Infrastructure as Active Mediation: Techno-pedagogical Ecosystems and Teacher Technology Appropriation in Pernambuco State Educational System

Thyago José Oliveira Costa; Rodrigo Lins Rodrigues; Taciana Pontual Falcão

doi:10.5753/jbcs.2026.6979

Authors

Thyago José Oliveira Costa Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco https://orcid.org/0009-0003-2683-0539
Rodrigo Lins Rodrigues Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3598-5204
Taciana Pontual Falcão Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2775-4913

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5753/jbcs.2026.6979

Keywords:

ICT in Education, Teacher Technology Appropriation, School Infrastructure, Techno-pedagogical Ecosystems, Teacher Education, Educational Policies

Abstract

The integration of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in basic education, driven by uniform policies, often overlooks the heterogeneity of school contexts and how different infrastructures mediate teacher technology appropriation. A critical gap remains concerning how distinct infrastructural configurations shape appropriation processes and adaptive strategies in contexts of material inequality. We conducted an exploratory qualitative comparative study with 25 teachers across three urban schools from Pernambuco state educational system, Brazil, representing distinct infrastructural configurations. A framework analysis was used for structured comparison, generating a provisional typology of three qualitatively distinct techno-pedagogical ecosystems: Survival, Limited Adequacy, and Competition. Results suggest a functional inversion where stable connectivity was perceived by teachers as a more critical conversion factor than equipment quantity. In these ecosystems, infrastructure appears to operate as an active mediator that shapes, but does not determine, pedagogical possibilities. Teachers develop diverse adaptive strategies, including techno-pedagogical bricolage, temporal orchestration, and selective technology appropriation, that complicate simple dichotomies between uncritical adoption and resistance. The discursive appropriation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) manifests differently across these contexts: in contexts of greater adequacy, teachers articulated pragmatic ambivalence (the simultaneous recognition of potentialities and risks alongside functional experimentation) whereas in contexts of scarcity, discourses of technological optimism with limited explicit engagement with risks predominated; these contrasting patterns may also reflect differences in professional development exposure and group discourse norms. Digital citizenship education remains fragmented across all three settings, further highlighting the qualitatively unequal pedagogical possibilities associated with different infrastructural configurations. These provisional findings point toward the need for differentiated public policies that move beyond uniform solutions and recognize teacher agency without romanticizing structural precarity.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Astudillo, M. V. and Martín-García, A. V. (2020). Teoria da atividade: fundamento para estudo e desenho do blended learning. Cadernos de Pesquisa, 50(176):515-533. DOI: 10.1590/198053147127.

Ball, S. J. (2009). Privatising education, privatising education policy, privatising educational research: network governance and the 'competition state'. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1):83-99. DOI: 10.1080/02680930802419474.

Barbour, R. (2018). Doing Focus Groups. SAGE Publications, London, 2 edition. DOI: 10.4135/9781526441836.

Birch, K. and Muniesa, F. (2020). Assetization: Turning Things into Assets in Technoscientific Capitalism. Inside Technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Book.

Bond, M., Khosravi, H., De Laat, M., Bergdahl, N., Negrea, V., Oxley, E., Pham, P., Chong, S. W. C., and Siemens, G. (2024). A meta systematic review of artificial intelligence in higher education: A call for increased ethics, collaboration, and rigour. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(4):1-41. DOI: 10.1186/s41239-023-00436-z.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511812507.

Brasil (2018). Base nacional comum curricular - bncc educação infantil e ensino fundamental. Available at: [link]. Accessed: 17 Sep. 2025.

Brasil (2022). Base nacional comum curricular - bncc computação. Available at: [link]. Accessed: 17 Sep. 2025.

Brasil (2025a). Lei nº 15.100, de 13 de janeiro de 2025. Available at:[link]. Restringe a utilização, por estudantes, de aparelhos eletrônicos portáteis nos estabelecimentos públicos e privados de educação básica.

Brasil (2025b). Programa escolas conectadas. Available at: [link]. Accessed: 15 Oct. 2025.

Burgstahler, S. E. (2015). Universal Design in Higher Education: From Principles to Practice. Second Edition. Harvard Education Press, Cambridge, MA. Book.

Cardoso, M. J. C., Almeida, G. D. S., and Silveira, T. C. (2021). Formação continuada de professores para uso de tecnologias da informação e comunicação (tic) no brasil. Revista Brasileira de Informática na Educação, 29:97-120. DOI: 10.5753/rbie.2021.29.0.97.

Carroll, J. (2004). Completing design in use: Closing the appropriation cycle. In Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Information Systems, Turku, Finland. Available at: [link]. Accessed: 14 Nov. 2025.

Certeau, M. d. (2014). A Invenção do Cotidiano: 1. Artes de Fazer. Editora Vozes, Petrópolis, RJ, 22 edition. Book.

CETIC.BR (2025). Pesquisa tic educação 2024: Principais resultados. Available at: [link]. Accessed: 10 Oct. 2025.

CIEB (2022). Relatório guia edutec - diagnóstico do nível de adoção de tecnologia nas escolas públicas brasileiras em 2022. Available at: [link]. Accessed: 10 Oct. 2025.

Costa, T. J. O., Rodrigues, R. L., and Falcão, T. P. (2026). Competências digitais na educação básica: Desafios e oportunidades na adoção das tic no Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Informática na Educação. DOI: 10.5753/rbie.2026.5875.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. DOI: 10.1108/09513540410527202.

Cuban, L. (2013). Inside the Black Box of Classroom Practice: Change Without Reform in American Education. Harvard Education Press, Cambridge, MA. DOI: 10.5860/choice.51-2206.

Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, CA, 5 edition. Book.

Ertmer, P. A. and Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3):255-284. DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551.

Fullan, M. (2016). The New Meaning of Educational Change. Teachers College Press, New York, 5 edition. DOI: 10.1080/0924345910020406.

Gale, N. K., Heath, G., Cameron, E., Rashid, S., and Redwood, S. (2013). Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13:117. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-117.

Gatti, B. A., Barretto, E. S. d. S., André, M. E. D. A. d., and Almeida, P. C. A. d. (2019). Professores do Brasil: Novos Cenários de Formação. UNESCO, Brasília. Available at: [link]. Accessed: 26 Oct. 2025.

Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-level digital divide: Differences in people's online skills. First Monday, 7(4). DOI: 10.5210/fm.v7i4.942.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511815355.

Livingstone, S. and Third, A. (2017). Children and young people's rights in the digital age: An emerging agenda. New Media & Society, 19(5):657-670. DOI: 10.1177/1461444816686318.

Merriam, S. B. and Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 4 edition. Book.

Moura, E. (2024). Ia e a educação paulista. Understanding Artificial Intelligence, IEA-USP. Available at: [link]. Accessed: 12 Nov. 2025.

Oliveira, D. A. and Pereira Junior, E. A. (2020). Trabalho docente em tempos de pandemia: Mais um retrato da desigualdade educacional brasileira. Retratos da Escola, 14(30):719-734. DOI: 10.22420/rde.v14i30.1212.

Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9):1435-1448. DOI: 10.1177/0170840607081138.

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 4 edition. Book.

Pischetola, M. and Miranda, L. T. d. (2020). A Sala de Aula como Ecossistema: Tecnologias, Complexidade e Novos Olhares para a Educação. Editora Vozes; Editora PUC-Rio, Petrópolis, RJ; Rio de Janeiro. Book.

Prensky, M. (2012). From Digital Natives to Digital Wisdom: Hopeful Essays for 21st Century Learning. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA. DOI: 10.4135/9781483387765.

Pretto, N. D. L. (2022). Plataformas digitais privadas na educação pública. In Echalar, A. D. L. F., Araújo, C. H. d. S., Sousa, D. R. d., Peixoto, J., and Santos, J. C. d., editors, Matutando: diálogos formativos, pages 107-115. Editora Unijuí, Ijuí. Available at:[link].

Pretto, N. D. L., Cordeiro, S. N., and Oliveira, W. D. S. (2013). Produção cultural e compartilhamento de saberes em rede: Entraves e possibilidades para a cultura e a educação. Educação em Revista, 29(4):17-40. DOI: 10.1590/S0102-46982013000300002.

Priestley, M., Biesta, G., and Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher Agency: An Ecological Approach. Bloomsbury Academic, London. DOI: 10.5040/9781474219426.

Ritchie, J. and Spencer, L. (1994). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In Bryman, A. and Burgess, R. G., editors, Analysing Qualitative Data, pages 173-194. Routledge, London. DOI: 10.4324/9780203413081_chapter_9.

Rodriguez-Segura, D. (2022). Edtech in developing countries: A review of the evidence. The World Bank Research Observer, 37(2):171-203. DOI: 10.1093/wbro/lkab011.

SAD-PE (2025). Pe conectado: Rede corporativa de telemática. Available at: [link]. Accessed: 15 Aug. 2025.

SEE-PE (2025). PE + digital: Programa de competências digitais. Available at: [link]. Accessed: 15 Aug. 2025.

Selwyn, N. (2021). Education and Technology: Key Issues and Debates. Bloomsbury Academic, London, 3 edition. DOI: 10.5040/9781474235952.

Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. DOI: 10.2307/3343168.

Shiroma, E. O. (2018). Gerencialismo e formação de professores nas agendas das organizações multilaterais. Momento - Diálogos em Educação, 27(2):88-106. DOI: 10.14295/momento.v27i2.8093.

Toyama, K. (2015). Geek Heresy: Rescuing Social Change from the Cult of Technology. PublicAffairs, New York. DOI: 10.13021/g8itlcp.9.2017.1853.

van Dijk, J. A. (2020). The Digital Divide. Polity Press, Cambridge. Book.

Vasconcelos, J. C., Lima, P. V. P. S., Rocha, L. A., and Khan, A. S. (2021). Infraestrutura escolar e investimentos públicos em educação no brasil: A importância para o desempenho educacional. Ensaio: Avaliação e Políticas Públicas em Educação, 29(113):874-898. DOI: 10.1590/S0104-40362020002802245.

Williamson, B. and Komljenovic, J. (2023). Investing in imagined digital futures: The techno-financial `futuring' of edtech investors in higher education. Critical Studies in Education, 64(3):234-249. DOI: 10.1080/17508487.2022.2081587.

Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1):121-136. Available at: [link]. Accessed: 26 Oct. 2025. DOI: 10.4324/9781003074960-3.

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 6 edition. Book.

Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2):89-99. DOI: 10.1177/0022487109347671.

Zhao, Y. and Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4):807-840. DOI: 10.3102/00028312040004807.