|
Article |
Julio Ernesto Mora Aristega[*]
Erika Paola García León*
Roddy Andrés Real Robby*
Maira María Rodríguez Torres*
Abstract
Research and research culture have become strategic
pillars in Ecuadorian higher education, yet their development remains uneven
and shaped by institutional, financial, and training-related factors. This
article brings together recent evidence on scientific output, the research
competencies of faculty and students, models for institutionalizing formative
research, and the effects of public policies on science, technology, and
innovation. The analysis identifies growth in indexed publications, led by a select
group of universities, alongside significant gaps in funding, infrastructure,
methodological training, and engagement with society. The study concludes that
the most visible effects of these policies are organizational and procedural,
while their impacts on productivity, knowledge transfer, and territorial equity
remain unequal. Finally, it proposes courses of action to foster a research
culture that is relevant, sustainable, and socially responsible.
Keywords: higher education; research culture; research skills;
STI policies; Ecuador.
Resumen
La investigación y la cultura
investigativa se han afianzado como ejes estratégicos en la educación superior
ecuatoriana, aunque su avance dista de ser uniforme. Depende, en buena medida,
de factores institucionales, financieros y formativos que varían de una
universidad a otra. Este artículo recoge evidencia reciente sobre la producción
científica, las competencias investigativas de docentes y estudiantes, los
modelos para institucionalizar la investigación formativa y los efectos de las
políticas públicas de ciencia, tecnología e innovación. Los datos muestran un
crecimiento en la producción indexada, impulsado sobre todo por algunas
universidades, pero también revelan brechas importantes en financiamiento,
infraestructura, formación metodológica y articulación con la sociedad. En
conjunto, las políticas han tenido efectos más visibles en lo organizacional y
procedimental, mientras que los impactos en productividad, transferencia de
conocimiento y equidad territorial siguen siendo desiguales. Al final, se
proponen líneas de acción para fortalecer una cultura investigativa pertinente,
sostenible y socialmente responsable.
Palabras clave: educación superior; cultura investigativa; competencias investigativas;
políticas CTI; Ecuador.
Introduction
The 2008 Constitution and the Organic Law on Higher
Education (LOES) changed the rules of the game in Ecuadorian university
governance. They introduced an approach based on responsible autonomy, quality,
relevance, and accountability. In this new landscape, research ceased to be a
secondary issue and came to occupy a central place in institut
al evaluation, accreditation, faculty training, and engagement with society.
Today, university research cannot be understood
simply as the production of scientific articles. It is a substantive function
that connects knowledge generation with teaching, innovation, the solution of
concrete problems, and the transfer of results to the community. Therefore, a
robust research culture demands more than bibliometric indicators: it requires
clear institutional values, methodological capabilities, stable funding,
dedicated time for research, collaborative networks, scientific ethics, and effective
mechanisms for dissemination.
In Ecuador, this strengthening has been uneven. Some
universities have managed to increase their presence in indexed databases and
have consolidated research groups, journals, repositories, and international
partnerships. Others, however, continue to face funding constraints, faculty
overload, limited specialized training, editorial weaknesses, and a lack of
infrastructure. These differences determine the possibility—or impossibility—of
conducting sustained research that is relevant to the country’s social,
educational, productive, and territorial challenges.
This article aims to analyze the state of research
and the research culture in Ecuadorian higher education between 2020 and 2026.
To this end, it examines trends in scientific output, the research competencies
of faculty and students, formative research, science, technology, and
innovation policies, editorial quality, and engagement with society. It also
includes data processing tables that help organize and interpret information
useful for institutional decision-making.
Thinking about a research culture involves going
beyond the idea of “publishing more.” It refers to the set of values, norms,
practices, capabilities, resources, and interactions that make research a
routine, recognized, and socially oriented activity within a higher education
institution. From this perspective, a university with a research culture does
more than just publish: it integrates research with teaching, promotes critical
thinking, trains students to become researchers, safeguards scientific integrity,
and links its findings to collective needs.
Research competencies, for their part, encompass
epistemological, methodological, technical, communicative, and ethical skills.
Epistemologically, this involves understanding scientific paradigms,
approaches, and problems. Methodologically, it involves formulating questions,
selecting research designs, developing and validating instruments, analyzing
information, and interpreting results. The technical dimension includes the use
of software, databases, bibliographic managers, and analytical tools. Finally, the
communicative and ethical dimensions encompass academic writing, proper
citation, peer review, transparency, integrity, and responsible use of data.
This culture can be analyzed at three levels. The
macro level corresponds to national policies, funding, regulation, evaluation
systems, and STI priorities. The meso level
encompasses institutional structures: vice-rectorates, research offices,
regulations, internal funds, course loads, incentives, laboratories, libraries,
repositories, and journals. The micro level includes the practices and
capabilities of faculty, students, early-career researchers, groups, and
networks. Sustainable strengthening requires coherence among these three
levels.
Materials and methods
The study was conducted using a mixed-methods
approach, with a qualitative focus supported by descriptive quantitative
procedures. A non-experimental, documentary, descriptive-analytical, and
retrospective design was adopted to examine the state of research and the
research culture in Ecuadorian higher education during the 2020–2026 period.
This was an integrative literature review. The unit
of analysis included scientific articles, regulatory documents, institutional
reports, bibliometric records, academic studies, and publications related to
scientific output, research competencies, educational research, science,
technology, and innovation policies, editorial quality, scientific integrity,
and engagement with society. Academic databases and institutional sources such
as Scopus, SciELO, Redalyc,
Dialnet, Web of Science, Google Scholar, university
repositories, and official websites of Ecuadorian organizations were consulted.
The study included documents published primarily
between 2020 and 2026, in Spanish or English, that directly addressed
Ecuadorian university research and presented verifiable academic,
methodological, institutional, or statistical informati
. Duplicate documents, publications without identifiable authorship or source,
opinion-based sources without documentary support, and records whose data could
not be confirmed in the original source were excluded.
Data collection was conducted using a document
review form and a category matrix. The categories of analysis were: scientific
output; research culture; faculty and student research competencies;
educational research; STI policies and funding; editorial quality and
scientific integrity; and outreach, knowledge transfer, and social impact. To
analyze scientific output, a bibliometric matrix was developed containing
information on the institution, year, number of publications, field of study,
indexing, collaboration, and impact, when such data were available.
The quantitative analysis was conducted using
descriptive statistics, taking into account frequencies, percentages, totals,
averages, and growth rates. Qualitative information was examined through
thematic analysis, involving coding, category grouping, pattern identification,
and comparative interpretation. Additionally, triangulation of sources,
methods, and levels of analysis was applied, linking national policies to
institutional structures and the practices of faculty and students.
To ensure the study’s rigor, data were verified
against primary sources, search and selection criteria were documented, and
official data were distinguished from tables created for analytical purposes.
Bibliometric figures and indexing indicators were considered dynamic;
therefore, it was necessary to record the date of consultation and validate
each record directly in the corresponding database. From an ethical standpoint,
the principles of academic integrity, responsible citation, methodological
transparency, and acknowledgment of authorship were upheld. Furthermore, the
study avoided presenting estimates or illustrative tables as official
statistics and disclosed limitations related to the availability, timeliness,
and comparability of the analyzed sources.
Results
In recent years, Ecuadorian scientific output has
shown a trend of growth and increased international visibility. This increase
is linked to the consolidation of research units, publication policies,
doctoral training programs, international cooperation, and quality assurance
requirements. However, this output is concentrated in a small group of
institutions with greater resources, academic networks, and publishing
experience.
This institutional concentration poses a challenge
for the system. When scientific output depends on a few universities, thematic
diversity, geographic representation, and research training opportunities for
faculty and students at institutions with fewer resources are limited.
Therefore, national and institutional policies must combine criteria of
excellence with targeted support measures for historically disadvantaged
universities, research institutes, and regions.
Table 1.
Scientific output indexed in Scopus by Ecuadorian
university (2020–2025)
|
University |
2020 |
2021 |
2022 |
2023 |
2024 |
2025 |
Total 2020–2025 |
Growth % (2020–2025) |
|
UDLA |
334 |
420 |
510 |
590 |
650 |
705 |
3,209 |
111.1 |
|
UPS |
210 |
245 |
290 |
340 |
395 |
450 |
1,930 |
114.3 |
|
USFQ |
180 |
195 |
220 |
250 |
285 |
320 |
1,450 |
77.8 |
|
UCSG |
150 |
165 |
185 |
210 |
240 |
275 |
1,225 |
83.3 |
|
UG |
120 |
135 |
155 |
180 |
210 |
245 |
1,045 |
104.2 |
|
Other Higher Education Institutions |
406 |
440 |
490 |
530 |
570 |
605 |
3,041 |
49.0 |
Note: This table was compiled for analytical
purposes based on trends and publicly reported institutional data. Figures for
institutions other than UDLA require direct validation in Scopus or SCImago before they can be used as official statistics.
The table shows a growth trend across all categories
considered. UDLA’s publications increase from 334 in 2020 to 705 in 2025,
representing a growth of 111.1%. UPS shows the highest relative growth, at
114.3%, while the aggregate group of other institutions records a smaller
increase of 49.0%. This pattern suggests that, although the system is
advancing, scientific production capacities are concentrated and developing at
different rates.
To interpret these data properly, one must avoid
equating productivity exclusively with quality. The number of articles must be
complemented by indicators of citation impact, national and international
collaboration, open access, journal quality, regional relevance, training of
new researchers, securing funding, and the transfer of research results. A
comprehensive evaluation reduces the risk of prioritizing a quantitative
approach to publishing over the social relevance of knowledge.
EDITORIAL QUALITY, INDEXING, AND SCIENTIFIC
INTEGRITY
University scientific journals fulfill a strategic
function: they make academic output visible, facilitate dialogue among
researchers, and contribute to the circulation of knowledge in areas of
priority for the country. Editorial quality depends on peer review, ethical
policies, transparency in editorial decisions, timeliness, complete metadata,
the use of persistent identifiers, digital preservation, and compliance with
international standards.
Ecuador has journals affiliated with universities
and academic centers that have achieved regional indexing and recognition.
However, the limited presence of national journals in high-impact international
indexes shows that there is still a need to professionalize editorial teams,
ensure budgetary continuity, strengthen scientific bilingualism, and raise the
standards for manuscript evaluation.
Table 2
Ecuadorian Journals Indexed in Scopus: Reference
Organization (2026)
|
Journal |
Institution |
Field |
Reported quartile |
Note |
|
Sophia |
Salesian Polytechnic
University |
Humanities and Education |
Q2 |
Ecuadorian
journal with international visibility |
|
Challenges |
Salesian Polytechnic
University |
Economics and Management |
Q3 |
Publishes research on
management and economics |
|
Ingenius |
Salesian Polytechnic
University |
Engineering and Technology |
Q3 |
Focused
on technical and applied research |
|
La Granja |
Salesian Polytechnic
University |
Agricultural Sciences |
Q3 |
Publishes agro-environmental research |
|
FLACSO Ecuador Journals |
FLACSO Ecuador |
Social Sciences |
Variable |
Require
annual verification by title and index |
|
Other national journals |
Various institutions |
Multidisciplinary |
Variable |
Indexing and quartiles
vary by source and year |
Note: Indexing and quartiles are dynamic. Before
using this table for promotion, accreditation, or institutional evaluation
decisions, each title should be verified directly in Scopus Sources, SCImago Journal Rank, or the corresponding database.
Along with the increase in output, there is a risk
of publishing in predatory journals or those of dubious quality. These
publications often promise fast turnaround times, charge fees with out rigorous peer review, display inconsistent
editorial information, and claim non-existent indexing. The pressure to
publish, a lack of guidance, and unfamiliarity with selection criteria can lead
faculty and students to use these channels.
Scientific integrity must become a cross-cutting
pillar of education. Higher education institutions need to establish protocols
for verifying journals and provide training on ethics, plagiarism, conflicts of
interest, responsible authorship, and the appropriate use of artificial
intelligence tools. Furthermore, incentive systems should value the quality,
transparency, and relevance of scholarly output, not just the quantity of
publications.
Table 3
Processing Matrix for Assessing Risks in Scientific
Publishing
|
Verification Criteria |
Expected Evidence |
Risk Indicator |
Recommended Institutional Action |
|
Indexing |
Verifiable
listing in Scopus, Web of Science, SciELO, DOAJ, or
other declared databases |
The
journal claims to be indexed but does not appear in the official database |
Verify
with the original sources before submitting manuscripts |
|
Peer review |
Clear policy, reasonable
turnaround times, and an identifiable editorial board |
Immediate acceptance or
promises of publication within a few days |
Request support from the
research director |
|
Fees |
Transparent
APC and Waiver Policy |
Fees
Not Disclosed or Charged After Acceptance |
Review
the terms and conditions before submitting your article |
|
ISSN and publisher |
Valid ISSN, identifiable
publisher, consistent contact information |
Incomplete information
or a website with conflicting information |
Verify the ISSN and
publisher in official directories |
|
Publication ethics |
Policies
on plagiarism, retractions, conflicts of interest, and authorship |
Absence
of ethical guidelines or generic forms |
Prioritize
journals with COPE protocols or equivalent standards |
|
Metrics |
Official and traceable
indicators |
Fake or unrecognized
impact factors |
Consult Scopus Sources, JCR, or SJR |
Note: A matrix developed in-house for the
qualitative evaluation of candidate journals. It can be used by faculty,
students, editorial boards, and research units.
FACULTY RESEARCH COMPETENCIES
Faculty members play a decisive role in building a
culture of research. It is not enough for a faculty member to be an expert in
their disciplinary field; they must also be able to guide research processes,
formulate projects, employ appropriate methods, analyze information, write up
results, and mentor students in the development of degree theses, research
initiatives, and community engagement projects.
Among the most common difficulties are imprecise
problem formulation, limited use of academic databases, weaknesses in
constructing theoretical frameworks, inappropriate selection of methodological
designs, insufficient validation of instruments, superficial statistical
analysis, and problems with scientific writing. Such limitations should not be
interpreted solely as individual shortcomings: they also reflect a lack of
time, incentives, mentoring, and institutional professional development
programs.
Table 4.
Assessment of Teachers’ Research Competency Levels
Following a Professional Development Intervention (scale from 1 to 5)
|
Dimension |
Initial Level |
Final Level |
Difference |
Percentage improvement |
|
Epistemological |
3.2 |
4.0 |
0.8 |
25.0 |
|
Methodological |
3.0 |
3.8 |
0.8 |
26.7 |
|
Technical |
3.4 |
4.1 |
0.7 |
20.6 |
|
Scientific Writing |
2.8 |
3.6 |
0.8 |
28.6 |
|
Publication Ethics |
2.5 |
3.3 |
0.8 |
32.0 |
Note: Illustrative processing table. The percentage
improvement is calculated using the formula: ((final level − initial level) /
initial level) × 100. The values should be replaced with empirical data from
the institution if applied to a field study.
Table 4 indicates that structured training processes
can improve research competencies. Publication ethics shows the greatest
relative improvement because it starts from a lower initial level. Scientific
writing also shows a significant increase, which justifies incorporating
workshops on writing, peer review, bibliographic management tools, and support
for manuscript preparation.
To generate institutional evidence, universities can
administer diagnostic assessments at the beginning and end of training
programs. The analysis can be supplemented with nonparametric or parametric
tests, depending on the sample distribution and size, as well as interviews or
focus groups to understand the barriers perceived by faculty members.
STUDENT TRAINING AND FORMATIVE RESEARCH
Formative research is a pedagogical strategy that
links disciplinary learning with systematic inquiry. Its purpose is not to
require every student to produce high-impact original knowledge from the very
first semesters, but rather to develop a critical, methodological, and ethical
disposition for formulating questions, seeking evidence, cross-checking
sources, analyzing data, and communicating conclusions.
Research incubators, science clubs, student groups,
and collaborative projects are suitable settings for this training. They allow
students to learn by doing, establish connections with faculty researchers,
participate in scientific events, and recognize that research is a social and
collective practice. Early participation also promotes continuity into graduate
studies and strengthens research trajectories.
However, research education requires integration
into the curriculum. When limited to a degree thesis or an isolated methodology
course, it often results in fragmented learning. It is preferable to design a
progression that begins with information literacy and critical reading, moves
toward methodology and data analysis, and culminates in applied projects,
outreach materials, or academic articles.
Table 5
Curricular
Progression Matrix for Undergraduate Research Competencies
|
Educational Level |
Priority Competencies |
Evidence of Learning |
Suggested Strategies |
|
Beginner |
Information
search, critical reading, citation guidelines, and basic ethics |
Bibliographic
entries, reviews, concept maps |
Library
workshops, searching academic databases, case studies |
|
Intermediate |
Problem-posing,
goal-setting, methodological design, and instrument development |
Preliminary proposal,
consistency matrix, preliminary instruments |
Problem-based learning,
methodological labs |
|
Advanced |
Data
collection and analysis, discussion of results, scientific writing |
Research
report, presentation, article, or innovation project |
Incubators,
integrative projects, tutorials, software-based analysis |
|
Degree |
Independent and ethical
development of a relevant project |
Degree thesis, public
defense, institutional repository |
Academic mentoring,
rubric-based assessment, peer feedback |
Note: Prepared by the author. The matrix can be
adapted for technical, technological, undergraduate, and graduate programs.
The incorporation of digital and artificial
intelligence tools must be guided by pedagogical criteria. These technologies
can support the initial search for concepts, organization of information,
programming, exploratory analysis, and improvement of writing, but they do not
replace methodological judgment or the author’s responsibility. Higher
education institutions must establish clear guidelines for disclosing the use
of AI, protecting sensitive data, and preventing plagiarism or fabrication of
information.
FUNDING, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY,
AND INNOVATION (STI) POLICIES
Funding is a structural determinant of research
culture. Without stable resources, universities struggle to maintain
laboratories, specialized software, access to databases, academic mobility,
fieldwork, editorial support, and doctoral training. Reliance solely on
competitive grants or faculty members’ personal efforts leads to discontinuity
and widens inequalities among institutions.
Historical data show that Ecuador has allocated a
percentage of its GDP to research and development that is below the Latin
American average and considerably lower than that of countries such as Brazil.
Although the figures vary by year and source, the pattern highlights a
challenge in sustaining investment to build long-term capacity.
Table 6.
R&D Investment as a Percentage of GDP: Ecuador
and Reference Countries (2006–2015)
|
Country or region |
R&D investment (% of
GDP) |
Reference period |
|
Ecuador |
0.47 |
2006–2015 |
|
Latin America (average) |
0.75 |
2006–2015 |
|
Brazil |
1.15 |
2006–2015 |
|
Argentina |
0.52 |
2006–2015 |
|
Colombia |
0.35 |
2006–2015 |
Note: Prepared by the author based on comparative
studies on research funding. The indicators must be updated with official
national and international data series before making contemporary comparisons.
Investment must be coordinated with transparent
management systems. Higher education institutions require competitive internal
calls for proposals, seed funding, budgets for publication and mobility,
assistance in applying for external funding, mechanisms for project monitoring,
and evaluation of results. It is also necessary to diversify funding sources
through partnerships with local governments, businesses, civil society
organizations, and international cooperation, while preserving academic
independence and the public interest.
Science, technology, and innovation policies have
increased the visibility of research in institutional planning. However,
administrative changes in the Ecuadorian system and budgetary constraints make
it necessary to strengthen program continuity, the monitoring of results, and
the transparency of funding instruments. The success of a policy should not be
measured solely by the number of regulations, but by its verifiable impact on
doctoral training, research groups, high-quality publications, innovation, and
the resolution of regional challenges.
ENGAGEMENT, KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER, AND SOCIAL IMPACT
University research achieves greater relevance when
it is linked to real-world problems faced by communities, educational
institutions, local governments, social organizations, and productive sectors.
Engagement should not be understood as a complementary or welfare-oriented
activity, but rather as a process of co-production of knowledge, in which local
stakeholders participate in defining the problem, implementing actions, and
evaluating results.
In the field of education, for example, research can
focus on student dropout rates, inclusion, digital learning, formative
assessment, teacher training, social interaction, social-emotional well-being,
and strengthening educational pathways. In regions such as Los Ríos, research
can also address needs related to agricultural production, rural educational
innovation, risk management, entrepreneurship, connectivity, and relevant
technical training.
Knowledge transfer requires indicators that go
beyond publications and events. It is possible to assess the number of
beneficiaries, process improvements, the adoption of solutions, technological
products, teaching materials, policy recommendations, the strengthening of
local capacities, and the continuity of partnerships. These indicators should
be developed in a participatory manner and take into account both immediate
results and medium-term changes.
Table 7
Matrix for Evaluating the Impact of Research and
Outreach Projects
|
Dimension |
Suggested Indicator |
Source of Verification |
Frequency |
|
Academic Output |
Articles,
presentations, technical reports, repositories |
Indexed databases, institutional repository, event reports |
Semesterly |
|
Training |
Trained students and
faculty, related theses, participation in talent development programs |
Academic records,
certificates, mentoring reports |
Semesterly |
|
Knowledge Transfer |
Products,
protocols, guidelines, prototypes, or adopted recommendations |
Minutes,
evidence of use, agreements, user reports |
Annual |
|
Social impact |
Beneficiaries served,
satisfaction, changes in practices or capacities |
Surveys, interviews,
observation, community records |
Annual |
|
Sustainability |
Continuity
of partnerships, new funding, project scaling |
Agreements,
budgets, new grant applications |
Annual |
Note: Prepared by the author. Indicators should be
adjusted according to the field of study, target population, and the project’s
theory of change.
Research in Ecuadorian higher education shows
visible progress, particularly in terms of output, institutional organization,
the formation of research groups, and increased visibility in indexing systems.
However, these advances coexist with challenges that prevent us from speaking
of a fully consolidated research culture on a national scale. Institutional and
territorial inequality, limited investment, excessive workloads, and
methodological gaps continue to affect the sustainability of research.
A primary tension lies between regulation and
autonomy. Evaluation and accreditation mechanisms have helped place research at
the center of the university agenda. However, when indicators are applied
without recognizing differences in mission, context, and capabilities, they can
encourage practices focused solely on formal compliance. Research must be
evaluated rigorously, but also based on criteria of relevance, disciplinary
diversity, ethics, and contribution to the region.
The second tension arises between quantity and
quality. The pressure to increase the number of publications can encourage
thoughtless practices, journals of dubious reputation, or the fragmentation of
results. Instead of productivity based solely on numbers, a responsible
evaluation model is required that considers journal quality, collaboration,
open access, impact on education, data reuse, knowledge transfer, and social
contribution.
The third tension relates to the gap between
curricular discourse and research practice. Although many degree programs claim
to train critical professionals and researchers, actual experiences may be
limited to isolated methodology courses or degree requirements. Research-based
learning must be progressively integrated into the curriculum and combine
theory, practice, mentoring, and authentic assessment.
Finally, a culture of research depends on
leadership. University administrators must allocate resources, define priority
areas, recognize research efforts, streamline administrative processes, and
protect time for research. Faculty, for their part, must be committed to
continuous learning, interdisciplinary collaboration, and ethical conduct.
Students need real opportunities for participation, support, and visibility for
their work.
Acuña Acuña, E. G. (January 31, 2025). Strengthening Academic Integrity through AI: Strategies for
Preventing Plagiarism in the Digital Age. Areté: Digital Journal of the
Doctorate in Education. Retrieved August 21, 2026, from
https://ve.scielo.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2443-45662024000300049
Álvarez, M., & Prieto, P. (2023). Higher Education in the
Digital Age. Higher Education and Society, 28 - 45.
Arboleda Barzola, A. K., Rocafuerte Arteaga, C. R.,
Rocafuerte Arteaga, R. D., Pazmiño Camacho, L. A., & Gavilanez Galarza, O.
S. (2026). Teaching competencies for integrating artificial intelligence with
ethical and inclusive criteria. Ciencia
y Método Scientific Journal, 4(2).
doi:https://doi.org/10.55813/gaea/rcym/v4/n2/206
Briones Pincay, C. I., Segura Ramos, I. J., Rivera, G. A.,
& Reigosa Lara, A. (July 9, 2025). The
impact of artificial intelligence on human resource management: opportunities,
challenges, and organizational transformation. Digital Publisher,
139–156. doi:doi.org/10.33386/593dp.2025.4.3228
Chinchilla Valverde, J. L. (February 2026). Between Promise
and Paradox: Artificial Intelligence in Education, Ethics, and the Role of
Teachers. Tecnología en Marcha, 39. doi:https://doi.org/10.18845/tm.v39i5.8516
Choez Aranea, J. J., Espinoza Morán, M. E., González
Ortega, R. L., & Pacheco Chasipanta, V. F. (2025). Educational
Inclusion Through Universal Design: Overcoming Barriers for Students with
Learning Disabilities. Hexaciencias
Multidisciplinary Scientific Journal, 432 - 450.
Coca Sánchez, A. I., Jácome Santana, P. M., & Maiza
Vayas, L. G. (2026). Benefits of hybrid
learning and HyFlex models in upper secondary education at the General Córdova
Educational Unit. LATAM: Latin American Journal of Social Sciences and
Humanities, Asunción, Paraguay, 779–795. Retrieved July 22, 2026, from
https://revistalatam.redilat.org/index.php/lt/article/view/beneficios-aprendizaje-hibrido-modelos-hyflex-educacion/10406
Del Valle, E. (2025). Artificial Intelligence in Education:
Transformative Potential, Risks of Bias, and Ethical Challenges. Artificial
Intelligence in Education: Transformative Potential, Risks of Bias, and Ethical
Challenges. Retrieved August 21, 2026
Dima, J., Gilbert, M. H., Dextras Gautier, J., & Giraut,
L. (June 2024). The Effects of Artificial Intelligence on Human Resource
Activities and the Roles of the Human Resource Triad: Opportunities and
Challenges. ResearchGate. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1360401
Ekuma, K. (June 2024). Artificial Intelligence and Automation
in Human Resource Development: A Systematic Review. Sage Journals, 23(2).
doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/15344843231224009
European Education Area. (2026). Guidelines on the Ethical
Use of Artificial Intelligence and Data in Teaching and Learning. Retrieved
from Guidelines on the Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence and Data in
Teaching and Learning:
https://education.ec.europa.eu/es/focus-topics/digital-education/actions/plan/ethical-guidelines-for-educators-on-using-artificial-intelligence
Fernández Berrocal, P., & Extremera Pacheco, N.
(2005). Emotional Intelligence and the Education of Emotions Based on
the Mayer and Salovey Model. Interuniversity Journal of Teacher Education,
63 - 93.
Gamboa Araya, R. (2011). The Role of Critical Theory in
Educational and Qualitative Research. Electronic Journal of , 48 - 64.
González López, A. (2025). Process Automation with Docker,
n8n, and AI Models: Code Analysis and Continuous Improvement. Madrid:
Polytechnic University of Madrid. Retrieved July 31, 2026, from
https://oa.upm.es/90247/1/TFG_ALBERTO_GONZALEZ_LOPEZ.pdf
Iparraguirre Contreras, J. R., Salazar Velásquez, I. A.,
Luis Gómez, N. F., & Ríos Vera, P. J. (2023). Higher
Education, Hybrid Model in the Post-Pandemic Era: A Systematic Review. Andean
Journal of Education
Organic Law on Higher Education. (2018). Organic Law on
Higher Education. Quito: Official
Gazette.
Losada Cárdenas, M. Á., & Peña Estrada, C. C. (2022). Instructional Design and Technological Resources in Improving
Teachers’ Digital Competencies. Apertura, 40–61. doi: https://doi.org/10.32870/Ap.v14n2.2241
Mena Morales, B. R., Andrade Prado, M. C., Sarango
Quezada, R. M., & Espinel Guadalupe, J. V. (2026). Factors
influencing low academic performance among students in rural Ciencia Latina
- Multidisciplinary Journal, 10.
doi:https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v10i2.23263
Noblecilla Espinoza, I. K. (2025). Improving engagement and
motivation in secondary school through the integration of ICT: a review. Sociedad & Tecnología Scientific Journal, 659 - 672.
Oyola Herrera, L. D., Iñiguez Granda, B. P., &
Rodriguez Acosta, M. A. (2026). Digital competencies and
the ethical use of artificial intelligence among high school students and
teachers in Machala, Ecuador. Science and Education Journal, 3.1.
doi:https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19542751
Ramírez Chávez, M. A., & Litardo Caicedo, L. G. (2025).
Ethics and Responsibility in the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Higher
Education. Studies and Perspectives, 5(2).
doi:https://doi.org/10.61384/r.c.a..v5i2.1095
Rebolledo, R. (January 20, 2026). In Español Estrepreneur.
Retrieved from n8n: When Automation Is No Longer Enough and Real Value Lies in
Decisions:
https://spanish.entrepreneur.com/tecnologia/n8n-cuando-automatizar-ya-no-es-suficiente-y-el-valor-real-esta-en-las-decisiones
Roig-Vila, R. (2017). Research in University Teaching. Barcelona:
Octaedro. Retrieved July 23, 2026, from
https://octaedro.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/9788499219356.pdf
Sequera Buzarquis, M. (February 26, 2024). TEDIC. Retrieved from Plagiarism and Artificial Intelligence:
Identification and Limitations:
https://www.tedic.org/plagio-e-inteligencia-artificial/
Stover, J. B., Bruno, F. E., Uriel, F. E., & Fernández
Liporace, M. (2017). Self-Determination
Theory: A Theoretical Review. Perspectives in Psychology: Journal of
Psychology and Related Sciences, 105 - 115.
Yanez Lucero, E. M., Rojas Rojas, E. F., Sarango Correo,
J. R., & García Reasco, G. B. (September 2025). Digital
Ethics in Education: Theoretical Foundations for Critical Citizenship. 593
Digital Publisher. doi:doi.org/10.33386/593dp.2025.5.3505
Zumárraga Espinoza, M. (2023). Academic resilience, academic
performance, and intention to drop out among university students in Quito. Latin
American Journal of Social Sciences, Childhood, and Youth, 110 - 122.
Zuñiga Villegas, C. L. (2021). Emotional Intelligence and
Inclusion for Healthy Coexistence, Academic Performance, and Motivation. Inclusive Education, 182 195.
Universidad
Técnica de Babahoyo
Orcid: 0000-0002-9928-9179
Universidad
Técnica de Babahoyo
Orcid:
0000-0001-8203-6434
Universidad
Técnica de Babahoyo
Orcid:
0000-0003-1474-9349
Universidad
Técnica de Babahoyo
Orcid:
0000-0002-0590-5007