This paper presents a study with a two-fold research aim: 1) to ascertain university students' perceptions on two combined assessment tools (e-portfolios and formative rubrics); and 2) to identify if among students there were differing perceptions on the use of e-portfolios, and what factors favoured acceptance of these. The data gathering method was a questionnaire administered to 247 students on the Education Degree at the University of Barcelona. Regarding our first aim, it was confirmed that although the portfolio and rubrics were used in combination, students viewed each of them independently. Regarding the second aim, we identified four groups and a range of factors that may explain the varying perceptions of the portfolios and rubrics.Favourable factors were, in first place, greater teacher experience in using the digital

Background. This paper analyses the development of research competencies in higher educationstudents, particularly with regard to the undergraduate Final Year Project (FYP). The FYP is understood as an assignment that requires the integration of learning outcomes and demonstration of competencies for the successful completion of the degree.Purpose. Given the key role played by academic supervisors in the FYP, the main objective of this study was to ascertain their perceptions of the way students apply research competencies to their FYP.Sample. Interviews were carried out with a sample comprising 12 academic supervisors at the University of Barcelona (Spain), with at least two years of experience supervising FYPs in the Education Degree programme. Design and method. A qualitative, exploratory and interpretative methodology was employed, usingsemi--structured interviews, which were guided by a validated script. Once data were transcribed, themes were explored through hermeneutical content analysis. Results. The analysis allowed exploration of themes related to the supervisors' perceptions of: theacademic supervisor roles (personal and academic guidance; topic choice; definition, contextualisation and setting research; knowledge integration facilitation), student profiles (autonomy, awareness of competencies), the concept and process of the FYP, and a number of specific research competencies (bibliographic research, information recovery and analysis techniques, methodological process organisation and ethical treatment of information). The analysis suggested that supervisors understand the research competencies within a broad frame of their teaching, and even within their personal roles, which range from motivating, raising awareness of what has been learnt during the degree course, explaining specific concepts or processes, right through to the academic supervisors' own learning process. Conclusions. The study offers insights into the academic supervisors' perceptions of the FYP and itsrelationship with the research competencies. It was evident, for example, that the supervisors' views of the methodological aspect reached far beyond the application of a technique, as they attached importance to the coherence between different elements of the project. It is hoped that the research can help inform practical guidance, with the aim of supporting the development of the competencies.

No abstract

The promotion of research competence is essential for the development of the nursing profession and discipline. The aim of this study was to translate into Spanish, adapt, and validate an instrument measuring nurses’ attitudes towards nursing research and development. A quantitative, cross-sectional, analytical design was used for the cross-cultural adaptation and cultural validation of the instrument. A total of 367 participants were selected using intentional sampling. A process of translation, back-translation, expert consultation, and pilot testing was followed. Subsequently, reliability and statistical validity were assessed, a new factor structure was proposed, and means were compared to assess the power to discriminate between factors by groups of participants. The results showed internal consistency tests with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.913. Confirmatory factor analysis of the comparative fit index (CFI = 0.549) and Tucker–Lewis index (TLI = 0.491) indicate that the factors did not match the original clustering model. The new factor structure consisted of seven factors. Between-group comparisons revealed statistically significant differences. In conclusion, the instrument exhibits high levels of statistical reliability and validity compared to the original instrument. The new factorial proposal is consistent, but further research is needed to verify its replicability in other contexts.

No abstract