Titulación Laboratory – Phase 1 Orientation & Logistics

Introduction & Session Context

  • Session kickoff: recording initiated; screen shared to show Phase 1 orientation.
  • Red timeline dots = delivery checkpoints for each phase.
    • Phase 1 delivery → 3rd week of August (or earlier if group finishes sooner).
    • Phase 2 delivery → 3rd week of November.
    • Phase 3 delivery → 1st week of February.
    • Final oral defense → 3rd week of February.
  • Schedule acceleration possible; depends entirely on students.

Access to Moodle Platform

  • Initial issue: course did not appear for students; solved by manual self-enrolment link.
  • Steps repeated:
    1. Instructor posts enrolment URL in Zoom chat.
    2. Students refresh link; click “Inscribirse” → confirmation of successful enrolment.
  • If enrolment still fails → send institutional email in Zoom chat → instructor manually adds.
  • Important Moodle areas:
    • “Grabaciones”: recordings of every session (Session 1 already uploaded).
    • “Fase de Inmersión” (Phase 1) already active.
    • “Recursos”: houses evaluation rubrics, APA guide, consent forms, documental base, etc.
    • “Procesos de laboratorio de titulación” PDF: complete evaluation matrix + calendar.

Course Module Overview

  • Module’s purpose: guide students through 3-phase Graduation Laboratory.
  • Embedded explanation of titulación process, expected competencies, and evaluation percentages.
  • Contains all formats, instruments & support documents required for each phase.
  • Recorded sessions ensure asynchronous review if any concept is unclear.

Phase 1 (“Fase de Inmersión”)

Objectives

  • Immerse in case study context: Ecuadorian curriculum 2016 (competency-based) vs. proposed new curriculum.
  • Identify current curriculum shortcomings, evidenced by INEVAL results (two consecutive years), PISA, ERCE.
  • Produce empirical baseline via:
    1. Grupo Focal (Focus Group) with teachers & directives.
    2. Análisis Documental (official documents, literature, policy papers).

Tasks Inside Moodle

  • Read “Inicio de la Fase de Inmersión” instructions.
  • Open “Brief Fase 1” → central planning document containing:
    • Case introduction & guiding questions.
    • Required instruments.
    • Deliverables & evaluation criteria.
  • Explore “Recursos” folder:
    • Base de documentos (curriculum, policy, empirical studies) → supports marco conceptual.
    • Informed-Consent template.
    • APA quick-style guide.

Case Study Highlights

  • Competency-based curriculum (2016) shows structural failures → low international test scores.
  • Driving questions (selection examples):
    • How does the current curriculum impact students’ exit profile?
    • Which competencies are underdeveloped & why?
    • How do rural vs. urban settings differ in applying competencies?
  • Goal: design innovative, context-sensitive solutions (later phases) grounded in empirical evidence gathered now.

Focus Group (Grupo Focal)

Purpose

  • Capture qualitative perceptions of curriculum effectiveness from practitioners.
  • Triangulate with documental evidence to detect “discursive smoke curtain” (everyone says estamos bien yet data shows otherwise).

Participants

  • Mix of docentes & directivos across grades (Inicial–3° Bachillerato).
  • Ideal size: 6 – 12 participants (document specifies range; fewer acceptable if context limits).
  • Diverse institution types: fiscal, fiscomisional, particular, rural/urban.

Logistics & Roles

  • Duration: 60–90 min.
  • Roles:
    • Moderador: drives questions, ensures balanced participation.
    • Relator/Registro: notes, audio/video capture, manages digital boards (Slido, Mentimeter, Forms).
  • Evidence collection: audio and/or video + field notes.
  • If multiple group members share the same school → alternate moderator/relator.
  • Remote option via Zoom permissible when geography prevents onsite meeting.
  • In cases of limited school support:
    • Combine director from School A + teachers from Schools B & C (still valid).
    • Obtain consent from each institution; instructor can issue personalized authorization letters on request.

Question Guide (customizable)

  1. Perceived strengths of 2016 curriculum.
  2. Biggest obstacles in implementing competencies.
  3. Impact on student performance & exit profile.
  4. Required resources/training.
  5. Suggestions for curriculum improvement.
  • Students may add/adapt questions; maintain neutrality to avoid bias.

Coding & Systematization

  • Anonymize data: use codes (DOC1, DOC2, DIR1…).
  • Capture demographic metadata: age, years in profession, academic degree, institution type.
  • Store transcript, recordings, matrices in a public-permissions Drive folder; embed link in annexes.

Análisis Documental

  • Review 30 years of curricular evolution plus socio-political, technological, economic context.
  • Compare national results (INEVAL, PISA, ERCE) vs. competency claims.
  • Provide conceptual backbone for problem statement & later solution design.

Deliverables for Phase 1

  1. Instrument Results Package
    • Focus-Group transcript, coding tables, thematic analysis.
    • Document review synthesis/summary tables.
  2. Grupo – Documento Académico (Draft 1)
    • Mandatory format located in “Formatos a Utilizar\Documento Grupal”.
    • Sections due in Phase 1:
      • Portada (title ≤ 15 words, authors alphabetically, degree names).
      • Índice (fill last; list of chapters & sections).
      • Introducción (topic, problem, objectives).
      • Contexto (30-year landscape; social, educational, technological, political, economic lenses).
      • Marco Conceptual (clear definitions: curriculum espiral, currículo priorizado, educación basada en competencias… cite sources).
  3. Documento Personal de Metacognición (Paso 1 solo)
    • Template in “Formatos a Utilizar”.
    • Reflect on how research affects professional identity & life plan; argumentative writing with citations.

Formatting & Ethics

  • Submit Word files; maintain provided template structure.
  • Annexes via open Drive links (ensure access permissions).
  • Academic writing: rigorous, APA compliant, no AI-generated plagiarism.
    • Plagiarism ⇒ process terminated, restart from zero.
  • Mathematical/statistical data should be typeset in LaTeX if included.

Timeline Recap & Acceleration Options

  • Official calendar extends to Feb 2025; groups may fast-track if:
    • All instruments executed early.
    • Documents meet rubric standards quickly.
    • No pending courses, fees, or admin holds.
  • Instructor commitment: unlock Phase 2 immediately after Phase 1 acceptance.

Workflow Recommendations

  • Organize group meeting this week:
    • Divide reading of Moodle materials.
    • Assign roles: FG logistics, documental analysts, writing leads.
  • Fix Focus-Group date ASAP; avoid end-of-August bottleneck.
  • Write document sections in parallel with data collection.
  • Use shared cloud folder for drafts & evidence.

Frequently Asked Questions Clarified

  • Q: Can one member run the only focus group?
    A: Prefer multiple contexts, but single FG acceptable if circumstances limit others; explore alternative sites or parental role.
  • Q: Mixed-school participant pool valid?
    A: Yes, diversity enriches data.
  • Q: Remote FG via Zoom?
    A: Allowed; obtain digital consent; ensure recording quality.
  • Q: Institutional permission?
    A: Use provided informed-consent form; instructor can author custom request letters.
  • Q: Payment/issues past December?
    A: Administrative/financial queries handled by Coordinator (Marilú); research phase may exceed tuition period.

Practical Tips & Pitfalls

  • Start coding transcripts immediately—fresh memory enhances accuracy.
  • Balance ambition: focus on one competency/skill per lesson when planning later innovations.
  • Rural connectivity constraints → design low-tech alternatives (gamification, printed inquiry texts, physical labs).
  • Monitor language of participants: collective “we’re fine” may conceal systemic issues (“smoke curtain”).

Ethical & Philosophical Implications

  • Curriculum efficacy directly influences equity, dropout, lifelong skills.
  • Research dignity: respect participant anonymity, informed consent, and data security.
  • Critical reflection (metacognition) fosters professional growth and combats teacher frustration.

Key Takeaways

  • Phase 1 = foundation; thoroughness here ensures credible later solutions.
  • Use templates; follow rubrics; document everything.
  • Collaboration & time management trump last-minute rush.
  • Instructor serves as facilitator; progress pace governed by student groups.
  • Aim for December finish if group readiness & admin conditions align; otherwise default calendar continues till February.