Modelado matemático y estadístico del rendimiento académico en el aprendizaje de la trigonometría a nivel preuniversitario: un análisis comparativo entre el uso de Khan Academy y los métodos tradicionales
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63688/7wybgx82Palabras clave:
Khan Academy, trigonometría, rendimiento académico, educación digital, autorregulaciónResumen
Introducción: Khan Academy ofrece práctica secuenciada y retroalimentación inmediata que puede complementar la enseñanza de trigonometría, aunque su efecto depende de la integración pedagógica y de las características del contexto educativo.
Metodología: Se realizó un estudio cuantitativo comparativo postest con grupos no equivalentes. Se analizaron 120 estudiantes preuniversitarios de cuatro paralelos, 60 en enseñanza tradicional y 60 con apoyo de Khan Academy. La comparación incluyó t de Welch, g de Hedges, bootstrap y Mann–Whitney; en los usuarios de la plataforma se ajustó una regresión exploratoria con frecuencia de uso, tiempo de estudio, desempeño y autorregulación.
Resultados: La media postest fue 6,78 en la condición tradicional y 8,43 en Khan Academy, con una diferencia de 1,647 puntos (IC 95 % [1,282; 2,012]; p < 0,001) y magnitud grande (g = 1,622). La autorregulación mantuvo una asociación positiva tras el ajuste por multiplicidad (B = 0,324; q = 0,040), pero el modelo no mostró capacidad predictiva estable en validación cruzada (R² medio = -0,027).
Conclusiones: Los resultados muestran una diferencia postest amplia a favor de Khan Academy y una señal exploratoria sobre autorregulación. Sin pretest ni identificador de paralelo, los hallazgos deben interpretarse como comparativos y asociativos, no como evidencia causal.
Referencias
Bedada, T. B., & Machaba, F. (2022). The effect of GeoGebra on STEM students learning trigonometric functions. Cogent Education, 9(1), 2034240. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2034240
Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (1980). Regression diagnostics: Identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471725153
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x
Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1979). A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica, 47(5), 1287–1294. https://doi.org/10.2307/1911963
Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Cook, R. D. (1977). Detection of influential observation in linear regression. Technometrics, 19(1), 15–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1977.10489493
Donner, A., & Klar, N. (2000). Design and analysis of cluster randomization trials in health research. Arnold.
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman & Hall.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986006002107
Higgins, K., Huscroft-D’Angelo, J., & Crawford, L. (2019). Effects of technology in mathematics on achievement, motivation, and attitude: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(2), 283–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117748416
Hillmayr, D., Ziernwald, L., Reinhold, F., Hofer, S. I., & Reiss, K. M. (2020). The potential of digital tools to enhance mathematics and science learning in secondary schools: A context-specific meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 153, 103897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103897
Ifenthaler, D., & Yau, J. Y.-K. (2020). Utilising learning analytics to support study success in higher education: A systematic review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 1961–1990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09788-z
Kelly, D. P., & Rutherford, T. (2017). Khan Academy as supplemental instruction: A controlled study of a computer-based mathematics intervention. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(4). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i4.2984
Kohavi, R. (1995). A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. In Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 2, pp. 1137–1143). Morgan Kaufmann.
Levene, H. (1960). Robust tests for equality of variances. In I. Olkin, S. G. Ghurye, W. Hoeffding, W. G. Madow, & H. B. Mann (Eds.), Contributions to probability and statistics: Essays in honor of Harold Hotelling (pp. 278–292). Stanford University Press.
MacKinnon, J. G., & White, H. (1985). Some heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimators with improved finite sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 29(3), 305–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(85)90158-7
Mann, H. B., & Whitney, D. R. (1947). On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18(1), 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177730491
Oreopoulos, P., Gibbs, C., Jensen, M., & Price, J. (2024). Teaching teachers to use computer assisted learning effectively: Experimental and quasi-experimental evidence (NBER Working Paper No. 32388). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w32388
Paulsen, L., & Lindsay, E. (2024). Learning analytics dashboards are increasingly becoming about learning and not just analytics: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 14279–14308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12401-4
Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3–4), 591–611. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591
Traverso-Condori, L. C., Reyes-Arco, R. E., Reyes-Villalba, E., Torres-Gonzales, S. B., Maraza-Quispe, B., Tinco-Túpac, S. T., & Torres-Loayza, J. L. (2024). Evaluation of the impact of an online educational platform on the development of mathematical competencies in elementary school students. IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologías del Aprendizaje, 19, 397–406. https://doi.org/10.1109/RITA.2024.3465021
UNESCO. (2023). Global education monitoring report 2023: Technology in education: A tool on whose terms? https://doi.org/10.54676/UZQV8501
Wasserstein, R. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2016). The ASA statement on p-values: Context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician, 70(2), 129–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108
Weber, K. (2005). Students’ understanding of trigonometric functions. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 17(3), 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217423
Welch, B. L. (1947). The generalization of ‘Student’s’ problem when several different population variances are involved. Biometrika, 34(1–2), 28–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/34.1-2.28
Xu, Z., Zhao, Y., Zhang, B., Liew, J., & Kogut, A. (2023). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of self-regulated learning interventions on academic achievement in online and blended environments in K–12 and higher education. Behaviour & Information Technology, 42(16), 2911–2931. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2022.2151935
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2026 José Oswaldo Briones Calvache, Pablo Ignacio Páliz Larrea (Autor/a)
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
El artículo se distribuye bajo la Licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 . Salvo que se indique lo contrario, el material publicado asociado se distribuye bajo la misma licencia.
