Ruben Baena-Navarro; Javier Fernando-Bermudez; Yulieth Carriazo-Regino

A Holistic and Adaptive Pedagogical Model for Developing Digital Competence in Rural Teachers: Integrating IoT, Data Analytics, and Low-Connectivity Learning Environments

PDF (1043KB), PP.173-189

Views: 0 Downloads: 0

Author(s)

Ruben Baena-Navarro ^1,2,3,4,* Javier Fernando-Bermudez ⁴ Yulieth Carriazo-Regino ^1,2

1. Universidad de Córdoba, Department of Systems Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Montería, 230002, Colombia

2. Universidad Americana de Europa (UNADE), Doctoral Program in Informatics (Computer Science), Cancún, 77500, México

3. Universidad Cooperativa de Colombia, Systems Engineering Program, Faculty of Engineering, Montería, 230002, Colombia

4. Universidad Metropolitana de Educación, Ciencia y Tecnología (UMECIT), Doctorate in Educational Sciences, Faculty of Humanities and Educational Sciences, Panama City, 0801, Panama

* Corresponding author.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5815/ijmecs.2026.02.11

Received: 14 Oct. 2025 / Revised: 24 Nov. 2025 / Accepted: 14 Feb. 2026 / Published: 8 Apr. 2026

Index Terms

Digital Competence, Educational Artificial Intelligence, Internet of Things, Learning Analytics, Rural Education, Ethical Governance, Holopraxic Action Research

Abstract

This study examines the gap between digitalization agendas and school realities, where connectivity constraints, limited devices, and uneven support restrict pedagogical innovation. It evaluates the Model for Integrative and Predictive Smart Teaching Adaptation, integrating artificial intelligence, learning analytics, and Internet of Things components, within a holopraxic cycle of diagnosis, design, implementation, evaluation, and readaptation driven by field feedback. Over a semester, 120 rural teachers participated in a quasi-experimental study combining a competence questionnaire, interviews, and system usage logs. Baseline competence was comparable between groups, and gain was defined on a zero to one hundred scale as post minus pre. The experimental group showed a median gain of 6.25 points, whereas the control group remained at 0.00; the common-language effect size was 0.765. Engagement was sustained with peaks (twenty-five to thirty-seven sessions per week), indicating selective appropriation rather than linear growth. Results support improvement and emphasize adoption conditions: teacher agency, ethical trust, and institutional sustainability, operationalized through pseudonymization and bias auditing.

Cite This Paper

Rubén Baena-Navarro, Javier Fernando-Bermúdez, Yulieth Carriazo-Regino, "A Holistic and Adaptive Pedagogical Model for Developing Digital Competence in Rural Teachers: Integrating IoT, Data Analytics, and Low-Connectivity Learning Environments", International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science(IJMECS), Vol.18, No.2, pp. 173-189, 2026. DOI:10.5815/ijmecs.2026.02.11

Reference

[1]F. D. Guillén-Gámez, E. Colomo-Magaña, J. Ruiz-Palmero, and Ł. Tomczyk, “The digital competence of the rural teacher of primary education in the mentoring process: A study by teaching speciality and gender,” J. Res. Innov. Teach. Learn., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 3–19, Mar. 2025. doi:10.1108/JRIT-05-2023-0050.
[2]H. D. Osorio Vanegas, Y. de M. Segovia Cifuentes, and A. Sobrino Morrás, “Educational technology in teacher training: A systematic review of competencies, skills, models, and methods,” Educ. Sci., vol. 15, no. 8, p. 1036, Aug. 2025. doi:10.3390/educsci15081036.
[3]M. Sepadi, T. Kgaphola, and K. Molapo, “Teachers’ understanding of technology usage in rural schools,” Front. Educ., vol. 10, Jul. 2025. doi:10.3389/feduc.2025.1548457.
[4]K. Barnes, S. Ramesh Vasudevan, and R. Flam, “EdTech for education in emergencies: A rapid evidence review,” Jan. 2025. doi:10.53832/edtechhub.1084.
[5]C. Lee, B. Freeman, A. Gikunda, and M. Martínez, “Pedagogical and curricular approaches to teaching digital skills,” World Bank, Working Paper no. 12, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/a607bb6e3b76d2be0f3db8db34dcf73e-0140022025/related/4EDU-WP-12-Pedagogical-and-curricular-approaches-to-teaching-digital-skills.pdf. Accessed: Sep. 1, 2025.
[6]OECD, Digital Education Outlook 2023, OECD Publishing, 2023. doi:10.1787/c74f03de-en.
[7]R. Alfredo et al., “Human-centred learning analytics and AI in education: A systematic literature review,” Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell., vol. 6, Art. no. 100215, Jun. 2024. doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100215.
[8]M. López Costa, “Artificial intelligence and data literacy in rural schools’ teaching practices: Knowledge, use, and challenges,” Educ. Sci., vol. 15, no. 3, p. 352, Mar. 2025. doi:10.3390/educsci15030352.
[9]M. Macea-Anaya, J. Vargas-Moreno, and R. Baena-Navarro, “Influence of information and communication technologies on academic resilience in vulnerable contexts,” Int. J. Eval. Res. Educ., vol. 14, no. 4, p. 2617, Aug. 2025. doi:10.11591/ijere.v14i4.31486.
[10]B. Ahmed, M. Shuja, H. M. Mishra, A. Qtaishat, and M. Kumar, “IoT based smart systems using artificial intelligence and machine learning: Accessible and intelligent solutions,” in Proc. 2023 6th Int. Conf. Inf. Syst. Comput. Netw. (ISCON), IEEE, pp. 1–6, Mar. 2023. doi:10.1109/ISCON57294.2023.10112093.
[11]I. A. Ghashim and M. Arshad, “Internet of Things (IoT)-based teaching and learning: Modern trends and open challenges,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 21, Art. no. 15656, Nov. 2023. doi:10.3390/su152115656.
[12]UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research, UNESCO, 2023. doi:10.54675/EWZM9535.
[13]UNESCO, AI and Education: Guidance for Policy-makers, UNESCO, 2021. doi:10.54675/PCSP7350.
[14]M. Macea Anaya, J. Chimbo Jumbo, and R. Baena Navarro, “Evaluation of a STEM-based didactic model for the development of scientific competences in high school students: A quasi-experimental study,” Semin. Med. Writ. Educ., vol. 3, p. 85, Feb. 2024. doi:10.56294/mw202485.
[15]European Commission Joint Research Centre, SELFIE for Teachers – Designing and Developing a Self-reflection Tool for Teachers’ Digital Competence, Publications Office of the European Union, 2023. doi:10.2760/561258.
[16]J. Pinedo-López, R. Baena-Navarro, and F. Torres-Hoyos, “Science, technology and innovation in Colombia: Impact of the relationships between enterprises, government and universities,” Sci. Technol. Soc., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 363–385, Jun. 2025. doi:10.1177/09717218251326826.
[17]J. Pinedo-López, R. Baena-Navarro, Y. Carriazo-Regino, F. Torres-Hoyos, and D. Nieves-Garces, “Science, technology, and innovation policy and regional scientific production in Colombia: A methodological framework to address asymmetries in developing countries,” J. Innov. Entrep., vol. 14, no. 1, Art. no. 89, Aug. 2025. doi:10.1186/s13731-025-00562-0.
[18]M. Macea-Anaya, R. Baena-Navarro, Y. Carriazo-Regino, O. Primera-Correa, and J. Pérez-Díaz, “Tailored cognitive interventions for aging populations: Development and analysis of a machine learning-driven web platform,” Pertanika J. Sci. Technol., vol. 33, no. 4, Jun. 2025. doi:10.47836/pjst.33.4.03.
[19]R. Baena-Navarro, J. Vergara-Villadiego, Y. Carriazo-Regino, R. Crawford-Vidal, and F. Barreiro-Pinto, “Challenges in implementing free software in small and medium-sized enterprises in the city of Montería: A case study,” Bull. Electr. Eng. Informatics, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 586–597, Feb. 2024. doi:10.11591/eei.v13i1.6710.
[20]R. S. Baker and A. Hawn, “Algorithmic bias in education,” Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 1052–1092, Dec. 2022. doi:10.1007/s40593-021-00285-9.
[21]M. Cukurova, Promoting and Protecting Teacher Agency in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10212907/1/1149_25_Promoting%20and%20Protecting%20Teacher%20Agency_Cukurova.pdf. Accessed: Sep. 1, 2025.
[22]A. Blanchard and M. Taddeo, “The ethics of artificial intelligence for intelligence analysis: A review of the key challenges with recommendations,” Digit. Soc., vol. 2, no. 1, Art. no. 12, Apr. 2023. doi:10.1007/s44206-023-00036-4.
[23]L. Huang, “Ethics of artificial intelligence in education: Student privacy and data protection,” Sci. Insights Educ. Front., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 2577–2587, Jun. 2023. doi:10.15354/sief.23.re202.
[24]Y. Mochizuki, E. Bruillard, and A. Bryan, “The ethics of AI or techno-solutionism? UNESCO’s policy guidance on AI in education,” Br. J. Sociol. Educ., pp. 1–22, May 2025. doi:10.1080/01425692.2025.2502808.
[25]O. Monkevičienė and A. Galkienė, “Theoretical and methodological validation of the action research: Methodology of the scientific study,” in Improving Inclusive Education through Universal Design for Learning, A. Galkienė and O. Monkevičienė, Eds. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG, 2021, pp. 59–69. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-80658-3_3.
[26]J. Pinedo-López, R. Baena-Navarro, Y. Carriazo-Regino, A. Urrea-Ortiz, and D. Reyes-Guevara, “Sustainability strategies: A proposal for food sector SMEs, based on the integration of life cycle assessment and ESG strategies,” J. Infrastructure, Policy Dev., vol. 8, no. 12, Art. no. 8934, Nov. 2024. doi:10.24294/jipd.v8i12.8934.
[27]J. Pinedo-López, R. Baena-Navarro, N. Durán-Rojas, L. Díaz-Cogollo, and L. Farak-Flórez, “Energy transition in Colombia: An implementation proposal for SMEs,” Sustainability, vol. 16, no. 17, Art. no. 7263, Aug. 2024. doi:10.3390/su16177263.
[28]A. Küçükuncular and A. Ertugan, “Teaching in the AI era: Sustainable digital education through ethical integration and teacher empowerment,” Sustainability, vol. 17, no. 16, Art. no. 7405, Aug. 2025. doi:10.3390/su17167405.
[29]L. Serrano-Ardila, R. Baena-Navarro, and Y. Carriazo-Regino, “Digital integration in rural education: Foundations for a sustainable pedagogical model,” Int. J. Educ. Dev., vol. 121, Art. no. 103516, Mar. 2026. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2026.103516.
[30]M. Z. Kamarudin and M. S. A. Mat Noor, “What do we know about the selection of action research methodologies in primary science education? A systematic literature review,” Educ. Action Res., vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 825–847, Oct. 2024. doi:10.1080/09650792.2023.2261502.
[31]A. B. Costello and J. W. Osborne, “Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis,” Best Pract. Quant. Methods, vol. 10, no. 7, 2005. doi:10.7275/jyj1-4868.
[32]L. R. Fabrigar, D. T. Wegener, R. C. MacCallum, and E. J. Strahan, “Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research,” Psychol. Methods, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 272–299, Sep. 1999. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272.
[33]J. Kim and E. Wargo, “Empowering educational leaders for AI integration in rural STEM education: Challenges and strategies,” Front. Educ., vol. 10, Apr. 2025. doi:10.3389/feduc.2025.1567698.
[34]R. Baena-Navarro, Y. Carriazo-Regino, R. Crawford-Vidal, A. Fernández-Arango, and F. Barreiro-Pinto, “Adaptive AI-driven framework for digital mental health interventions in low-resource universities,” Bull. Electr. Eng. Informatics, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 4534–4547, Dec. 2025. doi:10.11591/eei.v14i6.10143.
[35]S. Holm, “A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure,” Scand. J. Stat., vol. 6, pp. 65–70, 1979. [Online]. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4615733. Accessed: Sep. 1, 2025.
[36]A. Vargha and H. D. Delaney, “A critique and improvement of the CL common language effect size statistics of McGraw and Wong,” J. Educ. Behav. Stat., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 101–132, Jun. 2000. doi:10.3102/10769986025002101.
[37]Y. Wang, “Algorithmic decisions in education governance: Implications and challenges,” Discov. Educ., vol. 3, no. 1, Art. no. 229, Nov. 2024. doi:10.1007/s44217-024-00337-x.
[38]S. Akgun and C. Greenhow, “Artificial intelligence in education: Addressing ethical challenges in K-12 settings,” AI Ethics, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 431–440, Aug. 2022. doi:10.1007/s43681-021-00096-7.

International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science (IJMECS)

MECS Press Journal