Recentring Postdigital Education in the Pacific through a Critical-Ecological Lens

Recentring Postdigital Education in the Pacific through a Critical-Ecological Lens | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Recentring Postdigital Education in the Pacific through a Critical-Ecological Lens Sangeeta Nath Prasad, Cheryl Brown, Kathryn MacCallum, Sandra Williamson-Leadley This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8002908/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Digital education in Pacific Island Countries (PICs) has been influenced by structures, policies and funding from the Minority World (Raturi 2024 ). However, these promised opportunities fail to account for a context of diversity and culture in PICs contributing to unsustainable educational practices (Brown 2024 ). Drawing from a study on the sustainability of Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL), this paper examines case studies from an urban and a rural Fijian primary school. A thematic analysis of interviews with school leaders and teachers, alongside classroom observations, explored how social, cultural, economic, and political factors interact to shape TEL practices. To interpret these dynamics, we propose a Critical–Ecological Framework as an analytical lens that integrates insights from Critical Theory and Ecological Systems Theory to examine how power, culture, and structure shape TEL in context. The framework highlights how cultural relevance, resource constraints, and partnerships mediate technology use, emphasising that postdigital education must be locally grounded rather than imported. Findings reveal that while donor funding supports infrastructure, it often reinforces Minority-centric models, marginalises local agency, and fosters dependency, threatening long-term sustainability. Outdated technologies, limited funding, and curriculum legacies further exacerbate challenges, particularly in rural contexts. However, teacher agency, when supported by reflective practice and professional learning, enables creative, context-responsive, and culturally sustaining TEL practices. This research contributes to postdigital education in the Majority World by offering evidence-based insights that challenge dominant Minority one-size-fits-all narratives (Ruiz et al. 2025 ) and by advocating postdigital strategies that advance equity, transformation, and local educational sovereignty across Pacific contexts. Critical-Ecological Framework TEL Pacific Countries Postdigital Sustainability Majority and Minority World Figures Figure 1 FullText Postdigital Paradigm and Majority World Framing The postdigital paradigm posits that digital technologies are inseparable from the socio-cultural and ecological contexts in which they are enacted (Selwyn & Jandrić 2020 ). Rather than viewing technology as distinct from material or social life, postdigital research maps the messiness of real-world, technology-entangled life by recognising that the digital, material, social, and economic are deeply interwoven (Fawns et al. 2023 ). Doing postdigital research thus entails embracing contextual complexity and compositional, flexible methodologies that respond to local conditions rather than applying universal templates, a crucial orientation for research in Pacific and other Majority World contexts. In this paper, we use Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL) to encompass pedagogical practices in which digital tools, platforms, and material resources are mobilised in context to support learning. While the term enhancement can imply a technology-driven improvement, we adopt a pedagogy-first interpretation of TEL that emphasises how technologies are shaped by, and responsive to, local teaching and learning practices rather than driving them (Fawns 2022 ). We prefer TEL over alternatives such as e-learning or blended learning because it (i) foregrounds pedagogy rather than platform, (ii) aligns with Majority World scholarship that examines how technologies are made to work within constrained and diverse ecologies (Brown 2024 ), and (iii) is compatible with a postdigital stance that treats digital and non-digital elements as entangled rather than dichotomous (Fawns et al. 2023 ). Research conducted in another Majority World context, a South African teacher-education setting, likewise demonstrates how educators adapt technologies within resource-limited systems to sustain equitable, context-responsive pedagogy (Ng’ambi et al. 2016). These parallels highlight that technology is never neutral but co-constituted with the social, cultural, and political-economic conditions that shape its educational meaning and sustainability (Ncube & Tawanda 2025 ) Building on this postdigital interpretation of TEL, it becomes clear that technology enhanced practices cannot be divorced from the social, cultural, and political conditions in which they are enacted. In Majority World contexts, this approach necessitates a deep engagement with local values, resource constraints, and systemic inequities that shape the use and meaning of educational technologies (Thaman 2021 ). Conversely, Minority World models often promote standardised technologies and curricula aligned with globalised priorities, frequently overlooking the diversity of educational ecologies across regions (Raturi 2024 ). Such models risk reinforcing dependency, marginalising Indigenous knowledge systems, and perpetuating structural inequities in access, participation, and outcomes (Connell 2007 ). Within the Pacific, persistent challenges such as limited Internet connectivity, inconsistent electricity supply, and the scarcity of locally relevant digital content further complicate efforts to integrate technology in equitable and sustainable ways (Sharma et al. 2024 ). Consequently, postdigital education must engage critically with the political, social, and cultural dimensions of these environments to ensure that TEL serves transformative, rather than tokenistic, purposes. This study explores TEL in Fijian primary schools through the dual lens of postdigital theory and a proposed Critical-Ecological Framework. The postdigital perspective challenges dichotomies such as digital versus analogue, recognising technology as embedded within wider socio-cultural and political-economic assemblages (Fawns 2022 ). Building on this, we propose a Critical-Ecological Framework that draws together insights from Critical Theory and Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner 1979) to analyse how power, culture, and structural conditions shape teachers’ technology practices. The framework positions teachers within a multi-layered educational ecosystem in which individual, institutional, and systemic factors interact dynamically to influence pedagogy. Together, these lenses enable a nuanced understanding of how technology is adopted, adapted, and experienced across diverse Fijian school settings. The research is guided by the following questions: How do Fijian teachers social, cultural, and political-economic contexts shape classroom Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL) practices in urban and rural classrooms? How can a postdigital, Majority World framing inform equitable, culturally responsive, and sustainable TEL? By addressing these questions, the study contributes to global debates on postdigital education, challenging one-size-fits-all approaches and advancing contextually grounded, inclusive models of technology-enabled learning that resonate with Pacific and broader Majority World perspectives. Postdigital Education and Majority World Perspectives Global discourses often present technology as a universal solution to educational challenges, framing digital innovation as a route to access, creativity, and pedagogical transformation. However, these narratives largely originate in Minority World contexts and are underpinned by assumptions of universal applicability that overlook the socio-cultural, economic, and political specificities of Majority World settings (Bali 2019; Connell 2007 ). In Pacific Island nations such as Fiji, educational technologies are commonly introduced through donor-driven projects or top-down policy directives. While such initiatives may build capacity, they frequently neglect local epistemologies, pedagogical traditions, and community values that give technology meaning. Recognising these limitations requires a postdigital perspective to address the complex entanglement between the digital, the social, and the cultural orientations. The postdigital perspective emerged in response to the limitations of both techno-utopian and critical approaches to educational technology (Jandric' & Knox 2021 ). Rather than seeing technology as a neutral tool or a disruptive force, postdigital scholarship emphasizes that digital technologies are entangled with social practices, power relations, and cultural values. In educational research, this perspective highlights how technology mediates pedagogy, shapes student experiences, and reflects broader socio-political structures (Fawns 2022 ; Knox 2020 ). For the Majority World, the postdigital lens is particularly valuable. It allows for critical interrogation of the ways Minority World technological models are exported and adapted, often without consideration of local knowledge systems or infrastructural constraints (Thaman 2021 ). By adopting a postdigital stance, this study moves beyond superficial descriptions of TEL tools to examine how technology, pedagogy, and context are relationally and materially co-constituted in Fijian classrooms Southern Theory, as articulated by Connell ( 2007 ), critiques the global dominance of Western knowledge and emphasizes the value of Majority World perspectives in producing contextually relevant theory and practice. In education, this framing challenges imported models that prioritize standardization and efficiency over local knowledge, cultural relevance, and equity. In the Pacific, technological interventions are often driven by Minority World priorities, such as promoting digital literacy benchmarks or e-learning platforms aligned with global standards (Sharma et al. 2024 ). These approaches risk marginalizing local epistemologies and reinforcing neo-colonial knowledge hierarchies. By centering a Majority World perspective, this study emphasizes the agency of Fijian teachers and communities in shaping TEL practices that align with local realities, cultural values, and educational priorities (Bali 2019; Brown 2024 ). Technology-Enhanced Learning in Fiji TEL in Fiji has evolved at the intersection of national aspirations and donor-driven priorities. While initiatives often arrive via Ministry channels, their origins frequently lie in regional and international agendas and funding mechanisms. This pattern aligns with Majority World critiques of top-down ‘solutions’ that can underplay local epistemologies and capacities (Ruiz et al. 2025 ). Donor trajectories can also inadvertently reproduce technodeterminist narratives that treat devices as destiny, while sidelining the slower and more relational work of teacher learning, the development of locally authored content, and the ongoing upkeep required to sustain meaningful educational change (Selwyn & Jandrić 2020 ). The influence of these donor agendas and regional funding mechanisms on Fiji’s education system extends beyond national policy. It shapes the lived realities of access and opportunity across schools. While government initiatives such as free education grants, transport assistance, and Special and Inclusive Education support have improved participation, the benefits are unevenly distributed. Structural inequities persist, particularly between urban, rural, remote, and maritime schools. These classifications are not merely administrative; they mirror deep geographical and infrastructural divides that determine how and where technology can be used for learning. Schools in remote or maritime areas face ongoing challenges including unreliable electricity, poor telecommunications, and inconsistent Internet connectivity (Lingam & Lingam 2013 ). Such limitations constrain teachers’ ability to integrate digital tools meaningfully into pedagogy and hinder learners’ engagement with online or multimedia resources. In contrast, urban and better-resourced schools tend to have greater access to digital devices, stable networks, and professional development opportunities (Nath 2019 ). This uneven terrain reveals how access is not a purely technical matter but a relational and systemic one that is shaped by geography, economics, and policy design (Ruiz et al. 2025 ). Students’ exposure to TEL often depends less on national intent and more on the socio-economic circumstances of their communities, illustrating how donor- and policy-driven visions of digital inclusion can overlook the lived realities of Fijian classrooms. Consequently, while Fiji’s policy discourse emphasises digital inclusion and educational equity, the material realities of access tell a more fragmented story. Economic hardship, disaster vulnerability, and uneven resource allocation continue to amplify disparities, with technology access frequently reinforcing rather than reducing existing social and educational divides (Kaururu 2024 ). This tension between national aspiration and local constraint illustrates the central paradox of TEL in the Pacific where technology can both connect and exclude, depending on whose realities are recognised, resourced and sustained. Donor-Driven and Ministry-Led ICT Initiatives in Fiji Over the past two decades, Fiji’s Ministry of Education (MOE) has implemented a series of initiatives aimed at promoting digital literacy and the integration of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) across schools. In 2013, the MOE introduced the Fiji Education Management Information System (FEMIS), designed to enhance administrative efficiency and support data sharing across Pacific Island Countries. Although implemented under the Ministry’s direction, FEMIS emerged from regional efforts to address gaps in educational data, coordinated by UNESCO and supported through funding from the Australian and New Zealand governments and the World Bank. This origin reflects a data-centric governance logic shaped by global development priorities, reinforcing an emphasis on accountability and system management rather than classroom-level transformation or teacher capacity-building (UNESCO 2020 ). That same year, the One Laptop per Child (OLPC ) initiative supported by the Bank of South Pacific (BSP) and Telecommunications Fiji Limited (TFL) provided selected schools with laptops and free Internet access. Early evaluations indicated gains in literacy, numeracy, and ICT competence among participating students (Raturi & Kedrayate 2015 ). However, the programme remained confined to a small group of pilot schools and was never scaled nationally. As OLPC and BSP/TFL connectivity initiatives were externally seeded, they lacked locally financed maintenance structures and meaningful curriculum integration. Without these, the projects stalled, exemplifying a donation-heavy but sustainability-light model of technology adoption in education. The design logic here is classically solutionist where discrete procurements are expected to resolve systemic challenges (Selwyn 2016 ). Without funding for maintenance, teacher time, and vernacular materials, these solutions stall or drift from their intended purposes. A similar pattern re-emerged in 2015, the Indian Government donated 5,000 tablets to rural and remote primary schools to increase digital exposure. Although this initiative was promising, there is no systematic documentation of its implementation or impact. As a bilateral donation, the tablet rollout increased device visibility without resourcing teacher PD or local content, limiting deeper pedagogical shifts. A subsequent 2016 plan to introduce tablets to senior secondary schools was postponed following the devastation caused by Cyclone Winston, which forced the government to redirect resources toward infrastructure repair and teacher salary restoration (Karuru 2022). These experiences collectively illustrate the fragility of externally driven technology initiatives that privilege infrastructure over pedagogy. When fiscal priorities necessarily pivot toward social recovery and resilience, such exogenous interventions reveal their limited sustainability in the absence of systemic, locally grounded support (Connell 2007 ). Curriculum and Policy Developments The introduction of Computer Education for Years 7 and 8 in 2018 represented a formal recognition of the need to embed ICT in the curriculum. Implementation, however, was phased and inconsistent as it was limited to schools with computer labs in the initial phase and adjusted later to include Years 6–8 after external examinations (Permanent Secretary for Education 2018). These policy moves echoed global digital-literacy benchmarks (Selwyn 2016 ); however, curricular redrafting lagged, and outcomes remain aligned to imported measures more than local literacies. The Strategic Development Plan 2019–2023 emphasised literacy, numeracy, and digital literacy, envisioning ‘smart classrooms’ and e-books as part of a technology-enhanced education system (Ministry of Education 2018). While e-books are now available for download, the curriculum has not been fully redesigned to integrate digital literacy outcomes. The current Strategic Plan (2023–2026) renews this focus by prioritising IT infrastructure, e-learning platforms, and teacher capacity-building, alongside improving governance and policy coordination (Ministry of Education 2023 ) The National Curriculum Framework (NCF) continues to emphasise traditional, content-driven learning, with the ‘Technology’ Key Learning Area oriented toward enterprise education rather than digital innovation. While the National Curriulum Framework ( 2013 ) acknowledges ICT as essential for effective management, pedagogical transformation, and the development of digital competencies, policy framings risk instrumentalism when technologies are presented as neutral delivery tools. In practice, these tools are embedded with cultural assumptions and governance logics that shape what counts as learning and whose knowledge is made visible. The NCF itself recognises the contribution of external partners, including the former FESP/AusAID project (National Curriulum Framework 2013 ), reflecting the ongoing influence of Minority World development models in national curriculum design. Collectively, these strategies mirror global digital benchmarks and smart-classroom imaginaries but offer limited space for locally authored content, teacher-led adaptation, or the integration of Indigenous and community knowledge systems central to Majority World educational ecologies. Lessons from COVID-19 and Emerging Practices The COVID-19 pandemic catalysed new forms of TEL in Fiji. School closures compelled teachers to adapt quickly, employing low-cost and context-sensitive approaches. Teachers created Viber (a low-bandwidth mobile messaging and calling app widely used in the Pacific) groups to communicate with parents, distributed printed or digital worksheets, and used platforms such as Facebook, SeeSaw, and ClassDojo to manage learning. In better-resourced schools, teachers conducted Zoom classes, while the Ministry supported remote learning through the Walesi Educational Channel (Television), Fiji Broadcasting Radio, and online resources (Nisha et al. 2024 ; Permanent Secretary of Education Heritage and Arts 2020 ) These practices reflected teachers’ creativity and adaptability, demonstrating that even in resource-limited contexts, TEL can be localized and culturally responsive. Pandemic responses also undercut technodeterminism; the most durable practices were compositional blends of low-tech print, radio and television, mobile messaging, and face-to-face care were designed around relationships, not around a single platform. However, most schools reverted to traditional teaching methods after reopening, suggesting that these innovations were reactive rather than transformative, yet they revealed the potential of relational and contextually grounded approaches to sustain learning during crises. Persistent Gaps and Sustainability Concerns Despite continuous government investment and external donor support, Fiji’s technology integration journey remains fragmented. Factors contributing to this include: Limited and uneven infrastructure, especially in rural and maritime are (Lingam & Lingam, 2013 ; Nath 2019 ) Variable teacher digital literacy and insufficient professional development (Naidu 2024 ; Raturi & Kedrayate 2015 ). Cultural and linguistic misalignment of imported digital content (Brown 2024 ), which often fails to reflect Fijian and Pacific worldviews. Policy inconsistency and financial redirection due to emergencies and competing national priorities (Naivalurua 2024 ). As research consistently shows, the mere provision of digital tools does not guarantee effective use in learning (Fawns 2022 ; Ruiz et al. 2025 ). In the Fijian context, teachers’ confidence and pedagogical integration of technology remain key barriers to meaningful TEL adoption. Addressing the Research Gap These persistent challenges highlight the need for contextually grounded, sustainable, and culturally responsive approaches to TEL. Our study responds to this gap by examining how TEL is implemented across the primary curriculum in both urban and rural schools. It explores how teachers adapt digital tools to local realities and how these practices align with Fiji’s broader educational equity goals. The insights from this research contribute to a more nuanced understanding of TEL that is sensitive to Fiji’s social, cultural, political, and economic contexts by ensuring that technology not only supports access and inclusion but also transforms learning in meaningful, enduring ways. Research Paradigm and Methodology Our study was grounded in a critical paradigm, integrating an ecological approach with Critical Theory (CT) to examine how power structures, cultural contexts, and systemic forces shape TEL in Fijian primary schools. We approached this paradigm with an understanding that educational practices are embedded within interconnected social, cultural, and political-economic ecosystems where teachers navigate the influences of policy, culture, and resource distribution (Agger 1991 ; Bronfenbrenner 1977 ; Hammond 2020 ). Methodologically, we resist solutionist frames by treating design choices as situated and negotiated by focussing on how teachers navigate technology’s use and non-use, manage disruptions, and sustain learning through ongoing practical and relational work. We adopted a qualitative multiple case study design (Yin 2017 ) to explore TEL implementation in two contrasting Fijian school contexts, one urban and one rural, which allowed for a comparative understanding of how infrastructural and socio-cultural differences shape sustainable TEL practices. The two schools, located in Fiji’s Western Division, were selected through purposive convenience sampling to ensure contextual diversity while maintaining feasibility within research access and ethics timelines. We chose the Western Division because it enabled a clear rural–urban contrast and was accessible for fieldwork. Our intention was to prioritise depth and situated diversity over national representativeness. Our participants included the Head of School (HOS) and five upper-primary teachers (Years 5–8) from each site. We intentionally focused on upper primary classes because teachers at these levels face the dual challenge of completing the curriculum and preparing students for national and external examinations as these factors that often shape classroom priorities and the integration of technology (Nisha et al. 2024 ). To provide an overview of the participants and their teaching contexts, Table 1 summarises the school type, teacher pseudonyms, and year levels taught. Table 1 Participant Schools and Teacher details. School Participant Designation Year/Class Urban School Ashna Teacher Year 801 Shazia Teacher Year 803 Vishal Teacher Year 701 Vijay Teacher Year 602 Nisha Teacher Year 603 HOS_Urban Head of School — Rural School Aman Teacher Year 801 Roshni Teacher Year 701 Leano Teacher Year 702 Shreya Teacher Year 602 Eseta Teacher Year 501 HOS_Rural Head of School — ᵃ HOS = Head of School. HOSs are referred to as HOS_Urban and HOS_Rural. Year numbers denote grade levels (e.g., Year 801 = Stream 1 of Year 8). Head of School participants did not have classroom teaching responsibilities We gathered data through semi-structured interviews and classroom observations to explore teachers lived experiences, pedagogical practices, and perceptions of TEL (Cohen et al. 2018 ; Litchman 2014 ). Observations illustrated how teachers enacted technology in urban and rural classrooms, while interviews illuminated why particular practices emerged within their social, cultural, and political-economic contexts. Together, these methods provided the contextual and interpretive insights needed to understand how equitable and sustainable TEL develops in Fijian schools. We followed rigorous ethical procedures throughout the research. Institutional approval was obtained prior to fieldwork; informed consent was secured from all participants; and all identifying information including school names was anonymised. For data analysis, we employed thematic analysis to identify key patterns across interview and observation data. Initial codes were generated inductively from participants’ accounts, followed by iterative refinement to group related ideas and compare themes across the two school contexts. This process enabled a holistic interpretation of how teachers’ agency, contextual realities, and systemic conditions interacted to shape the sustainability of TEL in Fijian classrooms. Our Findings: Realities Shaping and Reframing Technology-Enabled Learning in Fijian Classrooms Teachers’ engagement with TEL in both urban and rural schools is deeply rooted in their social, cultural, and political-economic contexts. These intertwined realities shape not only how teachers perceive technology but also how they enact and sustain it in classrooms. The findings are presented under two key themes: Contextual Realities Shaping TEL Practices, and Reframing TEL through Postdigital and Majority World Perspectives. Contextual Realities Shaping TEL Practices Teacher Agency and Professional Learning Teacher agency emerged as a decisive factor in shaping how TEL was integrated across classrooms. In the urban school, teachers with prior professional development used technology creatively to enhance inquiry-based and interactive learning. According to Nisha, “there’s so much knowledge, and it is more interesting” while others like Vijay, lacking confidence, defaulted to using technology for control or reward, as one admitted: “I play videos at the end of the lesson when students behave well”. In the rural school, Roshni modelled proactive self-learning: “I learn by trying to find out how other teachers are using this” while Leano reflected on uncertainty and lack of training; “we don’t know if it can be used in any other way”. Such contrasts revealed that TEL integration depended less on infrastructure and more on teachers’ motivation, access to professional development, and school-level support systems. These accounts unsettle instrumentalist views of technology, showing that meaningful uptake depends on teachers’ confidence, collegial dialogue, and time, rather than on the mere presence of devices. Pedagogical Culture and Systemic Priorities of Schools Across both sites, exam-driven cultures and social expectations narrowed teachers’ freedom to innovate. “I need to cover my syllabus,” explained one urban teacher, “these activities take time, so I leave it for them to go through in their spare time” (Ashna). Exam-centred tempos can reimpose technodeterminist expectations that equate more technology with greater modernity, while narrowing pedagogical possibilities and making technology serve schedules rather than meaning. This focus on syllabus completion reinforced a utilitarian view of technology as an add-on rather than a transformative pedagogy. Head of Schools often assumed staff were “fully prepared,” overlooking teachers’ expressed needs for critical dialogue and targeted support, thereby reproducing compliance over creativity. Cultural Traditions and Local Adaptations Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs were deeply interwoven with cultural traditions that emphasised memorisation, repetition, and respect for authority. Yet within these traditions, moments of adaptation and innovation also surfaced. In the urban school, one teacher encouraged students to “think of examples from our own communities” (Nisha), while her rural counterpart, Roshni, connected Minority World developed digital materials to local realities by integrating Fijian examples into lessons. Such localisation counters instrumentalism by showing that technologies gain educational value only when re-authored through local language, imagery, and community experience (Brown 2024 ). These practices exemplify postdigital hybridity, where global resources are re-anchored in local meaning and pedagogy (Fawns et al. 2023 ; Thaman 2021 ). Still, rote learning remained pervasive, especially during examination periods when content coverage and memorisation were prioritised over critical or creative engagement. The presence of technology was often perceived as automatically modernising learning. As one rural teacher reflected, “They’re lucky to have this technology in their classrooms. We didn’t have it during our time” (Shreya, rural). This sentiment highlights how access to devices was equated with progress, even when deeper pedagogical transformation lagged. Political-Economic Constraints and Inequities Teachers’ experiences were framed by systemic inequities linked to donor dependency and market-oriented reforms. In the rural school, policy reforms were described as rapid and exhausting: “There are just too many new things… we don’t get enough time to prepare” (Roshni). Leano from the rural school found imported digital lessons “time-saving, ” while Eseta called them “disruptive,” reflecting tensions between global ambition and local readiness. In the urban school, leaders positioned ICT as a branding tool; “If you have technology, you are in the market” (HOS, urban). This revealed how market logics commodified technology as a symbol of prestige. Shazia, a teacher from the urban school, internalised this discourse: “We are a global village now… we need to be in par with technology.” Such perspectives amplify solutionist thinking, where purchase is equated with progress, and technodeterminist assumptions, where visibility stands in for value by obscuring the less visible investments in repair, professional learning, and coordination that truly sustain educational practice (Selwyn 2016 ). These statements expose how neoliberal narratives of progress and competitiveness shape local practice, often at the expense of culturally grounded pedagogies. Reframing TEL through Postdigital and Majority World Perspectives While the realities above constrain transformative TEL, teachers’ adaptive practices also illuminate new possibilities for equitable and culturally grounded innovation. From Marketability to Meaning: Reframing the Purpose of Technology Moving beyond technodeterminism shifts evaluation from what is most visible to what is most useful in everyday practice and for whom. Technology in urban schools was closely tied to reputation and enrolment; “You are marketable otherwise you are just back and behind” (HOS, urban). This “market signal” logic also influenced how resources were distributed within the school. Devices were channelled first to classes undertaking external examinations, reinforcing a performance-oriented hierarchy. As Ashna explained, “They installed it for us first … for exam classes”. Such prioritisation positioned technology as a tool for competitive advantage rather than equitable access or pedagogical innovation. Yet, teachers also demonstrated reflexivity in resisting purely instrumental use. A postdigital perspective recasts these tensions by asking not how technology looks, but how it becomes meaningful in everyday practice (Fawns et al. 2023 ). Teachers’ reflections suggest that genuine integration requires shifting emphasis from technological display to pedagogical purpose, a stance that aligns with Majority World critiques of commodification and the instrumentalisation of education (Giroux 2004 ). Contextual Adaptation and Resilience Teachers in both schools displayed notable resilience and ingenuity in navigating material constraints. Vijay, an urban teacher, explained, “I can’t access school Internet, so I just use mine… I download videos so that lessons are not disturbed,” while Aman from the rural school noted that “during bad weather, Internet speed is very slow.” Despite these challenges, teachers improvised by tethering personal data, preparing offline materials, and relying on peer-supported learning to keep lessons running smoothly. Roshni, a rural teacher, described how she “prepared educational games” and encouraged students to “make presentations or record audios,” blending online and offline activities to sustain engagement. These practices exemplify what Fawns et al. ( 2023 ) describe as resilient postdigital design, the seamless integration of digital and non-digital tools to support learning under real-world constraints. Rather than treating technology as a singular solution, teachers such as Vishal and Nisha in the urban school, and Roshni in the rural school, orchestrated multiple modes of learning such as oral, written, visual, and interactive, to honour student choice and voice. This adaptive, multimodal approach highlights how teacher agency transforms limited infrastructure into inclusive, student-centred opportunities, reframing constraint as creativity rather than deficiency. This fluid movement across media illustrates postdigital hybridity, where learning unfolds through an entanglement of material, digital, and relational interactions (Fawns et al. 2023 ). Teachers’ creative flexibility reframed scarcity as opportunity, positioning adaptation not as a deficit but as a form of design capacity through a demonstration of agency, care, and pedagogical innovation in resource-limited contexts. These compositional practices explicitly refuse solutionism: no single tool fixes learning; instead, teachers assemble ecologies that fit learners, places, and purposes (Selwyn 2016 ). Equity Beyond Devices While teachers’ approaches to using technology varied across contexts, access alone did not translate into equity. Teachers routinely subsidised school connectivity using personal data, while students’ home exposure to technology often determined their level of participation. In response, some urban teachers advocated for pragmatic Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) models: “They should be allowed to bring laptops or tablets” (Nisha), or supervised phone use; “They should be allowed… we’ll have to monitor” (Shazia). These reflections highlight that equity can be enacted through practice rather than procurement, as teachers sought flexible ways to bridge access gaps within their classrooms. Equitable practice may also involve guided non-use or low-tech choices; viewing such strategies as a deficit reflects an instrumentalist mindset that confuses procurement with participation (Sosnowska 2020 ). However, performance pressures and exam-year prioritisation continued to reinforce unequal access, with technology channelled toward classes deemed most important for school results. Broader policy spillovers also shaped equity concerns. Fiji has echoed regional trends, such as those in Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia, to restrict student mobile phone use (Gath et al. 2024 ; Selwyn & Aagaard 2021 ). Yet, in both sites, students’ personal devices already served as vital bridges used for research, photography, and audio artefacts under teacher supervision. Blanket prohibitions, without providing equivalent school-owned alternatives, risk widening existing digital divides. From a postdigital, Majority World perspective, equity requires context-sensitive solutions rather than blanket policies. Thoughtfully designed BYOD frameworks with clear expectations, privacy safeguards, and guided use may offer a more equitable and realistic approach than outright bans, recognising the resourcefulness of teachers and students working within constrained environments. Culturally Responsive, Locally Relevant Content Teachers across both sites emphasised that meaningful TEL required locally grounded resources. One rural teacher noted, “It saves time—you just present it” (Leano), reflecting the convenience of pre-packaged materials, while another rural teacher found such imported content intrusive and disruptive: “They were introduced in a rush… affecting our coverage” (Roshni). Ashna, an urban teacher, questioned the cultural fit altogether: “Why bring that curriculum from overseas countries and dump it here?”. Much of this frustration stemmed from the introduction of the Waddington Programme which is an Australian-developed digital curriculum designed within a Minority World context but implemented in Fijian classrooms with minimal training provided to teachers regarding its implementation (Narayan 2023 ). While intended to modernise teaching through digital lessons in literacy and numeracy, teachers experienced it as prescriptive and misaligned with local pedagogies and learner realities. Beyond scarcity, teachers described an absence of locally authored digital content such as Pacific languages, especially the iTaukei language, examples, and imagery which forced reliance on imported slides and videos. This absence undermined cultural resonance and placed the burden of localisation on individual teachers already constrained by workload and time. Postdigital and Pacific scholars argue that sustainability in TEL requires co-creation of digital resources with teachers and communities (Thaman 2021 ; Brown 2024 ), recognising discernment as equally important as adoption knowing when not to use technology if low-tech, place-based alternatives better serve learners’ needs (Ruiz et al. 2025 ). Seen through this lens, teachers’ resistance to the Waddington Programme reflects not reluctance but professional judgement, a form of pedagogical sovereignty grounded in local knowledge and cultural responsiveness. Leadership, Policy, and the Ecology of Support Leadership vision and relational support proved pivotal to sustaining TEL. Urban leaders described persistent challenges; “Laptops were stolen… the company discontinued the products” (HOS, urban) while urban teachers emphasised gaps in repair cycles and training: “There should be more training to make teachers comfortable” (Ashna). In the rural school, the Head of School’s hands-on approach; “I need to facilitate and monitor its implementation” (HOS, rural) fostered collegial commitment, though frequent reforms caused fatigue to rural teachers: “There are just too many new things… we don’t get enough time” (Roshni). Teachers like Shazia and Vishal from the urban school recalled projects such as OLPC and computer education that began enthusiastically but faded without evaluation. As one leader reflected, “We have to continuously evaluate the benefits and impact” (HOS, rural), pointing to the need for cyclical, long-term planning rather than reactive implementation. Sustainable leadership therefore requires resisting solutionist impulses that treat one-off procurements as progress and instead investing in the slower, ongoing work of repair, mentoring, and teacher learning. These experiences reveal the broader lesson echoed in postdigital scholarship. Sustainability emerges through iterative, compositional approaches that evolve with context (Fawns et al. 2023 ), not from one-off technological rollouts. They also align with Majority World critiques of top-down, donor-led transfers that overlook local agency and readiness (Connell 2007 ). In both urban and rural settings, teachers’ reflections highlight that sustaining TEL is as much about nurturing people, relationships, and processes as it is about maintaining the technology itself. Teacher Empowerment as the Engine of Sustainability Across both contexts, teachers repeatedly tied the sustainability of TEL to their own sense of agency, motivation, and continuous learning. Ashna explained, “As long as I’m handling it, I can sustain it … because I’m passionate,” while Nisha affirmed that “it all depends on the individual teachers.” Their comments reflect how personal commitment and confidence drive everyday innovation, even when institutional support is limited. Others, however, saw sustainability as a shared endeavour. Vishal noted, “If this sort of training is provided … teachers can do so much better,” highlighting the importance of collective professional development and school-wide learning communities. This sense of interdependence aligns with postdigital thinking, which positions learning as a relational process that grows through collaboration, experimentation, and reflection rather than through top-down training alone (Fawns 2022 ). Agency also manifested through small, practical acts of care and problem-solving. When faced with a technical issue, Roshni remarked, “The classroom speaker is not working … I brought one from home,” demonstrating the improvisational resilience that keeps TEL alive in resource-constrained environments. Such moments illustrate how teacher-led adaptability, not infrastructure alone, anchors sustainability. Postdigital and ecological perspectives suggest that this grassroots ingenuity should not be seen as mere coping, but as a form of design capacity (Hammond 2020 ; Fawns 2022 ). When teachers engage collaboratively to troubleshoot, redesign lessons, or share low-tech strategies, they create living systems of professional knowledge. These everyday practices rooted in context, care, and community form the true infrastructure for sustaining TEL in Pacific classrooms Synthesis: Sustaining Postdigital Futures in the Majority World Context Fijian teachers’ practices reveal that TEL is shaped by intertwined social expectations, cultural traditions, and political-economic forces. While technology often sustains rather than transforms pedagogy, teacher-led adaptation demonstrates the potential for equitable, culturally grounded, and sustainable innovation. Viewed through postdigital and Majority World lenses, these findings affirm that the future of education in Fiji or Pacific lies not in imported technologies or policies but in context-sensitive pedagogies that honour local knowledge, nurture teacher agency, and build collective resilience. This resonates with studies that draw provocations from Global South settings to re-imagine postdigital education elsewhere, emphasising plurality and relational design (Carvalho & Oliveira 2025 ). Our findings demonstrate that progress in education is seldom technology led. By resisting technodeterminist, solutionist, and instrumentalist logics, education systems can invest instead in teacher agency, locally co-authored content, and the long-term maintenance that sustains equitable practice. (Pantić et al. 2022 ) The Critical-Ecological Framework We propose a conceptual Critical–Ecological Framework that integrates Critical Theory (CT) and an ecological approach to organise and interpret how TEL unfolds across Fijian primary schools. While CT illuminated issues of power, cultural capital, and inequality (Agger 1991 ; Bourdieu 1986 ), the ecological perspective highlighted the interconnectedness of teachers, institutions, and policy environments (Bronfenbrenner1979; Hammond 2020 ). This fusion provides a holistic reading of TEL as a phenomenon deeply situated in social, cultural, and political-economic realities echoing postdigital thinking, where technology is inseparable from its human and material contexts (Selwyn & Jandrić 2020 ). Figure 1 presents the proposed Critical-Ecological Framework. Teachers at the Centre of the Ecosystem Positioning the teacher at the centre of the Critical-Ecological Framework highlights their agency as both mediators and transformers of technology integration. Teachers such as Nisha and Vishal in the urban school demonstrated pedagogical creativity through inquiry-based, interactive smartboard use, aligning with Giroux’s ( 2004 ) view of teachers as transformative intellectuals. Conversely, Roshni’s innovation in the rural school with limited resources reflected Freire’s (1978) notion of educators as co-constructors of knowledge. These cases reveal that the success of TEL depends less on access to devices and more on teacher empowerment and reflective practice (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al. 2018). However, disparities in digital proficiency, uneven PD opportunities, and top-down training structures often constrained such agency. As Selwyn and Jandrić ( 2020 ) argue, without continuous critical dialogue, TEL risks reinforcing traditional hierarchies rather than challenging them. The framework thus places teacher agency, not technology, at the heart of sustainable, context-responsive innovation. The Social Ecosystem Classroom TEL practices were patterned by each school’s social architecture and day-to-day priorities. In the urban site, large enrolments and multiple streams produced a competitive, exam-driven tempo in which teachers felt compelled to “cover” extensive syllabi quickly. Technology was therefore mobilised for efficiency through projecting notes, displaying exam papers, or revising content rather than for inquiry or dialogue, mirroring Marcuse’s (1964) critique of technological rationality in which innovation serves conformity. In contrast, the rural school had smaller class sizes, but teachers managed multiple roles such as sports, scouting, and community activities which limited time for pedagogical experimentation. Community familiarity with technology was uneven, and sometimes sceptical, leading teachers to adopt low-risk practices such as PowerPoint slides or offline videos. Yet, where agency was strong, as in Roshni’s case, teachers used limited tools to promote collaboration and student voice, showing that even within constraints, initiative and social cohesion could disrupt transmission-style teaching. Across both schools, prevailing beliefs and ideologies narrowed TEL’s educational purpose. Urban teachers tended to associate “serious” learning with teacher-led delivery in core subjects, while rural teachers displayed mixed views. Some perceived technology as a distraction; others recognised its potential for transformation. Both contexts were dominated by memorisation and rule-bound learning to prepare for external examinations, echoing Habermas ( 1985 ) concern that distorted communication inhibits shared understanding and critical reflection. Leadership discourses compounded these tendencies. Urban leaders promoted technology to boost marketability and reputation, reinforcing performative logics. Rural leaders supported procurement but offered limited, pedagogy-facing dialogue about “why” and “how” TEL should be used. The result was minimal critical conversation within and across streams, few communities of practice, and little collective theorising of TEL’s educational purposes. The Cultural Ecosystem: Capital, School Cultures, and Local Knowledge Cultural capital (Bourdieu 1986 ) shaped who could effectively integrate TEL. In the urban school, teachers with higher qualifications and prior professional development like Nisha and Vishal were more digitally fluent and designed interactive, inquiry-based activities. Students from higher socio-economic backgrounds adapted more easily to digital routines, while lower achievers risked marginalisation when TEL remained presentation-heavy (Bourdieu 1986 ). By contrast, many rural teachers and students had limited digital repertoires; here, Roshni’s self-taught competence functioned as bridging capital, yet peers remained constrained by sporadic upskilling and few mentoring structures. School culture further reinforced these patterns. The urban school’s emphasis on branding and exam results positioned technology as a marker of prestige rather than a tool for pedagogical renewal. The rural school, while fostering resilience and adaptability, maintained utilitarian habits driven by syllabus and assessment pressures. The source of digital content also reflected deep cultural divides. Urban teachers often relied on foreign, generic materials, while rural teachers struggled to adapt resources to local realities. Teachers like Nisha, who encouraged students to connect global content to their community experiences, and Roshni, who localised lessons, exemplified the potential for culturally sustaining TEL. As Thaman ( 2021 ) and Brown ( 2024 ) argue, genuine equity in Pacific education requires grounding TEL within local cultural and linguistic contexts rather than importing external models. The Political–Economic Ecosystem: Policy, Markets, and Material Constraints At the outer layer, TEL practices were shaped by policy regimes, donor agendas, and market logics that favoured imported solutions. Fiji’s digital education policies have long been influenced by international donors and organisations (Sharma et al. 2024 ). While these partnerships expanded infrastructure, they often imposed standardised technologies misaligned with local needs. This echoes Connell’s ( 2007 ) and Bali’s (2019) critiques of cultural imperialism in education. At this outer layer, donor conditionalities, vendor lock-ins, and imported accountability metrics shape what becomes thinkable and fundable, often crowding out investment in maintenance, teacher communities, and locally authored content. In the urban school, technology was commodified as a branding asset. The Head of School emphasised that ICT made the school “marketable,” illustrating Giroux’s ( 2004 ) critique of neoliberal education systems that equate technological visibility with success. Conversely, the rural school grappled with donor-driven programmes introduced hastily, leaving teachers underprepared. These externally imposed reforms constrained teacher agency and eroded professional autonomy. Policy intent was frequently blunted by material realities. Urban classes had more devices overall but were stretched thin across large cohorts and uneven bandwidth; teachers often relied on personal data or ad-hoc fixes to keep lessons running. Rural teachers faced acute infrastructural deficits such as unreliable electricity, dated equipment, degraded audio/visual capacity, and weather-sensitive connectivity which amplified workload and reduced instructional options. Such conditions illustrate how power circulates through institutional arrangements and resource allocations to shape who benefits from technological change (Foucault 1977 ). Both schools also faced financial strain. Maintaining and updating technology consumed scarce budgets, with rural schools relying heavily on donor funds or personal contributions. These disparities perpetuated unequal learning experiences. Urban students benefited from higher exposure, while rural learners encountered limited, teacher-led use. Yet, moments of innovation like Roshni’s collaborative inquiry projects show how contextual agency can convert constraint into opportunity (Hammond 2020 ). Reframing TEL through Postdigital and Majority World Perspectives Viewed through a postdigital lens, these findings highlight that digital and non-digital dimensions of teaching are inseparable (Fawns et al. 2023 ; Selwyn & Jandrić 2020 ). Technology gains meaning only when situated within the social, cultural, and political ecologies of practice. A Majority World framing demands moving beyond imported, one-size-fits-all templates toward context-sensitive strategies that prioritise teacher agency, community knowledge, and equity (Thaman 2021 ; Brown 2024 ; Raturi 2024 ). From Marketability to Meaning In the urban school, technology became a marker of prestige, with devices prioritised for exam-year classes. Yet some teachers resisted this instrumental view, seeking to integrate technology in ways that supported meaningful learning rather than mere visibility. Through a postdigital lens, technology shifts from being a symbol of modernity to a relational tool embedded in everyday practice, while a Majority World perspective asks who benefits when visibility becomes the metric of success (Knox 2019 ). Contextual Adaptation and Design Intelligence Across both sites, teachers displayed remarkable adaptability under constraint. They downloaded materials in advance to overcome bandwidth limits and allowed hybrid practices from blending digital, oral, written, and visual forms which reflect what Fawns et al. ( 2023 ) describe as resilient postdigital design. This highlights a compositional and ecologically aware pedagogy grounded in real conditions. These bricolage practices are not “workarounds” but design intelligence suited to infrastructural realities; precisely what postdigital scholarship names as compositional, context-responsive teaching. Equity Beyond Devices Access did not automatically translate into equity. Teachers often subsidised school connectivity through their own mobile data, while students’ participation depended heavily on their home exposure to technology. In response, urban teachers proposed pragmatic BYOD strategies and supervised phone use, emphasising that equity is enacted through everyday practice rather than through procurement alone. Yet policy spillovers such as regional trends to ban student mobile phones risk undermining these adaptive efforts (Gath et al., 2024 ). In both schools, personal devices already served as vital bridges for research, photography, and audio artefacts under teacher guidance. Blanket prohibitions, without providing equivalent school-owned alternatives, would therefore deepen rather than close digital divides (Selwyn & Aagaard 2021 ). Viewed through a postdigital and Majority World lens, equity requires context-sensitive BYOD frameworks that set clear expectations, safeguard privacy, and support guided use. Ultimately, equity in TEL is sustained not by the number of devices acquired but by how access, trust, and responsibility are shared across the learning community. Toward Sustainable, Culturally Grounded TEL Sustainable TEL in the Pacific requires more than hardware provision. It calls for policies that fund maintenance and professional learning, participatory governance that empowers teachers as co-designers, and the development of vernacular, locally authored content that reflects lived realities. The Critical-Ecological Framework helps explain that when teacher agency, cultural capital, and supportive material conditions align, even modest technologies can drive transformative, culturally grounded learning. When they do not, TEL merely reinforces existing hierarchies. Reimagining TEL in Fiji and across the wider Majority World thus means reclaiming technology as a relational and reflective practice: one that strengthens identity, values local knowledge, and nurtures educational sovereignty in a digitally entangled yet unequal world. Within a postdigital, Majority World perspective, technology is never neutral, sufficient, or self-moving; sustained change emerges through relationships, repertoires, and repair, and through the teachers who compose and sustain them. Declarations Ethics approval This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the University of Canterbury Human Research Ethics Committee and the Ministry of Education, Fiji. Ethical approval was granted by the University of Canterbury Human Research Ethics Committee [HREC 2022/117], and research approval was provided by the Ministry of Education Fiji prior to data collection. Consent to participate All participants were informed of the study’s purpose, procedures, and their rights to withdraw without penalty. Written informed consent was obtained from every participant prior to data collection. Consent for publication All participants provided consent for the anonymised use of excerpts and quotations in publications arising from this research. Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Human ethics and consent to participate declarations Human ethics approval and consent to participate were obtained as detailed in the “Ethics approval” and “Consent to participate” statements above. Competing interests The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article. References Agger, B. (1991). Critical Theory, Poststructuralism, Postmodernism: Their Sociological Relevance. Annual Review of Sociology , 17 , 105–131. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–258). Westport. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design . Harvard University Press. Brown, C. (2024). Equity and inclusion in Pacific education (Paper commissioned for the 2024 Global Education Monitoring Report, Pacific - Technology in education, Issue. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000391476 Carvalho, L., & Oliveira, G. (2025, 2025/09/01). Alternative Futures in the Postdigital Classrooms of the Global South. Postdigital Science and Education , 7 (3), 1027–1047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-025-00555-y Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research Methods in Education (8th ed.). Taylor & Francis Group. Connell, R. (2007). Southern theory: Social science and the global dynamics of knowledge . Polity. Fawns, T. (2022). An entangled pedagogy: Looking beyond the pedagogy—Technology dichotomy. Postdigital Science and Education ,, 4 (3), 711–728. Fawns, T., Ross, J., Carbonel, H., Noteboom, J., Finnegan-Dehn, S., & Raver, M. (2023). Mapping and Tracing the Postdigital: Approaches and Parameters of Postdigital Research. Postdigital Science and Education , 5 (3), 623–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-023-00391-y Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish, panopticism. Discipline & punish: The birth of the prison , 195–228. Gath, M. E., Monk, L., Scott, A., & Gillon, G. T. (2024). Smartphones at School: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Educators’ and Students’ Perspectives on Mobile Phone Use at School. Education Sciences , 14 (4), 351. Giroux, H. A. (2004). Critical Pedagogy and the Postmodern/Modern Divide: Towards a Pedagogy of Democratization. Teacher Education Quarterly , 31 (1), 31–47. Habermas, J. (1985). The theory of communicative action: Volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society (Vol. 1). Beacon press. Hammond, M. (2020). What is an ecological approach and how can it assist in understanding ICT take-up? British Journal of Educational Technology , 51 (3), 853–866. Jandric', P., & Knox, J. (2021). The postdigital turn: Philosophy, education, research. Policy Futures in Education, SAGE , 0 (0), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103211062713 Kaururu, S. (2024). The financing of education in Fiji (Paper commissioned for Costing and Financing SDG4-Education 2030 in the Asia-Pacific Region Project, Issue. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000384390 Knox, J. (2019). What Does the ‘Postdigital’ Mean for Education? Three Critical Perspectives on the Digital, with Implications for Educational Research and Practice. Postdigital Science and Education , 1 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-019-00045-y Knox, J. (2020, 2020/07/02). Artificial intelligence and education in China. Learning, Media and Technology , 45 (3), 298–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1754236 Lingam, G. I., & Lingam, N. (2013). Making learning and teaching a richer experience: A challenge for rural Fijian primary schools. Educational Research and Reviews , 8 (21), 160–2168. Litchman, M. (2014). Qualiative research for the social sciences . SAGE publications. Ministry of Education. (2023). Strategic Development Plan 2023–2026. Ministry of Education. Naidu, S. (2024). Access to technology in the Pacific (Paper commissioned for the 2024 Global Education Monitoring Report, Pacific - Technology in education, Issue. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000391472 Naivalurua, N. (2024). Students graduating with Secondary School teaching courses are now teaching in Primary Schools. FijiVillage . https://www.fijivillage.com/news/Students-graduating-with-Secondary-School-teaching-courses-are-now-teaching-in-Primary-Schools--5rx 8f4/ Narayan, R. (2023, July 16). Getting through school . The Fiji Times . https://www.fijitimes.com.fj/getting-through-school/ Nath, S. (2019). ICT integration in Fiji schools: A case of in-service teachers. Education and Information Technologies , 24 (2), 963–972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9803-6 National Curriulum Framework . (2013). Ministry of Education. Ncube, C. N., & Tawanda, T. (2025, 2025/12/31). Critical digital pedagogy for contemporary transformative practices in the Global South: a literature review. Cogent Education , 12 (1), 2523133. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2523133 Nisha, J., Nazmeen, Nabolaniwaqa, S., Dass, R., Rishivendra, & Kumar, S., Sheshnita (2024). Exploring the Implementation Challenges of Digital Technology in Primary Education: A Case Study in Fiji's Western Division during the COVID-19 Pandemic - Insights from Teachers' Perspectives. Indiana Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences , 5 (2), 1–10. Pantić, N., Galey, S., Florian, L., Joksimović, S., Viry, G., Gašević, D., Knutes Nyqvist, H., & Kyritsi, K. (2022, 2022/05/01). Making sense of teacher agency for change with social and epistemic network analysis. Journal of Educational Change , 23 (2), 145–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09413-7 Permanent Secretary of Education Heritage and Arts. (2020). Extended school closure . Marela House. Raturi, S. (2024). System resilience in the Pacific (Paper commissioned for the 2024 Global Education Monitoring Report, Pacific - Technology in education,, Issue. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000391478 Raturi, S., & Kedrayate, A. (2015). Impact of elearning on primary school children and teachers: A study of the One Laptop per Child Pilot project in Fiji. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning , 12 (8). Ruiz, N., Gallagher, M., & Najjuma, R. (2025, 2025/03/17). Postdigital Science and Education and The Majority World. Postdigital Science and Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-025-00545-0 Selwyn, N. (2016). Minding our language: why education and technology is full of bullshit … and what might be done about it†. Learning, Media and Technology , 41 (3), 437–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2015.1012523 Selwyn, N., & Aagaard, J. (2021). Banning mobile phones from classrooms—An opportunity to advance understandings of technology addiction, distraction and cyberbullying. British Journal of Educational Technology , 52 (1), 8–19. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12943 Selwyn, N., & Jandrić, P. (2020, 2020/10/01). Postdigital Living in the Age of Covid-19: Unsettling What We See as Possible. Postdigital Science and Education , 2 (3), 989–1005. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00166-9 Sharma, B., Reddy, P., & Narayan, J. (2024). Cost of technology in the Pacific (Paper commissioned for the 2024 Global Education Monitoring Report, Pacific - Technology in education, Issue. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000391475 Sosnowska, P. (2020, 10/27). Instrumentalism: a Worthwhile Critical Concept For Philosophy of Education? Policy Futures in Education , 18 , 850–863. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210320960880 Thaman, K. H. (2021). A way ahead for RPEIPP. In M. a. Otunuku, U. Nabobo-Baba, & S. u. Johansson-Fua (Eds.), Of Waves, Winds and Wonderful Things: A Decade of Rethinking Pacific Education (pp. 247–251). Institute of Education, University of the South Pacific. UNESCO. (2020). Operational guide to using EMIS to monitor SDG – Educational management information systems . https://emis.uis.unesco.org/operational-guide/ Yin, K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods . SAGE publications. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8002908","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":545848640,"identity":"64df52ef-95eb-439b-80d7-3791daf69746","order_by":0,"name":"Sangeeta Nath Prasad","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Canterbury","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sangeeta","middleName":"Nath","lastName":"Prasad","suffix":""},{"id":545848641,"identity":"50c96284-410e-4ffc-9a2b-40a38cebea52","order_by":1,"name":"Cheryl Brown","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Canterbury","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Cheryl","middleName":"","lastName":"Brown","suffix":""},{"id":545848642,"identity":"716ee6f1-2c29-407c-81af-106044cf4d8d","order_by":2,"name":"Kathryn MacCallum","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Canterbury","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kathryn","middleName":"","lastName":"MacCallum","suffix":""},{"id":545848643,"identity":"134ef7d9-3880-491c-b5e0-dfc4614f45ea","order_by":3,"name":"Sandra Williamson-Leadley","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Canterbury","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sandra","middleName":"","lastName":"Williamson-Leadley","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-11-01 05:08:14","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8002908/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8002908/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":96248574,"identity":"e644ce1b-b09d-4cf9-9066-18e364dd1204","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-19 07:28:43","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":555979,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"ManuscriptPostdigitalScienceandEducationandtheMajorityWorldSpecialIssue.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8002908/v1/ed693e8751ce40beee617f0d.docx"},{"id":96071850,"identity":"2923e502-4fd9-4976-929b-4c47ea8a66c5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-17 10:01:42","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":6602,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"7a1842618bcb46939887ab693c644ada.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8002908/v1/a10df43e05bfddce237ce218.json"},{"id":96071854,"identity":"baa63c15-66e8-43a2-a6d4-35c74326208d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-17 10:01:42","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":117180,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"7a1842618bcb46939887ab693c644ada1enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8002908/v1/f92c8e8eee023ed81bb8bc60.xml"},{"id":96071855,"identity":"342763df-e683-425c-a6df-d95a7e796f1a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-17 10:01:42","extension":"emf","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":5888320,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.emf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8002908/v1/638c8e4f6d09f1cc6f087e85.emf"},{"id":96071853,"identity":"53eda941-4b24-4aa0-9f19-7df5457cc620","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-17 10:01:42","extension":"xml","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":115589,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"7a1842618bcb46939887ab693c644ada1structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8002908/v1/4f87342ed55fb0960d3775d4.xml"},{"id":96071851,"identity":"e2ee8061-97c9-4fae-8404-dfd2c8d92b88","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-17 10:01:42","extension":"html","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":124758,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8002908/v1/348e5d8b519489ab67f7528c.html"},{"id":96071849,"identity":"484ca156-c692-464d-90f3-352a762f5598","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-17 10:01:41","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":109917,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCritical-Ecological Framework for TEL in Fijian Schools\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8002908/v1/9dc18117eb2a720d9a1ace10.png"},{"id":96256121,"identity":"9863d18a-4d3a-4e5e-8a15-12e7e55e2200","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-19 07:49:36","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1089168,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8002908/v1/c4c4af0d-6f4f-40ea-a7af-1e19afdd0d69.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eRecentring Postdigital Education in the Pacific through a Critical-Ecological Lens\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"FullText","content":"\u003ch2\u003ePostdigital Paradigm and Majority World Framing\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe postdigital paradigm posits that digital technologies are inseparable from the socio-cultural and ecological contexts in which they are enacted (Selwyn \u0026amp; Jandrić \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Rather than viewing technology as distinct from material or social life, postdigital research maps the messiness of real-world, technology-entangled life by recognising that the digital, material, social, and economic are deeply interwoven (Fawns et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Doing postdigital research thus entails embracing contextual complexity and compositional, flexible methodologies that respond to local conditions rather than applying universal templates, a crucial orientation for research in Pacific and other Majority World contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this paper, we use Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL) to encompass pedagogical practices in which digital tools, platforms, and material resources are mobilised in context to support learning. While the term enhancement can imply a technology-driven improvement, we adopt a pedagogy-first interpretation of TEL that emphasises how technologies are shaped by, and responsive to, local teaching and learning practices rather than driving them (Fawns \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). We prefer TEL over alternatives such as e-learning or blended learning because it (i) foregrounds pedagogy rather than platform, (ii) aligns with Majority World scholarship that examines how technologies are made to work within constrained and diverse ecologies (Brown \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), and (iii) is compatible with a postdigital stance that treats digital and non-digital elements as entangled rather than dichotomous (Fawns et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Research conducted in another Majority World context, a South African teacher-education setting, likewise demonstrates how educators adapt technologies within resource-limited systems to sustain equitable, context-responsive pedagogy (Ng\u0026rsquo;ambi et al. 2016). These parallels highlight that technology is never neutral but co-constituted with the social, cultural, and political-economic conditions that shape its educational meaning and sustainability (Ncube \u0026amp; Tawanda \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBuilding on this postdigital interpretation of TEL, it becomes clear that technology enhanced practices cannot be divorced from the social, cultural, and political conditions in which they are enacted. In Majority World contexts, this approach necessitates a deep engagement with local values, resource constraints, and systemic inequities that shape the use and meaning of educational technologies (Thaman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Conversely, Minority World models often promote standardised technologies and curricula aligned with globalised priorities, frequently overlooking the diversity of educational ecologies across regions (Raturi \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Such models risk reinforcing dependency, marginalising Indigenous knowledge systems, and perpetuating structural inequities in access, participation, and outcomes (Connell \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Within the Pacific, persistent challenges such as limited Internet connectivity, inconsistent electricity supply, and the scarcity of locally relevant digital content further complicate efforts to integrate technology in equitable and sustainable ways (Sharma et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Consequently, postdigital education must engage critically with the political, social, and cultural dimensions of these environments to ensure that TEL serves transformative, rather than tokenistic, purposes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study explores TEL in Fijian primary schools through the dual lens of postdigital theory and a proposed Critical-Ecological Framework. The postdigital perspective challenges dichotomies such as digital versus analogue, recognising technology as embedded within wider socio-cultural and political-economic assemblages (Fawns \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Building on this, we propose a Critical-Ecological Framework that draws together insights from Critical Theory and Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner 1979) to analyse how power, culture, and structural conditions shape teachers\u0026rsquo; technology practices. The framework positions teachers within a multi-layered educational ecosystem in which individual, institutional, and systemic factors interact dynamically to influence pedagogy. Together, these lenses enable a nuanced understanding of how technology is adopted, adapted, and experienced across diverse Fijian school settings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe research is guided by the following questions:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow do Fijian teachers social, cultural, and political-economic contexts shape classroom Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL) practices in urban and rural classrooms?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow can a postdigital, Majority World framing inform equitable, culturally responsive, and sustainable TEL?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBy addressing these questions, the study contributes to global debates on postdigital education, challenging one-size-fits-all approaches and advancing contextually grounded, inclusive models of technology-enabled learning that resonate with Pacific and broader Majority World perspectives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePostdigital Education and Majority World Perspectives\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGlobal discourses often present technology as a universal solution to educational challenges, framing digital innovation as a route to access, creativity, and pedagogical transformation. However, these narratives largely originate in Minority World contexts and are underpinned by assumptions of universal applicability that overlook the socio-cultural, economic, and political specificities of Majority World settings (Bali 2019; Connell \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). In Pacific Island nations such as Fiji, educational technologies are commonly introduced through donor-driven projects or top-down policy directives. While such initiatives may build capacity, they frequently neglect local epistemologies, pedagogical traditions, and community values that give technology meaning. Recognising these limitations requires a postdigital perspective to address the complex entanglement between the digital, the social, and the cultural orientations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe postdigital perspective emerged in response to the limitations of both techno-utopian and critical approaches to educational technology (Jandric' \u0026amp; Knox \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Rather than seeing technology as a neutral tool or a disruptive force, postdigital scholarship emphasizes that digital technologies are entangled with social practices, power relations, and cultural values. In educational research, this perspective highlights how technology mediates pedagogy, shapes student experiences, and reflects broader socio-political structures (Fawns \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Knox \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor the Majority World, the postdigital lens is particularly valuable. It allows for critical interrogation of the ways Minority World technological models are exported and adapted, often without consideration of local knowledge systems or infrastructural constraints (Thaman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). By adopting a postdigital stance, this study moves beyond superficial descriptions of TEL tools to examine how technology, pedagogy, and context are relationally and materially co-constituted in Fijian classrooms\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSouthern Theory, as articulated by Connell (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e), critiques the global dominance of Western knowledge and emphasizes the value of Majority World perspectives in producing contextually relevant theory and practice. In education, this framing challenges imported models that prioritize standardization and efficiency over local knowledge, cultural relevance, and equity. In the Pacific, technological interventions are often driven by Minority World priorities, such as promoting digital literacy benchmarks or e-learning platforms aligned with global standards (Sharma et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). These approaches risk marginalizing local epistemologies and reinforcing neo-colonial knowledge hierarchies. By centering a Majority World perspective, this study emphasizes the agency of Fijian teachers and communities in shaping TEL practices that align with local realities, cultural values, and educational priorities (Bali 2019; Brown \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eTechnology-Enhanced Learning in Fiji\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTEL in Fiji has evolved at the intersection of national aspirations and donor-driven priorities. While initiatives often arrive via Ministry channels, their origins frequently lie in regional and international agendas and funding mechanisms. This pattern aligns with Majority World critiques of top-down \u0026lsquo;solutions\u0026rsquo; that can underplay local epistemologies and capacities (Ruiz et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Donor trajectories can also inadvertently reproduce technodeterminist narratives that treat devices as destiny, while sidelining the slower and more relational work of teacher learning, the development of locally authored content, and the ongoing upkeep required to sustain meaningful educational change (Selwyn \u0026amp; Jandrić \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe influence of these donor agendas and regional funding mechanisms on Fiji\u0026rsquo;s education system extends beyond national policy. It shapes the lived realities of access and opportunity across schools. While government initiatives such as free education grants, transport assistance, and Special and Inclusive Education support have improved participation, the benefits are unevenly distributed. Structural inequities persist, particularly between urban, rural, remote, and maritime schools. These classifications are not merely administrative; they mirror deep geographical and infrastructural divides that determine how and where technology can be used for learning.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSchools in remote or maritime areas face ongoing challenges including unreliable electricity, poor telecommunications, and inconsistent Internet connectivity (Lingam \u0026amp; Lingam \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Such limitations constrain teachers\u0026rsquo; ability to integrate digital tools meaningfully into pedagogy and hinder learners\u0026rsquo; engagement with online or multimedia resources. In contrast, urban and better-resourced schools tend to have greater access to digital devices, stable networks, and professional development opportunities (Nath \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). This uneven terrain reveals how access is not a purely technical matter but a relational and systemic one that is shaped by geography, economics, and policy design (Ruiz et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Students\u0026rsquo; exposure to TEL often depends less on national intent and more on the socio-economic circumstances of their communities, illustrating how donor- and policy-driven visions of digital inclusion can overlook the lived realities of Fijian classrooms.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eConsequently, while Fiji\u0026rsquo;s policy discourse emphasises digital inclusion and educational equity, the material realities of access tell a more fragmented story. Economic hardship, disaster vulnerability, and uneven resource allocation continue to amplify disparities, with technology access frequently reinforcing rather than reducing existing social and educational divides (Kaururu \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). This tension between national aspiration and local constraint illustrates the central paradox of TEL in the Pacific where technology can both connect and exclude, depending on whose realities are recognised, resourced and sustained.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eDonor-Driven and Ministry-Led ICT Initiatives in Fiji\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOver the past two decades, Fiji\u0026rsquo;s Ministry of Education (MOE) has implemented a series of initiatives aimed at promoting digital literacy and the integration of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) across schools. In 2013, the MOE introduced the Fiji Education Management Information System (FEMIS), designed to enhance administrative efficiency and support data sharing across Pacific Island Countries. Although implemented under the Ministry\u0026rsquo;s direction, FEMIS emerged from regional efforts to address gaps in educational data, coordinated by UNESCO and supported through funding from the Australian and New Zealand governments and the World Bank. This origin reflects a data-centric governance logic shaped by global development priorities, reinforcing an emphasis on accountability and system management rather than classroom-level transformation or teacher capacity-building (UNESCO \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat same year, the One Laptop per Child (OLPC\u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e initiative supported by the Bank of South Pacific (BSP) and Telecommunications Fiji Limited (TFL) provided selected schools with laptops and free Internet access. Early evaluations indicated gains in literacy, numeracy, and ICT competence among participating students (Raturi \u0026amp; Kedrayate \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). However, the programme remained confined to a small group of pilot schools and was never scaled nationally. As OLPC and BSP/TFL connectivity initiatives were externally seeded, they lacked locally financed maintenance structures and meaningful curriculum integration. Without these, the projects stalled, exemplifying a donation-heavy but sustainability-light model of technology adoption in education. The design logic here is classically solutionist where discrete procurements are expected to resolve systemic challenges (Selwyn \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Without funding for maintenance, teacher time, and vernacular materials, these solutions stall or drift from their intended purposes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA similar pattern re-emerged in 2015, the Indian Government donated 5,000 tablets to rural and remote primary schools to increase digital exposure. Although this initiative was promising, there is no systematic documentation of its implementation or impact. As a bilateral donation, the tablet rollout increased device visibility without resourcing teacher PD or local content, limiting deeper pedagogical shifts. A subsequent 2016 plan to introduce tablets to senior secondary schools was postponed following the devastation caused by Cyclone Winston, which forced the government to redirect resources toward infrastructure repair and teacher salary restoration (Karuru 2022). These experiences collectively illustrate the fragility of externally driven technology initiatives that privilege infrastructure over pedagogy. When fiscal priorities necessarily pivot toward social recovery and resilience, such exogenous interventions reveal their limited sustainability in the absence of systemic, locally grounded support (Connell \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCurriculum and Policy Developments\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe introduction of Computer Education for Years 7 and 8 in 2018 represented a formal recognition of the need to embed ICT in the curriculum. Implementation, however, was phased and inconsistent as it was limited to schools with computer labs in the initial phase and adjusted later to include Years 6\u0026ndash;8 after external examinations (Permanent Secretary for Education 2018). These policy moves echoed global digital-literacy benchmarks (Selwyn \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e); however, curricular redrafting lagged, and outcomes remain aligned to imported measures more than local literacies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Strategic Development Plan 2019\u0026ndash;2023 emphasised literacy, numeracy, and digital literacy, envisioning \u0026lsquo;smart classrooms\u0026rsquo; and e-books as part of a technology-enhanced education system (Ministry of Education 2018). While e-books are now available for download, the curriculum has not been fully redesigned to integrate digital literacy outcomes. The current Strategic Plan (2023\u0026ndash;2026) renews this focus by prioritising IT infrastructure, e-learning platforms, and teacher capacity-building, alongside improving governance and policy coordination (Ministry of Education \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe National Curriculum Framework (NCF) continues to emphasise traditional, content-driven learning, with the \u0026lsquo;Technology\u0026rsquo; Key Learning Area oriented toward enterprise education rather than digital innovation. While the National Curriulum Framework (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) acknowledges ICT as essential for effective management, pedagogical transformation, and the development of digital competencies, policy framings risk instrumentalism when technologies are presented as neutral delivery tools. In practice, these tools are embedded with cultural assumptions and governance logics that shape what counts as learning and whose knowledge is made visible. The NCF itself recognises the contribution of external partners, including the former FESP/AusAID project (National Curriulum Framework \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), reflecting the ongoing influence of Minority World development models in national curriculum design. Collectively, these strategies mirror global digital benchmarks and smart-classroom imaginaries but offer limited space for locally authored content, teacher-led adaptation, or the integration of Indigenous and community knowledge systems central to Majority World educational ecologies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eLessons from COVID-19 and Emerging Practices\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe COVID-19 pandemic catalysed new forms of TEL in Fiji. School closures compelled teachers to adapt quickly, employing low-cost and context-sensitive approaches. Teachers created Viber (a low-bandwidth mobile messaging and calling app widely used in the Pacific) groups to communicate with parents, distributed printed or digital worksheets, and used platforms such as Facebook, SeeSaw, and ClassDojo to manage learning. In better-resourced schools, teachers conducted Zoom classes, while the Ministry supported remote learning through the Walesi Educational Channel (Television), Fiji Broadcasting Radio, and online resources (Nisha et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Permanent Secretary of Education Heritage and Arts \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese practices reflected teachers\u0026rsquo; creativity and adaptability, demonstrating that even in resource-limited contexts, TEL can be localized and culturally responsive. Pandemic responses also undercut technodeterminism; the most durable practices were compositional blends of low-tech print, radio and television, mobile messaging, and face-to-face care were designed around relationships, not around a single platform. However, most schools reverted to traditional teaching methods after reopening, suggesting that these innovations were reactive rather than transformative, yet they revealed the potential of relational and contextually grounded approaches to sustain learning during crises.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePersistent Gaps and Sustainability Concerns\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite continuous government investment and external donor support, Fiji\u0026rsquo;s technology integration journey remains fragmented. Factors contributing to this include:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eLimited and uneven infrastructure, especially in rural and maritime are (Lingam \u0026amp; Lingam, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Nath \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eVariable teacher digital literacy and insufficient professional development (Naidu \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Raturi \u0026amp; Kedrayate \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eCultural and linguistic misalignment of imported digital content (Brown \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), which often fails to reflect Fijian and Pacific worldviews.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003ePolicy inconsistency and financial redirection due to emergencies and competing national priorities (Naivalurua \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs research consistently shows, the mere provision of digital tools does not guarantee effective use in learning (Fawns \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Ruiz et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). In the Fijian context, teachers\u0026rsquo; confidence and pedagogical integration of technology remain key barriers to meaningful TEL adoption.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAddressing the Research Gap\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese persistent challenges highlight the need for contextually grounded, sustainable, and culturally responsive approaches to TEL. Our study responds to this gap by examining how TEL is implemented across the primary curriculum in both urban and rural schools. It explores how teachers adapt digital tools to local realities and how these practices align with Fiji\u0026rsquo;s broader educational equity goals. The insights from this research contribute to a more nuanced understanding of TEL that is sensitive to Fiji\u0026rsquo;s social, cultural, political, and economic contexts by ensuring that technology not only supports access and inclusion but also transforms learning in meaningful, enduring ways.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eResearch Paradigm and Methodology\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur study was grounded in a critical paradigm, integrating an ecological approach with Critical Theory (CT) to examine how power structures, cultural contexts, and systemic forces shape TEL in Fijian primary schools. We approached this paradigm with an understanding that educational practices are embedded within interconnected social, cultural, and political-economic ecosystems where teachers navigate the influences of policy, culture, and resource distribution (Agger \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e; Bronfenbrenner \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1977\u003c/span\u003e; Hammond \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Methodologically, we resist solutionist frames by treating design choices as situated and negotiated by focussing on how teachers navigate technology\u0026rsquo;s use and non-use, manage disruptions, and sustain learning through ongoing practical and relational work.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe adopted a qualitative multiple case study design (Yin \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) to explore TEL implementation in two contrasting Fijian school contexts, one urban and one rural, which allowed for a comparative understanding of how infrastructural and socio-cultural differences shape sustainable TEL practices. The two schools, located in Fiji\u0026rsquo;s Western Division, were selected through purposive convenience sampling to ensure contextual diversity while maintaining feasibility within research access and ethics timelines. We chose the Western Division because it enabled a clear rural\u0026ndash;urban contrast and was accessible for fieldwork. Our intention was to prioritise depth and situated diversity over national representativeness.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e Our participants included the Head of School (HOS) and five upper-primary teachers (Years 5\u0026ndash;8) from each site. We intentionally focused on upper primary classes because teachers at these levels face the dual challenge of completing the curriculum and preparing students for national and external examinations as these factors that often shape classroom priorities and the integration of technology (Nisha et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). To provide an overview of the participants and their teaching contexts, Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e summarises the school type, teacher pseudonyms, and year levels taught.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipant Schools and Teacher details.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSchool\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDesignation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYear/Class\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUrban School\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAshna\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeacher\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYear 801\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eShazia\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeacher\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYear 803\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVishal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeacher\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYear 701\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVijay\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeacher\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYear 602\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNisha\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeacher\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYear 603\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHOS_Urban\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHead of School\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRural School\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAman\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeacher\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYear 801\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRoshni\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeacher\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYear 701\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLeano\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeacher\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYear 702\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eShreya\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeacher\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYear 602\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEseta\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeacher\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYear 501\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHOS_Rural\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHead of School\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eᵃ HOS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Head of School. HOSs are referred to as HOS_Urban and HOS_Rural. Year numbers denote grade levels (e.g., Year 801\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Stream 1 of Year 8). Head of School participants did not have classroom teaching responsibilities\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe gathered data through semi-structured interviews and classroom observations to explore teachers lived experiences, pedagogical practices, and perceptions of TEL (Cohen et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Litchman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Observations illustrated how teachers enacted technology in urban and rural classrooms, while interviews illuminated why particular practices emerged within their social, cultural, and political-economic contexts. Together, these methods provided the contextual and interpretive insights needed to understand how equitable and sustainable TEL develops in Fijian schools.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e We followed rigorous ethical procedures throughout the research. Institutional approval was obtained prior to fieldwork; informed consent was secured from all participants; and all identifying information including school names was anonymised. For data analysis, we employed thematic analysis to identify key patterns across interview and observation data. Initial codes were generated inductively from participants\u0026rsquo; accounts, followed by iterative refinement to group related ideas and compare themes across the two school contexts. This process enabled a holistic interpretation of how teachers\u0026rsquo; agency, contextual realities, and systemic conditions interacted to shape the sustainability of TEL in Fijian classrooms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eOur Findings: Realities Shaping and Reframing Technology-Enabled Learning in Fijian Classrooms\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTeachers\u0026rsquo; engagement with TEL in both urban and rural schools is deeply rooted in their social, cultural, and political-economic contexts. These intertwined realities shape not only how teachers perceive technology but also how they enact and sustain it in classrooms. The findings are presented under two key themes: Contextual Realities Shaping TEL Practices, and Reframing TEL through Postdigital and Majority World Perspectives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eContextual Realities Shaping TEL Practices\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeacher Agency and Professional Learning\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeacher agency emerged as a decisive factor in shaping how TEL was integrated across classrooms. In the urban school, teachers with prior professional development used technology creatively to enhance inquiry-based and interactive learning. According to Nisha, \u0026ldquo;there\u0026rsquo;s so much knowledge, and it is more interesting\u0026rdquo; while others like Vijay, lacking confidence, defaulted to using technology for control or reward, as one admitted: \u0026ldquo;I play videos at the end of the lesson when students behave well\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the rural school, Roshni modelled proactive self-learning: \u0026ldquo;I learn by trying to find out how other teachers are using this\u0026rdquo; while Leano reflected on uncertainty and lack of training; \u0026ldquo;we don\u0026rsquo;t know if it can be used in any other way\u0026rdquo;. Such contrasts revealed that TEL integration depended less on infrastructure and more on teachers\u0026rsquo; motivation, access to professional development, and school-level support systems. These accounts unsettle instrumentalist views of technology, showing that meaningful uptake depends on teachers\u0026rsquo; confidence, collegial dialogue, and time, rather than on the mere presence of devices.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePedagogical Culture and Systemic Priorities of Schools\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAcross both sites, exam-driven cultures and social expectations narrowed teachers\u0026rsquo; freedom to innovate. \u0026ldquo;I need to cover my syllabus,\u0026rdquo; explained one urban teacher, \u0026ldquo;these activities take time, so I leave it for them to go through in their spare time\u0026rdquo; (Ashna). Exam-centred tempos can reimpose technodeterminist expectations that equate more technology with greater modernity, while narrowing pedagogical possibilities and making technology serve schedules rather than meaning. This focus on syllabus completion reinforced a utilitarian view of technology as an add-on rather than a transformative pedagogy. Head of Schools often assumed staff were \u0026ldquo;fully prepared,\u0026rdquo; overlooking teachers\u0026rsquo; expressed needs for critical dialogue and targeted support, thereby reproducing compliance over creativity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCultural Traditions and Local Adaptations\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeachers\u0026rsquo; pedagogical beliefs were deeply interwoven with cultural traditions that emphasised memorisation, repetition, and respect for authority. Yet within these traditions, moments of adaptation and innovation also surfaced. In the urban school, one teacher encouraged students to \u0026ldquo;think of examples from our own communities\u0026rdquo; (Nisha), while her rural counterpart, Roshni, connected Minority World developed digital materials to local realities by integrating Fijian examples into lessons. Such localisation counters instrumentalism by showing that technologies gain educational value only when re-authored through local language, imagery, and community experience (Brown \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). These practices exemplify postdigital hybridity, where global resources are re-anchored in local meaning and pedagogy (Fawns et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Thaman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Still, rote learning remained pervasive, especially during examination periods when content coverage and memorisation were prioritised over critical or creative engagement. The presence of technology was often perceived as automatically modernising learning. As one rural teacher reflected, \u0026ldquo;They\u0026rsquo;re lucky to have this technology in their classrooms. We didn\u0026rsquo;t have it during our time\u0026rdquo; (Shreya, rural). This sentiment highlights how access to devices was equated with progress, even when deeper pedagogical transformation lagged.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePolitical-Economic Constraints and Inequities\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeachers\u0026rsquo; experiences were framed by systemic inequities linked to donor dependency and market-oriented reforms. In the rural school, policy reforms were described as rapid and exhausting: \u0026ldquo;There are just too many new things\u0026hellip; we don\u0026rsquo;t get enough time to prepare\u0026rdquo; (Roshni). Leano from the rural school found imported digital lessons \u0026ldquo;time-saving, \u0026rdquo; while Eseta called them \u0026ldquo;disruptive,\u0026rdquo; reflecting tensions between global ambition and local readiness.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the urban school, leaders positioned ICT as a branding tool; \u0026ldquo;If you have technology, you are in the market\u0026rdquo; (HOS, urban). This revealed how market logics commodified technology as a symbol of prestige. Shazia, a teacher from the urban school, internalised this discourse: \u0026ldquo;We are a global village now\u0026hellip; we need to be in par with technology.\u0026rdquo; Such perspectives amplify solutionist thinking, where purchase is equated with progress, and technodeterminist assumptions, where visibility stands in for value by obscuring the less visible investments in repair, professional learning, and coordination that truly sustain educational practice (Selwyn \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). These statements expose how neoliberal narratives of progress and competitiveness shape local practice, often at the expense of culturally grounded pedagogies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eReframing TEL through Postdigital and Majority World Perspectives\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile the realities above constrain transformative TEL, teachers\u0026rsquo; adaptive practices also illuminate new possibilities for equitable and culturally grounded innovation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrom Marketability to Meaning: Reframing the Purpose of Technology\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMoving beyond technodeterminism shifts evaluation from what is most visible to what is most useful in everyday practice and for whom. Technology in urban schools was closely tied to reputation and enrolment; \u0026ldquo;You are marketable otherwise you are just back and behind\u0026rdquo; (HOS, urban). This \u0026ldquo;market signal\u0026rdquo; logic also influenced how resources were distributed within the school. Devices were channelled first to classes undertaking external examinations, reinforcing a performance-oriented hierarchy. As Ashna explained, \u0026ldquo;They installed it for us first \u0026hellip; for exam classes\u0026rdquo;. Such prioritisation positioned technology as a tool for competitive advantage rather than equitable access or pedagogical innovation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eYet, teachers also demonstrated reflexivity in resisting purely instrumental use. A postdigital perspective recasts these tensions by asking not how technology looks, but how it becomes meaningful in everyday practice (Fawns et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Teachers\u0026rsquo; reflections suggest that genuine integration requires shifting emphasis from technological display to pedagogical purpose, a stance that aligns with Majority World critiques of commodification and the instrumentalisation of education (Giroux \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eContextual Adaptation and Resilience\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeachers in both schools displayed notable resilience and ingenuity in navigating material constraints. Vijay, an urban teacher, explained, \u0026ldquo;I can\u0026rsquo;t access school Internet, so I just use mine\u0026hellip; I download videos so that lessons are not disturbed,\u0026rdquo; while Aman from the rural school noted that \u0026ldquo;during bad weather, Internet speed is very slow.\u0026rdquo; Despite these challenges, teachers improvised by tethering personal data, preparing offline materials, and relying on peer-supported learning to keep lessons running smoothly.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRoshni, a rural teacher, described how she \u0026ldquo;prepared educational games\u0026rdquo; and encouraged students to \u0026ldquo;make presentations or record audios,\u0026rdquo; blending online and offline activities to sustain engagement. These practices exemplify what Fawns et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) describe as resilient postdigital design, the seamless integration of digital and non-digital tools to support learning under real-world constraints. Rather than treating technology as a singular solution, teachers such as Vishal and Nisha in the urban school, and Roshni in the rural school, orchestrated multiple modes of learning such as oral, written, visual, and interactive, to honour student choice and voice. This adaptive, multimodal approach highlights how teacher agency transforms limited infrastructure into inclusive, student-centred opportunities, reframing constraint as creativity rather than deficiency.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis fluid movement across media illustrates postdigital hybridity, where learning unfolds through an entanglement of material, digital, and relational interactions (Fawns et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Teachers\u0026rsquo; creative flexibility reframed scarcity as opportunity, positioning adaptation not as a deficit but as a form of design capacity through a demonstration of agency, care, and pedagogical innovation in resource-limited contexts. These compositional practices explicitly refuse solutionism: no single tool fixes learning; instead, teachers assemble ecologies that fit learners, places, and purposes (Selwyn \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEquity Beyond Devices\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile teachers\u0026rsquo; approaches to using technology varied across contexts, access alone did not translate into equity. Teachers routinely subsidised school connectivity using personal data, while students\u0026rsquo; home exposure to technology often determined their level of participation. In response, some urban teachers advocated for pragmatic Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) models: \u0026ldquo;They should be allowed to bring laptops or tablets\u0026rdquo; (Nisha), or supervised phone use; \u0026ldquo;They should be allowed\u0026hellip; we\u0026rsquo;ll have to monitor\u0026rdquo; (Shazia). These reflections highlight that equity can be enacted through practice rather than procurement, as teachers sought flexible ways to bridge access gaps within their classrooms. Equitable practice may also involve guided non-use or low-tech choices; viewing such strategies as a deficit reflects an instrumentalist mindset that confuses procurement with participation (Sosnowska \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, performance pressures and exam-year prioritisation continued to reinforce unequal access, with technology channelled toward classes deemed most important for school results. Broader policy spillovers also shaped equity concerns. Fiji has echoed regional trends, such as those in Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia, to restrict student mobile phone use (Gath et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Selwyn \u0026amp; Aagaard \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Yet, in both sites, students\u0026rsquo; personal devices already served as vital bridges used for research, photography, and audio artefacts under teacher supervision. Blanket prohibitions, without providing equivalent school-owned alternatives, risk widening existing digital divides.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrom a postdigital, Majority World perspective, equity requires context-sensitive solutions rather than blanket policies. Thoughtfully designed BYOD frameworks with clear expectations, privacy safeguards, and guided use may offer a more equitable and realistic approach than outright bans, recognising the resourcefulness of teachers and students working within constrained environments.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCulturally Responsive, Locally Relevant Content\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeachers across both sites emphasised that meaningful TEL required locally grounded resources. One rural teacher noted, \u0026ldquo;It saves time\u0026mdash;you just present it\u0026rdquo; (Leano), reflecting the convenience of pre-packaged materials, while another rural teacher found such imported content intrusive and disruptive: \u0026ldquo;They were introduced in a rush\u0026hellip; affecting our coverage\u0026rdquo; (Roshni). Ashna, an urban teacher, questioned the cultural fit altogether: \u0026ldquo;Why bring that curriculum from overseas countries and dump it here?\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMuch of this frustration stemmed from the introduction of the \u003cem\u003eWaddington Programme\u003c/em\u003e which is an Australian-developed digital curriculum designed within a Minority World context but implemented in Fijian classrooms with minimal training provided to teachers regarding its implementation (Narayan \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). While intended to modernise teaching through digital lessons in literacy and numeracy, teachers experienced it as prescriptive and misaligned with local pedagogies and learner realities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBeyond scarcity, teachers described an absence of locally authored digital content such as Pacific languages, especially the iTaukei language, examples, and imagery which forced reliance on imported slides and videos. This absence undermined cultural resonance and placed the burden of localisation on individual teachers already constrained by workload and time.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePostdigital and Pacific scholars argue that sustainability in TEL requires co-creation of digital resources with teachers and communities (Thaman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Brown \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), recognising discernment as equally important as adoption knowing when not to use technology if low-tech, place-based alternatives better serve learners\u0026rsquo; needs (Ruiz et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Seen through this lens, teachers\u0026rsquo; resistance to the Waddington Programme reflects not reluctance but professional judgement, a form of pedagogical sovereignty grounded in local knowledge and cultural responsiveness.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLeadership, Policy, and the Ecology of Support\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLeadership vision and relational support proved pivotal to sustaining TEL. Urban leaders described persistent challenges; \u0026ldquo;Laptops were stolen\u0026hellip; the company discontinued the products\u0026rdquo; (HOS, urban) while urban teachers emphasised gaps in repair cycles and training: \u0026ldquo;There should be more training to make teachers comfortable\u0026rdquo; (Ashna). In the rural school, the Head of School\u0026rsquo;s hands-on approach; \u0026ldquo;I need to facilitate and monitor its implementation\u0026rdquo; (HOS, rural) fostered collegial commitment, though frequent reforms caused fatigue to rural teachers: \u0026ldquo;There are just too many new things\u0026hellip; we don\u0026rsquo;t get enough time\u0026rdquo; (Roshni).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeachers like Shazia and Vishal from the urban school recalled projects such as OLPC and computer education that began enthusiastically but faded without evaluation. As one leader reflected, \u0026ldquo;We have to continuously evaluate the benefits and impact\u0026rdquo; (HOS, rural), pointing to the need for cyclical, long-term planning rather than reactive implementation. Sustainable leadership therefore requires resisting solutionist impulses that treat one-off procurements as progress and instead investing in the slower, ongoing work of repair, mentoring, and teacher learning.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese experiences reveal the broader lesson echoed in postdigital scholarship. Sustainability emerges through iterative, compositional approaches that evolve with context (Fawns et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), not from one-off technological rollouts. They also align with Majority World critiques of top-down, donor-led transfers that overlook local agency and readiness (Connell \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). In both urban and rural settings, teachers\u0026rsquo; reflections highlight that sustaining TEL is as much about nurturing people, relationships, and processes as it is about maintaining the technology itself.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeacher Empowerment as the Engine of Sustainability\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAcross both contexts, teachers repeatedly tied the sustainability of TEL to their own sense of agency, motivation, and continuous learning. Ashna explained, \u0026ldquo;As long as I\u0026rsquo;m handling it, I can sustain it \u0026hellip; because I\u0026rsquo;m passionate,\u0026rdquo; while Nisha affirmed that \u0026ldquo;it all depends on the individual teachers.\u0026rdquo; Their comments reflect how personal commitment and confidence drive everyday innovation, even when institutional support is limited.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOthers, however, saw sustainability as a shared endeavour. Vishal noted, \u0026ldquo;If this sort of training is provided \u0026hellip; teachers can do so much better,\u0026rdquo; highlighting the importance of collective professional development and school-wide learning communities. This sense of interdependence aligns with postdigital thinking, which positions learning as a relational process that grows through collaboration, experimentation, and reflection rather than through top-down training alone (Fawns \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAgency also manifested through small, practical acts of care and problem-solving. When faced with a technical issue, Roshni remarked, \u0026ldquo;The classroom speaker is not working \u0026hellip; I brought one from home,\u0026rdquo; demonstrating the improvisational resilience that keeps TEL alive in resource-constrained environments. Such moments illustrate how teacher-led adaptability, not infrastructure alone, anchors sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePostdigital and ecological perspectives suggest that this grassroots ingenuity should not be seen as mere coping, but as a form of design capacity (Hammond \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Fawns \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). When teachers engage collaboratively to troubleshoot, redesign lessons, or share low-tech strategies, they create living systems of professional knowledge. These everyday practices rooted in context, care, and community form the true infrastructure for sustaining TEL in Pacific classrooms\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSynthesis: Sustaining Postdigital Futures in the Majority World Context\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFijian teachers\u0026rsquo; practices reveal that TEL is shaped by intertwined social expectations, cultural traditions, and political-economic forces. While technology often sustains rather than transforms pedagogy, teacher-led adaptation demonstrates the potential for equitable, culturally grounded, and sustainable innovation. Viewed through postdigital and Majority World lenses, these findings affirm that the future of education in Fiji or Pacific lies not in imported technologies or policies but in context-sensitive pedagogies that honour local knowledge, nurture teacher agency, and build collective resilience. This resonates with studies that draw provocations from Global South settings to re-imagine postdigital education elsewhere, emphasising plurality and relational design (Carvalho \u0026amp; Oliveira \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Our findings demonstrate that progress in education is seldom technology led. By resisting technodeterminist, solutionist, and instrumentalist logics, education systems can invest instead in teacher agency, locally co-authored content, and the long-term maintenance that sustains equitable practice. (Pantić et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eThe Critical-Ecological Framework\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe propose a conceptual Critical\u0026ndash;Ecological Framework that integrates Critical Theory (CT) and an ecological approach to organise and interpret how TEL unfolds across Fijian primary schools. While CT illuminated issues of power, cultural capital, and inequality (Agger \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e; Bourdieu \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e), the ecological perspective highlighted the interconnectedness of teachers, institutions, and policy environments (Bronfenbrenner1979; Hammond \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This fusion provides a holistic reading of TEL as a phenomenon deeply situated in social, cultural, and political-economic realities echoing postdigital thinking, where technology is inseparable from its human and material contexts (Selwyn \u0026amp; Jandrić \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents the proposed Critical-Ecological Framework.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eTeachers at the Centre of the Ecosystem\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003ePositioning the teacher at the centre of the Critical-Ecological Framework highlights their agency as both mediators and transformers of technology integration. Teachers such as Nisha and Vishal in the urban school demonstrated pedagogical creativity through inquiry-based, interactive smartboard use, aligning with Giroux\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) view of teachers as transformative intellectuals. Conversely, Roshni\u0026rsquo;s innovation in the rural school with limited resources reflected Freire\u0026rsquo;s (1978) notion of educators as co-constructors of knowledge. These cases reveal that the success of TEL depends less on access to devices and more on teacher empowerment and reflective practice (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al. 2018).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, disparities in digital proficiency, uneven PD opportunities, and top-down training structures often constrained such agency. As Selwyn and Jandrić (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) argue, without continuous critical dialogue, TEL risks reinforcing traditional hierarchies rather than challenging them. The framework thus places teacher agency, not technology, at the heart of sustainable, context-responsive innovation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eThe Social Ecosystem\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eClassroom TEL practices were patterned by each school\u0026rsquo;s social architecture and day-to-day priorities. In the urban site, large enrolments and multiple streams produced a competitive, exam-driven tempo in which teachers felt compelled to \u0026ldquo;cover\u0026rdquo; extensive syllabi quickly. Technology was therefore mobilised for efficiency through projecting notes, displaying exam papers, or revising content rather than for inquiry or dialogue, mirroring Marcuse\u0026rsquo;s (1964) critique of technological rationality in which innovation serves conformity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, the rural school had smaller class sizes, but teachers managed multiple roles such as sports, scouting, and community activities which limited time for pedagogical experimentation. Community familiarity with technology was uneven, and sometimes sceptical, leading teachers to adopt low-risk practices such as PowerPoint slides or offline videos. Yet, where agency was strong, as in Roshni\u0026rsquo;s case, teachers used limited tools to promote collaboration and student voice, showing that even within constraints, initiative and social cohesion could disrupt transmission-style teaching.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAcross both schools, prevailing beliefs and ideologies narrowed TEL\u0026rsquo;s educational purpose. Urban teachers tended to associate \u0026ldquo;serious\u0026rdquo; learning with teacher-led delivery in core subjects, while rural teachers displayed mixed views. Some perceived technology as a distraction; others recognised its potential for transformation. Both contexts were dominated by memorisation and rule-bound learning to prepare for external examinations, echoing Habermas (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1985\u003c/span\u003e) concern that distorted communication inhibits shared understanding and critical reflection.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLeadership discourses compounded these tendencies. Urban leaders promoted technology to boost marketability and reputation, reinforcing performative logics. Rural leaders supported procurement but offered limited, pedagogy-facing dialogue about \u0026ldquo;why\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;how\u0026rdquo; TEL should be used. The result was minimal critical conversation within and across streams, few communities of practice, and little collective theorising of TEL\u0026rsquo;s educational purposes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eThe Cultural Ecosystem: Capital, School Cultures, and Local Knowledge\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eCultural capital (Bourdieu \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e) shaped who could effectively integrate TEL. In the urban school, teachers with higher qualifications and prior professional development like Nisha and Vishal were more digitally fluent and designed interactive, inquiry-based activities. Students from higher socio-economic backgrounds adapted more easily to digital routines, while lower achievers risked marginalisation when TEL remained presentation-heavy (Bourdieu \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e). By contrast, many rural teachers and students had limited digital repertoires; here, Roshni\u0026rsquo;s self-taught competence functioned as bridging capital, yet peers remained constrained by sporadic upskilling and few mentoring structures.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSchool culture further reinforced these patterns. The urban school\u0026rsquo;s emphasis on branding and exam results positioned technology as a marker of prestige rather than a tool for pedagogical renewal. The rural school, while fostering resilience and adaptability, maintained utilitarian habits driven by syllabus and assessment pressures. The source of digital content also reflected deep cultural divides. Urban teachers often relied on foreign, generic materials, while rural teachers struggled to adapt resources to local realities. Teachers like Nisha, who encouraged students to connect global content to their community experiences, and Roshni, who localised lessons, exemplified the potential for culturally sustaining TEL. As Thaman (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and Brown (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) argue, genuine equity in Pacific education requires grounding TEL within local cultural and linguistic contexts rather than importing external models.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eThe Political\u0026ndash;Economic Ecosystem: Policy, Markets, and Material Constraints\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt the outer layer, TEL practices were shaped by policy regimes, donor agendas, and market logics that favoured imported solutions. Fiji\u0026rsquo;s digital education policies have long been influenced by international donors and organisations (Sharma et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). While these partnerships expanded infrastructure, they often imposed standardised technologies misaligned with local needs. This echoes Connell\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) and Bali\u0026rsquo;s (2019) critiques of cultural imperialism in education. At this outer layer, donor conditionalities, vendor lock-ins, and imported accountability metrics shape what becomes thinkable and fundable, often crowding out investment in maintenance, teacher communities, and locally authored content.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the urban school, technology was commodified as a branding asset. The Head of School emphasised that ICT made the school \u0026ldquo;marketable,\u0026rdquo; illustrating Giroux\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) critique of neoliberal education systems that equate technological visibility with success. Conversely, the rural school grappled with donor-driven programmes introduced hastily, leaving teachers underprepared. These externally imposed reforms constrained teacher agency and eroded professional autonomy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePolicy intent was frequently blunted by material realities. Urban classes had more devices overall but were stretched thin across large cohorts and uneven bandwidth; teachers often relied on personal data or ad-hoc fixes to keep lessons running. Rural teachers faced acute infrastructural deficits such as unreliable electricity, dated equipment, degraded audio/visual capacity, and weather-sensitive connectivity which amplified workload and reduced instructional options. Such conditions illustrate how power circulates through institutional arrangements and resource allocations to shape who benefits from technological change (Foucault \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1977\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBoth schools also faced financial strain. Maintaining and updating technology consumed scarce budgets, with rural schools relying heavily on donor funds or personal contributions. These disparities perpetuated unequal learning experiences. Urban students benefited from higher exposure, while rural learners encountered limited, teacher-led use. Yet, moments of innovation like Roshni\u0026rsquo;s collaborative inquiry projects show how contextual agency can convert constraint into opportunity (Hammond \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eReframing TEL through Postdigital and Majority World Perspectives\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eViewed through a postdigital lens, these findings highlight that digital and non-digital dimensions of teaching are inseparable (Fawns et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Selwyn \u0026amp; Jandrić \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Technology gains meaning only when situated within the social, cultural, and political ecologies of practice. A Majority World framing demands moving beyond imported, one-size-fits-all templates toward context-sensitive strategies that prioritise teacher agency, community knowledge, and equity (Thaman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Brown \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Raturi \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFrom Marketability to Meaning\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the urban school, technology became a marker of prestige, with devices prioritised for exam-year classes. Yet some teachers resisted this instrumental view, seeking to integrate technology in ways that supported meaningful learning rather than mere visibility. Through a postdigital lens, technology shifts from being a symbol of modernity to a relational tool embedded in everyday practice, while a Majority World perspective asks who benefits when visibility becomes the metric of success (Knox \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eContextual Adaptation and Design Intelligence\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAcross both sites, teachers displayed remarkable adaptability under constraint. They downloaded materials in advance to overcome bandwidth limits and allowed hybrid practices from blending digital, oral, written, and visual forms which reflect what Fawns et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) describe as resilient postdigital design. This highlights a compositional and ecologically aware pedagogy grounded in real conditions. These bricolage practices are not \u0026ldquo;workarounds\u0026rdquo; but design intelligence suited to infrastructural realities; precisely what postdigital scholarship names as compositional, context-responsive teaching.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eEquity Beyond Devices\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccess did not automatically translate into equity. Teachers often subsidised school connectivity through their own mobile data, while students\u0026rsquo; participation depended heavily on their home exposure to technology. In response, urban teachers proposed pragmatic BYOD strategies and supervised phone use, emphasising that equity is enacted through everyday practice rather than through procurement alone. Yet policy spillovers such as regional trends to ban student mobile phones risk undermining these adaptive efforts (Gath et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). In both schools, personal devices already served as vital bridges for research, photography, and audio artefacts under teacher guidance. Blanket prohibitions, without providing equivalent school-owned alternatives, would therefore deepen rather than close digital divides (Selwyn \u0026amp; Aagaard \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Viewed through a postdigital and Majority World lens, equity requires context-sensitive BYOD frameworks that set clear expectations, safeguard privacy, and support guided use. Ultimately, equity in TEL is sustained not by the number of devices acquired but by how access, trust, and responsibility are shared across the learning community.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eToward Sustainable, Culturally Grounded TEL\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eSustainable TEL in the Pacific requires more than hardware provision. It calls for policies that fund maintenance and professional learning, participatory governance that empowers teachers as co-designers, and the development of vernacular, locally authored content that reflects lived realities. The Critical-Ecological Framework helps explain that when teacher agency, cultural capital, and supportive material conditions align, even modest technologies can drive transformative, culturally grounded learning. When they do not, TEL merely reinforces existing hierarchies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eReimagining TEL in Fiji and across the wider Majority World thus means reclaiming technology as a relational and reflective practice: one that strengthens identity, values local knowledge, and nurtures educational sovereignty in a digitally entangled yet unequal world. Within a postdigital, Majority World perspective, technology is never neutral, sufficient, or self-moving; sustained change emerges through relationships, repertoires, and repair, and through the teachers who compose and sustain them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEthics approval\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the University of Canterbury Human Research Ethics Committee and the Ministry of Education, Fiji. Ethical approval was granted by the University of Canterbury Human Research Ethics Committee [HREC 2022/117], and research approval was provided by the Ministry of Education Fiji prior to data collection.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConsent to participate\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll participants were informed of the study\u0026rsquo;s purpose, procedures, and their rights to withdraw without penalty. Written informed consent was obtained from every participant prior to data collection.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll participants provided consent for the anonymised use of excerpts and quotations in publications arising from this research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFunding\u003c/em\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHuman ethics and consent to participate declarations\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHuman ethics approval and consent to participate were obtained as detailed in the \u0026ldquo;Ethics approval\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Consent to participate\u0026rdquo; statements above.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAgger, B. (1991). Critical Theory, Poststructuralism, Postmodernism: Their Sociological Relevance. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Sociology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e, 105\u0026ndash;131.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eHandbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 241\u0026ndash;258). Westport.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBronfenbrenner, U. (1977). \u003cem\u003eThe ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design\u003c/em\u003e. Harvard University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrown, C. (2024). \u003cem\u003eEquity and inclusion in Pacific education\u003c/em\u003e (Paper commissioned for the 2024 Global Education Monitoring Report, Pacific - Technology in education, Issue. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000391476\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000391476\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarvalho, L., \u0026amp; Oliveira, G. (2025, 2025/09/01). Alternative Futures in the Postdigital Classrooms of the Global South. \u003cem\u003ePostdigital Science and Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1027\u0026ndash;1047. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-025-00555-y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s42438-025-00555-y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCohen, L., Manion, L., \u0026amp; Morrison, K. (2018). \u003cem\u003eResearch Methods in Education\u003c/em\u003e (8th ed.). Taylor \u0026amp; Francis Group.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eConnell, R. (2007). \u003cem\u003eSouthern theory: Social science and the global dynamics of knowledge\u003c/em\u003e. Polity.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFawns, T. (2022). An entangled pedagogy: Looking beyond the pedagogy\u0026mdash;Technology dichotomy. \u003cem\u003ePostdigital Science and Education\u003c/em\u003e,, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(3), 711\u0026ndash;728.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFawns, T., Ross, J., Carbonel, H., Noteboom, J., Finnegan-Dehn, S., \u0026amp; Raver, M. (2023). Mapping and Tracing the Postdigital: Approaches and Parameters of Postdigital Research. \u003cem\u003ePostdigital Science and Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(3), 623\u0026ndash;642. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-023-00391-y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s42438-023-00391-y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFoucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish, panopticism. \u003cem\u003eDiscipline \u0026amp; punish: The birth of the prison\u003c/em\u003e, 195\u0026ndash;228.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGath, M. E., Monk, L., Scott, A., \u0026amp; Gillon, G. T. (2024). Smartphones at School: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Educators\u0026rsquo; and Students\u0026rsquo; Perspectives on Mobile Phone Use at School. \u003cem\u003eEducation Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(4), 351.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGiroux, H. A. (2004). Critical Pedagogy and the Postmodern/Modern Divide: Towards a Pedagogy of Democratization. \u003cem\u003eTeacher Education Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(1), 31\u0026ndash;47.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHabermas, J. (1985). \u003cem\u003eThe theory of communicative action: Volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 1). Beacon press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHammond, M. (2020). What is an ecological approach and how can it assist in understanding ICT take-up? \u003cem\u003eBritish Journal of Educational Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e51\u003c/em\u003e(3), 853\u0026ndash;866.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJandric', P., \u0026amp; Knox, J. (2021). The postdigital turn: Philosophy, education, research. \u003cem\u003ePolicy Futures in Education, SAGE\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e0\u003c/em\u003e(0), 1\u0026ndash;16. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/14782103211062713\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/14782103211062713\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKaururu, S. (2024). \u003cem\u003eThe financing of education in Fiji\u003c/em\u003e (Paper commissioned for Costing and Financing SDG4-Education 2030 in the Asia-Pacific Region Project, Issue. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000384390\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000384390\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKnox, J. (2019). What Does the \u0026lsquo;Postdigital\u0026rsquo; Mean for Education? Three Critical Perspectives on the Digital, with Implications for Educational Research and Practice. \u003cem\u003ePostdigital Science and Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-019-00045-y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s42438-019-00045-y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKnox, J. (2020, 2020/07/02). Artificial intelligence and education in China. \u003cem\u003eLearning, Media and Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(3), 298\u0026ndash;311. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1754236\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/17439884.2020.1754236\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLingam, G. I., \u0026amp; Lingam, N. (2013). Making learning and teaching a richer experience: A challenge for rural Fijian primary schools. \u003cem\u003eEducational Research and Reviews\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(21), 160\u0026ndash;2168.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLitchman, M. (2014). \u003cem\u003eQualiative research for the social sciences\u003c/em\u003e. SAGE publications.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMinistry of Education. (2023). \u003cem\u003eStrategic Development Plan 2023\u0026ndash;2026.\u003c/em\u003e Ministry of Education.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNaidu, S. (2024). \u003cem\u003eAccess to technology in the Pacific\u003c/em\u003e (Paper commissioned for the 2024 Global Education Monitoring Report, Pacific - Technology in education, Issue. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000391472\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000391472\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNaivalurua, N. (2024). Students graduating with Secondary School teaching courses are now teaching in Primary Schools. \u003cem\u003eFijiVillage\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.fijivillage.com/news/Students-graduating-with-Secondary-School-teaching-courses-are-now-teaching-in-Primary-Schools--5rx\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.fijivillage.com/news/Students-graduating-with-Secondary-School-teaching-courses-are-now-teaching-in-Primary-Schools--5rx\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e8f4/\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNarayan, R. (2023, July 16). \u003cem\u003eGetting through school\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eThe Fiji Times\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.fijitimes.com.fj/getting-through-school/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.fijitimes.com.fj/getting-through-school/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNath, S. (2019). ICT integration in Fiji schools: A case of in-service teachers. \u003cem\u003eEducation and Information Technologies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(2), 963\u0026ndash;972. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9803-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10639-018-9803-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eNational Curriulum Framework\u003c/em\u003e. (2013). Ministry of Education.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNcube, C. N., \u0026amp; Tawanda, T. (2025, 2025/12/31). Critical digital pedagogy for contemporary transformative practices in the Global South: a literature review. \u003cem\u003eCogent Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 2523133. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2523133\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/2331186X.2025.2523133\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNisha, J., Nazmeen, Nabolaniwaqa, S., Dass, R., Rishivendra, \u0026amp; Kumar, S., Sheshnita (2024). Exploring the Implementation Challenges of Digital Technology in Primary Education: A Case Study in Fiji's Western Division during the COVID-19 Pandemic - Insights from Teachers' Perspectives. \u003cem\u003eIndiana Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(2), 1\u0026ndash;10.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePantić, N., Galey, S., Florian, L., Joksimović, S., Viry, G., Gašević, D., Knutes Nyqvist, H., \u0026amp; Kyritsi, K. (2022, 2022/05/01). Making sense of teacher agency for change with social and epistemic network analysis. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Educational Change\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(2), 145\u0026ndash;177. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09413-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10833-021-09413-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePermanent Secretary of Education Heritage and Arts. (2020). \u003cem\u003eExtended school closure\u003c/em\u003e. Marela House.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRaturi, S. (2024). \u003cem\u003eSystem resilience in the Pacific\u003c/em\u003e (Paper commissioned for the 2024 Global Education Monitoring Report, Pacific - Technology in education,, Issue. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000391478\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000391478\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRaturi, S., \u0026amp; Kedrayate, A. (2015). Impact of elearning on primary school children and teachers: A study of the One Laptop per Child Pilot project in Fiji. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(8).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRuiz, N., Gallagher, M., \u0026amp; Najjuma, R. (2025, 2025/03/17). Postdigital Science and Education and The Majority World. \u003cem\u003ePostdigital Science and Education\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-025-00545-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s42438-025-00545-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSelwyn, N. (2016). Minding our language: why education and technology is full of bullshit \u0026hellip; and what might be done about it\u0026dagger;. \u003cem\u003eLearning, Media and Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e(3), 437\u0026ndash;443. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2015.1012523\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/17439884.2015.1012523\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSelwyn, N., \u0026amp; Aagaard, J. (2021). Banning mobile phones from classrooms\u0026mdash;An opportunity to advance understandings of technology addiction, distraction and cyberbullying. \u003cem\u003eBritish Journal of Educational Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e52\u003c/em\u003e(1), 8\u0026ndash;19. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12943\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/bjet.12943\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSelwyn, N., \u0026amp; Jandrić, P. (2020, 2020/10/01). Postdigital Living in the Age of Covid-19: Unsettling What We See as Possible. \u003cem\u003ePostdigital Science and Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(3), 989\u0026ndash;1005. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00166-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s42438-020-00166-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSharma, B., Reddy, P., \u0026amp; Narayan, J. (2024). \u003cem\u003eCost of technology in the Pacific\u003c/em\u003e (Paper commissioned for the 2024 Global Education Monitoring Report, Pacific - Technology in education, Issue. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000391475\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000391475\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSosnowska, P. (2020, 10/27). Instrumentalism: a Worthwhile Critical Concept For Philosophy of Education? \u003cem\u003ePolicy Futures in Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e, 850\u0026ndash;863. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1478210320960880\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1478210320960880\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThaman, K. H. (2021). A way ahead for RPEIPP. In M. a. Otunuku, U. Nabobo-Baba, \u0026amp; S. u. Johansson-Fua (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eOf Waves, Winds and Wonderful Things: A Decade of Rethinking Pacific Education\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 247\u0026ndash;251). Institute of Education, University of the South Pacific.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUNESCO. (2020). \u003cem\u003eOperational guide to using EMIS to monitor SDG \u0026ndash; Educational management information systems\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://emis.uis.unesco.org/operational-guide/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://emis.uis.unesco.org/operational-guide/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYin, K. (2017). \u003cem\u003eCase study research and applications: Design and methods\u003c/em\u003e. SAGE publications.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Critical-Ecological Framework, TEL, Pacific Countries, Postdigital, Sustainability, Majority and Minority World","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8002908/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8002908/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eDigital education in Pacific Island Countries (PICs) has been influenced by structures, policies and funding from the Minority World (Raturi \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). However, these promised opportunities fail to account for a context of diversity and culture in PICs contributing to unsustainable educational practices (Brown \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDrawing from a study on the sustainability of Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL), this paper examines case studies from an urban and a rural Fijian primary school. A thematic analysis of interviews with school leaders and teachers, alongside classroom observations, explored how social, cultural, economic, and political factors interact to shape TEL practices. To interpret these dynamics, we propose a Critical\u0026ndash;Ecological Framework as an analytical lens that integrates insights from Critical Theory and Ecological Systems Theory to examine how power, culture, and structure shape TEL in context.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe framework highlights how cultural relevance, resource constraints, and partnerships mediate technology use, emphasising that postdigital education must be locally grounded rather than imported. Findings reveal that while donor funding supports infrastructure, it often reinforces Minority-centric models, marginalises local agency, and fosters dependency, threatening long-term sustainability. Outdated technologies, limited funding, and curriculum legacies further exacerbate challenges, particularly in rural contexts. However, teacher agency, when supported by reflective practice and professional learning, enables creative, context-responsive, and culturally sustaining TEL practices.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis research contributes to postdigital education in the Majority World by offering evidence-based insights that challenge dominant Minority one-size-fits-all narratives (Ruiz et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) and by advocating postdigital strategies that advance equity, transformation, and local educational sovereignty across Pacific contexts.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Recentring Postdigital Education in the Pacific through a Critical-Ecological Lens","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-11-17 10:01:37","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8002908/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"47a15d11-dd1f-4f4c-bc25-f5c5e58801c8","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 17th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"187828878708217183777445776210459253458","date":"2026-05-12T13:35:13+00:00","index":19,"fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-11-17T10:01:37+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-11-17 10:01:37","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8002908","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8002908","identity":"rs-8002908","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}