University of Ciego de Ávila Máximo Gómez Báez
|
ISSN: 2309-8333
|
RNPS: 2411
|14|2026|
This is an Open Access article under the license CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)
Estrategia y Gestión Universitaria EGU
Scientific and technological
research article
How to cite:
Quintanilla López, L. N.
(2026). Reflection and narrative writing as
formative mediation in the self-perception
of research competencies in higher
education.
Estrategia y Gestión
Universitaria
, 14, e9152.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20346930
Received: 06/05/2026
Accepted: 23/05/2026
Published: 05/06/2026
Corresponding author:
lquintanilla@pedagogica.edu.sv
Conflict of interest:
the authors declare
that they have no conflict of interest,
which may have influenced the results
obtained or the proposed interpretations
.
Reflection and narrative writing as
formative mediation in the self-
perception of research competencies
in higher education
Reflexión y escritura narrativa como
mediación formativa en la
autopercepción de competencias
investigativas en educación superior
Reflexão e escrita narrativa como
mediação formativa na autopercepção
de competências investigativas no
ensino superior
Abstract
Introduction: research training in higher education requires
pedagogical mediations that enable students to understand
the purpose of the investigative process rather than merely
executing methodological procedures. Objective: to analyze
the formative contribution of reflection and narrative writing
to the self‑perception of research competencies among higher
education students. Method: a qualitative study with
complementary descriptive quantitative support was
conducted in the course Métodos y Técnicas de Investigación
II at the Universidad Pedagógica de El Salvador during term
I‑2025. Psychology students organized into thirteen teams
participated; each team produced group reflective narratives
about their research experience. In addition, participants
completed an instrument individually at the beginning and at
the end of the formative process; results were aggregated by
team for descriptive purposes. Results: narrative‑thematic
analysis identified three formative processes: from task to
meaning, from instrument to connection, and from fear to
agency. Complementary descriptive comparison between the
initial and final instruments showed favorable changes in the
self‑perception of research competencies. Conclusion: this
pedagogical mediation is pertinent for strengthening how
students recognize their research competencies, particularly
by fostering a more integrated understanding of the method
and a more active stance toward research.
Keywords: self‑perception of research competencies, higher
education, research training, formative mediation, reflection
and narrative writing
Resumen
Introducción: la formación en investigación en educación
superior requiere mediaciones pedagógicas que permitan al
estudiantado comprender el sentido del proceso investigativo
y no limitarse a ejecutar procedimientos metodológicos.
Luis Napoleón Quintanilla López
1
Universidad Pedagógica de El Salvador
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6736-2968
lquintanilla@pedagogica.edu.sv
El Salvador
Estrategia y Gestión Universitaria
|
ISSN
: 2309-8333
|
RNPS:
2411
| Vol. 14|2026|
| Luis Napoleón Quintanilla López |
Objetivo:
analizar la contribución formativa de la reflexión y escritura narrativa
en la autopercepción de competencias investigativas de estudiantes de educación
superior.
Método:
se desarrolló un estudio de enfoque cualitativo con apoyo
cuantitativo descriptivo-complementario en la asignatura Métodos y Técnicas de
Investigación II de la Universidad Pedagógica de El Salvador durante el ciclo I-
2025. Participaron estudiantes de Psicología organizados en trece equipos,
quienes elaboraron narrativas reflexivas grupales sobre su experiencia
investigativa. Además, respondieron individualmente un instrumento aplicado al
inicio y al cierre del proceso formativo, cuyos resultados fueron agregados por
equipo con fines descriptivos.
Resultados:
el análisis narrativo-temático permitió
identificar tres procesos formativos: de la tarea al sentido, del instrumento al
vínculo y del miedo a la agencia. De manera complementaria, la comparación
descriptiva entre el instrumento inicial y el final mostró cambios favorables en la
autopercepción de las competencias investigativas.
Conclusión:
esta mediación
pedagógica resulta pertinente para fortalecer la manera en que el estudiantado
reconoce sus competencias investigativas, especialmente al favorecer una
comprensión más articulada del método y una posición más activa frente a la
investigación.
Palabras clave:
autopercepción de competencias investigativas, educación
superior, formación investigativa, mediación formativa, reflexión y escritura
narrativa
Resumo
Introdução: a formação em pesquisa no ensino superior requer mediações
pedagógicas que permitam aos estudantes compreender o sentido do processo
investigativo e não se limitar a executar procedimentos metodológicos. Objetivo:
analisar a contribuição formativa da reflexão e da escrita narrativa na
autopercepção das competências investigativas de estudantes do ensino superior.
Método: desenvolveu‑se um estudo de enfoque qualitativo com apoio quantitativo
descritivo‑complementar na disciplina Métodos y Técnicas de Investigación II da
Universidad Pedagógica de El Salvador durante o ciclo I‑2025. Participaram
estudantes de Psicologia organizados em treze equipes, que elaboraram narrativas
reflexivas grupais sobre sua experiência investigativa. Além disso, responderam
individualmente a um instrumento aplicado no início e no término do processo
formativo; os resultados foram agregados por equipe para fins descritivos.
Resultados: a análise narrativo‑temática permitiu identificar três processos
formativos: da tarefa ao sentido, do instrumento ao vínculo e do medo à agência.
De forma complementar, a comparação descritiva entre o instrumento inicial e o
final mostrou mudanças favoráveis na autopercepção das competências
investigativas. Conclusão: essa mediação pedagógica mostra‑se pertinente para
fortalecer a forma como os estudantes reconhecem suas competências
investigativas, especialmente ao favorecer uma compreensão mais articulada do
método e uma posição mais ativa frente à pesquisa.
Palavras-chave:
autopercepção de competências investigativas, ensino
superior, formação em pesquisa, mediação formativa, reflexão e escrita
narrativa
| Luis Napoleón Quintanilla López |
e9152
Introduction
Research training holds a decisive place in the higher education student
experience. Its importance extends beyond the production of university coursework,
as it shapes how students formulate research problems and the stance they adopt
toward knowledge. From this perspective, research methodology courses require
pedagogical conditions that effectively articulate problem, theory, method, and
evidence, a point also highlighted in recent studies on research methodology in
higher education (Acosta Luis et al., 2021).
The specialized literature has noted that many research methodology
courses continue to be structured around content transmission and procedural
prescription. This concern has resurfaced in recent studies on teaching research
methodologies in education, which point to the need to move beyond pedagogical
cultures centered on exposition toward experiences more closely tied to
investigative practice and the construction of a research-based culture (Jensen et
al., 2025; Lederer, 2025; Matos et al., 2023a, 2023b; Nind & Lewthwaite, 2023).
In practice, this has led to experiences where students learn to reproduce
methodological steps without fully appropriating the meaning of conducting
research. Various studies have shown that this technical orientation can create a gap
between research courses and students' educational trajectories, especially when
the method is presented as a closed sequence of academic operations or when
active, experiential, and applied strategies that foster more engaged student
participation are overlooked (Arosio, 2025; Lederer, 2025; Myers-Coffman et al.,
2021; Ribeiro-Silva et al., 2022).
This difficulty has direct effects on learning. When methodology is taught as
task completion, the investigative process loses formative density, and its
epistemological dimension weakens (Granados Muñoz, 2025). In such a scenario,
students may move between formats and submissions without fully understanding
what supports problem formulation or justifies a methodological decision. The
ethical responsibility involved in working with information produced alongside others
may also receive insufficient attention. Therefore, learning to research involves
more than mastering techniques. It requires developing the judgment to question
phenomena, sustain well-founded decisions, and produce consistent interpretations.
Given this landscape, the discussion on teaching research methods has
shifted toward proposals more closely tied to students' active experience. Recent
studies have questioned the predominance of the lecture-based class and called for
strategies that bring theory closer to practice, fostering more engaged participation
in inquiry processes, active learning, and the experiential construction of knowledge
(Gardner, 2024; Jensen et al., 2025; Jeram, 2024; Lederer, 2025; Nind &
Lewthwaite, 2023; Radović et al., 2021; Ribeiro-Silva et al., 2022).
This orientation also engages with recent research on active learning in
higher education, which has shown that a variety of interactive methods can
strengthen perceived teaching clarity and student engagement (Beimel et al., 2024).
In Portuguese, Seabra et al. (2023) have noted that active methodologies break with
the hierarchical transmission of knowledge and contribute to academic and scientific
training. Similarly, Guarda et al. (2023) have addressed the need to evaluate active
| Luis Napoleón Quintanilla López |
e9152
methodologies with specific instruments, which proves relevant when studying
situated formative experiences.
Within this pedagogical shift, narrative reflection offers a pertinent avenue
for thinking about research training from the student's own experience. Narrating
what one lived through during learning involves revisiting decisions, recognizing
shifts, and giving comprehensible shape to what occurs during the process. Recent
studies on reflection and reflective writing in higher education have shown that
these practices favor experience review, meaning-making, lifelong learning, and the
articulation between theoretical learning and formative practice (Alt et al., 2022;
Franco et al., 2022; Lim et al., 2023; Tight, 2024). In turn, recent research has linked
reflective practices with student collaboration and academic writing processes in
higher education (Harvey et al., 2025; Schürmann et al., 2025). In the Lusophone
context, Festas et al. (2023) have shown the importance of source-based writing
strategies for university students, while Gonçalves and Alves (2024) have situated
university pedagogical training as a space for experimentation and transformation of
teaching practice.
Despite these advances, a gap persists that requires further attention. The
literature has recognized the value of reflection and narrative writing in higher
education, yet empirical evidence on their specific use in research methodology
courses remains limited. This absence is more visible in Latin American contexts and
in undergraduate training processes, where understanding how students interpret
their learning experience and recognize progress in their research competencies is
of interest. Therefore, it is necessary to examine how reflection and narrative
writing can operate as formative mediation in the relationship students establish
with methodology.
In this study, research competencies are understood as academic capacities
related to searching for and critically analyzing information, making methodological
decisions, producing written work, interpreting data, and acting ethically throughout
the investigative process. This understanding aligns with recent studies that define
them as skills necessary for producing and disseminating scientific knowledge in
university training, as well as with reviews that associate them with critical
evaluation, information synthesis, problem-solving, analysis, and data
communication (George-Reyes et al., 2023; Mori et al., 2025). From this perspective,
the self-perception of these competencies is relevant for exploring how students
recognize their progress during formative experiences oriented toward research.
In this study, the term reflection and narrative writing refers to the
pedagogical mediation through which students reconstructed, interpreted, and
made sense of their research experience via narrative-reflective essays.
Addressing this problem, the study aims to analyze the formative
contribution of reflection and narrative writing to higher education students' self-
perception of research competencies. The analysis focused on the transformations
students recognize when narrating their experience and the perceived changes
regarding those competencies. To this end, a didactic experience was designed
within the course Research Methods and Techniques II at Universidad Pedagógica de
El Salvador, in which participants produced narrative-reflective essays about their
| Luis Napoleón Quintanilla López |
e9152
research process and responded to an instrument at two points during the course.
The study adopts a qualitative approach with descriptive-complementary
quantitative support, aiming to provide situated evidence on the pedagogical value
of this mediation in university research training.
Methods and materials
Approach and design
The study employed a qualitative approach with descriptive-complementary
quantitative support, aimed at understanding how university students elaborated
their methodological learning through reflection and narrative writing. The
qualitative dimension formed the core of the design, allowing analysis of the
meanings participants attributed to their formative experience. The quantitative
component provided descriptive information on variations in the self-perception of
research competencies between the beginning and end of the didactic experience.
This decision followed a logic of methodological complementarity,
understood as an articulation between qualitative and quantitative evidence with
different analytical weights, oriented toward strengthening understanding of the
studied phenomenon without necessarily equating the weight of both components
(Gierus et al., 2025; Hernández-Sampieri & Mendoza, 2018). Following this
orientation, the research adopted a narrative-reflective perspective, working with
accounts produced by the students themselves about their inquiry experience. The
corpus was examined using reflexive thematic analysis to recognize shared patterns
of meaning within the narratives (Braun & Clarke, 2021).
Context, participants, and unit of analysis
The research took place during the first academic term of 2025 in the course
Research Methods and Techniques II at Universidad Pedagógica de El Salvador.
Thirteen teams of Psychology students participated, with ages ranging from 18 to 45
years. During the course, the groups developed inquiries focused on educational
trajectories shaped by conditions of vulnerability, within the formative framework
established for the course.
At the end of the process, each team produced a narrative-reflective essay
aimed at reconstructing their inquiry experience. Because the written production
was done collectively, the qualitative unit of analysis consisted of each narrative-
reflective essay produced by the teams. Consequently, the analysis did not seek to
reconstruct individual trajectories or attribute findings to isolated personal
experiences, but rather to interpret shared meanings expressed in the group
narratives produced at that point in the process. This decision is grounded in
qualitative approaches that admit collective units of analysis when the data
produced corresponds to a group elaboration or a collectively constructed textual
artifact. Consistent with this decision, the qualitative analysis was based on 13 group
narratives. The quantitative component, in contrast, drew from individual responses
to the instrument, subsequently aggregated by team through mean calculation, to
maintain descriptive correspondence with the group narrative units.
| Luis Napoleón Quintanilla López |
e9152
Participation was voluntary and had no impact on the academic evaluation
of the course. Confidentiality measures were also applied by anonymizing the
narratives before analysis to protect participant identity.
Data production
Data production relied on two articulated sources. The first consisted of
narrative-reflective essays produced by each team, which constituted the main
corpus for qualitative analysis. The second corresponded to a diagnostic and follow-
up instrument on research competencies, administered individually at two points
during the course.
The instrument was constructed based on an operational organization of
research competence into five dimensions: cognitive, methodological,
communicative, collaborative, and digital. These dimensions integrated capacities
related to research problem formulation, searching for and critically analyzing
scientific information, methodological design, data analysis and interpretation,
ethical conduct, academic production, collaborative work, and the use of digital
tools for research.
The instrument included 17 closed items organized on a five-point Likert
scale and two open-ended questions aimed at gathering assessments of the
methodological learning achieved and possible areas for improvement. Due to its ad
hoc nature, results were interpreted for descriptive-exploratory purposes, without
assuming them as standardized performance measures.
Procedure
The procedure began with the individual application of the diagnostic
instrument, aimed at capturing students' initial self-perception of their research
competencies. Subsequently, during the course, students formulated research
problems, made methodological decisions, produced empirical data, and advanced
in their analytical organization. At the end of the course, each team produced a
narrative-reflective essay about their inquiry experience, and students again
responded to the instrument individually, allowing for the observation of descriptive
variations between the two time points.
Data analysis
Qualitative analysis was conducted using reflexive thematic analysis,
following the phases proposed by Braun and Clarke (2021). The corpus consisted of
the 13 narrative-reflective essays and the open-ended responses from the
administered instrument. Initial reading allowed for familiarization with the
material and the recognition of recurrences related to the experience of learning to
research.
An inductive, open coding process followed. This process yielded 47
preliminary codes, which were reviewed and reorganized until three narrative-
formative axes were constructed. These axes allowed for interpreting the most
relevant shifts in the teams' experiences: from task to meaning, from instrument to
relationship, and from fear to agency.
| Luis Napoleón Quintanilla López |
e9152
To strengthen interpretive consistency, the coding performed by the lead
researcher was cross-checked by an external academic peer from the field of
education. This review covered 40% of the narrative corpus, corresponding to five
essays and 39 codable fragments. Disagreements were discussed until interpretive
agreements were reached.
For the quantitative component, pretest and posttest means were calculated
from individual student responses. Subsequently, these results were aggregated by
team using averages to relate them to the 13 group narratives analyzed qualitatively.
The data were interpreted for descriptive-complementary purposes, without being
assumed as independent statistical evidence.
Table 1
Synthesis of the reflexive thematic analysis process
Narrative-
formative axis
Interpretive core Examples of identified patterns
From task to
meaning
Reconstruction of the
research process as a
coherently articulated
journey
Shift from activity completion to process
understanding; connection between
problem, method, and results;
recognition of the purpose behind each
methodological decision.
From
instrument to
relationship
Shift from a technical
logic toward a relational
understanding of
fieldwork
The interview as conversation; emphasis
on listening; attention to the participant's
experience; recognition of ethical
implications in interaction.
From fear to
agency
Transformation in the
student's stance toward
research and their
interpretive capacity
Decrease in insecurity; greater initiative
in decision-making; appropriation of the
research process; willingness to interpret
and argue.
Source: Authors’ own elaboration based on reflexive thematic analysis of student
narratives.
Note. The axes were constructed from an inductive coding process that identified
regularities in the narratives, subsequently organized into interpretive cores
condensing transformations in the formative experience.
Rigor criteria and ethical considerations
The rigor of the study was addressed through decisions aimed at sustaining
the coherence of the analytical process and transparency in interpretation. Source
triangulation was used, articulating student narratives, open-ended responses, and
quantitative information produced throughout the course. This cross-referencing
allowed findings to be situated in relation to different types of evidence and avoided
isolated readings of the material.
Interpretive consistency was strengthened through inter-researcher review.
An external academic peer examined a portion of the corpus and compared the
| Luis Napoleón Quintanilla López |
e9152
coding performed, allowing for discussion of differences and refinement of
interpretive criteria. Concurrently, an analytical record was maintained,
documenting decisions, methodological tensions, and potential biases associated
with the dual role of instructor and researcher.
Student participation was voluntary and had no impact on academic
evaluation. Information confidentiality was safeguarded by anonymizing the
narratives prior to analysis.
Results and discussion
Analysis of the student narratives and open-ended responses allowed for the
recognition of three narrative-formative axes that condensed relevant changes in
the experience of methodological learning. These axes were termed: from task to
meaning, from instrument to relationship, and from fear to agency. Together, they
showed shifts in how students understood the research process, related to fieldwork,
and assumed their own capacity to conduct research.
This qualitative reading was accompanied by favorable descriptive variations
in the self-perception of research competencies between pretest and posttest. As
shown in Table 2, all evaluated dimensions registered increases in their means, with
larger differences in theoretical framework construction, information searching and
critical analysis, handling of data collection tools, and application of ethical norms
in research.
Table 2
Pretest-posttest variation in dimensions and action components of research
competence
Research competence
dimension
Action component of research
competence
M Pre
M
Post
Δ
Cognitive Research problem formulation 2.46 4.12 1.65
Cognitive
Information searching and critical
analysis
2.12 4.27 2.15
Cognitive
Theoretical framework
construction
2.08 4.35 2.27
Methodological Methodological design 2.42 4.12 1.69
Methodological Handling of data collection tools 2.31 4.31 2
Methodological
Application of ethical norms in
research
2.19 4.19 2
Methodological Data analysis and interpretation 2.35 4.31 1.96
Communicative Academic and scientific writing 2.42 4.23 1.81
Collaborative Digital collaboration and teamwork 2.54 4.42 1.88
Transversal Research autonomy 2.69 4.27 1.58
| Luis Napoleón Quintanilla López |
e9152
Source: Authors’ own elaboration based on the instrument administered individually
to students and aggregated by team for descriptive purposes.
Note. M = arithmetic mean on a Likert scale from 1 to 5, calculated from individual
responses and aggregated by team for descriptive purposes. Δ = difference between
posttest and pretest.
From task to meaning
The first observed shift related to how teams began to understand research
as an articulated process. Initially, several accounts situated methodological work
at the level of task completion. Activities appeared as successive submissions, and
the primary concern seemed focused on meeting course requirements. At that point,
formulating the problem or preparing instruments was not always narrated as part
of the same inquiry logic but as steps to be completed to move forward.
This view began to change when students narratively reconstructed their
lived experience. Writing allowed them to revisit decisions that, during the course,
had been experienced fragmentedly. One team expressed this by noting, "At the
beginning, we just did what was asked, but later we understood why we did each
part" (E3). Another group stated, "It was no longer just about completing the
assignment, but about understanding what we were researching" (E7). In both cases,
the difference does not appear as simple technical improvement. What becomes
visible is a change in how the parts of the process are related and the possibility of
recognizing meaning in what was previously experienced as mere task.
This transformation is also reflected in the instrument dimensions linked to
organizing research work. Problem formulation increased from 2.46 to 4.12, and data
analysis and interpretation advanced from 2.35 to 4.31. Theoretical framework
construction showed a similar movement, from 2.08 to 4.35. These data have a
descriptive scope but accompany the qualitative reading by showing a favorable
trend in aspects related to understanding methodological structure.
Recent discussions on teaching research help situate this finding. Studies
conducted in higher education have indicated that methodological learning acquires
greater consistency when the experience is articulated with active inquiry processes,
participation, and reflection on investigative practice (González Calleros & Torres
Gastelú, 2024; Matos et al., 2023a; Seabra et al., 2023). Likewise, current research
has reinforced the idea that appropriating a method requires more than applying
procedures, as it involves building understanding of methodological decisions and
the formative meaning of researching (Arosio, 2025; George-Reyes et al., 2023; Mori
et al., 2025). In the analyzed case, reflection and narrative writing as formative
mediation appears to operate precisely at this point, allowing teams to revisit the
experience and recognize research as a journey with internal coherence.
From instrument to relationship
The interview occupied a particularly revealing place in the narratives. In
initial approaches to the field, several teams understood it primarily as an
instrument to be applied correctly. Attention was focused on fulfilling the planned
activity and obtaining sufficient information to continue the work. In this initial way
of approaching the technique, the relationship with the participant remained
| Luis Napoleón Quintanilla López |
e9152
somewhat in the background.
Subsequent writing allowed for the recognition of another dimension of the
experience. In one group narrative, it was noted that "it wasn't just about asking
questions, but truly listening to what the person was telling us" (E5). Another team
stated that "the interview became a conversation where we had to pay attention to
what the person was saying" (E9). Both expressions show that fieldwork began to be
understood through encounter and was no longer absorbed by format.
This shift introduced a more concrete ethical concern. Recognizing that
research involves receiving another's experience led students to pay greater
attention to the care of what was said and how that information would be treated
afterward. This reading aligns with recent studies that have questioned research
methodology teaching focused on the correct application of techniques and have
highlighted the value of active participation, reflection, and student engagement in
inquiry processes (Gardner, 2024; Jensen et al., 2025; Lederer, 2025; Nind &
Lewthwaite, 2023). Recent studies on active methodologies and scientific training
broaden this reading by situating learning as a practice that demands participation
and responsibility toward what is produced (Guarda et al., 2023; Seabra et al., 2023).
The descriptive comparison from the instrument accompanies this
interpretation. The application of ethical norms in research increased from 2.19 to
4.19. A favorable change was also observed in digital collaboration and teamwork,
which advanced from 2.54 to 4.42. These data do not replace the narrative evidence,
although they are consistent with increased attention to the responsibility inherent
in fieldwork. From this perspective, the contribution of Santos (2010) and Santos and
Meneses (2014) allows reading the relationship as part of the knowing process, to
the extent that researching involves situating oneself in relation to other knowledges
and experiences.
From fear to agency
The third axis showed that learning to research also involved modifying the
student's relationship with their own academic voice. In initial narratives, the
difficulty of progressing with the work mixed with the feeling of being faced with a
practice that did not yet feel like one's own. The expression "at the beginning, I
thought I wouldn't be able to do research" (E2), recorded in a group narrative,
condenses that distance. Something similar occurred with data interpretation,
experienced by some teams as a particularly uncertain moment. "I was afraid to
interpret the data because I felt I might do it wrong" (E6) expresses that tension
when faced with the need to produce one's own reading.
The most relevant change appears when this insecurity begins to be narrated
from another place. "Now I feel that I can understand what I'm researching and say
something about it" (E11) does not announce full mastery of the research craft.
Rather, it shows a different way of inhabiting the process. Students begin to
recognize themselves as capable of intervening in the production of meaning, even
when doubt remains. This variation also appeared in the descriptive comparison of
the instrument, where research autonomy increased from 2.69 to 4.27 and
methodological design from 2.42 to 4.12. Academic and scientific writing advanced
| Luis Napoleón Quintanilla López |
e9152
from 2.42 to 4.23, data that accompany the narrative reading of the progressive
construction of one's own voice.
Read from the perspective of research training, this shift allows for nuancing
the idea that simply participating in a research project suffices to appropriate the
process. The analyzed experience suggests that participation needs spaces for
elaboration, especially when the student must interpret what was produced and take
responsibility for what they assert. At this point, the finding connects with studies
that have pointed to the formative value of reflective writing in inquiry and
collaboration processes in higher education (Gardner, 2024; Harvey et al., 2025;
Hosein & Rao, 2017; Schürmann et al., 2025). In this study, such writing appears to
have opened room for initial fear to gradually transform into a more active stance
toward knowledge.
Considering the three axes together, the formative experience did not
produce isolated changes but a broader shift in how research learning occurs.
Understanding of the method became more integrated, fieldwork acquired relational
meaning, and students began to recognize themselves with greater agency within
the research process. These variations were expressed interwovenly in the narratives
and were accompanied by favorable descriptive changes in the self-perception of
competencies.
This finding allows for nuancing a frequent idea in research methodology
teaching. Active participation in inquiry processes is necessary but does not itself
explain the appropriation of methodological learning. In the analyzed experience,
reflection and narrative writing provided specific mediation by allowing teams to
revisit their lived experience, organize it, and recognize the meaning of decisions
made. At this point, the results align with approaches to experiential learning,
research-based teaching, and reflective interventions in higher education, where
experience requires elaboration to become formative understanding (Festas et al.,
2023; Zhai et al., 2023).
From this perspective, reflection and narrative writing as formative
mediation acquire a more precise pedagogical value. It does not operate merely as
a closing resource but as a way to make visible the logic of the research process and
the position the student constructs toward knowledge. This reading dialogues with
Freire (1996), for whom educational practice demands critical reflection on one's
own action, and it approximates the systematization of experiences, where practice
needs to be reconstructed and interpreted to produce learning (Vásquez, 2024). It
can also be linked to Bourdieu (1986), to the extent that learning research involves
progressively appropriating dispositions proper to academic work. At the level of
university pedagogy, Gonçalves and Alves (2024) reinforce this interpretation by
showing that the transformation of higher education requires spaces where practice
becomes an object of review and formative experimentation.
The scope of these results is understood in relation to the study's conditions.
The research was developed within a specific course and with a limited number of
teams, which guides the type of interpretations that can be sustained. Within this
framework, the findings allow for clearer recognition of how reflection and narrative
writing as formative mediation intervenes in the way students understand their own
research process, opening a field of analysis on the mediations that make such
| Luis Napoleón Quintanilla López |
e9152
learning possible in higher education.
Conclusions
The study supports the idea that teaching research methodology involves
creating conditions for students to understand the meaning of what they do during
the investigative process. In the analyzed experience, reflection and narrative
writing functioned as a formative mediation that helped reconstruct lived
experience, recognize the logic of decisions made, and strengthen how students
perceive their research competencies.
The contribution of the study lies in showing that participation in research
processes, although necessary, does not by itself guarantee understanding of the
method. Methodological learning requires spaces for elaboration that allow the
experience of researching to become an object of pedagogical reflection.
This reading invites a revision of how research training is typically
understood in higher education. Teaching research methodology gains relevance
when it fosters students' progressive appropriation of the research craft, their
understanding of the relationship between problem, method, and evidence, and
their recognition of greater agency in relation to knowledge.
References
Acosta Luis, D., Rodríguez López, W. A., Peñaherrera Larenas, M. F., García Hevia,
S., & La O Mendoza, Y. (2021). Metodología de la investigación en la
educación superior. Universidad y Sociedad, 13(4), 283–293.
http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?pid=S2218-
36202021000400283&script=sci_arttext
Alt, D., Raichel, N., & Naamati-Schneider, L. (2022). Higher education students’
reflective journal writing and lifelong learning skills: Insights from an
exploratory sequential study. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 707168.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.707168
Arosio, L. (2025). Generative AI as a teaching tool for social research methodology:
Addressing challenges in higher education. Societies, 15(6), Article 157.
https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15060157
Beimel, D., Tsoury, A., & Barnett-Itzhaki, Z. (2024). The impact of extent and variety
in active learning methods across online and face-to-face education on
students’ course evaluations. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1432054.
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1432054
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of
theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258).
Greenwood.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE.
| Luis Napoleón Quintanilla López |
e9152
Festas, I., Seixas, A. M., & Matos, A. (2023). Escrita a partir de fontes e suas relações
com o plágio em estudantes universitários. Educação e Pesquisa, 49.
https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-4634202349252586por
Franco, R. S., Franco, C. A. G. dos S., Severo, M., Ferreira, M. A., & Karnieli-Miller,
O. (2022). Reflective writing in the teaching of communication skills for
medical students: A systematic review. Patient Education and Counseling,
105(7), 1842–1851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2022.01.003
Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogía de la autonomía: Saberes necesarios para la práctica
educativa. Siglo XXI Editores.
Gardner, P. R. (2024). The reflective essay in social research methods education: An
analysis of student assessment experiences. College Teaching, 72(4), 339–
345. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2023.2205629
George-Reyes, C. E., López-Caudana, E. O., & Ramírez-Montoya, M. S. (2023).
Research competencies in university students: Intertwining complex thinking
and Education 4.0. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(4), Article
ep478. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13767
Gierus, B., Du, T., Maduforo, A. N., Gilbert, B., & Koh, K. (2025). Prevalence and
quality of mixed methods research in educational subdisciplines: A
systematic review. SAGE Open, 15(2).
https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251335171
Gonçalves, T. N. R., & Alves, M. G. (2024). Da interrupção à experimentação e
transformação: Formação pedagógica de professores do ensino superior em
Portugal. Educação e Pesquisa, 50, Article e268752.
https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-4634202450268752
González Calleros, C. B., & Torres Gastelú, C. A. (2024). Transformando el
aprendizaje de Metodología de Investigación: Una revisión sistemática de
gamificación y otras estrategias de aprendizaje activo. RIDE Revista
Iberoamericana para la Investigación y el Desarrollo Educativo, 14(28),
e663. https://doi.org/10.23913/ride.v14i28.1908
Granados Muñoz, R. (2025). Dificultades metodológicas en estudiantes universitarios
al desarrollar investigación. Revista Gestión I+D, 10(1), 210–241.
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=9988940
Guarda, D., Gehlen, M. H., Braga, G. C., & Hey, A. P. (2023). Validação de
instrumento de avaliação da metodologia ativa de sala de aula invertida.
Educação e Pesquisa, 49, Article e249822.
https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-
4634202349248000por
Harvey, M., Walkerden, G., Semple, A., McLachlan, K., Lloyd, K., & Bosanquet, A.
(2025). Reflecting on reflective practice: Issues, possibilities and guidance
principles. Higher Education Research & Development, 44(7), 1849–1857.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2025.2463517
Hernández-Sampieri, R., & Mendoza, C. P. (2018). Metodología de la investigación:
Las rutas cuantitativa, cualitativa y mixta. McGraw-Hill Education.
| Luis Napoleón Quintanilla López |
e9152
Hosein, A., & Rao, N. (2017). Students’ reflective essays as insights into student
centred-pedagogies within the undergraduate research methods
curriculum. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(1), 109–125.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1221804
Jensen, I. B., Dikilitaş, K., & Wyatt, M. (2025). A scoping review of action research
in higher education: Implications for research-based teaching. Teaching in
Higher Education, 30(2), 239–260.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2023.2222066
Jeram, S. (2024). Applying active learning in undergraduate research methods. PS:
Political Science & Politics, 57(1), 107–112.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096523000574
Lederer, A. M. (2025). Learning by doing: Description and assessment of an
experiential undergraduate public health research methods course
curriculum. Pedagogy in Health Promotion, 11(3), 183–194.
https://doi.org/10.1177/23733799241305387
Lim, J. Y., Ong, S. Y. K., Ng, C. Y. H., Chan, K. L. E., Wu, S. Y., So, W. Z., Koh, J.
W. Q., Tan, L. H. E., & Krishna, L. K. R. (2023). A systematic scoping review
of reflective writing in medical education. BMC Medical Education, 23,
Article 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03924-4
Ma, W., Jiang, L., Zhuang, W., Cai, J., Xie, X., & Zhang, C. (2026). Reflective writing
in higher education: a systematic review of pedagogical approaches,
research trends, and assessment practices. Educational Research
Advances, 1(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.46690/era.2026.01.01
Matos, J. F., Freitas, A., Estrela, E., Galego, C., & Piedade, J. (2023a). Teaching
research methods courses in education: Towards a research-based culture.
Social Sciences, 12(6), Article 338. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12060338
Matos, J. F., Piedade, J., Freitas, A., Pedro, A., Dorotea, N., Pedro, N., & Galego,
C. (2023b). Teaching and learning research methodologies in education: A
systematic literature review. Education Sciences, 13(2), Article 173.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020173
Myers-Coffman, K., Baker, M., & Hamilton, M. (2021). Student experiences in a
mixed methods research course. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning, 21(4), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.28945/4683
Mori, C. T., Coles, D. N. A., Pizzán Tomanguilla, S. L., Sánchez Gómez, M. C., &
Bajaña Mendieta, I. de J. (2025). Charting the path to excellence: A review
of research competencies in university students. Journal of Technology and
Science Education, 15(2), 364–379. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.2729
Nind, M., & Lewthwaite, S. (2023). Lessons for teaching social science research
methods in higher education: Synthesis of the literature 2014–2020. British
Educational Research Journal, 49(3), 595–614.
https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3853
Radović, S., Hummel, H. G. K., & Vermeulen, M. (2021). The challenge of designing
| Luis Napoleón Quintanilla López |
e9152
“more” experiential learning in higher education programs in the field of
teacher education: A systematic review study. International Journal of
Lifelong Education, 40(5–6), 545–560.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2021.1994664
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, Article 844236.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.844236
Santos, B. de S. (2010). Descolonizar el saber, reinventar el poder. Trilce.
Santos, B. de S., & Meneses, M. P. (Eds.). (2014). Epistemologías del Sur. Akal.
Schürmann, V. S., Bodemer, D., & Marquardt, N. (2025). Exploring the use of regular
reflections in student collaboration: A case study in higher education.
Frontiers in Education, 10, Article 1526487.
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1526487
Seabra, A. D., Costa, V. O. da, Bittencourt, E. da S., Gonçalves, T. V. O., Bento-
Torres, J., & Bento-Torres, N. V. O. (2023). Metodologias ativas como
instrumento de formação acadêmica e científica no ensino das ciências do
movimento. Educação e Pesquisa, 49, Article e252940.
https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-4634202349255299
Tight, M. (2024). Reflection: An assessment and critique of a pervasive trend in
higher education. European Journal of Higher Education, 14(2), 259–272.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2023.2193345
Vásquez, Y. L. (2024). La sistematización de experiencias por compromiso: Un
camino metodológico innovador y emancipador para la generación,
consolidación y apropiación de saberes transformadores. Revista
Latinoamericana de Difusión Científica, 6(10), 225-237.
https://doi.org/10.38186/difcie.610.13
Zhai, N., Huang, Y., Ma, X., & Chen, J. (2023). Can reflective interventions improve
students’ academic achievement? A meta-analysis. Thinking Skills and
Creativity, 49, Article 101373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101373
| Luis Napoleón Quintanilla López |
Estrategia y Gestión Universitaria EGU
About the main author
Luis Napoleón Quintanilla López
: h
e is a doctoral candidate in Social Sciences at
the National University of La Plata, and holds master's degrees in Education and
Digital Technology, as well as in Public Management. He serves as the Coordinator
of Research and Innovation at the Pedagogical University of El Salvador, where he
develops initiatives in educational research, academic innovation, and university-
level methodological training. His academic work focuses on higher education,
innovation, digital learning communities, research training, social history, and
Central American political processes. His recent publications include works on the
metaverse and education, digital learning commu
nities, Problem-
Based Learning
(PBL) in university research training, and student resilience in contexts of
vulnerability.
Declaration of author responsibility
Luis Napoleón Quintanilla López
1:
Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal
Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision,
Validation/Verification, Visualization, Writing
/Original Draft, and Writing/
Review &
Editing.
Financing:
Own resources
Special Acknowledgments:
