INNOVARE CIENCIA Y TECNOLOGÍA VOL. 11, NO. 3, 2022

Disponible en CAMJOL

INNOVARE Ciencia y Tecnología

Sitio web: www.unitec.edu/innovare/

Autor corresponsal: jhiamv@gmail.com, Royal Oldham Hospital, Greater Manchester, United Kingdom

Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.5377/innovare.v11i3.15357

Revision

Freedom of professorship: a solution or part of the problem

Libertad de cátedra: una solucion o parte del problema

Jhiamluka Solano

a,b,1

, Blanca Izamar Madrid

, Daniela Galeano

, Ana Cristina Batres Ramírez

Department of Internal Medicine, Royal Oldham Hospital, Greater Manchester, United Kingdom

Asociación de Educación Médica Hondureña, AEMH, Tegucigalpa, Honduras

Organización de Mujeres en Ciencia para el Mundo en Desarrollo, Capítulo Honduras

Article history:

Received: 8 August 2022

Revised: 4 September 2022

Accepted: 11 November 2022

Published: 8 December 2022

Keywords

Academic freedom

Evaluation

Medical education

Keywords

Libertad de cátedra

Evaluation

Educación médica

ABSTRACT. Introduction. Academic freedom originated in 1966 when the elements that must be respected and

attributed to teachers during the exercise of their profession were defined. Academic freedom allows teachers to use

available pedagogical methodologies and develop scientific research without institutional influence or limitation.

Methods. We reviewed the literature on articles, studies, laws, and university guidelines on the use of academic

freedom published in Spanish or English between 2010 and 2022. Discussion. There is an effort by governments and

universities to respect and promote academic freedom. This is enhanced when teachers know and implement different

teaching and evaluation methodologies within a training system that allows and encourages teacher feedback and

evaluation. Additionally, there are useful elements to improve the quality of academic freedom. Conclusion. Academic

freedom represents an education intended to be free of biases and a fundamental pillar for a university to enjoy

autonomy and its correct use offers benefits to students and teachers. However, due to the complexity of these

processes, multiple factors could affect academic freedom and make it a methodological limitation that affects the

quality of education.

RESUMEN. Introducción. La libertad de cátedra tiene sus orígenes en 1966 cuando se definieron los elementos que

deben ser respetados y atribuidos a los docentes durante el ejercicio de su profesión. La libertad de cátedra permite que

el docente utilice las metodologías pedagógicas disponibles y desarrolle investigaciones científicas sin la influencia o

limitación institucional. Métodos. Se llevó a cabo una revisión de la literatura sobre artículos, estudios, leyes y

lineamientos universitarios sobre el uso de la libertad de cátedra publicados en español o inglés publicada entre el año

2010 y 2022. Desarrollo. Existe un esfuerzo de parte de los gobiernos y las universidades de respetar y promover la

libertad de cátedra. Esta se ve potenciada cuando los docentes conocen e implementan diferentes metodologías de

enseñanza y evaluación dentro de un sistema de formación que permite e incentiva la retroalimentación y evaluación

del docente. Adicionalmente, existen elementos útiles para mejorar la calidad de la libertad de cátedra. Conclusión.

La libertad de cátedra representa una educación que procura ser libre de sesgos y un pilar fundamental para que una

universidad goce de autonomía y su correcto uso ofrece beneficios a los estudiantes y docentes. Sin embargo, debido

a la complejidad de estos procesos, múltiples factores podrían afectar la libertad de cátedra y convertirla en una

limitante metodológica que afecta la calidad de la educación.

1. Introduction

Academic freedom originated in 1966 when the United

Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

(UNESCO) defined the professional freedom of educators

by describing elements that must be respected and

attributed to academics during the exercise of their

profession. Since then, there has been discussion about

academic freedom, where the educator has the freedom to

choose resources, teaching and evaluation methodologies

based on what the teacher considers best and most

adaptable for his students (UNESCO, 1967). This initial

definition gives rise to what we now know as “academic

freedom.” The initial purpose was to promote educators’

freedom to debate and teach without limitations imposed

by institutional doctrines or institutional censorship

(Ortega Gutiérrez, 2003; Aguilar-Tamayo et al., 2015). At

present, due to the constant evolution of medical

education worldwide and the constant scientific

production where the impact and effectiveness of different

teaching and learning methodologies are explored, it is

J. Solano, et al.

INNOVARE Revista de Ciencia y Tecnología Vol. 11, No. 3, 2022

important to consider whether academic freedom has

evolved hand in hand or has become obsolete. In

Honduras, since the foundation of the medical career at

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras (UNAH)

in 1882, academic freedom has predominated as the

approach chosen by different universities in the country

for the training of different professionals in all areas of

knowledge (Arita Chávez, 2019).

Academic freedom has been recognized as a

constitutional right in the country, suggested in the

constitution and highlighted in the Academic Norms of

Higher Education by UNAH (1992). However, to date, no

studies have explored the impact that this may have on the

development of clinical and ethical skills, academic

performance, and professionalism of medical students. It

is important to highlight that academic freedom is not a

teaching methodology but an approach where pedagogical

methodologies converge for use at the educator’s

discretion. Academic freedom allows educators to use the

methodology known to them, regardless of whether it is

the best or the most appropriate.

On the other hand, the role played by research in

medical education must be essential for strengthening

training processes at all levels of the medical career in the

country. Therefore, a review of the literature has been

carried out on the available evidence concerning academic

freedom, aspects of teaching and their impact on the

training of health professionals, especially in medicine.

This review aims to generate reflection and debate in the

academy about implementing robust evaluation models

for the pedagogical quality and its educational impact.

2. Methods

The use of academic freedom, also known as freedom

of professorship, and its impact on the training of

professionals in the health domain, with a particular focus

on the medical field, were the subjects of a review of the

literature that included publications, research, statutes,

and university policies. The search terms utilized included

“academic freedom,” “medical education,” “medical

competences,” “professionalism,” “freedom of

professorship,” and terms related to teaching, such as

“assessment” and “teaching techniques.” Except for 15

articles because of their historical value and the content

needed to develop the theme, the search was conducted in

PubMed,

The Lancet, and SciELO, where the titles of the

literature in Spanish or English published between 2010

and 2022 were initially recognised. The articles included

in the review were then chosen from those whose

summaries were pertinent to the development of the issue.

This was followed by an evaluation of the article's body,

which resulted in the choice of the cited papers,

employing the "snowballing" approach to review.

3. Discussion

3.1. History of academic freedom

Since opinions are spoken without concern for

responding to potential crimes committed during its

practice, “academic freedom” is comparable to freedom

of expression. Unless an ethical breach is demonstrated, it

is acknowledged that educators have the right to conduct

research, teach, and publish without fear of punishment

(Madrid, 2013). Its elusiveness supports the use of

pedagogical strategies. Academic freedom should be

distinguished from “intellectual freedom,” or the ability to

pursue mental pathways that an individual deems

appropriate (Aguilar-Tamayo et al., 2015). Examples

might include 1) a professor who, for religious reasons,

rejects Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution; 2) a

Jehovah’s Witness who teaches surgery but does not

believe in blood transfusions; 3.) and also an infectious

disease professor who teaches students on “what they

need to learn in life.”

3.2. Medievel university and academic freedom

A morally religious nature structure emphasizing

scholasticism, founded on the use of books as sources of

authority and the educators’ interpretation. European

universities, or studia, were composed of guilds and

associations with students and one or more lecturers as

members. Two models were used: universitas scholarium,

which students led, and universitas magistrorum, which

educators led. The Protestant Reformation initially laid

the

roundork for the denominational universities. The

Counter-Reformation enforced the "convent-university”

concept on religious organizations (Blasco, 2011).

3.3. Modern university and academic freedom

It utilized two models: 1) The Napoleonic University,

which stood out for its authoritarianism and centralism. It

focused on education as a state responsibility. Academic

freedom and institutional autonomy are less influential. 2)

The German University, State-owned, with a stronger

focus on research and knowledge production,

incorporating workshops, guilds, art schools,

conservatories, and laboratories (González-del-Valle,

1981). By substituting civic morality with religious

values, education is valued experimentally. Humboldt’s

Wissenschaft idea, which stands for “knowledge, science,

and learning,” characterized research universities (Blasco,

2011).

3.4. Postmodern university and academic freedom

Software and hardware platforms were incorporated,

173

J. Solano, et al.

INNOVARE Revista de Ciencia y Tecnología Vol. 11, No. 3, 2022

just as new technologies such as audiovisual media

(Campos Retana, 2020). Long distance education

expanded, job skills defined curriculum vitae, university

and business bonds grew, business logic intensified,

global competitiveness increased, and liberal ideas were

strengthened by consumer logic. The Revolution

considered higher education a right. Undergraduate

courses became training levels for basic skills, and

postgraduate programs acquired more significant

notability through scientific research (Blasco, 2011).

3.5. Academic freedom in Latin America

Under the ecclesiastical authority, the first universities

in America were established. Due to this significant

religious tilt in education, the dissemination of science

and information was constrained. However, the new

republics’ independence in Latin America compelled

academic institutions to pursue knowledge that would

advance the country, following the interests of the new

socioeconomic classes, who adhered to the “Scholarium”

paradigm. In 1918, due to the Cordoba Reform, one of the

most significant university movements in Latin America

was adopted (Campos-Céspedes & Solano Gutiérrez,

2020). This change laid the groundwork for the growth of

academic independence. This reform laid the foundations

for the development of academic freedom. The changes in

education resulting from the Reform of Córdoba that

affected the university autonomy and academic freedom

of the Latin American university, were:

1. Elimination of university dominance towards religion

2. Variability of training modalities

3. Oppositional competition to select teachers

4. Alternative of university community entities

5. Freedom of teaching and attendance

6. Exemption from university instruction and freedom

Table 1

Academic freedom at the constitutional level.

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany, 1949.

“Art, science, research and scientific education are free. Freedom of

education does not exempt one from loyalty to the Constitution”.

Weimar Constitution, 1912.

“Art and science are free, as well as their teaching. The State guarantees

their protection and takes part in their promotion”.

Constitution of Finland, 2000.

“Scientific, artistic and higher education freedom is guaranteed”.

Constitution of the Italian Republic, 1947.

“Art, science, and education are free”.

Spanish Constitution, 1978.

“The rights are recognised and protected: a) To freely express and

disseminate thoughts, ideas, and opinions by word, writing or any other

means of reproduction. B) To literary, artistic, scientific, and technical

production and creation. C) To academic freedom”.

Political Constitution of Colombia, 1991.

“The State guarantees the freedoms of teaching, learning, research, and

academics”.

Political Constitution of the United Mexican States,

1980.

“Universities and other institutions of higher education to which the law

grants autonomy, will have the power and responsibility to govern

themselves; they will carry out their purposes of educating, researching,

and disseminating culture following the principles of this article, respecting

the freedom of academics and research and the free examination and

discussion of ideas”.

Political Constitution of Costa Rica, 1949.

“Academic freedom is a fundamental principle of university education”.

Constitution of the Republic of Honduras, 1892.

“The state recognises and protects the freedom of research, learning and

academics”.

Note: Table 1 exemplifies how Academic Freedom is now an international guarantee at the constitutional level.

Constitution of the Federal

Republic of Germany (Federal Republic of Germany, 1949),

Weimar Constitution (Weimer Republic, 1912),

Finland Constitution

(Democratic Republic of Finland, 2000),

Italian Republic Constitution (Italian Republic, 1947),

Spanish Constitution (Kingdom of Spain,

1978),

Political Constitution of Colombia (Republic of Colombia, 1991),

Political Constitution of the United Mexican States (Republic

of the United Mexican States, 1980),

Political Constitution of Costa Rica (Republic of Costa Rica, 1949),

Constitution of the Republic of

Honduras (Republic of Honduras, 1892).

174

J. Solano, et al.

INNOVARE Revista de Ciencia y Tecnología Vol. 11, No. 3, 2022

3.6. Academic freedom today

Currently, the guarantee of academic and research

freedom is frequently included in the fundamental right to

freedom of expression in the constitutions of several

countries (Table 1). International organizations have

similarly made decisions about academic freedom.

It was first included in the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights by the United Nations (UN) in 1948 and

then in the World Declaration on Higher Education in the

Century: Vision and Action by UNESCO in 1997

(Organización Internacional del Trabajo [OIT], &

Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación,

la Ciencia y la Cultura [UNESCO], 1997; Cippitani,

2014).

3.7. Academic freedom in Honduras

The Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras

(UNAH), in Article 160 of the Constitution of the

Republic, establishes that: “academic freedom consists of

the right of educators to carry out their teaching activities

professionally and respectfully, without restriction due to

their ideological orientation or political preference."

In other words, a specific ideology is not imposed on

the educators, who, therefore, have the right to express

their convictions, even if they may disagree and detach

from the prevailing government or ideological policies;

this contributes to the improvement of scientific, social,

and cultural knowledge by questioning the status quo. In

the same way, the organic law of the UNAH refers to

"ideological pluralism, full freedom of teaching, study,

research, and communication between the university and

society" (Chávez Caraza et al., 2019).

Table 2

Advantages and disadvantages of academic freedom.

Teachers

Students

Advantages

1. They challenge rigid, standardized

approaches to teaching and learning, such as

adding internships, field trips, museums,

seminars, and labs.

2. They place critical and routine inquiry

between students and teachers at the center

of teaching and learning, for exampl“,

"Oxbri”ge" applied a system of students and

tutors holding discussions and to strengthen

what was learned, three essays were written

monthly.

3. Students get involved in the relevance of

academic citizenship.

1. Having an intellectual curiosity and being aware

of personal and professional biases and

assumptions will enable students to be

intellectually curious; resulting in a spirit willing

to change a point of view due to a new

understanding that comes from a productive

disagreement on the part of their teachers.

2. Participation in debates, seminars and conferences

with students and teachers on important topics.

3. Belong to a special status with additional

protections recognized both in culture and in the

law, being university students the aim of research

and intellectual debate, of free thought from which

new ideas can arise to challenge the comfortable

consensus of society.

Disadvantages

1. The criticism and censorship of scientists

(teachers) is not the result of violence or

fraud, but rather due to the expression of a

particular viewpoint (...) being able to

publish a sensitive topic from the wrong

perspective.

2. Academics report that they are bullied by

their colleagues because of their views.

3. To the extent that the voices allowed are

only those who occupy positions of power,

and as long as these people are only men, the

ability of women teachers to participate in

debates may be affected.

1. Insecurity sown throu“h "hate spe”ch" towards

certain groups.

2. Tolerate difficult and sometimes uncomfortable

conversations as some ideas are found to be

challenging or unpopular with students.

Note: Table 2 describes the advantages and disadvantages of academic freedom found in the literature for students and teachers in the

classroom.

Miñana Blasco, 2011,

Darbyshire et al., 2021,

Karran & Mallinson, 2017,

Ronconi & Schuster, 2021,

Department of

Education, 2021,

Morgan, 2021.

175

J. Solano, et al.

INNOVARE Revista de Ciencia y Tecnología Vol. 11, No. 3, 2022

3.8. Advantages and disadvantages

Academic freedom is an art that not everyone

possesses nor develops. It has advantages and

disadvantages for proper academic evolution (Table 2).

Since it originates from freedom itself, it could veer off

into debauchery. That is why understanding academic

freedom's use helps discern its advantages and

disadvantages. Academic freedom is about faculty and

students being able to discuss and debate ideas without the

threat of social media bullying and digital shaming

(Darbyshire et al., 2021).

3.9. Methodologies in academic freedom

What makes a good educator? According to Stack

(2021), five common characteristics make an educator

"good" (Figure 2). If an educational system has clear and

established methodologies and proactive educators, the

learning process can be optimized. These teaching

methodologies are shown in Table 3.

3.10. Summative evaluation or formative Evaluation in

academic freedom

Most higher education institutions use a single

instrument to make meaningful choices. For instance, a

council of experts at the postgraduate level must decide

whether to accept an extended candidate mainly bases on

his or her exam result. This makes it more difficult to

assess other factors with higher predictive value for

performance in the future (Sánchez-Mendiola & Diego-

Maldonado, 2017).

Evaluation is described by UNESCO (2005) as "the

process of acquiring relevant, valid, and trustworthy

information to enable interested players to make the

appropriate decisions to enhance actions and results."

Both formative and summative evaluations are used in

education. Summative evaluation makes use of

objectively measuring results. As an alternative,

formative assessment enables educators to modify their

teaching methods to meet their students' requirements

(Rosales, 2014). Although formative evaluation offers

advantages, it has not yet been used in Honduras (Labarca

et al., 2014; Carrió-Pastor, 2021).

Evaluation plays a vital role in achieving the most

significant educational potential offered by academic

freedom since that is where the evaluation criteria and

content prioritization are born (Anijovich et al., 2010).

According to Black (2010) the elements that affect the

quality of the evaluation are listed as follow:

1. Educators' perception of themselves as educators and

evaluators.

2. Educators’ perspective on the subjects he teaches in

the curriculum.

3. Social traits of students and how the educators view

them individually and collectively.

Figure 1. Characteristics of a good educator. Modified from Stack (2021). Five characteristics of an outstanding ward attending.

They take time to know their students

They are humble

Their actions are intentional

They recognise that humiliation is a weakness

They continue to develop by keeping their knowledge up to

date

176

J. Solano, et al.

INNOVARE Revista de Ciencia y Tecnología Vol. 11, No. 3, 2022

Table 3

Learning methodologies in academic freedom.

Learning methodology

Basis

Learning based project

The student creates an artifact applying research strategies. a

Flipped classroom

The activities that happen in the classroom are carried out outside

the classroom and vice versa.

Problem-based learning

Maximizes the development of competencies.

c,d,e,f

Gamification

Use games in environments other than the same. It enriches work,

loyalty, and collaboration.

g,h

Design thinking

Analytical and creative process that generates innovative ideas.

i,j

Note:

Botella Nicolás & Ramos Ramos, 2022,

Mohammed & Daham, 2021,

Johnson et al., 1999,

Huber, 2008,

Johnson & Johnson,

2014,

Juárez-Pulido et al., 2019,

Dicheva et al., 2015;

Andreu & Manuel, 2020,

López-Pérez & Hafez-Pérez, 2013;

Arias-Flores et

al., 2019.

4. Infrastructure, tools, instructional materials, guidance

from the principal, and curriculum.

5. Standardized evaluation instruments are imposed on

a national or regional scale.

6. Understanding the significance of the educators' role

in instructional strategies.

7. The educators understand the various teaching

methods and the function that evaluation plays in

teaching-learning.

Successful application of formative evaluation will

require ongoing support from the authorities to ensure that

there are suitable infrastructural conditions, resources in

the school, and educators' preparation for the particular

academic techniques beneficial in their curriculum as a

type of evaluation.

3.11. Bias in medical education

Cognitive biases fundamentally influence how we

perceive and classify reality (González de la Garza, 2020).

This reality may be impacted if the two primary goals of

education are overlooked (Ortega Gutiérrez, 2003;

Bertrand, 2017):

1. Education must facilitate definite knowledge.

2. Students should be given the mental habits necessary

to learn new information and establish their own

judgment afterwards.

Since every person has a right to discover many truths,

all forms of bias in education must be eliminated.

3.12. How to improve academic freedom

3.12.1. Recognition of the importance of the concept and

adequate exercise of academic f reedom

We must acknowledge that medical schools today use

a market-driven strategy to improve academic freedom

(Association of University Professors [AAUP], 2015;

Suissa & Sullivan, 2021). The proportion of professors

who devote most of their time to clinical care work may

distract educators from their duty to teach and discourage

academics from focusing on graduate pedagogy or

university service. Furthermore, the hierarchical structure

of deans, directors, and department heads frequently lacks

academic skills and makes poor choices in terms of

teaching strategies. On the other side, the rivalry for

private or public financing may influence the choice of

research topics, and in some situations, it may be

challenging to secure money for non-conservative

research or research on politically sensitive matters.

So, in order to enhance academic freedom, we must

implement a methodical strategy based on 3 elements

(AAUP, 2015; Madrid Ramírez, 2015; Woods et al.,

2016):

1. Freedom to research and publish within the area

of especialization: By promoting free will to choose

a research topic in any area of knowledge without fear

of reprisals. This will allow educators to achieve

knowledge in an institutional dimension.

2. Freedom to teach within the assigned subject area:

to allow educators freedom of academic discourse

supported by research and reflection processes. That

is, to promote an opinion based on scientific

evidence, not anecdotal. To receive ongoing training

on the different teaching and assessment

177

J. Solano, et al.

INNOVARE Revista de Ciencia y Tecnología Vol. 11, No. 3, 2022

methodologies to strengthen their teaching skills.

Also, to socialize the objectives of the study plans in

order to raise awareness about the planning of

academic activities based on the curriculum, adding

freedom of thought and expression (both the

educators and the student) as a parallel axis to the

selected methodology, in that way, to offer an

education without political or religious censorship.

3. Freedom against censorship: motivate the

discussion of issues that generate controversy within

academic environments to propose studies that find

solutions to improve learning processes. This is vital

as long as public order, morality and good customs

are affected.

Based on these principles, we can recommend some

elements to consider strengthening academic freedom in

Honduras. First, we must recognise that teaching activities

must be based on study plans and programs, general

regulations of universities and health institutions, and

regulations established by technical councils of faculties

and schools without preventing educators from expressing

their opinions (Arita Chávez, 2019).

Second, educators must adhere to the curricula and

determine the teaching content as long as they incline

towards a pedagogical methodology (Woods, 2016).

Third, the training of educators should be promoted to

understand the difference between academic freedom and

freedom of expression to encourage them to practice

quality academic freedom (Madrid, 2013). Finally, we

must recognise that our academy needs a reform process

to offer students the best academic experience recognised

for the good of the future patients they will serve.

3.12.2. Evaluation of the educators in academic freedom

Teacher evaluation is crucial to educational processes

because it provides tools for reflection and observation of

the use of academic freedom and improves the

competence of educators, students, and institutions. It is

required that the review come from a variety of people,

including students, classmates, and outsiders. Students'

assessments of their educators' performance play a crucial

role in encouraging active participation. This student

feedback is a widely used, dependable, and useful method

(Husain & Khan, 2016; Musharraf & Sabina, 2016).

These assessments qualify areas like student preparation

of the class and the learning environment for the professor

to demonstrate, reinforce teaching, monitor, and reflect,

increase knowledge of student needs, and continual

development to reach beneficial goals.

Teacher evaluations inside national institutions might

be strengthened by reorganizing or setting up a forum for

unbiased comments on enhancing academic freedom. It

has been demonstrated that student evaluation of teaching,

also known as SET (Student Evaluation of Teaching), is

an approachable strategy to advance medical education

and affects the performance of educators (Debroy et al.,

2019). The clinical teaching setting has adopted several

assessment tools, including the following (Raupach et al.,

2011):

● Medical Student Experience Questionnaire o

MedSEQ

● Marburger Fragebogen zur Evaluation des

Lehrangebots in der Medizin or Marburg

questionnaire for the evaluation of courses offered in

medicine.

● Medical Instructional Quality o MedIQ

● Stanford Faculty Development Program survey o

SFDP-26

● Student Evaluation of Teaching in Outpatient Clinic

o SETOC

When using this kind of evaluation, we must underline

its enormous worth and utility for teaching, as well as the

fact that by using it, the student bears responsibility and

commitment for their learning.

3.12.3. Academic freedom index

Strengthening instruction while considering academic

freedom is crucial for raising the standard of learning and

research in medical institutions across our nation.

Academic independence combined with the requisite

expertise can improve teaching, but how can we oversee

its use? In order to strengthen the academy, we can

develop and disseminate information about the various

teaching methodologies, put them into practice within the

parameters of academic freedom, and enhance their

application by gathering factual information about how

well educators adhere to that freedom through the use of

a compliance rubric. For this purpose, experts have

developed an academic freedom index (Kinzelbach et al.,

2020) (Table 4).

This tool is useful because it allows it to gather

information, confirm that academic institutions adhere to

norms for academic freedom, and identify any weak

points across the board. An assessment tool created to

collect information on whether educators use appropriate

teaching approaches, while exercising academic freedom

can be used as part of the country's efforts to improve the

academic training provided by medical schools.

4. Conclusion

Academic freedom stands for education free of bias

and is necessary for a university to exercise its complete

autonomy. There are enough convincing arguments in

favor of this to conclude that using it properly will assist

178

J. Solano, et al.

INNOVARE Revista de Ciencia y Tecnología Vol. 11, No. 3, 2022

students and educators in the teaching-learning process.

Due to its complexity, academic freedom could be

impacted by a number of circumstances and become a

methodological restriction that lowers the quality of

student training.

Table 4

Essential components of the academic freedom index.

Components

Concept

Spreading and trade of

academic freedom.

The extent to which academic

exchange and dissemination are or

are not subject to restrictions or

censorship.

Freedom to research

and to teach.

The extent to which there is the

freedom to conduct research and

teaching without being subject to

interference.

Campus integrity.

It means that it is respected and

free from politically motivated

surveillance or free from threats

or intimidation, including violence

or closure.

Institutional autonomy.

It means that universities develop

and exercise their decentralized

decisions from non-academic

actors.

Expression of

academic and cultural

ideas along with

institutional autonomy.

It translates into whether or not

there is censorship, intimidation,

or restrictions on academic

freedom, academic activities, or

cultural expression.

Note: According to Kinzelbach et al. (2020), the purpose of the

academic freedom index is to monitor compliance with

academic freedom according to five components.

The educator's academic freedom will be constrained

if he is unfamiliar with all the different teaching methods.

The potential reach of these instructors will also be

impacted if the setting in which they are trained does not

support their ability to engage in independent study and

professional growth through attempts to create resources

or space. This impacts learning since every student learns

differently, and only one teaching approach cannot

accommodate them.

In Honduras, there are no available studies on the

effectiveness of teaching methods, so it is difficult to

understand the situation of medical education in the

country concerning academic freedom. In the context of

our country, it is crucial to develop mechanisms to offer

training processes and evaluate the quality of medical

education methodologies to extend the available resources

of teachers. Additionally, we must involve the student so

that he knows the scope of academic freedom and provide

evaluations that improve teaching performance. Finally,

institutions must provide communication channels and

spaces for discussion to socialize the differences between

freedom of expression and academic freedom and prevent

it from losing its objective.

5. Author Contributions

JS proposed the conception of the article and

coordinated its elaboration. JS, BM, DG, and AB carried

out the literature review. All authors wrote, edited, and

approved the final version of the article prior to its

publication.

6. Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of

interest.

7. Bibliographic References

Aguilar-Tamayo, R., Sánchez-Mendiola, M., & Fortoul van der Goes, T.

I. (2015). La libertad de cátedra: ¿una libertad malentendida?

Investigación en Educación Médica, 4(15), 170-174.

http://riem.facmed.unam.mx/index.php/riem/article/view/98

American Association of University Professors [AAUP]. (2015). Report

of the 2015 Annual Meeting.

https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/files/2015AM.pdf

Andreu, P., & Manuel, J. (2020). Una revisión sistemática sobre

gamificación, motivación y aprendizaje en universitarios. Teoría de

la Educación : Revista Interuniversitaria, 32(1), 73-

99. http://digital.casalini.it/10.14201/teri.20625

Anijovich, R., Camilloni, A. R. W., Cappelletti, G., Hoffman, J.,

Katzkowicz, R., & Moltier López, M. (2010). La evaluación

significativa. Paidós.

https://formal1.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/1-anijovich-la-

retroalimentacion-en-la-evaluacion.pdf

Arias-Flores, H., Jadán-Guerrero, J., & Gómez-Luna, L. (2019).

Innovación educativa en el aula mediante design thinking y game

thinking. Hamut ay, 6(1), 82-95.

http://dx.doi.org/10.21503/hamu.v6i1.1576

Arita Chávez, J. R. (2019). Historia de la Escuela Universitaria de las

Ciencias de la Salud. Revista Científica de la Escuela Universitaria

de las Ciencias de la Salud, 3(1), 5-15.

https://dx.doi.org/10.5377/rceucs.v3i1.7015

Bertrand, R. (2017). Viaje a la revolución (1st. ed.). Editorial Planeta, S.

https://static0planetadelibroscom.cdnstatics.com/libros_contenido_

extra/46/45416_Viaje_a_la_revolucion.pdf

Black, P. (2010), Formative Assessment. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B.

McGaw (Eds.). International encyclopedia of education (3

. ed., pp.

359-364), Academic Press.

Botella Nicolás, A. M., & Ramos Ramos, P. (2022). Investigación-

acción y aprendizaje basado en proyectos. Una revisión bibliográfica.

Perfiles Educativos, 41(163), 127-141.

https://dx.doi.org/10.22201/iisue.24486167e.2019.163.58923

Campos-Céspedes, J., & Solano Gutiérrez, W. (2020). Autonomía

universitaria y libertad de cátedra en tiempos de cambio.

Innovaciones Educativas, 22(32), 151-169.

https://dx.doi.org/10.22458/ie.v22i32.2973

179

J. Solano, et al.

INNOVARE Revista de Ciencia y Tecnología Vol. 11, No. 3, 2022

Campos Retana, R. (2020). La libertad de cátedra y la universidad que

innova. Revista Actualidades Investigativas en Educación, 20(1), 1-

21. https://dx.doi.org/10.15517/aie.v20i1.39935

Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2021). Análisis comparativo del uso de marcadores

metadiscursivos en la evaluación formativa y sumativa online.

TEJUELO. Didáctica de la lengua y la Literatura. Educación, 34,

261-292. https://dx.doi.org/10.17398/1988-8430.34.261

Chávez Caraza, K. L., Rodríguez de Ita, J., Lozano Ramírez, J. F.,

Vargas Duarte, G. M., & Lozano Lee, F. G. (2019). Desarrollo e

implementación de un curso de investigación para estudiantes de

ciencias de la salud: una propuesta para estimular la producción

científica. Investigación en Educación Médica, 4(15), 161-169.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riem.2015.04.001

Cippitani, R. (2014). La libertad de cátedra y de investigación en el

ámbito de la autonomía universitaria. In A. F. Buenrostro Ceballos

(Ed.), La libertad de cátedra y de investigación en el ámbito de los

derechos humanos (pp. 129-188). Universidad Autónoma de Baja

California.

Darbyshire, P., Thompson, D. R., Watson, R., Jenkins, E., & Ali, P.

(2021). Academic freedom. Journal of Nursing Education, 60(7),

367-368. https://dx.doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20210616-01

Debroy, A., Ingole, A., & Mudey, A. (2019). Teachers' perceptions on

student evaluation of teaching as a tool for faculty development and

quality assurance in medical education. Journal of Education and

Health Promotion, 8, 218.

https://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_47_19

Department of Education. (2021). Higher education: free speech and

academic freedom. Parliament of the United Kingdom.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/upl

oads/attachment_data/file/961537/Higher_education_free_speech_a

nd_academic_freedom__web_version_.pdf

Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., & Angelova, G. (2015). Gamification

in education: a systematic mapping study. Educational Technology

& Society, 18(3), 75-88.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.18.3.75

González-del-Valle, J. M. (1981). Libertad de cátedra y libertad de

enseñanza en la legislación española. Persona y Derecho, 8, 314-

327. https://dadun.unav.edu/handle/10171/11992

González de la Garza, L. M. (2020). Teoría de sesgos en el sistema

educativo de la democracia del siglo XXI Nuevas garantías para la

libertad de pensamiento, el “Derecho a no ser engañados”. Revista

de Educación y Derecho, 22.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1344/REYD2020.22.32351

Huber, G. L. (2008). Active learning and methods of teaching. Revista

de Educación, 59-81.

https://www.educacionyfp.gob.es/dam/jcr:14edd70f-c97a-4361-

8757-ef0c83ce5bea/re200804-pdf.pdf

Husain, M., & Khan, S. (2016). Students' feedback: An effective tool in

teachers' evaluation system. International Journal of Applied and

Basic Medical Research, 6(3), 178-181.

https://journals.lww.com/ijab/Fulltext/2016/06030/Students__feedb

ack__An_effective_tool_in_teachers_.8.aspx

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2014). Cooperative learning in the

21st century. Anales de Psicología, 30(3), 841-851.

http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.201241

Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Johnson Holubec, E. (1999). Los nuevos

círculos del aprendizaje. La cooperación en el aula y la escuela (1st.

ed.). Editorial Aique.

http://www.terras.edu.ar/biblioteca/30/30JOHNSON-David-

JOHNSON-Roger-y-JOHNSON-HOLUBEC-Edythe-Que-es-el-

aprendizaje-cooperativo.pdf

Juárez-Pulido, M., Rasskin-Gutman, I., & Mendo-Lázaro, S. (2019). El

Aprendizaje Cooperativo, una metodología activa para la educación

del Siglo XXI: una revisión bibliográfica. Revista Prisma Social, 26,

200-210. https://revistaprismasocial.es/article/view/2693/3321

Karran, T., & Mallinson, L. (2017). Academic freedom in the U.K.: legal

and normative protection in a comparative context. Report for the

University and College Union. University and College Union,

Lincoln. http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/id/eprint/26811/

Kinzelbach, K., Saliba, I., Spannagel, J., & Quinn, R. (2020). Free

Universities. Putting the academic freedom index into action. Global

Public Policy Institute.

https://www.gppi.net/media/KinzelbachEtAl_2021_Free_Universiti

es_AFi-2020.pdf

Labarca, J., Figueroa, C., Huidobro, B., Wright, A. C., Riquelme, A., &

Moreno, R. (2014). Utilidad de la evaluación formativa en cursos

clínicos integrativos en estudiantes de pregrado de medicina. Revista

Médica de Chile, 142(9), 1193-

1199. https://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0034-98872014000900014

López-Pérez, S., & Hafez-Pérez, S. A. (2013). Implantación del

Thinking Based Learning (TBL) en el aula. Propuesta de

Intervención. Universidad Internacional de La Rioja.

https://reunir.unir.net/bitstream/handle/123456789/1862/2013_07_

04_TFG_ESTUDIO_DEL_TRABAJO.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed

Madrid, R. (2013). El derecho a la libertad de cátedra y el concepto de

universidad. Revista Chilena de Derecho, 40(1), 355-371.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23729443

Madrid Ramírez, R. (2015). La noción de libertad de cátedra. Elementos

para su configuración contemporánea. Persona y Cultura, 13, 11-30.

https://revistas.ucsp.edu.pe/index.php/persona/article/view/199

Miñana Blasco, C. (2011). Libertad de cátedra, colegialidad, autonomía

y legitimidad. Transformaciones en cuatro universidades

latinoamericanas. Ciencia Política, 6(12), 77-108.

https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/cienciapol/article/view/41507

Mohammed, H. J., & Daham, H. A. (2021). Analytic hierarchy process

for evaluating flipped classroom learning. Computers. Materials and

Continua, 63(3). https://dx.doi.org/10.32604/cmc.2021.014445

Morgan, J. (2021, May 21). British university apologizes for disinviting

academics overviews on gender. Times Higher Education.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/05/21/british-

university-apologizes-disinviting-academics-over-views-gender

Organización Internacional del Trabajo [OIT], & Organización de las

Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura

[UNESCO]. (1997). Recomendación de la OIT y la UNESCO

relativa a la situación del personal docente (1966).

https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_dialogue/---

sector/documents/normativeinstrument/wcms_493318.pdf

Ortega Gutiérrez, D. (2003). Educación, libertad y tolerancia. Vida y

pensamiento de Bertrand Russell. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos.

http://hdl.handle.net/10115/887

Raupach, T., Münscher, C., Beißbarth, T., Burckhardt, G. and Pukrop,

T. (2011) Towards outcome-based programme evaluation: using

student comparative self-assessments to determine teaching

effectiveness. Medical Teacher, 33(8), 446-453.

https://dx.doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.586751

Reiño de España (1978). Constitución Española. Art. 20 de 6 de

diciembre de 1978.

República de Colombia. (1991). Constitución Política de Colombia. Art.

27 de 4 de julio de 1991.

República de Costa Rica. (1949). Constitución Política de Costa Rica.

Art. 87 de 7 de noviembre de 1949.

República de Honduras. (1892). Constitución de la Republica de

Honduras. Art 155 de 20 de enero de 1892.

República de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. (1980). Constitución

Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Tercera reforma. Art. 3o

de 9 de junio de 1980.

180

J. Solano, et al.

INNOVARE Revista de Ciencia y Tecnología Vol. 11, No. 3, 2022

República Democrática de Finlandia (2000). Constitución de Finlandia.

Art.16 de 17 de junio de 1999.

República de Weimer. (1912). Constitución de Weimar. Art.143 de 11

de agosto de 1919.

República Federal de Alemania (1949). Constitución de la República

Federal de Alemania. Art. 5.3 de 23 de mayo de 1949.

República Italiana. (1947). Constitución de la República Italiana. Art. 33

de 22 de diciembre de 1947.

Ronconi, L., & Schuster, A. F. (2021). Women’s right to freedom of

speech in university spaces. The case of Universidad de Buenos

Aires Law School. Revista de Derecho (Valdivia), 34(2), 159-180.

https://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09502021000200159

Rosales, M. (2014). Proceso evaluativo: evaluación sumativa,

evaluación formativa y Assesment su impacto en la educación actual.

En Congreso Iberoamericano de Ciencia, Tecnología, Innovación y

Educación (vol. 4, artículo 662).

Sánchez-Mendiola, M., & Delgado-Maldonado, L. (2017). Exámenes de

alto impacto: implicaciones educativas. Investigación en Educación

Médica, 6(21), 52-62. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riem.2016.12.001

Stack, S. W. (2021, 16 de septiembre). What makes a good educator? 5

characteristics of an outstanding ward attending.

Medscape. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/958584#vp_2

Suissa, J., & Sullivan, A. (2021). The Gender wars, academic freedom

and education. Journal Philosophy of Education, 55(1), 55-

82. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12549

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras [UNAH]. (1992). Normas

académicas de la educación superior.

https://des.unah.edu.hn/dmsdocument/576-normas-academicas-de-

la-educacion-superior

Woods, T. M., Acosta, W. R., Chung, E. P., Cox, A. G., Garcia, G. A.,

Klucken, J. R., & Chisholm-Burns, M. (2016). Academic freedom

should be redefined: point and counterpoint. American Journal of

Pharmaceutical Education, 80(9), 146.

https://dx.doi.org/10.5688/ajpe809146

181