Sustainable Development Goals
This article contributes to the following United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
키워드
인용 방법
출판물 개요
차기호
J-HyTEL welcomes original and rigorous scholarship advancing education, media technology, and computer science applications.
Rolling submissions are accepted throughout the year.
초록
학생의 다양성은 고등교육에서 지속적인 과제로 대두되고 있으며, 특히 학습 자원, 활동, 상호작용, 지원 및 평가에 유연성을 제공하면서도 공통된 학습 목표를 유지해야 할 때 더욱 그러하다. 본 연구는 정보기술 교육 분야에서 디지털 기술을 활용한 차별화된 학습에 대한 학생들의 인식과 수용도를 조사하였다. 학습 경험이 끝난 후, 인도네시아 람풍 대학교(Universitas Lampung)의 학생 35명을 대상으로 정량적 단면적 기술적 설문조사를 실시하였다. 데이터는 4점 리커트 척도로 평가되는 31개 문항의 설문지를 사용하여 수집되었으며, 높은 내적 일관성(크론바흐의 α = 0.985)을 보였으며, 평균, 표준 편차 및 정규화된 평균 점수를 사용하여 분석되었다. 학생들은 5가지 실행 차원에 대해 긍정적으로 평가했다(M = 3.28, 81.88%). 디지털 교육 설계가 가장 높은 평가를 받은 반면(평균 = 3.34, 83.45%), 산출물 및 평가의 차별화는 가장 낮은 평가를 받았습니다(평균 = 3.18, 79.57%). 기술 지원 협업은 개별 항목 중 가장 높은 평가를 받았으나(평균 = 3.49, 87.14%), 발표 형식의 선택과 디지털 피드백의 적시성은 낮은 평가를 받았다. 2차 수용도 요약 결과도 마찬가지로 긍정적이었으며(평균 = 3.31, 82.74%), 학습 동기 증대가 가장 높은 평가를 받았다. 이러한 결과는 디지털 지원과 협업을 학습 설계의 강점으로 인식하고 있음을 보여주는 반면, 학생 산출물의 유연성과 피드백의 적시성은 추가적인 주의가 필요함을 시사한다. 단일 코호트, 사후 조사만 포함된 연구 설계와 객관적인 학습 성과 측정 지표의 부재를 고려할 때, 이 연구 결과는 학습에 대한 인과적 효과의 증거라기보다는 특정 맥락에서 학생들이 프로그램 운영에 대해 어떻게 인식하고 있는지에 대한 증거로 해석되어야 한다.
RIS is compatible with Zotero, Mendeley, and EndNote. Immediate opening depends on the visitor's browser and reference-manager settings.
게재된 논문에 보고된 선언 사항
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 9연구비 지원
DIPA BLU FKIP Universitas Lampung supported this research for fiscal year 2026.
View statement in PDF · PDF page 9이해 상충
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 10데이터 가용성
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 10References
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
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Margaretha Karolina Sagala, Afif Rahman Riyanda, Daniel Rinaldi, Ghea Chandra Surawan