CTEM: Sistema de Generación de Grafos de Conocimiento para el Aprendizaje Matemático
CTEM: A Knowledge Graph Generation System for Mathematics Learning
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29394/Scientific.issn.2542-2987.2026.11.39.11.150-165Palabras clave:
grafos de conocimiento, aseguramiento de la calidad, procesamiento de lenguaje natural, auditoría de seguridad, aprendizaje matemáticoResumen
Las dificultades en el aprendizaje matemático, documentadas en PISA para el Desarrollo en países de ingresos bajos y medios, exigen herramientas para visualizar los conceptos y sus relaciones. El estudio presentó CTEM (Connectivism Tool for Mathematics Education), un sistema colaborativo que genera grafos de conocimiento a partir de debates académicos grabados en audio para el aprendizaje matemático, y evaluó la calidad y la seguridad de su primera fase de desarrollo. La investigación fue aplicada, con enfoque cuantitativo, método evaluativo y diseño no experimental transversal. El sistema, con microservicios y procesamiento de lenguaje natural, se evaluó mediante la verificación funcional de su flujo principal, la descripción de un proceso de aseguramiento de la calidad (QA) en cuatro fases y una auditoría de seguridad basada en el Open Web Application Security Project y en el modelo de amenazas STRIDE. El flujo principal se completó de extremo a extremo en la verificación del equipo. La auditoría registró 97 amenazas en seis componentes; 70,1% se clasificó como crítico o alto, y la interfaz de programación de aplicaciones (API) REST concentró el mayor número (37,1%). Information Disclosure (27,5%) y Tampering (25,3%) fueron las categorías STRIDE más frecuentes entre las 91 clasificadas. Se concluye que la arquitectura permitió completar el flujo principal y que el proceso de QA quedó documentado, sin poder valorarse su efecto sobre los defectos; la capa de API y el servicio de transcripción requieren remediación antes de escalar el despliegue, y el impacto pedagógico queda pendiente de pruebas con estudiantes.
Descargas
Citas
Abu-Salih, B., & Alotaibi, S. (2024). A systematic literature review of knowledge graph construction and application in education. Heliyon, 10(3), e25383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25383
Alshammari, S. H. (2023). Critical factors affecting students' intention to adopt technology-enhanced learning. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 11(2), 542–553. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.3206
Bell, F. (2011). Connectivism: Its place in theory-informed research and innovation in technology-enabled learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 98–118. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i3.902
Berardi, D., Giallorenzo, S., Mauro, J., Melis, A., Montesi, F., & Prandini, M. (2022). Microservice security: A systematic literature review. PeerJ Computer Science, 8, e779. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.779
Bergdahl, N., Bond, M., Sjöberg, J., Dougherty, M., & Oxley, E. (2024). Unpacking student engagement in higher education learning analytics: A systematic review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), 63. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00493-y
Cerratto Pargman, T., & McGrath, C. (2021). Mapping the ethics of learning analytics in higher education: A systematic literature review of empirical research. Journal of Learning Analytics, 8(2), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2021.1
Chai, X., Yang, J., & Liu, Y. (2024). Influential factors for medical students' classroom concentration: Evaluation with speech recognition and face recognition technology. BMC Medical Education, 24(1), 1236. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06204-5
Choi, J., & Nam, C. (2025). Development of design principles based on learning analytics for online collaborative learning in higher education. Korean Journal of Educational Research, 63(3), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.30916/kera.63.3.1
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Engelbrecht, J., & Borba, M. C. (2024). Recent developments in using digital technology in mathematics education. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 56(2), 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01530-2
Gqoli, N. (2024). Digital technologies for mathematics learning in rural higher education: Students' perspectives. Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 9(1), 265–278. https://doi.org/10.46303/ressat.2024.15
Hernández-Sampieri, R., & Mendoza, C. (2018). Metodología de la investigación: Las rutas cuantitativa, cualitativa y mixta. McGraw-Hill Education.
Ifenthaler, D., & Yau, J. Y.-K. (2020). Utilising learning analytics to support study success in higher education: A systematic review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(4), 1961–1990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09788-z
Kurepa, A., Roop, J. P., & Edoh, K. (2019). Changing students' perception of mathematics through active learning. International Journal of Education, 11(1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.5296/ije.v11i1.13983
Kwarteng, E., Cebe, M., Kwarteng, J., & Bansal, N. (2025). A comprehensive user study on medical device threat modeling methodologies and CyberLlama2 - MEDICALHARM threat modeling assistant. International Journal of Information Security, 24(4), 180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10207-025-01094-0
Liang, X., Si, G., Li, J., Tian, P., An, Z., & Zhou, F. (2024). A survey of inductive knowledge graph completion. Neural Computing and Applications, 36(8), 3837–3858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-023-09286-2
Marijan, D. (2023). Comparative study of machine learning test case prioritization for continuous integration testing. Software Quality Journal, 31(4), 1415–1438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-023-09646-0
Nautsch, A., Jasserand, C., Kindt, E., Todisco, M., Trancoso, I., & Evans, N. (2019). The GDPR & speech data: Reflections of legal and technology communities, first steps towards a common understanding. In Proceedings of Interspeech 2019 (pp. 3695–3699). ISCA. https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2019-2647
OECD. (2018). PISA for development: Results in focus (PISA in Focus). OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume I): What students know and can do. OECD Publishing.
Palanivel, M., & Selvadurai, K. (2014). Risk-driven security testing using risk analysis with threat modeling approach. SpringerPlus, 3(1), 754. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-3-754
Paterna, A., Alcaraz-Ibáñez, M., Aguilar-Parra, J. M., Salavera, C., Demetrovics, Z., & Griffiths, M. D. (2024). Problematic smartphone use and academic achievement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 13(2), 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2024.00014
Paulsen, L., & Lindsay, E. (2024). Learning analytics dashboards are increasingly becoming about learning and not just analytics: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 29(11), 14279–14308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12401-4
Schubert, A., & Argent, R. (2024). Promoting scientific software quality through transition to continuous integration and continuous delivery. Socio-Environmental Systems Modelling, 6, 18779. https://doi.org/10.18174/sesmo.18779
Soares, E., Sizilio, G., Santos, J., da Costa, D. A., & Kulesza, U. (2022). The effects of continuous integration on software development: A systematic literature review. Empirical Software Engineering, 27(3), 78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-021-10114-1
Vale, I., & Barbosa, A. (2023). Active learning strategies for an effective mathematics teaching and learning. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(3), 573–588. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/13135
Van Landuyt, D., & Joosen, W. (2022). A descriptive study of assumptions in STRIDE security threat modeling. Software and Systems Modeling, 21(6), 2311–2328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-021-00941-7
Velepucha, V., & Flores, P. (2023). A survey on microservices architecture: Principles, patterns and migration challenges. IEEE Access, 11, 88339–88358. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3305687
Wong, S. L., & Wong, S. L. (2019). Relationship between interest and mathematics performance in a technology-enhanced learning context in Malaysia. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 14(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-019-0114-3
Zhou, Y., Wang, W., Qiao, Z., Xiao, M., & Du, Y. (2020). A survey on the construction methods and applications of sci-tech big data knowledge graph. SCIENTIA SINICA Informationis, 50(7), 957–987. https://doi.org/10.1360/ssi-2019-0271
Zhu, B., Wang, R., Wang, J., Shao, F., & Wang, K. (2024). A survey: Knowledge graph entity alignment research based on graph embedding. Artificial Intelligence Review, 57(9), 229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-024-10866-4
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2026 INDTEC, C.A.
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.
El contenido de las revistas de este sitio, están bajo una Licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional.
