Content area
This article examines the social representations of Computer Science students at EPITECH, a private institution in France specializing in Computer Science and focusing on active learning. The research centers on pedagogical assistants—advanced students at EPITECH—investigating their perceptions and attitudes toward educational approaches. EPITECH’s model, which prioritizes project-based learning over traditional courses and professors, significantly influences students’ social representations of pedagogical methods. The research adopts a qualitative approach, employing questionnaires and interviews with EPITECH pedagogical assistants. Findings reveal a preference for active learning due to its practical problem-solving capabilities. However, concerns are raised regarding the limited emphasis on reflective processes and critical thinking. Expert opinions underscore the necessity of incorporating multidisciplinary elements and ethical considerations into active learning, highlighting its strengths, virtues, and limitations compared to traditional education. In summary, the research provides valuable insights into the nuanced preferences and challenges faced by Computer Science students, emphasizing the importance of a balanced educational approach. Furthermore, the article contributes to a deeper understanding of social representations of educational models within the ever-evolving landscape of higher education.
Introduction
There is a wide diversity of disciplines and profiles of teachers and students in higher education. Consequently, educational processes are highly complex and diverse, typically guided by the characteristics of each educational institution, the teaching disciplines, and the theories or educational models proposed in each context. These factors define how teachers instruct and how students learn, constituting a crucial part of the school culture in each institution and significantly influencing the educational experience of the actors in education (Pérez, 2004, 2008).
In this research, we focus on an educational institution offering Computer Science and Software Engineering programs, EPITECH (European Institute of Technology), a private graduate school with multiple locations, primarily based in France. EPITECH’s model provides a unique context for studying active learning, as it replaces traditional lectures with project-based peer guidance, it is described as follows:
EPITECH is all about learning by doing, offering a teaching experience of excellence for all. Our innovative project-based learning method is founded on active and inductive learning. Students must seek out knowledge actively, by trying different ways to find the best solution.
In EPITECH, there are no courses, nor professors. Students achieve their goals with their own motivation and come up with their own answers. The classic “professor” is replaced by expert advisors and peers who guide them all along the way. Instead of the “classic university courses”, project modules are organized by a unique process that intends to replicate a typical professional environment. Through these real-life situations, students are led to exchange, discuss, and challenge their opinions, which enables them to find the best solution (EPITECH, 2023).
We are faced with an educational model centered on the student, built on the principles of active learning, and primarily focused on project-based learning. Notably, according to information provided by EPITECH, this school does not have traditional teachers; instead, it has expert advisors who work alongside “pedagogical assistants,” peer students from advanced semesters who receive brief training in pedagogical aspects. These assistants play a central role in the institution’s pedagogical model, acting as both facilitators and co-learners within active learning environments. Given this unique structure, this research focuses on understanding how pedagogical assistants perceive and make sense of active learning and educational models more broadly, drawing on their dual experiences as students and peer educators.
We begin with the understanding that the pedagogical assistants participating in this research possess knowledge of educational theories, models, and methods, particularly active learning, due to their training at EPITECH, which consists of an intensive one-week course focused on EPITECH’s pedagogical approach and general aspects of teaching-learning processes. Furthermore, they have experience as students at various educational levels and have encountered different forms of education, especially traditional education. However, they are not specialists in pedagogy, didactics, or educational issues; their knowledge is derived from personal school experiences and the discussions and information present in the educational institutions they have attended. In conclusion, they have social representations of educational theories, models, and methods.
Social representations are defined as forms of common-sense thinking that arise from people’s daily interactions with various objects that constitute social reality. They help in understanding people’s perspectives, beliefs, and thoughts about specific objects and serve as mechanisms guiding behavior, influencing actions in response to certain objects or phenomena. Social representations represent a type of everyday thinking closely related to common sense, distinguishing it from specialized knowledge (Moscovici, 1979; Jodelet, 1984; Abric, 1997).
Therefore, this research is grounded in the theory of social representations, with Serge Moscovici as its main proponent. Moscovici states that in modern societies, “sciences invent and propose most of the objects, concepts, analogies, and logical forms that we use to face our economic, political, or intellectual tasks” (1979, p. 13). Gradually, people begin to incorporate scientific concepts into their daily lives, but they do so differently than specialists would. In this research, we encounter educational theories, models, and methods, particularly active learning, which are proposed, designed, discussed, analyzed, and evaluated by experts, yet made accessible to the public. Specialized knowledge transforms into discourses that circulate through higher education institutions, generating social representations. These representations guide individuals’ understanding and behavior toward socially relevant objects (Abric, 1997), in this case, educational theories, methods, and models.
This research aligns with the field of teachers’ beliefs studies, a well-established yet conceptually contested area in educational research. As Pajares (1992) notes, the term “beliefs” often lacks precise definition, prompting scholars like Fives and Gill (2015) to call for explicit theoretical positioning in such studies to clarify research objectives and scope. Both Pajares (1992) and Fives and Gill (2015) emphasize that teachers’ beliefs function as cognitive filters through which reality is interpreted, enabling decision-making in everyday pedagogical contexts. Crucially, beliefs—rather than objective truths or specialized knowledge—are what primarily guide teachers’ classroom actions.
Considering everything mentioned so far, the objective of this article is to explore the social representations held by EPITECH pedagogical assistants regarding various educational theories, models, and methods, but particularly active learning and traditional education, as these are the models with which they are most familiar. By analyzing their discourse, we seek to understand how these actors interpret, negotiate, and position themselves within a pedagogical model that challenges conventional educational paradigms. Accordingly, the guiding research question is: What social representations do EPITECH pedagogical assistants hold regarding active learning and traditional education, and how do these representations reflect their understanding of broader educational theories and models?
About active learning
Defining active learning is quite complex, and even within specialized literature, there is no consensus on the matter. Therefore, this article does not aim to provide an absolute definition. Broadly speaking, it can be considered a pedagogical approach that incorporates various theoretical principles, positioning the student as the central figure in the teaching and learning process. It involves students actively engaging in the learning experience through various activities such as discussions, problem-solving, group work, and hands-on experiences. Active learning emphasizes student participation, critical thinking, and the application of knowledge (Hood Cattaneo, 2017; Lombardi, et al., 2021).
The concept of active learning is relatively new, although its theoretical foundations are not, as it draws from the ideas of authors such as John Dewey, Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky, Célestin Freinet, Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, Paulo Freire, Donald Schön, Friedrich Froebel, Carl Rogers, and even Confucius and Socrates, among others (Ginsburg & Megahed, 2008; Sanders, et al., 2017; Lombardi, et al., 2021). All these diverse authors discuss the role of the student in teaching processes, granting them freedom, autonomy, and critical awareness while distancing themselves from traditional education, where the teacher takes the lead and is responsible for transmitting knowledge to passive students (Freire, 2012; Dewey, 1930).
None of the classic authors mentioned in the previous paragraphs explicitly discuss active learning, as it is a term that began to take shape in the 1980s and gained popularity in the 1990s (Ginsburg & Megahed, 2008; Hicks & Sinkinson, 2021; Rangachari, 1995). Nowadays, numerous authors discuss it, and many schools base their educational models on active learning. It is a popular concept that encompasses various theories, principles, and pedagogical methods and could be considered an umbrella term covering many others (Lombardi, et al., 2021).
Concerning theoretical affinities, the concept of active learning is largely based on the general postulates of constructivist epistemology and also incorporates aspects of critical pedagogy. In all cases, there is a departure from traditional education, which relies on lecture-style classes (Hicks & Sinkinson, 2021; Rangachari, 1995). Active learning is rooted in progressive educational theories that emphasize student engagement, critical thinking, and meaningful interaction with the world. Its core principles include:
Learning through experience (Dewey, 1930): Knowledge is constructed through meaningful engagement with real-world situations. Education is an active, reflective, and participatory process—not the passive transmission of facts.
Critical consciousness and praxis (Freire, 2012): Learning involves reflection and action (praxis) aimed at understanding and transforming social realities. Freire’s dialogical approach empowers students to challenge the status quo and reject the “banking model” of education.
Cooperative and self-directed learning (Freinet, 1993): Emphasizes student autonomy, peer collaboration, and authentic learning tasks that connect school to the broader community.
Student agency and cognitive development (Dewey, 1930; Piaget, 1950): Learners are active agents who construct knowledge through experimentation, discovery, and interaction with their environment.
Democratic classrooms (Freinet, 1993; Freire, 2012): The classroom becomes a participatory space where students co-construct knowledge, make decisions, and engage in shared responsibility for their learning.
Some recent documents explore the theoretical foundations supporting the active learning approach in greater detail. Hailikari et al. (2022) examine students’ perspectives on how various aspects of constructive alignment contribute to active learning, emphasizing the pivotal role of teaching and assessment in guiding student learning, fostering active involvement, and promoting a deeper approach to learning. Hood Cattaneo (2017) analyzes five methods of active learning: Case-based, Problem-based, Inquiry-based, Project-based, and Discovery-based learning, under certain constructivist principles, he concludes that there is a clear theoretical link between active learning and constructivism; however, the practical application depends on various factors related to the characteristics of teachers, students, institutions, and others, making it impossible to categorize and define active learning linearly or establish its real-world applications in a classroom.
Interestingly, active learning is considered a good pedagogical approach today, enjoying acceptance and popularity, similar to constructivism, another umbrella concept that gathers multiple authors and diverse viewpoints (Hernández, 2003). In this regard, there have been investigations into students’ perceptions of active learning, with the general trend being overwhelming acceptance at the expense of other approaches like traditional education (Hyun, Ediger & Lee, 2017; Kressler & Kressler, 2020).
Closely related to our study is the case of Sanders et al. (2017), who surveyed 141 computer science students in 13 countries across six different continents, discovering that active learning is the preferred teaching methodology for this group of students. They corroborated this through a literature analysis, although they noted ambiguities in its definition and implementation.
This document does not aim to provide a detailed description of the concept, principles, or history of active learning. Instead, it focuses on analyzing the social representations that EPITECH pedagogical assistants have regarding active learning. With this in mind, we proceed to describe the methodological process utilized in the research.
Methodology
This research adopts a qualitative approach, aiming to study educational phenomena interpretively and contextually from participants’ perspectives (Taylor & Bogdan, 1987; Flick, 2012). The study was designed flexibly, allowing for adjustments based on emerging insights while maintaining epistemological vigilance (Bourdieu, Chamboredon, & Passeron, 1991).
To comprehensively explore the diverse dimensions of social representations, this study employed a multi-method design that combined breadth and depth (Abric, 1997). The questionnaire served to identify broad trends in participants’ awareness and preferences regarding various educational theories, models, and methods. In contrast, the semi-structured interviews with pedagogical assistants allowed for a more nuanced exploration of their lived experiences, interpretations, and attitudes, particularly in relation to traditional and active learning approaches. To further contextualize and triangulate these findings, expert interviews were conducted with leading French scholars in the field of educational innovation. These expert voices provided an external academic perspective that helped interpret and situate the assistants’ responses within broader pedagogical and institutional discourses. Below, we detail each methodological component.
Pedagogical assistants questionnaire
A mixed-method questionnaire (which included both open and closed-ended questions, incorporating Likert scales) was administered to 42 pedagogical assistants at EPITECH. The instrument consisted of four sections:
General participant data (demographics).
Knowledge of educational theories, models, and methods.
Attitudes towards these theories, models, and methods.
Perceptions regarding their application in teaching.
The list of educational theories, models, and methods included in the questionnaire was selected based on an extensive literature review and discussions within a collaborative research group composed of educational researchers with expertise in higher education pedagogy. The selected approaches reflect some of the most widely known and practiced models internationally in the context of higher education, particularly in computer science and engineering education.
The objective of this instrument was to identify the theories, models, and educational methods that are most familiar to our sample of pedagogical assistants, along with their attitudes towards them. This instrument was designed by the research team for application in various higher education institutions, but was tailored to the characteristics of the sample in this study (see Table 1).
Table 1. Gender and age of pedagogical assistants (created by authors).
Total | ||
|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 35 |
Female | 5 | |
Other | 2 | |
Age | 18–20 | 38 |
21–24 | 4 |
The participants received no prior briefings on the theories to avoid response bias. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation for Likert-scale items; see Tables 3–6 in Results). No comparative statistical tests (e.g., group comparisons) were conducted, as the primary goal was exploratory analysis of perceptions rather than hypothesis testing.
Interviews with pedagogical assistants
Following the analysis of the questionnaire data, the second phase of data collection consisted of semi-structured interviews with a subset of pedagogical assistants (n = 7), all of whom had previously completed the questionnaire. Participation in the interviews was voluntary. After the study and its objectives were presented in a plenary session, some assistants agreed to participate. Subsequently, participants recommended colleagues for additional interviews, leading to the use of the snowball sampling method to expand the sample (Taylor & Bogdan, 1987).
These interviews aimed to explore in greater depth the participants’ dispositions toward teaching, their understanding of different educational theories, models, and methods, as well as their perceptions, attitudes, and experiences regarding both traditional and active learning approaches. The findings contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of their social representations of active learning and traditional education.
Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The analysis was carried out using manual thematic coding, following the approach proposed by Coffey and Atkinson (1996), and supported by Atlas.ti version 7. No AI-based tools were used in the coding process; the authors of the study were responsible for conducting and analyzing the interviews. To ensure reliability, coding was conducted collaboratively, with the researchers discussing and refining the emerging codes until reaching a consensus. The common analytical framework used was previously established through a research seminar, where all members of the broader project developed a shared theoretical and methodological perspective.
Expert Interviews
Three recognized French academics (Muriel Epstein, François Taddei, and Laurent Tessier) were interviewed to contextualize the findings. None were affiliated with EPITECH, which ensured an external perspective. The focus of these interviews was on their academic trajectories, conceptual foundations, and institutional challenges of active learning, as well as critical perspectives on traditional and active educational models.
These interviews took place before data collection at EPITECH, assisting the research team in refining their understanding of the pedagogical landscape and informing the design of the instruments used with pedagogical assistants.
The expert interviews were analyzed through close reading and thematic comparison, particularly to contrast and contextualize the findings from the pedagogical assistant questionnaire and interviews. Although not part of the primary empirical data presented in the Results section, the insights from these expert voices were essential for interpreting and discussing the findings.
Ethical considerations
All participants were informed about the purpose and scope of the research, and informed consent was obtained from each of them. Participation was voluntary, and anonymity and confidentiality were guaranteed. Participants were also informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time. No data were collected or analyzed based on gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, or any other potentially discriminatory variables.
Sample Characteristics (n = 42)
Results
The results are presented in two sections: the first corresponds to the data obtained from the administration of 42 questionnaires, and the second relates to the 7 interviews conducted with EPITECH pedagogical assistants.
Questionnaires
Firstly, we present the results to the question, “Do you know, or have you heard about the following educational theories and methods?” The response options were yes and no (see Table 2).
Table 2. Awareness of educational theories and methods (created by authors).
Yes | No | |
|---|---|---|
Behaviorism | 38 | 4 |
Constructivism | 36 | 6 |
Cognitivism | 36 | 6 |
Active learning | 37 | 5 |
Meaningful learning | 13 | 29 |
Competency-based education | 24 | 18 |
Humanism | 20 | 22 |
Critical pedagogy | 19 | 23 |
Multiple intelligences | 23 | 19 |
Project and problem-based learning | 37 | 5 |
Flipped classroom | 34 | 8 |
Socratic questioning | 15 | 27 |
The results reveal that EPITECH pedagogical assistants most prominently recognize educational theories and methods in the following sequence: behaviorism, active learning, project and problem-based learning, constructivism, cognitivism, and flipped classroom. The response options included various theories, models, methods, and pedagogical approaches selected by the researchers as the most recognized and relevant at present, particularly in the computer science field.
However, the results indicate that not all of them are recognized by the students; only those that are part of their daily lives and have been present throughout their educational experience. For instance, we find that meaningful learning, competency-based education, humanism, critical pedagogy, multiple intelligences, and Socratic questioning are unknown to most of the pedagogical assistants in our sample.
The next question involved a Likert scale, where the pedagogical assistants were asked to indicate their level of knowledge regarding the same educational theories, models, and methods, with 1 representing no knowledge and 5 representing a high level of knowledge. The responses were averaged, and the standard deviation was calculated, yielding the following results (see Table 3).
Table 3. Level of knowledge of educational theories and methods (created by authors).
Mean | Standard deviation | |
|---|---|---|
Project and problem-based learning | 4 | 1.1 |
Active learning | 3.2 | 1.3 |
Constructivism | 3.1 | 1.3 |
Flipped classroom | 3.1 | 1.2 |
Behaviorism | 3 | 1.2 |
Cognitivism | 3 | 1.1 |
Multiple intelligences | 2.6 | 1.3 |
Competency-based education | 2.5 | 1.1 |
Humanism | 2 | 0.9 |
Meaningful learning | 1.9 | 0.9 |
Critical pedagogy | 1.8 | 0.9 |
Socratic questioning | 1.8 | 0.9 |
It is observed that problem and project-based learning, as well as active learning, are the most familiar to students. However, it is noteworthy that they also indicate a relatively high level of knowledge of behaviorism. The standard deviation levels suggest a wide diversity of opinions, except for the first and last positions. In an open-ended question, they were asked how they came to know the theories and methods they are most familiar with. The responses indicate that it is due to their school experiences. At EPITECH, they rely on problem and project-based learning and active learning, while in high school, behaviorism and sometimes flipped classrooms were used.
Next, they were questioned about their preferences for the same pedagogical theories and methods, using a Likert scale once again, where 1 represents total aversion and 5 indicates total liking (see Table 4).
Table 4. Like or dislike of educational theories and methods (created by authors).
Mean | Standard deviation | |
|---|---|---|
Project and problem-based learning | 4.1 | 1.0 |
Constructivism | 3.5 | 1.2 |
Active learning | 3.3 | 1.2 |
Cognitivism | 3 | 1.1 |
Competency-based education | 2.9 | 1.1 |
Multiple intelligences | 2.8 | 1.2 |
Flipped classroom | 2.6 | 1.2 |
Humanism | 2.5 | 1.0 |
Behaviorism | 2.4 | 1.2 |
Critical pedagogy | 2.3 | 1.0 |
Meaningful learning | 2.2 | 0.9 |
Socratic questioning | 2.1 | 1.0 |
There is a clear preference for the EPITECH method, which is centered on active learning through projects. In contrast, behaviorism, associated with traditional high school classes, is viewed negatively. Additionally, approaches that are unfamiliar to our sample—such as humanism, critical pedagogy, meaningful learning, and Socratic questioning—are also regarded negatively.
Linked to the previous question, the pedagogical assistants were openly asked about their reasons for preferring certain theories and methods while rejecting others. The following testimony is illustrative:
“I particularly appreciate project-based learning. I believe it brings a lot on various levels necessary for teamwork and allows students to experiment. That’s why it enables students to more easily retain what they learn (Q-21).”
On the other hand, concerning behaviorism:
“I particularly dislike behaviorism because I believe it doesn’t allow students to retain what they have learned (Q-14).”
In the next question, also designed as a Likert scale, the pedagogical assistants were asked to identify the pedagogical theories and methods most commonly used in their school, where 1 signifies no usage, and 5 signifies high usage (see Table 5).
Table 5. Use of educational theories and methods in the institution (created by authors).
Mean | Standard deviation | |
|---|---|---|
Project and problem-based learning | 4.4 | 1.1 |
Constructivism | 3.6 | 1.4 |
Active learning | 3.4 | 1.5 |
Competency-based education | 2.9 | 1.4 |
Cognitivism | 2.4 | 1.2 |
Multiple intelligences | 2.3 | 1.3 |
Critical pedagogy | 2.1 | 1.1 |
Behaviorism | 2 | 1.1 |
Flipped classroom | 2 | 1.2 |
Humanism | 1.9 | 0.9 |
Meaningful learning | 1.8 | 0.9 |
Socratic questioning | 1.8 | 0.9 |
It is important to emphasize that the most widely used method at EPITECH is project and problem-based learning, which, according to the pedagogical assistants, is associated with constructivism and active learning. However, the standard deviation levels indicate a wide variety of opinions, particularly regarding these last two approaches, suggesting inconsistent interpretations or implementations. This is especially interesting given that respondents were also asked to describe how these methods are applied at their institution and to provide their definitions of them.
“In EPITECH’s pedagogy, instructors are not there to give a lecture but rather to guide the student in discovering concepts by themselves so that they remember them. Constructivism is the most commonly used concept (Q-32).”
“My school’s pedagogy is based on project-based and active learning. Thus, this approach largely relies on the constructivist theory. While these methods constitute most of my school’s pedagogy, it remains that different theories/methods are also utilized. For example, in the event of project success, we can receive medals, aligning with behaviorism (Q-27).”
“Constructivism is a teaching method centered around the idea of making students experiment with concepts and theories so that they remember them (Q-40).”
“The project-based learning method can be defined by the active position of the student who acquires or develops skills through more or less challenging projects. It also involves guidance from the educator/andragogue, aiming to encourage the learner to ask questions, progress, and face and overcome potential difficulties (Q-16).”
“The most commonly used pedagogy is project-based. It allows for a real-world setting rather than a theoretical one (Q-7).”
“Project-based pedagogy is a method that enables active learning. In contrast to a more ‘basic’ pedagogy, where classes are more lecture-based (Q-30).”
These testimonies are valuable for beginning to outline the social representation surrounding active learning and its associated methods and theories (project-based or problem-based learning, constructivism). The centrality of the student figure is emphasized, along with the need to solve problems independently. This approach aims to develop practical skills, not just theoretical knowledge, which is associated with traditional education and lecture-based classes.
Finally, the pedagogical assistants were questioned about which theories or methods they use in their roles as tutors. A Likert scale was also employed, where 1 corresponds to no usage and 5 to high usage. The results closely align with the previous tables (see Table 6).
Table 6. Use of educational theories and methods in the role of tutor (created by authors).
Mean | Standard deviation | |
|---|---|---|
Project and problem-based learning | 4.1 | 1.1 |
Constructivism | 3.4 | 1.3 |
Active learning | 3.3 | 1.3 |
Cognitivism | 3.1 | 1.2 |
Competency-based education | 2.9 | 1.2 |
Multiple intelligences | 2.8 | 1.3 |
Flipped classroom | 2.5 | 1.2 |
Behaviorism | 2.3 | 1.2 |
Meaningful learning | 2.2 | 1.0 |
Humanism | 2.2 | 1.0 |
Critical pedagogy | 2 | 1.0 |
Socratic questioning | 2 | 1.0 |
The reasons they choose project-based learning, constructivism, and active learning are similar to those previously discussed. They were also asked about the opposite extreme: why they wouldn’t use certain theories or methods. The main response is that they wouldn’t do so because they lack knowledge about them. However, in the case of behaviorism, they do have some notions, as expressed in the following testimony:
“Behaviorism is a method that I find somewhat outdated and not well-suited to my field of study (Q-19).”
This suggests that EPITECH pedagogical assistants are familiar with certain pedagogical theories and methods, although not all those mentioned in the questionnaire. They express a stronger affinity for active learning, constructivism, and project-based and problem-based learning while showing a clear rejection of behaviorism, which is associated with traditional education. Nonetheless, the high standard deviation values indicate a wide range of opinions and a lack of consensus among respondents.
According to Epstein (2022, interview transcript), an associate professor and lecturer in educational science and training who was interviewed for this research, educational institutions tend to name pedagogical approaches based on the affinities and experiences of those responsible for pedagogical design, as well as those of teachers and students from their institutional affiliations. They might refer to active learning, constructivism, or certain pedagogical methods, or align themselves with the theoretical postulates of various authors (Dewey, Vygotsky, Freire, Freinet, or others). However, what they truly share are similar educational practices, which may be named in various ways but are molded within the framework of each educational institution. In any case, it is the education specialists who truly differentiate between various theories, approaches, methods, and educational models.
Interviews
The results of the analysis of the seven interviews with the pedagogical assistants are presented below.
Active Learning Definition
EPITECH pedagogical assistants define active learning as a hands-on approach through projects that emphasizes practical engagement for improved understanding and retention. The importance of applying knowledge in real-world scenarios and learning from practical experiences, including failures, is highlighted.
“We have projects; it’s easier to learn and memorize when you practice it rather than just learning it (I-1).”
“It’s about learning from the things we’re doing rather than from someone talking or listening. It involves learning from failures, both our own and others, and everything we’re exploring (I-3).”
According to Paparisteidi (2022), failure is also a:
…key point in the active pedagogy promoted by EPITECH, particularly throughout the bootcamp period. The notion that ‘you learn by doing’, i.e., by making mistakes, lies at the roots of the curriculum, which is designed to get students to try things out, experiment, and use their mistakes to build the strategies that will guide them to success (p.93).
Also, active learning focuses on doing, not just listening. It emphasizes a learning approach in which students actively participate in activities rather than passively absorbing information. Projects play a crucial role, enabling students to apply what they learn in practical settings.
“We’re not just listening to the teacher and writing. We have to practice it immediately (I-6).”
With this, they gain specific technical competencies and understanding of computers, programs, and internet operations. The emphasis is on acquiring practical knowledge in computer science.
“We are learning technical competencies, understanding how our computers work, how programs function, and how the internet operates (I-6).”
As can be observed, the definitions of active learning tend to emphasize differences from traditional education, which is based on the teacher’s words and memorization. However, while the active learning approach is described as focusing on practical skills, according to some pedagogical assistants, it leaves theory aside.
“It’s for people who like to take action and be more proactive, those who want to be less theoretical and avoid overthinking but prefer taking action. This could be really interesting. However, I don’t think it’s the best approach for higher-level studies in general because theory is irreplaceable. Methods can change, but theory remains constant (I-2).”
Active Learning Practices
Another category that complements the previous one pertains to the usual practices recognized by pedagogical assistants in the active learning approach. The main aspect is that students engage in creating projects with new functions and concepts, emphasizing immediate application within the context of a project.
“We have a course where we read it, add the subject, then we have to create a project and learn with this project. We incorporate a new function and new concepts within this project. So, we have to practice it immediately. After four weeks, we have to combine all the components of the project, step by step (I-1).”
This suggests that teaching methods are customized to align with individual student interests, linking new information to existing interests to enhance engagement in learning. This is reminiscent of some fundamental tenets of cognitivism.
“It’s about not starting from your own point of view as a teacher but beginning with what the student knows and trying to build on that, not just giving them another structure (I-5).”
Therefore, it is essential to maintain flexibility in learning methods within the context of a project, allowing students to switch to a different method if the initially chosen one is not appealing.
“If a method doesn’t appeal to me, I can restart the project with another method. In classic education, it’s not possible; you’re imposed upon, and you must do what you’re told. That’s it (I-7).”
Active Learning Roles
This category discusses the roles and actions of teachers and students in active learning based on insights from the interviewed pedagogical assistants. In terms of the student’s role, the interviews emphasize self-learning and collaboration within the educational environment. Students highlight the learning dynamics at EPITECH, focusing on collaboration and mutual support among peers.
“Sometimes, we have to learn it by ourselves. But other times, we can just ask a team member or students from other years… We all work together. It’s either we succeed or lose; there’s no ‘I’m the first, he is the second (I-1).”
“It is all about adding exercises and collaborating with others, finding answers together. Everyone has different answers to the same question, but they all work (I-3).”
Paparisteidi’s study also converges at this point, as it finds that the most fundamental feature of the EPITECH pedagogy is peer-to-peer learning (2022). As Epstein mentions, “one of the conditions of active pedagogy is that students can be in a situation of collective research on topics that meet their needs” (Epstein, 2015, p.4). For Piaget, peer interactions are essential in constructing not only social and moral feelings but also values, as well as intellectual and social skills (Devries, 1997).
Meanwhile, the pedagogical assistants emphasize that teachers act as guides who show the right direction and help students find solutions rather than providing direct answers.
“The role of the teacher, for me, is not to give an answer but to show the right way to the student and help find the best solution (I-1).”
This fosters a teacher-student relationship rooted in support and understanding, encouraging active listening and establishing a comfortable environment for students to seek help without fear. The teacher’s role as a friend and mentor is highlighted.
“It is based much more on the student. On trying to understand how he thinks, instead of just giving him a program. Even the students behind can have complicated situations, whether family-wise or mentally (I-5).”
So, active learning is a student-centric approach that allows students the freedom and responsibility to organize themselves.
“It gives less pressure and makes us responsible because it’s up to us to decide how we organize ourselves, the order in which we want to do things. With traditional education, it’s the teacher who takes this responsibility, and in the end, we don’t learn how to study (I-7).”
Traditional Education Practices
On the opposite side is traditional education. EPITECH advanced students who were interviewed consistently compared the active learning approach with traditional education due to their experiences with this type of education in high school and prior to entering EPITECH.
According to them, one characteristic of traditional education is the overwhelming nature of college courses, where students must learn and summarize multiple topics at the same time. Additionally, in classical schooling, there is an imposition of a specific way of viewing things.
“When I was in college, there were many courses. In the end, we had to summarize the goals, but there’s a lot I didn’t remember because we had many things to learn simultaneously (I-1).”
“In classical school, a specific way of viewing things is imposed. I like having different points of view (I-7).”
In this context, the pedagogical assistants often emphasize the mandatory nature of studying certain subjects, regardless of students’ interests, a practice that marginalizes those with differing opinions.
“We have to learn and attend courses that we don’t like or are not interested in. I don’t think I would be happy or able to go back to school and just attend a course with 400 people in the class and only listen (I-1).”
“Even if you don’t like the topics, you must learn them. For example, I don’t like math, but I had to learn it. It wasn’t very enjoyable sometimes, but it had to be done (I-6).”
“There are some eccentric people who will be outside the system and think differently. The traditional system won’t be based on them; it will leave them aside. Some people did well because it suited them, but for others, there was another way of thinking, and it was quite horrible (I-5).”
These characteristics of the traditional education system in France can negatively impact students’ confidence and learning experiences. The testimonials mention constant scolding by teachers, receiving bad grades, and the subsequent loss of confidence. This results in a vicious cycle where self-doubt undermines performance.
“I’ve had a falling out with traditional teaching. I always had very bad grades and catastrophic report cards. It was a disaster. I think it was because it wasn’t personalized. Everyone has exactly the same program, yet we are very different. In the end, everyone is unique and doesn’t want to learn the same things (I-4).”
“I failed a lot, very much. The problem is that, in fact, I lost a bit of confidence in myself and my knowledge. Constantly being scolded by teachers or getting bad grades in tests and exams, even though I know, I doubt. As a result, I spent a lot of time finishing the exam, and I only completed a third or half of it. It’s a vicious cycle because I work even less well as a result (I-7).”
Despite this, some pedagogical assistants acknowledge exceptions where certain teachers, during high school, engaged students in activities instead of traditional lecture-style teaching, which is the most common practice in traditional education.
Disadvantages of active learning
Although it might seem that the images and attitudes of the pedagogical assistants are very favorable toward active learning, certain aspects can be viewed as disadvantages. For example, according to these advanced students’ perceptions, traditional education focuses more on theoretical matters, while active learning emphasizes practical skills. Some mentioned the effectiveness of a transitional approach that combines theory and practice, highlighting the instructive nature of learning from experienced individuals who share their mistakes.
“The best way to develop the skills of a developer or engineer is through a combination of theory, extensive practice, and learning from experienced mentors, rather than having to learn everything by yourself. I find it more engaging to have a teacher who has dedicated their life to learning and has extensive knowledge in a specific domain. It’s more beneficial than having to conduct your own research, limiting the depth of exploration you could achieve with a teacher who specializes in a particular subject (I-2).”
On the other hand, a significant challenge of active learning is that it requires personalized attention for each student, which is often impossible in large groups.
“Even in a class with 20 students, having a personalized course for each of them is not possible. We can’t achieve 100% active learning for each student (I-4).”
A positive aspect of active learning is the motivation gained from the ability to choose topics of interest. Completing projects is seen as a source of pride and a contributor to personal progress. However, achieving goals independently requires students to maintain high levels of motivation and focus at all times, which might be challenging for those who are easily distracted. The effectiveness of the approach hinges on individual characteristics and motivation levels. Additionally, complete autonomy can lead to confusion and wasted time when students struggle to determine where to start. In such cases, reverting to traditional education may be necessary.
“My school is attempting to teach us everything this way, but I don’t think it can work for everything. It’s something that doesn’t work well with everyone because it requires significant motivation; it’s challenging, especially if we are easily distracted. To succeed, we really need to be focused all the time (I-3).”
“When we are lost, it’s because we are very autonomous. If we struggle to know where to start, we waste a considerable amount of time thinking in the void. For example, we are told: okay, you must do this, and what we would like is to have support (I-7).”
Discussion
The findings of this study reveal a striking social representation of active learning among EPITECH pedagogical assistants, characterized by a strong emphasis on problem-solving, practical skills, and workplace readiness, while largely overlooking the broader theoretical and ethical dimensions proposed by foundational authors such as Dewey, Freire, Freinet, and others (Ginsburg & Megahed, 2008; Sanders et al., 2017; Lombardi et al., 2021). This aligns with Sanders et al. (2017), who observed that while computer science students widely favor active learning, their understanding of it often lacks depth, reducing it to a utilitarian, skills-based approach. A similar pattern is seen in this study, which is consistent with the findings of Hyun, Ediger, and Lee (2017), who also observed favorable attitudes toward active learning.
A distinct set of social representations (SR) of active learning arises among EPITECH pedagogical assistants, showing significant contrasts with the concept’s theoretical foundations, presented and discussed on previous pages. According to Moscovici (1979), social representations are not merely reflections of knowledge, but systems that guide behavior and practices. The representations held by EPITECH pedagogical assistants therefore, have material effects on the implementation of active learning in practice. These contrasts are summarized below (Table 7):
Table 7. SR of Active Learning vs. Theoretical Foundations (created by authors).
Aspect | SR of Active Learning (EPITECH Pedagogical Assistants) | Theoretical Foundations (Dewey, Freire, Freinet and others) |
|---|---|---|
Primary Goal | Problem-solving, technical skills, employability | Critical thinking, ethical reasoning, social transformation |
Role of Theory | Marginalized; seen as separate from practice | Integrated with practice (“praxis”) |
Ethical Dimensions | Absent in discourse | Central (e.g., Freire’s “conscientization”) |
Learning Motivation | Individual success, efficiency | Collective empowerment, societal change |
The participants’ discourse reflects a neoliberal educational paradigm (Giroux, 2014; Hernández, 2003), in which learning is framed in terms of efficiency, individual success, and labor market demands, rather than critical thinking, ethical reflection, or social consciousness. This is particularly evident in their dismissal of traditional education as rigid and irrelevant, while praising active learning for its immediate applicability. However, as Taddei (2022, interview transcript) argues:
We must teach students to zoom in and out, viewing issues from different scales and perspectives, and to navigate the complex ethical implications of their actions. Not just teach students how to solve problems; we must teach them to think critically, ethically, and holistically about the world around them. They should grasp the intricacy of situations and consider the potential repercussions of their actions. Today, you must think short-term and long-term, you must think local and global.
This perspective is notably absent from the pedagogical assistants’ representations, suggesting a narrow interpretation of active learning that aligns with the market and industry demands rather than the emancipatory and transformative ideals envisioned by critical pedagogues like Freire (2012), Dewey (1930), and Freinet (1993).
Furthermore, the binary opposition between active and traditional education—where the former is seen as purely practical and the latter as purely theoretical—oversimplifies both approaches. As Tessier (2022, interview transcript) notes:
Traditional methods of university education also possess their own positive aspects. For instance, consider the introduction to a subject matter facilitated by a skilled storyteller as the instructor; it can be incredibly impactful. We’ve all experienced those classes where the teacher simply spoke for two hours, but it was engaging, and we left feeling like we’ve truly learned something important.
While this study primarily focuses on the social representations held by EPITECH pedagogical assistants, the perceived dichotomy between active and traditional learning emerged as a significant theme in participants’ discourse. Traditional education was often dismissed as outdated or irrelevant; however, this representation overlooks some of its strengths. Traditional methods—such as lectures and structured content delivery—can offer clarity, efficiency, and scalability. Moreover, structured teaching can provide cognitive scaffolding that helps students organize complex information before engaging in deeper, applied learning. As Tessier (2022) pointed out, a well-delivered lecture by a knowledgeable instructor can be profoundly engaging and intellectually stimulating.
Importantly, the goal of this study is not to critique active learning, but to examine how it is represented and interpreted by those who implement and experience it in practice. Some limitations of active learning noted by participants—such as uneven student engagement or challenges in guiding autonomous work—should not be read as criticisms of the model itself, but rather as insights into its implementation and perception. As Børte et al. (2023) observe, even well-designed active learning environments can face resistance or practical barriers in real-world settings.
This suggests that a balanced pedagogical approach, integrating the strengths of both models, could be more effective than completely rejecting traditional methods. However, EPITECH’s model prioritizes active learning, with no formal inclusion of traditional lecture-based instruction. Recognizing the strengths and limitations of both perspectives, a blended pedagogical approach should be adopted. The data indicates that this combination could be implemented according to the course’s pedagogical objectives and, most importantly, the skills to be acquired. For example, theory can be linked to a more traditional educational approach, while practical application can be introduced through an active learning strategy. This approach remains consistent with the theoretical frameworks of Dewey, Freire, and Freinet, who advocated for flexibility, context-sensitivity, and the alignment of pedagogy with democratic and ethical imperatives.
In this sense, when correctly implemented, active learning is not just a pedagogical approach that allows students to develop successfully in the job market, solve practical problems, and create solutions creatively. It also fosters an understanding of divergent thoughts, acceptance of plurality and diversity, and comprehension of the causes and consequences of individual actions in society and the environment (Hood Cattaneo, 2017; Lombardi, et al., 2021; Ginsburg & Megahed, 2008; Sanders, et al., 2017).
This broader vision aligns with the notion of education for democratic citizenship and global responsibility as suggested by Taddei (2022, interview transcript), Nussbaum (2010) and Biesta (2010), emphasizing that the goal of education should be to foster not only competence, but also judgment, empathy, and ethical commitment.
Conclusions
This study highlights how social representations of active learning among EPITECH pedagogical assistants are influenced by institutional culture, disciplinary expectations, and broader neoliberal educational trends. While their preference for active learning is evident, their understanding of it tends to be instrumental rather than transformative, emphasizing problem-solving and employability over critical reflection, ethical engagement, and social responsibility.
Three key implications emerge:
Theoretical and Ethical Gaps: The absence of critical pedagogy, ethical reasoning, and social consciousness in the pedagogical assistants’ representations indicates a need for curricular interventions that reintroduce these elements into active learning frameworks. This could include seminars on ethical reasoning, workshops on critical pedagogy, or interdisciplinary modules that connect technical content to broader societal issues.
Beyond the Binary: The perceived dichotomy between active and traditional education is overly simplistic. A hybrid model that combines structured knowledge transmission with hands-on application may better support holistic learning. Integrating storytelling, lectures, and dialogical methods with project-based learning could enhance both engagement and conceptual depth.
Institutional Influence: EPITECH’s project-based model reinforces certain representations while marginalizing others. This highlights the importance of exploring how institutional narratives and cultures shape the pedagogical beliefs of both teachers and students. Future research could investigate whether alternative discourses—such as sustainability, equity, or social justice—can be meaningfully incorporated. In parallel, faculty development initiatives might broaden educators’ pedagogical repertoires and support the inclusion of more critical, reflective perspectives.
Ultimately, while active learning is a powerful pedagogical tool, its full potential remains unrealized if it is merely reduced to technical training. As higher education continues to evolve, fostering a more critical, ethical, and integrative understanding of active learning will be essential—one that aligns not only with labor market demands but also with the broader intellectual and moral development of students.
Future efforts in active learning pedagogy should strive for balance by nurturing both technical proficiency and critical consciousness. This requires not only rethinking curricula but also fostering institutional cultures that value reflection, ethics, and social responsibility alongside innovation and employability. Only then can active learning fulfill its promise as a tool not just for workforce preparation but as a cornerstone of holistic and democratic education in the 21st century.
Acknowledgements
This article is derived from the work carried out in the collective research project PAPIIT: IN402322 “Representaciones sociales respecto a las teorías y modelos educativos hegemónicos en educación superior” funded by the Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico (DGAPA) at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM). We sincerely thank all the pedagogical assistants participating in this research, the three academic experts in active learning in the French educational system who were interviewed, and EPITECH for making this project possible.
Author contributions
All authors contributed to the conception and design of the study. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Data availability
The data collected and analyzed in this study will be available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request or can be downloaded from the supplementary information link. It includes the two instruments applied to EPITECH pedagogical assistants: a questionnaire and an interview guide, as well as the transcripts of the three interviews conducted with academic experts in active learning within the French educational system: Muriel Epstein, François Taddei, and Laurent Tessier, and the Ethical Compliance Documentation.
Competing interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Ethical approval
This study was conducted as part of the research project “Social representations regarding hegemonic educational theories and models in higher education” (PAPIIT IN402322), approved on October 15, 2021, by the Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico (DGAPA) of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). The project approval included academic, regulatory, and ethical oversight in accordance with UNAM’s institutional policies and the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Its scope covered the entire project period (2022–2024), encompassing all data collection and analysis procedures, as well as the dissemination of results through academic publications. To further reinforce institutional ethical compliance, an additional endorsement was obtained from the Ethics Commission (Comisión de Ética) of the Faculty of Higher Studies Iztacala (FES Iztacala, UNAM) on October 2, 2025 (Approval ID: CE/FESI/102025/2012). This endorsement formally confirmed that the research procedures and consent processes adhered to all applicable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all participants in this study. The process differed between the pedagogical assistants who only completed the questionnaire, those who were also interviewed, and the expert academics. • Consent from Pedagogical Assistants (Questionnaire) - Written consent was obtained in person during a session held at EPITECH’s Paris campus in July 2022, prior to the administration of the questionnaire. The consent process was administered by the principal investigator, Elí Orlando Lozano González, with support from co-investigator Nefeli Paparisteidi. Consent was obtained from all 42 pedagogical assistants who participated in the questionnaire. This initial consent covered: Participation in the questionnaire, use of anonymized data for academic research and publication. Participants were assured of their anonymity and informed about the study’s objectives and data usage. • Consent from Pedagogical Assistants (Interviews) - A second, separate written consent was obtained in person from the 7 pedagogical assistants who participated in the interviews, prior to the start of the interview session in July 2022. The principal investigator obtained this additional consent, with support from co-investigator Nefeli Paparisteidi. Consent was obtained from the subset of 7 assistants who were interviewed. This second consent specifically covered: Participation in a semi-structured interview, audio recording of the interview and the use of the anonymized transcript and anonymous quotations for publication. • Consent from Expert Academics - Initial consent for participation and recording: Oral consent was obtained from the three experts (Muriel Epstein, François Taddei, and Laurent Tessier) immediately before the start of the interviews in July 2022. This approach was chosen to maintain a natural conversational flow while ensuring ethical compliance. Consent for publication: After the interviews were transcribed, the full transcripts were sent to each expert via email in February 2023 for their review. Explicit written consent for the non-anonymous publication of their transcripts and quotations was obtained at this stage. The principal investigator conducted both consent processes, with support from co-investigator Nefeli Paparisteidi. The consent covered: Participation in a recorded interview (oral consent) and non-anonymous publication of their names, affiliations, and direct quotations (written consent). • Non-interventional Nature and Participant Information - All participants, across all groups, were fully informed about the study’s objectives, why the research was being conducted, how their data would be utilized, and that their anonymity (for assistants) or attribution (for experts) was assured. They were informed of the absence of any foreseeable risks and their right to withdraw at any time without consequence. • Vulnerable Populations This study did not involve vulnerable populations or minors. All participants were adults capable of providing informed consent.
Supplementary information
The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-06357-8.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
Abric JC (1997) Pratiques sociales et representation. Presses universitaires de France, Paris
Biesta G (2010) Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Routledge, New York
Børte, K; Nesje, K; Lillejord, S. Barriers to student active learning in higher education. Teach High Educ; 2023; 28,
Bourdieu P, Chamboredon JC, Passeron JC (1991) The craft of sociology: epistemological preliminaries. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York
Coffey A, Atkinson P (1996) Making Sense of Qualitative Data: Complementary Research Strategies. SAGE Publications, London
Devries, R. L'éducation constructiviste à l'école maternelle et élémentaire : l’atmosphère socio-morale, premier objectif éducatif. Rev Franç Pédag; 1997; 119, pp. 57-72. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3406/rfp.1997.1167]
Dewey J (1930) Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Macmillan, New York
EPITECH (2023) Discover EPITECH. https://international.epitech.eu/discover-epitech/. Accessed 15 Nov 2023
Epstein M (2015) L’expérience TransiMOOC Pédagogie active et numérique pour un en-commun raccrocheur. Face au défi des jeunes en rupture Construire un ”en commun” comme visée éducative et principe d’action. HAL open science 1-12
Epstein M (2022). [Interview transcript]. Supplementary information for Active learning vs traditional education: social representations of Computer Science students
Fives H, Gill MG (2015) International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs. Routledge, New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203108437
Flick U (2012) Introducción a la investigación cualitativa. Morata, Madrid
Freinet C (1993) Education through work: A model for child-centered learning. Edwin Mellen Press, New York
Freire P (2012) Pedagogía de la autonomía, saberes necesarios para la práctica educativa. Siglo XXI, Ciudad de México
Ginsburg, MB; Megahed, NM. Global discourses and educational reform in Egypt: The case of active-learning pedagogies. Mediterr J Educ Stud; 2008; 13,
Giroux HA (2014) Neoliberalism’s war on higher education. Haymarket Books, Chicago
Hailikari, T; Virtanen, V; Vesalainen, M; Postareff, L. Student perspectives on how different elements of constructive alignment support active learning. Act Learn High Educ; 2022; 23,
Hernández, F. El constructivismo como referente de las reformas educativas neoliberales. Educere; 2003; 7,
Hicks, A; Sinkinson, C. Participation and presence: Interrogating active learning. Portal: Lib Acad; 2021; 21,
Hood Cattaneo, K. Telling Active Learning Pedagogies Apart: from theory to practice. J N Approaches Educ Res (NAER J); 2017; 6,
Hyun, J; Ediger, R; Lee, D. Students’ satisfaction on their learning process in active learning and traditional classrooms. Int J Teach Learn High Educ; 2017; 29,
Jodelet D (1984) La representación social: Fenómenos, concepto y teoría. In Moscovici S (ed) Psicología social II. Pensamiento y vida social: Psicología social y problemas sociales. Paidós, Barcelona, p 469-494
Kressler B, Kressler J (2020) Diverse Student Perceptions of Active Learning in a Large Enrollment STEM Course. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 20(1). https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v20i1.24688
Laurent T (2022). [Interview transcript]. Supplementary information for Active learning vs traditional education: social representations of Computer Science students
Lombardi, D; Shipley, TF; Bailey, JM et al. The Curious Construct of Active Learning. Psychol Sci Public Interest; 2021; 22,
Moscovici S (1979) El psicoanálisis, su imagen y su público. ANESA-HUEMUL, Buenos Aires
Nussbaum MC (2010) Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Pajares, MF. Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Rev Educ Res; 1992; 62,
Paparisteidi N (2022) Active Learning Practices and Blended Learning in Higher Education: the case of EPITECH. [Doctoral dissertation] Université Paris Cité. https://theses.fr/s227416
Pérez ÁI (2004) La cultura escolar en la sociedad neoliberal. Morata, Madrid
Pérez ÁI (2008) El aprendizaje escolar: de la didáctica operatoria a la reconstrucción de la cultura en el aula. In Sacristán JG, Pérez ÁI (Eds.) Comprender y transformar la enseñanza. Morata, Madrid, p 63-77
Piaget J (1950) The psychology of intelligence. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London
Rangachari, PK. Active learning: in context. Adv Physiol Educ; 1995; 13, pp. S75-S80. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1152/advances.1995.268.6.S75]
Sanders K, Boustedt J, Eckerdal A et al. (2017) Folk Pedagogy: Nobody Doesn’t Like Active Learning. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on International Computing Education, Tacoma, WA, USA, 18-20 August 2017, p 145-154. https://doi.org/10.1145/3105726.3106192
Taddei F (2022). [Interview transcript]. Supplementary information for Active learning vs traditional education: social representations of Computer Science students
Taylor S, Bogdan R (1987) Introducción a los métodos cualitativos de investigación. Paidós, Barcelona
© The Author(s) 2025. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.