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:
Ramos-Azcuy, F. J., & Arias-
Cedeño, E. V. (2026). A strategic model for
institutionalizing formative research in
higher education.
Estrategia y Gestión
Universitaria
, 14, e9175.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20644079
Received: 10/06/2026
Accepted: 24/06/2026
Published: 20/07/2026
Corresponding author:
fjramosa@pucesm.edu.ec
Conflict of interest:
the authors declare
that they have no conflict of interest,
which may have influenced the results
obtained or the proposed interpretations
.
A strategic model for institutionalizing
formative research in higher education
Modelo estratégico para la
institucionalización de la investigación
formativa en educación superior
Modelo estratégico para a
institucionalização da pesquisa
formativa no ensino superior
Abstract
Introduction: formative research articulates teaching and
scientific inquiry in higher education to consolidate research
competencies and critical thinking. Its institutionalization
often faces barriers due to a normative‑practice disconnect
and the lack of institutional support to guarantee protected
teaching time and practice spaces. Objective: to design a
strategic management model to institutionalize formative
research at the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador,
Sede Manabí. Method: using a projective case study with a
mixed convergent triangulation design, the research was
based on a qualitative diagnosis of 53 institutional documents
and was quantitatively validated through the judgment of a
panel of 9 international experts. Results: the proposed model
structures management through institutional inputs and
outputs that feed a formative core composed of five
components (curricular training, seedbeds and research
groups, collaborative learning, graduation incentives, and
academic dissemination), whose theoretical rigor and
relevance received the endorsement of the expert panel.
Conclusion: the designed management model contributes to
organically integrating research practice into the curriculum,
enabling the transformation of isolated regulations into
articulated learning communities.
Keywords: learning, curriculum, teaching, higher education,
formative research
Resumen
Introducción: la investigación formativa articula docencia e
indagación científica en educación superior para consolidar
competencias investigativas y pensamiento crítico. Su
institucionalización frecuentemente enfrenta barreras por la
desconexión normativo-práctica y la falta de soporte
institucional para garantizar tiempo docente protegido y
espacios de práctica.
Fridel Julio Ramos-Azcuy
1
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador
Sede de Manabí
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5945-446X
fjramosa@pucesm.edu.ec
Ecuador
Evelyn Virginia Arias-Cedeño
2
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador
Sede de Manabí
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6200-8049
evarias@pucesm.edu.ec
Ecuador
Estrategia y Gestión Universitaria
|
ISSN
: 2309-8333
|
RNPS:
2411
| Vol. 14|2026|
| Fridel Julio Ramos-Azcuy | Evelyn Virginia Arias-Cedeño |
Objetivo:
diseñar un modelo de gestión estratégico para institucionalizar la
investigación formativa en la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Sede
Manabí.
Método:
mediante un estudio de caso proyectivo con diseño mixto de
triangulación convergente, la investigación se fundamentó en un diagnóstico
cualitativo de 53 documentos institucionales y se validó cuantitativamente
mediante el juicio de un panel de 9 expertos internacionales.
Resultados:
el
modelo propuesto estructura la gestión a través de entradas y salidas
institucionales que alimentan a un núcleo formativo compuesto por cinco
componentes (formación curricular, semilleros y grupos, aprendizaje
colaborativo, incentivos de titulación y socialización académica), cuyo rigor
teórico y pertinencia lograron el respaldo de dicho panel de expertos.
Conclusión:
el modelo de gestión diseñado contribuye a integrar orgánicamente
la práctica investigativa al currículo, viabilizando la transformación de
normativas aisladas en comunidades de aprendizaje articuladas.
Palabras clave:
aprendizaje, currículo, docencia, educación superior,
investigación formativa
Resumo
Introdução: a pesquisa formativa articula ensino e investigação científica no
ensino superior para consolidar competências investigativas e pensamento crítico.
Sua institucionalização frequentemente enfrenta barreiras pela desconexão entre
normas e prática e pela falta de suporte institucional para garantir tempo docente
protegido e espaços de prática. Objetivo: desenhar um modelo de gestão
estratégico para institucionalizar a pesquisa formativa na Pontificia Universidad
Católica del Ecuador, Sede Manabí. Método: por meio de um estudo de caso
projetivo com desenho misto de triangulação convergente, a pesquisa
fundamentou‑se em um diagnóstico qualitativo de 53 documentos institucionais e
foi validada quantitativamente pelo juízo de um painel de 9 especialistas
internacionais. Resultados: o modelo proposto estrutura a gestão por meio de
entradas e saídas institucionais que alimentam um núcleo formativo composto por
cinco componentes (formação curricular, semilleros e grupos, aprendizagem
colaborativa, incentivos de titulação e socialização acadêmica), cujo rigor teórico
e pertinência obtiveram o respaldo do referido painel de especialistas. Conclusão:
o modelo de gestão desenhado contribui para integrar organicamente a prática
investigativa ao currículo, viabilizando a transformação de normativas isoladas em
comunidades de aprendizagem articuladas.
Palavras-chave:
aprendizagem, currículo, docência, ensino superior, pesquisa
formativa
| Fridel Julio Ramos-Azcuy | Evelyn Virginia Arias-Cedeño |
e9175
Introduction
In recent years, Latin American higher education has steadily expanded its
enrollment (Márquez Vásquez & Caicedo Consuegra, 2025). This growth has brought
more students into the system, yet it has simultaneously raised the bar for quality
management and curricular renewal. The challenge lies in integrating into the
curriculum those empirical experiences that develop scientific capabilities and
critical thinking (Labraña & Brunner, 2022).
In line with Salguero Rosero et al. (2025), this study defines formative
research (FR) as a strategic approach that promotes the progressive development of
technical, cognitive, attitudinal, and methodological skills. These competencies
equip students to interpret and apply knowledge critically and contextually. The
transformative potential of FR was underscored by these authors, who cautioned
that "the learning of theoretical concepts is not an end in itself, but a means to
develop practical skills that improve students' ability to investigate critically,
generate relevant knowledge, and respond to real-world challenges" (p. 16).
From a curricular standpoint, these activities introduce students to the logic
of the scientific method through pedagogical strategies that link theory with practice
to address everyday problems (Castillo Montúfar et al., 2026). In doing so, they
strengthen collaborative work and prepare future professionals for the demands of
their environment (Winchez Aylas & Bejarano Alvarez, 2025). Thus, whereas
productive research involves developing projects aimed at generating new
knowledge and disseminating findings to broad audiences to consolidate faculty
research lines, FR is fundamentally concerned with teaching the scientific method
to students through seedbeds and integrative projects (Parada Trujillo et al., 2025).
Chávez-Arizala and Soria-Quijaite (2026) framed as an imperative "the need
for comprehensive academic training that allows for the harmonious development of
all students' faculties, especially those related to research" (p. 419). Meeting this
condition requires that higher education institutions (HEIs) provide effective support
and adequate formative strategies to successfully integrate these competencies
across the curriculum. In this regard, the ISO 21001:2018 standard "Management
Systems for Educational Organizations" offers HEIs technical guidance for ordering
educational management, including curriculum and research practice, through
documented processes, learning evidence, and review mechanisms along the student
trajectory (International Organization for Standardization [ISO], 2018).
The integration of FR into the student trajectory is consolidated when
research skills are progressively developed throughout the curriculum and generate
outputs that can be leveraged for the degree thesis (Parra, 2004; Corona Meza, 2023;
Hensel, 2023). While "teacher scaffolding plays a crucial role in enhancing
constructive engagement" (Gutiérrez-Braojos et al., 2024, p. 149), Parada Trujillo
et al. (2025) rightly assert that the success of formative research depends on faculty
possessing not only disciplinary knowledge but also methodological and didactic
expertise, enabling them to apply theoretical-practical strategies that move beyond
the abstraction level of science. If research training requires this comprehensive
guidance, it follows that HEIs should promote faculty professional development,
which is a decisive factor for the successful curricular integration of FR as a
supervised and verifiable practice (Alharbi, 2024; ISO, 2018).
| Fridel Julio Ramos-Azcuy | Evelyn Virginia Arias-Cedeño |
e9175
However, despite the existence of technical standards and quality
benchmarks for educational organizations, these do not always translate into stable
institutional practices for FR, such as defined research products per course, common
rubrics, seedbeds with recognized teaching loads, or student projects linked to
research lines (Turpo-Gebera et al., 2020; Borja Tomás et al., 2025). The regional
literature has also warned that the disconnect between the educational model and
teaching practice perpetuates inertias that constrain research development.
Examples include the displacement of research toward the end of the program, its
concentration in a single methodology course, or its confinement to seedbeds poorly
connected to the curricular trajectory. This is especially true when faculty
professional development fails to keep pace with the concrete demands of
contemporary university education, for instance, methodological guidance for
theses, academic writing, or review of learning evidence (Alharbi, 2024; Borja Tomás
et al., 2025; Corona Meza, 2023).
In Ecuador, institutional research is recognized as a substantive function
under the Ley Orgánica de Educación Superior, enacted in 2010. Complementarily,
the Reglamento de Régimen Académico of the Consejo de Educación Superior
establishes formative research as one of the two levels of institutional research,
further recognizing it as a component of the academic formation process and a cross-
cutting axis of the curriculum (Asamblea Nacional del Ecuador [AN], 2010; Consejo
de Educación Superior [CES], 2022). The massification of enrollment brings with it a
broadening of academic demands. Herein lies the need to articulate teaching and
research more effectively within concrete formative processes (Labraña & Brunner,
2022). In this way, from an institutional management perspective, processes aimed
at linking mass instruction with systematic spaces for scientific practice acquire
considerable importance.
In this context of expanding academic demand, beyond merely incorporating
research activities into the curriculum, management capable of organizing
responsibilities, resources, practice spaces, and monitoring mechanisms is required
(Ros-García et al., 2023). For this reason, management models prove relevant for
articulating FR with the student's academic trajectory and connecting courses,
seedbeds, research groups, and academic products within a more stable institutional
logic (López Ávila et al., 2025; Chigbu et al., 2023).
The Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador (PUCE) is currently updating
its management processes with the aim of transitioning toward strategic research,
leveraged by strengthening its academic capacity and incorporating doctoral-level
faculty. To organize scientific production, the institution has established six major
academic domains that function as national reference frameworks: 1) habitat,
infrastructure, and mobility; 2) economic policy, institutional competitiveness,
innovation, entrepreneurship, productivity, and leadership; 3) politics and law for
social participation and the establishment of just relations; 4) identities, education,
cultures, communication, and values; 5) sustainable management of natural
resources; and 6) dignified life and comprehensive health.
From these macro-domains, the Manabí Campus (PUCE-SM) has derived and
prioritized seven specific research lines for its regional context. These lines ensure
| Fridel Julio Ramos-Azcuy | Evelyn Virginia Arias-Cedeño |
e9175
socio-environmental relevance and are oriented toward contributing to the
Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda, addressing issues through axes
such as biodiversity conservation; comprehensive health, social determination, and
human development; and design, infrastructure, and social and environmental
systems for a sustainable habitat. Nevertheless, the focus of scientific production
still tends to favor indicators associated with institutional accreditation.
Consistent with this, student participation in projects, publications, and
academic socialization spaces remains limited. This phenomenon reveals an
underlying disconnect that underscores the need to consolidate research as an
essential and inescapable part of the teaching endeavor, since the quality of the
formative process depends directly on the link with a faculty member engaged in
research. This weak articulation between faculty's own scientific production and
their pedagogical work is reflected in degree theses that, while meeting formal
requirements, exhibit recurrent weaknesses in epistemological coherence and
methodological design. Consequently, curricular mentoring remains insufficiently
articulated, and students' research experiences are discontinuous.
In this sense, Chigbu et al. (2023) concluded that "all aspects of teaching and
learning should focus on student training, including the culture, technologies,
strategies, actors, infrastructure, and policies of higher education institutions" (p.
10). This idea makes it clear that university management cannot be reduced to
isolated pedagogical actions; rather, it must be oriented toward creating
institutional conditions capable of sustaining FR over time.
Corona Meza (2023) organized formative research around the epistemology
of FR, the development of research skills, teaching practice, and institutional
strategies. While this author enumerated the main components of the phenomenon,
no management mechanism to articulate them into a unified system was proposed.
From a curricular perspective, Hensel (2023) argued that research integrated into
introductory courses allows students to "learn to be good observers, ask actionable
questions, defend their ideas, use evidence, and work collaboratively" (p. 230). In a
different vein, López Ávila et al. (2025) placed emphasis on seedbeds, showing that
these spaces foster "reflection, critical thinking, and collaborative work" (p. 575),
while Paucar-Curasma et al. (2024) and Paucar-Curasma et al. (2025) shifted
attention toward the use of technological resources and problem-solving methods to
promote a positive attitude toward research among engineering students.
In the literature reviewed, the strategic integration of FR into institutional
management remains an insufficiently addressed theme. Nevertheless, several
studies detail experiences, strategies, and analytical frameworks that affirm its
formative value.
The ISO 21001 standard "Management Systems for Educational Organizations"
posits that FR integration requires academic management oriented toward quality
and continuous improvement (ISO, 2018). For PUCE-SM, this poses the challenge of
establishing conditions that allow FR to be integrated throughout the curricular
trajectory, in line with Corona Meza's (2023, p. 2) observation that FR is "carried out
throughout an institutional university curriculum."
In this framework, clarifying responsibilities, securing resources, providing
| Fridel Julio Ramos-Azcuy | Evelyn Virginia Arias-Cedeño |
e9175
faculty mentoring, documenting evidence of progress, and reviewing results become
necessary. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to design a strategic
management model for the institutionalization of formative research at PUCE-SM.
Methods and materials
This research was conducted under a mixed-methods approach with a
convergent triangulation design, structured as a projective case study (Hurtado de
Barrera, 2024; Yin, 2018). The qualitative phase allowed for an examination of the
structural problem stemming from the disarticulation between educational policies
and their practical application at PUCE-SM. The quantitative phase, in turn, was
oriented toward statistically validating the strategic proposal designed to transform
this institutional reality. The research process was organized into three consecutive
phases: theoretical grounding, institutional diagnosis, and content validation of the
proposal.
Phase 1. Theoretical-conceptual and contextual grounding
A conceptual exploration of recent scientific literature was carried out to
identify the pedagogical foundations of FR and the organizational factors required
for its institutional sustainability. The Ecuadorian regulatory framework (AN, 2010;
CES, 2022) and PUCE-SM planning instruments (Pontificia Universidad Católica del
Ecuador [PUCE], 2019, 2021, 2024, 2025) were also analyzed to establish the
feasibility conditions of the proposal. Additionally, the principles and quality criteria
of ISO 21001:2018 (ISO, 2018) were studied with the aim of grounding the
mechanisms that articulate formative research as a cross-cutting pedagogical
approach within institutional management.
Phase 2. Situational diagnosis and FR needs analysis
Qualitative content analysis (Krippendorff, 2018) was applied to a corpus of
53 internal documents generated between March 2023 and September 2025. The
analysis yielded an initial diagnosis of institutional dynamics regarding normative-
practical alignment over five consecutive academic periods.
The analytical corpus consisted of self-assessment reports, minutes issued
by the Directorate of Research, Outreach, and Innovation (DIVi), graduate tracking
records, and undergraduate theses (Table 1). From these inputs, quantitative
efficiency indicators were also extracted to gauge the magnitude of the institutional
problem. Specifically, faculty-student co-authorship, participation in formal
projects, and attendance at scientific events were examined.
Table 1
Characterization of the documentary corpus
| Fridel Julio Ramos-Azcuy | Evelyn Virginia Arias-Cedeño |
e9175
Document source
(N=53)
Issued by Function in the diagnosis
Annual self-
assessment reports
per program (n=14)
Quality
assurance
committees
curricular planning and program-level
DIVi session minutes
(n=9)
DIVi
management bottlenecks, and funding
Graduate tracking
records (n=3)
DIVi
competencies and evaluation of training
impact on professional performance
among graduates of International Business,
Undergraduate
theses (n=27)
Students
determine the level of methodological
competence and epistemic coherence
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
Complementarily, a qualitative analysis aimed at identifying challenges
hindering FR implementation was developed. The interactive model of Miles et al.
(2014) was followed. The unit of analysis consisted of corpus fragments expressing
clearly delimited ideas about the problem. These were subsequently grouped
according to recurring themes, and institutional gaps related to FR were thereby
identified.
Phase 3. Design and validation of the strategic proposal
The axial categories identified in the diagnosis were contrasted with the
pedagogical principles, organizational factors, and regulatory requirements
systematized in the theoretical grounding. From the results of this contrast, the
model's components and their objective were defined.
The preliminary proposal was validated through the expert judgment
method. An international panel of 9 specialists with backgrounds in research
management and university pedagogy was formed. Each was sent via email a rubric
with a 5-point Likert scale to assess the proposal against five rigor criteria:
relevance, coherence, sufficiency, clarity, and feasibility. With the data collected,
Aiken's V was calculated to seek evidence of content validity, and inter-rater
reliability was analyzed by computing Kendall's W coefficient. SPSS v.25 statistical
software was used for this purpose.
Results and discussion
Institutional diagnosis of formative research
Corpus analysis revealed weaknesses in the systematic implementation of
formative research. While degree theses rarely led to co-authored publications,
formal research projects maintained low levels of student participation. To this was
| Fridel Julio Ramos-Azcuy | Evelyn Virginia Arias-Cedeño |
e9175
added a reduced student presence at scientific events, revealing an incipient culture
of academic socialization. These issues were cross-cut by insufficient research
competencies, fueled by a limited offering of practice and recognition spaces, and
aggravated by weak incentive and institutional communication mechanisms (Table
2).
Table 2
Synthesis and triangulation of qualitative findings from the diagnosis
Axial Category
(Finding)
Self-
Assessment
Reports
Graduate Surveys
Thesis
Analysis
Minutes and
Reports (DIVi)
Insufficient
competencies
Indicate
deficiencies in
methodological
rigor and
writing.
Reported lack of
tools for thesis
preparation.
Detect
weaknesses in
structure and
results
analysis.
Documented
need to
reinforce
critical
thinking,
methodological
rigor, a
nd
scientific
writing
training.
Limited
practice and
recognition
opportunities
Identify
absence of
budget and
protected time
for faculty
research and
student
research
mentoring.
Report
nonexistence of
channels for co-
curricular
research practice
and training
focused
exclusively on
course
compliance.
Shows
disconnection
of degree
projects from
institutional
research lines.
Documents the
need to create
formal bridges
between
curriculum and
research
groups.
Lack of
incentives and
communication
Identify the
n
eed to
strengthen
dissemination
and the
research
communication
strategy.
Report
unawareness of
group existence
and lack of
economic/time
support to
participate.
Indicate
scarce
scientific
production
derived from
degree theses.
Documents the
need for a plan
to ensure
active
promotion of
FR and
creation of
curricular
incentives to
foster student
participation.
| Fridel Julio Ramos-Azcuy | Evelyn Virginia Arias-Cedeño |
e9175
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
Note. The table presents a synthesis of the most relevant and recurrent aspects
obtained from the different sources analyzed.
The absence of methodological mentoring throughout the program is later
reflected in degree theses that struggle to formulate research problems or justify
methodological decisions. This formative weakness extends beyond the student. It
also responds to an academic trajectory centered on course completion, with little
connection to institutional research projects and scientific production. These
evidences support the proposal of the model as an instrument to articulate curricular
elements with institutional conditions that make a more sustained research practice
possible. The following strategic components of the model emerge from the
complementary integration of the institutional diagnosis, in which document review
evidenced the magnitude of gaps in research practice, while qualitative analysis
allowed for understanding the structural barriers this design seeks to overcome.
Structure of the model for FR management
To address the need for greater integration of the curriculum with practice
spaces and academic products around the student's research trajectory, the Model
establishes five interconnected components that place the student at the center of
management (Figure 1):
Curricular training (C1): introduces research into regular coursework. It creates a
curricular foundation for FR to advance throughout the program with greater
coherence.
Seedbeds and groups (C2): promote student participation in institutional
research spaces.
Collaborative learning (C3): collective construction of advances and
academic products.
Incentives and degree completion (C4): links these advances to recognizable
academic products.
Dissemination and outreach (C5): opens spaces to communicate partial or
consolidated results.
These components are immersed in a flow that starts from institutional
inputs, concentrates work on them as a student-centered formative core, and
projects outputs subject to feedback. The DIVi is responsible for conducting and
providing support while faculty-tutors provide methodological mentoring to
students.
Figure 1
Formative research management model
| Fridel Julio Ramos-Azcuy | Evelyn Virginia Arias-Cedeño |
e9175
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
Inputs include the demands of the institutional and regulatory context
(research policies, higher education regulations, institutional lines), the results of
diagnoses, and the constraints imposed by available resources. With these inputs,
the formative core defines where and how FR can be incorporated into the
curriculum. In this logic, integrative courses favor students' methodological learning
based on discipline-specific content and inquiry activities linked to FR. Meanwhile,
monitoring the internal dynamics of the formative core provides vital information on
aspects such as project continuity, participation in practice spaces, methodological
quality of progress, and faculty mentoring through to degree completion or academic
socialization.
The Model's outputs allow for assessing the effects of the student's research
trajectory and provide information for improving FR. Specifically, these outputs
comprise the development of research competencies, evidenced in better-defined
problem formulation and justified methodological decisions; increased student
participation in research activities; and the generation of academic evidence of
formative progress and derived intellectual production, such as degree products,
presentations, or publications. All this translates into concrete contributions to the
INPUTS
CONTEXT AND
REGULATORY
FRAMEWORK
INSTITUTIONA
L DIAGNOSIS
INSTITUTIONAL
RESOURCES
OUTPUTS
RESEARCH
COMPETENCIES
INSTITUTIONAL
SCIENTIFIC CULTURE
ACADEMIC
OUTPUT
CURRICUL
AR
TRAINING
RESEARCH
SEEDBEDS
AND
GROUPS
COLLABORATI
VE LEARNING
INCENTIVES
AND DEGREE
COMPLETION
DISSEMINATI
ON AND
OUTREACH
STUDENT
CURRICULAR INTEGRATION
MONITORING AND CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
LEGEND
Main
flow
Interaction /
articulation
Feedback and
improvement
| Fridel Julio Ramos-Azcuy | Evelyn Virginia Arias-Cedeño |
e9175
institutional scientific culture and provides useful information for adjusting the
curriculum, mentoring, or available supports. Ultimately, information emanating
from these outputs feeds back into the program as a foundation for continuous
improvement, helping to prevent FR from becoming a mere sum of isolated activities
or formal compliance.
Components of the formative core
Curricular training (C1)
This component provides mechanisms for recognizing the formative needs of
students and faculty through periodic diagnoses supported by academic information
from each program. It thus guides faculty training and helps gradually incorporate
FR into the curriculum. Curricular integration can be adjusted in scope considering
the mentoring required by faculty and the type of research activity envisioned in
integrative courses.
Through this component, the strategic model favors the organic articulation
of research within the academic curriculum. To achieve this, it envisions the
implementation throughout the program of integrative courses (regular courses
whose disciplinary content can be approached through problems specific to the
profession). In this sense, each academic program defines the number of viable
integrative courses and their strategic placement in the curriculum, depending on
its mentoring capacity and the frequency established for inquiry activities.
Seedbeds and groups (C2)
This component promotes student participation in concrete research tasks
under faculty guidance, with demonstrable progress throughout the process. In this
way, students are brought closer to real research practices that take place within
teams linked to an institutional line or project.
To optimize the conditions under which students learn to research by doing,
the component articulates two research modalities:
• seedbeds are institutionalized as spaces that provide students with facilities
to familiarize themselves with study problems linked to the program and
constitute an initial approach to the dynamics of scientific research.
• research groups enable students to link up with formal research projects and
learn how institutional scientific production is organized.
• Student participation in seedbeds and research groups is expected to be
subject to clear and objective criteria regulating their entry and
permanence.
Collaborative learning (C3)
This component promotes students' research autonomy through the
formation of Study Groups. These are flexible spaces, formed around common
interests and led by students themselves, with non-directive faculty mentoring
oriented toward channeling research questions and methodological decisions when
the group requires it. The institution must ensure adequate conditions to optimize
the performance of these groups, as well as provide formal recognition for student
| Fridel Julio Ramos-Azcuy | Evelyn Virginia Arias-Cedeño |
e9175
participation. They may also present their progress at the academic conferences
provided for in C5.
Study Groups whose work has reached greater maturity can organically link
with seedbeds and research groups in C2. Thus, those students who have achieved
sufficient competencies and have a favorable attitude toward research have a
pathway, supported by specialized mentoring, to consolidate and deepen acquired
knowledge through scientific practice.
Incentives and degree completion (C4)
This component envisions the articulation of competitive funds administered
by the DIVi with degree theses linked to faculty projects, research groups, or
seedbeds with academic production in development. Proposal selection is conducted
through public criteria that value the methodological consistency of the design and
the expected contribution to the program.
During review, the temporal feasibility of the project with respect to
academic degree deadlines must be guaranteed, as well as its capacity to generate
a tangible scientific product. Once the proposal is approved, the tutor leads the
academic process, with support from the corresponding group or seedbed when the
nature of the project so requires.
Faculty-student co-authorship allows degree progress to be prepared for
scientific communication. This practice recognizes the student's work at a higher
level of demand and can project it toward academic conferences, proceedings, or
publications depending on the degree of development achieved. C4 thus extends the
reach of competitive funds by favoring the circulation and association of results with
the campus's research production.
Dissemination and outreach (C5)
C5 transforms the public presentation of student work into a regular practice
of PUCE-SM's academic culture. Its function is to give visibility to results generated
throughout the formative trajectory, from integrative courses to the degree thesis,
provided they reach a sufficient level of elaboration.
The main mechanism of this component is the academic conference. Its
function is formative. Initial advances can circulate there through posters, while
more consolidated results may be presented as papers or academic proceedings. In
this way, scientific socialization accompanies the formative process and recognizes
different levels of elaboration in student work.
Certification and merit distinctions provide academic backing for student
participation. The public presentation of these works extends their reach within the
university community and contributes to installing formative research as a
recognized practice at the campus.
Content validation of the model
Analysis of the data obtained from the expert consultation showed
moderate-high and significant inter-rater consistency (Kendall's W = 0.559; p <
0.001). Furthermore, global content validity for the Model showed high values (V =
| Fridel Julio Ramos-Azcuy | Evelyn Virginia Arias-Cedeño |
e9175
0.86) above the acceptance threshold proposed by Aiken (1985). However, Model
Feasibility (Table 3) received a rating below expectations (V = 0.69) and prompted
an analysis of the causes.
Table 3
Content validation summary by Aiken's V
Criterio de Evaluación
V de Aiken
Resultado
Pertinencia
0,97
Válido
Coherencia
0,89
Válido
Claridad
0,81
Válido
Suficiencia
0,92
Válido
Viabilidad
0,69
Insuficiente
Coeficiente global del modelo
0,86
Válido
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
Note. Values correspond to the average per criterion.
Expert observations pointed to the risk of increased faculty workload that
would be difficult to sustain and to the fact that Model implementation required
better delimitation of the curricular spaces where formative research would be
integrated. In response, the Model design was adjusted to focus curricular
integration on a manageable number of integrative courses per program. This
delimitation allows for a more manageable implementation by concentrating faculty
mentoring in previously defined curricular spaces.
On the other hand, it was specified that before joining applied research
spaces, students must work on problem formulation and literature review in the
initial semesters. They then advance toward constructing theoretical frameworks,
methodological delimitation, and initial instrument design. This aims to reduce
improvisation in practice spaces and better orient faculty mentoring. This
preparation should occur in the initial semesters (1st through 4th).
Scope of the model
Results show that research practice maintains a weak connection with the
curriculum, evidencing that seedbed activity depends on the voluntary impulse of
some faculty. Faced with this state of affairs, the Model proposes mechanisms for
practice spaces, academic products, courses, and faculty mentoring to be integrated
into a coherent research trajectory.
ISO 21001:2018 provides the Model with an educational management
reference based on improvement and a process approach. From that logic, FR is
| Fridel Julio Ramos-Azcuy | Evelyn Virginia Arias-Cedeño |
e9175
analyzed in terms of its relationship with the campus's academic processes and the
value it can generate for students and other interested parties. In the Model, this
comprehensive perspective allows components to be understood as parts of a
formative trajectory subject to review and improvement, rather than as isolated
actions. The relationship between standard requirements and Model mechanisms is
synthesized in Table 4.
Table 4
Correspondence between ISO 21001:2018 requirements and Model mechanisms
ISO 21001:2018
Requirement
Management
criterion
contributed
Model mechanism
Scope in FR
management
6.2 Educational
organization
objectives and
planning to
achieve them
Objectives should
be defined at
relevant levels,
monitored, and
documented
information on
their achievement
maintained.
Definition of FR
objectives per
program, associated
with integrative
courses and
expected results
along the student
trajectory.
Allows
specification of
what should be
achieved with FR
and how its
progress will be
verified during
the program.
7.1 Resources
and 7.2
Competence
The organization
must determine
resources and
ensure the
competence of
people who
impact
educational
performance.
Identification of
faculty-tutors,
academic
capacities,
institutional
support, and
material conditions
to sustain FR.
Connects Model
feasibility with
real availability
of mentoring,
faculty time, and
practice spaces.
7.5 Documented
information
Information
necessary for
system
effectiveness
must be
identified,
available, and
controlled.
Use of syllabi,
rubrics, minutes,
participation
records, student
products, and
academic
socialization
evidence.
Provides
traceability to
the student's
research
trajectory and
supports
improvement
decisions.
8.1 Operational
planning and
control
Educational
processes must be
planned,
controlled, and
sufficient
evidence
maintained to
Organization of the
Model in inputs,
formative core,
outputs, and
feedback, with
emphasis on
integrative courses
Helps move from
isolated research
activities to a
more controllable
curricular
management.
| Fridel Julio Ramos-Azcuy | Evelyn Virginia Arias-Cedeño |
e9175
ISO 21001:2018
Requirement
Management
criterion
contributed
Model mechanism
Scope in FR
management
demonstrate
execution as
planned.
and components C1-
C5.
9.1 Monitoring,
measurement,
analysis, and
evaluation
The organization
must determine
what will be
monitored, with
what methods,
and when results
will be analyzed.
Monitoring of
project continuity,
participation in
practice spaces,
methodological
quality of progress,
and faculty
mentoring.
Allows detection
of interruptions
in the trajectory
before they
accumulate in the
degree thesis.
10.2 Continuous
improvement
Improvement
should be
supported by
analysis,
evaluation, and
review results.
Feedback of
information from
Model outputs to
programs and the
DIVi.
Favors curricular
adjustments,
reallocation of
support, and
review of
academic
decisions linked
to FR.
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
Note. The correspondence presented is orientative and does not constitute a
conformity assessment with ISO 21001:2018.
The curricular integration of the student trajectory from curricular training
(C1) to academic socialization (C5) aligns with the perspective of Chigbu et al.
(2023), who concluded that "all aspects of teaching and learning should focus on
student training, including the culture, technologies, strategies, actors,
infrastructure, and policies of higher education institutions" (p. 10). Thus, the
proposed model translates the regulatory mandate into concrete mechanisms for
articulating teaching with scientific inquiry.
The institutionalization of seedbeds and research groups (C2) as stable
mentoring spaces directly converges with the postulates of López Ávila et al. (2025),
who reaffirm how student insertion in seedbeds fosters "the development of research
competencies, reflection, interaction, and collective work" (p. 593). Ultimately, the
progressive mainstreaming proposed by the model's formative core assumes what
Hensel (2023) defends as the student's capacity to "learn to be good observers, ask
actionable questions, defend their ideas, use evidence, and work collaboratively" (p.
230).
In their study, Enriquez-Gavilan et al. (2025) demonstrated that university
students typically present a very favorable affective and cognitive attitude toward
research. However, in the behavioral dimension (actual participation) it declines
significantly in the face of a lack of institutional opportunities. This gap widens when
curricula lack early immersion spaces, causing students to perceive scientific work
| Fridel Julio Ramos-Azcuy | Evelyn Virginia Arias-Cedeño |
e9175
as complex and restricted to exclusive academic circles (Martínez, 2025). López-
Alonso et al. (2024) proposes that to reverse this inertia, "students' confrontation
with real situations is the best didactic strategy to develop their research skills" (p.
10).
Based on these considerations, component C2 (Seedbeds and groups) breaks
with the perception of exclusivity by gradually integrating students into scientific
practice communities. Component C4 (Incentives and degree completion), in turn,
capitalizes on student effort by linking it to tangible results. In this way, the model
offers the organizational spaces demanded by the behavioral dimension. It thus
contributes to closing the attitudinal gap by potentiating autonomous and
comprehensive research learning (Enriquez-Gavilan et al., 2025).
Likewise, the institutional diagnosis revealed a concerning disconnection of
degree projects from research lines, a classic symptom of curricula that postpone
scientific inquiry until the end of the program. In this regard, Enriquez-Gavilan et
al. (2025) advocate for integrating research experiences from the earliest stages of
the curriculum, jointly developing theory and practice. Students themselves support
this position according to Martínez (2025), who evidenced that they have demanded
that "research should be integrated throughout their education, rather than limited
to the undergraduate thesis" (p. 568).
In response, the formative core of the proposed model opts to mainstream
research from the early semesters through integrative courses (C1) and consolidate
it in real environments through seedbeds (C2). The degree thesis is thus transformed
into the natural consequence of sustained scientific immersion by students. As
demonstrated by Vilà Baños et al. (2025), student skills reach their highest level of
consolidation precisely after facing work or practical environments, at which point
"students perceive a considerable increase in their specific competencies" (p. 11).
Along these same lines, when evaluating the impact of working groups, López-Alonso
et al. (2024) concluded categorically that "students' confrontation with real
situations is the best didactic strategy to develop their research skills" (p. 10).
The authors of this study concur with Biddix and Bourke (2025) when they
caution that curricular mainstreaming of research must guarantee its methodological
rigor through faculty mentoring where continuous formative assessment allows for
early identification and correction of errors. Considering that the integration of
artificial intelligence endows the formative process with the capacity to provide
students with personalized and immediate feedback (Yang, 2026), the
institutionalization of formative research should also focus on modernizing feedback
mechanisms to empower autonomous learning.
Conclusions
A strategic management model for the institutionalization of formative
research at PUCE-SM was designed. This study is relevant in the academic and
scientific sphere because it provides a structured framework that articulates
teaching and inquiry, while also holding social importance by strengthening students'
| Fridel Julio Ramos-Azcuy | Evelyn Virginia Arias-Cedeño |
e9175
research competencies and improving the quality of professional training.
As the main finding, the model is organized around a core of five components
(curricular training, research seedbeds and groups, collaborative learning, degree
incentives, and academic socialization). Grounded in the standardized criteria of ISO
21001, the central value of this contribution lies in its adoption of a process-based
approach that enables the real integration of classroom training with research
practice. The model provides for the establishment of formative goals and the
generation of verifiable evidence, thereby supporting continuous improvement
decisions throughout the student trajectory.
These elements were validated by a panel of nine international experts,
guaranteeing their theoretical rigor and relevance. Nevertheless, the research
process faced certain limitations, such as partial availability of institutional
documents and the absence of a pilot implementation of the model, making its
validation a primarily theoretical exercise. Consequently, it is recommended that
the university advance in the progressive implementation of this design, undertaking
systematic monitoring to guide resource allocation and faculty mentoring. In this
way, it will be possible to transform isolated policies into truly articulated learning
communities.
References
Aiken, L. R. (1985). Three Coefficients for Analyzing the Reliability and Validity of
Ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(1), 131–142.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164485451012
Alharbi, N. S. (2024). Exploring the perspectives of cross-cultural instructors on
integrating 21st century skills into EFL university courses. Frontiers in
Education, 9, 1302608. https://doi.org/10.3389/FEDUC.2024.1302608
Asamblea Nacional del Ecuador. (2010). Ley Orgánica de Educación Superior.
https://www.ces.gob.ec/documentos/Normativa/LOES.pdf
Biddix, J. P., & Bourke, B. (2025). Using formative assessment approaches to
enhance rigor and quality in research. Quality & Quantity, 60(2), 5387–5406.
https://doi.org/10.1007/S11135-025-02461-8
Borja Tomás, C., Asunción Ríos Jiménez, M., Dolores Villena Martínez, M., & Pérez
García, P. (2025). Modelos pedagógicos empleados por los docentes
universitarios. Revista de La Educación Superior, 54(215), 145–168.
https://resu.anuies.mx/ojs/index.php/resu/article/view/3408
Castillo Montúfar, C. R., Tolozano Benites, R., & Echeverría-Guzmán, Á. Y. (2026).
Las competencias investigativas en la formación docente: Un estudio
exploratorio. Revista Prisma Social, (53), 250–264.
https://doi.org/10.65598/RPS.6089
Chávez-Arizala, J. F., & Soria-Quíjaite, J. J. (2026). Technological skills, self-
efficacy, and resilience with SEM model as predictors of investigative skills
in Ecuatorian higher-level students. Journal of Technology and Science
| Fridel Julio Ramos-Azcuy | Evelyn Virginia Arias-Cedeño |
e9175
Education, 16(2), 411–422. https://doi.org/10.3926/JOTSE.3758
Chigbu, B. I., Ngwevu, V., & Jojo, A. (2023). The effectiveness of innovative
pedagogy in the industry 4.0: Educational ecosystem perspective. Social
Sciences & Humanities Open, 7(1), 100419.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SSAHO.2023.100419
Consejo de Educación Superior. (2022). Reglamento de Régimen Académico.
https://www.ces.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Reglamento-de-
Re%CC%81gimen-Acade%CC%81mico-vigente-a-partir-del-16-de-septiembre-
de-2022.pdf
Corona Meza, W. (2023). Caracterización de los componentes de la investigación
formativa en la universidad contemporánea en Latinoamérica. Revista
Educación, 47(1), 605–622. https://doi.org/10.15517/REVEDU.V47I1.51880
Enriquez-Gavilan, N., Niño-Cueva, M., Lopez-Curasma, A., Niño-Cueva, D., &
Romero-Sandoval, J. (2025). Attitude Towards Research in Formative
Research Among University Students: An Analysis from the Perspective of
Autonomous Investigative Learning. Seminars in Medical Writing and
Education, 4, e1768. https://doi.org/10.56294/MW2025430
Gutiérrez-Braojos, C., Rodriguez-Chirino, P., Pedrosa Vico, B., & Rodriguez
Fernandez, S. (2024). Andamiaje docente para la construcción del
conocimiento en el aula de investigación educativa. RIED-Revista
Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 27(2), 127–157.
https://doi.org/10.5944/RIED.27.2.38969
Hensel, N. H. (2023). Course-based undergraduate research: Educational equity and
high-impact practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003443704
Hurtado de Barrera, J. (2024). Investigación proyectiva: más allá de la investigación
tecnológica. Impacto Científico, 19(1), 13–26.
https://produccioncientificaluz.org/index.php/impacto/article/view/4221
3
Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. SAGE
Publications.
Labraña, J., & Brunner, J. J. (2022). Transformación de la educación superior
latinoamericana y su impacto en la idea de la universidad: Del acceso de
élite a la masificación y universalización del acceso. Perfiles Educativos,
44(176), 138–151.
https://doi.org/10.22201/IISUE.24486167E.2022.176.60539
López-Alonso, V. E., López-Aguilar, X., Torres-Velázquez, L. E., Cortés-Moreno, A.,
& Guerra-García, J. (2024). Autopercepción de habilidades de investigación:
estudiantes de psicología en una práctica virtual. Revista Digital de
Investigación En Docencia Universitaria, 18(2), e1768.
https://doi.org/10.19083/RIDU.2024.1768
López Ávila, C. R., Franco Jiménez, A. M., & Posada Silva, Y. W. (2025). Los
semilleros de investigación y la formación investigativa en una universidad
| Fridel Julio Ramos-Azcuy | Evelyn Virginia Arias-Cedeño |
e9175
pública de Colombia. Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, 30(105),
575–598. https://ojs.rmie.mx/index.php/rmie/article/view/1206
Márquez Vásquez, P. A., & Caicedo Consuegra, L. (2025). Educación superior en
crisis: desafíos de acceso y permanencia en Colombia. Revista de La
Educación Superior, 54(215), 71–92.
https://resu.anuies.mx/ojs/index.php/resu/article/view/3405/726
Martínez, J. (2025). Exploring student perceptions of formative research on
undergraduate students: Insights and implications for higher education.
Journal of Education and E-Learning Research, 12(4), 562–572.
https://doi.org/10.20448/JEELR.V12I4.7559
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A
Methods Sourcebook. SAGE Publications.
Organización Internacional de Normalización. (2018). Organizaciones educativas —
Sistemas de gestión para organizaciones educativas — Requisitos con
orientación para su uso (ISO 21001:2018).
https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#iso:std:iso:21001:ed-1:v1:es
Parada Trujillo, A. E., Gutiérrez Yepes, A. R., & Álvarez Salas, L. M. (2025).
Investigación formativa en derecho: Hacia una arquitectura de rutas
metodológicas. Revista Pedagogía Universitaria y Didáctica Del Derecho,
12(2), 211-234. https://doi.org/10.5354/0719-5885.2025.76637
Paucar-Curasma, R., Unsihuay Tovar, R. F., Acra-Despradel, C., & Villalba-Condori,
K. O. (2025). IBPT: An Approach to Promote Research and Technological
Competencies in Higher Education. Sustainability, 17(20), 9309.
https://doi.org/10.3390/SU17209309
Paucar-Curasma, R., Villalba-Condori, K. O., Gonzales-Agama, S. H., Huayta-Meza,
F. T., Rondon, D., & Sapallanay-Gomez, N. N. (2024). Technological
resources and problem-solving methods to foster a positive attitude toward
formative research in engineering students. Education Sciences, 14(12),
1397. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14121397
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador. (2019). Modelo de investigación
formativa [Documento institucional no publicado].
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador. (2021). Modelo de investigación 2021 –
2025 [Documento institucional no publicado].
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador. (2024). Reglamento Específico para la
gestión de la Investigación, Vinculación e Innovación [Documento
institucional no publicado].
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador. (2025). Lineamientos Nacionales para la
articulación de Funciones Sustantivas [Documento institucional no
publicado].
Ros-García, J. M. M., Corsini-Fuhrmann, S., & Sáenz-Guerra, F. J. (2023). University
Hybrid Ecosystems: A Theory for Learning Based on the Interrelationships
between Spaces with Contrasting Architectural Definitions. Education
| Fridel Julio Ramos-Azcuy | Evelyn Virginia Arias-Cedeño |
e9175
Sciences, 13(9), 881. https://doi.org/10.3390/EDUCSCI13090881
Salguero Rosero, J. R., Rodríguez Espinosa, J. R., Salguero Rosero, R. M., & Rosas
Chávez, P. X. (2025). Conceptual Appropriation and Perceived Skills in
Formative Research Among University Students. Education Sciences, 15(8),
944. https://doi.org/10.3390/EDUCSCI15080944/S1
Winchez Aylas, C. L., & Bejarano Alvarez, P. (2025). Development of research
competences in undergraduate students. International Journal of Evaluation
and Research in Education (IJERE), 14(6), 4928–4936.
https://doi.org/10.11591/IJERE.V14I6.33724
Vilà Baños, R., Aneas Álvarez, A., & Rajadell Puiggrós, N. (2025). Percepción del
alumnado sobre su nivel de competencia en las asignaturas del Prácticum:
Estudio longitudinal en el grado en Pedagogía de la Universidad de
Barcelona. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 43(43).
https://doi.org/10.6018/RIE.544661
Yang, Y. (2026). Artificial Intelligence-Empowering Formative Assessment: Research
Progress and Future Directions. Proceedings of 2025 4th International
Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Education, 217–223.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3797552.3797589
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: design and methods (6th
ed.). SAGE Publications.
| Fridel Julio Ramos-Azcuy | Evelyn Virginia Arias-Cedeño |
Estrategia y Gestión Universitaria EGU
About the main author
Fridel Julio Ramos
-Azcuy: Holds a Doctorate in
Educational Sciences, a Master’s
degree in Quality and Environmental Management, and a degree in Industrial
Engineering. Serves as a full
-
time lecturer and researcher at the Pontifical Catholic
University of Ecuador (Manabí campus). Academic research experience focuses on
the design of integrated management systems for the continuous improvement of
educational processes and the optimization of virtual learning environments
.
Declaration of author responsibility
Fridel Julio Ramos
-Azcuy 1: Conceptua
lization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis,
Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision,
Validation/Verification, Visualization, Writing
/Original Draft, and Writing/
Review &
Editing.
Evelyn Virginia Arias
-Cedeño 2: Data curation, Software, Validation/Verification,
Project administration, Resources, Supervision, and Writing, review, and editing
.
Financing:
Own resources
Special Acknowledgments: