Inovar por obrigação?: Tensões entre digitalização institucional, autonomia docente e formação em engenharia

Publicado 2026-05-22


https://doi.org/10.30554/p.e.35.2.5587.2026
##galleys.btn##
PDF (Espanhol) FLIP EPUB (Espanhol) HTML (Espanhol) XML (Espanhol)
Edição
v. 35 n. 2 (2026)
Seção
Artigos
Como Citar
Obando Sanipatín, A. E. (2026). Inovar por obrigação?: Tensões entre digitalização institucional, autonomia docente e formação em engenharia. Plumilla Educativa, 35(2), 1-23 p. https://doi.org/10.30554/p.e.35.2.5587.2026
Baixar Citação
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX
DOI

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

Como Citar

Obando Sanipatín, A. E. (2026). Inovar por obrigação?: Tensões entre digitalização institucional, autonomia docente e formação em engenharia. Plumilla Educativa, 35(2), 1-23 p. https://doi.org/10.30554/p.e.35.2.5587.2026

Baixar Citação

##articleSummary.license##
Creative Commons License

Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença 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
##submission.authorBio##

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.

A formação em engenharia tem sido historicamente marcada por modelos de ensino centrados na exposição do corpo docente e na transmissão eficiente de conteúdos técnicos. Embora essa abor- dagem tenha possibilitado a consolidação de programas altamente especializados, ela se mostra insuficiente diante dos desafios de formar profissionais capazes de interpretar problemas complexos, tomar decisões em contextos de incerteza e situar o conhecimento em realidades sociais diversas. A literatura recente aponta a expan- são de metodologias ativas e tecnologias digitais como estratégias centrais de inovação pedagógica no ensino superior. Contudo, es- sas transformações não ocorrem em um vazio pedagógico, mas se inserem em marcos institucionais que condicionam seu significado e seus efeitos. A incorporação de ambientes digitais, sistemas de avaliação e mecanismos de acompanhamento ampliou oportunida- des de participação, mas também evidenciou tensões relacionadas à sobrecarga docente, ao acesso desigual à tecnologia e à crescente padronização do trabalho acadêmico. Avançar para práticas mais participativas e mediadas digitalmente exige repensar os propósitos e as condições éticas, organizacionais e pedagógicas da educação em engenharia.

Visão geral 57 | Visualizações de PDF 47

Downloads

Os dados de download ainda não estão disponíveis.
  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

Informações

Perfil do Google Acadêmico

Palavras-chave

ISSN

ISSN impreso: 1657-4672

ISSN electrónico: 2619-1733

Código QR