Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Assessing university guidance and tutoring in higher education: Validating a questionnaire on Ecuadorian students

  • María Isabel Amor ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: María Isabel Amor, Irene Dios

    Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Education, University of Cordoba, Cordoba, Spain

    ⨯
  • Kasandra Vanessa Saldarriaga Villamil ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Writing – original draft

    ‡ This author also contributed equally to this work.

    Affiliation Technical University of Manabi, Portoviejo, Ecuador

    ⨯
  • Irene Dios

    Contributed equally to this work with: María Isabel Amor, Irene Dios

    Roles Formal analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    irene.dios@uco.es

    Affiliation Department of Psychology, University of Cordoba, Cordoba, Spain

    ⨯

Abstract

This study was intended to explore and confirm the factorial structure and to analyze the psychometric properties of an instrument for university guidance and tutoring, apply it, and detect differences between sociodemographic variables. A total of 1,048 students from five universities in the province of Manabi (Ecuador) participated. The study was divided into two phases with differentiated samples. An exploratory phase, made up of 200 subjects (19.1%), and another confirmatory phase, made up of 848 (80.9%), where the questionnaire was also applied. The results supported the three-factor structure of the instrument called “Questionnaire for the Assessment of Guidance and Tutoring in Higher Education” (Q-AGT), with of a total of 21 items. The indices of goodness of fit, reliability and internal consistency of the model were considered satisfactory. The application of the questionnaire did not show statistically significant differences in the assessment of university guidance and tutoring between men and women, with a high value given by both sexes to the importance of tutoring, the demands and the competences of the teaching staff in the university. The differences were mainly found between universities and branches of knowledge. Among the main conclusions, what stands out is the achievement of a valid and reliable instrument to measure the development of guidance and tutoring in Latin American universities. This contributes to the assessment of university guidance and tutoring as a strategy for the integral development of the student- personally, academically and professionally- and as a possible protective factor against academic dropout.

Citation: Amor MI, Saldarriaga Villamil KV, Dios I (2021) Assessing university guidance and tutoring in higher education: Validating a questionnaire on Ecuadorian students. PLoS ONE 16(6): e0253400. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253400

Editor: Andrew R. Dalby, University of Westminster, UNITED KINGDOM

Received: February 1, 2021; Accepted: June 3, 2021; Published: June 15, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Amor et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Guidance and tutoring are especially important in university institutions, as it is a strategy that allows individual counseling and guidance to students about their university studies [1–3]. This, in addition to preventing academic failure and student dropout, also benefits the institution itself by reducing dropout rates and increasing the graduation rates established in the plans and programs [4, 5]. Tutoring is related to higher performance and persistence [6–8]. For this reason, many universities consider the development of guidance and counseling strategies for students to be among the most important aims of their training programs, taking other national and international universities as a reference [9–11].

In recent years, various European researchers have taken up the analysis of the quality of guidance and tutoring in universities [12, 13], which has led to an increase in studies focused on the design and validation of reliable instruments of measurement [14–17]. However, although in Latin American countries there is concern with improving the quality of academic tutoring or counseling at the university [18–22], there is a paucity of measurement instruments allowing scientific knowledge in this field to be obtained [1, 3, 19, 22]. For this reason, it is essential to study the assessment of university tutoring in the countries of South America more deeply, and this involves the creation of reliable measurement instruments. Obtaining reliable instruments for university guidance and tutoring in this context would allow scientific evidence of their quality to be obtained, which would facilitate the extraction of strong and weak points from the programs proposed by the different universities. The improvement of the guidance and tutoring system should be seen as a prevention strategy for academic dropout, an essential matter for any university institution to consider.

University guidance and tutoring: The case of Ecuador

The Higher Education system in Ecuador is committed to measures that improve the educational quality of universities and guarantee access to all citizens. The introduction of new structures and services aimed at promoting the comprehensive development of students and extending their inclusion at all educational levels, has led to an organizational management model in agreement with the current demands of society in this country [23–25]. The Organic Law of Higher Education [26] establishes guidance as a student right and a teaching role for the faculty. This law creates an administrative unit or department of Student Welfare, among whose functions is the vocational and professional orientation of students. Its mission is to promote the comprehensive development of all students, attending to their interests, needs and personal aspirations, all through principles of prevention, continuity and quality of care and services implemented for the purpose.

Similarly, Art.45 the Organic Law of Intercultural Education [27], on the role of the Deputy Director or Vice Rector, determines that among the functions of this office is to implement pedagogical support and academic tutorials for students according to their needs. Furthermore, the Regulation of Career Path and Ranking of Lecturers and Researchers in the Higher Education System [28] endorses the existence of teacher-tutor guides to accompany students in their academic activities. The purpose is to provide personalized support for the effective use of the opportunities and services that the university offers students, attending to their personal needs, which increases the likelihood of remaining in the institution [22, 29].

However, although education law and the aforementioned regulations have favored an increase in the quality of the Universities of Ecuador, according to the technical report issued by the National Council for the Evaluation and Accreditation of University [30], there are important limitations in a number of areas, among which are the low rate of graduates and the lack of teacher training. Based on the results of this report, the universities began a continuous process of assessment and supervision supported by the Council for the Evaluation, Accreditation and Quality Assurance for Higher Education, to guarantee educational quality and improve the services and infrastructures created for this purpose. In 2013, this council issued the first assessment report [31, 32] and the results obtained in relation to the criterion of academic efficiency, in which the effective strategies for admission, retention and accompaniment in the educational process of students [32], were that most of the universities in category A and B in Ecuador have a fairly high level.

However, there are still very important limitations [30], related to the insufficient professional training of teachers and the small number of them who have postgraduate studies. Research studies in Latin America [19, 24, 33–35] show that one of the reasons for this situation is that the professional work of the university lecturer is mostly made up of teaching. That is, "teaching classes" is established as a priority activity, and didactic and pedagogical training, and their professional advancement, are of secondary importance. According to Moscoso and Hernández [35], in the university institutions of Ecuador, less importance is given to such training, compared to disciplinary training.

Institutions are currently taking steps to improve the results reported on the low rate of graduate students [30]. Tutoring here becomes importance in Ibero-American universities, since it is considered essential for providing personalized attention to the student, guiding them in their personal, academic and professional development, and as a prevention strategy against academic dropout [20]. However, to be effective, tutoring must be linked to the teaching-learning process [11, 22] acting as an anchoring link between the teaching function and the overall learning of students. To respond to these needs [36], the role of the teaching staff is defined as that of tutor and advisor, who assumes responsibilities beyond teaching practice.

Scales for university guidance and tutoring

The scientific literature includes many studies on the design and validation of scales, addressing different aspects and dimensions of university orientation and tutoring [16, 37–39]. Most of these studies assess the practice of university tutoring from the perspective of those involved-students and/or teaching staff- [24, 36, 40], by carrying out an extensive review of the management structures and systems used by university institutions for their promotion or improvement.

Some studies focusing on the design and validation of scales consider different dimensions of tutoring in the university setting. Despite the efforts to provide reliable measurement scales for university guidance and tutoring, there are many discrepancies to be considered when addressing the concept [16, 17, 36, 41].

Pérez-Cusó et al. [36] describe and check two subscales for measuring satisfaction with university tutoring: 1) satisfaction with the tutor; and 2) satisfaction with the organization and content. These same authors [1] subsequently set out a scale to assess the needs of university guidance and tutoring, comprising five factors: a) adaptation to the university context; b) identity; c) integration and interpersonal development; d) teaching-learning process; and d) professional development. Other authors who contributed a five-factor scale were López-Castro and Pantoja-Vallejo [17], using the following dimensions: 1) functions and tasks of the tutorial activity; 2) satisfaction with the tutorial action in the center; 3) difficulties of tutorial practice; 4) use of technologies in the development of tutorial activities; and 5) knowledge and satisfaction with the work of the counselor.

León-Carrascosa and Fernández-Díaz [16], on the other hand, identify four factorial dimensions for guidance and tutoring in universities: 1) functions of the tutor with the students; 2) functions of the tutor with the families; 3) tutorials; and 4) assessment of tutorials. Another validation study looking at guidance and tutorial practice in universities [13], also opted for a four-factor structure: 1) academic orientation; 2) personal orientation; 3) career guidance; and 4) guidance and ICT.

Among the studies that describe assessment of tutoring with a three-factor model, the study carried out by Delgado-García et al. [15] stands out, proposing the following areas for consideration: 1) functions of the tutor (e.g.: reporting on institutional academic issues); 2) profile of the tutor (e.g.: affectivity, empathy, attitude…); and 3) student needs (e.g.: transition to university).

The current study

The literature gives great importance to university guidance and tutoring as a strategy in institutions for the development of students, not only academically, but also personally and professionally, as well as offering protection against academic dropout. This leads to the need to evaluate whether this process is carried out properly, with a n increasing amount of research aimed at producing valid and reliable instruments [15, 16, 36, 41, 42]. However, the discrepancies found between studies in relation to their factorial dimensions, and the scarce literature on this type of research in Latin America, require more studies of this kind. For all these reasons, a study to validate an instrument on university guidance and tutoring in Ecuador is here proposed, with the following objectives:

  1. To explore and confirm the factorial structure of an instrument on university guidance and tutoring.
  2. To analyze the psychometric properties of the instrument.
  3. To apply the instrument to identify differences between sexes, universities and university courses.

Regarding the objectives, the following hypotheses were addressed:

  1. The instrument will possess a multidimensional factorial structure.
  2. The instrument will have optimal psychometric properties and positive correlation between dimensions.
  3. The student body will show similar scores regardless of gender, universities and university degrees.

Materials and methods

Participants

1,048 students, from five universities in the province of Manabi, Ecuador, took part in the study, 27.9% from the Technical University of Manabi, 25.9% from the Lay University Eloy Alfaro of Manabi, 10.7% from the State University of the South of Manabi, 9.4% from the University San Gregorio of Portoviejo and 25.9% from the Agricultural Polytechnic School of Manabi. The total sample was chosen by an ‘catch-the-eye’ procedure, for reasons of accessibility and was divided into two subsamples. The first subsample, comprising, 200 students (19.1%) was used for the exploratory study, and the second, with 848 students (80.9%), for the confirmatory study. Of the total, 44.2% were men and 55.8% women, with ages ranging from 18–41 years (M = 23.73; SD = 3.09).

Instruments

An ad hoc questionnaire was developed, called “Questionnaire for the Assessment of Guidance and Tutoring in Higher Education” (Q-AGT), made up of a set of questions related to sociodemographic data (e.g.: sex, age, degree, level, university), and a set of 21 items related to university tutoring. Each of the items was assessed by the students using a Likert-type scale with five response options that ranged from 0 (“completely disagree”) to 4 (“completely agree”). The items related to the instrument were grouped into 3 subcomponents of tutoring: a) 5 items on the importance of university tutoring; b) 9 items on the demands of university tutoring; and c) 7 competencies of the teaching staff for university tutoring.

Procedure and data analysis

Data collection proceeded by contacting each of the university institutions, to inform them and to obtain approval for participation in the research. Once approval was obtained, the questionnaires were completed, which took approximately 30 minutes. The participants, all of legal age, provided written informed consent, were informed about the voluntary nature of the questionnaire, respect for anonymity and the confidentiality of the data provided. All doubts were addressed and data collection proceeded without incident. The process was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Bioethics Committee of the Technical University of Manabi.

The procedure developed to perform the study involves two different phases. The first phase was exploratory in nature, and examined the factorial structure of the instrument on university tutoring. Specifically, the Factor 10.9.02 program [43] was used to carry out an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to determine the number of underlying factors. Since the data were ordinal, it was decided to generate a polychoric correlation matrix [44] with the ULS (Unweighted least squares) extraction method. Following the recommendations of various authors [45, 46], Promin oblique rotation was used, as it is adapted to the exploratory nature of the study. For the item-factor saturations, values greater than 0.40 were used as criteria [46, 47].

In the second, confirmatory, phase of the study, the factorial structure of the instrument examined in the preliminary phase was validated, its psychometric properties analyzed and it was then applied. This was done via a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using the EQS 6.2 program. In line with the previous phase, on detecting absence of normality, the robust estimation method was used [48]. The fit of the model was interpreted using the Satorra-Bentler chi squared method (x2S-B) and x2S-B/df, considering ≤3 to be optimal, and ≤5 acceptable. Other indices not affected by the sample size were also considered, such as the NNFI; NFI; CFI; IFI, taking values ≤0.95 as criteria for assuming a good fit [49]. Finally, values of RMSEA between 0.05 and 0.08 were also considered to indicate good model fit [50].

Likewise, in this second phase, descriptive and comparative analyzes were carried out with the SPSS 20 program. First, Student’s t-test was used to determine the existence of differences between the sex of the participants and the factors found in the scale related to college tutoring. The ANOVA test was also used to verify the existence of differences between the students of the different universities and of the different university degrees with regard to their assessment of university tutoring. To determine among which groups there were differences to be found, Tukey-b or Games-Howell statistics were used, depending on the Levene test. Finally, the effect size (Cohen’s d) was evaluated in the t test, considering scores < 0.5 as small, between 0.5 and 0.8 as moderate, and > 0.8 as large [51]. The confidence level was 95% (p <0.05) and 99% (p <0.01).

Results

Exploratory factor analysis of Q-AGT

In the results obtained from the EFA, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test (KMO = 0.78) and the Bartlett’s Sphericity Test (Bartlett’s Test = 2131.8; p <0.01) indicated that the sample was suitable for carrying out the CFA. The indices on simplicity −index S− and simplicity of loading −index LS− [52, 53] indicated simplicity of factors and that the items were exclusively related to one factor. Table 1 shows the descriptions of each item, as well as the factorial weights and the factor to which each item belongs. The three factors found were called: a) F1 or Importance (IMP); b) F2 or Demand (DEM); and c) F3 or Competence (COM).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Univariant descriptive analysis, factorial loads and AFE.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253400.t001

Confirmatory factor analysis of Q-AGT

In the second phase, the robust maximum likelihood estimation method was used, due to the lack of normality of the data (Mardia coefficient = 318.9760).

The various goodness of fit indices of the model were considered optimal: x2S-B (186) = 624.3760; p = 0.00 [50]. Those that evaluate the relative fit of the model and are not affected by the sample size, also returned high values, indicating a good fit to the model: NFI = 0.982; NNFI = 0.986; CFI = 0.987; IFI = 0.987; RMSEA = 0.053.

Scores in item-factor correlations ranged from 0.72 (item DEM1) to 0.86 (item COM1). The results revealed a positive correlation between factors (Fig 1), of 0.680 between F1 and F2, 0.555 between F1 and F3, and 0.587 between F2 and F3.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. AFC model for Q-AGT.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253400.g001

Polychoric correlations between items of the scale were positive (Table 2), ranging from 0.328 y 0.766.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Polychoric correlation matrix for items of Q-AGT.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253400.t002

The indices of reliability and internal consistency obtained are considered satisfactory for the instrument in general (α = 0.930) and for each of its factors: a) F1 or Importance (IMP), α = 0.853; b) F2 or Demand (DEM), α = 0.895; and c) F3 or Competence (COM), α = 0.894.

Application of Q-AGT: Assessment of university tutoring based on sex, university and university degree course

Table 3 shows the participants’ sociodemographic data in relation to the 21 items that make up the Q-AGT.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 3. Differences in the scale items for university tutoring based by sex, university, and university degree course.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253400.t003

As seen in Table 4, the results did not show statistically significant differences in the assessment of university tutoring between men and women. Both gave a high valuation of the importance of tutoring in the universities of Ecuador, the demands that students make on it and the skills of the teaching staff in undertaking it, related to guidance and counseling.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 4. Differences in the scale factors for university tutoring based by sex.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253400.t004

Regarding the different participating universities, statistically significant differences were detected between universities in the three factors: importance, demand and teaching skills. Table 5 shows the results obtained from the post hoc test, where it is mainly the students of the Technical University of Manabi who give a lower valuation of the importance of university tutoring and the demands with respect to other universities, and the same is true of the State University of the South of Manabi, with respect to the Agricultural Polytechnic School of Manabi. With regard to the factor on teaching skill of the tutors, it is the Lay University Eloy Alfaro of Manabi and the State University of the South of Manabi, which return a lower valuation as compared to the Agricultural Polytechnic School of Manabi.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 5. Differences in the scale factors for university tutoring by university.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253400.t005

Taking into account the university degrees of the participants, the students in the branch of sciences expressed a greater appreciation of the importance of university tutoring (see Table 6). However, no differences were detected between students of the Science and Social Sciences degrees in the factors related to the demands of tutorials and the skill at university tutoring of the teaching staff.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 6. Differences in the Q-AGT factors by university degree course.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253400.t006

Discussion

The first two objectives of this study were to explore and confirm the factorial dimensions of an instrument that we call "Questionnaire for the Assessment of Guidance and Tutoring in Higher Education" (Q-AGT), based on the review of the scientific literature on scales that evaluate university guidance and tutoring [13, 24, 36, 40]. In agreement with other studies, an analysis of the psychometric properties of the instrument was carried out to evaluate the state of tutoring in Latin American universities [16, 37, 38], in order to respond to the lack of research into this matter in Ecuador.

In accordance with previous work [16, 17, 36, 41], the multidimensional nature of the assessment of university tutoring is confirmed. Specifically, and according to other research [15], the instrument was defined by three factors. Factor 1 -Importance- addresses the importance attributed by students to information, organization of the center and the curriculum; adaptation and integration with the university; help with academic, personal and professional development. The second factor -Demand-, assesses the levels expressed by students about the need for information; monitoring academic, personal and professional guidance; problem solving and difficulties; decision making; help in level transitions; and attention to diversity. Finally, the third factor -Competence- addresses the teaching competence that, from the student perspective, is necessary for the proper practice of university guidance and tutoring, such as competence in university tutoring and organization; competence in social insertion; knowledge and skill in the techniques of tutoring; inter- and intrapersonal competence; know-how and acceptance of criticism.

The three-factor model proposed for Q-AGT has confirmed the construct validity, showing an appropriate metric quality and a satisfactory fit of the model, and giving a scale with high reliability indices. In this way, a scale is obtained that is useful for generalizing results on guidance and tutoring in Latin American university students. This contributes to the assessment of various questions that have appeared as deficient, or little studied, in previous research, such as: a) attending and understanding the academic, personal and professional needs of the students through individualized support [14, 22, 29]; b) possible low skill in tutoring and university guidance in the teaching staff of Latin American universities [30]; and c) contribute to evaluating a criterion of academic effectiveness related to admission, retention and support in the educational process of students [32]. In this sense, Q-AGT would be considered of great importance for initial courses, as an early detection mechanism for the prevention of academic dropout.

We agree with Ponce Ceballos, Aceves Villanueva, and Boroel Cervantes [54], who point out the importance of continuing to explore the evaluation of guidance and tutoring for the improvement of the student support processes and the training of teachers to undertake this activity in the university environment. This is related to superior performance and also greater persistence [8].

With regard to the application of Q-AGT, in the first factor -Importance-, the students attribute great value to university tutoring as an environment in which to promote personal development, especially autonomy, self-esteem and identity. In line with previous studies [1, 14, 16, 55], the importance of guidance and tutoring in the university context for personal, academic and professional development is underlined. These three types of development, which must be addressed by responding to the needs of students throughout their time at the university, support the idea of the progress of university tutoring towards a comprehensive model in which the personal dimension becomes especially important [15].

Looking at the second factor obtained -Demand-, the students express the need for guidance to help with job placement, as well as support and academic monitoring by the teaching staff of their university studies. These results are consistent with those obtained in other studies carried out in Europe and Latin America [9, 54], where students say that they feel a greater need for backup and support, specifically in important areas related to their future skills and employability −e.g. analysis of strengths and weaknesses, strategies for coping with stress and adversity, etc.−. This type of skill is in high demand from employers, as shown by the recent studies of González [56] and Bartual and Turmo [57].

Finally, with regard to the third factor −Teaching competence− the scale groups together the variables related to the competence of university teaching staff for tutorial work, such as intra- and interpersonal, technical, academic skills, and skills to help with job placement. Similarly, Pérez-Serrano et al. [58], highlight the importance of orientation and “Face to face” advice for university tutorials. Other authors, such as Pantoja-Vallejo et al. [13], in their study to validate a scale for measuring and assessing the guidance and tutorial practice, concluded that to the skills required for the tutorial work of the teaching staff should be added a cross-curricular competence, which comes from the domain of ICT.

Applying the scale has also made it possible to extract relevant, interesting information from the study. It has not been shown that women and men [20, 24] disagree on the assessment of university tutoring. Both sexes value highly the importance of tutoring in the universities of Ecuador, the demands that are met through it, and the competence of the teaching staff to carry it out.

The discrepancies between different universities suggest the strengths of university guidance and tutoring programs from the student’s point of view. Although all the universities expressed a good, high valuation in this regard. Those students who are studying science [59, 60] value the importance of college tutoring more highly.

Strengths, limitations, and future lines of research

One of the main limitations of this study is that it would have been desirable to expand the sample with subjects from other Latin American universities. In addition to university students, the opinion of other agents involved in university guidance and tutoring, such as teachers, would also be of interest.

Although the methodology, a cross-sectional approach using a survey, is a method commonly used in the study of the subject, it prevents the identification of causal relationships with other constructs. Also, the absence of studies carried out in Ecuador means that comparisons cannot be made that might contribute to deepening the scientific knowledge related to university tutoring and guidance.

Despite everything mentioned above, work is being done to overcome these limitations. First, data is currently being collected from a larger sample and the intention is to extend the assessment of counseling and mentoring to other Latin American countries. It is likewise intended to expand the group, in future studies, to university faculty, and to include the record of other variables related to the psychological well-being of students and teachers.

Conclusions

The main conclusion of this study is that a valid and reliable instrument has been obtained to measure the performance of guidance and tutoring in Ecuadorian universities, which is theoretically grounded and operationally defined based on three factors: a) Importance; b) Demand; and c) Competence. The results of the Exploratory Factor Analysis show that the factors obtained and their loads correspond to the prior theoretical approaches.

The students have given a high assessment of the importance and demand of tutoring in the Ecuadorian university context, and of the teaching competence of the staff to meet the demands that satisfy thereby, all regardless of gender.

In relation to the participating universities, the student body of the Technical University of Manabi is the one that gives less importance to tutoring and to the demands generated by the student body. In contrast, the students of the Agricultural Polytechnic School of Manabi attach great importance to tutoring and believe that their teachers have good skills in tutoring. It is true, however, that despite the discrepancies, all universities scored highly in the assessment of tutoring and university guidance.

Considering the difference between the university degree courses in Ecuador, the results show that the students of degrees in Sciences are those who most value university tutoring.

Finally, it gives great importance to university orientation and tutoring as a strategy for the holistic development of the student -personal, academic and professional- and as a preventive against academic dropout. This study assesses whether this process is carried out properly, in line with other recent research aimed at the development of valid and reliable instruments [15, 16, 41]. Likewise, it is expected that this study will contribute to shed light on the discrepancy found between studies in terms of the factorial dimensions of tutoring, and provide knowledge in light of the very limited literature in Latin America, and specifically in Ecuador.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Cuestionario para la Evaluación de la Orientación y la Tutoría en Educación Superior (Q-AGT).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253400.s001

(DOCX)

S2 Appendix. Questionnaire for the Assessment of Guidance and Tutoring in Higher Education (Q-AGT).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253400.s002

(DOCX)

References

  1. 1. Martínez Clares P, Pérez-Cusó FJ. González Morga N. ¿Qué necesita el alumnado de la tutoría universitaria? Validación de un instrumento de medida a través de un análisis multivariante. Educación XX1. 2019; 22: 189–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/educXX1.21302
  2. 2. Medrano LA, Pérez E, Liporaco M. Sistema de Evaluación Informatizado de la Satisfacción Académica para Estudiantes Universitarios de Primer Año. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology. 2014; 12: 541–562. http://dx.doi.org/10.14204/ejrep.33.13131
  3. 3. Saiz-Manzanares MC, Bol-Arreba A, Payo-Hernanz R. Validación de una escala de evaluación de tareas de tutoría en la universidad. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology. 2014; 12: 835–852. http://dx.doi.org/10.14204:ejrep.34.14027.
  4. 4. Bernardo A, Cervero A, Esteban M, Tuero E, Solano P, Casanova JR. Projecte E-orientació, una necessitat des del camp de la orientació educativa. Revista d’Innovació Docent Universitària. 2017; 9: 81–95. https://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/RIDU/article/view/RIDU2017.9.7
  5. 5. Escolano-Pérez E, Lizalde Gil M, Serrano Pastor RM, Casanova López Ó. Análisis de las necesidades del alumnado de nuevo ingreso en los Grados en Magisterio: Implicaciones para el diseño del Plan de Orientación Universitaria en la Facultad de Educación de la Universidad de Zaragoza. Revista Complutense de Educación. 2019; 30: 545–567. https://doi.org/10.5209/RCED.57779
  6. 6. Hernandez PR, Bloodhart B, Barnes RT, Adams AS, Clinton SM, Pollack I, et al. Promoting professional identity, motivation, and persistence: Benefits of an informal mentoring program for female undergraduate students. PLoS ONE. 2017. e0187531. pmid:29091969
  7. 7. Taub M, Azevedo R, Rajendran R, Cloude E, Biswas G, Price M.J. How are students’ emotions related to the accuracy of cognitive and metacognitive processes during learning with an intelligent tutoring system?. Learning and Instruction. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.04.001
  8. 8. Li S, Zheng J, Lajoie SP, Wiseman J. Examining the relationship between emotion variability, self-regulated learning, and task performance in an intelligent tutoring system. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09980-9
  9. 9. Carranza Alcántar MR, Plascencia Jiménez R, Islas Torres C, Jiménez Padilla AA. Percepción de estudiantes universitarios sobre la tutoría presencial y la virtual. Educateconciencia. 2020; 2: 126–146. http://tecnocientifica.com.mx/educateconciencia/index.php/revistaeducate/article/view/259
  10. 10. Venegas L, Gairín J. Gestión y desarrollo de planes de acción tutorial en la universidad. Estudios de casos. Revista Española de Orientación y Psicopedagogía. 2018; 29: 125–143. https://doi.org/10.5944/reop.vol.29.num.1.2018.23298
  11. 11. Martínez Clarés P, Pérez Cusó FJ, Martínez M. Una (re)visión de la tutoría universitaria: la percepción de estudiantes y tutores de estudios de grado. Revista de Docencia Universitaria. 2014; 12: 269–305. https://doi.org/10.4995/redu.2014.6425
  12. 12. Clerici R, Da Re L. Evaluación de la eficacia de un programa de tutoría formativa. Revista de Investigación Educativa. 2019; 37: 39–56. https://doi.org/10.6018/rie.37.1.322331
  13. 13. Pantoja-Vallejo A, Molero D, Molina-Jaén MD, Colmenero-Ruiz MJ. Valoración de la práctica orientadora y tutorial en la universidad: validación de una escala para el alumnado. Educación XX1. 2020; 23: 119–143. https://doi.org/10.5944/educXX1.25632
  14. 14. Amor MI, Dios I. Analysis of the psychometric properties of a scale on the needs of students in Tutoring. Revista de Pedagogía. 2017; 38: 35–56.
  15. 15. Delgado-García M, Conde Vélez S, Boza Carreño A. Perfiles y funciones del tutor universitario y sus efectos sobre las necesidades tutoriales del alumnado. Revista española de pedagogía. 2020; 78: 119–143. https://doi.org/10.22550/REP78-1-2020-03
  16. 16. León-Carrascosa V, Fernández-Díaz MJ. Diseño y validación de una escala para evaluar el funcionamiento de las tutorías en Educación Secundaria. Revista de Investigación Educativa. 2019; 37: 525–541. https://doi.org/10.6018/rie.37.2.345251
  17. 17. López-Castro M, Pantoja-Vallejo A. Escala para valorar la percepción y grado de satisfacción del profesorado de Educación Primaria de la Comunidad Autónoma de Andalucía respecto a los procesos tutoriales. Revista Complutense de Educación. 2018; 29: 287–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/RCED.52286
  18. 18. Albanaes P, Marques de Sousa F, Patta Bardagi M. Programas de tutoría y mentoría en universidades brasileñas: Un estudio bibliométrico. Revista de Psicología. 2015; 33: 21–56. http://revistas.pucp.edu.pe/index.php/psicologia/article/view/11170/11683
  19. 19. Bianculli K, Marchal M. Las tutorías universitarias: estudio de caso: Programa de Tutorías PACENI de la Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales de la UNMdP. Mar del Plata: Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata; 2013. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/18469602.pdf?repositoryId=371
  20. 20. Blakman Briones Y, Bermúdez Reyes E. Tutoría entre pares. Experiencia del programa asesoría pedagógica estudiantil. Universidad Católica de Santiago de Guayaquil. Sinergias educativas. 2020; 1: 2661–6661. http://portal.amelica.org/ameli/jatsRepo/382/3821581009/index.html
  21. 21. Capelari M. Las Políticas de Tutoría en la Educación Superior: Génesis, Trayectorias e Impactos en Argentina y México. Revista Latinoamericana de Educación Comparada. 2014; 5: 41–54. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4766853
  22. 22. Lobato C, Guerra N. La tutoría en la educación superior en Iberoamérica: Avances y desafíos. Revista Educar. 2016; 52: 379–398. http://dx.doi.org/10.5565/rev/educar.726
  23. 23. González J, Ledezma MA. La orientación en América Latina: Consideraciones generales acerca de los criterios de coherencia, cooperación y calidad. Orientación y Sociedad. 2009. http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/13898
  24. 24. Moreno-Yaguana P, Sanchez-Garcia MF. Cuestionario de Necesidades de Orientación Universitaria. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación e Avaliação Psicológica. RIDEP. 2018; 47: 95–109. https://doi.org/10.21865/RIDEP47.2.07
  25. 25. Rubio P, Martínez J.F. La acción tutorial desde la perspectiva de los alumnos de la Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí. Perfiles Educativos. 2012; 34: 28–45. http://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/peredu/v34n138/v34n138a3.pdf
  26. 26. Ley Orgánica de Educación Superior. Gobierno del Ecuador; 2010. https://oig.cepal.org/sites/default/files/2010_leyeducacionsuperior_ecu.pdf
  27. 27. Ley Orgánica de Educación Intercultural. Gobierno del Ecuador; 2011. https://oig.cepal.org/sites/default/files/2011_leyeducacionintercultural_ecu.pdf
  28. 28. Consejo de Educación Superior. Reglamento de Carrera y Escalafón del profesor e investigador del Sistema de Educación Superior. República del Ecuador; 2012. http://www.ces.gob.ec/lotaip/Anexos%20Generales/a3/Reglamento_Carrera_Escalafon.pdf
  29. 29. Rodríguez Y, Prada M, Delgado M. Lineamientos de orientación y bienestar social de la Universidad Nacional Abierta. Educ@ción en Contexto. 2015; 1: 15–32. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6296658
  30. 30. CONEAU. Comisión Nacional de Evaluación y Acreditación Universitaria; 2015. https://www.coneau.gob.ar/archivos/publicaciones/estudios/20anios_CONEAU.pdf
  31. 31. Acosta B, Acosta M. Modelos de evaluación para la acreditación de carreras. Análisis de su composición y una propuesta para las carreras de Ecuador. Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa. 2016; 21: 1249–1274. http://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/rmie/v21n71/1405-6666-rmie-21-71-01249.pdf
  32. 32. León Martínez F, Méndez Carpio C, Cañizares Medina A. Aplicación de criterios de evaluación del CEAACES y su impacto en la gestión de la Universidad Católica de Cuenca. Revista Killkana Sociales. 2017; 1: 33–44. https://doi.org/10.26871/killkana_social.v1i2.37
  33. 33. Correa-Peralta MA, Vinueza JL, Torres EM, Ponce KH. Sistema para las tutorías académicas en las universidades ecuatorianas. Caso Universidad Estatal de Milagro. INNOVA Research Journal. 2017; 2: 100–111. https://revistas.uide.edu.ec/index.php/innova/article/view/219/1244
  34. 34. González Tirados RM, González Maura V. Diagnostico de necesidades y estrategias de formación docente en las universidades. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación. 2007; 29: 17–43. https://doi.org/10.35362/rie4362365
  35. 35. Moscoso F, Hernández A. La formación pedagógica del docente universitario: un reto del mundo contemporáneo. Revista Cubana de Educación Superior. 2015; 34:140–154. http://scielo.sld.cu/pdf/rces/v34n3/rces11315.pdf
  36. 36. Pérez-Cuso FJ, Martínez-Clares P, Martínez-Juárez M. Satisfacción del estudiante universitario con la tutoría. Diseño y validación de un instrumento de medida. ESE. Estudios sobre Educación. 2015; 29: 81–101. https://doi.org/10.15581/004.29.81-101
  37. 37. De la Cruz Flores G, Abreu-Hernández LF. Evaluación de la tutoría en los estudios de posgrado: construcción y validez de escalas. REDU. Revista de Docencia Universitaria. 2017; 15: 11–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/redu.2017.5682
  38. 38. López-Castro M, Pantoja A. Escala para valorar la percepción y grado de satisfacción del profesorado de Educación Primaria de la Comunidad Autónoma de Andalucía respecto a los procesos tutoriales. Revista Complutense de Educación. 2018; 29: 287–306. https://doi.org/10.5209/RCED.52286
  39. 39. Aguaded-Gómez MC, Monescillo-Palomo M. Evaluación de la tutoría en la universidad de Huelva desde la perspectiva del alumnado de psicopedagogía: propuestas de mejora. Tendencias pedagógicas. 2013; 23: 163–176. https://revistas.uam.es/tendenciaspedagogicas/article/view/2031/2139
  40. 40. Manzano-Soto N, Roldán-Morales CA. Análisis de necesidades de orientación del estudiante de primer año en la Universidad Autónoma de Occidente Revista Española de Orientación y Psicopedagogía. 2015; 26: 121–140. https://doi.org/10.5944/reop.vol.26.num.3.2015.16404
  41. 41. Pantoja-Vallejo A, Molero D, Molina-Jaén MD, Colmenero-Ruiz MJ. Valoración de la práctica orientadora y tutorial en la universidad: validación de una escala para el alumnado. Educación XX1, 2020; 23: 119–143.
  42. 42. Conde Vélez S, Boza Carreño A. La Educación del Futuro: creencias del alumnado. Revista de la Educación Superior. 2019; 46: 133–15. http://resu.anuies.mx/ojs/index.php/resu/article/view/622/282
  43. 43. Ferrando PJ, Lorenzo-Seva U. Program FACTOR at 10: Origins, development and future directions. Psicothema. 2017; 29: 236–240. pmid:28438248
  44. 44. Flora DB, Curran PJ. An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Method.2004; 9: 466–491. pmid:15598100
  45. 45. Ferrando PJ, Lorenzo-Seva U. El análisis factorial exploratorio de los ítems: algunas consideraciones adicionales. Anales de Psicología. 2014; 30: 1170–1175. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.199991
  46. 46. Lloret S, Ferreres A, Hernández A, Tomás I. El análisis factorial exploratorio de los ítems: análisis guiado según los datos empíricos y el software. Anales de Psicología. 2017; 33: 417–432. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.33.2.270211
  47. 47. Worthington RL, Whittaker TA. Scale Development Research: A Content Analysis and Recommendations for Best Practices. The Counseling Psychologist. 2006; 34: 806–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127
  48. 48. Bentler PM. EQS 6 Structural Equations Program Manual. Ensino. CA: Multivariate Software, Inc. 2006. http://www.econ.upf.edu/~satorra/CourseSEMVienna2010/EQSManual.pdf
    • 49. Bentler PM. On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the Bulletin. Psychological Bulletin. 1992; 112: 400–404. pmid:1438635
    • 50. Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling. 1999; 6: 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
    • 51. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences. Nueva York: Academic Press. 1977.
      • 52. Bentler PM. Factor simplicity index and transformations. Psychometrika. 1977; 59: 567–579. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02294054
      • 53. Lorenzo-Seva U. A factor simplicity index. Psychometrik. 2003; 68: 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296652
      • 54. Ponce Ceballos S, Aceves Villanueva Y, Boroel Cervantes B.I. Exploración del Comportamiento de un Instrumento para Evaluar la Función de Tutoría Académica en el Contexto de Escuelas Normales. Revista Iberoamericana de Evaluación Educativa, 2020; 13: 139–155. https://doi.org/10.15366/riee2020.13.1.006
      • 55. Wisker G, Exley K, Antoniou M, Ridley P. Working one-to-one with students: Supervising, coaching, mentoring, and personal tutoring. Routledge; 2013.
        • 56. González Álvarez M. Algunas valoraciones del profesorado respecto a su función tutorial. Educatio Siglo XXI. 2020; 38: 139–160. https://doi.org/10.6018/educatio.413451
        • 57. Bartual Figueras MT, Turmo Garuz J. Educación superior y competencias para el empleo. El punto de vista de los empresarios. Revista Complutense de Educación. 2016; 27: 1211–1228. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_RCED.2016.v27.n3.47645
        • 58. Pérez-Serrano MJ, Rodríguez-Pallares M, González-Alonso MY. Utilidad de las tutorías académicas en la universidad. Resultados agregados de un estudio multidimensional en diferentes ciencias. Revista de Ciencias de la Comunicación e Información. 2020; 25: 57–74. http://doi.org/10.35742/rcci.2020.25(1).57-74
        • 59. Guerra-Martín MD, Borrallo-Riego Á. Tutoring and academic performance from the perspective of Health Sciences students and teachers. A systematic review. Education Medica. 2018; 19: 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edumed.2017.03.019
        • 60. Martínez Sánchez L, Conejo Carrasco F, Rodríguez Sierra A. Tutorial action as a learning experience for the integral education of Medical students. Actualidades Investigativas en Educación. 217; 17: 565–588. https://doi.org/10.15517/aie.v17i3.30099