糖心原创

Home⇛International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research⇛vol. 7 no. 1 (2026)

Institutional Readiness and Faculty Awareness for Ethno-STEM and Augmented Reality Pedagogy: A Descriptive-Correlational Study in Masbate, Philippines

Alvin M. Mahawan | John Rey B. Qui帽ones

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

This descriptive–correlational study examined institutional readiness for integrating Augmented Reality (AR) in teaching and faculty aware-ness of Ethno-STEM pedagogy in a state college in Masbate Province, Philippines. Institutional readiness was assessed in terms of techno-logical infrastructure, technical and administrative support, faculty digital competence, and organizational culture, while faculty aware-ness of Ethno-STEM was examined through conceptual understand-ing, perceived pedagogical value, and contextual application. Data were gathered from thirty-five (35) full-time faculty members using a validated survey instrument and analyzed using descriptive statistics and Pearson’s product–moment correlation through Jamovi. Results indicated that institutional readiness for AR integration (M = 3.02) and faculty awareness of Ethno-STEM pedagogy (M = 3.18) were both at a moderate level. While technological infrastructure and organiza-tional culture were generally adequate, technical and administrative support emerged as a key area needing improvement. Faculty mem-bers demonstrated greater appreciation of the pedagogical value of Ethno-STEM than their capacity to apply it effectively in culturally contextualized instruction. Correlation analysis revealed that faculty digital competence (r = .482, p = .004) and organizational culture (r = .356, p = .041) were significantly associated with Ethno-STEM aware-ness, whereas technological infrastructure and technical support were not. These findings suggest that human and cultural dimensions of institutional readiness play a more decisive role than material re-sources in advancing culturally responsive, technology-enhanced pedagogy. The study provides empirical evidence to inform capacity-building initiatives that emphasize faculty professional development, supportive organizational cultures, and enabling institutional policies for effective AR and Ethno-STEM integration in teacher education.



References:

  1. Akçay谋r, M., & Akçay谋r, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augment-ed reality for education: A systematic re-view of the literature. Educational Re-search Review, 20, 1–11. 
  2. Aikenhead, G. S., & Elliott, D. (2022). Bridging Indigenous and Western science knowledge systems. Science Education, 106(2), 259–282. 
  3. Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2021). Mapping research in student engagement and edu-cational technology: A systematic review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 1–30. 
  4. Chinn, P. W. U. (2021). Decolonizing science education: The role of indigenous knowledge. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 16(1), 15–32. 
  5. De la Cruz, J. P. (2020). Contextualizing science instruction in Philippine classrooms. Asia-Pacific Journal of Education, 40(3), 356–370. 
  6. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and cul-ture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284. 
  7. Falloon, G. (2020). From digital literacy to digi-tal competence: The teacher digital com-petency framework. Journal of Educa-tional Technology & Society, 23(2), 244–257.
  8. Fullan, M. (2016). The new meaning of educa-tional change (5th ed.). Teachers College Press.
  9. Garzón, J., Pavón, J., & Baldiris, S. (2020). Sys-tematic review and meta-analysis of augmented reality in educational settings. Educational Research Review, 30, 100334. 
  10. Gonzalez-Howard, M., & McNeill, K. L. (2019). Culturally relevant pedagogy in science classrooms: Addressing academic success and cultural competence. Science Educa-tion, 103(2), 349–376. 
  11. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2020). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (5th ed.). Pearson.
  12. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., & Graham, C. R. (2013). The technolog-ical pedagogical content knowledge framework. In M. J. Spector et al. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 101–111). Springer. 
  13. Lucas, M., Bem-Haja, P., Siddiq, F., & Scherer, R. (2023). Teachers’ digital competence and educational innovation: A large-scale study. Computers & Education, 191, 104640. 
  14. Makransky, G., & Petersen, G. B. (2019). Im-mersive virtual reality and learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 31(4), 999–1030. 
  15. OECD. (2023). Innovating education and edu-cating for innovation. OECD Publishing.
  16. Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2021). Culturally sus-taining pedagogies: Teaching and learn-ing for justice in a changing world (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.
  17. Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., & Wohlgenannt, I. (2020). A systematic re-view of immersive virtual reality applica-tions for higher education. Computers & Education, 147, 103778. 
  18. Redecker, C. (2021). European framework for the digital competence of educators (DigCompEdu). Education and Infor-mation Technologies, 26(3), 3565–3587. 
  19. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
  20. Santos, M. E. (2023). Ethno-STEM education and indigenous knowledge integration: Implications for curriculum design. Inter-national Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 1–14. 
  21. Scherer, R., & Teo, T. (2019). Unpacking teachers’ digital competence: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 137, 226–240. 
  22. Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance of teachers: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 128, 13–35. 
  23. Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2021). The technology acceptance–competence nexus in teaching. Computers & Educa-tion, 165, 104101. 
  24. Teo, T., Milutinovi膰, V., & Zhou, M. (2021). Modelling teachers’ technology ac-ceptance: A structural equation modeling approach. Teaching and Teacher Educa-tion, 105, 103400. 
  25. Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ot-tenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2017). Under-standing the relationship between teach-ers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 555–575. 
  26. Voogt, J., Erstad, O., Dede, C., & Mishra, P. (2013). Challenges to learning and schooling in the digital networked world. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(5), 403–413. 

Tools


Copyright © 2026  糖心原创 Exclusively distributed by