Evaluación de una secuencia didáctica transversal entre Arduino y MIT App Inventor

JAVIER DIAZ SANCHEZ

Authors

JAVIER DIAZ SANCHEZ BUAP-ULC https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5851-9636

Keywords:

Project-based learning, Action research, Prototypes, Cross-disciplinarity, STEM

Abstract

This action-research article, with a qualitative approach, evaluates the impact of a curricular transversality didactic sequence between the courses Innovación de Aplicaciones (Application Innovation) and Dispositivos Autónomos (Autonomous Devices) in the BUAP General Bachillerato program. The central problem is curricular fragmentation, which limits students' computational thinking, technological motivation, and digital culture. The intervention, grounded in the constructionist learning environment models of Jonassen (1999) and Papert (1980), is implemented across five didactic phases in which students build an electronic prototype controlled from an Android application via Bluetooth. The evaluation triangulates a portfolio rubric, a Likert survey, and teacher observation; results showed that 95% of portfolios reached an adequate or excellent level, and students' average rating was 4.60/5, with knowledge integration scoring highest (4.68/5). The conclusion holds that the sequence fosters transversality, with formative and measurable effects on academic performance.

References

Ausubel, D. P. (2002). Adquisición y retención del conocimiento: Una perspectiva cognitiva. Paidós.

Blikstein, P. (2013). Gears of our childhood: Constructionist toolkits, robotics, and physical computing, past and future. En Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 173-182). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2485760.2485786

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4.ª ed.). SAGE Publications.

Díaz-Barriga, Á. (2006). El enfoque de competencias en la educación: ¿Una alternativa o un disfraz de cambio?, Perfiles Educativos, 28(111), 7-36.

Elliot, J. (1993). El cambio educativo desde la investigación-acción. Morata.

Hernández-Sampieri, R., Fernández-Collado, C., & Baptista-Lucio, P. (2014). Metodología de la investigación (6.ª ed.). McGraw-Hill.

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. 2, pp. 215-239). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kemmis, S., y McTaggart, R. (1988). Cómo planificar la investigación-acción. Laertes.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.

Macías-Espinoza, F., et al. (2025). Portafolios digitales para evaluación del aprendizaje en contexto universitario ecuatoriano: Estudio bibliométrico 2020–2026. Maestro y Sociedad, 22(1). https://maestroysociedad.uo.edu.cu/index.php/MyS/article/view/7555

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.

Papert, S. (1993). The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. Basic Books.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816

Santiago-Trujillo, Y., & Garvich-Ormeño, R. (2024). Competencias digitales e integración de las TIC en el proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje. Revista Tecnológica-Educativa Docentes 2.0, 17(1), 50–65. https://doi.org/10.37843/rted.v17i1.405

Villanueva-Flores, M., et al. (2024). Evaluación de competencias digitales en la enseñanza: Estudio de docentes de bachillerato y educación superior en México. Redalyc. https://www.redalyc.org/journal/5337/533782727010/

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215