Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 3 (1): 10-22.
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Universidad Autónoma de Baja California ISSN 2594-1925
Volumen 3 (3): 134-144. Julio-Septiembre 2020 https://doi.org/10.37636/recit.v33134144.
134
ISSN: 2594-1925
An evaluation case for a research seminar
Un caso de evaluación para un seminario de investigación
Guerrero-Moreno Roberto Javier
1
, Oviedo González Eilen
2
, Mejía-Medina David
Abdel
1
1
Facultad de Ciencias de la Ingeniería y Tecnología, Universidad Autónoma de Baja
California, Blvd. Universitario 1000, Valle de las Palmas, Tijuana, Baja California, México.
2
Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, Paseo de la Vida s/n, Fraccionamiento Las Américas.,
Tijuana, Baja California, México.
Autor de correspondencia: Roberto Javier Guerrero Moreno, Facultad de Ciencias de la
Ingeniería y Tecnología, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, Blvd. Universitario 1000,
Valle de las Palmas, Tijuana, Baja California, México. E-mail: rjgm76@uabc.edu.mx. ORCID:
0000-0002-8974-0990.
Recibido: 12 de Febrero del 2020 Aceptado: 07 de Agosto del 2020 Publicado: 10 de Agosto del 2020
Abstract. - The research seminar is a staple in many colleges and typically serves as a link
between the researchers' work and the student body. However, more than an outreach activity,
we believe that it is an excellent means of motivation, and an effort is rarely made to quantify
the success of the program in terms of acceptance within the student body. In the following
article we will present the results of a 4-year survey in a multidisciplinary engineering / design
/ architecture school for a state public university in Mexico. The survey was designed with the
intention of quantifying the success of the activity in capturing the attention and interest of the
students.
Keywords: Education; scientific research.
Resumen. - El seminario de investigación es un elemento básico en muchas escuelas de
educación superior y normalmente sirve como enlace entre el trabajo de los investigadores y el
cuerpo estudiantil. Sin embargo, más que una actividad de divulgación, creemos que es un
excelente medio de motivación, y rara vez se hace un esfuerzo por cuantificar el éxito del
programa en lo que se refiere a la aceptación dentro del alumnado. En el siguiente artículo
presentaremos los resultados de una encuesta de 4 años en una escuela multidisciplinaria de
ingeniería / diseño / arquitectura para una universidad pública estatal en México. La encuesta
fue diseñada con la intención de cuantificar el éxito de la actividad en captar la atención e interés
de los estudiantes.
Palabras clave: Educación; investigación científica.
135
ISSN: 2594-1925
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 3 (3): 134-144
1. Introduction
As our society demands professionals with
engineering skills, is important to identify
that the attrition rate in engineering schools
is significant. Research in this area has
presented analysis [1-16], evaluation tools
[2-10], and methodologies to [4-6, 12-20]
help to understand and mitigate this
problem.
The attrition rate can be attributed to diverse
factors like, social (ethnicity, sexual
orientation and/or identity) [1, 8, 11, 22-23,
25, 27], economic [1, 14 23, 26], personal
(lack of belonging, health) [1, 6-8, 11]
institutional (poor teaching and advising)
[1, 4-5, 11, 13-14, 18-19, 22-24, 26],
academic [1-4, 10-11, 13-15, 18, 23, 26-28]
and/or, motivational [1-2, 10-11, 19-21. 24].
It is sometimes easier for the facilitators to
simplify the problem as a lethargic phase
that the student will push through, and if not,
then his interest or abilities lie somewhere
else. However, in some cases, we can help
the student to push through their lethargic
phase and turn them instead in a highly-
trained professional.
Let us consider a random student, which
finds some subjects appealing, and have an
excellent performance in it, while disliking,
or finding other courses not interesting,
meaning, that he does not believe it has any
real-world use for it, or find it very difficult,
due to gaps in the knowledge required to
understand such subjects. This last one is
the case for some students when dealing
with mathematics and physics [2-4, 6, 17,
26, 28]. Such courses are often the reason
for students falling behind and/or dropping
out.
The previous case tends to be significant for
public universities, where a public entity
(maybe the state and/or country) absorbs by
far the cost of educating each student, i.e.,
each student has a cost per semester
attributed to it, and so, if a student does not
finish his/her studies and earns a degree
these resources are effectively wasted.
Is the duty of the school to try to maximize
the number of students that earn their degree
while maintaining an academic standard?
Many academic programs exist to help
students, tutoring hours are available,
remedial courses are given, and group
collaboration between students is
encouraged.
However, as important as these efforts are,
the activities that motivate the student, are
paramount, and is or our firm believe that
the academic and the motivational are
intricately linked. A motivated student will
surpass any hurdle presented.
Many higher learning schools have a
periodic seminar where the students are
presented with talks that range from
research activities, scientific dissemination,
or academic talks. In some schools
attending to them is optional, while in other
schools is mandatory and can be part of their
curriculum.
No evaluation of such activities was found
in the literature and we believe that the
students enjoy such activities and can have
a high motivational impact, and which
serves to keep them informed of research
scholarships, social service programs,
professional bonding opportunities, and/or
postgraduate choices.
136
ISSN: 2594-1925
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 3 (3): 134-144
The results presented in this paper were
obtained from polling the audience in such
seminaries from 2012 to 2016, the specifics
are presented in the subsequent sections
1. Methodology
The results presented here were collected in
the Campus "Valle de las Palmas" of "Baja
California State University" (Universidad
Autónoma de Baja California - UABC) in
particular for the multidisciplinary school
FCITEC (Facultad de Ciencias de
Ingeniería y Tecnología – School of
Engineering and Technology Sciences).
FCITEC offers majors in Bioengineering,
Aerospace, Civil, Electric, Electronic,
Industrial, Mechanics, Mechatronics and
Renewable energy engineering, also
Industrial and Graphic Design, and
Architecture.
The school opened its doors in august 2009
to the student population of about 600 and
20 full-time academics (FAs), by the
summer of 2014 the population had grown
up to around 3,500 students and 70 full-time
academics plus many partial time lecturers.
The rapid increase in the student and faculty
bodies made it necessary to establish
periodic seminar. By faculty request, a
seminar program was established in March
2012 (with around 2,000 students and 50
FAs). The purpose of this activity was to
create a periodic forum where the teaching
staff could present to the school community
their research projects, results, and student
collaborations.
In addition, we were trying to foment a
program where the student would be able to
build the competencies necessary for
interactive listening, questioning in a
respectful manner, and the ability to reflect
on the connection between the theoretical
and practical knowledge presented in the
talks.
Due to the geographic location of the
university (i.e. travel time), it was necessary
to schedule the seminar during the school
hours, and so only those students without
any activities at that time or those were the
teachers permitted the group to assist the
seminar, had the opportunity to attend the
talks. This greatly impeded us to reach a
wider audience. Since 2012 until April of
2016, the seminar has hosted 59 talks and
around 4,646 attendees. The topics
presented were varied and of interest to the
student body.
During the last 41 talks, the total audience
was of 3,017 students and 200
teachers/administrative personnel. The
students in the audience were surveyed, and
the results will be presented in the next
section.
As the section deals with statistical results,
it is necessary to determine if the number of
answered surveys satisfies the minimum
statistical sample. To determine this, we use
the following equation
(1)
Where, n a is minimum statistical sample, N
number of total population (here 3,500), the
standard deviation value of the population,
, is not known so is common use to utilize
0.5 in such cases, for the trust value, , we
use the 95% i.e. (the usual value)
and for the error range, , we assigned the
middle value for an unknown population,
i.e., (4%) [29, 30].
137
ISSN: 2594-1925
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 3 (3): 134-144
To validate our statistical results, we will
utilize Cronbach’s alpha [31-35] as given by
(2)
where k is the number of scale items, in this
case, the total number of talks where the
question was asked in the survey,
referrers to the variance associated with the
answers for each date, and
is the variance
related to total for each answer.
The values of alpha commonly assigned to
evaluate the consistency are shown in table
1.
Table 1. Interpretation of the Cronbach’s alpha
values in terms of the consistency.
Cronbach’s
alpha
Consistency
Excellent
Good
Acceptable
Questionable
Poor
Unacceptable
A full deduction and discussion about
Cronbach’s alpha can be found in the cited
references.
2. Results and Discussions
The data shown in this section are the results
of surveying the audience in the last 41
talks, in total, we have around of 2,700
surveys, the final tally differs from the final
attendance because some participants did
not answer or fully answer the survey.
By using equation (1), we determined that
the minimum statistic sample for a
population of 3,500 students is around 494,
far below the number (2,000) of surveys at
our disposal; this allows extrapolating the
data found here to the full student body.
The results will be presented in four
subsections 3.1) Audience, 3.2) Knowledge
and attendance, 3.3) Quality, 3.4) Research
projects.
2.1 Audience
The semesters are academically split into
three stages: common, 1st to 3rd semester,
where the common courses are taken, and
the student chooses their major.
Disciplinary, 4th through 6th semester, and
the terminal stage is 7th, and beyond, this is
where final specialization is chosen.
Figure 1: Assistance by academic stage.
Out of the 3,017 student attendees who
answered this question, 1,400 were from the
basic stage, 816 from the disciplinary stage,
and 574 terminal stage, with 227 not
registering their semester.
138
ISSN: 2594-1925
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 3 (3): 134-144
The results are in complete agreement with
the number of students in each stage in the
school and are encouraging as we can
inform the newest students about scientific
research activities in the school.
By applying equation (2) to the values used
to generate figure 1, we found
which according to table 1 have an excellent
internal consistency
2.2 Knowledge and attendance
Figure 2 shows the percentage of attendees
who had prior knowledge of the seminar.
We will discuss Cronbach’s alpha values for
each figure at the end of the section, as the
analysis is quite similar for figures 2 and 3.
We note that from 2013-2 to 2015-1 the
percentage with prior knowledge has
continuously grown, and by 2016-1 60.2%
of the attendees had prior knowledge of the
activity. We consider this extremely
important, as per year almost 900 students
are freshmen and need to be informed of the
different activities available.
Figure 2. Percentage and number of attendees who
had prior knowledge of the seminar.
In figure 3, we present the percentage of the
audience that had attended the seminar
previously. We can see that by the end of
2016-1, 60.2% of the attendees had
knowledge of the activity, this means that
almost two-thirds of the total population
find the seminar interesting enough to
participate more than one time.
Figure 3. The audience was asked if they had
attended before to a talk of this seminar.
The organizing committee must make a
greater effort to generate more interest. So,
a basic question that must be asked is, how
did the students find out about the talk? In
figure 4 we present such findings.
We found after analyzing the surveys that
most of the students (73%) knew about the
talk because of their teachers while 14%
because of the notifications posted through
the school (around 100 such notifications
are posted each talk) while 8% found out by
our Facebook page and repost of the
information, while 3% by word of mouth.
At this time, is clear that the main way that
students can participate in the event is by
leave of the teacher from his class, but as we
see 25% of the student participated out of
their free will, this is very encouraging. We
believe that by using electronic publicity,
like social networks, we can reach an even
broader number of students, in this we
propose the addition of students as their
input would be of great value in managing
the information in social media; we
recommend the use of focus groups.
0
20
40
60
80
2013-2 2014-1 2014-2 2015-1 2015-2 2016-1
yes
No
Percentage
0
20
40
60
80
2013-2 2014-1 2014-2 2015-1 2015-2 2016-1
Yes
No
Percentage
139
ISSN: 2594-1925
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 3 (3): 134-144
Figure 4. Ways the audience learned of a talk.
The values for the Cronbach’s alpha for
each figure are
,
, for figures 2 and 3, respectably,
both number significantly low, as presents
in table 1, in particular for
, we believe
that this due series of factors. First, the
literature [31-35] is clear that the
Cronbach’s alpha methodology is not
particularly good at assessing a small
number of questions (2 possible answers:
yes or no) for a set of items (in our case,
talks). Second, the information presented
here is skewed, as we were only asking for
“knowledge and attendance” of those
already participating in it. A more consistent
result should include responses for a
random group of students. Nevertheless, we
include these results because it shows some
interesting information and allows
discussion and the methodology and can be
of some help for future works.
Cronbach’s alpha for the data presented in
figure 4 is
, which shows
excellent internal consistency.
2.3 Quality
We quantify the quality of the talks
presented by asking the student to rate, the
speaker (figure 5), and subject matter
(figure 6) using a 5 point Linkert scale,
where 5 is the best review and 1 the worst.
The Cronbach’s alpha for both sets of data
is 0.9806 and 0.9831, respectably.
Figure 5. Audience grading of the 40 speakers in a
5-point scale.
Figures 5 and 6 show a very favorable
reception from the student to the speakers
and the subject matter of the talks. This
shows the organizer that a careful selection
of the speakers, topic, and importantly the
level at which the information was
presented, we try to keep the information at
a level adequate for a third-semester
engineering audience.
Figure 6. Audience grading the 40 talks in term of
their appeal.
We believe that the social media can help to
get additional comments about what types
of talks the students would like to receive
and would allow focusing the activity to the
140
ISSN: 2594-1925
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 3 (3): 134-144
liking of the students, so they can increase
the total attendance
2.4 Research projects
We believe that scientific research and the
dissemination of it can have a positive
impact on the academic life of many
students, but sometimes we forgot that some
students may not have prior knowledge of
the existence of research activities in our
schools or that they can actually participate
on it. As part of the purpose of the seminar,
we are interested in informing the student
body about those research opportunities,
and the many options available to them,
including research grants, thesis
opportunities, internships in companies,
summer schools, and many others.
We asked the attendees if they knew that
there are research activities in FCITEC? and
found out that the attendees have knowledge
of the existence of research activities in our
school, is very interesting that 78.2% of the
students have this information, this number
has changed very little over the semesters,
so a lack of knowledge in this area, appears
not to be a significant obstacle.
The students know that research is been
done in their school, but we wonder if do
they know that some of those projects have
scholarships associated with them? We ask
the polled students this and found that of the
2,773 polls, only 54.6% answered yes. This
result is not entirely unexpected, as FCITEC
is a new school, many of the activities do
not have immediate recognition by the
community. But we find it very encouraging
that the percentage has been growing as the
years go by meaning that the information
has been reaching more and more students
and we believe that the seminar has been
playing a big part.
Figure 7. Evaluation of the interest generated thru
the talk to join a research project
Figure 7 shows the results as presented by
the survey, again by assigning a numeric
value of 5 to "A lot" and 1 to "nothing". The
results tell us that 16.8% of all the students
want to participate in research activities, this
is very encouraging, and a way should be
found to try to include them. This item is our
survey and it was found out to have a
Cronbach’s alpha of 0.9815.
It is clear to the authors, that figure 7 is not
enough to validate if the research seminar
influenced the research activities, at the time
of the study no information was available to
us to explore this question.
3. Conclusions
We have shown statistical results from a
survey applied to the attendees of the
research and diffusion seminar at FCITEC,
from august 2013 thru April 216,
approximately 2,700 surveys were
collected.
A lot
Some
Enought
little
Nothing
26.9%
40.5%
16.8%
11.4%
4.3%
141
ISSN: 2594-1925
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 3 (3): 134-144
The results presented have shown that
students have found talks interesting and
because of them have considered joining (or
joined) research activity, in the different
modalities that UABC offers. The analysis
also reveals that the main way the audience
has found out about the talk calendar is by
their teachers. Here we recommend using
more and more the use of social media.
We showed that the seminar has had a
positive effect, as the interest of students to
join research projects has more than
doubled in 2015 with respect to those
reported in 2014.
Acknowledgements
The authors of this paper would like to thank
the many students that were graceful
enough by answering our survey.
References
[1] R. M. Marra, K. A. Rodgers, D. Shen,
and B. Bogue, “Leaving Engineering:
A Multi-Year Single Institution
Study,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 101, no. 1,
pp. 6–27, Jan. 2012.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-
9830.2012.tb00039.x
[2] N. Fang, “Correlation between
students’ motivated strategies for
learning and academic achievement in
an engineering dynamics course,”
Glob. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 16, no. 1, pp.
6–12, 2014.
http://www.wiete.com.au/journals/GJ
EE/Publish/vol16no1/01-Fang-N.pdf
[3] K. A. Wingate, A. A. Ferri, and K. M.
Feigh, “The impact of the physics,
statics, and mechanics sequence on
student retention and performance in
mechanical engineering,” ASEE
Annu. Conf. Expo. Conf. Proc., vol.
2018-June, 2018.
https://www.asee.org/public/conferen
ces/106/papers/21647/view
[4] R. Suresh, “The Relationship
Between Barrier Courses and
Persistence in Engineering, J Coll
Stud Ret. 8(2), 215 – 239, 2006.
https://doi.org/10.2190/3QTU-6EEL-
HQHF-XYF0
[5] J. C. Hermanowicz, “The College
Departure Process among the
Academic Elite,” Educ. Urban Soc.,
vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 74–93, Nov. 2004.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00131245042
68069
[6] M. G. Wintre, C. Bowers, N.
Gordner, and L. Lange, “Re-
Evaluating the University Attrition
Statistic: A Longitudinal Follow-Up
Study,” J. Adolesc. Res., vol. 21, no.
2, pp. 111–132, Mar. 2006.
https://doi.org/10.1177/07435584052
85658
[7] M. Besterfield-Sacre, C. J. Atman,
and L. J. Shuman, “Characteristics of
Freshman Engineering Students:
Models for Determining Student
Attrition in Engineering,” J. Eng.
Educ., vol. 86, no. 2, pp. 139–149,
Apr. 1997.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-
9830.1997.tb00277.x
[8] G. Zhang, T. J. Anderson, M. W.
Ohland, and B. R. Thorndyke,
“Identifying Factors Influencing
Engineering Student Graduation: A
Longitudinal and Cross-Institutional
Study,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 93, no. 4,
142
ISSN: 2594-1925
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 3 (3): 134-144
pp. 313–320, Oct. 2004.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-
9830.2004.tb00820.x
[9] J. P. Del Rio Arteaga, “Modelo
Predictivo para la Retención de
Estudiantes en Primeros Años,”
Universidad Técnica Federico Santa
María, 2018.
http://hdl.handle.net/11673/41319
[10] M. Hoit and M. Ohland, “The Impact
of a Discipline-Based Introduction to
Engineering Course on Improving
Retention,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 87, no.
1, pp. 79–85, Jan. 1998.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-
9830.2007.tb00935.x
[11] B. N. Geisinger and D. R. Raman,
“Why they leave: Understanding
student attrition from engineering
majors,” Int. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 29,
no. 4, pp. 914–925, 2013.
https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/abe_eng_pub
s/607/
[12] M. H. Stohs and J. G. Schutte, “The
Graduation Rate Myth and the Equity
Gap,” J. Appl. Soc. Sci., vol. 13, no.
2, pp. 94–114, Sep. 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1177/19367244198
76677
[13] D. Yomtov, S. W. Plunkett, R. Efrat,
and A. G. Marin, “Can Peer Mentors
Improve First-Year Experiences of
University Students?,” J. Coll.
Student Retent. Res. Theory Pract.,
vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 25–44, Oct. 2015.
https://doi.org/10.1177/15210251156
11398
[14] K. G. Ricks, J. A. Richardson, H. P.
Stern, R. P. Taylor, and R. A. Taylor,
“An Engineering Learning
Community to Promote Retention
And Graduation Of At-Risk
Engineering Students”, AJEE, vol. 5,
no. 2, pp. 73-90, Nov. 2014.
https://doi.org/10.19030/ajee.v5i2.89
53
[15] X. Jiang and S. Freeman, “ASQ
Advancing the STEM Agenda in
Education, the Workplace and Society
Session 3-4 An Analysis of the Effect
of Cognitive Factors on Students’
Attritions in Engineering: A
Literature Review,” pp. 1–12.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fe44/
b5551f7e22bd2535da690dd62f452cc
d78b9.pdf
[16] J. L. Jensen, S. Neeley, J. B. Hatch,
and T. Piorczynski, “Learning
Scientific Reasoning Skills May Be
Key to Retention in Science,
Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics,” J. Coll. Student Retent.
Res. Theory Pract., vol. 19, no. 2, pp.
126–144, Oct. 2015.
https://doi.org/10.1177/15210251156
11616
[17] R. Stanley, “A way to increase the
engineering student’s qualitative
understanding of particle kinematics
and kinetics by utilizing interactive
web based animation software,”
ASEE Annu. Conf. Expo. Conf. Proc.,
2009. https://peer.asee.org/a-way-to-
increase-the-engineering-student-s-
qualitative-understanding-of-particle-
kinematics-and-kinetics-by-utilizing-
interactive-web-based-animation-
software.pdf
[18] J. Malm, L. Bryngfors, and J.
Fredriksson, “Impact of Supplemental
Instruction on Dropout and
Graduation Rates: An Example from
5-Year Engineering Programs.,” J.
143
ISSN: 2594-1925
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 3 (3): 134-144
Peer Learn., vol. 11, pp. 76–88, 2018.
https://ro.uow.edu.au/ajpl/vol11/iss1/
6
[19] V. M. Lechuga, “A motivation
perspective on faculty mentoring: the
notion of ‘non-intrusive’ mentoring
practices in science and engineering,”
High. Educ., vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 909–
926, 2014.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-
9751-z
[20] P. L. Hardré, and Z. Siddique,
“SUCCESS in Engineering
Education: Applying an ID
Motivational Framework to Promote
Engagement and Innovation”. J. Appl.
Instr. Des., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 7 – 20,
2013. https://253f0a53-bb62-46af-
b495-
b4548f4d5d90.filesusr.com/ugd/c9b0
ce_6a2616612c994ef796f47b5b1b60
fb01.pdf
[21] A. R. Anggraini and J. Oliver,
“Effects of Motivational Beliefs and
Instructional Practice on Students’
Intention to Pursue Majors and
Careers in Engineering,” J. Chem. Inf.
Model., vol. 53, no. 9, pp. 1689–1699,
2019.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap
er/Effects-of-Motivational-Beliefs-
and-Instructional-
Tendhar/8655b79efe83d52c853f2fb9
e2d0067fb061faf4
[22] J. M. Good, G. Halpin, and G. Halpin,
“A Promising Prospect for Minority
Retention: Students Becoming Peer
Mentors,” J. Negro Educ., vol. 69, no.
4, pp. 375–383, 2000.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2696252
[23] V. a Lotkowski, S. B. Robbins, and R.
J. Noeth, “The Role of Academic and
Non-Academic Factors in Improving
College Retention,” Office, no.
September 12, 2007, pp. 1–31, 2004.
https://doi.org/10.1037/e420492008-
001
[24] L. Angelino, F. Keels Williams, and
D. Natvig, “Strategies to Engage
Online Students and Reduce Attrition
Rates,” J. Educ. Online, vol. 4, no. 2,
pp. 1–14, 2007.
https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2007.2.1
[25] S. E. Martin III and B. Littlepage,
“Engineering Retention: Improving
Inclusion and Diversity in
Engineering,” ProQuest Diss. Theses,
p. 172, 2018.
https://digitalcommons.murraystate.e
du/etd/105/
[26] S. Oliveira, “Persistence in aerospace
engineering: Why students choose
and leave aerospace engineering,”
Iowa State University, 2019.
https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/17532
[27] L. Paura and I. Arhipova, “Student
dropout rate in engineering education
study program,” Eng. Rural Dev., vol.
2016-January, pp. 641–646, 2016.
https://agris.fao.org/agris-
search/search.do?recordID=LV20160
30513
[28] K. Lenn and J. J. Potoff, “Work-in-
Progress-Eos: A comprehensive
approach to the retention of first and
second year engineering students,” in
First Year Engineering Experience
(FYEE) Conference, 2016, pp. 2–4.
http://fyee.asee.org/FYEE2016/paper
s/155.pdf
144
ISSN: 2594-1925
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 3 (3): 134-144
[29] M. R. Spiegel, J. Schiller, and S. R.
Alu., Probability and Statistic, no. 1.
McGraw Hill Mexico, 2013.
https://doi.org/10.16309/j.cnki.issn.1
007-1776.2003.03.004
[30] T. Yamane, Statistics. An
introductory analysis. Third edition.
Harper & Row, 1973.
https://books.google.com.mx/books/a
bout/Statistics_An_introductory_anal
ysis_Thir.html?id=sl75MgEACAAJ
&redir_esc=y
[31] L. J. Cronbach, “Coefficient alpha and
the internal structure of tests,”
Psychometrika, vol. 16, no. 3, pp.
297–334, 1951.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
[32] M. Tavakol and R. Dennick, “Making
sense of Cronbach’s alpha,” Int J Med
Educ, vol. 2, pp. 53–55, Jun. 2011.
https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8df
d
[33] J. M. Cortina, “What Is Coefficient
Alpha? An Examination of Theory
and Applications”. J Appl Psychol.
Vol. 78, no. 1. Pp. 98 – 104, 1993.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.78.1.98
[34] T. Raykov and G. A. Marcoulides,
“Thanks Coefficient Alpha, We Still
Need You!,” Educ. Psychol. Meas.,
vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 200–210, Aug.
2017.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644177
25127
[35] E. Cho and S. Kim, “Cronbach’s
Coefficient Alpha: Well Known but
Poorly Understood,” Organ. Res.
Methods, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 207–230,
Nov. 2014.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281145
55994
Este texto está protegido por una licencia Creative Commons 4.0
Usted es libre para Compartir —copiar y redistribuir el material en cualquier medio o formato — y Adaptar el
documento —remezclar, transformar y crear a partir del material— para cualquier propósito, incluso para fines
comerciales, siempre que cumpla la condición de:
Atribución: Usted debe dar crédito a la obra original de manera adecuada, proporcionar un enlace a la licencia, e
indicar si se han realizado cambios. Puede hacerlo en cualquier forma razonable, pero no de forma tal que sugiera
que tiene el apoyo del licenciante o lo recibe por el uso que hace de la obra.
Resumen de licencia - Texto completo de la licencia
