Research Professors’ Self-Assessment of Competencies

Abstract

Research professors develop scientific products that impact and benefit society, but their competencies in doing so are rarely evaluated. Therefore, by employing a mixed two-stage sequential design, this study developed a self-assessment model of research professors’ competencies with four domains, seven competencies, and 30 competency elements. Next, we conducted descriptive statistical analysis of those elements. In the first year, 320 respondents rated themselves on four levels: initial, basic, autonomous, and consolidated. In the assessment model’s second year, we compared 30 respondents’ results with those of their initial self-assessment. The main developmental challenge was Originality and Innovation, which remained at the initial level. Both Training of Researchers and Transformation of Society were at the basic level, and Digital Competency was at the autonomous level. Both Teaching Competence and Ethics and Citizenship attained the consolidated level. This information helps establish priorities for accelerating researchers’ training and the quality of their research.

Higher Education in the Pacific Alliance: Descriptive and Exploratory Analysis of the Didactic Potential of Virtual Reality

“…The self-concept expressed by PA professors about their digital skills was low ( 2). These results are in line with the self-concepts of digital competence of profess the entire Latin American and Caribbean region [17,18,25,26], which shows that the no significant differences between the perceptions of digital competence of profess the PA countries with respect to professors in the countries of the region. The resul tained here show that professors' ratings of their digital skills are much more disp than the VR ratings (with a coefficient of variation of 41.26%, compared to variatio no more than 30% in the VR ratings).…”

“…Regarding the digital skills of Latin American professors, the literature reveals that self-concept in this regard is low [25,26], regardless of the area of knowledge [17,18]. These low ratings are very uniform among faculty, especially in technical areas [18], although with a greater dispersion in areas such as health sciences [27].…”