1 Introduction

In recent years, digital technologies have quickly transformed several education features, including pedagogy (Engelbrecht et al., 2020). Moreover, within the coronavirus (COVID-19) era, education institutions globally replaced face-to-face pedagogy with online pedagogy. Online pedagogy was used to continue teaching and learning without fear of spreading the contagious COVID-19 (Tadesse & Muluye, 2020). Post-COVID-19, the transformation in pedagogy has included blended methods, which combine face-to-face and online pedagogy. These methods rely on digital tools, resources and platforms (Singh et al., 2021). Incorporating digital tools and platforms to support digital pedagogy in higher education, especially in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) pedagogy, has drawn attention due to the possibilities for enhancing learning outcomes and advancing accessibility (Alabdulaziz, 2021; McDonald, 2016; Megri et al., 2021; Padayachee et al., 2018; Sikhwari et al., 2019). Digital pedagogy focuses on using educational technology in teaching and learning and may be used to scaffold online, blended and traditional face-to-face educational environments. While blended pedagogy offers numerous advantages, such as customised personal learning, flexibility and organisational advantages (Bülow, 2022; Yang et al., 2019), it is important to interrogate the social justice consequences of digital pedagogy. More so, in developing countries, not all students have equal access to digital tools, devices, resources, and the basic requirements to participate equally in online pedagogy. Consequently, the study under focus examined postgraduate STEM education students’ personal experiences of digital pedagogy.

Moreover, this study explored the connection between social justice and digital STEM pedagogy within higher education. The study investigated how incorporating digital tools and platforms influences students’ first-hand experiences of STEM education. The reason for focusing on STEM education is that it has been acknowledged as a field with significant differences in student performance and access (Flores, 2007; Gutiérrez, 2008; Taşdemir, 2022; Yang et al., 2019). Traditional STEM curricular materials and teaching have often propagated these disparities, leaving students from low-income contexts disadvantaged and marginalised (Adler, 2021; Calabrese-Barton & Tan, 2019; Eastman et al., 2017). Moreover, parental education also influences student achievement in STEM education (Chachashvili-Bolotin et al., 2016). Thus, examining students’ personal experiences of digital STEM education was important. Accordingly, by using postgraduate students’ first-hand experiences of digital STEM pedagogy, this study aimed to advance equitable and inclusive pedagogy by exploring the social justice implications of digital STEM pedagogy in higher education. Digital pedagogy aims to use educational technology to transform traditional face-to-face teaching and learning in numerous ways. Therefore, the main research question for this study was: What are postgraduate students’ first-hand experiences of the social justice implications of digital STEM pedagogy for higher education?

2 Literature review

2.1 Digital STEM pedagogy in higher education contexts

Digital STEM pedagogy uses educational technology when teaching and learning STEM subjects. Educational technology combines computer software, hardware, pedagogical theories, and practice to scaffold teaching and learning. It is the practice of supporting pedagogy using technological devices, resources and processes (Simonson, 2008). It is a tool to support teaching and learning and not a replacement. Thus, technology-based devices, tools and resources must enrich teaching and learning and promote active learning. Accordingly, technology-based tools and resources must support educational goals and objectives (Engelbrecht et al., 2020). Therefore, technology-based tools and approaches must align with pedagogical goals and the needs of students. Using digital pedagogy in STEM higher education contexts encompasses well-organised instructional approaches and suitable tools, devices, resources and technology. Within higher education, STEM lecturers may integrate technology-based platforms that encourage active learning, such as online discussion or problem-solving sessions, interactive Zoom or Microsoft Team sessions, simulations, videos and STEM-related software programmes such as Sketchpad, ROQED Science, Canvas, Google Classroom, Blackboard and GeoGebra. Integrating educational technology within STEM higher education contexts allows students to explore STEM-related concepts independently (Chaipidech et al., 2021; Hwa, 2018; Ibáñez & Delgado-Kloos, 2018; Singer et al., 2016). It gives students a chance to apply their knowledge to solve problems and allows lecturers to differentiate activities. To enable the smooth integration of educational technology to support digital pedagogy in STEM higher education contexts, there is a need to develop and design curriculum material and resources that are well-structured and focus on key concepts and topics (Agyei & Voogt, 2012; Stohlmann et al., 2012). Curriculum materials and resources need to be compatible with educational technology. In addition, real-world problems, case studies and interdisciplinary relationships will be highlighted.

Educational technology may be used to foster active student engagement and learning. Through educational technology, students should be encouraged to be self-regulated and constantly reflect and assess their learning and understanding (Johnson & Davies, 2014). Moreover, students must be allowed to enhance their problem-solving skills by being exposed to thought-provoking real-world problems that enhance thinking and critical reasoning. When integrating educational technology to support digital pedagogy, lecturers must acknowledge that students have diverse learning styles that require varying pedagogy, resources and pedagogical support. Ensuring that digitally-based tools and devices are accessible to students is also important (Viberg et al., 2023). This will assist in creating an inclusive and supportive educational environment where students feel at ease collaborating with other students, engaging in discussions and requesting help when needed.

Consequently, assessments must be transformed to align with digitally-based educational environments, allowing students to engage with material and resources to identify and improve areas requiring attention. To ensure the effective use of digital tools, pedagogy and devices, professional development, training and support should be provided to lecturers, tutors and students (Machaba & Bedada, 2022; Muhazir & Retnawati, 2020). In addition, lecturers within higher education environments must stay up-to-date with current developments and pedagogies for STEM education by participating in workshops, professional development meetings and conferences. This will support and develop existing knowledge and pedagogical practices. Thus, lecturers may use educational technology to complement and support face-to-face instruction, creating a blended pedagogical environment.

2.2 Blended STEM pedagogy for higher education contexts

Blended pedagogy for STEM higher education contexts integrates traditional face-to-face pedagogy with online pedagogy (Brown, 2016; Singh et al., 2021). Blended pedagogy promotes active learning, student engagement, and flexibility. Lecturers use existing learning management systems (LMS), such as Moodle, Blackboard, and Learn, to upload course outlines, materials, and resources (Goyal & Tambe, 2015). In addition, lecturers encourage online discussions using the existing LMS to support face-to-face and online pedagogy. In addition, blended pedagogy incorporates notions of a flipped lecture room (Basitere et al., 2023). Within a flipped lecture setting, lecturers can upload videos, recorded lectures, activities, simulations and material for students to work with before attending the lecture. During lectures, students collaborate with each other and the lecturer and discuss the material they viewed beforehand. This encourages active learning and collaboration, supporting students in developing communication and mathematical reasoning skills (Lin et al., 2016).

Furthermore, blended pedagogy offers the opportunity for asynchronous online pedagogy. Students learn at their own pace in their own time, and teaching and learning are flexible. To effectively incorporate digital pedagogy, lecturers should consider combining synchronous and asynchronous activities so students can work with the content at their own pace, supporting self-regulation and inclusivity (Kearney et al., 2022). Moreover, curriculum materials and resources should be carefully designed to support blended pedagogy for mathematics. Lecturers should consider which STEM-related concepts are best for face-to-face and online pedagogy (Oladejo et al., 2023; Stahl, 2021; Stone & Perumean-Chaney, 2011).

Additionally, for blended pedagogy, lecturers should use online platforms that support collaboration, discussion and problem-solving. Student-peer and student-lecturer interactions should be encouraged using emails and online discussion forums. For STEM education, students should be encouraged to collaborate and share ideas while engaging with different problem-solving strategies (Granberg & Olsson, 2015; Quigley et al., 2020). Consequently, lecturers may use various software programmes to support digital STEM pedagogy. These digital tools and programmes support students’ thinking and critical reasoning skills. In addition, STEM-related software, such as Sketchpad, ROQED Science, and GeoGebra, enables students to work with complex calculations, simulations, and problems and includes tools for easily visualising STEM-related concepts. Although digital STEM pedagogy has the prospect of enhancing teaching and learning and providing access to quality STEM education, it may also propagate issues of inequality and restrict student access if not used appropriately. Thus, to promote equitable and inclusive digital STEM pedagogy, social justice implications must be considered.

2.3 Digital STEM pedagogy and social justice implications in developing countries

When using digital STEM pedagogy in developing countries, numerous concerns regarding social justice can arise. Developing countries face poverty and income inequality, with limited access to clean water, food, healthcare, housing and education (Buheji et al., 2020). Subsequently, the struggle to deliver quality education to societies, particularly in rural and marginalised communities, prevails (Hossain, 2021). Furthermore, educational technology for digital pedagogy is expensive and can be a barrier to disadvantaged schools, communities and students. Moreover, inadequate infrastructure, limited educational resources, and the lack of qualified teachers limit certain communities from accessing education (Boyi, 2012; Makwana & Elizabeth, 2022). Also, rapid urbanisation in developing countries results in the growth of slums and informal settlements typified by insufficient housing, lack of basic services and limited access to quality education (Olajide, 2010).

Consequently, while digital STEM pedagogy has the potential to connect the learning gap and provide access and improve the quality of education, it can also aggravate existing inequalities. For example, if students do not have access to technology, using technology in educational contexts can undermine principles of inclusion, thereby affecting social justice and promoting inequalities (Gandolfi et al., 2021). Therefore, within the context of digital pedagogy in developing countries, a major concern revolves around the digital divide (Ahmed, 2007). The digital divide implies unequal access to infrastructure, technology, tools, the internet and devices, generating a division and limited access to resources, digital pedagogy and information (Soomro et al., 2020). Without these essential tools, internet connectivity and devices, disadvantaged students are further marginalised. Accordingly, the use of technology has an impact on social justice. Moreover, training, professional development, and support are required to use educational technology and advance digital pedagogy. These resources and support programmes are costly and create an additional barrier for teachers and students in developing countries (Costan et al., 2021).

Furthermore, gender inequalities and social disparities can be amplified through the use of educational technology. For example, unequal access, gender-stereotyped roles in technology and cultural issues may limit the participation, access and engagement of girls and disadvantaged communities in digital pedagogy (Mariscal et al., 2019). As a result, the use of technology in education impacts social justice. Thus, to adopt an inclusive and holistic approach to digital STEM pedagogy, social justice issues need to be acknowledged. To alleviate social justice issues, it is important to collaborate with relevant stakeholders such as government officials, officials from the education sector, members of civil societies, academics, researchers, community members, policymakers, curriculum developers, businesses and students. These collaborations are important for promoting social justice when using digital pedagogy in developing countries.

3 Theoretical framework

The study was framed by the technology acceptance theoretical model (Davis, 1989) and a theory-informed, self-constructed conceptual model focusing on concepts related to social justice. These framings allowed for an interrogation of power dynamics, structural inequalities, and how digital pedagogy can create and contest prevailing educational inequalities.

3.1 The technology acceptance model

The technology acceptance model (TAM) is a theoretical framework that interrogates how technology is adopted, used and accepted. The theoretical framework maintains that technology is used due to perceived usefulness (PU) or perceived ease of use (PEOU) (Amin et al., 2014). When considering PU, this refers to the user’s belief that using a specific type of technology will enrich their performance or efficiency. Thus, if technology is viewed as useful, then this will be adopted by the user (Mailizar et al., 2021). External variables, such as training, social aspects, and support, guide PU and PEOU. These variables may influence how the user uses and perceives technology. Thus, this affects the intention of technology use and thereby affects how the technology is being used. Hence, TAM suggests that the intention to use technology is the key factor determining the user’s behaviour.

Consequently, TAM maintains that the users’ attitude guides the use of technology when considering how useful the technology is (Opoku & Francis, 2019). Accordingly, when an individual is satisfied with using specific technology, this will encourage and reinforce their intention to continue using technology. Thus, TAM is useful for designing and implementing technology-based tools, resources and devices that are more likely to be accepted and used effectively (Castiblanco-Jimenez et al., 2020). Moreover, researchers (Das & Bhattacharyya, 2023; Mutambara & Bayaga, 2021; Mutambara & Chibisa, 2022) have employed TAM to guide STEM education research in rural contexts. Hence, TAM was considered suitable to guide the study under focus and assisted in analysing and discussing the results of this study.

3.2 Theory-informed conceptual model focusing on concepts related to social justice

For successfully implementing digital STEM pedagogy in a developing country, it is important to reflect on and consider key concepts and ideas that advance notions of social justice. Thus, the researchers tried to develop a self-constructed conceptual model based on the literature review (Ko & Rose, 2021). From the review of the literature (Akcay, 2018; Campbell et al., 2019; Christian et al., 2021; Goy et al., 2018; Ibáñez & Delgado-Kloos, 2018; Leopold & Smith, 2019; Rowsell et al., 2017), key concepts and ideas to consider when planning digital STEM pedagogy are reflected in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Self-constructed conceptual model showing the relationship between digital STEM pedagogy and social justice

Full size image

3.2.1 Inclusivity and diversity

Digital STEM pedagogy must be designed to be inclusive and consider students’ diverse backgrounds and needs. When lecturers design curriculum material and resources, diversity and representations must be considered (Christian et al., 2021). Consequently, lecturers must accommodate learners from different cultures, ethnicities, socio-economic backgrounds and language backgrounds. This will assist in ensuring that all students feel valued, represented and accommodated.

3.2.2 Access and infrastructure

To promote digital STEM pedagogy, it is necessary to have access to digital tools, devices, technology and dependable internet structures. This will ensure all students have an equal chance to participate in digital STEM pedagogy. Moreover, there is a need to ensure that the digital divide in under-resourced communities is bridged (Rowsell et al., 2017). Therefore, the necessary digital tools, devices and technology must be made available to students in under-resourced communities.

3.2.3 Culturally relevant pedagogy

When implementing digital STEM pedagogy, it is important to include local culture, contexts and examples from the real world in the curriculum. Students need to be encouraged to see the relevance of STEM in their daily lives (Akcay, 2018). This strategy can help to increase student engagement and support the learning of abstract concepts by revealing their practical, real-world applications.

3.2.4 Blended pedagogical approaches

Strategies that promote dynamic learning, problem-solving, and critical thinking need to be encouraged to support digital STEM pedagogy. Collaboration and cooperative STEM learning that inspires group work and peer learning should be encouraged (Leopold & Smith, 2019). Digital STEM pedagogy needs to empower students to develop deep STEM knowledge.

3.2.5 Gender equity

Issues of gender equity need to be incorporated within digital STEM pedagogy. An inclusive STEM educational context needs to be encouraged so that females can participate equally in the STEM educational context (Goy et al., 2018). Addressing issues of gender stereotypes and biases within the STEM curriculum and pedagogy is central.

3.2.6 Continuous evaluation and feedback

Digital STEM pedagogy must incorporate regular evaluation and feedback. The impact and effectiveness of digital STEM pedagogy in the context of developing countries need to be evaluated. The strengths, limitations and implications of digital STEM pedagogy must be identified in collaboration with facilitators, students and other stakeholders (Campbell et al., 2019; Ibáñez & Delgado-Kloos, 2018). Continuous evaluation and feedback are important to ensure the effectiveness of digital STEM pedagogy within the context of addressing issues of social justice.

While taking all these concepts into consideration, one must be mindful that a country’s context, cultural distinctions and students’ needs are unique. It is important to collaborate with local communities, facilitators, students, and other stakeholders to ensure the appropriate implementation of digital STEM pedagogy and its effectiveness while addressing issues of social justice relevant to the context under focus. Accordingly, the theory-informed self-constructed conceptual model assisted in interrogating key concepts and ideas to explain the link between them and explore how their relationship supported the research problem under focus. Consequently, the self-constructed conceptual model assisted in framing a response to postgraduate students’ personal experiences of the social justice implications of digital STEM pedagogy for higher education. Thus, the conceptual model assisted in analysing and discussing the results of this study.

4 Research Methodology

4.1 Issues of ethics

This study was conducted at one higher education institution in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, post-COVID-19. Ethical clearance for this study was obtained from the research office of the participating university. Participants were provided with informed consent letters, which they signed. The informed consent letter provided details of the study and the data generation processes for the study. In addition, the informed consent letter allowed participants to withdraw from the study at any time without prejudice.

4.2 Population and sampling techniques

The population for this study was postgraduate STEM education students who were practising teachers of STEM subjects. Thus, the study sample was forty-seven postgraduate STEM education students. These students were purposively selected to participate in this study since they were enrolled for two postgraduate STEM education modules (Mathematics and Technology Education) taught by the researchers. Accordingly, the participant sampling comprised participants majoring in STEM education at the participating university and teaching STEM subjects at schools. The perspectives of these participants were considered important since they taught STEM subjects at school and were studying postgraduate STEM education modules at university. Therefore, the views of these carefully selected participants were considered important since they had both teaching and learning experience in STEM education. Accordingly, these participants would provide rich information and data about the problem under study (Wan, 2019). Participants completed online questionnaires individually after completing the first STEM education module. After completing the second STEM education module, they were invited to interactive, blended focus group discussions (WhatsApp, in-person and Moodle). NVivo, thematic coding and interpretative techniques were used to analyse the qualitative data, and Excel was used to analyse the quantitative data.

4.3 Participant coding

Participant responses were coded according to the order of collection of signed informed consent forms. For example, a signed informed consent form collected first was coded as Participant 1 (P1), and the signed informed consent form collected last was coded as Participant 47 (P47). Accordingly, the coding for the participants was as follows: Participant 5 (P5), Participant 17 (P17), Participant 40 (P40) and so on.

4.4 Pilot study

To ensure the validity and reliability of the research process and instruments, a pilot study was conducted with eight postgraduate STEM education students who were not registered for the modules the researchers taught. The pilot study participants were registered for other STEM education modules (Mathematics and Technology Education) taught by other lecturers. Thus, these participants were not part of the main study but had characteristics, backgrounds, and teaching experiences similar to those of the participants who participated in the main study. In addition, to ensure the trustworthiness of the research instruments, the research instruments were shared with and interrogated by experts in STEM education. After the pilot study and feedback from the STEM education experts, the research instruments were revised and restructured to a minor extent to remove ambiguity and ensure clarity of questions. In addition, the research process was adjusted to ensure enough time was provided for interaction, collaboration and engagement with research participants and the researchers. After that, the main study commenced.

4.5 Research design for the main study

A mixed-methods approach was used to explore the social justice implications of digital pedagogy for STEM higher education. The mixed-methods approach guided the data generation for this study, whereby one questionnaire was used to generate quantitative data and four semi-structured focus group interviews assisted in generating qualitative data.

4.5.1 The quantitative section of the study

A questionnaire was used to generate quantitative data for the study. The questionnaire consisted of four sections. Section A focused on generating data about the participants’ biographical information. Section B concentrated on the participants’ rating of their awareness of the social justice implications of digital STEM pedagogy. Section C focused on the participants’ average time participating in, engaging in, and accessing resources and materials for digital STEM pedagogy. The last section, section D, centred on the participants’ level of satisfaction with their lecturers’ online interactions, support and responsiveness during digital STEM pedagogy. Experts in STEM education pretested the questionnaire for content validity, and the pilot study assisted in assessing its reliability. Thus, the questionnaire was assessed for validity and reliability before the main study (Singh, 2017).

4.5.2 The qualitative section of the study

A semi-structured focus group interview assisted in generating qualitative data for this study. The focus group interview aimed to obtain qualitative data about the participants’ personal experiences of digital STEM pedagogy. The semi-structured focus group interview explored the following questions:

  • What are some of your experiences with digital STEM pedagogy?

  • In your view, what can be done to support digital STEM pedagogy in diverse South African contexts?

  • What are the potential challenges disadvantaged students face in accessing digital STEM pedagogy in higher education in South Africa?

  • In your view, does digital STEM pedagogy impact social justice in South Africa? Why do you say so?

  • What strategies can be implemented to mitigate social justice concerns arising from digital STEM pedagogy?

Forty-seven participants agreed to take part in the study and completed the questionnaire. Due to personal or work commitments, only 33 participants participated in the focus group discussions. These 33 participants were allocated to focus groups based on their preference concerning the mode of the focus group. To elaborate further, eight participants preferred to participate in the WhatsApp focus group discussion (WFGD), 15 preferred to participate in the in-person (face-to-face) focus group discussion, and the remaining ten participated in the Moodle focus group discussion (MFGD). There were two in-person (face-to-face) focus group discussions due to the number of participants agreeing to participate in this mode of discussion. Seven participants were selected at random to participate in the first in-person focus group discussion (FGD1), and the remaining eight participants participated in the second in-person focus group discussion (FGD2). The section that follows presents the results of the main study.

5 Results

5.1 The data analysis process

For this study, 47 participants completed the questionnaire. The closed-ended questions for Sections A and C were tick-box questions. Participants were required to tick their most appropriate response from a list of options provided. The closed-ended questions for Sections B and D followed a three-point Likert scale. Participants were required to select their most appropriate response for each item from the following scale: agree/satisfied, neutral or disagree/dissatisfied. All quantitative data were analysed using Excel, whereby the frequency of responses for each item for each section (A, B, C and D) was captured on frequency tables.

For the focus group discussions, 33 participants participated. The focus group interviews included five open-ended questions focusing on students’ personal experiences of digital STEM pedagogy in higher education. Students were divided into four focus groups based on their personal preferences. The first focus group discussion occurred on WhatsApp (WFGD), and the second and third focus groups were conducted in person at the research site (FGD1 and FGD2). The final focus group was conducted via a Moodle discussion forum (MFGD). The open-ended questions used in the focus group interviews were analysed using NVivo. The focus group interview transcripts were uploaded onto NVivo, and a word cloud was generated using the word frequency query. The NVivo-generated word cloud assisted in identifying at a glance words or phrases participants mentioned most often and provided a visual of the most frequently occurring phrases or words. This step assisted in developing a coding framework for the study. Figure 2 represents the word cloud that was generated using NVivo.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Word cloud generated by NVivo

Full size image

Subsequently, all data generated were analysed thematically. The themes from the analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data were biographical information of participants; participants’ awareness of the social justice implications for digital STEM pedagogy; participant experiences of using digital STEM pedagogy in higher education; promoting digital STEM pedagogy: interaction, support and responsiveness of lecturers; challenges disadvantaged students face in accessing digital STEM pedagogy in higher education; digital STEM pedagogy and the impact on social justice; and strategies to mitigate social justice concerns arising from digital STEM pedagogy. The quantitative and qualitative data analysis results are presented in the following subsections.

5.2 Biographical information of participants

Section A focused on participants’ biographical information. Based on the data analysis of the biographical information, 21 participants were male, and 26 were female. In addition, the participants were from different age groups; the largest number of participants (n = 16) were between 23 and 25 years, and the smallest (n = 9) were between 31 and 35 years. The remaining participants were 26–30 years (n = 12) and 18–22 years (n = 10), respectively. In addition, 35 participants had undergraduate STEM-related degrees, and 12 had postgraduate STEM-related degrees. In terms of teaching experience, participants had taught STEM-related subjects for different numbers of years. Most participants (n = 17) had taught for 5–10 years, and the lowest (n = 9) had 16–20 years of STEM-related teaching experience. The remaining participants had taught STEM-related subjects for 0–4 years (n = 10) and 11–15 years (n = 11) respectively.

5.3 Participants’ awareness of the social justice implications for digital STEM pedagogy

Section B of the questionnaire focused on the implications of social justice for digital STEM pedagogy. Based on the analysed data, it was evident that all participants agreed that digital STEM pedagogy has social justice implications in South Africa. In addition, most participants (n = 45) believed that limited and unstable internet connections and limited access to digital tools and devices have consequences for digital STEM pedagogy in the country. Consequently, most participants (n = 40) believed that marginalised students face challenges due to these inequalities. Participants (n = 41) agreed that digital STEM pedagogy can be designed in response to social justice concerns and that equal learning opportunities for all South African students can be encouraged. Thus, participants indicated strategies could be used to ensure that digital STEM pedagogy promotes inclusivity and diversity (n = 47). These strategies would provide the opportunity to promote equality (n = 45) in South Africa. Furthermore, participants believed that household income (n = 40) and parental education (n = 35) may influence student achievement in digitally-based STEM educational environments. Moreover, many students (n = 40) indicated a need to revise teacher training and professional development programmes in South Africa to successfully implement digital pedagogy that supports social justice concerns.

5.4 Participant experiences of using digital STEM pedagogy in higher education

Question 1 in Section C of the questionnaire concentrated on participants’ experiences using digital STEM pedagogy in higher education. Firstly, participants were asked to indicate the average time they engaged and participated in digitally-based STEM programmes in one week in a semester. Based on the data collected, most participants (n = 27) spent an average of 2–3 h participating in digital STEM programmes. None of the participants spent more than 6 h, 12 participants spent an average of 3–4 h, and eight participants spent an average of 5–6 h participating in STEM programmes. The second question in Section C focused on the average number of online resources and materials participants accessed and used within a digitally-based STEM higher education environment in one week in a semester. Based on the data collected, most participants (n = 35) accessed and used between 6 and 10 online materials/resources and 12 participants accessed and used 11–12 online materials/resources. None of the participants accessed or used more than 15 online materials/resources.

During the focus group interviews, participants provided their personal experiences with digital STEM pedagogy during the focus group discussions. Based on these experiences, it was evident that participants had positive and negative experiences with digital STEM pedagogy. A sample of excerpts from the focus group discussions follow:

I felt we got more done online … had fewer distractions … online lectures reached more students. (P3: MFGD)

Material and resources were uploaded on Moodle … access the materials and resources at any time … this helped us since we could revise and relook at material that we did not understand. (P 13: FGD1)

The blended lectures helped us to learn at our own pace … this helped us with discussing and interacting with each other in class and online. (P 17: FGD2)

The blended approach worked better … I could discuss my issues in class or online … sometimes I have limited access to good internet connectivity … so having a chance to catch up in class helped. (P 18: WFGD)

Using online platforms helped because I had more learning opportunities and more time to discuss my challenges with my friends and the lecturer. (P 34: MFGD)

I prefer to study at campus … I don’t have good internet in my area…I have to use my phone data which is expensive. (P 36: FGD2)

Online learning made it more difficult … I do not have the devices at home to take part equally in online learning … I missed out on a lot. (P 39: WFGD)

The preceding excerpts showed participants’ mixed views about online and blended teaching and learning. Some preferred the online platforms and blended approaches because they believed that the uploaded materials and resources allowed them more opportunities to access material and notes whenever needed. This also assisted with more time to engage with the lecture notes and created more opportunities for interaction, collaboration and discussion. Other participants had challenges with the online and blended approaches because they had limited access to the internet and devices.

5.5 Promoting digital STEM pedagogy: interaction, support and responsiveness of lecturers

Section D of the questionnaire focused on the level of interaction, support and responsiveness from lecturers in a digitally-based STEM higher education environment. From the data analysed, it was evident that most participants (n = 41) were generally satisfied with their lecturers’ responsiveness, support and interaction. However, a small number of participants (n = 6) indicated that they were dissatisfied with their lecturers’ attempts to address their queries and the response time in addressing their queries. It was important to interrogate these responses further, which were achieved during the focus group discussions. Participants’ responses about how the lecturers supported digital STEM pedagogy in diverse South African contexts were based on their personal experiences. The following are excerpts from the focus group discussions:

The lecturer separated the teaching and the resources … used Moodle and WhatsApp … this helped with our individual learning at our own pace… addressed our strengths and problems … supported our learning. (P2: WFGD)

The lecturer realised that the traditional teaching methods did not work well … she encouraged blended and online learning to support us. (P 5: MFGD)

The lecturer used blended learning because she knew this helped students … took ownership of our own learning … helped develop critical thinking skills. (P 12: MFGD)

Using multimedia resources like the hovercamFootnote 1and collaborating on online platforms increased our interaction and collaboration … we participated more … the lecturer created an inclusive lecture … supported teaching and learning. (P 13: FGD1)

Combining online and face-to-face lectures made the activities more interactive … we could easily discuss with each other … used our personal experiences … participated equally. (P 26: FGD1)

We used online discussion forums and video conferencing … helped us to connect with our peers … different locations helped with cross-cultural understanding. (P 41: WFGD)

Blended learning created an inclusive environment … supported diversity and encouraged fairness in teaching and learning. (P 44: FGD2)

The preceding excerpts show that the lecturers created an interactive and collaborative educational environment by combining online and in-person lectures. Using the blended pedagogy supported students in the digital STEM educational environment. Moreover, the lecturer created a socially just digital STEM educational environment based on the sample excerpts.

5.6 Challenges disadvantaged students face in accessing digital STEM pedagogy in higher education

During the focus group interviews, the participants voiced their views and experiences about the challenges disadvantaged students experience with digital STEM pedagogy. Excerpts from the focus group discussions are provided as follows:

In my area, I have lots of problems with the internet and load sheddingFootnote 2… my computer is old … disrupts my online lectures. (P 4: FGD1)

I don’t have stable internet and quiet space at home for online lectures. (P9: FGD1)

I have problems downloading and obtaining online resources … my internet is not stable … which affects my participation in online classes … problems submitting assignments online. (P 16: MFGD)

Struggle with keeping up … I don’t know how to use all the technology … I don’t have good technology skills. (P 31: FGD2)

I don’t have access to support when I use the university’s online platform … no after-hours technology support is provided by the university. (P 42: WFGD)

From the preceding excerpts, it was evident that participants did experience challenges with digital STEM pedagogy. Participants had challenges with internet connectivity, electricity supply, digital skills and tools. These challenges created and supported a digital divide, which hindered participants’ progress with online STEM lectures. If lecturers know their students’ challenges, they are more likely to consider digital pedagogic strategies to alleviate them. This way, digital STEM pedagogy that promotes social justice will be encouraged.

5.7 Digital STEM pedagogy and the impact on social justice

During the focus group discussions, the participants offered personal experiences of how digital STEM pedagogy and social justice are linked. Selected excerpts from the focus group discussions are presented below:

Online learning created unequal chances to participate equally and unequal opportunities to learn for some of us. (P 15: FGD2)

This affected my progress and learning … not fair for us … this is a social justice problem. (P 27: FGD2)

Created barriers to participation and learning … some of us are not used to online platforms. (P 28: FGD1)

Accessing the learning material and submitting assessments online was a problem … not a fair way to learn for all of us. (P 39: WFGD)

There must be a way to provide all of us with equal technology and internet connectivity … we are all paying the same fees for modules. (P 47: MFGD)

As is evident from the preceding excerpts, the participants are aware of the social justice implications of digital STEM pedagogy and aired their views on the social justice implications of digital STEM pedagogy based on personal experiences and perceptions. Within the ambits of TAM, lecturers need to ensure that the technology-based tools and resources used are useful and easy for all students. By considering these aspects, lecturers can promote digital STEM pedagogy that encourages social justice.

5.8 Strategies to mitigate social justice concerns arising from digital STEM pedagogy

During the focus group discussions, the participants gave examples of strategies that could assist with mitigating social justice issues emanating from digital STEM pedagogy. A sample of excerpts from the focus group discussions are presented as follows:

The university can work with schools and businesses in rural areas so that hotspots can be created for students living in these disadvantaged areas. (P 10: FGD2)

The university must consider partnering with cell phone and internet companies to get reduced rates for data … data is very expensive. (P 15: FGD2)

Need to be fair … create equal chances for us to succeed … material must be relevant to our experiences … we also need better feedback from lecturers. (P 16: MFGD)

Lecturers must use assessment tasks and problems that are known to all of us … the context is important for us to understand so that we can solve. (P 26: FGD1)

The university must consider giving disadvantaged students computers and data … even after COVID, there are still challenges that we face. (P 30: WFGD)

Lecturers must be fair and inclusive when assessing students … not all of us have the same access to technology tools and resources … we need quick responses from our lecturers to revise. (P 42: WFGD)

Based on these suggestions by the participants, as exhibited in the preceding excerpts, it is evident that participants are aware of strategies to mitigate social justice concerns in their educational environments. The university under focus provided laptops and data to students during the COVID-19 pandemic, but from the focus group discussions, it was evident that this is still needed post-COVID-19. In addition, during the pandemic, the university used zero-rated websites for teaching and learning. Zero-rated websites allow students and lecturers to obtain information from these websites without using their data. This assisted with ensuring students did not need to purchase additional data for online learning. Thus, lecturers need to know strategies to mitigate social justice concerns. This will ensure lecturers use technology tools, devices and resources that are easy to access and use, as suggested by TAM.

6 Discussion

6.1 Biographical information of participants

The data presented in Section A exhibits diverse biographical information for the participants of this study. Research (Pacho, 2015) suggests that including diverse participants in a research study provides the opportunity to generate rich data. The participants for the study under focus were diverse in terms of gender, age, STEM qualification level, and STEM teaching experience.

6.2 Participants’ awareness of the social justice implications for digital STEM pedagogy

From the evidence provided in the results section, most participants believed that marginalised students face challenges due to inequalities. These views are supported by research in the field (Boyi, 2012; Makwana & Elizabeth, 2022; Soomro et al., 2020; Viberg et al., 2023). In addition, all participants indicated strategies could be used to ensure that digital STEM pedagogy promotes inclusivity and diversity. Accordingly, these views are supported by research (Christian et al., 2021; Kearney et al., 2022; Viberg et al., 2023).

Furthermore, participants believed parental education and household income may influence student achievement in digitally-based STEM educational environments. These views are supported by research (Adler, 2021; Calabrese-Barton & Tan, 2019; Chachashvili-Bolotin et al., 2016; Eastman et al., 2017). These research studies have suggested that parents’ household income and education level influence a student’s achievement. These notions are mainly due to the access to resources and infrastructure that students require to encourage academic achievement.

Moreover, many students indicated the need for teacher training and professional development programmes. Participants suggested that revised programmes must incorporate content encouraging digital pedagogy that supports social justice concerns. Accordingly, research (Castiblanco-Jimenez et al., 2020) indicates that TAM is suitable for designing and implementing beneficial digital tools, resources and materials. Also, the conceptual model for the study under focus supports the view that when designing digital STEM pedagogy, aspects of access, inclusivity and diversity need to be considered (Christian et al., 2021). Likewise, research (Machaba & Bedada, 2022; Muhazir & Retnawati, 2020) encourages revising existing teacher training and professional development programmes.

6.3 Participant experiences of using digital STEM pedagogy in higher education

Based on the results, it was interesting that none of the participants spent more than 6 h a week participating in digital STEM programmes. These results are concerning, considering that during the COVID-19 pandemic, the university under focus conducted all teaching and learning online. This implies that all registered students at this institution ought to have actively participated in digital programmes during the COVID-19 pandemic for at least 4 h a day or at least 20 h a week. Along similar lines, research (Kuo & Belland, 2016; Li & Tsai, 2017) maintains a positive correlation between student achievement and the number of hours spent engaging and participating in online programmes.

Moreover, none of the participants accessed or used more than 15 online materials or resources. This is surprising considering that one would expect postgraduate students in the 21st century to regularly engage with online research articles, case studies, websites, online activities, etc., during the academic year. This notion is supported by research (Khoza, 2020; Sidhu et al., 2016). Based on the sample excerpts of the participants’ experiences, participants had mixed views about blended teaching and learning. Some believed that the uploaded materials and resources gave them more time to engage with the lecture notes and created more opportunities for interaction, collaboration and discussion. Along similar lines, research (Campbell et al., 2019; Ibáñez & Delgado-Kloos, 2018; Lin et al., 2016) supports the notion that digital pedagogy supports collaboration, interaction and increased learning opportunities. Likewise, TAM suggests that the usefulness of digital tools, resources and devices is directly linked to users’ attitudes towards the technology being implemented (Opoku & Francis, 2019). Accordingly, the conceptual model encourages blended pedagogical approaches and promotes cooperative and collaborative STEM learning that empowers students (Leopold & Smith, 2019).

In contrast, some participants indicated that limited access to the internet and the lack of the necessary digital tools and devices hindered their equal participation in the digital STEM educational environment. These views are supported by TAM, which maintains that the user will only use technology if it is available and easy to use (Mailizar et al., 2021; Mutambara & Chibisa, 2022). These views are also supported by research (Boyi, 2012; Makwana & Elizabeth, 2022; Soomro et al., 2020; Viberg et al., 2023), maintaining that limited access to infrastructure, internet connectivity and access to digital tools and devices promotes the digital divide and prevents students from participating equally in digital educational environments. Consequently, the conceptual model maintains that access and infrastructure are key to alleviating the social justice implications of digital STEM pedagogy. Therefore, the digital divide must be acknowledged and bridged in marginalised and under-resourced communities (Rowsell et al., 2017).

6.4 Promoting digital STEM pedagogy: interaction, support and responsiveness of lecturers

From the analysed data, it was evident that most participants were satisfied with the support and level of interactions their lecturers provided. Similarly, research (Campbell et al., 2019; Ibáñez & Delgado-Kloos, 2018) indicates that supporting and motivating students is important for engagement, interaction and feedback in an educational environment. Nevertheless, a few participants indicated dissatisfaction with their lecturers’ response time in addressing their queries. Research indicates that it is important for student queries to be addressed effectively and timeously to encourage student learning and support student achievement (Padayachee et al., 2018; Sikhwari et al., 2019).

As was evident from the focus group excerpts, the lecturers’ use of blended pedagogy supported students in the digital STEM educational environment. This notion is supported by TAM, which suggests that technology is used because of its usefulness and ability to support teaching and learning (Amin et al., 2014). Moreover, as is evident from the results, the lecturers used digital tools, devices and platforms (Hovercam, WhatsApp and Moodle) because they were useful for the lectures and students under study (Castiblanco-Jimenez et al., 2020). In addition, within the ambits of the conceptual model, the lecturers created an inclusive educational environment (Christian et al., 2021), which supported aspects of diversity and equity (Goy et al., 2018). Furthermore, it was evident that students were supported in sharing culturally relevant experiences (Akcay, 2018). Thus, it was evident from the focus group discussions the lecturers created a socially just digital STEM educational environment.

6.5 Challenges disadvantaged students face in accessing digital STEM pedagogy in higher education

From the focus group interviews, participants did experience challenges with digital STEM pedagogy. These challenges created and supported a digital divide, which hindered participants’ progress with online STEM lectures. These notions are supported by the conceptual model that guided this study concerning access, the digital divide and infrastructure challenges (Ahmed, 2007; Rowsell et al., 2017; Soomro et al., 2020). Thus, to promote socially just education, steps need to be implemented to bridge the digital divide in under-resourced and marginalised communities.

Furthermore, research conducted in rural STEM contexts framed by TAM suggests that technology use is related to resource availability (Mutambara & Bayaga, 2021). Consequently, without these important requirements to participate equally in online educational environments, students are disadvantaged, creating a barrier to equal learning opportunities, thus encouraging further marginalisation (Costan et al., 2021). Therefore, lecturers must use technology to enhance and support socially just teaching and learning. Hence, if lecturers are aware of the challenges that students experience, they will be more knowledgeable about how to ensure that their pedagogy can assist in bridging the digital divide for disadvantaged students (Rowsell et al., 2017). Consequently, lecturers will support and encourage digital STEM pedagogy while promoting notions of social justice.

6.6 Digital STEM pedagogy and the impact on social justice

As is evident from the focus group interviews, the participants provided their views on the social justice implications of digital STEM pedagogy based on personal experiences and perceptions. Within the ambits of TAM, lecturers need to ensure that the technology-based tools and resources used are useful and easy for all students (Amin et al., 2014). The perceived usefulness (PU) and ease of use (PEOU) of digital tools, devices and platforms need to guide the lecturer when planning online lectures and activities (Castiblanco-Jimenez et al., 2020). In this way, students do not experience the challenge of the digital divide (Soomro et al., 2020), and the challenges caused by the social justice implications of digital pedagogy, as suggested by the conceptual model, will be alleviated (Boyi, 2012; Makwana & Elizabeth, 2022).

Moreover, by being aware of the social justice implications of digital STEM pedagogy, lecturers will be able to consider the need for adequate infrastructure, digital tools and devices to ensure that an inclusive educational environment with equal learning opportunities is provided (Christian et al., 2021; Rowsell et al., 2017). By considering these aspects, lecturers can promote digital STEM pedagogy, thereby encouraging notions of social justice.

6.7 Strategies to mitigate social justice concerns arising from digital STEM pedagogy

Based on these suggestions by the participants, it was evident that participants are aware of strategies to mitigate social justice concerns in their educational environments. This is of value to lecturers since they need to be aware of strategies to mitigate these social justice concerns. Consequently, this will ensure lecturers use technology tools, devices and resources that are easy to access and operate, as suggested by TAM (Amin et al., 2014). Accordingly, TAM proposes that if technology is considered useful, it will be more likely that students and lecturers will use technology (Mailizar et al., 2021), for example, the zero-rated websites as discussed in the study under focus. In addition, TAM maintains that when designing curriculum materials and planning for online lectures, it is important to consider all students’ requirements. This will ensure that curriculum materials and resources are used effectively to promote online teaching and learning (Castiblanco-Jimenez et al., 2020).

Furthermore, as suggested by the participants in this study, adequate infrastructure, quick feedback, a culturally relevant curriculum, equal learning opportunities, and inclusivity are important to address the social justice concerns of digital STEM pedagogy. These views correlate with key concepts and notions, as exhibited by the conceptual model for this study (See Fig. 1). Along similar lines, research supports the suggestions made by the participants (Akcay, 2018; Campbell et al., 2019; Christian et al., 2021; Rowsell et al., 2017). Therefore, if lecturers consider these strategies, promoting digital STEM pedagogy that encourages social justice will be achieved.

7 Conclusion

This study explored the social justice implications of digital STEM pedagogy in a South African blended higher education context. Accordingly, the study contributes to the growing body of research on the social justice implications of digital pedagogy in STEM higher education contexts in a developing country. The study framed by TAM and a theory-informed self-constructed conceptual model focusing on key concepts linked to advancing social justice issues has revealed digital pedagogy’s strengths, limitations and implications for STEM higher education in a developing country. These results are evidence-based and may inform curriculum development, teacher professional development and teacher education.

Firstly, the strengths that emerged based on participants’ experiences with digital STEM pedagogy show that students’ experiences must be considered to ensure that digital STEM pedagogy is accessible to all students, regardless of context or circumstances. Participants revealed that the uploaded materials and resources allowed them more time and opportunities to engage with the lecture content. Moreover, the online platforms created more prospects for participants to collaborate, interact and discuss the lecture content with their peers. Thus, participants valued lecturers who created an interactive and collaborative educational environment by combining online and in-person lectures. This study revealed that blended pedagogy within the ambits of TAM supported students and promoted a socially just digital STEM educational environment.

Secondly, participants’ responses about challenges faced by disadvantaged students exhibit the diverse conditions students face concerning limited access to infrastructure, digital tools, devices, data and basic services. Participants indicated that marginalised students have unequal and limited access to crucial infrastructure, tools and resources, which promote the digital divide, resulting in negative consequences for promoting digital STEM pedagogy in the country. These challenges exacerbate inequality and discourage access to quality education. Participants believed that lecturers may alleviate these challenges by carefully designing curriculum and pedagogy and promoting access to technology and devices to alleviate these challenges. Lecturers and curriculum developers must consider these challenges to promote inclusivity and inspire a socially just digital STEM educational environment.

Thirdly, participants’ responses reveal important implications for promoting digital STEM pedagogy within higher education contexts in developing countries. This study revealed that participants know the importance of a socially just digital STEM educational environment, and they revealed noteworthy strategies to mitigate social justice concerns arising from digital STEM pedagogy. The study showed that providing laptops, data, resources, and zero-rated websites supported students in bridging the digital divide. Moreover, the digital tools, devices and platforms (Hovercam, WhatsApp and Moodle) that the lecturers used were valued by the participants. Furthermore, the participants suggested revising existing teacher training and professional development programmes. These revisions must include content that guides teachers and lecturers on successfully implementing digital pedagogy to support social justice concerns.

Fourthly, the results of this study provide insights into the social justice implications of digital pedagogy for STEM in higher education in developing countries. Consequently, the study identifies effective strategies for using digital pedagogy. These include supportive blended pedagogical approaches, continuous feedback to encourage unbiased access to infrastructure, the value of promoting inclusivity and diversity, encouraging gender equity, and inspiring collaboration by using culturally relevant pedagogy to support all students, particularly those who have previously been marginalised in STEM higher education contexts. The self-constructed conceptual model supports these key ideas.

Finally, based on the discussions thus far, it is evident that promoting digital pedagogy in STEM education has strengths, limitations and implications. Thus, the findings of this study are important to consider as lecturers negotiate digital STEM pedagogy in higher education institutions in developing countries. Moreover, the insights gained from this study about the digital and blended pedagogical practices that promote more inclusive and equitable educational environments would benefit academics, teacher educators and teachers. Accordingly, the results of this study can assist other academics in creating an equitable and inclusive STEM higher education environment in other developing countries. The suggestions based on this evidence-based research offer valuable contributions for all relevant stakeholders. Thus, the findings of this study need to be considered by lecturers, curriculum developers and higher education institutions to ensure that all students participate equally in a digitally-based STEM educational environment.

8 Future research possibilities and recommendations

Further research possibilities include conducting comparative studies at other higher education institutions in South Africa. Also, future research possibilities could include similar research studies being conducted in other developing countries. Future research possibilities could include offering comprehensive digital literacy training to lecturers and students to ensure proficiency using the required technology to promote digital skills. In addition, the results of this study suggest a few recommendations.

Firstly, training workshops for lecturers and students focussing on negotiating digital platforms, using digital tools successfully and troubleshooting frequent challenges need to be offered. Secondly, curriculum developers need to consider the development of teaching and learning course material and activities that acknowledge culturally relevant pedagogy, gender equity, inclusivity and diversity. Thirdly, higher education institutions need to provide additional resources to support teaching and learning activities that consider different learning styles and contexts, for example, interactive online workshops, videos, online practical simulations, recordings of lectures, online learning platforms, STEM-related software programmes and digital examples of real-world case studies.