Innovative Digital Pedagogies in Mathematics and Science Learning

Authors

Sry Wahyuni Zandri , Arnelis , Suherman , Yuliyanti Harisman , Yerizon

DOI:

10.29303/jppipa.v11i5.11390

Published:

2025-05-25

Issue:

Vol. 11 No. 5 (2025): May

Keywords:

Adaptive technology, Digital pedagogy, Interactive learning, Science education

Review

Downloads

How to Cite

Zandri, S. W., Arnelis, Suherman, Harisman, Y., & Yerizon. (2025). Innovative Digital Pedagogies in Mathematics and Science Learning. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 11(5), 68–72. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v11i5.11390

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Abstract

This study reviews innovative digital pedagogies integrated into mathematics and science classrooms, focusing on tools such as virtual simulations, dynamic geometry software, augmented reality, mobile applications, flipped classrooms, and intelligent tutoring systems. The purpose is to examine their impact on student engagement, conceptual understanding, and pedagogical effectiveness. Findings indicate that these digital tools enhance interactivity and learner autonomy, promote deeper conceptual understanding through visualization and feedback, and increase student motivation and participation. Adaptive technologies that provide personalized feedback show promise in matching the effectiveness of human tutoring. However, technology alone does not guarantee improved learning outcomes; effective integration requires intentional pedagogical design aligning content, pedagogy, and technology. Challenges include infrastructure limitations and educational inequity, particularly in under-resourced regions. Additionally, a shift in the teacher’s role toward facilitator and designer of learning experiences is critical.

References

Ahmed, S., Patel, R., & Kim, J. (2023). Enhancing conceptual understanding through multimedia animations in science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 32(2), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-023-09999-x

Brown, M., & Green, T. (2022). Teacher beliefs and digital pedagogies: Transforming instructional roles. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(4), 889–908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10053-6

Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551

Evans, C., Roberts, K., & Chen, L. (2021). Aligning pedagogy and technology: Implementing TPACK in digital classrooms. Computers & Education, 172, 104248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104248

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059

Garcia, M., Lopez, S., & Hernandez, P. (2023). Pedagogical intentions behind technology use in mathematics education. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00357-1

Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Review of Educational Research, 92(1), 32–48. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203887332

Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741319300303

Laborde, C. (2008). Experiencing the multiple dimensions of mathematics with dynamic 3D geometry environments: Illustration with Cabri 3D. The Electronic Journal of Mathematics and Technology, 2(1), 1–10. Retrieved from https://ejmt.mathandtech.org/Contents/eJMT_v2n1p3.pdf

Lee, H., Kang, D. Y., Kim, M. J., & Martin, S. N. (2023). Navigating into the future of science museum education: Focus on educators’ adaptation during COVID-19. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 18(3), 647–667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-022-10142-3

Martinez, A., Singh, P., & Lopez, S. (2023). Longitudinal effects of digital pedagogy on student achievement in STEM. Computers & Education, 182, 104520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104520

Martinez, A., & Torres, R. (2024). Virtual labs and student learning outcomes in secondary science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 33(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-024-10012-5

Mayer, R. E. (2002). Multimedia learning. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 41, 85–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(02)80005-6

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

Nguyen, H., & Lee, S. (2021). Intentional use of digital tools for mathematics learning: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 33, 100393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100393

Nguyen, H., Patel, R., & Kim, J. (2025). Sustained impacts of digital pedagogies: A five-year longitudinal study. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 22(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00392-w

Nguyen, H., & Zhang, Y. (2022). AI tutoring systems in STEM education: Personalizing learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(6), 1435–1455. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211026527

Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2006). An exploratory study of teachers’ and students’ use of multi-modal representations of concepts in primary science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1843–1866. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600718294

Roberts, K., & Chen, L. (2024). Engagement and motivation in digital learning environments: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 177, 104457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104457

Rutten, N., Van Joolingen, W. R., & Van Der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.017

Schmidt, W. H. (2005). Characterizing pedagogical flow: An investigation of mathematics and science teaching in six countries. Springer Science & Business Media.

Schweingruber, H., Pearson, G., & Honey, M. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academies Press.

Sharma, A., & Singh, M. (2024). Revolutionizing Interdisciplinary Collaboration through STEM Education that Enhances Higher Order Thinking Skills among Learners. Blue Rose Publishers.

Singh, P., Martinez, A., & Torres, R. (2021). Virtual simulations in chemistry education: Enhancing conceptual understanding. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22(4), 887–900. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1RP00056A

Smith, J., & Zhao, Y. (2022). Emotional and cognitive engagement in interactive e-learning environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(7), 1311–1324. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000664

Takeuchi, M. A., Sengupta, P., Shanahan, M.-C., Adams, J. D., & Hachem, M. (2020). Transdisciplinarity in STEM education: A critical review. Studies in Science Education, 56(2), 213–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2020.1755802

Tran, L., & Park, J. (2023). Cross-disciplinary STEM learning with digital tools: Challenges and opportunities. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00358-0

UNESCO. (2022). Digital divides and education equity: Global trends and challenges. UNESCO Publishing.

VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.611369

Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and equity in education: The second digital divide. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 12(64), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v12n64.2004

Zhang, Y., Wang, P., Jia, W., Zhang, A., & Chen, G. (2025). Dynamic visualization by GeoGebra for mathematics learning: a meta-analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 57(2), 437–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2023.2250886

Author Biographies

Sry Wahyuni Zandri, Universitas Negeri Padang

Arnelis, Universitas Negeri Padang

Suherman, Universitas Negeri Padang

Yuliyanti Harisman, Universitas Negeri Padang

Yerizon, Universitas Negeri Padang

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Sry Wahyuni Zandri, Arnelis, Suherman, Yuliyanti Harisman, Yerizon

Creative Commons License

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

Authors who publish with Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY License). This license allows authors to use all articles, data sets, graphics, and appendices in data mining applications, search engines, web sites, blogs, and other platforms by providing an appropriate reference. The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions and will retain publishing rights without restrictions.
  2. 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 Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA.
  3. 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).