Dual training at Spanish universities: an analysis of undergraduate and postgraduate dissertation guidelines

Formación dual en las universidades españolas: análisis de guías de TFG y TFM

Formação dual nas universidades espanholas: análise dos guias para os trabalhos de conclusão de curso de licenciatura e mestrado

 

File:ORCID iD.svg - Wikimedia CommonsJesica M. Abalo Paulos 1 ,File:ORCID iD.svg - Wikimedia Commons Olaya Santamaría Queiruga 2 y File:ORCID iD.svg - Wikimedia Commons Miguel Ángel Barberá Gregori 3

1 Vigo University  (Spain), 2 University of Santiago de Compostela  (Spain), 3 University-Business Foundation -University of Valencia- (Spain)

 

Date received: 15/04/2026

Date of acceptance: 28/04/2026

Publication date: 30/06/2026

 

Abstract

Dual university programmes in Spain are in the minority (2.4% in 2025); their potential necessitates an analysis of successful experiences. This study examines the guidelines for Final Year Projects (FYP) and Master’s Theses (MT) across the 67 dual programmes currently offered at 20 universities. As these guidelines are the primary source of information for students and companies, their content and level of detail were analysed. The results reveal significant disparities and relevant omissions that limit their guidance function and highlight the need for common criteria. Finally, recommendations are proposed regarding the essential elements that must be included to ensure educational quality.

 

Keywords

Higher education, Dual Training; Teaching guides, Final-year dissertation, Master’s thesis.

 

Resumen

Los programas universitarios duales en España son minoritarios (2,4% en 2025), su potencial exige analizar las experiencias exitosas. Este estudio examina las guías de Trabajo de Fin de Grado (TFG) y Máster (TFM) de los 67 programas duales existentes en 20 universidades. Al ser la principal fuente de información para estudiantes y empresas, se analizó su contenido y nivel de detalle. Los resultados revelan disparidades significativas y ausencias relevantes que limitan su función orientadora y evidencian la necesidad de criterios comunes. Finalmente, se proponen recomendaciones sobre los elementos esenciales que deben incluirse para garantizar la calidad formativa.

 

Palabras clave

Enseñanza superior, Formación Dual, Guías docentes, Trabajo Fin de Grado, Trabajo Final de Máster.

 

Resumo

Embora os programas universitários duais em Espanha sejam minoritários (2,4% em 2025), o seu potencial exige analisar as experiências de sucesso. Este estudo examina os guias de Trabalho de Fim de Licenciatura (FYP) e Mestrado (MTh) dos 67 programas duais existentes em 20 universidades. Sendo a principal fonte de informação para estudantes e empresas, analisou-se o seu conteúdo e nível de detalhe. Os resultados revelam disparidades significativas e omissões relevantes que limitam a sua função orientadora e evidenciam a necessidade de critérios comuns. Por fim, propõem-se recomendações sobre os elementos essenciais a incluir para garantir a qualidade formativa.

 

Palavras-chave

Ensino superior, Formação em alternância, Orientações pedagógicas, Trabalho de conclusão de licenciatura, Trabalho de conclusão de mestrado.

 

1. Introduction

 

In the current university context, employability has established itself as one of the main benchmarks for measuring the quality of higher education institutions (Álvarez-Benítez and Asensio-Muñoz, 2020). This indicator constitutes, at the same time, a priority objective of Dual University Education (Sarceda-Gorgoso et al., 2024) and one of the advantages associated with dual degree programmes (Climent-Ferrando et al., 2024) at different educational levels and in various regions of the world (Pogatsnik, 2018; Tastanbekova et al., 2021; Alemán-Falcón & Calcines-Piñero, 2022).

One of the various approaches to enhancing employability is to offer learning opportunities in real-world contexts, as is the case with Final Projects (TFE), whether in the form of a Bachelor’s Final Project (FYP) or a Master’s Final Project (MTh).  The FYP is conceived as a dual learning outcome, involving academic literacy and, at the same time, serving as an indicator of the professional development achieved (Camilli Trujillo et al., 2022). It also provides an opportunity to apply specific professional skills (Peña et al., 2016).

In Spain, the regulation of the FYP and MTh is set out in Royal Decree 822/2021 of 28 September, which emphasises the importance of transparency and accessibility of academic information, requiring universities to ensure that course guides are available prior to the enrolment period. This Royal Decree stipulates the following:

 

The course syllabus for each subject or module forming part of the curriculum of an official Bachelor’s or Master’s degree, in accordance with each university’s regulations, shall set out the theoretical and practical academic activities and the assessment system for the planned learning. These course descriptions must be made available to students prior to the official enrolment period, in the manner set out in the academic regulations of the institution or university (Royal Decree 822/2021, of 28 September, p. 119544).

 

As Zabalza & Zabalza (2012, p. 31) point out, “The aim of a course guide is to guide learning. Not only by providing information about the course, but also by offering precise guidance on how to approach it”.

This study focuses on analysing the content and level of specificity of the FYP and MTh guides in dual programmes, given their key role as a communication tool between universities and work placement centres, and as the primary source of information for students.

 

2. Theoretical framework

 

Bachelor’s and Master’s theses serve the same purpose across all degree programmes; however, in dual degree programmes, they exhibit some notable differences

●      A role closer to that of a practising professional and guidelines that act as a broad, evolving regulatory framework for institutions. The collaborative work of students at placement centres in dual programmes is unique in that it resembles the role of a ‘trainee’, with well-defined responsibilities and a commitment to the service and final product of the professional centre. This perception held by students requires information on the commitments made that goes beyond a

 

signed contract,  compiling and updating the guidelines with recommendations arising from the collaboration that may develop over time.

●      Teaching guidelines in dual programmes should facilitate real and transformative projects, addressing issues within the sector in which the student is placed. The value of the work depends on the challenge, prior training and available resources, and may include process improvements, innovation or digital transformation. To this end, effective coordination is required between academic institutions and placement centres, so that students can develop an action plan focused on topics of interest to all parties. One approach that could be considered is the service-learning (SL) placement portfolio model, which has a long track record (Ciesielkiewicz et al., 2024; Sánchez-Serrano et al., 2025).

●      Furthermore, these teaching guidelines should be better geared towards facilitating the transition to the labour market. Dual programmes allow for greater connection with professional contexts, where students can demonstrate their skills and knowledge to potential employers, thereby increasing their employment opportunities. This feature makes final-year projects (FYP) and master’s theses (MTh) in dual training programmes particularly valuable for students seeking more practical, labour-market-oriented training.

●      Finally, the guidelines should propose a combination of general frameworks without this preventing flexible guidance tailored to the reality of the institutions. Therefore, they must reflect the professional competences required by the labour market, and the final-year undergraduate and postgraduate theses must contribute to the development of these competences. It is difficult for such guidelines to cover all possible scenarios and competencies, depending on the needs of the institutions offering the programmes; whilst they may provide general standards and considerations, they must at the same time be flexible, particularly regarding supervision and tutoring methodologies, so as to be adapted to the needs of the professional environment.

Final-year projects (FYPs) and Master’s theses (MTh) provide students with the opportunity to demonstrate the professional knowledge and workplace skills they have acquired by the end of their studies. These projects and their guidelines are important both for students and for the effective delivery of programmes by institutions, because, according to ANECA’s programme evaluation, it crucial to assess learning outcomes and the quality of academic writing through Final Year Projects (FYPs) for the accreditation of degrees.

Although regulations require teaching guidelines in all institutions, each centre may structure them and propose different models of supervision and assessment. According to Bonifaz Aranda et al. (2025), supervision —in terms of structure, content and academic rigour— contributes significantly to student success. This final phase should be considered key to initial training, which requires a rigorous assessment enabling effective recommendations to improve the guidelines. This includes aspects such as writing training, academic responsibilities, defined competencies, and tutoring and assessment methodologies, amongst others.

The competences acquired in dual programmes are those specific to the scientific and technical content of the programmes, in addition to other competences that have been termed transversal (Beraza, 2023) and which are of inestimable value to any professional in the 21st century (research, innovation, critical thinking, reasoned reflection, etc.). They can be seen as an opportunity to reflect on the skills acquired, as well as on the students’ strengths and

 

weaknesses in terms of self-regulation in their portfolios (Cebrián-de-la-Serna, & Pérez-Torregrosa, 2024). Consequently, this opportunity will arise in accordance with the proposed tutoring model, based on a reality where the various forms of tutoring and assessment found in teaching guides set the direction and guide students towards the required standard.

The academic literature on final-year projects is extensive in terms of regulations, guidelines and recommendations for their preparation, including best practices in tutoring and advising (Gómez et al., 2018; Vicario-Molina et al., 2020), the importance of supervision (Bonifaz Aranda et al., 2025) and assessment (Pérez-Torregrosa et al., 2022). This includes its relationship with other subjects, such as the Practicum, and its potential link to academic misconduct. For example, in the study by Cebrián-Robles et al. (2016), following the analysis of 391 teaching guides, a link with the Practicum was detected in 72.1% of cases; therefore, this relationship must be reviewed to prevent what may initially be an advantage from becoming “a temptation to plagiarise in the final results of these subjects” (p. 180). Meanwhile, the study by Battaner et al. (2016) provides an analysis of the regulation, preparation and assessment of Bachelor’s and Master’s theses, as well as the role of teaching guides and the internal regulations of Spanish universities. Equally interesting are the recent findings of the analysis by Camilli Trujillo et al. (2022), which employs a mixed-methods systematic review of 72 documents related to the development and assessment of the FYP; after examining contextual and pedagogical variables, it is observed that the majority of studies analyse procedural aspects, competencies and assessment.

These studies and publications on general guidelines for teaching guides, across all undergraduate degrees, are particularly relevant to dual programmes, as they establish a stronger link between theoretical learning and practical placements in professional settings. At the same time, whilst dual programmes are a rare and costly initiative in terms of the resources and organisation invested – as is the case with any new venture – compared to other university programmes, any information that helps to strengthen and develop them is of great interest, as is conducting studies that examine what is happening in the programmes currently in operation. Therefore, one approach—though not the only one—could be to analyse what is included in the teaching guides for the Bachelor’s and Master’s final projects.

In summary, there are clear differences between the guidelines for dual programmes and those for traditional work-placement schemes. These include:

-The company ceases to be a mere ‘setting for practical application’ and becomes a co-trainer.

-It follows from the above that the guidelines require a co-design approach.

-Assessment is shared and weighted, guided in particular by a joint placement contract or project between the company and the university.

-They require a work-study model. The guidelines must set out how the student alternates between periods in the classroom and periods in the company over the course of one or more academic years.

In this regard, we would be very much in line with what is proposed in the evaluation processes of dual programmes by the National Agency for Quality Assessment and Accreditation (ANECA, 2022), identifying the integration of theory and practice facilitated by the FYP and MTh. According to the aforementioned agency, dual programmes must demonstrate greater involvement of companies in the supervision and assessment of students, particularly in final-year undergraduate and postgraduate dissertations, seeking effective integration between

 

theory and practice and the acquisition of professional skills in a real-world work environment. To this end, ANECA reviews the teaching guidelines to ascertain the professional competences required for the world of work, as well as their relevance and suitability in the FYP and MTh projects outlined therein.

 

3. Method

 

The research adopted a descriptive approach with a mixed-methods design of a simultaneous exploratory nature (Hernández-Sampieri et al., 2014). During the interpretation phase, the data were analysed to identify relationships and were compared internally and with the results of a broader project. It was not necessary to apply certain instruments, as some of the information was available through the aforementioned project.

 

3.1.  Objectives.

 

The objectives of this study are:

 

●      To analyse the extent of information and the level of specificity present in the final year project (FYP) and master’s thesis (MTh) guidelines for dual training programmes offered by Spanish universities.

●      To identify opportunities for improvement in these guidelines, with the aim of formulating recommendations for institutional decision-makers to optimise their design and usefulness.

 

Based on these objectives, the following research question is posed: What characteristics and components are essential in dual programmes as reflected in the teaching guidelines for the Bachelor’s and Master’s theses?

With regard to the study population and sample, all the guidelines for all dual training programmes offered by higher education institutions in Spain during the 2024–25 academic year were included. The resulting population comprised all the FYP and MTh guidelines corresponding to the 67 programmes belonging to 20 universities (18 public and 2 private). Of the 67 dual programmes analysed, we found 40 bachelor’s programmes (59.7%) and 27 master’s programmes (40.3%), reflecting a consolidation and adaptation of the curricula towards the dual model, particularly at bachelor’s level (Bertelsmann Foundation, 2023).

In terms of university type, there is a slightly higher participation of public universities (53.7%) compared to private ones (46.3%). It should be noted that, in the former, the FYP (Final Degree Project) format predominates (35.8%), compared to 23.9% in private universities. In contrast, Master’s theses (MTh) are more prevalent in private universities (22.4%), compared with 17.9% in public ones, which could be interpreted as the private sector placing greater emphasis on professional specialisation as a differentiation strategy.

 

3.2.  Instrument.

 

An online questionnaire was developed to collect all the content from the teaching guides on the Final Degree Project (FYP/MTh) found in dual programmes, enabling us to answer the research question and achieve our research objectives. The questionnaire included the following sections:

 

●      Identification data: 1. The direct web link to the guide, 2. Type of guide (FYP or MTh) and 3. Internal project code.  (used to streamline data collection, as it allowed the information to be linked to other previously systematised study objectives).

●      Characterisation of the placements: 4. Number of credits (numerical response), 5. Types and nature of the FYP or MTh (closed-ended responses), 6. Activities and hours (if available), an open-ended response that captured the content and information from the guide; if not found, it was left unanswered.

●      Essential components: Items 7 to 11 are open-ended questions where the information found was entered and had to correspond to the item itself. 12. Others: an open-ended question to collect any information not previously recorded.

 

It should be noted that, as there was an internal code linking each guide to additional programme information, it was possible to better contextualise the documents analysed. This coding allowed certain relevant characteristics to be verified based on a broader view of the programme. The supplementary data considered included aspects such as the business sector to which the programme relates, the possibility of undertaking work placements abroad, as well as the inclusion of ethical considerations and warnings regarding dishonest practices.

This instrument underwent a pilot test with five teaching guides that met the same criteria as the study population, and was validated by 15 experts, members of the research team. The data obtained were exported to Excel with pivot tables for analysis. Quantitative data were analysed first, followed by the qualitative data.

 

4. Results

 

4.1.  Quantitative analysis.

 

The data obtained allow us to identify trends in the structure of the teaching guides for Bachelor’s and Master’s theses in the dual programmes analysed. The most represented fields are Engineering and Technology (56.7 %) and Social, Administrative and Legal Sciences (26.9 %). Meanwhile, fields such as Natural Sciences (11.9%) and Health Sciences (3.0%) have a smaller share, whilst Engineering and Architecture are barely represented (1.5%). As regards links with productive sectors, the industrial sector stands out as the most represented (23.9%), followed by business and IT (9.0% in both cases), and energy and automotive (6.0% each). Other sectors identified, albeit less frequently, include agri-food, biomedical engineering, human resources, and audiovisual communication… amongst many others.

As for the ECTS credit load assigned to the FYP/MTh, there is considerable variation, although a clear trend towards the 12-credit model is observed, established as the most common standard in most sectors, particularly in the industrial, business, automotive, IT, chemical and agri-food sectors. However, sectors such as public administration, education, energy and robotics tend to be associated with projects of a lower credit load, specifically 6 credits. It is particularly worth noting the presence of sectors linked to final-year projects (FYP/MTh) with 18 credits or more, including 30-credit options in the industrial and business sectors, 24-credit options in the agri-food and automotive sectors, and 18-credit projects in the

 

IT, advertising and robotics sectors, which indicates the existence of more intensive study programmes.

Another noteworthy aspect, from a methodological perspective, is the variation in the approach taken by the projects depending on the disciplinary field. In sectors such as industry, IT and business, research and innovation projects predominate, whilst in areas such as education, advertising and audiovisual communication, more expressive and creative proposals stand out, tailored to the skills required by each degree programme.

As for the differences found between public and private universities, an analysis of the distribution of fields shows that Engineering and Technology has the highest overall representation, distributed evenly between private (29.86%) and public (26.87%) universities. Similarly, the area of Social, Administrative and Legal Sciences is again fairly balanced between private (11.94%) and public (14.93%) universities. In contrast, in Natural Sciences, public universities (8.96%) show greater involvement than private ones (2.99%). With regard to links with different business sectors, there are significant differences depending on the type of university. In public universities, the industrial sector is the most common (13.9%), followed by the agri-food sector (8.3%) and the energy sector (5.6%). Contributions are also recorded in sectors such as computer science (8.3%), business (8.3%) and audiovisual communication (2.8%), which demonstrates a relatively balanced and diverse thematic distribution. However, private universities show a marked concentration in the business sector (35.5%), followed by the IT, energy and audiovisual communication sectors with 9.7% each, whilst the presence in the industrial sector is lower (6.5%) and the agri-food sector appears only once (3.2%).

Furthermore, regarding the presence of explicit assessment criteria in the course guidelines, a clear pattern emerges: 75.8% of public universities include such criteria, compared to 35.5% of private ones. Moreover, in the latter, a significant number of programmes do not include criteria or do not have the course guidelines published on their website at all (12.9%). Finally, with regard to the criteria defined for the defence of the FYP and MTh, we find that the differences are even more marked: only 6.5% of private universities include explicit criteria, compared to 41.7% in public universities. These figures are cause for concern, as this information is crucial and essential in the guidelines for any subject, particularly in the case of a FYP or MTh guide, which represents the demonstration of the body of knowledge and skills acquired in a programme that is specifically termed ‘dual’.

In light of these latest findings regarding assessment criteria, we can note that these percentages may suggest a higher degree of formalisation and quality control in public universities, leading to greater transparency, equity and reliability in the assessment process. This approach is underpinned by the regulatory framework established by Royal Decree 822/2021, which states in Article 25 that “official university degrees must undergo external evaluation procedures in accordance with the Criteria and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area”.

 

4.2.  Quantitative analysis

 

Once the quantitative analysis has been completed, the qualitative analysis of the data is carried out, with particular attention to the descriptive aspects relating to the types of activities and their corresponding workload, the assessment criteria, the criteria in the process of developing the Final Year Project (FYP) and oral defence, as well as the objectives and competences, elements which we will detail below.

 

 

1. Type of activities and hours allocated. Explicit references to the type of activities and, in some cases, the hours allocated were found in only 35 of the 67 programmes analysed; therefore, the data provided below must take this representativeness into account. The following activities were identified among independent study and tutorials:

 

a.     Independent activities supervised by the FYP and MTh supervisor: these include individual tutorials with specialist lecturers, independent work on project development, and individual or group follow-up tutorials.

b.     Development and presentation of work: these comprise the development, drafting and presentation of individual and group work, the preparation and public defence of the project report, the presentation of work and/or topics; as well as essays and the defence of the project.

c.     Seminars and workshops: these include activities such as seminars on the regulations governing the FYP and MTh, workshops on information resources and the handling of scientific information, and sessions aimed at developing the skills necessary to carry out the project properly.

d.     Research and information retrieval: this covers the search for background information, the state of the art and sources, bibliographic consultation, and the development of documentation and retrieval of background information for the completion of the FYP or MTh.

e.     Work placement: this includes a work placement for the development of the project and fieldwork within the company.

 

2. Assessment criteria. Upon reviewing the assessment criteria, a combination of technical, scientific and communication skills is evident across all programmes. Below, we provide a summary of these qualitative criteria used for both the Bachelor’s and Master’s theses, listing them and indicating the score always assigned on a scale of 0 to 100.

a.     Scientific and technical quality of the work carried out: between 20.00 and 65.00 points.

b.     Supervision, definition of the topic, planning of the Bachelor’s thesis and development of the work: between 25.00 and 30.00 points.

c.     Written work, thesis, development: between 20.00 and 40.00 points.

d.     Final presentation. Oral defence of the thesis before an examination board: between 10.00 and 81.50 points.

 

3. Criteria in the development process of the FYP/MTh project. It is worth noting that few programmes include a specific section on criteria for the presentation in their guidelines, as this is often linked to the general criteria of the project. In this case, we found 14 programmes or guidelines that do include this, with the following results and sections:

 

a.     Supervisor’s report.

The interest, complexity and originality of the work, the student’s dedication and involvement, and adherence to deadlines in the completion of the FYP are assessed.

 

b.     Written work.

-Research: Selection and justification of the subject of study, problem formulation, theoretical framework and/or state of the art, methodological design, results and data analysis, conclusions, quality of writing.

-Design of social policies or programmes: Appropriate contextualisation, justification and suitability of the project’s objectives, detailed description of the social intervention policy or programme and its scope within the context, alignment of the implementation plan and the evaluation proposal, quality of writing.

-Marketing and/or communication plans: Situation analysis, setting of objectives, strategy and actions consistent with the analysis, evaluation or monitoring methods, alignment of the timetable and budget, quality of writing.

-Creative works: Justification of the work or project, documentation and research of textual and/or visual references, design and development of the creative process, technical and creative quality and coherence, conceptual rigour of the proposal, quality and development of the dossier and project or work report, quality of writing.

c.     Oral Defence.

In programmes that include specific criteria for the oral defence, the following are identified:

-Quality of resources used in the presentation of the work: The quality of the resources used in the presentation of the work is assessed.

-Clarity of presentation: The student’s clarity of presentation during the defence is assessed.

-Ability to understand and respond to the questions raised: The student’s ability to understand and respond to the questions raised by the panel is assessed.

d.     Examination Board Assessment and Quality Criteria

-       Quality of the work: Complexity of the problem addressed, the methods used in its resolution and the results obtained.

-       Quality of the presentation and maturity during the defence: Assessment of the presentation and the student’s ability to defend their work.

-       Quality of the Master’s Thesis: Assessment of the quality of the writing in the Master’s Thesis.

e.     Objectives and competencies.

-       With regard to the Objectives, General and Specific Competencies, it is observed that 18 of the 67 guidelines analysed (26.86%) contain no information in any of the three sections. Furthermore, 31 guidelines (46.27%) contain information in only one of the sections, and just 10 guidelines (14.93%) include partial content in at least two of the sections under analysis. Consequently, a total of 59 guidelines (88.06%) do not provide sufficient information to allow for an in-depth analysis or to adequately assess the consistency between the objectives, general competencies and specific competencies.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that in 11 of the guidelines analysed (16.42%), the description of general competences is limited to a generic formulation, such as: “Ability to draft and develop projects within the

 

scope of the degree programme” (including, amongst others, guidelines PV-40, PV-56 and PV-42). Similarly, a similar trend is observed in the wording of the specific competences, as in the case of guide PV-36, where it is stated in general terms: “To present a group or individual project publicly using the appropriate terminology”. Only 8 guidelines (11.94%) provide information in all the sections analysed, offering sufficient data to give students clear guidance on the course objectives and the competences they are expected to acquire whilst undertaking their BSc or MSc dissertation.

 

5. Discussion

 

Analysing the records from the perspective of an appropriate definition of objectives and competences, it can be observed that, with regard to the objectives, in most cases their formulation is excessively generic and broad. Expressions such as “integrate the knowledge acquired throughout the degree” (CL-13) or “gain maturity” (CL-12) and, in relation to competences—both general and specific—there is a tendency towards generic and impractical formulation. For example, the PV-13 guide lists general competences such as “CG1. Ability to analyse and synthesise”, “CG5. Ability to learn and work independently” or “CG13. Ability to act ethically and with social commitment”, without any contextualisation or direct link to work tasks or outcomes. A similar example can be found in the PV-21 guide, where the specific competence “CE7: Identify and apply the theories, methods, techniques and tools specific to project management” is so general that it limits its practical applicability.

Although these formulations reflect the educational purpose of the FYP or MTh, they do not specify the concrete knowledge, skills or outcomes that the student must achieve, thereby hindering teaching planning and the objective assessment of competence development. Previous studies in the field of Education pointed to a crisis of academic integrity linked to the misuse of digital sources (Cebrián-Robles et al., 2016); in the context of the current dual programmes (2020–2024), the problem has shifted. These findings highlight the need to establish common criteria for the development of teaching guides in dual programmes, including clearly and operationally formulated objectives and competences, explicit assessment criteria, and coherent methodological guidelines. Furthermore, it is recommended that coordination between universities and work placement centres be strengthened to ensure that final-year undergraduate and postgraduate theses respond to real-world projects and effectively contribute to students’ employability.

The identified need to establish common and operational criteria in the teaching guidelines is in line with the guidelines of the ANECA Assessment Protocol (2022), which states that the dual degree requires planning where learning outcomes are clearly aligned with professional practice. Strengthening coordination to ensure that final-year projects address real-world industry challenges is fundamental to achieving the ‘win-win’ model described by Pogatsnik (2018), ensuring that academic work is not a bureaucratic formality but a driver of effective collaboration between universities and businesses. The urgency of establishing common and operational criteria in the teaching guidelines for dual programmes, identified in this analysis, not only responds to a demand for internal quality but also aligns with the requirements of the ANECA Protocol (2022).

 

 

As suggested by Pogatsnik (2018) and Beraza Garmendia (2023), the effectiveness of these programmes lies in the ability to transform the final degree project into a space for genuine knowledge transfer; otherwise, there is a risk of perpetuating the disconnect between theory and practice already highlighted by previous studies in non-dual degree programmes (Cebrián-Robles et al., 2016).

This study’s recommendation to strengthen university-industry coordination is based on the premise that the FYP/MTh is the ultimate measure of students’ academic and professional success. In this regard, Bonifaz Aranda et al. (2025) emphasise that effective supervision is a predictor of success in these projects, which, combined with the need for clear and practical teaching guidelines, would enable a shift from a bureaucratic assessment model towards one of active and authentic learning, fully integrated within the quality framework required by Royal Decree 822/2021.

 

 

6. Conclusions

 

The number of dual programmes is still relatively small when compared to the number of non-dual programmes. According to the most recent data from the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities for the 2024–2025 academic year (MEC, 2025), there are approximately 2,854 official university programmes (including undergraduate and postgraduate degrees) at public and private universities in Spain. Thus, the 67 dual programmes identified and analysed represent 2.4%, with a slightly higher proportion of public universities (53.7%) compared to private ones (46.3%). However, the trend is becoming established despite these initial figures.

Despite this consolidation, we found both uniformity of elements in the guides and specific disparities, with significant omissions that we must consider in light of the importance of these guides, as established in the study, both for students’ decision-making and for planning aimed at the improvement and excellence of the institutions. Therefore, in response to the research question and the objectives of this study, the following conclusions are drawn, based first on these considerations of homogeneity and disparity, followed by the most notable omissions.

a.     A trend towards standardisation of Final Degree Projects (FYP) and Final Master’s Projects (MTh) in 12-credit ECTS modules is observed. However, a notable disparity persists between fields of study: whilst sectors such as industry, business, computing, chemistry and agri-food tend to maintain this course load, in disciplines more closely linked to the social sciences it is common to find equivalent modules with only 6 credits. This heterogeneity reflects structural differences in educational approaches and in the practical demands of each disciplinary field. However, the systematic reduction of the course load in certain areas, such as the Social Sciences, should be duly justified on pedagogical grounds and not merely result from institutional inertia or organisational constraints.

b.     Approximately 30% of the guidelines analysed omit at least one of the three fundamental sections —Objectives, General Competences and Specific Competences— and almost half include only one of them. Consequently, more than half of the guidelines lack a complete description of these key elements. Even when they are included, their wording is often vague or excessively generic. This shortcoming may be linked to the difficulty of anticipating, at the time the guidelines are drawn up, the degree of commitment and alignment between universities, students and companies, whose collaboration is formalised later through training contracts. In this context, an excessively rigid structure for the guidelines could not only limit the flexibility needed to adapt programmes to real-world circumstances, but also undermine the conditions that facilitate their successful implementation.

This lack of specificity compromises the usefulness of the guidelines as a guidance tool for students and hinders both teaching planning and objective assessment (Fernández-Morante, et al., 2023). It is recommended that we move towards a more operational and contextualised formulation of objectives and competences, aligned with the tasks and outcomes of the FYP/MTh, to ensure greater clarity, pedagogical coherence and educational quality. Given that we understand this complexity does not exempt us from the responsibility to provide, from the outset, clear and guiding information which, without prejudicing the subsequent training contract, serves as a solid basis for informed and coherent decision-making.

c.     A comparative analysis between public and private universities reveals a relatively balanced distribution in the fields of Engineering and Technology, as well as in the Social, Administrative and Legal Sciences, suggesting a convergence in the provision of dual training in these strategic fields. However, a significant difference is observed in the field of Natural Sciences, where public universities show a notably greater involvement. This asymmetry could be linked to the stronger research tradition and the scientific infrastructure available in the public sector, raising questions about the role of private universities in promoting dual training in fundamental scientific disciplines. In this regard, it would be pertinent to examine in greater depth the structural and strategic factors underpinning these differences, as well as their implications for equity and diversity within Spain’s dual university system.

d.     Analysis of the course guides reveals significant differences between public and private universities regarding the transparency and formalisation of assessment criteria. In public universities, 75.8% of programmes include explicit assessment criteria, compared to 35.5% in private universities. Furthermore, 12.9% of the latter do not publish the course syllabus or do not include any assessment criteria. This gap widens even further with regard to the criteria for the final-year project (FYP/MTh) defence: only 6.5% of private universities specify these, compared to 41.7% of public universities.

These data suggest a greater formalisation of the assessment process in public universities, which could be interpreted as a stronger commitment to transparency, equity and reliability in academic assessment (Skedsmo & Huber, 2025). This approach is in line with the provisions of Article 25 of Royal Decree 822/2021, which requires official degrees to undergo external evaluation procedures in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area. In this context, the absence or ambiguity of criteria in many private universities raises questions about the degree of compliance with these standards and the quality assurance of educational processes.

e.     The assessment criteria identified in the teaching guides show considerable variability, both in their formulation and in their weighting. Although the scientific and technical quality of the work usually ranks first in terms of assessment weight, followed by supervision and mentoring, the written report and, finally, the presentation and public defence, the latter is explicitly mentioned in barely 20% of the guides analysed. This limited presence contrasts with the importance attributed to it in the development of the training process, where it features as a key activity. Furthermore, only 52.23% of the guidelines include a detailed description of the training activities, which include both independent and tutor-led tasks.

This lack of alignment between the assessment criteria and the recognised training activities suggests a structural weakness in the pedagogical coherence of the guidelines. The limited prominence given to the public defence, despite its academic and symbolic value, highlights the need to review and harmonise the assessment tools to ensure a comprehensive, transparent evaluation that is aligned with the educational objectives of the FYP/MTh.

f.      The assessment process for the Final Year Project (FYP) takes into account a range of criteria that vary according to the nature of the work (research, intervention, marketing, artistic creation), but which share a common structure: evaluation of the supervisor’s report, quality of the written work, oral defence and the panel’s assessment. This variety allows the assessment to be adapted to different methodological approaches and disciplines, which is a strength of the model. However, there is a lack of consistency in the specification and application of these criteria, particularly regarding the oral defence and the coherence between the assessed elements and the expected learning outcomes.

In this regard, it is recommended to move towards greater systematisation and transparency in assessment criteria, ensuring they are appropriate to the type of work and aligned with the defined competences, with approaches that are more formative, transparent and aligned with competence-based learning. This supports the use of rubrics and clear criteria as an alternative to traditional assessments that lack contextualisation. A rubric-based methodology, which, due to its greater objectivity, is almost non-existent in all the guidelines (French et al., 2024). Furthermore, it would be advisable to strengthen teacher training in competence-based assessment and to promote the development of clear, shared rubrics that guarantee the fairness, objectivity and traceability of the assessment process.

Based on the analysis and conclusions, the essential components reflected in the guidelines, together with the recommendations we can propose and the warnings regarding significant omissions, we could state:

- Essential components in dual programmes as reflected in the teaching guidelines:

The guidelines analysed show a common structure centred on the assessment of the FYP/MTh —tutor’s report, written work, oral defence and panel’s assessment— which allows for adaptation to different types of projects. However, the specification and application of these criteria vary considerably between universities, particularly with regard to the oral defence and alignment with learning outcomes. Whilst this diversity reflects flexibility, it also highlights a lack of standardisation that may affect pedagogical coherence.

- General recommendations:

It is recommended that steps be taken towards greater standardisation in the definition of objectives, competences and assessment criteria, particularly with regard to the public defence and training activities. The development of clear rubrics, staff training in competence-based assessment and the full publication of teaching guides are key steps towards ensuring transparency, equity and quality in dual programmes.

 

 

- General shortcomings identified and areas for review:

The main shortcomings identified include the generic formulation of competences, the scarcity of explicit criteria for the final project defence, and the lack of information on training activities. These shortcomings limit the guiding function of the guidelines and hinder objective assessment. According to the literature and the current regulatory framework, these guidelines should provide a clear and operational basis for the planning, development and continuous improvement of dual programmes.

In short, dual programmes show progress in their consolidation and assessment structure; however, significant shortcomings persist, mainly in the definition of competences, defence criteria and training activities, which underlines the need to review and harmonise the teaching guidelines to ensure their guiding, assessment and continuous improvement functions within the framework of high-quality university education.

As regards limitations and future directions, the analysis was limited to the guidelines for final-year undergraduate dissertations and master’s theses, and did not cover the remaining undergraduate guidelines; it would therefore be advisable to supplement this with a study in this area. Similarly, the data collected and analysed still needs to be prepared so that the main findings can be discussed with the managers of dual work placements, programme directors, company and academic tutors, as well as the students on work placements themselves, in order to obtain more in-depth assessments and explanations of these analyses from these stakeholders.

 

Notes

 

Funding source:

R&D&I Project: Supervision of work placements in dual training programmes in a digital world: Challenges, methodologies and good practices (DUAL-DIG). Ref: PID2022-141325NB-I00. Funding body: MICIU/AEI/10.13039/50110001/ and co-funded by the ERDF.EU.

It also received support from the PREP2022-000975 pre-doctoral grant, funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and co-funded by the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+).

 

Level of contribution:

Conceptualisation, JMAP, OSQ and MABG; Methodology, JMAP, OSQ and MABG; Research, JMAP and OSQ; Resources, JMAP and OSQ.; Data curation,JMAP and OSQ; Review and editing, JMAP and OSQ

 

Conflict of interest:

The authors must declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this manuscript.

 

Ethical statement:

This research was carried out on a corpus of texts published on the websites of Spanish universities, ensuring respect for copyright and the proper citation of all sources used. The analysis process followed principles of honesty, transparency and impartiality, complying with current ethical and academic standards for studies of this type.

 

 

 

 

Bibliographical references

 

Alemán-Falcón, J. and Calcines-Piñero, M. (2022). The internationalisation of the German Dual Vocational Training System: Factors for its implementation in other countries. Analytical Archives of Educational Policy, 30(57). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.30.6029

Álvarez-Benítez, M. M. and Asensio-Muñoz, I. (2020). Evidence of validity for a measure of generic competences. Educación XX1, 23(2), 337-366. https://doi.org/10.5944/educXX1.25896

ANECA. (2022) Assessment protocol for the inclusion of the dual degree. https://acortar.link/9ZrGkj

Battaner Moro, E., González Chamorro, C., and Sánchez Barrios, J. L. (2016). The Final Degree Project (FYP) in Spanish Universities. Analysis and discussion from the perspective of University Ombudsmen. Rued@. Journal of University, Ethics and Rights, (1). 44–82. https://revistas.uca.es/index.php/Rueda/article/view/2586

Beraza Garmendia, J. M. (2023). Development of transversal competences in dual training in the BA degree. Journal of Management and Business Education, 6(1), 96–121. https://doi.org/10.35564/jmbe.2023.0006

Bonifaz Aranda, E-B., Villagómez Cabezas, A. V. and Moreno Tapia, C. B. (2025). Tutoring and success in final-year projects: Tutoring and final-year projects. EDUCA. International Journal for Educational Quality, 5(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.55040/educa.v5i1.131

Camilli Trujillo C., Arroyo Resino D., Asensio Muñoz I. and Mateos Gordo P. (2022). Integrative systematic review of the final-year project: contextual and pedagogical aspects. Complutense Journal of Education, 33(3), 543-553. https://doi.org/10.5209/rced.74631

Cebrián-de-la-Serna, M., & Pérez-Torregrosa, A.B. (2024). La inteligencia artificial y su contribución a los ePortafolios en el prácticum. Revista Practicum, 9(2), 38-53. https://doi.org/10.24310/rep.9.2.2024.20495

Cebrián-Robles, V., Raposo-Rivas, M. and Sarmiento-Campos, J. A. (2016). Ethics or dishonest practices? Plagiarism in Education degree programmes. Revista Educación, 374. https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2016-374-330

Climent-Ferrando, V. (ed.), Altuna, J., Galarza, J. and Urquía, I. (2024). An in-depth analysis of dual university education in Spain. Bertelsmann Foundation. https://www.fundacionbertelsmann.org/publicaciones/radiografia-de-la-formacion-dual-universitaria-en-espana/   

Ciesielkiewicz, M., Bonilla, C. F., and Santos, M. (2024). The impact of service learning supported by the ePortfolio on the development of professional competencies. Teaching Education, 35(3), 293–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2023.2281396

Fernández-Morante, C., Palacios-Rodríguez, A., and Rodríguez-Hoyos, C. (2023). Teachers’ Digital Competence: The Case of the University System of Galicia. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 12(1), 113–129. https://rd.springer.com/content/pdf/10.7821/naer.2023.1.1139.pdf

French, S., Dickerson, A., and Mulder, R. A. (2024). A review of the benefits and drawbacks of high-stakes final examinations in higher education. Higher Education, 88, 893–918. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-023-01148-z

Gómez, M. E., Serrano, R., Amor, M. I. and Huertas, C. (2018). Final-year projects (FYP) as an innovation in the EHEA. A proposal for a collaborative task based on pyramid tutoring. Educar, 54(2), 369–389. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/educar.829

 

 

Hernández-Sampieri, R., Fernández, C. and Baptista, P. (2014). Research Methodology. McGraw-Hill.

MEC. (2025). Facts and figures on the Spanish University System 2024–2025. https://www.ciencia.gob.es/InfoGeneralPortal/detalle-publicacion/MICIU/Datos-y-cifras-del-Sistema-Universitario-Espanol0.html

Pérez-Torregrosa, A.B., Gallego-Arrufat, M.J., & Cebrián-de-la-Serna, M. (2022). Digital rubric-based assessment of oral presentation competence with technological resources for preservice teachers. Estudios Sobre Educación, 43, 177-198 https://doi.org/10.15581/004.43.009

Pogatsnik, M. (2018). Dual Education: The Win-Win Model of Collaboration between Universities and Industry. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 8(3), 145–152. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/207436/

Royal Decree 822/2021 of 28 September, establishing the organisation of official university education and its quality assurance procedure. Official State Gazette, 233, 119544–119620. https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2021-15781

Sánchez-Serrano, S., Belando-Montoro, M. R., and León Carrascosa, V. (2025). Perceived effectiveness and student profiles in university service-learning. Journal of Education, 1(407). https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2025-407-651

Sarceda-Gorgoso, C., Allur-Aranburu, E., Raposo-Rivas, M., and Barberá-Gregori, M. A. (2024). University Dual Training: a descriptive review. Revista Practicum, 9(2), 83–99. https://doi.org/10.24310/rep.9.2.2024.20937

Skedsmo, G. and Huber, S. G. (2025). Exploring the complexities of assessment, evaluation, and accountability in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 37(1), 35–71. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11092-025-09412-3

Vicario-Molina, I., Martín-Pastor, E., Gómez-Gonçalves, A. and González Rodero, L. M. (2020). New challenges in higher education: analysis of results obtained and difficulties encountered in the completion of the final-year project by students on the Teacher Training Degree programmes at the University of Salamanca. Revista Complutense de Educación, 31(2), 185–194. https://doi.org/10.5209/rced.62003

Tastanbekova, N., Abenova, B., Yessekeshova, M., Sagalieva, Z. and Abildina, G. (2021): Development of Professional Skills in the Context of Higher School Dual Education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 16(10), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i10.19373

Zabalza, M. A. and Zabalza, M. A. (2012). Planning university teaching: Developing course syllabuses. Narcea.