Mathematics Education Students' Adaptation to the Digital Learning Ecosystem

Agusalim Juhari; Sitti Habibah

doi:10.51574/ijrer.v5i3.5002

Authors

Agusalim Juhari Pendidikan Matematika, Universitas Negeri Makassar
Sitti Habibah Administrasi Pendidikan, Universitas Negeri Makassar

Keywords:

Auditory Learning, Digital Era, Higher Education, Mathematics Education, Visual Learning

Abstract

The transition to a Digital Learning Environment (DLE) in mathematics education often highlights a gap between rigid instructional delivery and students' diverse sensory preferences. This study aims to analyze the prevalence of learning styles among mathematics education students at Universitas Negeri Makassar (UNM) and explore their interactions with digital platforms. Employing a descriptive quantitative design, data were gathered via a standardized learning style inventory and a digital engagement questionnaire, then analyzed using descriptive statistics. The results reveal a structured hierarchical distribution dominated by visual learners (45%), followed by multimodal individuals (30%), and auditory learners (25%). These modalities directly dictate technology interaction patterns: visual students excel with dynamic geometry software and video tutorials, whereas auditory learners rely on audio-based discussions and podcasts. Notably, multimodal students exhibit the highest adaptability within Learning Management Systems (LMS) due to their capacity to simultaneously process dual sensory inputs. This research offers critical empirical insights into higher education pedagogy within the Indonesian context. It concludes that a successful digital transition requires a strategic shift toward a Dual-Coding instructional model that harmonizes dynamic visualizations with auditory narratives, thereby fostering an inclusive, adaptive, and highly effective mathematics learning environment.

References

Al-Ansi, A., et al. (2021). Analyzing the development of digital learning ecosystems in higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 7243–7265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10555-5

Bansah, A. K., & Darko Agyei, D. (2022). Perceived convenience, usefulness, effectiveness and user acceptance of information technology: evaluating students’ experiences of a Learning Management System. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 31(4), 431-449. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2022.2027267

Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies & academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. The Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.007

Chai, C. S., et al. (2019). Surveying and modeling students' motivation and self-regulation in cyber-physical learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(6), 1431–1453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09687-2

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119232605

Cotič, M., Doz, D., Jenko, M., & Žakelj, A. (2024). Mathematics education: What was it, what is it, and what will it be?. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 19(3), em0783. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/14663

Crompton, H., Burke, D., Jordan, K., & Wilson, S. W. G. (2021). Learning with technology during emergencies: A systematic review of K-12 education since 2010. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(4), 1554–1575. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13114

Dowker, A., Sarkar, A., & Looi, C. Y. (2016). Mathematics anxiety: What have we learned in 60 years? Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 508. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00508

Drijvers, P. (2019). Embodied instrumentation: different perspectives on using digital technology in mathematics education. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0167-y

Goodyear, P. (2020). Design and co-configuration for hybrid learning: Eco-social systems and practical resilience. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(4), 1045–1060. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13010

Handal, B., et al. (2023). Canvas and beyond: Holistic digital ecosystems in mathematics teacher training. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 39(1), 44–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2022.2132333

Hohenwarter, M., et al. (2016). Teaching and learning geometry with GeoGebra. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 23(2), 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1564/tme_v23_i2_a01

Hoyles, C. (2018). Transforming the mathematical knowledge network with digital technologies. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 99(3), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-018-9844-7

Ilhan, A., Aslaner, R., & Yaşaroğlu, C. (2025). Development of digital literacy skills of 21st century mathematics teachers and prospective teachers through technology assisted education. Education and Information Technologies, 30(8), 10837-10862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13283-w

Jonassen, D. H., et al. (2005). Everyday problem solving in the workplace: A framework for research and practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504857

Köhler, T., et al. (2022). The digital transformation of teacher education: Structural and pedagogical challenges. Computers & Education, 182, 104473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104473

Loewus, L. (2021). Adapting to the digital shift: How variable learning modalities affect preservice teacher performance. Journal of Teacher Education, 72(4), 412–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487120974421

Mayer, R. E. (2014). The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_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

Mishra, N. R. (2023). Constructivist approach to learning: An analysis of pedagogical models of social constructivist learning theory. Journal of research and development, 6(01), 22-29. https://nepjol.info/index.php/jrdn/article/view/55227

Mukhlis, H., Haenilah, E. Y., Maulina, D., & Nursafitri, L. (2024). Connectivism and digital age education: Insights, challenges, and future directions. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 45(3), 803-814. https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/kjss/article/view/274837

Ng, W. (2015). New digital technology in education: Conceptualizing professional learning for educators. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17461-7

Nguyen, L. T., & Tuamsuk, K. (2022). Digital learning ecosystem at educational institutions: A content analysis of scholarly discourse. Cogent Education, 9(1), 2111033. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2111033

Niess, M. L. (2018). Scaffolding mathematics teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 50(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2017.1411516

O'Keeffe, L., et al. (2020). Online learning in mathematics education: Shared perspectives on the transition to remote instruction. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 32(4), 573–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-020-00345-8

Paivio, A. (2014). Mind and its evolution: A dual-coding theoretical approach. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410612144

Redecker, C. (2017). European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators: DigCompEdu. Joint Research Centre, European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2760/159770

Ríordáin, M. N., et al. (2021). Exploring the intersection of mathematics anxiety, technology integration, and online learning in initial teacher education. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 23(2), 89–111.

Rose, D. H. (2018). Universal Design for Learning: Theory and Practice. CAST Professional Publishing.

Ruthven, K. (2018). Instructional technology and mathematical practices: Core themes, Research trends, and future directions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 99(3), 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-018-9828-7

Sáiz-Manzanares, M. C., et al. (2020). Effectiveness of self-regulated learning in architecture and engineering students in digital environments. International Journal of Engineering Education, 36(2), 654–666.

Sankey, M., et al. (2010). Engaging students through multimodal learning environments: The journey of a causal map. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(6), 852–870. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1045

Sweller, J. (2021). Operational definitions of cognitive load theory constructs. Educational Psychology Review, 33(2), 465–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09572-7

Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory (Vol. 1). Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4

Tall, D. (2020). Advanced Mathematical Thinking. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429341496

Wang, C., Chen, X., Yu, T., Liu, Y., & Jing, Y. (2024). Education reform and change driven by digital technology: A bibliometric study from a global perspective. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02717-y

Zimmerman, B. J. (2015). Self-regulated learning: Theories, measures, and outcomes. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 21, 541–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.26060-1

Zou, D., Xie, H., & Kohnke, L. (2025). Navigating the future: establishing a framework for educators' pedagogic artificial intelligence competence. European Journal of Education, 60(2), e70117. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.70117