Sustainable Development Goals
This article contributes to the following United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
Palabras clave
Cómo citar
Resumen de la publicación
Próximo número
J-HyTEL welcomes original and rigorous scholarship advancing education, media technology, and computer science applications.
Rolling submissions are accepted throughout the year.
Resumen
La diversidad del alumnado supone un reto constante en la educación superior, especialmente cuando es necesario mantener unos objetivos de aprendizaje comunes al tiempo que se ofrece flexibilidad en los recursos de aprendizaje, las actividades, la interacción, el apoyo y la evaluación. Este estudio analizó las percepciones y la aceptación por parte de los estudiantes del aprendizaje diferenciado con apoyo digital en la enseñanza de las tecnologías de la información. Se llevó a cabo una encuesta descriptiva cuantitativa transversal con 35 estudiantes de la Universitas Lampung (Indonesia) tras la experiencia de aprendizaje. Los datos se recopilaron mediante un cuestionario de 31 ítems valorados en una escala de Likert de cuatro puntos, que presentó una alta consistencia interna (α de Cronbach = 0,985), y se analizaron utilizando medias, desviaciones estándar y puntuaciones medias normalizadas. Los estudiantes valoraron favorablemente las cinco dimensiones de implementación (M = 3,28; 81,88 %). El diseño pedagógico digital recibió la valoración más alta (M = 3,34; 83,45 %), mientras que la diferenciación de productos y la evaluación recibieron la más baja (M = 3,18; 79,57 %). La colaboración apoyada por la tecnología fue el ítem individual mejor valorado (M = 3,49; 87,14 %), mientras que las opciones en los formatos de presentación y la puntualidad de la retroalimentación digital recibieron valoraciones más bajas. El resumen de aceptación secundario fue igualmente favorable (M = 3,31; 82,74 %), y el aumento de la motivación para el aprendizaje recibió la puntuación más alta. Estos resultados identifican el apoyo digital y la colaboración como puntos fuertes percibidos del diseño del aprendizaje, mientras que la flexibilidad en los productos de los estudiantes y la puntualidad de la retroalimentación merecen una mayor atención. Dado el diseño basado en una única cohorte, exclusivamente retrospectivo, y la ausencia de medidas objetivas de los resultados de aprendizaje, los resultados deben interpretarse como evidencia específica del contexto sobre las percepciones de los estudiantes respecto a la implementación, más que como evidencia de efectos causales sobre el aprendizaje.
RIS is compatible with Zotero, Mendeley, and EndNote. Immediate opening depends on the visitor's browser and reference-manager settings.
Declaraciones recogidas en el artículo publicado
Author Contributions
Margaretha Karolina Sagala: Conceptualization; Methodology; Investigation; Writing – Original Draft. Afif Rahman Riyanda: Formal Analysis; Validation; Investigation; Writing – Original Draft; Writing – Review & Editing. Daniel Rinaldi: Investigation; Writing – Review & Editing. Ghea Chandra Surawan: Investigation; Methodology (instrument development); Writing – Review & Editing. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript and accepted responsibility for the work.
Acknowledgments
Not applicable.
View statement in PDF · PDF page 9Financiación
DIPA BLU FKIP Universitas Lampung supported this research for fiscal year 2026.
View statement in PDF · PDF page 9Conflictos de Intereses
The authors declare no competing interests.
View statement in PDF · PDF page 10Ethics Approval
The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles and applicable institutional guidelines governing research involving human participants.
View statement in PDF · PDF page 10Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all participants before participation. Participants were informed about the study purpose and procedures, the voluntary nature of participation, confidentiality, and their right to withdraw without consequence.
View statement in PDF · PDF page 10Consent for Publication
Not applicable. The study does not report identifiable participant data, images, or other information that could identify an individual. Study or Protocol Registration This descriptive survey was not prospectively registered in a study or protocol registry.
View statement in PDF · PDF page 10Disponibilidad de Datos
The data supporting the findings are not publicly available because of privacy and ethical considerations concerning the participants. They may be available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request, subject to applicable ethical and institutional requirements. Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies During manuscript preparation, the authors used ChatGPT solely for language editing, grammar correction, and readability. The authors reviewed and verified all AI-assisted suggestions, made the final substantive and scientific decisions, and take full responsibility for the content. Preprint and Prior Dissemination The authors declare that this manuscript has not been previously published or posted as a preprint, conference paper, conference abstract, working paper, thesis, dissertation, repository version, or other related publication.
View statement in PDF · PDF page 10Citas
31 References[1] R. Boelens, M. Voet, and B. De Wever, “The design of blended learning in response to student diversity in higher education: Instructors’ views and use of differentiated instruction in blended learning,” Comput. Educ., vol. 120, pp. 197–212, May 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.009.
[2] P. Subban, M. N. Suprayogi, M. Preston, A. N. Liyani, and A. P. P. Ratri, “Differentiation is sometimes a hit and miss: Educator perceptions of differentiated instruction in the higher education sector,” Asia-Pac. Educ. Res., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 873–884, Jun. 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-024-00904-8.
[3] M. Preston, P. Subban, M. N. Suprayogi, A. N. Liyani, and A. P. P. Ratri, “Differentiated instruction in higher education: The experience and perceptions of five academics,” J. Educ. Learn. (EduLearn), vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 1295–1306, Aug. 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v19i3.21760.
[4] A. E. Smale-Jacobse, A. Meijer, M. Helms-Lorenz, and R. Maulana, “Differentiated instruction in secondary education: A systematic review of research evidence,” Front. Psychol., vol. 10, Nov. 2019, Art. no. 2366, doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02366.
[5] M. I. Deunk, A. E. Smale-Jacobse, H. de Boer, S. Doolaard, and R. J. Bosker, “Effective differentiation practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education,” Educ. Res. Rev., vol. 24, pp. 31–54, Jun. 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.02.002.
[6] M. J. Koehler, P. Mishra, and W. Cain, “What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?,” J. Educ., vol. 193, no. 3, pp. 13–19, 2013, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741319300303.
[7] J. O. Väätäjä and H. Ruokamo, “Conceptualizing dimensions and a model for digital pedagogy,” J. Pac. Rim Psychol., vol. 15, 2021, Art. no. 1834490921995395, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1834490921995395.
[8] S. Santoveña-Casal and S. R. López, “Mapping of digital pedagogies in higher education,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 2437–2458, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11888-1.
[9] R. F. Schmid et al., “The effects of technology use in postsecondary education: A meta-analysis of classroom applications,” Comput. Educ., vol. 72, pp. 271–291, Mar. 2014, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.11.002.
[10] E. Meşe and E. Mede, “Using digital differentiation to improve EFL achievement and self-regulation of tertiary learners: The Turkish context,” Innov. Lang. Learn. Teach., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 340–353, Mar. 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2022.2043872.
[11] T. T. Heng, “Using technology-enhanced differentiated instruction to support learning in higher education,” J. Glob. High. Educ., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 186–201, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.25774/JGHE.V1I1.10.
[12] M. Tavakol and R. Dennick, “Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha,” Int. J. Med. Educ., vol. 2, pp. 53–55, 2011, doi: https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd.
[13] M. A. C. Sedanza and J. A. Abatayo, “Beyond the average: A systematic review and meta-analysis of differentiated instruction for diverse English learners,” Front. Educ., vol. 11, Aug. 2026, Art. no. 1906974, doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2026.1906974.
[14] T. T. Heng and N. Lu, “International students’ experiences of technology-enhanced differentiated instruction in higher education: Promises, pitfalls, propositions,” Teach. High. Educ., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 191–210, 2026, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2025.2565790.
[15] J. Frohn, M. Pozas, J. Lau, and J. Hundt, “Differentiated instruction through learning management systems: Insights from teachers in Germany,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 31, pp. 5807–5826, 2026, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-026-13997-z.
[16] M. Godsk and K. L. Møller, “Engaging students in higher education with educational technology,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 2941–2976, Feb. 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12901-x.
[17] M. M. Amin and M. K. K. Abdullah, “Designing effective and practical learning activities in higher education digital pedagogy: A systematic review of theories and practices,” Int. J. Learn. Teach. Educ. Res., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 242–262, Feb. 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.24.2.13.
[18] J. A. Pratama, A. R. Riyanda, M. K. Sagala, and B. Saputra, “Persepsi siswa terhadap penggunaan generative AI sebagai alat bantu belajar di SMK Negeri 4 Bandar Lampung,” Journal Purnama Education and Learning Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 10–16, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://journal-purnama.com/index.php/pels/article/view/7
[19] F. Herliana, T. Hafinda, and R. Firmayanto, “Differentiated instruction through adaptive learning platform in science education: A systematic literature review,” J. Pendidik. MIPA, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 914–931, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.23960/jpmipa/v25i2.pp914-931
[20] K. Asafa, E. D. Sari, R. P. Adijaya, and R. P. Rahayu, “Analisis antarmuka VClass Universitas Lampung: Evaluasi prinsip heuristik dan eksplorasi kebutuhan sistem pengingat batas waktu tugas,” Journal Purnama Teknologi Kejuruan, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 40–48, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://journal-purnama.com/index.php/purnatek/article/view/28
[21] CAST, “Universal design for learning guidelines version 3.0.” CAST. Accessed: Sep. 7, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://udlguidelines.cast.org/
[22] J. Hattie and H. Timperley, “The power of feedback,” Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 81–112, Mar. 2007, doi: https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.
[23] R. M. Ryan and E. L. Deci, “Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions,” Contemp. Educ. Psychol., vol. 61, Apr. 2020, Art. no. 101860, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860.
[24] J. A. Fredricks, P. C. Blumenfeld, and A. H. Paris, “School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence,” Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 59–109, Mar. 2004, doi: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059.
[25] M. Bond, K. Buntins, S. Bedenlier, O. Zawacki-Richter, and M. Kerres, “Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map,” Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ., vol. 17, 2020, Art. no. 2, doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8.
[26] F. Martin and D. U. Bolliger, “Developing an online learner satisfaction framework in higher education through a systematic review of research,” Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ., vol. 19, Sep. 2022, Art. no. 50, doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00355-5.
[27] R. S. Jansen, A. van Leeuwen, J. Janssen, S. Jak, and L. Kester, “Self-regulated learning partially mediates the effect of self-regulated learning interventions on achievement in higher education: A meta-analysis,” Educ. Res. Rev., vol. 28, Nov. 2019, Art. no. 100292, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100292.
[28] M. Theobald, “Self-regulated learning training programs enhance university students’ academic performance, self-regulated learning strategies, and motivation: A meta-analysis,” Contemp. Educ. Psychol., vol. 66, Jul. 2021, Art. no. 101976, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.101976.
[29] J. L. Robles Mucho et al., “Open learner models and pedagogical strategies in higher education: A meta-synthesis of approaches to self-regulated learning,” Front. Educ., vol. 10, Jan. 2026, Art. no. 1760183, doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1760183.
[30] E. A. Patall, H. Cooper, and S. R. Wynn, “The effectiveness and relative importance of choice in the classroom,” J. Educ. Psychol., vol. 102, no. 4, pp. 896–915, Nov. 2010, doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019545.
[31] D. Hauk and A. Gröschner, “How effective is learner-controlled instruction under classroom conditions? A systematic review,” Learn. Motiv., vol. 80, Nov. 2022, Art. no. 101850, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2022.101850.
Copyright and License
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
Derechos de autor 2026 Margaretha Karolina Sagala, Afif Rahman Riyanda, Daniel Rinaldi, Ghea Chandra Surawan