Guided Models for Teaching Students Research in Science and Engineering

Grounded theory

The grounded theory was initially defined by Glaser and Strauss, who in 1967 published a book called "The Discovery of Grounded Theory" where they developed it (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). After this publication, many researchers have adopted this proposal whose purpose is to construct concepts that are derived from the registered and systematized information of experiences in which social researchers live experiences with communities (Hernández, Herrera, Martínez, & Páez, 2011). Grounded Theory (or "research training" in this case) adopts a mixed methodological paradigm (Medina, Arguello & Gómez, 2017) that allows the construction of guided models, which is the modeling of research proposals according to the intentions of every investigation. In this way, the conceptualization becomes an abstract and simplified perspective, as knowledge of the lived world and that the researcher wants to represent through the construction of models that, in the case of this investigation, is applied to the teaching of science (Arraiz, 2014) (Bonilla-García & López-Suárez, 2016).

Our proposal to work on guided models based on grounded theory for the training of researchers is structured around five moments:

1. Formulation of the model: systems of questions, objectives, and hypotheses posed as a system.

2. Presentation of theoretical categories by induction as a guide for mapping bibliographic information and conceptual foundation of research (Contreras Accounts, 2020). As many categories as concepts that are formulated in the problem will be proposed.

3. Design of the methodological route: Construction of methodological designs, and the validation process of the instruments and activities that constitute the researcher's field work (Cisterna, 2005). This validation is carried out by entities, which are three differentiated actors, in order to give ownership and reliability to the research. These three actors are: a) academic peers of the researcher, b) experts, and c) a similar population group (Paramo-Bernal, 2018).

4. Implementation: The proposed designs are applied, the data obtained is systematized, and the information is triangulated (Richards, 2018). The system-atization process can be qualitative or quantitative, with the need to go through writing techniques and semantic codes configured in the interpretation of the validated instruments (phase two). In this sense, it is important to use specialized software for the qualitative and quantitative analysis of information (e.g. MAXQDA^®, Atlas-Ti^®, N-Vivo^®, SPSS^®) (Chandra & Shang, 2019)

5. Modeling and Analysis. In this last phase, the researcher validates his hypotheses and tests the solution to the problem from the initial model. This process allows either a reconfiguration of the initial model or the reconfiguration of the initial approach and conclusions (Campeón, Becerra, & Villa, 2018).

The follow-up to this methodological process, shown in Figure 2, secures the development of a systematic and reliable work, which will guarantee that the obtain ed results contribute to the scientific community dedicated to education. This greatly benefits future researchers who pursue a hermeneutical education.

Figure 1: Formulation of the model.

Source: Own.

Figure 2: Guided Model for Research Training.

Source: Own.

Table 1: Category matrix.

Source: Own

Guided Models for Research Methodologies

The concept of "guided model" in research acquires relevance insofar as it allows understanding the process of solving the research problem from a dynamic, active, reflective, and also changing and complex approach. However, these characteristics do not imply that the process is difficult or impossible. Another characteristic feature of the concept is the validation of the research in a praxiological sense; this favors the construction of meaning in actions, based on the reflection over the experiences of researchers and their work team (Arango-Londono, 2016). For this reason, the guided model is enriched by the contexts of reflection, the researcher's learning and the validation and feedback processes from experts.

Consequently, when the research process is beginning, the design of methodological models from the aforementioned approach is appropriate for the case of epistemological and hermeneutical perspectives. This is due to the constructive nature of knowledge that is produced and is applicable, for example, in the field of science education.

Factors that enhance the guided model

According to the researcher's reflected experience on his own inquiry processes, research actions are consolidated as elements or factors of the investigative process. For the first case, the researcher can assume that the methodology consists of considering relevant aspects that are added or achieved as they solve their research problem question. For the second case, it can be assumed that the aspects associated with the methodology are like turning points in their maximum potential, that is, they are capable of reconstructing different paths to follow; these alternatives are proposed from a qualification perspective, not a denial, of those initially proposed. Thus, in the case of methodological trajectories, it is necessary to consider dynamic factors rather than disconnected elements.

A guided model can be designed with the following factors in mind:

1. The epistemological perspective on the nature of knowledge that is produced. It is necessary to consciously assume whether the knowledge that is produced obeys the researcher's particular philosophical views (e.g. realism or relativism), since this also gives value to the researcher's own knowledge.

2. The organization of threads. These are usually understood as phases of the investigation and are designs of possible routes of inquiry associated with the objectives of the investigation.

3. The constitution of meaning for the threads. What are they developed for? What do they contribute? Why are they necessary?

4. The progressive approach to the process through the threads. The researcher's actions must be continually reflected in such a way as to build a progressive awareness of the process. Therefore, it is not about developing the threads like a recipe in which predetermined steps are followed; on the contrary, each reflected investigative action contributes to the indicated meaning. Thus, the reconstruction processes of the corresponding methodological experiences are facilitated.

It is worth noting that this description does not refer to specific investigative techniques. This is because the techniques are selected or constructed to the extent that their characteristics enhance particular actions of the researcher. Although this is not an obstacle to consider them in the planning of the sub-processes, it should never be assumed in a dogmatic sense as it would be contradictory with the dynamic approach that we have presented.

Guided models and progression hypotheses as a reference map

When organizing the research design from guided models, it is possible to establish a progression hypothesis as a reference map. In this sense, the progression hypothesis acquires relevance to contrast and reflect on the coherence of the methodological path (Figure 2). The factors are considered as criteria and in each of these it is convenient to analyze the "places" of reference. As a synthesis, it is possible to deduce a map that reveals a state of the guided model; In addition, it is possible to make maps at the beginning, during, and at the end of the investigative process. In this way, not only would there be evidence of the methodological transformation route as a product, but also the progression hypothesis would be fed back.

Table 2: Reference progression hypothesis for the representation of methodological routes.

Source: Own

Examples of Guided Model as Synthesis

Regardless of the stage of development of the methodological process, it is possible to construct a representation as a reference map (Figure 3). This allows identifying the state of the process or reflecting and redirecting actions in order to qualify the methodological route as such. Thus, the route acquires meaning for the researcher and her work team (a dynamic, critical and reflective sense) instead of being addressed as a set of instructions or rigid steps.

Figure 3: Reference Map.

Source: Own.

When representing the guided model from the elaboration of reference maps based on the hypothesis of progression, consider the following example. Figure 3 shows the organization and state of reflection on the design and development of a hypothetical methodological process. From this, it is possible to recreate a way to orient ourselves in our own methodological path.

From the categories of the progression hypothesis, levels A, B, and C have been selected. In these, the researcher has reflected and is in a moment of reflection both personally and with his team. This yields the representation of maps (Figure 4) that are represented as a methodological route given that the process is dynamic and reflective. As shown, the example has three maps corresponding to three moments (review, reflection, discussion), based on the factors of the progression hypothesis. With this, it is posible to give an account of the methodological route developed.

Figure 4: Methodological routes.

Source: Own.