INTRODUCTION

According to the constructivist model, teaching promotes learning by understanding, favoring the construction of knowledge in the student so that they acquire information and process it¹. To acquire, retrieve and use the information, the teacher must use teaching strategies, which according to Montenegro et al.²promote memorization, analysis, interpretation with synthesis, based on argumentation, reflective thinking, and the capacity for deduction and induction.

Simultaneously with teaching strategies, the teacher must develop pedagogical skills during the teaching-learning process (TL); since the teacher must plan, interact with the student and evaluate learning³. In this way, a teacher incorporates pedagogical skills of constructivist content when, he carries out the fundamental tasks for the design and curricular development of his subject at the level of planning, interaction/relationship and evaluation⁴.

In this regard, postgraduate studies show a relationship between teachers who apply constructivist concepts of TL and students who focus on the meaning and understanding of their subjects, and on the other hand teachers with a concentration on content that favors reproductive learning styles^5,6,7; which means that there is a direct relationship between the EE conception of the teacher and the way the student learns.

In official documents of a public institution of basic education in Puerto Rico, methodological approaches of the constructivist approach are student-centered. However, in the classroom is evidenced by the continuation of traditional teachings, focused on the content⁸these contradictions have their origin in the absence of an education constructivist teacher education⁹and in theories of personal nature implied that they are actions of which you have no conscience, therefore, is not subject to review, but it does influence what is done¹⁰

In the study carried out in Chile by Villarroel³we conclude that university teachers in the practice is located in the traditional teaching and strategies for active and student centered are scarce; thus, for example, the learning objectives are not stated, nor is there feedback at the end of the class, nor make use of ICT.

In Peru, a study was found on the influence of teaching methodology in the construction of meaningful learning in teachers of a public university. It is concluded that active strategies allow students’ participation and involve them in the TL process favoring interaction between teacher and students¹¹.

So we wonder, if the impact of the methodologies used by the teacher on student learning is so much, what TL strategies and pedagogical skills are being applied in graduate classrooms? Will it be enough for the official documents of educational institutions to change the conception of TL? And in the classrooms, are the methodologies changed?

In this sense, it will be a challenge in teaching performance to find congruence between teaching practice and what is structured as an academic offer in the curricular documents of the educational institution regarding student-centered teaching strategies, as stated by the authors regarding the problem and exercise solving, problem-based learning (PBL), case studies (CS), project-oriented learning (POL) and cooperative learning^12,13. Complementing with the pedagogical skills applied by the teacher in planning, interaction/relationship, and evaluation⁴. Considering that this training must differ from undergraduate because in postgraduate the purpose of the teacher is for the student to develop their ability to identify and pose problems with methodological rigor and to present updated debates related to the content of the subject, among others¹⁴and that in no way should methodological didactics in postgraduate studies be an extension of undergraduate studies, as is often the case¹⁵.

Due to the above, this study reflects an evaluation of the postgraduate teaching exercise through the teacher's self-perception and the opinion of the students, which will help the teacher re-elaborate their conception of teaching, methodological and evaluative tools. Starting from the assumption that you learn by reflecting on those intentional and transformative actions that occur in the classroom⁷, and will allow you to act to benefit a better teaching quality by exercising continuous training on constructivist didactics¹⁶.

In this context, the objective of this research was to determine the teaching strategies and pedagogical skills with a constructivist approach from the perspective of the teacher and student in the health master's programs at a Peruvian public university.

METHODOLOGY

RESULTS

The characteristics of the population can be observed in Table 2, where the highest percentage were teachers over 56 years of age who taught from two to more subjects in the same semester with a part-time master's degree. As for the master's students, the majority were under 40 years of age, by profession Doctors and their dedication to the master's program in a higher percentage was a non-contact time of less than 10 hours per week and the subject to which they referred when answering the questionnaire, it was research in a higher percentage.

Graph 1: Teaching strategies and constructivist pedagogical skills in teacher and student at a National University of Peru. 

In graph 1 it was found that the constructivist teaching strategies in a higher percentage from the teacher's perspective were used regularly (18), while from the student it was of little use (73). Regarding constructivist pedagogical skills, it was found that, in a higher percentage from the teacher's perspective, it was acceptable (28), while, from the student, it was not acceptable (55).

Graph 2: Constructivist teaching strategies focused on the student and process, according to teacher and student in a National University of Peru 

In graph 2 it was obtained that the teaching strategies focused on the process and on the student from the teacher perspective, was for regular use (20) in a higher percentage, while from the student it was of little use (66).

Graph 3: Constructivist pedagogical skills in planning, interaction/relationship and evaluation, according to teacher and student at a National University of Peru. 

In graph 3 it was found that inskills planning, both teachers and students indicated that they were acceptable (35). However, when rating skills interaction, the majority of teachers referred to them as acceptable (26), while the students indicated it in a greater proportion as moderately acceptable (60) and the skills were evaluation rated as teachers acceptable by(29) and by students as unacceptable (68).

Graph 4: Comparison of the qualification of constructivist teaching strategies and pedagogical skills, according to a teacher and student from a National University of Peru. 

Graph 4 shows the distribution of the numerical values obtained in each dimension of the variables studied. Significant differences were found in all means when comparing the answers given by teachers and students (p <0.001, p <0.001, p <0.001, p <0.001). Scores achieved in teaching strategies and constructivist pedagogical skills in health master's programs are significantly low from the student's perspective, while teachers evaluate it with higher scores.

DISCUSSION

According to the current context, the great challenge of higher education is to achieve more flexible curricular structures and a new approach to teaching. For Díaz¹⁷, the new university model focuses on a constructivist conception of learning, where the methodologies are participatory and dynamic because the student is the creative protagonist and the teacher mediator between knowledge and the student.

From the results of the study by Dávila et al.⁽¹⁸⁾it is clear that the teacher in the methodological point of view favors constructivist teaching strategies, encouraging the student to learn from a planned pedagogical structure actively. The opposite was found in the results of the present study where constructivist teaching strategies from the teacher's perception are of regular use, and for the student, they are of little use, which allows us to reflect on this process.

There are theories that try to explain the fact that a teacher uses constructivist strategies or not; one of them is the implicit beliefs about teaching, which often prevail in practice. Thus, Pozo¹⁰affirms that there are pedagogical theories in the teacher based on cultural knowledge and personal experiences that enrich the educational process. However, this implicit teaching produces a dissociation of what is said and what is done. This is due to the fact that teachers often find it difficult to modify the patterns learned in their experience as a student¹⁹. For this reason, although participatory learning methodologies such as ABP, CE, AOP, and cooperative learning are proposed in the curricular plans of the master's degrees studied to guide the conception of the EE process, in the classroom, the student perceives them as methodologies of little use.

Another theory that would clarify this matter is the application of a certain pedagogical approach by the teacher, which would define their methodology in the classroom⁴; Thus we have the constructivist approach centered on learning and the behavioral approach centered on traditional teaching; although many teachers are located in an intermediate zone between the two great approaches^8,9,20; Hence, the result of this study is justified, on the regular use of teaching strategies with a constructivist approach.

In the results of the study on constructivist teaching strategies, centered on the student and in the process, it was found that from the teacher's perspective, it is of regular use and from the student’s view is of little use, this difference in qualification on the development of the critical thinking in students, the planned and systematized use of tutorials, the use of ICTs to enhance participation among students and focus their procedures on dialogue and discussion. It would have its origin in teachers who continue to be inclined to traditional teaching models as a result of a lack of didactic innovation and teacher training^3,9. This is confirmed by what was found in Villarroel's results, where student-centered teaching strategies are scarce, as is the incorporation and mastery of teaching technologies.

Also, from the results, it can be deduced that both the teacher and the student recognize that the use of constructivist teaching strategies is not continuous. This means that there must be a paradigm shift from a teacher who transmits knowledge to a knowledge facilitator with a tendency towards active and personalized student participation, especially in graduate school knowledge¹⁵to a student who inquires, questions and appropriates thecontained in a creative process for the construction of their own knowledge in order to reformulate the learning processes³.

Regarding pedagogical skills constructivist, it was found that the teacher has a acceptable self-perception about the design and curricular development of the subject, focused on the student. In contrast, the student perceives it as not acceptable. That is, the teacher deduces that the pedagogical skills applied in the classroom are in accordance with a student-centered model and therefore have a constructivist approach. The student is saying that these skills are focused on teaching and then have a traditional approach. Regarding the teaching skills related to the educational approach, in the results of the study by Carbonero et al.²¹, a high self-perception of teachers about teaching skills and the use of a model focused on learning was found. In contrast, a low self-perception about this competence when it is related to a model focused on teaching.

Regarding constructivist pedagogical skills in planning, we find that the teacher and student agree that it is acceptable, the teacher states that he dedicates the necessary time to planning, prepares the syllabus before the start of the subject, transmits clarity in the objectives, select the contents of the subject, use various didactic means and consider the review and synthesis of the educational session and the student recognizes that these indicators are mostly met in the classroom.

In this regard, in the conclusions of the study carried out by Inda⁵, it is stated that graduate teachers consider that planning is essential to teach a subject, ensuring that they dedicate almost twice as much time to prepare as to the duration of the class.

Regarding the constructivist pedagogical ability of interaction /relationship, It was found that the teacher is rated as acceptable While the student evaluates it as moderately acceptable, this means that the frequency of promoting the student's interest in the subject, seeking a favorable interpersonal relationship climate in the classroom and the teacher's interest in the student's personal needs, They are being met, while for the student they do not meet their expectations or it is not what they expected.

This result is corroborated by what was found by Pertuz et al.²²where they state that teachers have difficulty in developing the ability to adequately identify the needs of students due to a lack of motivation to promote interaction with the student²³.

In relation to the constructivist pedagogical ability in evaluation, it was found that the teacher states that it is acceptable; however, the student pointed out that it is not acceptable, that is, the student mostly does not recognize that the teacher evaluates according to objectives planned nor does it inform you about the evaluation methods. The student also does not frequently recognize, conducting initial assessment and continuous assessment, while the teacher states that all these indicators are met.

This student's appreciation is confirmed by the study carried out by Muñoz et al.²⁴where they conclude that the majority of teachers follow traditional evaluative practices and that the student is qualified when verifying the achievement of the product rather than during the feedback of the learning process.

“Constructivist evaluation is not so interested in correct or incorrect answers, but in the stages after the response is issued. This type of authentic assessment guides teaching decisions, but it is difficult because it forces teachers to design activities that stimulate student feedback and to modify teaching if necessary”²⁵.

We could then infer from the results of this study that there is a lack of articulation between the pedagogical foundation established in the Institution's Educational Model²⁶, the conception of the EE process of the curricular plans, and what the student refers to be happening in the classrooms in the aforementioned master's programs.

But we must also highlight in the light of the results that the contradictions found between teachers and students about the teaching strategies and constructivist pedagogical skills could be related to the characteristics of the population under study.

For example, it was found that more than half of the percentage of teachers belong to the part-time category, that is, they are not only postgraduate university professors, but “on many occasions they are professionals from other areas who teach from time to time in universities”²³. Therefore, most lack pedagogical training, their knowledge was acquired through practice or self-taught^9,20,27

It was also found that the teaching population, in a higher percentage, is 56 years old or older. Moreover, which could be, judging by Estévez⁹, one of the reasons why they have difficulty in renewing their teaching approaches; since it implies more time and effort to implement it.

Regarding the academic degree, it was found that there are more master teachers than doctors who teach in the master's program which could influence the student's satisfaction about the EA process; however, students do not find it important that they have this level and teach the master's degree, because they highlight the skills and methodology of the educator²⁸.

In the results on the characteristics of the students, it was found that in a greater proportion, the subject to which they refer when responding to the instrument is research, dedicating a non-face-to-face time of less than 10 hours per week to study the master's program; which means, according to Vásquez and Gabalán⁶, that the student will invest more time in studying according to the interest aroused by a subject. Likewise, some students recognize that not every teacher who has a great career in research has an accurate methodology¹⁵. The way they argue concepts or ideas to construct meanings also influences⁷. All these reasons could explain the unfavorable qualification of the subject of research, where the elaboration of the research work is immersed.

In summary, it can be said that the teaching practice of a constructivist approach, in the aforementioned master's degrees, is irregular, probably because it is in a process of transition from traditional conceptions, centered on teaching to paradigms of constructivist learning centered on the student. Finally, the contribution of this study was limited; due to the fact that a view involving only two of the actors of the EA process in the postgraduate course was shown, and because it is also necessary to investigate through a qualitative design to obtain a comprehensive evaluation of teaching performance; both considerations are absent in this article.

CONCLUSION

Constructivist teaching strategies are of regular use, according to the teacher and of scarce use for the student; while constructivist pedagogical skills are acceptable according to the teaching perspective and not acceptable according to the student; significant statistical differences are found between the teacher and student response.