Resumen
El estudio analizó los factores asociados con la transición del aprendizaje profundo al superficial en estudiantes universitarios mediante una síntesis integrativa de literatura científica. Los determinantes identificados se organizaron en tres dominios: individual, pedagógico-evaluativo y contextual, y según su función como precipitantes, mediadores y protectores. La evaluación, la carga de trabajo y la motivación mostraron mayor relevancia, mientras que la percepción del entorno y la autorregulación contribuyeron a explicar respuestas diferentes ante condiciones académicas similares. Como aporte teórico, se propone un modelo que interpreta la superficialización como un proceso adaptativo vinculado con la relación percibida entre esfuerzo cognitivo y recompensa académica, incorporando el concepto de umbral de superficialización. El modelo proporciona una base para futuras investigaciones longitudinales sobre cambios en los enfoques de aprendizaje.
Citas
[2] F. Marton and R. Säljö, “On qualitative differences in learning: II—Outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task,” British Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 115–127, 1976.
[3] J. B. Biggs, D. Kember, and D. Y. P. Leung, “The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F,” British Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 133–149, 2001.
[4] J. Biggs, “What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning,” Higher Education Research & Development, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 57–75, 1999.
[5] K. Trigwell and M. Prosser, “Improving the quality of student learning: The influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes,” Higher Education, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 251–266, 1991.
[6] N. J. Entwistle and H. Tait, “Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic environments,” Higher Education, vol. 19, pp. 169–194, 1990.
[7] J. F. H. Nijhuis, M. S. R. Segers, and W. H. Gijselaers, “Influence of redesigning a learning environment on student perceptions and learning strategies,” Learning Environments Research, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 67–93, 2005.
[8] A. Lizzio, K. Wilson, and R. Simons, “University students’ perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and practice,” Studies in Higher Education, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 27–52, 2002.
[9] K. Wilson and J. Fowler, “Assessing the impact of learning environments on students’ approaches to learning: Comparing conventional and action learning designs,” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 87–101, 2005.
[10] K. Struyven, F. Dochy, S. Janssens, and S. Gielen, “On the dynamics of students’ approaches to learning: The effects of the teaching/learning environment,” Learning and Instruction, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 279–294, 2006.
[11] J. F. H. Nijhuis, M. S. R. Segers, and W. H. Gijselaers, “The extent of variability in learning strategies and students’ perceptions of the learning environment,” Learning and Instruction, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 121–134, 2008.
[12] C. D. Balasooriya, S. Toohey, and C. Hughes, “The cross-over phenomenon: Unexpected patterns of change in students’ approaches to learning,” Studies in Higher Education, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 781–794, 2009.
[13] C. D. Balasooriya, C. S. Hughes, and S. M. Toohey, “Impact of a new integrated medicine program on students’ approaches to learning,” Higher Education Research & Development, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 289–302, 2009.
