Socio-Emotional Skills: Toward a Metacognition and Emotional Regulation use in Higher Education Internship Process

Habilidades socioemocionales: hacia el uso de la metacognición y regulación emocional durante la práctica profesional en educación superior.

 

Recepción: 25 de octubre de 2022 / Aceptación: 15 de diciembre de 2022

 

Cristian Jofré-Barrera1.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54255/lim.vol11.num22.685

 

Resumen

El proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje en el marco de la formación en Educación Superior sigue siendo un aspecto de constante tensión y análisis en el que la configuración económica y sociocultural del siglo XXI, ha hecho que sea recurrente el planteamiento de contar con profesionales que estén cada vez más preparados para adaptarse a los cambios y generar interacciones sociales efectivas. Al profundizar en los perfiles de egreso de las carreras de Educación Superior, es reconocible una gran cantidad de habilidades socioemocionales que se espera desarrollar durante el trayecto formativo. Sin embargo, metodologías, instrumentos evaluativos, estrategias pedagógicas y el proceso de práctica profesional, que se supone fomentan este objetivo de formación, son aún débiles en claridad de sus resultados y propósitos. Como una forma de analizar posibles oportunidades de mejora al proceso formativo de la práctica profesional y su vínculo con el desarrollo socioemocional del estudiante, este artículo reflexiona acerca del rol de supervisión del docente durante este hito formativo, en tanto mediador del aprendizaje y su potencialidad para fomentar procesos cognitivos como la Metacognición y Regulación Emocional en el estudiante que atraviesa una práctica profesional. Discutir acerca de este ámbito en la formación de la Educación Superior espera fomentar el desarrollo de la docencia en un marco del aseguramiento de la calidad de la educación y que este proceso fomente efectivamente habilidades clave a lo largo de la vida.

Palabras clave: educación superior, docencia, práctica profesional, habilidades socioemocionales, metacognición, regulación emocional

 

Abstract

The teaching-learning process generated within the Higher Education system framework remains a constant of analysis and tension. The economic and sociocultural configuration of the 21st century has evoked a recurring idea about having professionals who are increasingly prepared to adapt to changes and generate effective social interactions. When delving into the graduation profiles of Higher Education careers, we can identify many socio-emotional skills expected to be developed during the formative journey. However, methodologies, assessment instruments, teaching strategies, and the process of internships, which are supposed to promote this training objective, still need to be improved regarding the clarity of their results and purposes. As a way of analyzing possible opportunities to improve the training process of internships and their link with the student’s socio-emotional development, this article reflects on the supervisory role of the teacher during this training milestone. We are considering the teacher as a mediator of learning and the potential to promote cognitive processes such as Metacognition and Emotional Regulation in the student undergoing an internship. Discussing this area in the formation of Higher Education is expected to encourage the development of teaching within a framework of ensuring the quality of education and that this process effectively promotes essential skills throughout life.

Keywords: higher education, teaching, internship, socioemotional skills, metacognition, emotional regulation

 

Socio-Emotional Skills and Higher Education for the 21st Century

From a series of experiences and research carried out both nationally and internationally, the need to establish improvements in the training processes of Higher Education institutions has significantly advanced in areas such as teaching, study modalities, research, innovation-creation, economic sustainability, and corporate governance (Brunner, 2008, 2014). Within these, the assurance of feasible quality to acquire skills declared in the graduation profiles prevails extensively (Centro Interuniversitario de Desarrollo [CINDA], 2008, 2017).

In the words of Barnett (2009), the training provided by Higher Education is directly challenged by the development of skills that help people to be inserted effectively in 21st-century society. These skills would benefit people with a professional degree to have better tools to quickly adapt and deal with changes, as well as to be flexible in facing scenarios and challenges throughout life. This would favor the development of critical skills for the evolution of societies in the present and future of this 21st century (Barnett, 2009, 2021).

Other investigations have highlighted how important it is for people to develop those socio-emotional skills that favor interaction and social integration for effective development in society and that allow the necessary adaptation and flexibility to face the changes that the labor market of open economies is hastily boosting (Kautz et al., 2014; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development  [OECD], 2019).

It is essential to consider that, depending on the properties from which socio-emotional skills are observed, they could take up names such as generic competencies, socio-emotional competencies, transversal competencies, transferable competencies, soft skills, non-cognitive skills, or even personality traits. Heckman (2006) states that all these skills correspond to those that cannot be measured through standardized instruments for assessing IQ or performance using a mental operation. He points out that personality traits can be interchanged with non-cognitive or socio-emotional abilities since all psychological measurements can be calibrated in measuring a behavior or task (Heckman et al., 2006; Kautz et al., 2014).

When referring to the definition proposed by the research carried out by the OECD, it is established that socio-emotional skills refer to the skills that regulate thoughts, emotions, and behaviors (OECD, 2018). Socio-emotional skills impact how the subject develops and obtains personal and social results throughout life, including those related to cognitive skills (Attanasio et al., 2020; Schleicher, 2019; Sorrenti et al., 2020). This definition by the OECD is the one that this article will use to refer to any ability declared in the graduation profiles concerning students as future professionals in the higher education system. These abilities include working as a team, communicating effectively, empathizing, persuading, solving conflicts, making decisions, and leading others (CINDA, 2017; González, 2015).

Socio-Emotional Skills Applied to the Labor Market

One of the most relevant areas for constant improvement of the organizational context in which professionals who graduate from the higher education system work corresponds to organizational psychology. This disciplinary area has had significant relevance in contributing to and promoting psychological well-being by focusing on boosting organizational development. We can mention theories from this area, such as the conservation of resources and the model of resources-demands, as well as the focus placed on the construction of culture and organizational environment, the development of leadership in its various dimensions and perspectives of analysis, the engagement (Collings, 2014; Hobfoll et al., 2018; Mason et al., 2009), as well as in the integration of new behavioral and functional models in the processes of personnel selection and career ladder development.

To promote the development of motivating work environments and personal well-being, some organizations are ensuring that the recruitment and selection processes they implement give rise to a greater emphasis on identifying personal aspects that operate on a social level. This is supported by the fact that a candidate with a better assertive communication capacity is more likely to resolve a conflict or internal debate with another than someone who does not have this socio-emotional skill developed (Guerra-Báez, 2019; Jääskelä et al., 2018; Succi & Canovi, 2020).

 

Internship and an Opportunity for its Development

Instances of internship process have an essential role in developing socio-emotional skills as they aim at the student implementing an accumulation of learning and experiences acquired during the training process and that, in a natural professional environment, students can run their skills and develop them towards the end of their studies and professional insertion in the labor market (Lemaitre, 2019; González, 2015;). Here is the question of how universities and their programs can make sure that this is so? and if an entity such as the National Accreditation Commission should move towards an active role of supervision for quality assurance (Comisión Nacional de Acreditación [CNA], 2015, 2020, 2021a, 2021b; translated to National Accreditation Commission).

According to the previous context, considering the internship space to emphasize the development of socio-emotional skills would be an excellent opportunity to support a progression of these skills currently in demand in professional practice. However, this training process is currently devoid of a support process delimited by aspects of quality assurance in education (CNA, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2021a, 2021b). This means that the existing policies are somewhat of a guide that leaves much room for how a process of insertion, progression, development, and evaluation of internship is implemented (CINDA, 2017; Opazo et al., 2019).

The Teacher as a Mediator in the Development of Socio-Emotional Skills

The role of a teacher as a mediator favors the student’s ability to capture and process information (Dignath, 2016; Kaur et al., 2019; Lee & Brett, 2015; Oonk et al., 2020; Yusof et al., 2015); in addition to collaborating in the identification and construction of a more effective response, either in the resolution of conflicts, frustrations, and opportunities for improvement, as well as in the execution of effective, empathetic and assertive communication (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Karlen et al., 2020; Talvio et al., 2016).

Vygotsky proposed mediation as an instance to take a person from their Zone of Real Development to their Zone of Proximal and Potential Development (Baquero & Cárdenas, 2019; Kivunja, 2014). Likewise, Feuerstein, in his theory of cognitive modifiability, brings together the arguments and proposes a model of Mediated Learning Experience in which structural cognitive modifiability is possible through the mediation process (Feuerstein et al., 2006; Feuerstein & Jensen, 1980). Therefore, considering the instance of interaction between the teacher and the student in the internship process allows us to ponder mediation as a tool that would benefit the student’s development, both cognitively and emotionally, facilitating the development of their socio-emotional skills in the internship process (Darling-Hammond, 2006, 2016; Milkman et al., 2021; Winsler et al., 2014).

In the analysis conducted by Yeager (2017), within the framework of socio-emotional learning, he delves into studies carried out on subjects who belonged to secondary educational levels. He identified that the levels of development of socio-emotional skills were lower than those possible to stimulate in students of primary levels due to the flexibility and adaptation in the self-perception that the subjects present at an early age. However, in the same study, it is stated that one of the most relevant aspects of dealing with adolescent and pre-adult students was their construction of beliefs and type of mentality regarding their personality. Developing socio-emotional skills is more difficult in subjects with a static belief regarding their personality than in those with a dynamic and changing view of it (Duckworth & Gross, 2020; Dweck & Master, 2008; Yeager, 2017).

This way, an opportunity for higher education institutions shows up to face the challenge of developing socio-emotional skills effectively during the internship process. (Agnoli et al., 2019; Barr et al., 2020; Correia & Navarrete, 2017).

So, with all this context on socio-emotional skills, we may wonder why we are not moving on ahead of these challenges. Is this an informed decision or an ignored one? Complexities of non-modifiable beliefs? Lack of resources or weak interest? (Barnett & Guzmán-Valenzuela, 2017; Bernasconi, 2017).

How to Face the Challenges of Higher Education?

Socio-emotional characteristics have begun to be considered a highly relevant variable for the recruitment and selection processes of many organizations and institutions in the labor market, all disciplines considered, without distinction (Lemberger et al., 2012; Vivekanandan & Medjy, 2020).

The internship carried out by students is developed within a framework of theoretical-practical training aiming to approach the labor reality of their disciplinary area. It is expected to happen during the end of the academic training process. The main aim of this is that through the execution of a series of tasks and activities, the students can navigate social interactions that help their development as professionals by training technical and disciplinary skills and social-emotional skills. All this is through an exercise of reflection expected to be made by the student linking both the theoretical-conceptual aspects learned during their training and the results and relationships of their practical action in the labor context of participation (Brunello & Schlotter, 2021).

The socio-cultural historical aspect’s impact on human development is directly linked to its cognitive and affective system construction. The substantial contribution of this article is to propose that internships can be enhanced enough so that they are conceived as an instance to promote socio-emotional skills (Chernyshenko et al., 2018; Soto et al., 2021; Yeager, 2017) through the development of metacognitive ability (J. H. Flavell, 1999) and emotional regulation (Gross, 2014; Gross & John, 2003), because they count on a teacher who acts as a mediating agent (Feuerstein et al., 2002).

Guidelines for the Development of Socio-Emotional Skills

Research carried out in the educational field has raised the importance of paying attention to the type of training we provide and how we train today-and-tomorrow citizens. These investigations propose that current and future society will require socio-emotional skills (Attanasio et al., 2020; Bisquerra & Pérez, 2007; Jones et al., 2013). These investigations propose that current and future societies will require socioemotional skills, as the challenges that the technification of workplaces will bring to people will modify their work and how they will have to face changes and adapt to them (Barnett Ronald, 2021; OECD, 2019).

The educational system in our country has a strong emphasis on cognitive development. This aspect impacts a predominant culture that makes opportunities to improve the educational systems invisible (García-Blanco & Cárdenas-Sempértegui, 2018; Leihy & Salazar, 2017; McGowan, 2018). It is also directly detrimental to comprehensive academic-professional training that seeks human development throughout life, emphasizing cognitive and emotional-affective processes (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2007; Butler et al, 2017).

The programs taught today in the university system have a graduation profile that considers a series of aspects to be achieved during and at the end of a study plan (CNA, 2021b, 2021a). However, the disciplines pose socio-emotional skills as learning outcomes that are hardly measured and evaluated with relevant criteria that ensure the achievement and acquisition declared (CINDA, 2017; González, 2015; Möller & Gómez, 2014).

The role of the teacher who acts as a supervisor of an internship (González, 2015) unfolds in various considerations: 1) area of the discipline. 2) structure or shift of time to carry out internship. 3) Quantification of Transferable Credit Systems of an internship. 4) formative milestone in which the internship begins. 5) product required to pass the practice. 6) supervision strategies (site visits, meetings, others).

The training space of an internship has been poorly addressed by research. We can highlight a fertile space to deepen and develop further studies in this field (McHugh, 2017). Different is the existing phenomenon with research aimed at delving into university teaching. These analyse a set of variables that affect the task and role of the teacher and that consider affective-motivational aspects in the teaching-learning process in their analyzes due to the importance of these factors for the teaching exercise (Bao, 2020; Dawson et al. al., 2021; Kramarski & Heaysman, 2021; Rombout et al., 2021; Virtanen & Tynjälä, 2019).

Metacognition and emotional regulation as a basis for socio-emotional skills

When we consider the definition that the OECD established from the measurement carried out on children and young people aged 10 to 15, the model of the five great socio-emotional skills emerges as an attempt to organize these abilities into categories from a systematic, comprehensive, and balanced consideration of the socio-emotional skills of individuals. These are Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Emotional stability, Extraversion, and Agreeableness. Here, Metacognition and Emotional Regulation are transversal because of their high relevance in lifelong learning, adjustment to the context’s requirements, and the results of people’s performance (OECD, 2018).

The development of metacognition and emotional regulation is established in a constant interaction between revaluing thoughts and our perception of such thoughts (Boekaerts, 1996, 2011). This structure is developed through new observation and review strategies; the presence of a mediator is recommended to develop potential in the mediated (Kozulin, 2011).

Higher Education with Metacognitive Objectives?

Metacognition is a concept developed by Flavell (1987), who initiated questions regarding the internal mental dialectical process in which the subjects think and reflect on their thoughts. Here we come across the concept of regulating cognitive processes and cognitive activity. This concept allows planning, regulating, controlling, and evaluating the actions carried out by the subject before, during, and after their experiences take place in order to optimize their execution of specific tasks or in their global performance (J. Flavell, 1987; van Vliet et al., 2015).

Developing the metacognitive process allows us to assume the person’s stronger possibilities of learning when facing information processing. Therefore, self-regulated learning is also in the picture when we talk about metacognition. With self-regulated learning, the subject generates behavior and a mental disposition to receive and learn new information (Bandura, 1991; Winne, 2017; Zimmerman, 2013).

The situated perspectives of learning consider that it emerges in instances of highly dynamic interaction and where knowledge is built collaboratively, giving way to relevant aspects in the field of co-regulation and shared regulation (A. F. Hadwin et al., 2011; A. Hadwin & Oshige, 2011; Schunk, 1991; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2011). This preponderance given to the self-regulation of learning refers to the existence of the metacognitive process that a subject employs for the state, behavior, motivation, and emotions that are in constant movement, producing a state from which the person conducts a continuous process of planning, monitoring, evaluation, and change (A. F. Hadwin et al., 2017). Efiklides et al. (2017) raises the relevance of establishing aspects related to motivation and emotional elements that impact the metacognitive processes that the subject faces to move towards greater effectiveness in their learning.

When metacognition has an effective development for the person, carrying out this cognitive process provides a clear understanding of the objectives of the task and, in this way, being able to control their progress and adjust their actions and strategies (Pintrich, 2002).

Some studies on metacognition self-regulation strategies show improvements in emotional and motivational aspects of tackling mathematical problem-solving in the pre-adolescent population. However, there are few advances in higher education regarding these issues and their relevance to human development during training (Tzohar-Rozen & Kramarski, 2014). This aspect is an important consideration given the possible analyzes to be carried out by the students who are in a learning process during an internship and before which they would require a greater metacognitive exercise that involves adaptive thinking, motivation, emotion, and behavior (Järvelä et al., 2021).

Zimmerman (2013) points out that those students who proactively set higher goals show greater interest in continuing to learn since they develop effective strategies to monitor their progress and are more willing to receive and ask for feedback. The fact that the student is exposed to a mediating teacher of their metacognitive process supposes many benefits that impact motivation and affectivity, such as academic and social performance (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2011).

In this case, establishing metacognitive development as a focus on internship is to try to make students aware of their learning during a training process in which they find themselves in a context of dynamic social interaction where their motivation, emotions, and affectivity will be constantly stressed by the demands of that social environment (Schunk & Greene, 2018; Winne, 2017). High metacognitive levels would help use strategies to review, correct or modify actions during the practical exercise by reevaluating thoughts, feelings, and behaviors to enable greater psychological well-being (Panadero, 2017).

Emotions with or without Regulation?

Research in the field of emotions has advanced significantly in the last 50 years, favoring the identification of elements such as the importance of understanding cognition as a single process together with emotion, that is, cognition-emotion as a single bidirectional process (Clore & Pappas, 2007; Izard et al., 2011). In the words of Hoemann and Barrett (2019), theories of emotion have often kept artificial boundaries, pointing out that there was a separation between cognition and emotion. Research in recent years has made it possible to eliminate these assumptions since the brain builds emotional concepts, cognitions, and perceptions to guide the subject’s action.

According to Barrett and Gross (2001), emotion is a central characteristic in any psychological model of the human mind. It is defined as a set of psychological states of the subjective experience as well as expressive behavior and peripheral physiological responses. This would still have tension regarding what characterizes emotions, the variability in responses associated with any emotion, and the fact that all mental states would involve subjective experience, expressive behavior, and physiological responses.

Advancing in understanding the emotional experience in a situated and dynamic way seems highly relevant due to the adaptive response guided by the situational context. Even if this is either by the contrast in inferring about a particular social context or thinking about an evaluation that is relevant to personal goals (Gross, 2015; Hoemann & Barrett, 2019).

Emotion regulation is a complex and interdependent combination of processes that regulate and perform regulation, such as emotional neural systems that regulate emotions automatically or those in which cognitive neural systems functionally regulate an emotion with bidirectional influences on each other (McRae & Zarolia, 2018).

Among the various analytical perspectives that are placed above the understanding of emotion regulation, this article will use the vision that Gross (2015) establishes. He points out that emotions would be those transitory changes in subjective experience, behavior, and physiology of the subject that, in turn, emerge from an interaction between internal or external signals that are outstanding at a motivational level. Thus, the emotional regulation process model that it addresses considers five points in which emotion can be regulated in its transit by 1) selection of the situation, 2) modification of the situation, 3) deployment of attention, 4) cognitive change, and 5) response modulation. An extension regarding a cycle in emotional regulation is added later. This would be made up of the stages of a) identification (aimed at regulating emotion), b) selection (defines which strategy to use to regulate emotion), and c) implementation (aimed at using a specific action that is appropriate to the situation) (Gross, 2015).

Psychological well-being strongly emphasizes emotional regulation, an essential basis for producing this well-being. However, the differentiation of emotions, such as experiencing and labeling, has been indicated by some studies as an essential aspect in facilitating effective emotional regulation (Kalokerinos et al., 2019).

Research that has addressed the regulation of emotions in higher education students poses the challenge of advancing in identifying these processes in early adulthood since some results show an increase in the search for social support over repression. However, the cognitive reappraisal would decrease over time while coping with substance use would increase. Women would use more adaptive emotional regulation strategies than men. Likewise, commitment and social ties tend to predict more adaptive coping over time (Alonso-Tapia et al., 2020; Park et al., 2020).

Advances in studies about emotion regulation have favored a greater focus on educational processes, either from the interaction of the learner as in the interaction of the teacher with the student, promoting research development in areas of social and emotional learning as an objective of the teaching-learning process (Alonso-Tapia et al., 2020; Harris et al., 2022; Myyry et al., 2020; Soto et al., 2021).

Somehow, advances originating in emotions have been limited to less research in the higher education system. However, the study of emotion has meant a significant advance related to the sciences of human development since it allows us to install a reflection on internship and the possibilities of improving it by placing the model of emotional regulation in the teaching supervision, which seeks to impact motivation, affection and relevant metacognition during the training experience (Dignath, 2016; Kaur et al., 2019) so that the students manage to generate strategies that help regulate their learning behavior in harmony with their emotions (Efklides et al., 2018).

Emotional Regulation and Metacognition from the teaching mediation

Observing socioemotional skills as the relationship between behavior, motivation, context, affections, metacognition, and social interactions that are preponderant in student learning (Butler & Cartier, 2017; Schunk & Greene, 2018; Winne, 2017) would favor the development of cognitive strategies for the reassessment of thought, self-perception, and self-regulation. This way of observing benefits the student’s metacognitive ability during their practical training process, as well as their ability to regulate their emotions by generating an exercise that seeks the development of their attentional and motivational mechanisms (Bondarenko, 2017; Kazemitabar et al., 2021).

Boekaerts (2011) integrates emotional regulation with the self-regulation of learning, given its relevance in metacognition as this would encourage social collaboration, generating a state of mind that drives better learning (Boekaerts, 2011).

On the one hand, generating a formula that favors the learning and development of these cognitive, emotional, and affective processes in a student would be based on Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, specifically in the concept of the zone of proximal development. On the other hand, it would also lie in Feuerstein’s theory of mediated learning and structural cognitive modifiability. This, since both would be based on a vision of intelligence linked to a constructive and dynamic aspect in time, as well as in an evaluative process of approximation to a teaching phase in which the teacher or examiner acts as a mediator in the process to produce mediated potential performance (Kivunja, 2014; Kozulin et al., 2010; Perinat, 2011).

Vigoya (2005) points out that every teacher might impact learning, either negatively or positively, depending on their personal and professional attitude at the moment of interaction with the student. All disposition and motivation would then impact how the student reacts during a teaching-learning process so that the promotion of cognitive strategies and socio-emotional skills requires a mediating agent that gives importance to the conditions and climate of mediation (Feuerstein et al., 1981c; Vigoya, 2005).

Delivering the appropriate and necessary tools that seek the development of those people who decide to train in a Higher Education institution is relevant because it provides a society of the future with professionals who require training that ensures both personal and social growth for their involvement and contribution to such society (van Kleef & Côté, 2022; Yeager, 2017).

The influence that socio-emotional skills have regarding cognitive abilities and people’s success when participating in society (Almlund et al., 2011; Borghans et al., 2008) leads us once again to give importance to the role of a teacher as a mediator of the experience and learning, with interest in improving metacognitive and emotional regulation skills and strategies (Feuerstein, et al., 1981a; Roberts & Mroczek, 2008; Sternberg, 2021).

Let us consider Feuerstein’s structural cognitive modifiability proposal in terms of the belief that every human being has the potential for change (Feuerstein et al., 2006). We could analogize the mediated learning experience (MLE) with teacher support in the internship. The mediating teacher is the one who will favor the development of the student, so that the future affective stimuli that he faces alone are significant and help the flexibility and plasticity of his structural cognitive schemes (Feuerstein, et al., 1981b; Kozulin, 2010).

Discussion and Conclusion of the Proposal with a View Towards its Future Development

Carrying out a development proposal for the learning processes experienced during the internship in Higher Education is considered crucial as it is a formative milestone. The internship process is still a space to continue reflecting on the impact it can have on student learning, their personal development, and their socio-emotional skills (CASEL, 2019; Duckworth et al., 2019; Duckworth & Yeager, 2015) along with benefits in the development of formative quality (Brunello & Schlotter, 2021; OECD, 2018).

The weak development of instruments that help the evaluation of socio-emotional skills (Brunello & Schlotter, 2021; Kautz et al., 2014) is an aspect that would influence how we perceive the seeking to guarantee a higher education that intends to take responsibility for the development of these. Various investigations in these areas suggest that the difficulties in measuring these constructs in people lie in the diversity of socio-historical-cultural contexts behind each student. This situation would threaten the construction of clear mechanisms and devices that seek development on these issues. This is why further theoretical and empirical research on this phenomenon is required in the context of Higher Education.

Likewise, proposing metacognitive ability and emotional regulation as basic cognitive processes to advance the development of socio-emotional skills would allow access to validated instruments in these areas, favoring the development of relevant actions to teaching (Barrett & Gross, 2001; Boekaerts, 2011; Extremiana, 2018). However, in the same way it is necessary to advance in the adaptation of instruments with a view to developing valid and reliable forms of measurement during internships (Hérnandez-Sampieri et al., 2014).

Higher Education institutions need to observe their practical training processes, moving towards the configuration of new ways to seek improvements in educational quality. Although it is necessary to state that, due to the multiplicity of aspects involved in human development, it is complex to assume that only the existence of a training improvement in an internship will achieve the development of socio-emotional skills (Barbot et al., 2020; Kahneman & Tversky, 2013; Kandel, 2013). For this reason, it is necessary to establish a global analysis of the entire formative trajectory process, incorporating curricular and extracurricular activities as part of this academic-professional system of Higher Education, together with the types of accompaniment, whether face-to-face, semi-face-to-face or virtual, given the framework of the proliferation of platforms with training objectives in this system.

To strengthen the group and institutional teaching exercise through a shared and disclosed strategy, it is proposed to advance the existence of devices that recognize the work of teachers who act as supervisors and mediating agents in front of their students—seeking the installation of dynamic measurement and evaluation processes with instruments that standardize the approach to the student, monitoring, and feedback (Lane & Smith, 2021; McGowan, 2018; Sumarni et al., 2018).

The ministerial institutional framework must advance in greater recommendations and guidelines regarding the stages of professional practical training and the role of teaching in terms of the development of socio-emotional skills during that stage. Otherwise, there will continue to be variability in the effectiveness and quality of the various training processes and experiences that students have to promote their socio-emotional development, which impacts their social and economic mobility (CINDA, 2017).

The training that is delivered in higher education institutions during the internship process could greatly benefit if it advances to the formulation of an analysis that establishes the following three dimensions as main axes: curriculum, student, and teacher (Barnett, 2021; Brunner et al., 2020; Guzmán-Valenzuela et al., 2020).

In the curricular field, it seems urgent to progress in the elaboration of questions and answers that establish how the learning objectives and the socio-emotional skills indicated as part of a graduation profile are fulfilled. This is to benefit the configuration of dynamic mechanisms and devices that seek to improve the training context, whether face-to-face, semi-face-to-face, or virtual, that favor lifelong learning, highlighting the qualitative aspect of the training delivered within the framework of a constructive and dynamic teaching-learning process.

It is necessary to see the student as the leading dimension because this would allow the establishment of greater proposals that advance to establish measurement and evaluation strategies for the students and their metacognitive and emotional regulation processes, given their strong links with the socio-emotional skills and the objectives that the student is expected to carry out during their internship. This can be done by ensuring the development of both technical-disciplinary skills and socio-emotional skills in the professional context. This instance should consider a strong emphasis on how the student can configure a series of strategies that support the continuous development of their socio-emotional skills throughout their lives.

When considering teaching as the central dimension, we refer to the creation of strategies that allow the standardization of the supervisory role the teacher performs, which emphasizes how he implements actions that allow evaluation, monitoring, and feedback that focus on mediating the learning and potential development of the student by using the experiences acquired in the internship space, thus becoming a mediator of the potential development of the student.

Along with seeking how to improve the role of the teacher and take this responsibility as a mediating agent, it is necessary to move forward to identify which socio-emotional skills the teacher deploys in his or her exercise since the development of university teaching presents less emphasis on the preparation and formation of these aspects. An opportunity for improvement in this area would be to promote three relevant ways: 1) strengthen the selection processes in the incorporation of teachers who will perform internship supervision roles. 2) install continuous training processes and construction of learning communities to develop these topics to promote active agents in a teaching-learning process focusing on socio-emotional skills. 3) Generate recognition for those who standardize their measurement-evaluation processes considering dynamic applications instead of a traditional static application.

When will the Higher Education system be ready to tackle the development of socio-emotional skills? How to promote a kind of teaching that, up to this day, continues to try to focus on the student? How to take advantage of the virtual training scenario and integrate the development of the teacher’s socio-emotional skills?

To enable actions in this dimension of educational improvement, in the short term, we need to consider a review of the curricular frameworks to establish the existence of robust instruments that allow dynamic and continuous measurement and evaluation of the student’s practical training process, emphasizing socio-emotional skills. Given this, it is possible to use instruments that measure metacognitive skills, such as those that seek a self-report of emotional regulation.

In the medium term, we must consider the construction of instruments related to both the measurement of cognitive skills and socio-emotional skills in specific milestones of the academic program that are delivered to each student as reports with general recommendations to follow during their training. In turn, we should integrate theoretical-practical aspects in teacher training programs that promote socio-emotional skills, human development sciences, and lifelong learning, emphasizing the quality of interaction with the student and mediation to favor their cognitive, emotional, and affective development.

In the long term, it is necessary to make use of the technological capacities of the institutions to begin with the registration of student information with a focus on Big Data, using performances in formal and non-formal contexts in order to favor their performance monitoring throughout the academic trajectory and later allow more personalized feedback of the student in practical learning spaces.

With a view to a greater development of virtual training courses or e-learning, it is essential to consider, from the construction of the instructional design, the use of Machine Learning that uses exercises based on both individual and group problem-solving to favor the creation of algorithms that help to configure personalized responses to the student and that encourage their development of socio-emotional skills.

For all the above, the objective of this article is to promote a topic of relevant interest for those who participate in higher education institutions as decision-makers, researchers, teachers, and future practitioners, as well as for the field of public policy and the need to build substantial improvements that help continuous human development throughout life, as is the case with socio-emotional skills and its relevance for family, educational, work and social participation in general.

Bibliographic references

Agnoli, S., Mancini, G., Andrei, F., & Trombini, E. (2019). The relationship between trait Emotional Intelligence, cognition, and Emotional Awareness: An interpretative model. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01711

Almlund, M., Duckworth, A. L., Heckman, J., & Kautz, T. (2011). Personality Psychology and Economics. In E. A. Hanushek, S. Machin, & L. Wößmann (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Education (Vol. 4, pp. 1-81). Elsevier. http://jenni.uchicago.edu/personality_economics/

Alonso-Tapia, J., Abello, D. M., & Panadero, E. (2020). Regulating emotions and learning motivation in higher education students. The International Journal of Emotional Education, 12(2), 73–89.

Attanasio, O., Blundell, R., Conti, G., & Mason, G. (2020). Inequality in socio-emotional skills: A cross-cohort comparison. Journal of Public Economics, 191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104171

Bandura, A. (1991). Social Cognitive Theory of Self-Regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287.

Bao, W. (2020). COVID-19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of Peking University. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(2), 113-115. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.191

Baquero, D. G., & Cárdenas, S. G. (2019). Habilidades transversales, desarrollo personal y profesional en la docencia a través de la plataforma Habilitic. Revista Conrado, 15(70), 421-428.

Barbot, B., Hein, S., Trentacosta, C., Beckmann, J. F., Bick, J., Crocetti, E., Liu, Y., Rao, S. F., Liew, J., Overbeek, G., Ponguta, L. A., Scheithauer, H., Super, C., Arnett, J., Bukowski, W., Cook, T. D., Côté, J., Eccles, J. S., Eid, M., … van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2020). Manifesto for new directions in developmental science. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2020(172), 135-149. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20359

Barnett, R. (2009). Knowing and becoming in the higher education curriculum. Studies in Higher Education, 34(4), 429-440. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070902771978

Barnett, R. (2021). The activist university: Identities, profiles, conditions. Policy Futures in Education, 19(5), 513-526. https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103211003444

Barnett, R., & Guzmán-Valenzuela, C. (2017). Sighting horizons of teaching in higher education. Higher Education, 73(1), 113-126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0003-2

Barnett Ronald. (2021). Hacia una universidad ecológica (Nota conceptual de Ronald Barnett). Futures of Higher Education. IESALC -UNESCO. https://www.iesalc.unesco.org/eng/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Barnett-ES-.pdf

Barr, N., Beaty, R., & Seli, P. (2020). Autonomy and control across cognition: insights from creativity, memory, mind wandering, and reasoning research. In D. Preiss, D. Cosmelli, & J. Kaufman (Eds.), Creativity and the Wandering Mind: Spontaneous and Controlled Cognition (pp. 25–54). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-816400-6.00002-x

Barrett, L. F., & Gross, J. J. (2001). Emotional intelligence: A process model of emotion representation and regulation. In T. J. Mayne & G. A. Bonanno (Eds.), Emotions: Current issues and future directions (pp. 286-310). Guilford Press.

Bernasconi, A. (2017). Desafíos del futuro de la educación superior chilena. Centro UC Políticas Públicas: Temas de La Agenda Pública.

Bisquerra Alzina, R., & Pérez Escoda, N. (2007). Las competencias emocionales. Educación XX1, 10. https://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.1.10.297

Boekaerts, M. (1996). Self-regulated Learning at the Junction of Cognition and Motivation. European Psychologist, 1(2), 100-112. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.1.2.100

Boekaerts, M. (2011). Emotions, Emotion Regulation, and Self-Regulation of Learning. In Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance (pp. 408-425). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203839010.ch26

Bondarenko, I. (2017). The Role of Positive Emotions and Type of Feedback in Self-regulation of Learning Goals Achievement: Experimental Research. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 237, 405-411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2017.02.080

Borghans, L., Duckworth, A. L., Heckman, J. J., & Weel, B. T. (2008). The economics and psychology of personality traits. Journal of Human Resources, 43(4), 972-1059. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.43.4.972

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2007). The Bioecological Model of Human Development. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, & R. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0114

Brunello, G., & Schlotter, M. (2021). Non-Cognitive Skills and Personality Traits: Labour Market Relevance and Their Development in Education & Training Systems. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1858066

Brunner, J. J. (2008). El sistema de educación superior en Chile: un enfoque de economía política comparada. Avaliação: Revista Da Avaliação Da Educação Superior (Campinas), 13(2), 451-486. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1414-40772008000200010

Brunner, J. J. (2014). La idea de la universidad pública en américa latina: Naraciones en escenarios divergentes. Educacion XX1, 17(2), 17-34. https://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.17.2.11477

Brunner, J. J., Ganga-Contreras, F., & Labraña-Vargas, J. (2020). Universidad y protesta social: una reflexión desde Chile. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación Superior, 3-22. https://doi.org/10.22201/iisue.20072872e.2020.32.814

Butler, D., Perry, N. E., & Schnellert, L. (2017). Developing self-regulating learners. Pearson Education, Inc..

Butler, D. L., & Cartier, S. C. (2017). Advancing Research and Practice about Self-Regulated Learning. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance (pp. 352-369). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315697048.ch23

CASEL. (2019). Frameworks Briefs: CASEL’s Framework for Systemic Social and Emotional Learning. CASEL. https://casel.org/history/

Centro Interuniversitario de Desarrollo (2008). Diseño curricular basado en competencias y aseguramiento de la calidad en la educación superior. L. E. González & H. Ayarza (Eds.).

Centro Interuniversitario de Desarrollo (2017). Evaluación Del Logro De Perfiles De Egreso: Experiencias Universitarias. https://cinda.cl/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/evaluacion-del-logro-de-perfiles-de-egreso-experiencias-universitarias.pdf

Chernyshenko, O., M. Kankaraš and F. Drasgow (2018). Social and emotional skills for student success and well-being: Conceptual framework for the OECD study on social and emotional skills OECD Education Working Papers, 173. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264226159-en

Clore, G. L., & Pappas, J. (2007). The Affective Regulation of Social Interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 70(4), 333-339.

Collings, D. G. (2014). Toward mature talent management: Beyond shareholder value. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(3), 301-319. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21198

Comisión Nacional de Acreditación. (2013). Guía para la autoevaluación interna: Acreditación institucional universidades. 1-148.

Comisión Nacional de Acreditación. (2014). Operacionalización de las Pautas Evaluación para la Acreditación Institucional Comisión Nacional de Acreditación.

Comisión Nacional de Acreditación. (2015). Glosario de términos complementarios criterios de acreditación de pregrado. https://www.cnachile.cl/Documentos de Paginas/Glosario Pregrado.pdf

Comisión Nacional de Acreditación. (2020). Criterios y estándares para la acreditación de universidades.

Comisión Nacional de Acreditación. (2021a). Criterios y Estándares de Calidad para la Acreditación Institucional del Subsistema Universitario. https://www.cnachile.cl/noticias/paginas/nuevos_cye.aspx

Comisión Nacional de Acreditación. (2021b). Criterios y Estándares de Calidad para la Acreditación Institucional y de Programas.

Correia, R., & Navarrete, G. (2017). Social cognition and executive functions as key factors for effective pedagogy in higher education. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02016

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300-314.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105285962

Darling-Hammond, L. (2016). Research on Teaching and Teacher Education and Its Influences on Policy and Practice. Educational Researcher, 45(2), 83-91. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16639597

Dawson, P., Carless, D., & Lee, P. P. W. (2021). Authentic feedback: supporting learners to engage in disciplinary feedback practices. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(2), 286-296. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1769022

Dignath, C. (2016). What determines whether teachers enhance self-regulated learning? Predicting teachers’ reported promotion of self-regulated learning by teacher beliefs, knowledge, and self-efficacy. Frontline Learning Research, 4(5), 83-105. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v4i5.247

Duckworth, A. L., & Gross, J. J. (2020). Behavior change. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 161, 39-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.09.002

Duckworth, A. L., Quirk, A., Gallop, R., Hoyle, R. H., Kelly, D. R., & Matthews, M. D. (2019). Cognitive and noncognitive predictors of success. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(47), 23499-23504. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1910510116

Duckworth, A. L., & Yeager, D. S. (2015). Measurement Matters: Assessing Personal Qualities Other Than Cognitive Ability for Educational Purposes. Educational Researcher, 44(4), 237-251. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15584327

Dweck, C. S., & Master, A. (2008). Self-Theories Motivate Self-Regulated Learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and application (pp. 31-50). Taylor & Francis.

Efklides, A., Schwartz, B. L., & Brown, V. (2018). Motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: Does metacognition play a role? In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 64-82). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315697048-5

Extremiana, A. A. (2018). Cognition, Metacognition, and Learning. Multidisciplinary Journal of School Education, 13, 163-187. https://doi.org/10.14632/mjse.2018.13.163

Feuerstein, R., Feuerstein, R.S, Falik, L., & Rand, Y. (2002). Dynamic assessment: the LPAD and a critical review of other dynamic approaches. In The dynamic assessment of cognitive modifiability: The learning propensity assessment divide theory, instruments, and techniques. Icelp Press.

Feuerstein, R., Feuerstein, R. S., Falik, L., & Rand, Y. (2006). Creating and enhancing cognitive modifiability: The Feuerstein Instrumental Enrichment Program, Part 1 Theoretical and conceptual foundations, Part 2, Practical applications of the Feuerstein Instrumental Enrichment Program. ICELP Publications.

Feuerstein, R., & Jensen, M. R. (1980). Instrumental enrichment: Theoretical basis, goals, and instruments. The Educational Forum, 44(4), 401-423. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131728009336184

Feuerstein, R., Miller, R., Hoffman, M. B., Rand, Y., Mintzker, Y., & Jensen, M. R. (1981a). Cognitive modifiability in adolescence: Cognitive structure and the effects of intervention. Journal of Special Education, 15(2), 269-287. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246698101500213

Feuerstein, R., Miller, R., Rand, Y., & Jensen, M. R. (1981b). Can Evolving Techniques Better Measure Cognitive Change? The Journal of Special Education, 15(2), 201-219. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246698101500209

Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Hoffman, M. B. (1981c). The Dynamic Assessment of Retarded Performers. Canadian Society for the Study of Education, 6(3), 117-120.

Flavell, J. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 21-29). Erlbaum.

Flavell, J. H. (1999). Cognitive development: Children’s knowledge about the mind. Annual Reviews Psychology, 50, 21-45. www.annualreviews.org

García-Blanco, M., & Cárdenas-Sempértegui, E. B. (2018). Job placement in higher education. The Latin American perspective. Educacion XX1, 21(2), 323-347. https://doi.org/10.5944/educXX1.16209

González, L. E. (2015). La Formación Práctica en la Universidad y su Impacto en el Perfil de Egreso. Grupo Operativo de Universidades Chilenas, Centro Interuniversitario de Desarrollo.

Gross, J. J. (2014). Emotion Regulation: Conceptual and empirical foundations. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of Emotion Regulation (2nd Ed., pp. 3-20). Guilford Publications.

Gross, J. J. (2015). The Extended Process Model of Emotion Regulation: Elaborations, Applications, and Future Directions. Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 130-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2015.989751

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual Differences in Two Emotion Regulation Processes: Implications for Affect, Relationships, and Well-Being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348

Guerra-Báez, S. P. (2019). A panoramic review of soft skills training in university students. Psicologia Escolar e Educacional, 23. https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-35392019016464

Guzmán-Valenzuela, C., Barnett, R., & Labraña, J. (2020). Consensus and dissensus: changing perceptions of the public dimension of universities in a marketised environment. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 42(1), 49-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2019.1658850

Hadwin, A. F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2011). Self-regulated, co-regulated, and socially shared regulation of learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 65–84). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Hadwin, A. F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2017). Self-Regulation, Co-Regulation, and Shared Regulation in Collaborative Learning Environments. In D. Schunk & J. Greene(Eds.) (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance (2nd ed). Routledge. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313369294

Hadwin, A., & Oshige, M. (2011). Self-Regulation, Coregulation, and Socially Shared Regulation: Exploring Perspectives of Social in Self-Regulated Learning Theory. Teachers College Record, 113(2), 240-264. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811111300204

Harris, V. W., Anderson, J., & Visconti, B. (2022). Social, emotional ability development (SEAD): An integrated model of practical emotion-based competencies. Motivation and Emotion, 46(2), 226-253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-021-09922-1

Heckman, J. J., Stixrud, J., & Urzua, S. (2006). The effects of cognitive and noncognitive abilities on labor market outcomes and social behavior. Journal of Labor Economics, 24(3), 411-482. https://doi.org/10.1086/504455

Hérnandez-Sampieri, R., Fernández Collado, C., & Baptista Lucio, M. del P. (2014). Metodología de la Investigación (6th ed). McGraw-Hill.

Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J.-P., & Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of Resources in the Organizational Context: The Reality of Resources and Their Consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 103-128.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640

Hoemann, K., & Barrett, L. F. (2019). Concepts dissolve artificial boundaries in the study of emotion and cognition, uniting body, brain, and mind. Cognition and Emotion, 33(1), 67-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2018.1535428

Izard, C. E., Woodburn, E. M., Finlon, K. J., Krauthamer-Ewing, E. S., Grossman, S. R., & Seidenfeld, A. (2011). Emotion knowledge, emotion utilization, and emotion regulation. Emotion Review, 3(1), 44-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073910380972

Jääskelä, P., Nykänen, S., & Tynjälä, P. (2018). Models for the development of generic skills in Finnish higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 42(1), 130-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2016.1206858

Järvelä, S., Malmberg, J., Haataja, E., Sobocinski, M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2021). What multimodal data can tell us about the students’ regulation of their learning process? Learning and Instruction, 72, 101203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.04.004

Jones, S. M., Bouffard, S. M., & Weissbourd, R. (2013). Educators’ Social and Emotional Skills Vital to Learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(8), 62-65. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171309400815

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2013). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk. In L. C. MacLean & W. T. Ziemba (Eds.), Handbook of the Fundamentals of Financial Decision Making (Issue 2). World Scientific. https://doi.org/10.1142/8557

Kalokerinos, E. K., Erbas, Y., Ceulemans, E., & Kuppens, P. (2019). Differentiate to Regulate: Low Negative Emotion Differentiation Is Associated With Ineffective Use but Not Selection of Emotion-Regulation Strategies. Psychological Science, 30(6), 863-879. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619838763

Kandel, E. (2013). The new science of mind and the future of knowledge. Neuron, 80(3), 546-560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.10.039

Karlen, Y., Hertel, S., & Hirt, C. N. (2020). Teachers’ Professional Competences in Self-Regulated Learning: An Approach to Integrate Teachers’ Competences as Self-Regulated Learners and as Agents of Self-Regulated Learning in a Holistic Manner. Frontiers in Education, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00159

Kaur, I., Shri, C., & Mital, K. M. (2019). The Role of Emotional Intelligence Competencies in Effective Teaching and Teacher’s Performance in Higher Education. Higher Education for the Future, 6(2), 188-206. https://doi.org/10.1177/2347631119840542

Kautz, T., Heckman, J. J., Diris, R., ter Weel, B., & Borghans, L. (2014). Fostering and measuring skills: Improving Cognitive and Non-cognitive Skills to Promote Lifetime Success. OECD Education Working Papers, (110). https://doi.org/10.1787/5jxsr7vr78f7-en

Kazemitabar, M., Lajoie, S. P., & Doleck, T. (2021). Analysis of emotion regulation using posture, voice, and attention: A qualitative case study. Computers and Education Open, 2, 100030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100030

Kivunja, C. (2014). Do You Want Your Students to Be Job-Ready with 21st Century Skills? Change Pedagogies: A Pedagogical Paradigm Shift from Vygotskyian Social Constructivism to Critical Thinking, Problem Solving and Siemens’ Digital Connectivism. International Journal of Higher Education, 3(3), 81-91. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v3n3p81

Kozulin, A. (2010). Same cognitive performance, different learning potential: Dynamic assessment of young adults with identical cognitive performance. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 9(3), 273-284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.9.3.273

Kozulin, A. (2011). Learning potential and cognitive modifiability. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, and Practice, 18(2), 169-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.526586

Kozulin, A., Lebeer, J., Madella-Noja, A., Gonzalez, F., Jeffrey, I., Rosenthal, N., & Koslowsky, M. (2010). Cognitive modifiability of children with developmental disabilities: A multicentre study using Feuerstein’s Instrumental Enrichment-Basic program. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31(2), 551-559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2009.12.001

Kramarski, B., & Heaysman, O. (2021). A conceptual framework and a professional development model for supporting teachers’ “triple SRL–SRT processes” and promoting students’ academic outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 56(4), 298-311. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1985502

Lane, R. D., & Smith, R. (2021). Levels of emotional awareness: Theory and measurement of a socio‐emotional skill. Journal of Intelligence, 9(3), 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence9030042

Lee, K., & Brett, C. (2015). Dialogic understanding of teachers’ online transformative learning: A qualitative case study of teacher discussions in a graduate-level online course. Teaching and Teacher Education, 46, 72-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.11.001

Leihy, P., & Salazar, J. M. (2017). The moral dimension in Chilean higher education’s expansion. Higher Education, 74(1), 147-161.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0034-8

Lemaitre, M. J. (Ed.). (2019). Diversidad, autonomía, calidad: Desafíos para una educación superior para el siglo XXI. Centro Interuniversitario de Desarrollo. https://cinda.cl/publicacion/diversidad-autonomia-calidad-desafios-para-una-educacion-superior-para-el-siglo-xxi/

Lemberger, M. E., Brigman, G., Webb, L., & Moore, M. M. (2012). Student Success Skills: An Evidence-based Cognitive and Social Change Theory for Student Achievement. Journal of Education, 192(2-3), 89-99.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022057412192002-311

Mason, G., Williams, G., & Cranmer, S. (2009). Employability skills initiatives in higher education: What effects do they have on graduate labour market outcomes? Education Economics, 17(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645290802028315

McGowan, V. F. (2018). Higher Educations’ Institutional Transparency of General Education Competencies, Assessment Measures, and Analysis of Assessment Data. Faculty Articles & Research, 3. https://dc.swosu.edu/cetl_articles/3

McHugh, P. P. (2017). The impact of compensation, supervision and work design on internship efficacy: implications for educators, employers and prospective interns. Journal of Education and Work, 30(4), 367-382. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2016.1181729

McRae, K., & Zarolia, P. (2018). Cognition and emotion in Emotion Dysregulation. In Theodore P. Beauchaine, & Sheila E. Crowell (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Emotion Dysregulation (pp. 38-52). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190689285.013.4

Milkman, K. L., Gromet, D., Ho, H., Kay, J. S., Lee, T. W., Pandiloski, P., Park, Y., Rai, A., Bazerman, M., Beshears, J., Bonacorsi, L., Camerer, C., Chang, E., Chapman, G., Cialdini, R., Dai, H., Eskreis-Winkler, L., Fishbach, A., Gross, J. J., … Duckworth, A. L. (2021). Megastudies improve the impact of applied behavioural science. Nature, 600(7889), 478-483. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04128-4

Möller, I., & Gómez, H. (2014). Coherencia entre perfiles de egreso e instrumentos de evaluación en Carreras de Educación Básica en Chile. Calidad En La Educación, (41), 17-49. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-45652014000200002

Myyry, L., Karaharju-Suvanto, T., Vesalainen, M., Virtala, A. M., Raekallio, M., Salminen, O., Vuorensola, K., & Nevgi, A. (2020). Experienced academics’ emotions related to assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1601158

Oonk, C., Gulikers, J. T. M., den Brok, P. J., Wesselink, R., Beers, P. J., & Mulder, M. (2020). Teachers as brokers: adding a university-society perspective to higher education teacher competence profiles. Higher Education, 80(4), 701-718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00510-9

Opazo, P. Díaz, V. & Lemaitre, M. J. ( Eds.). (2019). Análisis institucional: Un instrumento para la gestión eficaz. Centro Interuniversitario de Desarrollo. https://cinda.cl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/analisis-institucional-un-instrumento-para-la-gestion-eficaz.pdf

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). The future of education and skills Education 2030. http://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2020). Social and Emotional Skills: Well-being, Connectedness, and Success. https://www.oecd.org/education/school/UPDATED%20Social%20and%20Emotional%20Skills%20-%20Well-being,%20connectedness%20and%20success.pdf%20(website).pdf

Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1-28.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422

Park, C. L., Williams, M. K., Hernandez, P. R., Agocha, V. B., Lee, S. Y., Carney, L. M., & Loomis, D. (2020). Development of emotion regulation across the first two years of college. Journal of Adolescence, 84, 230-242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.09.009

Perinat, A. (2011). La Propuesta Socio-Cultural de Vygotsky Como Alternativa a la Vía del Desarrollo Biológico-Madurativo y a la Corriente Espiritualista. Psychología: Avances de La Disciplina, 5(2), 137-145.

Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The Role of Metacognitive Knowledge in Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 219–225.

Roberts, B. W., & Mroczek, D. (2008). Personality trait change in adulthood. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(1), 31-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00543.x

Rombout, F., Schuitema, J. A., & Volman, M. L. L. (2021). Teachers’ implementation and evaluation of design principles for value-loaded critical thinking. International Journal of Educational Research, 106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101731

Schleicher, A. (2019). PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-Efficacy and Academic Motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207-231.

Schunk, D. H., & Greene, J. A. (2018). Historical, contemporary, and future perspectives on self-regulated learning and performance. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 1-15). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315697048-1

Sorrenti, G., Zölitz, U., Ribeaud, D., & Eisner, M. (2020). The Causal Impact of Socio-Emotional Skills Training on Educational Success. IZA Discussion Paper (13087). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3562877

Soto, C. J., Napolitano, C. M., & Roberts, B. W. (2021). Taking Skills Seriously: Toward an Integrative Model and Agenda for Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Skills. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 30(1), 26-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420978613

Succi, C., & Canovi, M. (2020). Soft skills to enhance graduate employability: comparing students and employers’ perceptions. Studies in Higher Education, 45(9), 1834-1847. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1585420

Sumarni, W., Supardi, K. I., & Widiarti, N. (2018). Development of assessment instruments to measure critical thinking skills. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 349(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/349/1/012066

Talvio, M., Berg, M., Litmanen, T., & Lonka, K. (2016). The Benefits of Teachers’ Workshops on Their Social and Emotional Intelligence in Four Countries. Creative Education, 07(18), 2803-2819. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2016.718260

Tzohar-Rozen, M., & Kramarski, B. (2014). Metacognition, Motivation and Emotions: Contribution of Self-Regulated Learning to Solving Mathematical Problems. Global Education Review, 1(4), 76-95. http://ger.mercy.edu/index.php/ger/article/view/63

van Kleef, G. A., & Côté, S. (2022). The social effects of emotions. Annual Review of Psychology, 73(1), 629-658. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-010855

van Vliet, E. A., Winnips, J. C., & Brouwer, N. (2015). Flipped-class pedagogy enhances student metacognition and collaborative-learning strategies in higher education, but effect does not persist. CBE Life Sciences Education, 14(3), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-09-0141

Vigoya, F. (2005). The Mediated Learning Experience and the Mediator’s Implications. Profile, 6, 177-185.

Virtanen, A., & Tynjälä, P. (2019). Factors explaining the learning of generic skills: a study of university students’ experiences. Teaching in Higher Education, 24(7), 880-894. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1515195

Vivekanandan, R., & Medjy, P.L. (2020). 21 Century Skills: What potential role for the Global Partnership for Education? a landscape review. Global Partnership for Education.

Winne, P. H. (2017). Cognition and Metacognition within Self-Regulated Learning. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance (2nd ed., pp. 36-48). Routledge/Taylor & Francis. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.4324/9781315697048-3

Winsler, A., Kim, Y. K, & Richard, E. R. (2014). Socio-emotional skills, behavior problems, and Spanish competence predict the acquisition of English among English language learners in poverty. Developmental Psychology, 50(9), 2242–2254. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037161

Yeager, D. S. (2017). Social and Emotional Learning Programs for Adolescents. The Future of Children, 27(1), 73-94. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2017.0004

Yusof, Y., Roddin, R., & Awang, H. (2015). What Students Need, and What Teacher Did: The Impact of Teacher’s Teaching Approaches to the Development of Students’ Generic Competences. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 204, 36-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.107

Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). From Cognitive Modeling to Self-Regulation: A Social Cognitive Career Path. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 135-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.794676

Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2011). Self-Regulated Learning and Performance. Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance, 11237. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203839010.ch1