Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

From technological training to the pedagogical appropriation of ICT in rural educational contexts: advances from participatory action research

‌De la formación tecnológica a la apropiación pedagógica de las TIC en contextos educativos rurales: avances de una investigación-acción participativa





Section
Articles

How to Cite
Ortiz Acevedo, H. (2026). From technological training to the pedagogical appropriation of ICT in rural educational contexts: advances from participatory action research. Plumilla Educativa, 35(2). https://doi.org/10.30554/p.e.35.2.5802.2026
Download Citation

Dimensions
PlumX

How to Cite

Ortiz Acevedo, H. (2026). From technological training to the pedagogical appropriation of ICT in rural educational contexts: advances from participatory action research. Plumilla Educativa, 35(2). https://doi.org/10.30554/p.e.35.2.5802.2026

Download Citation

Herlinda Ortiz Acevedo

Herlinda Ortiz Acevedo,

Docente de la Institución Educativa El Tagüí, Sabana de Torres, Santander, Colombia. hortiza1@unicartagena.edu.co


This article reports partial findings from Phase 1 of a doctoral study examining how teachers’ digital competence is configured and ex- pressed through ICT-mediated pedagogical practices in a rural school in Colombia’s Magdalena Medio region. Grounded in a sociocritical paradigm, a qualitative approach, and Participatory Action Research, this phase follows a hermeneutic-phenomenological orientation. The analysis contrasts questionnaires from seven teachers and eight stu- dents with discussion groups involving both sets of participants. The student questionnaire received nine submissions. A test submission by the researcher was identified and excluded from the analysis, so descriptive frequencies were calculated from the eight student res- ponses. Triangulation is provisional. Teachers report a combination of formal training, self-directed learning and peer support. Across sources, a gap emerges between teachers’ stated pedagogical in- tentions and students’ experiences of predominantly expository uses and limited feedback. Reported responses to connectivity failures include switching activities or sharing equipment. These findings inform the next phase, in which training, institutional support, online and offline activities, and opportunities for student participation will be designed collaboratively.


Article visits 4 | PDF visits 1


Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
  1. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational As- sessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
  2. Castañeda, L., Esteve, F., & Adell, J. (2018). ¿Por qué es necesario repensar la competencia docente para el mundo digital? Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED), (56). https://doi.org/10.6018/red/56/6
  3. CEPAL & UNESCO. (2020). La educación en tiempos de la pandemia de COVID-19. Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe.
  4. Denzin, N. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437186
  5. Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for techno- logy integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299597
  6. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
  7. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
  8. Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The action research planner: Doing critical parti- cipatory action research. Springer.
  9. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741319300303
  10. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
  11. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
  12. OECD. (2020). Education responses to COVID-19: Embracing digital learning and online colla- boration. OECD Publishing.
  13. Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2008). The SAGE handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed.). SAGE.
  14. Redecker, C. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu (Y. Punie, Ed.). Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/159770
  15. Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4–28. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310393361
  16. Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A syste- matic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65, 555–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2
  17. Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research.
  18. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121
  19. UNESCO. (2018). UNESCO ICT competency framework for teachers (Version 3). UNESCO.
  20. UNESCO. (2023). Global education monitoring report 2023: Technology in education: A tool on whose terms? UNESCO.
  21. Uribe-Zapata, A., Zambrano-Acosta, J. F., & Cano-Vásquez, L. M. (2023). Usos educativos de TIC en docentes rurales de Colombia. Revista de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación, 13(2), 287–298. https://doi.org/10.19053/20278306.v13.n2.2023.16834