Technology, pedagogical models and academic performance: analysis in educational institutions of Loja and Guayaquil
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64747/aj9hhg57Keywords:
educational technology, pedagogical models, learning analytics, academic performanceAbstract
This study examined how pedagogical models and technological integration affected the academic performance of 682 lower‑ and upper‑secondary students in four schools in Loja and Guayaquil (Ecuador) during the 2024‑2025 school year. An explanatory sequential mixed‑methods design was applied: the quantitative quasi‑experimental phase compared three teaching approaches (Traditional, Collaborative‑ICT and Digital‑Constructivist) using standardized tests, learning‑management analytics and three‑level linear mixed modelling; the qualitative phase triangulated interviews, focus groups and classroom observations. Results indicated that the Digital‑Constructivist model outperformed the Traditional one by 0.88 points on average (≈ 12 %) and the Collaborative‑ICT model by 0.25 points, with statistically significant differences (F = 48.27; p < 0.001). Each additional point on the Technological Use Index was associated with a 0.38‑point increase in grades, whereas geographic location showed no independent effect. Multimodal interaction patterns—video, forums and co‑creation—were linked to a reduced dropout rate of 3.2 %. The study concluded that aligning technology, constructivist pedagogy and learning analytics enhances achievement regardless of urban context. The findings provide evidence for teacher‑training policies grounded in TPACK 2.0 and for the adoption of interoperable educational dashboards. Future research should explore the sustainability of these effects and their cost‑effectiveness in rural and bilingual settings.
References
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. Greenwood.
Charmaz, K. (2024). Constructing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2022). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (4th ed.). Sage.
Espinosa Cevallos, G., & Rojas Encalada, A. (2023). Competencias digitales docentes en el Ecuador post-pandemia. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación. https://rieoei.org/RIE/article/view/5678
Ferguson, R., & Ealick, B. (2021). Feedback loops in learning analytics. Journal of Learning Analytics, 8(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2021.7230
Gómez-Rodríguez, L., & Sánchez, M. (2023). Pedagogía digital crítica y emancipación del aprendizaje. Comunicar, 31(76), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.3916/C76-2023-02
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809
INEC. (2024). Informe de indicadores sociales y económicos 2024. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos. https://www.ecuadorencifras.gob.ec/
Karad, B., Smith, T., & Zhou, J. (2024). Technology-enhanced learning in secondary schools. Computers & Education, 205, 104886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104886
Kay, R., Leung, S., & Tang, H. (2023). Impact of learning analytics dashboards. Educational Technology & Society, 26(2), 45–60. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48747887
Li, Y., & Tsai, C.-C. (2022). Revisiting TPACK. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(5), 1623–1640. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13262
Luna, C., & Barros, M. (2024). Learning analytics-informed teaching. International Journal of Learning Analytics, 11(1), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2024.1125
Martínez, C., Jiménez, A., & Rincón, P. (2024). Teacher professional development and digital equity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 132, 104215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104215
Moreira-Choez, M., Castillo, L., & Gómez, P. (2025). AI-based assessment tools in Ecuadorian schools. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 18(3), 456–468. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2024.3386521
Nakagawa, S., Johnson, P. C. D., & Schielzeth, H. (2021). R² and ICC in GLMMs. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 18, 20211092. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2021.1092
Prieto-Portela, R., Méndez, S., & Fernández, T. (2023). Active digital learning strategies in Latin America. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 11209–11235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11874-1
Smith, M. K., Jones, F. H. M., Gilbert, S. L., & Wieman, C. (2013). COPUS: A new tool for characterizing university STEM classroom practices. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(4), 618–627. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-08-0154
Villavicencio, C., Ávila, A., & Zambrano, J. (2024). Teacher digital competence self-assessment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 62(1), 34–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331231121512
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Jenny del Cisne Duarte Ortiz, Adela María Gordillo Ronquillo, Betsy Paola Orellana Romero, Johnny Ernesto Vera Letechi (Autor/a)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
