Rural Educators’ Lo-Tech Resiliency Pedagogy: Insights from Eastern Indoensia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65150/EP-jsshrs/V2E8/2026-08Keywords:
Lo-Tech, inclusive education, resilience-pedaggoy strategy, rural area, rural schooling, teacher agencyAbstract
This study illustrates how seven female rural school teachers in Papua utilize Lo-Tech solutions as a resilience pedagogy in environments with limited infrastructure. Employing a qualitative approach, data were collected through in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, content analysis, and teacher reflection notes. The study revealed that teachers implement four pedagogical stages: planning, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and reflection. This approach positively impacts student outcomes, with evaluations contributing to student engagement, social relationships, and inclusivity. However, this study has limitations, such as the small number of participants, the focus on female teachers, and the absence of classroom intervention, which should be addressed in future research. The study offers several insights and recommendations such as: (1) The government should reduce educators' administrative burdens, allowing them to focus on pedagogy. (2) Both low- and high-tech solutions should be integrated into teaching and learning. (3) Continuous educator training on a weekly, monthly, and semester. (4) High-voltage electricity should be provided to ensure 24/7 availability of the system. (5) Parental involvement and community engagement are vital, as rural schools in Papua cannot thrive without the support of local communities, village leaders, and religious leaders working together to advance education.
References
1) Ahiaku, P. K. A., Uleanya, C., & Muyambi, G. C. (2025). Rural schools and tech use for sustainability: the challenge of disconnection. Education and Information Technologies, 30(9), 12557–12571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13311-9
2) Azano, A. P., Callahan, C., Bass, E. L., & Rasheed, M. (2020). Supporting gifted education in rural schools. Rural Educator, 41(2), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.35608/ ruraled.v41i2.851
3) Asamoah, M. K. (2021). Sturdiness and scuffle in deploying educational technologies for teaching and learning in a Lo-Technology context: Students’ experience in a developing society. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 13(2), 167–184.
4) Abedi, E. A. “We [Teachers] First Require Basic Technical [Skills] Training”: Investigating Formal Professional Development Pathways and Knowledge Needs of Teachers for Technology Integration. Education and information technologies 2024, 29 (10),11793–11814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12344-w.
5) Ali, W., & Saleh, M. (2019). Infrastructure and education: The barriers in rural areas.Journal of Education and Social Development, 6(2), 34-45.
6) Bebell, D., & O'Dwyer, L. M. (2010). Educational technology and impact on student learning: A research synthesis. Computers & Education, 55(1), 14-22.
7) Beneite-Martí, J. (2022). Education, colonialism and necropolitics in West
8) Papua. Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2021, 207-227.
9) Butarbutar, R., Pure, E. A. G., & Rizal, A. (2025). Unlocking the Impact of AI-Assisted Online Interactive Learning Environment in English Language Learning. Journal of Asia TEFL, 22(4), 646-662.
10) Butarbutar, R., Alimuddin, A. H., & Leba, S. M. R. (2025). Evaluating the Impact of AI Debater on EFL Debate Competence: Perceptions of Lecturers and Learners. Studies in English Language and Education, 12(3), 1377-1395.
11) Butarbutar, R. (2025). Coastal Regions of Papua Students and Teachers’ Responses of Educational Challenges in Generative AI Era: A Case Study. Digital Technologies Research and Applications, 4(1), 106-119.Authors
12) Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.
13) Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective Teacher Professional Development. Learning Policy Institute. https://doi.org/10.54300/122.311
14) Davis, J. S., Irish, C., Wells, M., Peck, K., & Clayton, C. (2023). High-/Low-/No-Tech: Toward a Simplified, Practitioner-Centered Framework for Virtual Learning and Beyond. Journal of Educators Online, 20(4), n4.
15) Dorn, E., Hancock, B., Sarakatsannis, J., & Viruleg, E. (2021). Covid-19 and learning loss: disparities grow and students need help. 2020. McKinsey & Company.
16) Fiharsono, A., Carey, M., Hyde, M., Beazley, H., & Yektiningtyas-Modouw, W. (2024). Culturally based learning needs of Korowai students in a lowland-remote area of Indonesian Papua: school physical environment and building design. The Australian Educational Researcher, 51(2), 611-629.
17) Fiharsono, A., Carey, M. D., Hyde, M., & Beazley, H. (2025). Enhancing school belonging for Indigenous students in Papua, Indonesia. International Review of Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-025-10157-2
18) Girard, U., Reyes, T., & Lan Hing Ting, K. (2025). Characterizing the ingenuity of the Lo-Tech design approach: a driver to move design toward more sustainable practices.International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation,1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2025.2592706
19) Hollweck, T. (2015). Robert K. Yin.(2014).Case Study Research Design and Methods .Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 30(1), 108-110.
20) Hu, X., & Ng, J. T. D. (2026). Low tech-barrier virtual reality content creation for cultural heritage education: learning outcomes and pedagogy. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 35(1), 1-28.
21) KBBI.web.id. (n.d.). Pedalaman [Indonesian Online Dictionary]. Retrieved January 24, 2026, from https://www.kbbi.web.id/pedalaman
22) Komba, W. L. M., & Nkumbi, E. (2008). Teacher professional development in Tanzania: Perceptions and practices. Journal of International Cooperation in Education, 11(3), 67-83.
23) Kuznetcova, I., Tilak, S., Wen, Z., Glassman, M., Anderman, E., & Lin, T.-J. (2025). Making immersive storytelling accessible: Interactive Lo-Tech implementation in elementary school civic learning. Convergence, 31(1), 36–68.
24) Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575-614.
25) Lestari, T., & Gunawan, I. (2020). The challenges of implementing digital education in rural Indonesia. Journal of Education and Practice, 11(3), 45-56.
26) Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge university press.
27) Lin, J.-A., Ku, Y.-M., Chen, L., Han, C., Chen, Y., Shen, H., & Kuo, L.-J. (2025). Technology Integration in Chinese Literacy Instruction: A Mixed-Method Study of In-Service Teachers. Educational Research and Development Journal, 28(1), 28–59.
28) Moon, J., et al. (2017). Mobile learning solutions in remote regions: Educational implications. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 13(1), 112-125.
29) Mustafa, Faisal, Hoa Thi Mai Nguyen, and Xuesong Andy Gao. "The challenges and solutions of technology integration in rural schools: A systematic literature review." International Journal of Educational Research 126 (2024): 102380.
30) Nacu, D., Martin, C. K., & Pinkard, N. (2018). Designing for 21st century learning online: A heuristic method to enable educator learning support roles. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(4), 1029-1049.
31) Nath, S., et al. (2020). Education and development in rural contexts: Challenges and future perspectives. Educational Research for Rural Development, 25(3), 89-97.
32) Sala-Bars, I., Mumbardó-Adam, C., & Adam-Alcocer, A. L. (2025). Moving towards preservice teachers’ implementation of universal design for learning: the central role of self-efficacy. Teachers and Teaching, 31(5), 800-818.
33) Sidekerskienė, T., & Damaševičius, R. (2025). Pedagogical memes: a creative and effective tool for teaching STEM subjects. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 56(7), 1230-1260.
34) Parker, L., & Sudibyo, L. (2024). Why young people leave school early in Papua, Indonesia, and education policy options to address this problem. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 54(1), 146-162.
35) Raharjo, A. (2017). Culturally responsive pedagogy in Indonesian rural schools: A need for professional development. Educational Innovations Journal, 22(1), 58-72.
36) Sey, A., et al. (2013). The impact of mobile learning in rural schools: A case study from India. Technology and Education Review, 11(2), 98-115.
37) Sitorus, S. (2020). Cultural integration in education: The case of Papua. Papuan Journal of Educational Development, 8(2), 47-61.
38) Slamet, M. et al. (2016). The geographical and logistical barriers to education in Papua. Indonesian Educational Research Journal, 10(2), 66-82.
39) Suárez, P., et al. (2018). Technology-enhanced education in rural Southeast Asia: Lessons from pilot projects. Asia Pacific Education Review, 19(4), 523-540.
40) Suppiah Shanmugam, S. K., Veloo, A., Ng, S. B., & Revindran, S. (2025). Exploring the barriers to implementing hybrid learning in rural primary schools. Cogent Education, 12(1), 2569691.
41) Tanguy, A., Carrière, L., & Laforest, V. (2023). Lo-Tech approaches for sustainability: key principles from the literature and practice. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 19(1), 2170143.
42) Trucano, M., & Trucano, M. (2016). Technologies in Education Across the Americas: The promise and the peril and some potential ways forward. World Bank.
43) Stake, R. (1995). Case study research. Cham: Springer.
44) Tamim, R. M., et al. (2011). The effects of technology on learning: A meta-analysis.45) Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4-28.
46) Trucano, M. (2016). Using technology to improve education in rural Africa: Insights and experiences. World Bank Education Blog.
47) Wahyudin, D., Sumule, A., & Suwirta, A. (2021). Alternatives of Genuine Basic Education Program in Papua Provinces, Indonesia. TAWARIKH, 12(2).
48) Yawan, H. (2022). Yo si Puedo: A Cuban literacy program to strengthen literacy level in West Papua, Indonesia. IJIET (International Journal of Indonesian Education and Teaching), 6(1), 82-92.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ranta Butarbutar, Santy Monika (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
