Índice de volúmenes - Índice de revistas - Índice de artículos - Mapa ---- Atrás

Revista Comunicar 65: Metodologías mixtas emergentes en investigación social: El reto de la digitalización (Vol. 28 - 2020)

Revisión sistemática de métodos mixtos en el marco de la innovación educativa

Systematic review of mixed methods in the framework of educational innovation

https://doi.org/10.3916/C65-2020-01

María-Soledad Ramírez-Montoya

Jairo Lugo-Ocando

Abstract

En el ámbito de la investigación, los métodos mixtos usan combinadamente datos cuantitativos y cualitativos para un acercamiento con la «realidad». En la literatura reciente de los estudios sociales y educativos, se ubica un crecimiento de publicaciones que integran tecnologías digitales y métodos mixtos y, con ello, se presenta la oportunidad de generar un aporte original de posibilidades para investigar la innovación educativa. El objetivo de este artículo fue analizar las características de estos estudios y las tendencias de nuevas contribuciones para la educación. Para lograrlo se realizó una revisión sistemática de literatura (SLR) de 311 artículos publicados, de enero 2010 a enero 2020, en las bases de datos Web of Science (WoS) y Scopus. Se trabajó con nueve preguntas que exploraron tres temas: características, tecnologías y diseños con líneas de innovación educativa. La validación se dio con los criterios de la Universidad de York: inclusión y exclusión, pertinencia y descripción de datos, así como evaluación de pares en el análisis. Los hallazgos dan cuenta de redes de co-términos, identificación de innovaciones educativas y tipos de diseños que están siendo trabajados en líneas de investigación de innovación educativa. Se concluye que el enfoque de métodos mixtos aporta con una combinación interceptadas de estrategias y procesos para abordar la complejidad del fenómeno de la educación, con compresión holística, interdisciplinar y cambio en la forma de hacer investigación en nuestros tiempos.

In the field of education research, mixed methods have traditionally referred to the combination of quantitative and qualitative data that brings us closer to ‘reality’. However, recent literature on social and educational studies has increasingly incorporated works that integrate digital technologies and mixed methods. This novelty provides an opportunity to re-examine original contributions in the field, particularly in relation to educational innovation. Therefore, the objective of this article is to analyze the characteristics and the trends of new contributions from researchers in education. To achieve this, we carried out a systematic literature review (SLR) of 311 articles published from January 2010 to January 2020 in the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases. We worked with nine questions that explored three key themes: characteristics, technologies and designs within the realm of educational innovation. The validation for this analysis was achieved using a criterion adopted by scholars at York University, which incorporates: inclusion and exclusion, relevance and description of data, as well as peer review in the analysis. Our findings indicate that networks of co-terms, identification of educational innovations and the types of designs -currently applied in educational innovation- as well as the adoption of a mixed-method approach seem to be much better suited to underpin the required combination of strategies and processes that are interwoven in order to address the complexity of the education phenomenon in our times.

Keywords

Métodos mixtos, innovación educativa, tendencias digitales, innovación, educación, divulgación científica, validación, tecnología

Mixed methods, educational innovation, digital trends, innovation, education, science dissemination, validation, technology

Archivo PDF español

Archivo PDF inglés

Referencias

Baumann, T., Mantay, K., Swanger, A., Saganski, G., & Stepke, S. (2016). Education and innovation management: A contradiction? How to manage educational projects if innovation is crucial for success and innovation management is mostly unknown. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 226, 243-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.06.185

Baumann, T., Mantay, K., Swanger, A., Saganski, G., & Stepke, S. (2016). Education and innovation management: A contradiction? How to manage educational projects if innovation is crucial for success and innovation management is mostly unknown. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 226, 243-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.06.185

Classen, S., & Lopez, E.D.S. (2006). Mixed methods approach explaining process of an older driver safety systematic literature review. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation, 22(2), 99-112. https://doi.org/10.1097/00013614-200604000-00002

Corbo, J.C., Reinholz, D.L., Dancy, M.H., Deetz, S., & Finkelstein, N. (2016). Framework for transforming departmental culture to support educational innovation. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.12.010113

Creamer, E. (2018). Chapter 10 controversies and future directions. In E. Creamer (Ed.), An introduction to fully integrated mixed methods research (pp. 198-224). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071802823.n13

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. Sage. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n5p40

Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry research design. Choosing among five approaches. Sage. https://bit.ly/3dph7W8

DeCuir-Gunby, J., & Schutz, P. (2017). Chapter 6 mixed methods designs: frameworks for organizing your research methods. In J. DeCuir-Gunby, & P. Schutz (Eds.), Developing a mixed methods proposal: A practical guide for beginning researchers (pp. 83-106). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483399980.n10

Edmonds, W., & Kennedy, T. (2017). Mixed methods. In W. Edmonds, & T. Kennedy (Eds.), An applied guide to research designs (pp. 177-180). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071802779

Frantzen, K.K., & Fetters, M.D. (2016). Meta-integration for synthesizing data in a systematic mixed studies review: insights from research on autism spectrum disorder. Quality & Quantity, 50(5), 2251-2277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-015-0261-6

González-Pérez, L.I., Ramírez-Montoya, M.S., & García-Peñalvo, F.J. (2019). Innovación educativa en estudios sobre el desarrollo y uso de la tecnología: Un mapeo sistemático. In M.S. Ramírez-Montoya, & J.R. Valenzuela-González (Eds.), Innovación educativa: Tendencias globales de investigación e implicaciones prácticas (pp. 171-195). Octaedro. https://bit.ly/2Lzr0oa

Harwell, R. (2014). Research design in qualitative/quantitative/mixed methods. In F.C. Clifton, & C.S. Ronald (Eds.), The Sage handbook for research in education: pursuing ideas as the keystone of exemplary inquiry (pp. 147-164). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483351377

Imanuel-Noy, D., & Wagner, T. (2016). Unpacking the clinical and participatory dimensions of the Trump math-teacher-residency-program. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(7), 6. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n7.6

Johnson, R.B., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x033007014

Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Keele University & University of Durham. https://bit.ly/2LmHwbj

Klingner, J.K., & Boardman, A.G. (2011). Addressing the ‘research gap’ in special education through mixed methods. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(3), 208-218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948711417559

Levin, T., & Wagner, T. (2009). Mixed-methodology research in science education: Opportunities and challenges in exploring and enhancing thinking dispositions. In M.C. Shelley, L.D. Yore, & B. Hand (Eds.), Quality research in literacy and science education (pp. 213-243). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8427-0_11

Mabweazara, S.Z., Leach, L.L., & Ley, C. (2019). Development of a context-sensitive physical activity intervention for persons living with HIV and AIDS of low socioeconomic status using the behaviour change wheel. BMC public health, 19(1), 774. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7091-8

Onwuegbuzie, A., & Teddlie, Ch. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 351-384). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193

Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Leech, N.L. (2006). Linking research questions to mixed methods data analysis procedures 1. The Qualitative Report, 11(3), 474-498. https://bit.ly/2TbXt8j

Plano-Clark, V., & Ivankova, N. (2016). What is mixed methods research?: considering how mixed methods research is defined. In V. Plano-Clark, & N. Ivankova (Eds.), Mixed methods research: A guide to the field (pp. 55-78). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483398341.n6

Pluye, P., & Hong, Q.N. (2014). Combining the power of stories and the power of numbers: Mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews. Annual review of public health, 35, 29-45. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182440

Ramírez-Montoya, M.S. (2018). Innovación abierta, interdisciplinaria y colaborativa para formar en sustentabilidad energética a través de MOOCs e investigación educativa. Education in the Knowledge Society, 19(4), 11-30. https://doi.org/10.14201/eks20181941130

Ramírez-Montoya, M.S., & Valenzuela-González, J.R. (2019). Prólogo. In M.S. Ramírez-Montoya, & J.R. Valenzuela-González (Eds.), Innovación educativa: Tendencias globales de investigación e implicaciones prácticas (pp. 9-17). Octaedro. https://bit.ly/2WgnEgd

Rikkerink, M., Verbeeten, H., Simons, R.J., & Ritzen, H. (2016). A new model of educational innovation: Exploring the nexus of organizational learning, distributed leadership, and digital technologies. Journal of Educational Change, 17(2), 223-249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-015-9253-5

Rodríguez, R., Neri, L.J., & Valenzuela-González, J.R. (2015). Identidad de los grupos de investigación: Retos en la definición de sus líneas de investigación. Chihuahua (México). http://hdl.handle.net/11285/579395

Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. Free Press. https://bit.ly/3dqBBO7

Sein-Echaluce, M.L., Fidalgo-Blanco, Á., & García-Peñalvo, F.J. (2014). Método para diseñar buenas prácticas de innovación educativa docente: Percepción del profesorado. In M.L. Sein-Echaluce, A. Fidalgo-Blanco, & F.J. García-Peñalvo (Eds.), Aprendizaje, innovación y cooperación como impulsores del cambio metodológico. Actas del V Congreso Internacional sobre Aprendizaje, Innovación y Cooperación (pp. 623-628) CINAIC. https://doi.org/10.26754/cinaic.2019.0127

Sharma, P., & Sangal, A.L. (2018). Framework for empirical examination and modeling structural dependencies among inhibitors that impact SPI implementation initiatives in software SMEs. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 30(12), e1993. https://doi.org/10.1002/smr.1993

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social& behavioral research. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2006). A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 12-28. https://bit.ly/2SInYSr

University of York (Ed.) (2009). Systematic review. CRD, University of York. https://bit.ly/2zJzE0E

Valenzuela-González, J.R. (2019). Mixed methods: Lessons learned from five cases of doctoral these studies. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Technological Ecosystem for Enhancing Multiculturality. León (España). https://doi.org/10.1049/ic.2012.0001

Verner, J., Brereton, O.P., Kitchenham, B., Turner, M., & Niazi, M.K. (2012). Risk mitigation advice for global software development from systematic literature reviews. Keele University. https://doi.org/10.1049/ic.2012.0001

Wagner, T., & Imanel-Noy, D. (2014). Are they genuinely novice teachers? Motivations and self-efficacy of those who choose teaching as a second career. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(7), 31-57. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n7.5

Yu, C.H. (2009). Book review: Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 801-804. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428108318066