hoz (pp. 55-72). Madrid: Grafididma.
  • Braun; V. & Clarke; V. (July; 2008). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology; 3(2); 77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  • Cabrera; L. (enero-marzo; 2016). Revisión sistemática de la producción española sobre rendimiento académico entre 1980 y 2011. Revista Complutense de Educación; 27(1); 119-139. doi: 10.5209/rev_RCED.2016.v27.n1.45293
  • Camilli; C. (2015). Aprendizaje cooperativo e individual en el rendimiento académico en estudiantes universitarios: un meta-análisis (Tesis doctoral). Universidad Complutense de Madrid; Madrid.
  • Camilli; C. (2018). La educación mediática en España: revisión sistemática de la producción científica publicada en revistas científicas. En C. Fuente Cobo; C. García Galán & Autora (Eds.); La educación científica en España: artículos seleccionados (pp.1-15). España: Editorial Universitas.
  • Camilli; C. & López; E. (2015). Trends and challenges of qualitative research: An exploratory review of research. In G. Hüber (Ed.); New Perspective on Qualitative Research (pp. 11-36). Alemania; Tübingen: Editorial Center for Qualitative.
  • Camilli; C. & Römer; M. (Enero; 2017). Meta-synthesis of literacy for the empowerment of vulnerable groups. Revista Comunicar; 53; 9-18. doi: 10.3916/C53-2017-01
  • Cooper; H. (1998) Synthesizing Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks; CA: Sage Publications.
  • Culwin; F. (May; 2008). A longitudinal study of nonoriginal content in final-year computing undergraduate projects. IEEE Transactions on Education; 51(2); 189-194. doi: 10.1109 / TE.2007.910350
  • Danowitz; A. (December; 2016). Leveraging the final project to improve student motivation in introductory digital design courses. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE); USA. doi: 10.1109 / FIE.2016.7757380
  • Davies; P. (2000). The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education; 26(3-4); 365–378. doi: 10.1080/713688543
  • Dixon-Woods; M.; Bonas; S.; Booth; A.; Jones; D. R.; Miller; T.; Sutton; A. J. & Young; B. (febrero; 2006). ¿Cómo pueden las revisiones sistemáticas incorporar investigación cualitativa? Una perspectiva crítica. Investigación cualitativa; 6(1); 27-44. doi: 10.1177/1468794106058867
  • Esteban-Escaño; J.; Esteban-Sánchez; A. L. & Sein-Echaluce; M. L. (February; 2017). Engineering Final Project supervised in an adaptive way with Moodle support. IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologías del Aprendizaje; 12(1); 10-16. doi:10.1109 / RITA.2017.2655178
  • EPPI-Centre. (2019). The Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co–ordinating Centre. Recuperado de https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=60
  • Evidence Informed Policy and Practice in Education in Europe (EIPPEE). (2011). The nature of evidence. Recuperado de http://www.eippee.eu/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=3179.
  • Flick; U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research. California: Sage Publications Limited.
  • Glass; G. (November; 1976). Primary; secondary and meta–analysis of research. Educational Researcher; 5(10); 3–8. doi: 10.3102/0013189X005010003
  • Glass; G. (January; 1977). Integrating findings: the meta–analysis of research. Review of Research in Education; 5(1); 351–379. doi: 10.3102/0091732X005001351
  • García-Martínez; I. & Martín-Romera; A. (abril-junio; 2019). Potenciando la coordinación pedagógica a través del liderazgo de los mandos medios en educación. Bordón. Revista Pedagógica; 71(2); 55-70. doi: 10.13042/Bordon.2019.67324
  • Gibbs; G. R. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (Vol. 6). California: Sage Publications Limited.
  • González-Rodríguez; D.; Vieira; M.J. & Vidal; J. (abril-junio; 2019). Variables que influyen en la transición de la educación primaria a la educación secundaria obligatoria. Un modelo comprensivo. Bordón. Revista Pedagógica 71(2); 85-108. doi: 10.13042/Bordon.2019.68957
  • Gough; D. (May; 2007). Weight of Evidence: a framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence. Research Papers in Education; 22(2); 213-228. doi: 10.1080/02671520701296189
  • Harden; A. & Thomas; J. (June-July; 2005). Methodological issues in combining diverse study types in systematic reviews. International Journal Social Research Methodology; 8(3); 257-271. doi: 10.1080/13645570500155078
  • Hargreaves; D. (2011). Teaching as a research–based profession: possibilities and prospects. In M. Hammersley (Ed.) Educational Research and Evidence–based Practice (pp.3–17). United Kingdom: The Open University
  • Harris; D. & Smith; B. (September-December; 1983) Undergraduate Project Work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education; 8(3); 246-261. doi: 10.1080/0260293830080307
  • Hederich; C.; Martínez; J. & Rincón; L. (enero-junio; 2014). Hacia una educación basada en la evidencia. Revista Colombiana de Educación; 66; 19-54.
  • Higgins; J. & Green S. (20; March; 2011) (Eds.). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration [Web site]. Recuperado de www.cochrane-handbook.org
  • Howard; E. & Woods; D. (November; 2016). Using a Multimedia Final Project in an IT Ethics Course. Information Systems Education Journal; 14(6); 41-46.
  • Hutton; B.; Salanti; G.; Caldwell; D. M.; Chaimani; A.; Schmid; C. H.; Cameron; C. & Moher; D. (June; 2015). The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Annals of Internal Medicine; 162; 777-784. doi:10.7326/M14-2385
  • Jackson; G. B. (September; 1980). Methods for integrative reviews. Review of educational research; 50(3); 438-460. doi: 10.3102/00346543050003438
  • Johnson; R. B. & Onwuergbuzie; A. J. (October; 2004). Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher; 33(7); 14-26. doi: 10.3102/0013189X033007014
  • Jusoh; S. & Al Fawareh; H. M. (January; 2017). The use of social media for final year undergraduate project supervision. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education; 15(3); 223-227.
  • Kwok; L.F. & Cheung; C.H. (January; 2008). Managing learning resources in university undergraduate project study. In Ninth IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia Workshops (ISMW) (pp. 528-534). doi: 10.1109/ISM.Workshops.2007.94
  • López; E.; Barceló; M. L. & Camilli; C. (2011). Revisión de meta-análisis sobre aprendizaje cooperativo: implicaciones en Educación Superior. En A. Hernández y S. Olmos (Eds.); Metodologías de aprendizaje colaborativo a través de las tecnologías (pp. 18-28). España: Universidad de Salamanca.
  • López; E. & Camilli; C. (2018). The benefits of peer tutoring and peer mentoring in university. In M. Badea & M. Suditu (Eds.); A review of research violence prevention and safety promotion in higher education settings (pp.20-35). Pennsylvania; USA: IGI Global. E-Editorial Discovery. doi: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2960-6.ch002
  • Miles; M. B. & Huberman; A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2a ed.). Thousand Oaks; CA: Sage Publications Limited.
  • Moreno Oliver; V. & Hernández-Leo; D. (January; 2015). Rubric-based tools to support the monitoring and assessment of Bachelor’s final projects. Education in the Knowledge Society; 16(4); 47-62. doi:10.14201/eks20151644762
  • Mottram; D. R. & Rowe; P. H. (January; 2005). A quality assurance procedure for pharmacy undergraduate project assessment. Pharmacy Education; 5(3); 251-254. doi: 10.1080/15602210500352989
  • Murdoch-Eaton; D.; Drewery; S.; Elton; S.; Emmerson; C.; Marshall; M.; Smith; J. A. & Whittle; S. (2010). What do medical students understand by research and research skills? Identifying research opportunities within undergraduate projects. Medical Teacher; 32(3); e152-160. doi: 10.3109/0142159100365749
  • Ogunniyi; S. O. & Adejubee; F. V. (January; 2014). Strategies of curbing deterioration of undergraduate projects: a case study of six selected colleges of education libraries in Southern Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice [e-journal; Paper 1036]. Recuperado de https://search.proquest.com/openview/1f20e6c9642078a45c360135903709b7/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=54903
  • Oramas; J. & Santana; S. (2015). Aspectos metodológicos sobre las revisiones sistemáticas y la Colaboración Cochrane. Educación Médica Superior; 29(2); 398-410.
  • Orsmond; P.; Merry; S. & Reiling; K. (September-October; 2004). Undergraduate project work: Can directed tutor support enhance skills development? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education; 29(5); 625-642. doi: 10.1080/02602930410001689180
  • Peña; E.; Fonseca; D. & Martí; N. (November; 2016). Relationship between learning indicators in the development and result of the building engineering degree final project. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (pp. 335-340). ACM. doi: 10.1145/3012430.3012537
  • Prieto; J. M. (enero-junio; 2020). Una revisión sistemática sobre gamificación; motivación y aprendizaje en universitarios. Teoría de la Educación. Revista Interuniversitaria; 32(1); 73-99. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14201/teri.20625
  • Puertas.; P.; Ubago; J. L.; Moreno; R.; Pardial; R.; Martínez; A. & González; G. (mayo-agosto; 2018). La inteligencia emocional en la formación y desempeño docente: una revisión sistemática. Asociación Española de Orientación y Psicología (AEOP); 29(2); 128-142. doi: 10.5944/reop.vol.29.num.2.2018.23157
  • Roca; N.; Morera; M.; Roldán; J. & Ramió; A. (abril; 2016). Trabajo final de grado y plan de acción tutorial en el curriculum del grado en enfermería. Diseño; desarrollo y evaluación. Enfermería Global; 15(2); 143-156. doi: 10.6018/eglobal.15.2.223591
  • Rowe; P. H. & Mottram; D. R. (April; 2003). Evaluation of a generic assessment scheme for pharmacy undergraduate projects. Pharmacy Education; 3(1); 29-33. doi: 10.1080/1860221031000093296
  • Rubio-Aparicio; M.; Sánchez-Meca; J.; Marín-Martínez; F. & López-López; J. A. (abril; 2018). Recomendaciones para el reporte de revisiones sistemáticas y meta-análisis. Anales de Psicología; 34(2); 412-420. doi: 10.6018/analesps.34.2.320131
  • Russell; C. L. (April; 2005). An overview of the integrative research review. Progress in transplantation; 15(1); 8-13.
  • Schaffer; S. P.; Chen; X. & Oakes; W. C. (October; 2010). Work in progress—Measuring cross-disciplinary team learning in undergraduate project teams. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. T2G-1). doi:10.1109 / FIE.2010.5673178
  • Slavin; R. & Fashola; O. (1998). Show me the evidence! Proven and promising programs for America´s schools. United States of America: Corwin Press; Inc.
  • Sotos; M. (enero; 2020). Análisis cualitativo del proceso de tutorización de los Trabajos Fin de Grado. El caso de la Facultad de Educación de Albacete. Revista Complutense de Educación; 31(1); 35-44. doi: https://doi.org/10.5209/rced.61746
  • Strauss; A. & Corbin; J. (1990). Basic of qualitative research: grounded theory; procedures and techniques. Newbury Park; CA: Sage Publications Limited.
  • Suárez-García; Z.; Álvarez- García; D. & Rodríguez; C. (enero-junio; 2020). Predictores de ser víctima de acoso escolar en educación primaria: una revisión sistemática. Revista de Psicología y Educación; 15(1); 1-15. doi: https://doi.org/10.23923/rpye2020.01.182
  • Suwandi; S. (January; 2016). Coherence and cohesion: An analysis of the final project abstracts of the undergraduate students of PGRI Semarang. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics; 5(2); 253-261. doi: 10.17509/ijal.v5i2.1349
  • Urrútia; G. & Bonfill; X. (octubre; 2010). Declaración PRISMA: una propuesta para mejorar la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas y meta-análisis. Medicina Clínica; 135(11); 507-511. doi:10.1016/j.medcli.2010.01.015
  • Van der Vleuten; C. & Driessen; E. (June; 2014). What would happen to education if we take education evidence seriously? Perspective Medicine Education; 3(3); 222–232.
  • Whittemore; R. & Knafl; K. (December; 2005). The integrative review: updated methodology. Journal of advanced nursing; 52(5); 546-553.
Data source: Dialnet