Pedagogical integration of digital tools and its relationship with the educational process of higher education students

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.70577/asce.v5i2.958

Keywords:

digital tools; higher education; learning; digital pedagogy; educational technologies

Abstract

The incorporation of digital tools in higher education has transformed teaching and learning processes, but their impact depends on how they are pedagogically integrated. This study analyzed this influence on students of Early Childhood Education at the Technical University Luis Vargas Torres of Esmeraldas, using a mixed-methods convergent design. The quantitative phase applied a Likert questionnaire to 100 students, organized into dimensions: pedagogical mediation, knowledge construction, academic interaction, autonomy, reflection, and competency development. The qualitative phase included interviews with teachers and classroom observations. The results show a moderate assessment across all dimensions (M ≈ 3.8), indicating that digital tools mainly contribute to functional aspects such as learning organization, communication, and student participation. However, their impact on complex cognitive processes (critical reflection, autonomy, deep knowledge construction) is limited and heterogeneous. It is concluded that the integration of digital tools is situated at a functional level, in an intermediate stage of development, where their transformative potential depends on the teacher's pedagogical mediation, instructional design, and institutional conditions. Therefore, the need to strengthen teacher training and promote a more intentional and reflective integration of technology in higher education is highlighted.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ausubel, D. P. (2002). Adquisición y retención del conocimiento: Una perspectiva cognitiva. Paidós.

Bond, M. (2020). Facilitating student engagement through educational technology: A mixed-methods study. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 2969-2993. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00282-x

Cabero-Almenara, J., & Palacios-Rodríguez, A. (2020). Marco Europeo de Competencia Digital Docente «DigCompEdu». Traducción y adaptación del cuestionario «DigCompEdu Check-In». Edmetic, 9(1), 213-234. https://www.uco.es/ucopress/ojs/index.php/edmetic/article/view/12462

Capili, B. (2021). Overview: Cross-sectional studies. AJN, American Journal of Nursing, 121(9), 59-61.

Chand, S. P. (2025). Methods of data collection in qualitative research: Interviews, focus groups, observations, and document analysis. Advances in Educational Research and Evaluation, 6(1), 303-317.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE.

Falloon, G. (2020). From digital literacy to digital competence: The teacher digital competency (TDC) framework. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 2449-2472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09767-4

Guillot-Valdés, M., Guillén-Riquelme, A., & Buela-Casal, G. (2022). Content validity through expert judgment for the depression clinical evaluation test. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 22(2), Article 100292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2022.100292

Jamshed, S. (2014). Qualitative research method-interviewing and observation. Journal of Basic and Clinical Pharmacy, 5(4), 87-88.

Kelle, U., Kühberger, C., & Bernhard, R. (2019). How to use mixed-methods and triangulation designs: An introduction to history education research. History Education Research Journal, 16(1), 5-23. https://doi.org/10.18546/HERJ.16.1.02

Maier, C., Thatcher, J. B., Grover, V., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2023). Cross-sectional research: A critical perspective, use cases, and recommendations for IS research. International Journal of Information Management, 70, Article 102625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102625

Marcelo, C., & Vaillant, D. (2009). Desarrollo profesional docente: ¿Cómo se aprende a enseñar? Narcea.

Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2020). Online university teaching during and after the COVID-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher presence and learning activity. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 923-945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00155-y

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

Tang, Y., Chen, P., Law, K. M. Y., Wu, C.-H., Lau, Y.-Y., Guan, J., He, D., & Ho, G. T. S. (2021). The effectiveness of digital technology in education: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 166, Article 104158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104158

Tardif, M. (2004). Los saberes del docente y su desarrollo profesional. Narcea.

Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53-55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd

UNESCO. (2023). Global education monitoring report 2023: Technology in education: A tool on whose terms? UNESCO.

Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Sullivan, Y. (2024). Conducting mixed-methods research: From classical social sciences to the age of big data and analytics. Virginia Tech Publishing.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Zakariya, Y. F. (2022). Cronbach's alpha in mathematics education research: Its appropriateness, overuse, and alternatives in estimating scale reliability. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1074430. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1074430

Published

2026-06-24

How to Cite

Pérez Pérez, O. J., Barcia Cedeño, E. I., & Tambaco Quintero, A. R. (2026). Pedagogical integration of digital tools and its relationship with the educational process of higher education students. ANNALS SCIENTIFIC EVOLUTION, 5(2), 3727–3746. https://doi.org/10.70577/asce.v5i2.958

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.