Innovation by Obligation? Tensions Between Institutional Digitalization, Faculty Autonomy, and Engineering Education

¿Innovar por obligación?: Tensiones entre digitalización institucional, autonomía docente y formación en ingeniería.

Published 2026-05-22


https://doi.org/10.30554/p.e.35.2.5587.2026
Open | Download
PDF (Spanish) FLIP EPUB (Spanish) HTML (Spanish) XML (Spanish)
Issue
Vol. 35 No. 2 (2026)
Section
Articles
How to Cite
Obando Sanipatín, A. E. (2026). Innovation by Obligation? Tensions Between Institutional Digitalization, Faculty Autonomy, and Engineering Education. Plumilla Educativa, 35(2), 1-23 p. https://doi.org/10.30554/p.e.35.2.5587.2026
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX
DOI

https://doi.org/10.30554/p.e.35.2.5587.2026
Dimensions
PlumX

How to Cite

Obando Sanipatín, A. E. (2026). Innovation by Obligation? Tensions Between Institutional Digitalization, Faculty Autonomy, and Engineering Education. Plumilla Educativa, 35(2), 1-23 p. https://doi.org/10.30554/p.e.35.2.5587.2026

Download Citation

license
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Andrés Esteban Obando Sanipatín
Universidad Central del Ecuador
https://orcid.org/0009-0000-2080-4127 ORCID
Show authors biography

Andrés Esteban Obando Sanipatín,

Docente de la Universidad Central del Ecuador - Facultad de Ingeniería Química; Quito – Ecuador. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0000-2080-4127; email: aeosangabriel@hotmail.com.

Engineering education has historically been shaped by teaching models centered on faculty-led exposition and the efficient transmis- sion of technical content. While this approach enabled the develop- ment of highly specialized programs, it is increasingly insufficient for preparing professionals capable of interpreting complex problems, making decisions under uncertainty, and situating knowledge within diverse social contexts. Recent literature highlights the expansion of active methodologies and digital technologies as key drivers of pedagogical innovation in higher education. However, these transformations do not occur in a pedagogical vacuum; they are embedded within institutional frameworks that shape their meaning and impact. The integration of digital environments, assessment systems, and monitoring mechanisms has expanded opportunities for participation and experimentation, but has also exposed ten- sions related to faculty workload, unequal access to technology, and the growing standardization of academic work. Advancing toward more participatory and digitally mediated forms of teaching requires rethinking the purposes of engineering education, as well as the ethical, organizational, and pedagogical conditions that allow innovation to move beyond an instrumental obligation and become a meaningful formative process.

Article visits 57 | PDF visits 47

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
  1. Abelha, M., Fernandes, S., Mesquita, D., Seabra, F., & Ferreira-Oliveira, A. T. (2020). Graduate Employability and Competence Development in Higher Education—A Systematic Literature Review Using PRISMA. Sustainability, 12(15), 5900. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12155900
  2. AlAjmi, M. K. (2022). The impact of digital leadership on teachers’ technology integration during the COVID-19 pandemic in Kuwait. International Journal of Educational Research, 112, 101928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2022.101928
  3. Balderas, A., Palomo-Duarte, M., Dodero, J. M., Ibarra-Sáiz, M. S., & Rodríguez-Gómez, G. (2018). Scalable authentic assessment of collaborative work assignments in wikis. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0122-1
  4. Beagon, U., & Bowe, B. (2023). Understanding professional skills in engineering education: A phenomenographic study of faculty conceptions. Journal of Engineering Education, 112(4), 1109-1144. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20556
  5. Bond, M., Khosravi, H., De Laat, M., Bergdahl, N., Negrea, V., Oxley, E., Pham, P., Chong, S. W., & Siemens, G. (2024). A meta systematic review of artificial intelligence in higher education: A call for increased ethics, collaboration, and rigour. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00436-z
  6. Brand, B. R. (2020). Integrating science and engineering practices: Outcomes from a collaborative professional development. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00210-x
  7. Capatina, A., Juarez-Varon, D., Micu, A., & Micu, A. E. (2024). Leveling up in corporate training: Unveiling the power of gamification to enhance knowledge retention, knowledge sharing, and job performance. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 9(3), 100530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100530
  8. Christian, K. B., Kelly, A. M., & Bugallo, M. F. (2021). NGSS-based teacher professional develo- pment to implement engineering practices in STEM instruction. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00284-1
  9. Córica, J. L. (2020). Resistencia docente al cambio: Caracterización y estrategias para un problema no resuelto. RIED. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 23(2), 255. https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.23.2.26578
  10. De Oliveira, F., Beregi, J.-P., Potier, H., Brun, T., Serrand, C., & Frandon, J. (2025). Comparing active teaching to hybrid lecture-based method for learning radiology basics: A single center controlled study. Research in Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, 13, 100054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.redii.2025.100054
  11. Díaz-Ramírez, J. (2020). Gamification in engineering education – An empirical assessment on learning and game performance. Heliyon, 6(9), e04972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04972
  12. Gañán-Rojo, P., Torres-Taborda, M., Gaviria-Forero, L. A., Barajas-Gamboa, J., & Castrillón- Hernández, F. (2025). A bibliometric analysis of game-based learning applications in chemical engineering education: Key elements and evolution. Education for Chemical Engineers, 50, 42-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2024.12.002
  13. Guerrero, P. (2005). Estudio de las Resistencias de los Profesores a una Estrategia Para el De- sarrollo de la Creatividad en Tres Unidades Educativas. Psykhe (Santiago), 14(1). https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-22282005000100003
  14. Hanley, K. J. (2023). Group allocation based on peer feedback. European Journal of Engineering Education, 48(2), 284-299. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2022.2106191
  15. Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2012). Schooling, educational achievement, and the Latin American growth puzzle. Journal of Development Economics, 99(2), 497-512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2012.06.004
  16. Lagubeau, G., Tecpan, S., & Hernández, C. (2020). Active learning reduces academic risk of stu- dents with nonformal reasoning skills: Evidence from an introductory physics massive course in a Chilean public university. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 16(2), 023101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.023101
  17. Lavaux, S., Salas, J. I., Chiappe, A., & Ramírez-Montoya, M. S. (2025). Regional Perspectives on Service Learning and Implementation Barriers: A Systematic Review. Applied Sciences, 15(16), 9058. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15169058
  18. León, J., Núñez-Regueiro, F., & Santana-Monagas, E. (2025). Relaciones recíprocas entre los mensajes docentes que promueven el compromiso y la motivación del alumnado. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 30(2), 500165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psicod.2025.500165
  19. Li, Y. (2025). Advancing STEM education as a dynamic and distinct academic field. International Journal of STEM Education, 12(1), 61, s40594-025-00584-w.https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-025-00584-w
  20. Luche, J. R. D., De Freitas, C. R., Dos Santos Goussain, B. G. C., & Silva, M. B. (2025). Physio- logical and behavioral data on active and traditional learning in engineering education. Data in Brief, 61, 111766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2025.111766
  21. Magana, A. J., Amuah, T., Aggrawal, S., & Patel, D. A. (2023). Teamwork dynamics in the context of large-size software development courses. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1),57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00451-6
  22. Meyer, Th., Schaer, E., Feise, H., Glassey, J., Liauw, M., Ó’Súilleabháin, C., & Wilk, M. (2022). The importance/role of education in chemical engineering. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 187, 164-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2022.08.061
  23. Morejón Cabrera, G., Mariel, P., & Abadía, L. K. (2022). Postgraduate study preferences of busi- ness administration and economics students from Colombia, Ecuador, and Spain. International Journal of Educational Research, 112, 101935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2022.101935
  24. Ramírez-Montoya, M. S., Quintero Gámez, L., Sanabria-Z, J., & Portuguez-Castro, M. (2024). Exploring Complex Thinking in Latin American Universities: Comparative Analysis Between Programs and Alternative Credentials. Journal of Latinos and Education, 23(5), 1744-1765. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2024.2329671
  25. Reynaga-Peña, C. G., Aguilar-Mejía, J. R., Santillán-Rosas, I. M., Tamayo-Preval, D., Torres Sánchez, P., & Olais-Govea, J. M. (2025). Engineering education for inclusion: Developing transversal and disciplinary competencies with maker projects. European Journal of Engineering Education, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2025.2502470
  26. Ribeiro-Silva, E., Amorim, C., Aparicio-Herguedas, J. L., & Batista, P. (2022). Trends of Active Learning in Higher Education and Students’ Well-Being: A Literature Review. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 844236. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.844236
  27. Rodríguez, M., González J., E., González - Miquel, M., & Díaz, I. (2020). Motivational Active Learning in Chemical Engineering. En Computer Aided Chemical Engineering (Vol. 48, pp. 2017-2022). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-823377-1.50337-2
  28. Rodríguez-Enríquez, M., Álvarez-García, D., Rodríguez-Alvarado, S., & Ares-Ferreirós, M. (2025). Apoyo social percibido por el alumnado en la transición de Educación Primaria a Secundaria: Tendencias en función del curso y asociación con cibervictimización. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 30(2), 500172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psicod.2025.500172
  29. Obando Sanipatín, A.E. (2026). ¿Innovar por obligación?: Tensiones entre digitalización institucional, autonomía docente y formación en ingeniería. Plumilla Educativa, 35(2) 1-23 p.
  30. Romero-Hall, E. (2021). Current initiatives, barriers, and opportunities for networked learning in Latin America. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(4), 2267-2283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09965-8
  31. Romeu Fontanillas, T., Romero Carbonell, M., & Guitert Catasús, M. (2016). E-assessment process: Giving a voice to online learners. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0019-9
  32. Suárez-López, M. J., Blanco-Marigorta, A. M., & Gutiérrez-Trashorras, A. J. (2023). Gamification in thermal engineering: Does it encourage motivation and learning? Education for Chemical Engineers, 45, 41-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2023.07.006
  33. Topping, K. J., Gehringer, E., Khosravi, H., Gudipati, S., Jadhav, K., & Susarla, S. (2025). Enhancing peer assessment with artificial intelligence. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 22(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00501-1
  34. Torche, F. (2010). Economic Crisis and Inequality of Educational Opportunity in Latin America. Sociology of Education, 83(2), 85-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040710367935
  35. Valero, M. (2022). Challenges, difficulties and barriers for engineering higher education. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 12(3), 551. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1696
  36. Virtanen, A., & Tynjälä, P. (2022). Pedagogical practices predicting perceived learning of social skills among university students. International Journal of Educational Research, 111, 101895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101895
  37. Weidlich, J., Gotsch, F., Schudel, K., Marusic-Würscher, C., Mazzarella, J., Bolten, H., Bütler, D., Luger, S., Wohlfender, B., & Merki, K. M. (2025). Teacher, peer, or AI? Comparing effects of feedback sources in higher education. Computers and Education Open, 9, 100300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2025.100300

Information

Google Scholar Profile

Keywords

ISSN

ISSN impreso: 1657-4672

ISSN electrónico: 2619-1733

QR code