Digital Based IPAS Learning Strategies in Elementary Schools: A Comparative Case Study of Two Schools in Jakarta
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59944/postaxial.v4i2.1632Keywords:
Digital learning, IPAS, Elementary education, Digital literacy, PDCAAbstract
This study examines digital-based Natural and Social Sciences (Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam dan Sosial—IPAS) learning strategies for Grade VI students at SDN Tegal Alur 19 Petang, West Jakarta, and SDN Kramat Pela 09, South Jakarta. The study employed a qualitative comparative case study design involving school principals, Grade VI teachers, and students. Data were collected through interviews, classroom observations, and document analysis and were analyzed through data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing. The analysis was guided by the Plan–Do–Check–Act (PDCA) framework to examine planning, implementation, evaluation, and follow-up in digital learning. The findings show that both schools integrated digital media such as Canva, Quizizz, learning videos, and other online platforms into IPAS learning, although with different instructional emphases. SDN Tegal Alur 19 Petang demonstrated a more structured and collaborative pattern, particularly in addressing differences in device access and student digital readiness, whereas SDN Kramat Pela 09 provided greater opportunities for individual creativity and digital product development. Digital-based learning supported student engagement, conceptual understanding, digital literacy, creativity, collaboration, critical thinking, and problem-solving. However, implementation remained influenced by differences in infrastructure, teacher digital competence, student access, and parental support. The study concludes that effective digital IPAS learning depends not merely on the use of technological applications but on the systematic alignment of technology, pedagogy, student characteristics, school readiness, and continuous instructional improvement
References
-Adrias, & Ruswandi, A. (2025). Desain Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan Mix Method. Rajawali Pers.
Alexander, A. P. (2019). Lincoln and Guba’s quality criteria for trustworthiness. IDC International Journal, 6(4), 1–6.
AlGerafi, M. A. M., Zhou, Y., Oubibi, M., & Wijaya, T. T. (2023). Unlocking the Potential: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality in Education. Electronics, 12(18), 3953. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12183953
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications.
Deming, W. E. (1986). Principles for transformation. Out of the Crisis, 18, 96.
Frontiers | Digital learning in the 21st century: Trends, challenges, and innovations in technology integration. (n.d.). Retrieved September 15, 2026, from https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/education/articles/10.3389/feduc.2025.1562391/full
González-Salamanca, J. C., Agudelo, O. L., & Salinas, J. (2020). Key Competences, Education for Sustainable Development and Strategies for the Development of 21st Century Skills. A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability, 12(24), 10366. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410366
Khoa, B. T., Hung, B. P., & Hejsalem-Brahmi, M. (2023). Qualitative research in social sciences: Data collection, data analysis and report writing. International Journal of Public Sector Performance Management, 12(1–2), 187–209.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
Kovtaniuk, I. I., Tarasova, O. Yu., & Zakarliuka, I. S. (2025). Capabilities of the Canva web service for creating educational videos to improve the effectiveness of the educational process in flipped learning. CTE Workshop Proceedings, 12, 108–175. https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.928
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis A Methods Sourcebook. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Mishra, N. R. (2023). Constructivist approach to learning: An analysis of pedagogical models of social constructivist learning theory. Journal of Research and Development, 6(01), 22–29.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Nashihin, H., Mafaza, N., & Haryana, M. O. (2021). Implementasi total quality management (tqm) perspektif teori edward deming, juran, dan crosby. At Turots: Jurnal Pendidikan Islam, 3(1), 41–49.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1609406917733847–1609406917733847.
Opara, V., Spangsdorf, S., & Ryan, M. K. (2023). Reflecting on the use of Google Docs for online interviews: Innovation in qualitative data collection. Qualitative Research, 23(3), 561–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941211045192
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. SAGE Publications.
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75.
Subiantoro, A., Kadeni, K., Anasrulloh, M., & Trisnantari, H. E. (2025). Building Smart Learners: AI-Deep Learning, Digital Literacy, and Self-Regulation as Predictors of IPAS Outcomes. SAGA: Journal of Technology and Information System, 3(3), 498–506. https://doi.org/10.58905/saga.v3i3.569
Utami, D. S., Jaenudin, R., & Hudaidah, H. (2025). Canva-Based Interactive Flashcard Development Needs Analysis to Optimise Early Reading Learning in Elementary Schools. Journal of Innovation and Research in Primary Education, 4(4), 3871–3879.
Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications. SAGE Publications US.
