Keywords
deep learning
higher education pedagogy
student engagement
visible thinking
pedagogical routines aprendizaje profundo
compromiso estudiantil
educación superior
participación activa
pensamiento visible
rutinas pedagógicas
How to Cite
Abstract
This study was conducted under a quantitative approach with a sequential explanatory mixed design, aiming to analyze the impact of visible thinking routines on active participation, cognitive engagement, and reflective performance among university students. The sample consisted of 1027 undergraduate students from four Colombian universities, enrolled in Social Sciences, Education, Engineering, and Business Administration programs. A purposive convenience sampling method was applied, resulting in an experimental group of 516 students and a control group of 511, balanced in terms of gender, age (18–24 years), academic level (second to seventh semester), and face-to-face modality. The intervention, implemented over one academic semester, included structured questionnaires and qualitative analysis of reflective journals and student outputs. Results revealed significant increases in the experimental group compared to the control group: behavioral participation rose by 21 %, emotional participation by 18 %, and cognitive participation by 24 %. Furthermore, improvements were observed in self-regulation, critical evaluation, and knowledge transfer skills. It is concluded that visible thinking routines are an effective, adaptable, and low-cost pedagogical strategy with strong potential to enhance key competencies in higher education.
References
Apuy Rojas, A. (2025). El efecto de las rutinas de pensamiento centrales como potenciadoras del pensamiento crítico en el desarrollo de habilidades metacognitivas en la educación superior: Un estudio en la Universidad Hispanoamericana. Ciencia Latina Revista Científica Multidisciplinar, 9(5), 8644–8663. https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v9i5.20199
Arzuaga Mejía, R. G. (2025). Innovación en el aula: Transformando la educación con design thinking. Renovat: Revista de Estudios Interdisciplinarios en Ciencias Sociales, Tecnología e Innovación, 13(2), 7–17. https://revistas.sena.edu.co/index.php/rnt/article/view/6975
Arzuaga Mejía, R. G., Torres Peinado, L. A., Rivero Gutiérrez, E., y Escobar Rodríguez, N. M. (2026). Conexión con entornos virtuales y su influencia en la motivación y la salud universitaria post-pandemia. Retos, 75, 607–619. https://doi.org/10.47197/retos.v75.118202
Barrera, M., y García, A. (2024). Transformando la pedagogía con rutinas de pensamiento: Aprendizajes de nuestras experiencias en Perú y Panamá. Proyecto Zero, Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Cañas, M., Pinedo, R., y García-Martín, N. (2021). La promoción y la enseñanza de las habilidades del pensamiento profundo y visible en las sesiones de Educación Física en Educación Primaria. Retos, 41, 387–398. https://doi.org/10.47197/retos.v0i41.84139
Creswell, J., y Plano, V. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3ª ed.). SAGE.
Escarbajal, A., y Martínez, G. (2023). Uso de las metodologías activas en los centros educativos de educación infantil, primaria y secundaria. International Journal of New Education, 11, 5–25. https://doi.org/10.24310/IJNE.11.2023.16452
Fisher, D., Frey, N., y Hattie, J. (2021). Visible learning for literacy, grades K-12: Implementing the practices that work best to accelerate student learning. Corwin.
Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., y Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Freeman, S., Eddy, S., McDonough, M., Smith, M., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., y Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Gidi, D., y Ortiz, M. (2022). La participación activa como factor clave para el aprendizaje centrado en el estudiante de inglés en modalidad virtual. CIEX Journ@l, 1(15), 55–64. https://journal.ciex.edu.mx/index.php/cJ/article/view/144
Handelsman, M., Briggs, W., Sullivan, N., y Towler, A. (2005). A measure of college student course engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 184-192. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.98.3.184-192
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
Herdoiza, D. J., Valladares, M. G., Calderón, J. P., y Faggioni, P. S. (2024). Transformación educativa: Integración de enfoques pedagógicos innovadores y tecnologías emergentes en los procesos de enseñanza-aprendizaje. Reincisol, 3(6), 6001–6024. https://doi.org/10.59282/reincisol.V3(6)6001-6024
Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. En C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 215–239). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McCormick, A., Meijen, C., y Marcora, S. (2015). Psychological determinants of whole-body endurance performance. Sports Medicine, 45(7), 997–1015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0319-6
OCDE. (2019). Panorama de la educación 2019: Indicadores de la OCDE. OCDE. https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-en
Ritchhart, R., Church, M., y Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible: How to promote engagement, understanding, and independence for all learners. Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
Ronquillo, G., De Mora, E., Bohórquez, A., y Padilla Plaza, J. (2023). Modelo constructivista y su aplicación en el proceso de aprendizaje de los estudiantes. Journal of Science and Research: Revista Ciencia e Investigación, 8(Extra2), 256-273. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10420471
Saldaña, J. (2016). Manual de codificación para investigadores cualitativos. Sage.
Schraw, G., y Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02212307
Simón, N., Del Valle, S., Rioja, N., y Cuadrado, J. (2023). Evaluación del aprendizaje profundo metacognitivo y autodeterminado en estudiantes universitarios. Retos, 48, 861–872. https://doi.org/10.47197/retos.v48.93421
Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. The Higher Education Academy.
UNESCO. (2022). Seguimiento oficial del ODS 4. https://www.unesco.org/gem-report/es/monitoring-sdg4
Velazco, C. A., y Rolón, M. A. (2024). Factors affecting the active participation of students in classes, first year of Education Sciences at the National University of Pilar (2024). Latam Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, 5(5), e2799. https://doi.org/10.56712/latam.v5i5.2799
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4
Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605895
Zepke, N., y Leach, L. (2010). Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(3), 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787410379680
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64-70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Aula Abierta