From faculty gaps to an institutional response: a mixed-methods diagnosis and the design of a manual to strengthen undergraduate thesestucional: diagnóstico mixto y diseño de un manual para fortalecer las tesis de licenciatura
Keywords:
research training, academic supervision, mixed methods, methodological manual, higher educationAbstract
Introduction: Writing an undergraduate thesis requires students to formulate a relevant research question, justify their methodological decisions, and communicate their findings clearly. When faculty guidance is uneven and resources are misaligned with the institutional context, the process becomes slower, more uncertain, and error-prone.
Objective: To diagnose the main difficulties faculty members face in supporting research training and, based on the evidence, design a contextualized methodological manual for undergraduate thesis writing.
Method: A descriptive mixed-methods study oriented toward designing an educational intervention was conducted. From an institutional population of 150 faculty members, 45 participated in the quantitative component and 20 in semi-structured interviews. The questionnaire examined methodological training, workload, and resource availability, while the interviews explored experiences and perceived needs. Frequencies, percentages, thematic analysis, and narrative integration through a joint display were used.
Results: The main barriers were having fewer than 5 hours per week to prepare research classes (82%), lacking up-to-date manuals (75%), and difficulty explaining the theoretical framework (72%). Additionally, 68% reported insufficient methodological training, whereas only 28% incorporated local cases. The findings showed that limited time constrains professional updating and that the absence of shared guidance results in heterogeneous supervision. Based on the diagnosis, a six-module manual was designed with rubrics, examples, and progressive assessment.
Conclusions: The manual addresses the identified needs, but its effectiveness remains to be demonstrated. Its potential will depend on faculty development, protected institutional time, and subsequent evaluation comparing thesis quality before and after implementation.
Downloads
References
American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brew, A. (2013). Understanding the scope of undergraduate research: A framework for curricular and pedagogical decision-making. Higher Education, 66, 603–618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9624-x
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.
Creswell, J. W., & Inoue, M. (2025). A process for conducting mixed methods data analysis. Journal of General and Family Medicine, 26(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgf2.736
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—Principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6 Pt 2), 2134–2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2009). Developing undergraduate research and inquiry. Higher Education Academy.
Hernández-Sampieri, R., & Mendoza Torres, C. P. (2018). Metodología de la investigación: Las rutas cuantitativa, cualitativa y mixta. McGraw-Hill Education.
Levitt, H. M., Bamberg, M., Creswell, J. W., Frost, D. M., Josselson, R., & Suárez-Orozco, C. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 26–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000151
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Nayalis Nápoles Neyra, Aleyda Neyra Colares, Adnery Lozada Ortiz (Autor/a)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
