Collaborative support and zone of proximal development in technological higher education: empirical evidence and a pedagogical model
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47606/ACVEN/PH0474Keywords:
collaborative learning, zone of proximal development, technological higher education, pedagogical mediation, professional competencies, educational innovationAbstract
This study analyzes the implementation of collaborative support strategies based on the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) in technological master's programs, aiming to enhance meaningful learning and the development of professional competencies in educational contexts characterized by diverse student profiles. The research adopts a mixed-methods approach with a non-experimental, cross-sectional, and descriptive-propositional design, involving a sample of 266 participants, including faculty members and graduate students from two technological programs. In the quantitative component, a structured Likert-scale questionnaire was administered and analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics, including correlation analysis and ANOVA. In the qualitative component, semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted and examined through thematic analysis and data triangulation. The findings reveal a significant relationship between the implementation of collaborative strategies and the development of professional competencies, highlighting pedagogical mediation as a key factor. Additionally, peer learning was found to facilitate the practical application of knowledge and collective knowledge construction, while student diversity emerged as a pedagogical asset when effectively managed. However, limitations were identified in the uneven implementation of strategies and institutional structural constraints. It is concluded that collaborative support strategies grounded in the ZPD constitute an effective pedagogical model for technological higher education, provided they are systematically designed and contextually adapted. The study contributes a replicable model that integrates theoretical principles with pedagogical practices aimed at educational innovation.
Downloads
References
Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: Lessons from international experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1729587
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Open University Press.
Bruner, J. (1997). The culture of education. Harvard University Press.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
Daniels, H. (2016). Vygotsky and pedagogy (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Denzin, N. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437186
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? En P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Elsevier.
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & 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
Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005). What is scaffolding? En A. Burns & H. de Silva Joyce (Eds.), Teachers’ voices 8: Explicitly supporting reading and writing in the classroom (pp. 8–16). NCELTR.
Hargreaves, A. (2005). Educational change takes ages: Life, career and generational factors in teachers’ emotional responses to educational change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 967–983.
Hernández-Sampieri, R., Fernández-Collado, C., & Baptista, P. (2014). Metodología de la investigación (6ª ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2020). Cooperative learning in 21st century. Anales de Psicología, 36(3), 567–575.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 486–490.
Marginson, S. (2016). The dream is over: The crisis of Clark Kerr’s California idea of higher education. University of California Press.
OECD. (2019). OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030. OECD Publishing.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.
UNESCO. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO Publishing.
Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(2), 46–57.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (2007). Mediation. En H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 178–192). Cambridge University Press.
Yorke, M., & Longden, B. (2008). The first-year experience of higher education in the UK. Higher Education Academy.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Rafael Félix Bell-Rodríguez , Lissette Juleyi Vacacela-Conforme , Cynthia Lizbeth Roman-Bermeo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
