future internet

Article
Differentiated Teaching Based on Standardized Metrics
Integrating Fuzzy Logic Type 2 Detection Theory: High School
Case—PrepaTec, Mexico
María Artemisa Sangermán Jiménez 1, * and Pedro Ponce 2

1 Tecnologico de Monterrey, Department of Spanish and Literature, HS, Tecnologico de Monterrey,

222 Calle Del Puente, Tlalpan, CDMX 14380, Mexico
2 Tecnologico de Monterrey, TecLabs, Vicerrectoría de Investigación y Transferencia de Tecnología,
Tecnologico de Monterrey, 222 Calle Del Puente, Tlalpan, CDMX 14380, Mexico; pedro.ponce@tec.mx
* Correspondence: msangerm@tec.mx

Abstract: Universities and high schools constantly research and develop educational methods to
improve the student learning process. This paper presents a novel educational methodology for
students to obtain better learning results in Spanish grammar through an intervention that fuses
differentiated instructions, standardized evaluation, and a Fuzzy Logic Type 2 system. This successful
case study in a Mexico City high school reports improved Spanish grammar outcomes after the
intervention. Before then, 79% of the students did not obtain satisfactory scores in a national Spanish
evaluation. This educational methodology uses a flexible intervention plan that could be replicated
or tailored for various educational scenarios and topics using the same framework.





 Keywords: educational innovation; higher education; differentiated instruction; standardized assess-
Citation: Sangermán Jiménez, M.A.; ment; educational improvement
Ponce, P. Differentiated Teaching
Based on Standardized Metrics
Integrating Fuzzy Logic Type 2
Detection Theory: High School 1. Introduction
Case—PrepaTec, Mexico. Future 1.1. Differentiated Instruction
Internet 2021, 13, 98. https://
The evolution of the educational system and society embracing more inclusivity, egali-
doi.org/10.3390/fi13040098
tarianism, and equity have consequently brought the imperative for substantial changes in
the classroom. Differentiated instruction has emerged to respond to these necessities of
Academic Editor: Wolf-Tilo Balke
learning that teachers face. This teaching method has notably impacted the world, provok-
ing significant changes in how teachers perceive and practice education [1]. Differentiated
Received: 21 February 2021
Accepted: 7 April 2021
learning is defined as a flexible, equitable, and intelligent teaching method that starts
Published: 13 April 2021
from the premise that all students are different and learn differently [2]. Thus, this type
of teaching considers the differences among students: their skills, tastes, learning styles,
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
strengths, the conditions in which they perform the best, and the things that represent a
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
challenge.
published maps and institutional affil- Under differentiated instruction, students find themselves more intrinsically moti-
iations. vated. They perform tasks that match their abilities and prepare to achieve their goals,
thus developing self-competency [3]. This method also promotes active and collaborative
learning. The teacher utilizes flexible grouping. All students work together at their own
pace, with below-average students using auxiliary materials. The teacher provides extra
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
support and challenges the students based on their progress during the lesson [4].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
Therefore, differentiated instruction can be defined as a variable teaching method
This article is an open access article
that is adaptable to students’ skills, using systematic procedures for progress-monitoring
distributed under the terms and and data-driven decision-making. The method focuses on differentiating the student
conditions of the Creative Commons achievement levels. Teachers must continuously monitor their academic progress to
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// identify their educational needs and then adapt the teaching to them. How the progress is
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ monitored and the teaching adaptations can vary substantially, and they can be carried out
4.0/). in different formats [5].

Future Internet 2021, 13, 98. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi13040098 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/futureinternet

 monitored and the teaching adaptations can vary substantially, and they can be carried
out in different formats [5].
Tomlinson [6] states that differentiated instruction does not refer to letting students
Future Internet 2021, 13, 98
“learn” without control, nor designing individualized classes for each student. It does 2not of 19

mean constantly forming small, homogenous workgroups, giving more work to advanced
students, or evaluating one student differently from another. Differentiated instruction
Tomlinson [6] states that differentiated instruction does not refer to letting students
refers to having all the students
“learn” withouton the radar,
control, keeping
nor designing them always
individualized present,
classes designing
for each student. les-
It does not
sons with different methodologies to achieve
mean constantly forming small,learning
homogenous through a greater
workgroups, focuswork
giving more on to
the qual-
advanced
students, or evaluating one student differently from another. Differentiated instruction
ity of work rather than the quantity. The evaluation should be carried out with different
refers to having all the students on the radar, keeping them always present, designing lessons
tools and products that withmust always
different have atodiagnostic
methodologies achieve learningfocus, nota greater
through accreditation.
focus on theIn otherof
quality
words, the evaluating is done to intervene to help. Differentiated instruction focuses tools
work rather than the quantity. The evaluation should be carried out with different to-
and products that must always have a diagnostic focus, not accreditation. In other words,
tally on the students.
the evaluating is done to intervene to help. Differentiated instruction focuses totally on
Kingore [7] proposed what differentiated instruction does and does not involve.
the students.
Tomlinson [6] consideredKingore the organization thatdifferentiated
[7] proposed what a class should follow
instruction under
does this not
and does method.
involve.
Tomlinson [6] considered the organization that a class should follow under this method. He
He proposed a lesson design structure that should be followed under differentiated in-
proposed a lesson design structure that should be followed under differentiated instruction,
struction, including the recursion
including of all of
the recursion the
allcomponents,
the components, as shown
as shown in Figure
in Figure 1. 1.

Figureof
Figure 1. The structure The
1. a structure
lesson of a lesson
under under the differentiated
the differentiated instruction
instruction method.
method.
As can be appreciated above, differentiated instruction is a methodology that provides
As can be appreciated above,
genuine equal differentiated
opportunity in education;instruction is areceive
students truly methodology thataccords
instruction that pro-
with their preparation, interests, and learning preferences,
vides genuine equal opportunity in education; students truly receive instruction that ac-which maximizes their growth
opportunities [8]. All the experts on this methodology stress the importance of knowing
cords with their preparation,
the students.interests,
On the oneand hand,learning
this is about preferences, which maximizes
knowing their achievement levels: wheretheir
they
growth opportunitiesare[8].
andAll
what the experts
learning on this
problems they methodology
are encountering. stress the importance
On the other of
hand, this requires
knowing the students’ pedagogical needs, interests, peer
knowing the students. On the one hand, this is about knowing their achievement levels: relations, motivations, and the
problem-solving strategies they will understand [9]. Along these lines, the authors propose
where they are and what learning
a methodology problems
to implement they areinstruction
differentiated encountering.
with one On the the
variable: other hand,
standardized
this requires knowingmeasurement
the students’ pedagogical needs, interests, peer relations, motiva-
of learning.
tions, and the problem-solving strategies they will understand [9]. Along these lines, the
1.2. Standardized Assessment
authors propose a methodology
Since 1990,to there
implement
has beendifferentiated
a growing interest instruction with one
in the standardized variable:of
assessment
the standardized measurement of learning.
learning, not only in education but also in the political, economic, and social sectors. This
assessment system has become the principal indicator of students’ academic performance
and educational institutions’ operations [10]. For example, in the early 1990s, the College
1.2. Standardized Assessment
Board applied approximately 25,000 Aptitude Tests in Latin America; by the beginning
Since 1990, there has been a growing interest in the standardized assessment of learn-
ing, not only in education but also in the political, economic, and social sectors. This as-
sessment system has become the principal indicator of students’ academic performance
and educational institutions’ operations [10]. For example, in the early 1990s, the College
Future Internet 2021, 13, 98 3 of 19

of the next decade, there were already twice that number in Mexico alone. The National
Center of Evaluation for Higher Education (CENEVAL) applied about 350,000 tests in the
1994–95 school year, and just five years later, it tripled that number of applications [11].
In Mexico, most of the curricula are shared among educational institutions from the
primary schools to the upper-middle levels; therefore, it is understandable that evaluating
the different knowledge and skills in various study programs through standardized tests
is considered optimal [12]. Since 1993, this type of evaluation has formed part of the
state’s policies to exclude students, control teacher workloads, and manage educational
institutions in the country [13].
According to Jornet [14], the standardized evaluation implies that all measuring
instrument elements are systematized and applied in the same way to all persons. That is,
the same stimuli are presented, and the exact application instructions are given to all. These
tests are administered in the same type of situation, corrected in the same way, and scored
by the same criteria. Initially, this kind of evaluation was used to select students to enter a
school; however, with the passing of the years, the uses for this type of evaluation have
increased [15]. There are now standardized tests for admissions, graduation, diagnostic
purposes, and midterm assessments, and others.

1.3. The Debate over Differentiation and Standardization

On par with the increase in the popularity of standardized evaluations has been an
increase in the number of their detractors. Many experts consider that the standardized
tests do not reflect students’ learning thoroughly and do not seem suitable for what students
need to learn currently [16]. Although it is beyond this article’s scope to enter into the
debate about this type of assessment’s relevance, the authors consider it necessary to
contextualize both positions.
Fernández, Alcaraz, and Sola [17] point out that this mechanical vision based on the
pursuit of educational efficiency is far from being a complete and rigorous vision of the
educational world. Standardized tests operate from a technological paradigm based on
efficiency and behaviorism, which is insufficient. They do not clearly explain what is
happening contextually within the social sciences or the how or why of the results to make
appropriate intervention decisions. This leads to a flawed interpretation of educational
reality, which can end up causing significant consequences where attaining the result ends
up being the goal.
It must be considered that the goal of the evaluation is to obtain objective data that
support students and help obtain the corresponding accreditation [18]. Miles, Fulbrook, and
Mainwaring-Mugi [19] believe that these tests are insufficient to ensure quality assessments
due to the lack of validation criteria. Rodrigo [20] points out that some of these tests even
measure competencies that depend on the students’ experience and not on the knowledge
they acquired in schools. They do not consider, in some cases, the pedagogical or political
changes of the programs. Thus, the principal goal of improvement in the schools is called
into question.
Barrenechea [21], in his article, “Standardized Evaluations: Six Critical Reflections,”
identifies some specific limitations to this testing:
1. They undermine the motivation of students. The only ones motivated are the students
who accredit the test.
2. They do not consider the different types of intelligence. The standardization evaluates
only a part of intellectual development.
3. They leave out a corpus of knowledge. They evaluate only a part of the contents of the
curriculum.
4. They force the teachers to work for them. The teaching becomes directed towards
obtaining results.
5. They promote corruption, generating a structure that incentivizes obtaining the
desired results.
Future Internet 2021, 13, 98 4 of 19

6. They are insufficient for the context. The standardized measurements are not adjusted
for changing environments.
For the pro argument, some researchers support using these assessments because
of some strengths compared to others. Standardized tests can be used to assess large
groups of students because they can cover large amounts of material very efficiently and
are affordable for testing many students. Scoring is easy, reliable, requires less time, and is
an effective way to measure student knowledge on a large scale. They are applied equally
to students everywhere in objective and fair assessment to identify students’ achievement
gaps [16]. Without standardized assessment, measuring student performance would fall
under the subjectivity of each teacher. He or she would have the liberty to adapt the
assessment to their particular teaching, making it almost impossible to measure a student’s
performance in different contexts [22].
Another recurring argument in defense of standardized testing is that they provide
valid and comparable results across different student populations [23]. In addition to
measuring and comparing results, the test scores can be used for tracking students based
on their perceived abilities [24]. Then, some actions can be taken to improve student
performance, educational quality, teaching performance, and educational institutions’
operations. Despite being labeled as unfair and discriminatory, these tests are the opposite.
Their results rightly avoid exclusion based on gender, race, sexual orientation, and age;
instead, they report student performance [22].
This debate makes it evident that there is an absolute contradiction between differenti-
ated instruction and personalized measurements, and standardized assessments. The issue
of students’ rights comes into play. Should the learning measurement be aligned with the
individual’s (student’s) goals or society’s (the educational system)? Perhaps a universal,
correct answer does not exist. The students have the right to be evaluated considering
their differences, but educational institutions and governments must examine the students’
progress objectively and homogeneously [25].

1.4. Some Studies about Differentiation and Standardization

Various educators and researchers have been interested in conducting studies on
differentiated instruction, while others have been attracted to standardized assessment.
The studies presented here exemplify the academic community’s interest in both techniques
and their effectiveness in various contexts.
For example, in the Republic of Cyprus, a study was done to assess differentiated
instruction’s impact on students’ learning in classrooms of students with various skills [26].
The results indicated that the students showed more learning progress in the classes where
differentiated instruction was conducted systematically. Therefore, according to this research,
this methodology promotes equity and optimizes education quality and effectiveness.
On the other hand, Förster, Kawohl, and Souvignier [27] conducted research in Ger-
many to evaluate differentiated instruction effects on students’ reading comprehension.
The results showed that considering each student’s particular needs to develop their
reading competency improved only their reading speed.
In the Netherlands, research was carried out to learn students’ particularities that
teachers considered when they applied differentiated instruction [28]. The results showed
that the teachers prioritized students’ backgrounds over their learning styles or their
interests when designing and implementing study lessons under the differentiated instruc-
tion method.
These studies are evidence of the importance being given to the differentiated instruc-
tion method. There have been studies conducted that show the importance of standardized
assessment as well. The standardized test PISA (Program for International Student As-
sessment) has been used as a framework for various studies. In Spain, Cordero and
Gil-Izquierdo [29] conducted research to correlate students’ performance on the PISA
with the teachers’ characteristics and practices. They concluded that traditional teaching
Future Internet 2021, 13, 98 5 of 19

methods positively influence students’ performance in mathematics, while dynamic and

innovative learning strategies negatively impact the results.
One research study conducted in England [30] uses the PISA results to validate
whether students’ performance in science improves when using the Research-based Learn-
ing model, i.e., when students are allowed to conduct their own experiments, and the
teacher offers little guidance. The results showed that this method does not favor the PISA
test results; on the contrary, when more guided teaching is used, the student performance
improves on this standardized test.
Like the study conducted in Colombia, in Malaysia, research was done where PISA
was used to compare and study the assessment score gaps between South Korea, Singa-
pore, and Malaysia [31], the latter having the lowest test scores. Using Blinder–Oaxaca
Decomposition (an outcomes decomposition method), the authors concluded that, despite
socio-economic and school factors reasons, there were unknown and unexplainable causes
why the assessment scores in Malaysia were lower than in the other two countries.

1.5. The Methodology to Improve Spanish Grammar Competency in Mexico

PrepaTec CCM is a high school located in Mexico City. Its students must take eight
topics per semester. One of them is a class in Spanish as a mother tongue. Students
must take this class during semesters four or five, depending on their academic program.
Although the communicative approach is the teaching methodology, there is also some
traditional teaching of the Spanish language: the grammar method. The reason is that
students do not consider the mother tongue class a priority; they believe that because
they are native Spanish speakers, their language proficiency is good. This misconception
causes them to continually make grammar mistakes in their performance, especially in
writing and speaking. For this reason, Spanish teachers continuously search for educational
methods that engage students and help them to correct specific Spanish grammar mistakes.
Regardless of the diversity of teaching techniques used, all students must take a
standardized test to measure their competencies at the end of high school, including
the Spanish language skills. This test is essential, as it presents a final measurement of
students’ competencies developed in mathematical thinking, communication in Spanish
and English, and scientific comprehension of the world [32]. The test is called DOMINA. It
is designed, administered, and evaluated by the National Center of Evaluation for Higher
Education [32]. This instrument has 220 multiple choice questions, each with four answer
options. The student results are compared with those of other schools to determine each
educational institution’s national ranking.
Because students have to take such a critical standardized test, professors teach
students specific test-taking strategies and procedures [33] related to their knowledge area.
To help students to improve their academic performance in the Spanish class, we
designed a methodology that considers the most convenient teaching method for them
and the practice of standardized tests. To get to know each student’s particularities
and design an authentic differentiated instruction methodology, we applied a learning
styles test utilizing the Fuzzy Logic Type 2 system for its analysis and a standardized
test that measures their actual knowledge of Spanish. Therefore, this research aimed to
improve students’ performance in Spanish language competency through the proposed
methodology that merges the analysis of learning styles through the Fuzzy Logic Type
2 system, differentiated instruction, and standardized metrics.

2. Materials and Methods

The methodology implemented in this study fused the differentiated instruction
method with standardized metrics for the Spanish language class. The process begins
with a standardized test that diagnoses the development of the students’ competencies
in this area and a learning styles test that identifies students’ learning particularities. The
learning styles test results are analyzed with the Fuzzy Logic Type 2 system to detect
these characteristics, not just binary values. Then, the teaching process is carried out
Future Internet 2021, 13, 98 6 of 19

under the differentiated instruction method, and, finally, another standardized test is
applied that measures the ending status of the competencies. The specifications for each
step of the differentiated instruction methodology conducted with standardized metrics
integrating the Fuzzy Logic Type 2 system can be observed in Figure 2. The diagram of the
methodology can be observed in Figure 3.
The instructional design carried out for the workshops focused on the linguistic
reflection methodology. Grammar is reinforced with reflective analysis. The student
reflects on what presented him with difficulty or doubt during his linguistic production
or comprehension. The reflection on the grammatical rules is an activity that improves
knowledge of the language and structuring of thought [34]. The workshops featured a
wide variety of learning activities designed to include each group’s different learning styles
and the difficulties each student had with the topics.
This research’s participant population consisted of 527 high school senior students
from PrepaTec Campus Mexico City, a private school located in Mexico City: 283 girls
and 244 boys. Their ages were between 17 and 18. Their socio-economic status was
middle to upper-middle, as classified by the National Institute of Statistics and Geography
in Mexico [35].

2.1. Strategic Action

For this study, we used the Action research method because it helps the educator [38]
carry out an intervention to improve the teaching-learning process. This study’s action hy-
pothesis focuses on improving the population’s learning outcomes in the Spanish language
as measured by two standardized tests.

2.2. Data Collection

Like any study carried out under the Action research methodology, the implemented
strategy is an action-observation-reflection-planning spiral. These four steps are interlinked,
and their actions generate the information and data that causes the action strategy to
become a source of knowledge [39]. Thus, in this research, information collection techniques
were based on observation, conversation, and analyses of documents [38].
Researcher’s Diary: Accompanied by participant observation, this instrument be-
came a continuous and systematic record of events, interpretations, and reflections on the
research process [38]. This anecdotal collection was put in digital format, and in it were
recorded the events that emerged during the implementation of the strategic action plan.
Documents analysis: This technique was applied in its two classes, namely, official
and personal documents [38]. In the first case, the analysis was performed on the students’
official results in the applied standardized tests. A comparative analysis was made between
the diagnostic test results and the final test results of the population who experienced
the intervention plan. In the personal documents, the analysis was performed on the
anecdotal records requested from the professors involved in the research. These teachers
were asked to keep track of relevant incidents during the tests, their evaluations, and the
implementation of the entire intervention plan.
Discussion group: This was the technique applied with the participating teachers
to know their perceptions and concerns about the strategy being implemented [38]. Two
discussion groups were held. The teachers were assigned according to their schedule
availability; however, the same script was followed in both groups.
 This research’s participant population consisted of 527 high school senior students
from PrepaTec Campus Mexico City, a private school located in Mexico City: 283 girls and
244 boys. Their ages were between 17 and 18. Their socio-economic status was middle to
Future Internet 2021, 13, 98
upper-middle, as classified by the National Institute of Statistics and Geography 7in
of 19
Mexico
[35].

Figure 2. Differentiated instruction methodology with standardized metrics integrating the Fuzzy Logic Type 2 sys-
tem [36,37]. Students and parents received presentations on various technology platforms and videos links to the YouTube
platform, designed by the director and teachers of the department, to reinforce various topics of the Spanish language and
reading comprehension (See Appendix A).
 Figure 2. Differentiated instruction methodology with standardized metrics integrating the
Fuzzy Logic Type 2 system [36,37]. Students and parents received presentations on various
technology platforms and videos links to the YouTube platform, designed by the director and
Future Internet 2021, 13, 98 8 of 19
teachers of the department, to reinforce various topics of the Spanish language and reading
comprehension (See Appendix A).

Figure
Figure3. Differentiated instruction
3. Differentiated methodology
instruction with standardized
methodology metrics
with integrating themetrics
standardized Fuzzy Logic Type 2 system.
integrating the Fuzzy
Logic Type 2 system.

2.1. Strategic Action

For this study, we used the Action research method because it helps the educator [38]
carry out an intervention to improve the teaching-learning process. This study’s action
 was integrated. As a result, fuzzy logic type 2 dete
FDT2 was presented by [40] to improve the detecti
intensity and the person’s physical and psychologic
Future Internet 2021, 13, 98 9 of 19

tion theory can describe human perception using

2.3. Detecting Learning Styles Using Fuzzy Type 2 Detection Theory

approach only
is Defining
usually better than conventional signa
learning styles (visual, auditory, kinesthetic) could be extremely difficult if
a conventional survey is applied because students could be classified into more than
one learning style. Thus, a method that improves the classification of those learning styles
crisp values, 0 orAs1a result,
was integrated. (see Figure
fuzzy 4). theory
logic type 2 detection To (FDT2)represent
was implemented. hum
FDT2 was presented by [40] to improve the detection of stimuli according to the stimuli’s
sible usingintensity
conventional
and the person’s physicalfuzzy signal
and psychological state. Indetection
general, fuzzy signal the
detection theory can describe human perception using fuzzy values (from 0 to 1). Hence,

on membership values derived from uncertainty’s

this approach is usually better than conventional signal detection theory, which only has
two crisp values, 0 or 1 (see Figure 4). To represent human perception’s uncertainty is not
possible using conventional fuzzy signal detection theory. FDT2 must be implemented
gram of FDT2 is shown
based on membership infromFigure
values derived
diagram of FDT2 is shown in Figure 6.
6. (see Figure 5). The flow
uncertainty’s footprint

Figure 4. Conventional signal detection theory based on noise and signal.

Figure 4. Conventional signal detection theory based on
t 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Future Internet 2021, 13, 98 10 of 19

FOR PEER REVIEW

Figure 5. The footprint of uncertainty.

Figure 5. The footprint of uncertainty.
Figure 5. The footprint of uncertainty.

Figure 6. Flow diagram of fuzzy logic type 2 detection theory (FDT2), which integrates conventional fuzzy detection
Figure
and 6. Flow diagram of fuzzy logic type 2 detection theory (FDT2), which integrates
uncertainty. con
tional fuzzy detection and uncertainty.
To implement FDT2, we used a set of questions presented by De la Parra Paz [41]
(see Table 1). Each question is linked with a specific learning style so the student can
To implement FDT2,
select we used
a value from a set7).ofWhen
1 to 7 (Figure questions presentedit isbypossible
FDT2 is implemented, De latoParra
detect Paz [
fuzzy values that provide degrees of membership regarding each learning style to get
Table 1). Each question
informationis linked
based on morewith a specific
than one learning
learning style. style so
Thus, the students canthe
get a student
program can
Figure 6. Flow diagram of fuzzy logic type 2 detection
value from 1 to better adjustable7).
7 (Figure than a program
When with only
FDT2 is one learning style.
implemented, it is possible to detec
tional
values that provide fuzzyofdetection
degrees and
membership uncertainty.
regarding each learning style to ge
mation based on more than one learning style. Thus, the students can get a program
adjustable than a program with only one learning style.
To implement FDT2, we used a set of questio
Table 1). Each question is linked with a specific l
value from 1 to 7 (Figure 7). When FDT2 is imp
values that provide degrees of membership reg
Future Internet 2021, 13, 98 11 of 19

Table 1. Sample of questions used for detecting learning styles [37].

Response (Possible Value of each Option

Number of Question/Question
from 1 to 7)/Learning Style
(a) Listening to music (auditory)
1. Which of the following activities do you
(b) Watching movies (visual)
enjoy the most?
(c) Dancing with good music (kinesthetic)
(a) Reports of discoveries and places (visual)
2. What TV show do you prefer? (b) Comedy and entertainment (kinesthetic)
(c) World news (auditory)
(a) You listen carefully (auditory)
Figure 5. The footprint3.of uncertainty.
When you chat with another person: (b) You watch her (visual)
(c) You tend to touch her (kinesthetic)
(a) A jacuzzi (kinesthetic)
4. If you could purchase one of the following
(b) A stereo (auditory)
items, which would you choose?
(c) A television (visual)
(a) Stay home (kinesthetic)
5. What do you prefer to do on a Saturday
(b) Go to a concert (auditory)
afternoon?
(c) Go to the movies (visual)
(a) Oral examination (auditory)
6. What kinds of exams are easier for you? (b) Written exam (visual)
(c) Multiple choice exam (kinesthetic)
(a) By using a map (visual)
7. How do you find your bearings more easily? (b) Asking for directions (auditory)
(c) Through intuition (kinesthetic)

Figure 6. Flow diagram ofdo

fuzzy logictotype (a) Thinking (auditory)
8. How you prefer spend2your
detection
time in a theory (FDT2), which integrates conven-
(b) Walking around (visual)
tional fuzzy detection and uncertainty.
resting place?
(c) Resting (kinesthetic)
(a) Being told that you look good (visual)
To implement FDT2, we used a set of questions presented (b) Letting them by
tellDe
youla Parra
that Paz
you have [41] (see
a very
9. What flatters you the most? nice treatment (kinesthetic)
Table 1). Each question is linked with a specific learning style
(c) Being told so
that the student
you have can select a
an interesting
value from 1 to 7 (Figure 7). When FDT2 is implemented, conversation it is possible to detect fuzzy
(auditory)

values that provide degrees of membership regarding (a) Oneeach learning

in which you feel astyle
pleasantto get infor-
climate
(kinesthetic)
mation based on more than one learning style. Thus, the
10. Which of these environments attracts you students
(b) One can
in which the getofathe
waves program
sea can be better
the most?
adjustable than a program with only one learning style. heard (auditory)
(c) One with a beautiful ocean view (visual)

Figure 7. The possible values for each question (from 1 to 7).

Figure 7. The possible Table
values for each question (from 1 to 7).
2 provides an example of how the questions were defined according to FCT2 and
conventional signal detection theory to detect and classify learning styles and perceptions.
The fuzzy signal and response values are selected according to each question and option.
Future Internet 2021, 13, 98 12 of 19

For example, suppose question 1 is evaluated, and the auditive learning style is being
assessed (Listening to music). In that case, the fuzzy stimuli value is high (S), and the
expected response is also high (R). Still, if question 39 is evaluated (when you are in the
city, what do you miss most about the country?), the stimuli and fuzzy response value are
low because it is not a direct question about auditive stimuli like question 1. Thus, in this
case, the stimuli and response are low.

Table 2. Example of classification of questions (visual learning style).

Signal Response Fuzzy Signal Fuzzy Response

Question
S R S R
1 1 1 0.96 0.98
... .... .... ... ...
.... ... .... .... ...
39 1 1 0.70 0.75
... ... .... ..... ....

Each question is assigned a fuzzy value for the signal (stimuli) and the response value.
Those values are from 0 to 1. On the other hand, conventional signal detection theory
provides only two possible values, 1 or 0.
Next, a confusion table of each learning style can be calculated for each student to
achieve a tailored program based on more than one learning style (Table 3) using the
membership values (Figure 4). According to the received stimulus, the response generated
can fall into the following categories: visual, auditory, or kinesthetic. This would be valid
for crisp values 0 and 1 in signal detection theory. If fuzzy logic detection theory is used, it
is possible to get membership values between 0 and 1.

Table 3. Confusion table for each learning style based on conventional detection theory and fuzzy
logic type 2 detection theory (FDT2) showing Hit Rate (HR), False Alarm Rate (FAR), Miss Rate (MR),
and Correct Rejection Rate (CRR).

Response 0 1
Signal CR FAR
0 FCR FFAR
MR HR
1 FMR FHR

3. Results
The learning styles detected allow to tailor to each student a specific instructional
program. Hence, the designed learning program is unique for every student. It is always
recommended to completely run the proposed framework and to not implement a new
instructional design based on previous results of students. This paper does not pretend
generalized the results of the sample in terms of learning styles. On the other hand, this
paper shows an entire metodologhy that can be used for reaching a tailored instructional
learning design.
This paper shows how to achieve an instructional design that is tailored with specific
features. Some of those features have been used in previous literature. However, the
proposed methodology includes some features that are not integrated in previous proposals.
A comparison of the proposed methodology with previous methodologies is out of the
scope of this research. However, as a future work, the comparison between methologies
could be the next step.
This study showed an improvement in students’ Spanish grammar skills when the
differentiated instruction methodology was applied. The second test application resulted
 Future Internet 2021, 13, 98 13 of 19

in higher scores than the first. When the students’ learning styles were known, we designed
an individual strategy for each student; the differentiated instruction was applied, so more
students passed the text and obtained higher results.
Of the 527 students who took the first standardized test, 49% reached the accreditation
Internet 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW level, 12 of 18
i.e., they scored an assessment of at least 70 points out of 100. Therefore, 51% of the
Internet 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 18
population, 269 students, was the group considered for implementing the strategic action.
It is worth noting that the highest percentage of the population was positioned near the
near the minimumminimum accreditation
accreditation score:score: 219 students,
219 students, 41% of41% the of the population.
population. A highAper-
high percentage
near the minimum
obtainedaccreditation
just score: 219score
the minimum students, 41% of the200
population. A38%.
highThe
per-
centage obtained just the minimum score to passtothe
pass
test:the test:
200 students,
students, 38%. The distribu-distribution of
centage obtained justobtained
scores the minimum thescore to pass thebe
test: 200 students, 38%.
8. The distribu-
tion of scores obtained by the by population
population can be can observed
observed in Figure
in Figure 8.
tion of scores obtained by the population can be observed in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Distribution of scores obtained by the population in the (first) diagnostic test (number of
Figure 8. Distribution
Figure 8. Distribution of their of scoresby
scoresgrades).
obtained obtained by the population
the population in the
in the (first) (first) diagnostic
diagnostic test (number
test (number of and their
of students
students and
grades). students and their grades).

Once the methodology

Once the for this study was
methodology applied,
for this studythe was results improved
applied, considerably.
the results improved considerably.
Once the methodology for this study was applied, the results improved considerably.
Of 269 students Ofwho had not reached
269 students who hadthe notfirst test’s the
reached minimum accreditation
first test’s minimum level and hadlevel and had
accreditation
Of 269 students who had not reached the first test’s minimum accreditation level and had
the interventiontheplan applied, plan
intervention 267 took the second
applied, 267 tooktest;
thetwo weretest;
second unjustifiably
two were absent and absent and
unjustifiably
the intervention plan applied, 267 took the second test; two were unjustifiably absent and
lost
lost the right to the the right to theOf
application. application. Of thewho
the 267 students 267 students
took the who
final took the final
test, 212 test, 212 achieved
achieved
lost the right to the application. Of the 267 students who took the final test, 212 achieved
the minimum the minimum level.
accreditation accreditation level. show
These results Thesethatresults
the show that the
percentage of percentage
the populationof the population
the minimum accreditation level. These results show that the percentage of the population
who improved
who took the tests took the tests improved
after after theplan
the intervention intervention
was applied.plan Only
was applied. Only 49% of students
49% of students
who took the tests improved after the intervention plan was applied. Only 49% of students
accredited theaccredited the first standardized
first standardized test, while 79%test,of
while 79% of
students students accredited
accredited the secondthe second after the
after
accredited the first standardized test, while 79% of students accredited the second after
the interventionintervention
planned was planned wasThe
applied. applied. The distribution
distribution of the
of the scores scores in
obtained obtained
the finalin the final test
the intervention planned was applied. The distribution of the scores obtained in the final
can be observed
test can be observed in Figure in
9. Figure 9.
test can be observed in Figure 9.

Figure 9. Distribution
Figure of scores
9. Distribution obtained
of scores by students
obtained in thein
by students final
the test
final(number of students
test (number and their
of students and grades).
their
Figure 9. Distribution of scores obtained by students in the final test (number of students and their
grades).
grades).

The final results show that, of the total population, after the intervention plan based
The final results show that, of the total population, after the intervention plan based
on differentiated instruction occurred, 89% demonstrated competency in the Spanish lan-
on differentiated instruction occurred, 89% demonstrated competency in the Spanish lan-
guage, as measured by a standardized test.
guage, as measured by a standardized test.
On the other hand, when comparing the results of the 267 students on both tests and
Future Internet 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Future Internet 2021, 13, 98 14 of 19

went up 1 to 9 points, 121 rose between 10 and 19 points, and 31 rose more than 31
Thus,The257
finalstudents out
results show of of267
that, the showed improvement
total population, in their Spanish
after the intervention plan basedskills
on (96%
differentiated instruction occurred, 89% demonstrated
population). See distributions in Figures 10–12. competency in the Spanish language,
as measured by a standardized test.
Future Internet 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
On the other hand, when comparing the results of the 267 students on both tests and
after experiencing the intervention plan with differentiated instruction, the following was
found: five students got lower scores than their first, five remained the same, 105 students
went up 1 to 9 points, 121 rose between 10 and 19 points, and 31 rose more than 31 points.
Thus,257
Thus, 257 students
students out
out of 267ofshowed
267 showed
improvementimprovement in their
in their Spanish skillsSpanish skills
(96% of the (96
population).
population). SeeSee
distributions in Figures
distributions 10–12. 10–12.
in Figures

Figure 10. Boxplot of improvement points in standardized tests after differentiated instruc

The distribution of improvement points in the student’s academic performan

Spanish language can be observed in these figures. As can be seen, when compa
results of the first standardized test with those of the second, after carrying out th
vention, the densest
Figure 10. Boxplot recurrence
of improvement points is between 9tests
in standardized andafter
15 differentiated
improvement points.
instruction.
Figure 10. Boxplot of improvement points in standardized tests after differentiated instru

The distribution of improvement points in the student’s academic performan

Spanish language can be observed in these figures. As can be seen, when compa
results of the first standardized test with those of the second, after carrying out t
vention, the densest recurrence is between 9 and 15 improvement points.

Figure 11. Distribution of the improvement points.

Figure 11. Distribution of the improvement points.
Future Internet 2021, 2021,
Future Internet 13, x 13,
FOR98 PEER REVIEW 15 of 19

Figure 12. Kernel Density Estimation.

Figure 12. Kernel Density Estimation.
The distribution of improvement points in the student’s academic performance in
the Spanish language
As for the data can be observed
collected frominthe
these figures. As
teachers’ can be seen,
anecdotal when comparing
records, participating te
the results of the first standardized test with those of the second, after carrying out the
were asked to report only extraordinary incidents to the application of the tests. Of
intervention, the densest recurrence is between 9 and 15 improvement points.
participating
As for theteachers, onlyfrom
data collected 8 submitted reports.
the teachers’ anecdotalThe researcher’s
records, diary
participating was used in
teachers
ilar
weremanner,
asked to only
reportextraordinary incidents
only extraordinary incidentswere
to thereported
applicationinof it.
theThe
tests.incidents
Of the fou
14 participating
summarized below: teachers, only 8 submitted reports. The researcher’s diary was used in a
similar manner, only extraordinary incidents were reported in it. The incidents found are
1.summarized
Six students
below:were late for the application of the diagnostic test but were allow
2.1. Twenty-three students
Six students were did
late for the not finish
application of the diagnostic
the diagnostic testtest
but in time.
were allowed in.
3.2. No students students
Twenty-three were late didfor
notthe application
finish of test
the diagnostic the insecond
time. test.
4.3. Four
No students were
students latenot
did for finish
the application of thetest
the second second test.
in time.
4. Four students did not finish the second test in time.
As for the information collected through the discussion groups, the following
As for the information collected through the discussion groups, the following ques-
tions
tionswere presented
were presented to discussed:
to be be discussed:
1.1. What
What diddidwewedodowell?
well?
2. What can we improve?
2. What can we improve?
3. What should we definitely change?
3. What should we definitely change?
Two discussion groups were held at different times so that the 14 teachers could attend.
Two
In the first discussion groups
one, 7 teachers wereand
participated held at second
in the different
one,times so that
6; 1 could the 14
not attend teachers co
because
tend. In sick.
she got the Their
first one, 7 teachers
answers participated
are summarized below: and in the second one, 6; 1 could not
because
1. she got sick. Their answers are
More participation from parents is necessary summarized below:
because only 76% became involved.
1. More Perhaps a phone call would
participation fromhelp.
parents is necessary because only 76% became inv
2. Perhaps
Students a need the training
phone to be more
call would help.independent when working with videos and
other materials on their own.
2.3. Students need the
The tests should training
be applied toelectronic
in an be moreversion
independent
to be gradedwhen working with vide
faster.
other materials on their own.
3. The tests should be applied in an electronic version to be graded faster.
4. Saturday workshops are more suitable than those on weekday afternoons. In t
ond workshop, students feel very tired.
Future Internet 2021, 13, 98 16 of 19

4. Saturday workshops are more suitable than those on weekday afternoons. In the
second workshop, students feel very tired.
5. Mock tests should be applied as practice before proctoring the second test.

4. Discussion
Teachers know that they work with heterogeneous groups of students. They know
that all students have strengths, areas that need reinforcement, and brains as unique as
their fingerprints. They realize that emotions, feelings, and attitudes all affect learning and
that there are different learning styles. They know that due to these particularities, not all
students learn at the same pace and with the same depth [42]. Some specific content has to
be covered to achieve the standard that the educational institution solicits.
Several studies have already demonstrated the effectiveness of differentiated instruc-
tion on students’ learning. This topic no longer requires discussion. However, the need
to achieve the standardization demanded by educational institutions and governments
makes it difficult for teachers to find a balance between complying with each student’s
individual learning needs and the required standardized learning. It is essential to consider
that teachers must offer various alternatives to students in the differentiated instruction
methodology for them to demonstrate what they have learned from the lesson [1].
The methodology presented in this study managed to merge standardization and
differentiation. Additionally, the main objective was achieved: students improved their
academic performance in the Spanish language. The standardized diagnostic test and the
learning styles test helped to know the particular characteristics of each student. With
this information, it was possible to design an individualized intervention plan with the
differentiated instruction methodology, allowing each student to receive the instruction
they needed to improve.
Due to this favorable result, we believe that this methodology can be implemented
in other contexts. It would be noteworthy if, in other areas of knowledge (mathematics,
science, history, etc.), educational levels (elementary, secondary, university) or countries,
the improvement is achieved. For this, it would be necessary to assess the context well and
consider the methodology’s different steps. Additionally, the following limitations should
be considered:
1. Students need to be trained to work independently with the videos and materials.
2. The involvement of all parents is vital because they can provide follow-up at home.
3. Reinforcement workshops should be held at times when students can best learn.
4. A questionnaire should be applied to students to evaluate aspects of the methodology,
such as materials, instruction, and workshop schedules, to improve the learning
experience and validate results.
Currently, no studies have been found where a similar methodology is applied, so it is
impossible to contrast this study with others; however, this study can be compared with
future studies where this methodology or a similar one has been implemented.

5. Conclusions
This study demonstrated that the designed methodology helped improve students’
performance in the Spanish language class. When comparing the results of the standardized
diagnostic test and the final test, it was found that the students improved their scores.
The preceding helps us conclude that a differentiated instruction methodology is opti-
mal to support students in their learning in this population and knowledge area. For this, it
was necessary to know the students’ particularities, so the standardized diagnostic test was
able to identify their level of competency in Spanish. The learning styles test was a handy
instrument as well. After the analysis using the Fuzzy logic type 2 system, we could iden-
tify the best way each student learned: visually, auditorily, or kinesthetically. It was then
found that these two elements supported the design of a personalized intervention plan
that helped reinforce the specific areas of language proficiency that needed improvement.
Future Internet 2021, 13, 98 17 of 19

Instruction focused on the competency areas that each student needed to improve
and selected materials and learning activities designed especially for their learning style,
helping students improve markedly on the final test. It was found that 79% of all the
students who had failed the first diagnostic test passed the second standardized test. Even
more significant is the distribution of results, where 257 of the 267 students increased
their score, even if several failed to accredit. That is, 96% of the participating population
benefited from this methodology.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.A.S.J.; methodology, M.A.S.J.; validation, M.A.S.J.;

formal analysis, M.A.S.J.; investigation, M.A.S.J.; resources, M.A.S.J.; data curation, M.A.S.J.; writing—
original draft preparation, M.A.S.J.; writing—review and editing, P.P.; visualization, P.P.; supervision,
P.P.; project administration, M.A.S.J.; funding acquisition, M.A.S.J. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Writing Lab, TecLabs, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Mexico.
Data Availability Statement: Not Applicable, the study does not report any data.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the financial and technical support of
Writing Lab, TecLabs, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Mexico, in the production of this work.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the
study’s design, in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript,
or in the decision to publish the results.

Appendix A
Example of videos designed by the Department of Spanish:
1. Altamirano, A. Análisis narratológico, 2017. Available online: https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=9oYkKDyzGRE (accessed on 9 April 2021).
2. Díaz, A. Modos y tiempos verbales, 2017. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=fCCpWEiMwxc (accessed on 9 April 2021).
3. Díaz, A. Preposiciones, 2017. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
0fYBlTGrb2M (accessed on 9 April 2021).
4. Díaz, A. Puntuación, 2017. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-
5NQO8DyUw (accessed on 9 April 2021).
5. Díaz, A. Sustantivos, 2017. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
4agOqIbAYbA&t=84s (accessed on 9 April 2021).
6. Sangermán, A. Comprensión inferencial, 2018. Available online: https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=QUGciFN33Dc&t=10s (accessed on 9 April 2021).
7. Sangermán, A. El párrafo: características y tipos, 2018. Available online: https://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=4JwFoNnYuVk&t=1s (accessed on 9 April 2021).
8. Sangermán, A. Géneros literarios, 2018. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=IS0v0OlnvPs&t=8s (accessed on 9 April 2021).
9. Sangermán, A. Comprensión literal, 2019. Available online: https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=dVWGH7FiXsY&t=1s (accessed on 9 April 2021).

References
1. Valiandes, S.; Neophytou, L.; Hajisoteriou, C. Establishing a framework for blending intercultural education with differentiated
instruction. Intercult. Educ. 2018, 29, 379–398. [CrossRef]
2. Suprayogi, M.N.; Valcke, M.; Godwin, R. Teachers and their implementation of differentiated instruction in the classroom. Teach.
Teach. Educ. 2017, 67, 291–301. [CrossRef]
3. Guay, F.; Roy, A.; Valois, P. Teacher structure as a predictor of students’ perceived competence and autonomous motivation: The
moderating role of differentiated instruction. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2017, 87, 224–240. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Awofala, A.O.A.; Lawani, A.O. Increasing Mathematics Achievement of Senior Secondary School Students through Differentiated
Instruction. J. Educ. Sci. 2020, 4, 1–19. [CrossRef]
5. Prast, E.J.; Van de Weijer-Bergsma, E.; Kroesbergen, E.H.; Van Luit, J.E. Differentiated instruction in primary mathematics: Effects
of teacher professional development on student achievement. Learn. Instr. 2018, 54, 22–34. [CrossRef]
6. Tomlinson, C. How to Differentiate Instruction in Academically Diverse Classrooms, 2nd ed.; ASCD: Virginia, VA, USA, 2017.
Future Internet 2021, 13, 98 18 of 19

7. Kingore, B. Differentiated Instruction: Rethinking Traditional Practices. Duneland School Corporation. 2005. Available
online: http://www.msdwt.k12.in.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Differentiating-Instruction-Kingore.pdf (accessed on
9 April 2021).
8. Tomlinson, C.A.; Brighton, C.; Hertberg, H.; Callahan, C.M.; Moon, T.R.; Brimijoin, K.; Conover, L.A.; Reynolds, T. Differentiating
Instruction in Response to Student Readiness, Interest, and Learning Profile in Academically Diverse Classrooms: A Review of
Literature. J. Educ. Gift. 2003, 27, 119–145. [CrossRef]
9. Van Geel, M.; Keuning, T.; Frèrejean, J.; Dolmans, D.; Van Merriënboer, J.; Visscher, A.J. Capturing the complexity of differentiated
instruction. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 2018, 30, 51–67. [CrossRef]
10. Díaz, K.; Osuna, C. Las Evaluaciones Estandarizadas del Aprendizaje y la Mejora de la Calidad Educativa. Temas Educ. 2016, 22.
Available online: https://revistas.userena.cl/index.php/teduacion/article/view/741 (accessed on 9 April 2021).
11. Martínez, F. Evaluación Educativa y Pruebas Estandarizadas. Elementos Para Enriquecer el Debate. Rev. Educ. Super. 2001,
30. Available online: http://publicaciones.anuies.mx/revista/120/3/3/es/evaluacion-educativa-y-pruebas-estandarizadas-
elementos-para (accessed on 9 April 2021).
12. Jiménez, A.M. Las pruebas estandarizadas en entredicho. Perfiles Educ. 2014, 36, 3–9. [CrossRef]
13. Arriaga, M. Reporte Sobre Exámenes Estandarizados: México Laboratorio de Políticas Privatizadoras de la Educación. Sección
Mexicana de la Coalición Tradicional. 2008. Available online: http://es.idea-network.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/evaluacion-
informe-mexico.pdf (accessed on 9 April 2021).
14. Jornet, J. Evaluación Estandarizada. Rev. Iberoam. Eval. Educ. 2017, 10, 5–8. Available online: https://revistas.uam.es/index.php/
riee/article/view/7590 (accessed on 9 April 2021).
15. Wightman, L. Standardized Testing and Equal Access: A Tutorial. The University of North Carolina. 2019. Available online:
https://web.stanford.edu/~{}hakuta/www/policy/racial_dynamics/Chapter4.pdf (accessed on 9 April 2021).
16. Setiawan, H.; Garnier, K.; Isnaeni, W. Rethinking standardized test of science education in Indonesian high school. J. Phys. Conf.
Ser. 2019, 1321, 032078. [CrossRef]
17. Fernández, M.; Alcaraz, N.; Sola, M. Evaluación y Pruebas Estandarizadas: Una Reflexión Sobre el Sentido, Utilidad y Efectos de
Estas Pruebas en el Campo Educativo. Rev. Iberoam. Eval. Educ. 2017, 10, 51–67. Available online: https://revistas.uam.es/index.
php/riee/article/view/7594 (accessed on 9 April 2021).
18. Shavelson, R.J. Methodological perspectives: Standardized (summative) or contextualized (formative) evaluation? Educ. Policy
Anal. Arch. 2018, 26, 48. [CrossRef]
19. Miles, S.; Fulbrook, P.; Mainwaring-Mägi, D. Evaluation of Standardized Instruments for Use in Universal Screening of Very
Early School-Age Children: Suitability, Technical Adequacy, and Usability. J. Psychoeduc. Assess. 2018, 36, 99–119. [CrossRef]
20. Rodrigo, L. Los programas internacionales de evaluación estandarizada y el tratamiento de sus datos a nivel nacional. El caso de
Argentina en el estudio PISA de la OCDE. Foro Educ. 2019, 17, 73–94. [CrossRef]
21. Barrenechea, I. Evaluaciones Estandarizadas: Seis Reflexiones Críticas. Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas. 2010, p. 18.
Available online: https://www.redalyc.org/html/2750/275019712008/ (accessed on 9 April 2021).
22. Phelps, R.; Walberg, H.; Stone, J.E. Kill the Messenger: The War on Standardized Testing; Routledge: London, UK, 2017.
23. Backhoff, E. Evaluación Estandarizada de Logro Educativo: Contribuciones y Retos. Rev. Digit. Univ. 2018, 19. Available online:
http://www.revista.unam.mx/2018v19n6/evaluacion-estandarizada-del-logro-educativo-contribuciones-y-retos/ (accessed on
9 April 2021).
24. Cunningham, J. Missing the mark: Standardized testing as epistemological erasure in U.S. schooling. Power Educ. 2018, 11,
111–120. [CrossRef]
25. Neuman, A.; Guterman, O. Academic achievements and homeschooling—It all depends on the goals. Stud. Educ. Eval. 2016, 51,
1–6. [CrossRef]
26. Valiandes, S. Evaluating the impact of differentiated instruction on literacy and reading in mixed ability classrooms: Quality and
equity dimensions of education effectiveness. Stud. Educ. Eval. 2015, 45, 17–26. [CrossRef]
27. Förster, N.; Kawohl, E.; Souvignier, E. Short- and long-term effects of assessment-based differentiated reading instruction in
general education on reading fluency and reading comprehension. Learn. Instr. 2018, 56, 98–109. [CrossRef]
28. Stollman, S.; Meirink, J.; Westenberg, M.; Van Driel, J. Teachers’ interactive cognitions of differentiated instruction in a context of
student talent development. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2019, 77, 138–149. [CrossRef]
29. Cordero, J.M.; Gil-Izquierdo, M. The effect of teaching strategies on student achievement: An analysis using TALIS-PISA-link. J.
Policy Model. 2018, 40, 1313–1331. [CrossRef]
30. Jerrim, J.; Oliver, M.; Sims, S. The relationship between inquiry-based teaching and students’ achievement. New evidence from a
longitudinal PISA study in England. Learn. Instr. 2019, 61, 35–44. [CrossRef]
31. Perera, L.D.H.; Asadullah, M.N. Mind the gap: What explains Malaysia’s underperformance in Pisa? Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2019, 65,
254–263. [CrossRef]
32. Centro Nacional de Evaluación para la Educación Superior. Guía del Examen DOMINA Competencias Disciplinares, 2nd ed.; Ceneval:
Ciudad de México, México, 2017.
33. Zohar, A.; Alboher, V. Raising test scores vs. teaching higher order thinking (HOT): Senior science teachers’ views on how several
concurrent policies affect classroom practices. Res. Sci Technol. Educ. 2018, 36, 243–260. [CrossRef]
34. Cassany, D.; Luna, M.; Sanz, G. Enseñar Lengua, 9th ed.; Editorial Graó: Barcelona, España, 2007; p. 362.
Future Internet 2021, 13, 98 19 of 19

35. INEGI. Clase Media. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. 2021. Available online: https://www.inegi.org.mx/investigacion/
cmedia/ (accessed on 9 April 2021).
36. Alcantara, R.; Cabanilla, J.; Espina, F.; Villamin, A. Teaching Strategies 1, 3rd ed.; Katha Publishing Co.: Makaiti City, Philip-
pines, 2003.
37. Secretaría de Educación del Estado de Veracruz. Test Estilo de Aprendizaje (Modelo PNL). 2014. Available online: https://www.
orientacionandujar.es/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/TEST-ESTILO-DEAPRENDIZAJES.pdf (accessed on 9 April 2021).
38. Latorre, A. La Investigación-Acción, 3rd ed.; Editorial Graó: Barcelona, Spain, 2005; pp. 23–103.
39. Mendoza, R.; Alatorre, G.; Dietz, G. Etnografía e investigación acción en la investigación educativa: Convergencias, límites y retos.
Rev. Interam. Educ. Adultos 2018, 40. Available online: https://www.redalyc.org/jatsRepo/4575/457556162008/html/index.html
(accessed on 9 April 2021).
40. Ponce, P.; Polasko, K.; Molina, A. Technology transfer motivation analysis based on fuzzy type 2 signal detection theory. AI Soc.
2016, 31, 245–257. [CrossRef]
41. De la Parra Paz, E. Herencia de Vida para tus Hijos. Crecimiento Integral con Técnicas PNL.; Grijalbo: Barcelona, Spain, 2004; pp.
88–95.
42. Gregory, G.; Chapman, C. Differentiated Instructional Strategies. One Size Doesn’t Fit All, 1st ed.; Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks, CA,
USA, 2007.