Heutagogy of relativity: Scientific argumentation and discussion, mediated by a virtual forum
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31637/epsir-2025-1193Keywords:
heutagogy, didactic strategy, knowledge construction, communication, 21st century skills, discussion forum, relativity, critical thinkingAbstract
The development of 21st require rethinking the learning processes; considering the student-teacher relationships, teaching practices and the way in which it is evaluated, so the proposal based on heutagogy is conducive to self-regulation of learning through a virtual forum for learning relativity. Methodology: A case study with a convenience sample of 20 students, analyzing the arguments and the students' judgments about the concept of relativity, analyzed through the Atlas.ti software. Results: The implementation of the forum with a heutagogy approach provides elements for students to consider and think about their own learning, showing effectiveness in the interactivity for the exchange of messages, although learning does not always occur. Discussions: : It is required that the strategy with heutagogy approach be applied in the following semesters to be able to make a comparative and the effectiveness of the approach. Conclusions: The design of the didactic strategy proves that the use of a forum with appropriate content and according to the student´s level of studies tends to heutagogy learning.
Downloads
References
Ávila, G. (2021). ¿Nativos o zombis digitales? Revista Digital Universitaria, 22(1). http://doi.org/10.22201/cuaieed.16076079e.2021.22.1.18 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22201/cuaieed.16076079e.2021.22.1.18
Ávila, G. (2022). Modelo B-Learning mediante Moodle y su impacto en el proceso de aprendizaje de Física Moderna en el bachillerato IPN. (Tesis doctoral no publicada). Centro de Investigación de Ciencia Aplicada y Tecnología Avanzada del Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Ciudad de México.
Blaschke, L. M. (2013). E-learning and self-determined learning skills. En S. Hase y C. Kenyon (Eds.) Self-determined learning: Heutagogy in action, (pp. 55-68). Boomsbury https://acortar.link/fxkVyZ
Berrocal, E. y Expósito, J. (2011). El proceso de investigación educativa II: Investigación- acción. En VV.AA. Innovación docente e investigación educativa: Máster Universitario de Educación Secundaria Obligatoria y Bachillerato, Formación Profesional y Enseñanza de Idiomas (pp. 35-50). Grupo Editorial Universitario.
Bossolasco, M. L. (2010). El foro de discusión. Entorno mediado para la mediación cognitiva. Editorial Virtual Argentina.
Buitrago, C. S. y Andrés, M. M. (2021). Propuesta didáctica de estructura discursiva para la clase de Física en el profesorado. Revista de Investigación, 105(45).
Bujanda, M., Gonzáles, V., Ovares, A. y Montano, S. (2014). Competencias del siglo XXI. Guía práctica para promover su aprendizaje y evaluación. Capítulo latinoamericano del Proyecto ATC21s. Fundación Omar Dengo y Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills.
Chen, B., Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., Zhang, J., Park, H., Teo, C. L. y Bielaczyc, K. (2023). Infrastructuring for Knowledge Building. En VV.AA. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning-CSCL 2023, (pp. 327-336). International Society of the Learning Sciences. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22318/cscl2023.126619
Chun, T. C. y Abdullah, M. N. L. Y. (2021). Heutagogy approach in 21st century teaching and learning: practices and challenges in malaysian higher education. ASEAN Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, 13(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17576/ajtlhe.1301.2021.02
CEPAL (Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe) (agosto de 2020). Gestión del Conocimiento. Biblioteca de la CEPAL. https://biblioguias.cepal.org/c.php?g=738015yp=6754718
CEPAL (Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe) (2020a). América Latina y el Caribe ante la pandemia del COVID-19: efectos económicos y sociales, Informe Especial COVID-19, N° 1, Santiago, 3 de abril. Panorama Social de América Latina, 2018 (LC/PUB.2019/3-P).
Driver, R., Newton, P. y Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-313. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.3.CO;2-1
Garrison, D. R. (2003). Cognitive presence for effective asynchronous online learning: The role of reflective inquiry, self-direction and metacognition. Elements of quality online education: Practice and direction, 4(1), 47-58.
Gil, E., Guitert, M. y Romeu, T. (2019). Guidelines on virtual debates. Universitat Oberta de Catalunya.
Goh, L. H. (2019). Understanding online learner knowledge building from discussion forum analytics. CALL-EJ, 20(3), 62-76.
Guiter, M. y Romeu, T. (2008). Material on virtual debates. Universitat Oberta de Catalunya.
Hase, S. (2011). Learner defined curriculum: heutagogy and action learning in vocational training. Southern Institute of Technology Journal of Applied Research, Special Edition.
Hase, S. y Kenyon, C. (2013). Self-determined learning: Heutagogy in action. AyC Black.
Hermida, J. y Quintana, L. (2019). La hermenéutica como método de interpretación de textos en la investigación psicoanalítica. Perspectivas en Psicología: Revista de Psicología y Ciencias Afines, 16(2), 73-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3593031
Hogan, K. y Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students’ and scientists’ reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 663-687. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1025
Klein, G. (2012). Didáctica de la Física. Interacción Física y Educación. https://acortar.link/8xo55X
Kızılcık, H. y Yavaş, P. (2017). Pre-service physics teachers’ opinions about the difficulties in understanding introductory quantum physics topics. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v5i1.2012
Kishore, A. R., Appa Rao, C. y Bayana, R. K. (2024). Unveiling the esence of 21st Century Skills in education and the workplace. International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT), 12, 377-383.
López, G. J. C. (2015). Cómo utilizar foros de discusión en procesos educativos. http://eduteka.icesi.edu.co/articulos/foros-discusion
Molinar, A. (2018). La educación que necesitamos ante los retos del futuro. Observatorio del Tecnológico de Monterey. https://acortar.link/VQz0yj
Moodle.org (abril de 2023). Moodle. Moodle Partner, Certified Services Provider. https://moodle.org/
Moore, R. L. (2020). Developing lifelong learning with heutagogy: contexts, critiques, and challenges. Distance Education, 41(3), 381-401. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1766949
Muñoz-Justicia, J. y Sahagún-Padilla, M. (2017). Hacer análisis cualitativo con Atlas.ti 7. Manual de uso. https://manualatlas.psicologiasocial.eu/atlasti7.pdf
Neil, H. y Maria, S. (2007). Developing online discussion forums as student centred peer e-learning environments. Proceedings ascilite Singapore. https://acortar.link/yorpAY
Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 345-359. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.06.001
Ornelas, D. (2007). El uso del Foro de Discusión Virtual en la enseñanza. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 44(4), 1-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35362/rie4442226
Passmore, C. y Stewart, J. (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 39(3), 185-204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10020
Plan y programas de estudio vigentes del Colegio de bachilleres (10 de mayo de 2022). Áreas básica, laboral y específica por semestre. https://acortar.link/MKwG4S
Ouariach, F. Z., Nejjari, A., Ouariach, S. y Khaldi, M. (2024). Place of forums in online communication through an LMS platform. World Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology and Sciences, 11(1), 96-104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30574/wjaets.2024.11.1.0042
Posada Álvarez, R. (1999). Formación superior basada en competencias interdisciplinariedad y trabajo autónomo del estudiante. Revista Iberoamericana De Educación, 35(1), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.35362/rie3512870 DOI: https://doi.org/10.35362/rie3512870
Programa para la Evaluación Internacional de Alumnos (2018). Resultados México 2018. Instituto Nacional de Evaluación Educativa https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA2018_CN_MEX_Spanish.pdf
Programa para la Evaluación Internacional de alumnos (2022). Marcos conceptuales 2022 y 2025. Instituto Nacional de Evaluación Educativa. https://acortar.link/LE1DZJ
Rathakrishnan, M. y Raman, A. (2021). Heutagogy approach using Trello online learning on the critical thinking skills amongst students with different learning styles. En M. Khosrow-Pour., S. Clarke., M. E. Jennex. y A. Anttiroiko (Eds.), Research anthology on developing effective online learning courses (pp. 2090-2104). IGI Global. http://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-8047-9.ch104 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-8047-9.ch104
Riaño, M. J. y Vega, J. A. (2018). Protocolo básico de Atlas.ti. Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas, Facultad de Ciencias y Educación.
Sampson, V. y Clarck, D. (2008). Assesment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447-472. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20276
Sanabria, I., Gisbert, M., Ramirez, M. y Téllez, N. (2013). Foros de discusión para el desarrollo de habilidades cognitivas en un curso Blended Learning de Física I. Revista Eduweb, 7(1), 97-114.
Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_2
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. Liberal education in a knowledge society, 97, 67-98.
Schiek, D. y Ullrich, C. G. (2019). Using web forums for qualitative inquiries: Empirical findings on the conditions and techniques for asynchronous online group discussions. The Qualitative Report, 24(13), 5-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2019.4117
Solano, M. P., Romero, T. D. y Aguilar, M. A. (2016). Hábitos de estudio de tercero de secundaria y de primer año en el CECyT 2 Miguel Bernard. En VV.AA. Tendencias y desafíos en la innovación educativa: un debate abierto (pp. 1453-1471). Fundación para la Educación Superior Internacional, A.C.
Solé, I. (1992). Estrategias de lectura. Graó. https://acortar.link/68Dj7
Sudarwati, I., Khanafiyah, S. y Sugiyanto, S. (2017). Online-course development via discussion-forum on the students of Physic Education Universitas Negeri Semarang. Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Indonesia, 13(1), 9-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15294/jpfi.v13i1.8982
Teo, C. L., Lee, A. V. Y., Ong, A. y Yuan, G. (2022). A three-year design-based study: Cultivating students’ collaboration using principle-based approach in student Knowledge Building Design Studio. [Ponencia] AERA Annual Meeting. San Diego, EE.UU. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/1895437
Trucco, D. y A. Palma (eds.) (2020). Infancia y adolescencia en la era digital: un informe comparativo de los estudios de Kids Online del Brasil, Chile, Costa Rica y el Uruguay, En VV.AA. Documentos de Proyectos (LC/TS.2020/18), Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL)
UNAM (2023). Plan y programas de estudios indicativos. Escuela Nacional Preparatoria, Mapa Curricular año plan 1996. https://bit.ly/3LXs5oV
UNESCO (2023). La UNESCO moviliza a los ministros en torno a iniciativas clave sobre educación ecológica y transformación digital. https://bit.ly/4dtRkLg
Verd, J. M. (2005). El uso de la teoría de redes sociales en la representación y análisis de textos: De las redes semánticas al análisis de redes textuales. Empiria: revista de metodología de ciencias sociales, 10, 129-150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5944/empiria.10.2005.1046
Wang, J. C. Y. y Darahuge, M. E. (2023). El foro virtual como impulsor de la experiencia de aprendizaje. MLS Educational Research (MLSER), 7(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.29314/mlser.v7i1.1011
Wehmeyer, L., Lance, G. y Bashinsky, S. (2002). Promoting access to the general curriculo for students with mental retardation: A multi-level model. Education and Training in Mental retardation and Development Disabilities, 37(3), 223-234.
Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R. y Messina, R. (2009). Designs for Collective Cognitive Responsibility in Knowledge-Building Communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 7-44. http://doi.org/10.1080/10508400802581676 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400802581676
Zhang, J., Hong, H. Y., Scardamalia, M., Teo, C. y Morley, E. (2011). Sustaining knowledge building as a principle-based innovation at an elementary school. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 262–307. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.528317
Zhang, J., Tao, D., Chen, M. H., Sun, Y., Judson, D. y Naqvi, S. (2018). Co-organizing the collective journey of inquiry with idea thread mapper. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(3), 390-430. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2018.1444992
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Guillemina Ávila García
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Non Commercial, No Derivatives Attribution 4.0. International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.), that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
