Pedagogical Negotiation in an Unequal Digital Ecosystem: A Case Study of Science Education in Higher Education

Authors

  • Ariansyah Ariansyah Science Education Department, Universitas Pendidikan Mandalika, Mataram, INDONESIA
  • Muhammad Roil Bilad Department of Integrated Technologies, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Gadong, BRUNEI DARUSSALAM
  • Sutarto Sutarto Mathematics Education Department, Universitas Pendidikan Mandalika, Mataram, INDONESIA
  • Nova Kurnia Science Education Department, Universitas Pendidikan Mandalika, Mataram, INDONESIA
  • Kadir Alpan Alaydrus Science Education Department, Universitas Pendidikan Mandalika, Mataram, INDONESIA
  • Pathan Pathan Science Education Department, Universitas Pendidikan Mandalika, Mataram, INDONESIA
  • Irham Azmi Physics Education Department, Universitas Pendidikan Mandalika, Mataram, INDONESIA
  • Sergii Sharov Department of Computer Science, Dmytro Motornyi Tavria State Agrotechnological University, Zaporizhzhia, UKRAINE

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33394/ijete.v2i2.17366

Keywords:

Digital Technology, Science Education, Qualitative Study, Digital Divide, Pedagogical Negotiation

Abstract

This study qualitatively investigates the dynamics of digital technology use in science education at the university level, aiming to fill a gap in the literature that predominantly emphasizes quantitative impacts over user experiences. Employing a case study design, data were collected from six lecturers and ten students in West Nusa Tenggara through in-depth interviews. The data were analyzed iteratively using a Grounded Theory approach to develop a theoretical explanation rooted in participants' lived experiences. The main finding of this study is a substantive theory: the Model of Pedagogical Negotiation in an Unequal Digital Ecosystem. This theory posits that the effectiveness of technology lies not in its sophistication but in the ability of lecturers and students to engage in “pedagogical negotiation” to overcome systemic barriers. Two key barriers were identified: (1) a multifaceted digital divide (infrastructural, economic, geographical), often “invisible” to institutions, and (2) institutional fragmentation caused by non-standardized platforms and a lack of coordination among lecturers, which creates a stressful and inefficient learning environment. In conclusion, optimizing digital technology in education requires a paradigm shift from merely providing tools toward building a supportive, inclusive, and human-centered learning ecosystem.

References

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Cirkony, C., Tytler, R., & Hubber, P. (2022). Designing and delivering representation-focused science lessons in a digital learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(3), 881–908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10094-z

Cooper, G., Thong, L. P., & Tang, K.-S. (2024). Transforming science education with virtual reality: An immersive representations model. EMI Educational Media International, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2024.2389348

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Dewi, C. A., Pahriah, P., & Purmadi, A. (2021). The urgency of digital literacy for generation Z students in chemistry learning. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 16(11), 88–100. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i11.19871

Erduran, S. (2024). Deepfakes and students’ deep learning: A harmonious pair in science? Science, 385(6712), eadr8354. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adr8354

Forde, C., & O'Brien, A. (2022). A literature review of barriers and opportunities presented by digitally enhanced practical skill teaching and learning in health science education. Medical Education Online, 27(1), 2068210. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2022.2068210

Fusch, P., & Ness, L. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1408–1416. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2281

Guan, X., Sun, C., Hwang, G.-J., Xue, K., & Wang, Z. (2022). Applying game-based learning in primary education: A systematic review of journal publications from 2010 to 2020. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2091611

Ješková, Z., Lukáč, S., Šnajder, Ľ., Guniš, J., Klein, D., & Kireš, M. (2022). Active learning in STEM education with regard to the development of inquiry skills. Education Sciences, 12(10), 686. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100686

Ješková, Z., Šnajder, Ľ., & Guniš, J. (2024). Active learning in STEM education. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2715(1), 012019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2715/1/012019

Khaokhajorn, W., & Srisawasdi, N. (2024). Assessing pre-service science teachers’ understanding of the nature of scientific inquiry to develop a sustainable technology-infused pedagogical program in teacher education. Cogent Education, 11(1), 2439160. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2024.2439160

Khattib, H., & Alt, D. (2024). A quasi-experimental study on the advantages of digital gamification using CoSpaces Edu application in science education. Education and Information Technologies, 29(15), 19963–19986. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12635-w

Kotzebue, L. von, Meier, M., Finger, A., Kremser, E., Huwer, J., Thoms, L.-J., Becker, S., Bruckermann, T., & Thyssen, C. (2021). The framework DiKoLAN (Digital Competencies for Teaching in Science Education) as basis for the self-assessment tool DiKoLAN-Grid. Education Sciences, 11(12), 775. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11120775

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

Mulla, A. (2024). Teaching and learning the fundamental of calculus through Python-based programming. International Journal of Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology, 12(1), 1414–1418. https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2024.58184

Nilsson, P., & Lund, J. (2023). Design for learning – involving teachers in digital didactic design (D3). Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 20(1), 142–159. https://doi.org/10.1108/itse-08-2021-0143

Nugraheni, A. R. E., & Srisawasdi, N. (2025). Development of pre-service chemistry teachers’ knowledge of technological integration in inquiry-based learning to promote chemistry core competencies. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1039/d4rp00160e

Ribosa, J., & Duran, D. (2024). Students creating videos for learning by teaching from their scientific curiosity. Research in Science & Technological Education, 42(2), 237–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2022.2116419

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68

Sidik, D. F., Irawan, & Priatna, T. (2023). Darul Hikam education conference as a supplement to the governance of Islamic science education. INFLUENCE: International Journal of Science Review, 5(1), 22–28. https://doi.org/10.54783/influencejournal.v5i1.97

Susyanah, S., & Fajar, A. (2024). The artificial intelligence, social sciences learning innovation catalyst. Icasse, 1(1), 114–120. https://doi.org/10.31316/icasse.v1i1.6845

Tsivitanidou, O. E., Georgiou, Y., & Ioannou, A. (2021). A learning experience in inquiry-based physics with immersive virtual reality: Student perceptions and an interaction effect between conceptual gains and attitudinal profiles. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(6), 841–861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-09924-1

Vidak, A., Šapić, I. M., Dananić, V., & Batista, J. (2023). Coulomb’s law: Augmented reality simulation. The Physics Teacher, 61(3), 172–174. https://doi.org/10.1119/5.0076101

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Zhong, W. (2024). Brief description of the performance of tertiary Macau in the PISA 2022 assessment. Journal of Education and Educational Research, 10(1), 211–214. https://doi.org/10.54097/26php495

Downloads

Published

2025-08-29

How to Cite

Ariansyah, A., Bilad, M. R., Sutarto, S., Kurnia, N., Alaydrus, K. A., Pathan, P., … Sharov, S. (2025). Pedagogical Negotiation in an Unequal Digital Ecosystem: A Case Study of Science Education in Higher Education. International Journal of Ethnoscience and Technology in Education, 2(2), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.33394/ijete.v2i2.17366

Issue

Vol. 2 No. 2 (2025): September

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Ariansyah Ariansyah, Muhammad Roil Bilad, Sutarto Sutarto, Nova Kurnia, Kadir Alpan Alaydrus, Pathan Pathan, Irham Azmi, Sergii Sharov

Creative Commons License

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

Authors who publish with International Journal of Ethnoscience and Technology in Education (IJETE) agree to the following terms:

  1. For all articles published in International Journal of Ethnoscience and Technology in Education (IJETE), copyright is retained by the authors. Authors give permission to the publisher to announce the work with conditions. When the manuscript is accepted for publication, the authors agrees to implement a non-exclusive transfer of publishing rights to the journals.
  2. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  4. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

International Journal of Ethnoscience and Technology in Education is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0