This study employed an explanatory mixed-methods design ( Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Ivankova et al., 2006). The study began with instrument development and expert validation, followed by a quantitative phase to examine the level and predictors of culturally responsive digital pedagogy readiness among preservice elementary teachers in Indonesia. A qualitative follow-up phase was then conducted to explain the quantitative findings more deeply through participants’ lived experiences in coursework, microteaching, and practicum. The integration of both strands was carried out at the interpretation stage using joint display analysis ( Fetters et al., 2013).

The study was conducted across four Indonesian universities offering Primary School Teacher Education (PGSD) programs: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Universitas Majalengka, and Universitas Terbuka. The target population consisted of preservice elementary teachers who were considered sufficiently advanced in their teacher preparation to reflect on digital teaching and practicum experiences.

Participants were eligible if they were: (1) enrolled in the PGSD program, (2) in semester 6 or above, (3) had completed microteaching, and (4) had completed teaching practicum activities (PPL/PLP). Participants were excluded if they did not meet these criteria, submitted incomplete responses, or provided duplicate responses.

The quantitative study proceeded in two stages. First, a pilot test involving 120 respondents was conducted to evaluate the functioning of the initial revised item pool and to support further refinement. Second, the main survey involved 500 eligible respondents, distributed evenly across the four institutions (125 participants from each university). For the qualitative phase, 20 participants were purposively selected from the main survey dataset to represent high, moderate, and low readiness profiles across all four institutions.

The study used a researcher-developed instrument designed to assess culturally responsive digital pedagogy readiness among preservice elementary teachers and the factors associated with such readiness ( DeVellis, 2016). The final quantitative instrument consisted of 44 items rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

The instrument comprised one outcome construct and five predictor constructs. The outcome construct, culturally responsive digital pedagogy readiness, consisted of 24 items covering six conceptual dimensions: (1) awareness of bias and cultural diversity, (2) cultural representation in digital content, (3) inclusive digital lesson design, (4) interaction and facilitation in digital learning, (5) culturally fair assessment and feedback, and (6) reflective and collaborative improvement. The predictor constructs each consisted of four items: multicultural coursework exposure, reflective practice, digital teaching self-efficacy, practicum exposure quality, and attitude toward diversity.

In addition to these scale items, the survey also collected demographic and contextual information, including campus, gender, age, GPA, semester, teaching or tutoring experience beyond practicum, practicum school type, practicum location, experience of digital training, and related background variables.

Prior to field administration, the instrument was reviewed by eight experts representing primary education, multicultural education, digital pedagogy, psychometrics, and educational evaluation. The experts assessed each item on four aspects: relevance, clarity, contextual suitability for preservice elementary teachers, and measurability. Content validity was quantified using Aiken’s V ( Aiken, 1985). Across the four assessed aspects, the average Aiken’s V coefficient was 0.92, indicating strong content validity.

After expert review, the instrument was revised and administered in a pilot study involving 120 eligible respondents. The pilot phase was used to examine item functioning, response distribution, and internal consistency, and to identify items requiring further wording refinement or reduction. Based on the pilot findings, problematic or overly redundant items were revised, and the instrument was reduced to the final 44-item version used in the main study.

The main survey was administered to 500 preservice elementary teachers meeting the inclusion criteria. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire in Indonesian. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. Before accessing the questionnaire, participants were provided with information about the study aims, the voluntary nature of participation, confidentiality, and their right to withdraw at any time without penalty. For the questionnaire survey, electronic written informed consent was obtained through the consent section at the beginning of the online form before participants could proceed. Because all survey participants were adults, parental consent and participant assent were not required. The questionnaire then proceeded to eligibility screening questions, demographic items, and the main scale items.

To maintain data quality, only complete submissions meeting the eligibility criteria were retained for analysis. The final dataset contained no missing values and included balanced representation from the four participating institutions.

Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics included frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations to summarize participant characteristics and variable distributions. Internal consistency was examined using Cronbach’s alpha for the full instrument and for each construct ( Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). Pearson correlation analysis was then conducted to examine bivariate relationships among the study variables. To identify the strongest predictors of culturally responsive digital pedagogy readiness, a multiple regression analysis was performed with readiness as the dependent variable and the five focal predictors—multicultural coursework exposure, reflective practice, digital teaching self-efficacy, practicum exposure quality, and attitude toward diversity—as independent variables.

The quantitative findings were interpreted not only in terms of statistical significance, but also in relation to their practical and conceptual meaning in teacher education contexts. These findings informed the purposive selection of participants for the qualitative explanatory phase.

The qualitative phase was designed to explain the quantitative results, especially why some predictors were more influential than others in shaping readiness. Twenty participants were purposively selected from the main survey dataset to represent high (n = 7), moderate (n = 6), and low (n = 7) readiness profiles. The selection also considered institutional representation, resulting in five participants from each of the four universities. Semi-structured interviews were used to explore participants’ experiences with coursework, reflective practice, digital teaching, microteaching, and practicum. The interview questions focused on how participants understood and enacted culturally responsive digital pedagogy, how they reflected on their own teaching, how practicum experiences shaped their learning, and what challenges they encountered in translating inclusive intentions into practice. The interviews generated 60 meaningful excerpts that were subsequently coded and analysed thematically. Initial open coding was followed by categorization and theme development ( Braun & Clarke, 2006; Lester et al., 2020). In the final analytic stage, eight categories were organized into five overarching themes: (1) reflection as the conversion mechanism, (2) quality practicum creates situated readiness, (3) digital confidence is necessary but insufficient, (4) normative support for diversity does not guarantee inclusive practice, and (5) practice ecology matters more than campus label.

The integration of quantitative and qualitative findings was carried out during interpretation using a joint display approach ( Fetters et al., 2013). Quantitative results were first used to identify the most influential explanatory variables, after which qualitative themes were mapped onto these statistical patterns to clarify how and why such relationships occurred in practice.

This integration allowed the study to move beyond statistical association and provide a more grounded explanation of readiness formation. In particular, the joint display analysis was used to link the strongest quantitative predictors—reflective practice, practicum exposure quality, and digital teaching self-efficacy—with qualitatively derived accounts of reflection, mentoring, pedagogical revision, and digital adaptation.

This study received ethical approval from the Research and Community Service Institute (LP2MI) of Universitas Majalengka, certificate number K.124/LP2MI UNMA/VIII/2025, dated 4 August 2025. Participation was voluntary. For the questionnaire survey, electronic written informed consent was obtained through the consent section at the beginning of the online form before participants could proceed. For the qualitative interviews, verbal informed consent was obtained and documented by the interviewer prior to each interview because the interviews were conducted online or by telephone and separate signed forms were not collected. All participants were informed about the purpose of the study, the anonymous or de-identified handling of the data, their right to decline participation, and their right to withdraw at any time. Because all participants were adults, parental consent and participant assent were not required.

Participation was voluntary. All participants were informed about the purpose of the study, the anonymous nature of the questionnaire, their right to decline or withdraw at any time, and the use of the data solely for research purposes. For the qualitative phase, identifying information was removed or coded to reduce the risk of participant re-identification in reporting and data sharing.

The revised 44-item instrument was first evaluated by eight experts representing primary education, multicultural education, digital pedagogy, psychometrics, and educational evaluation. Content validity was assessed using Aiken’s V across four aspects, namely relevance, clarity, contextual suitability for preservice elementary teachers, and measurability. The average Aiken’s V coefficient across these aspects was 0.92, indicating strong content validity and supporting the adequacy of the instrument for administration in the main study.

The quantitative phase involved 500 preservice elementary teachers enrolled in the Primary School Teacher Education (PGSD) program across four Indonesian universities. The sample was evenly distributed across institutions, with 125 participants from each university. All participants met the inclusion criteria, namely being in semester 6 or above and having completed both microteaching and teaching practicum activities (PPL/PLP). As shown in Table 1, the sample consisted of 141 male participants (28.2%), 345 female participants (69.0%), and 14 participants who preferred not to disclose their gender (2.8%). Participants were aged between 20 and 26 years, with a mean age of 21.91 years (SD = 1.14). Their GPA ranged from 2.81 to 3.95, with a mean of 3.41 (SD = 0.20). Most participants were in semester 7 or 8, and a considerable proportion reported teaching or tutoring experience beyond their formal practicum placement.

Descriptive analysis indicated that the respondents reported moderate to relatively high levels across the measured constructs. The overall mean score for culturally responsive digital pedagogy readiness was at the upper-moderate level, with relatively small differences across institutions. As shown in Table 7, the mean readiness scores by campus were highly similar, namely 3.50 for Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, 3.52 for Universitas Negeri Surabaya, 3.52 for Universitas Majalengka, and 3.50 for Universitas Terbuka. This pattern suggests that readiness was not strongly differentiated by institutional affiliation alone.

At the construct level, multicultural coursework exposure, reflective practice, digital teaching self-efficacy, practicum exposure quality, and attitude toward diversity all showed moderate to relatively high mean scores ( Table 2). Notably, attitude toward diversity was among the highest-rated constructs, indicating that participants generally endorsed diversity-supportive views. However, some readiness-related dimensions, particularly those related to culturally fair assessment and pedagogical enactment, remained comparatively lower than more general attitudinal endorsement.

The internal consistency of the revised scales was substantially improved in the final dataset. As presented in Table 2, the readiness scale showed strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.869). The predictor variables also demonstrated acceptable to good reliability, namely 0.731 for multicultural coursework exposure, 0.849 for reflective practice, 0.809 for digital teaching self-efficacy, 0.851 for practicum exposure quality, and 0.642 for attitude toward diversity. Taken together, these findings indicate that the revised instrument functioned adequately for the present analysis, with particularly strong consistency for the central practice-based constructs.

Pearson correlation analysis showed that all predictor variables were positively associated with culturally responsive digital pedagogy readiness, although the strength of these relationships varied ( Table 3). The strongest positive association was found for reflective practice, followed by practicum exposure quality and digital teaching self-efficacy. Multicultural coursework exposure and attitude toward diversity also showed positive bivariate relationships with readiness, although these were weaker than those observed for the more practice-based variables.

This pattern suggests that readiness was more strongly associated with reflective engagement, field-based learning quality, and digital pedagogical confidence than with conceptual exposure or attitudinal endorsement alone. At the same time, the correlation matrix also showed that the predictors were interrelated but not redundant, supporting their inclusion in the multivariable model.

A multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the extent to which multicultural coursework exposure, reflective practice, digital teaching self-efficacy, practicum exposure quality, and attitude toward diversity jointly predicted culturally responsive digital pedagogy readiness. The final model explained a substantial proportion of variance in readiness (R ² ≈ 0.760), indicating that these variables together provided strong explanatory power.

As presented in Table 4, reflective practice emerged as the strongest predictor of readiness (beta = 0.569, p < 0.001), followed by practicum exposure quality (beta = 0.319, p < 0.001) and digital teaching self-efficacy (beta = 0.241, p < 0.001). In contrast, multicultural coursework exposure contributed only marginally to the model (beta = 0.046, p = 0.050), while attitude toward diversity was not statistically significant in the full model (beta = −0.019, p = 0.397).

These findings indicate that readiness to implement culturally responsive digital pedagogy was shaped primarily by reflective practice, the quality of practicum experience, and confidence in digital teaching. By contrast, conceptual exposure to multicultural content and positive attitudinal endorsement of diversity were less influential once the more practice-oriented variables were taken into account. This pattern already suggests a potential gap between endorsing inclusive values and enacting those values in digital pedagogical practice.

To explain the quantitative findings more deeply, a qualitative follow-up phase was conducted with 20 preservice elementary teachers selected from the main survey dataset. The interview participants were purposively drawn to represent high (n = 7), moderate (n = 6), and low (n = 7) readiness profiles across the four participating universities, with five participants from each institution. Their profiles are presented in Table 5. Across all interviews, 60 meaningful excerpts were identified and coded, resulting in eight analytic categories that were subsequently organized into five overarching themes ( Table 6).

The first and most prominent theme indicates that reflective practice functioned as the key mechanism through which teaching experiences were converted into pedagogical improvement. Participants with higher readiness scores consistently described reflection not as a routine academic requirement, but as a practical process of re-examining lesson examples, digital materials, interaction patterns, and assessment choices. In these cases, reflection enabled preservice teachers to notice when their teaching materials were too general, culturally narrow, or insufficiently responsive to student diversity.

One participant explained, “I did not feel that readiness came from coursework alone. I only understood it after trying, making mistakes, and then revising my digital teaching materials.” Another participant reported revisiting slides and worksheets after microteaching to check whether the examples used represented only one cultural perspective or were closer to students’ actual experiences. These accounts suggest that reflective activity played a decisive role in moving students from conceptual awareness toward operational pedagogical judgment.

The second theme highlights the importance of practicum quality in shaping readiness. Participants repeatedly emphasized that meaningful practicum experiences were not defined merely by participation in PPL/PLP, but by the presence of specific mentoring, clear feedback, and opportunities to revise teaching decisions in response to real classroom conditions. High-readiness participants often described practicum as the first setting in which they truly understood how diversity affected instruction, participation, and assessment in digital learning environments.

For instance, one participant stated, “The most helpful part of practicum was when my mentor gave specific comments about how different students responded differently to my digital task.” Another explained that a supervising teacher asked them to redesign a one-format task into several alternative formats, which made them realize that inclusive digital design could be trained when feedback was concrete and actionable. These narratives suggest that readiness became more operational when practicum experiences allowed students to test, revise, and contextualize their teaching.

A third theme concerns the role of digital teaching self-efficacy. Participants with moderate or high digital confidence generally reported that digital competence made it easier to design materials, use platforms, and manage technical aspects of teaching. However, many also noted that technical confidence did not automatically translate into culturally responsive pedagogy. In several cases, participants felt confident using Canva, LMS platforms, videos, or online presentation tools, yet admitted that cultural representation in content remained limited or inconsistent.

As one participant put it, “I am confident using technology, but the cultural sensitivity of the content still needs to be trained so that it does not stop at visually attractive presentation.” Another participant explained that they could manage digital platforms well, but still struggled to integrate local stories or culturally relevant examples into instructional content. This pattern indicates that technical readiness and inclusive pedagogical readiness are related, but not identical.

The fourth theme captures a consistent gap between endorsing diversity in principle and enacting inclusive pedagogical decisions in practice. Many participants, including those with positive attitudes toward diversity and relatively strong coursework exposure, acknowledged that they still found it difficult to translate these commitments into differentiated tasks, culturally fair assessment, and contextually relevant digital teaching materials. In other words, diversity was often supported normatively, but not always enacted pedagogically.

One participant stated, “My attitude toward diversity is positive, but my assessment practices and teaching materials are not always ready to reflect that belief.” Another explained, “I know assessment should be fair, but during practicum I still gave exactly the same task to all students because I was confused about how to create realistic alternatives.” These accounts suggest that conceptual agreement and moral support for diversity did not automatically produce operationally inclusive teaching practice.

The fifth theme indicates that institutional label alone was not the main source of variation in readiness. Across all four universities, participants described broadly similar developmental processes: readiness was strengthened when they experienced repeated cycles of planning, enactment, feedback, and reflection, and weakened when coursework remained conceptual or when practicum support was limited. This suggests that what mattered most was not simply where students studied, but the ecology of practice that shaped how they learned to teach.

One participant summarized this clearly: “Readiness comes from repeated practice and reflection, not only from coursework.” Similar statements appeared across campuses, particularly among participants with high readiness scores. Although institutional context still shaped access to resources and experiences, the qualitative data suggest that readiness was more strongly associated with practice ecology than with institutional identity as such.

The mixed-methods integration revealed a coherent pattern: culturally responsive digital pedagogy readiness among preservice elementary teachers was shaped more strongly by reflective, situated, and practice-based processes than by normative endorsement or coursework exposure alone. The integrated findings are summarized in Table 7.

First, the quantitative finding that reflective practice was the strongest predictor of readiness was strongly supported by the qualitative data. Participants with higher readiness scores repeatedly described reflection as the process through which teaching experiences became revised materials, more equitable interaction, and fairer instructional choices. This indicates that reflective practice functioned as a conversion mechanism, transforming experience into pedagogical readiness.

Second, the strong contribution of practicum exposure quality was reinforced by interview evidence showing that readiness was sharpened through mentoring, revision opportunities, and contextual exposure to diverse learners. The integration of both datasets suggests that practicum was not merely a placement requirement, but a developmental space in which culturally responsive digital pedagogy became concrete and actionable.

Third, the quantitative significance of digital teaching self-efficacy was refined by the qualitative finding that technical confidence, while important, was not sufficient on its own. Participants could feel competent in operating digital tools without necessarily being consistent in cultural representation, inclusive design, or culturally fair assessment. Thus, digital teaching self-efficacy appears to be an enabling condition rather than a complete account of readiness.

Fourth, the comparatively weak role of multicultural coursework exposure and the non-significant role of attitude toward diversity in the full model were clarified qualitatively by the persistence of a theory-to-practice gap and an attitude-to-practice gap. Participants generally understood the importance of diversity and often endorsed it strongly, but many still struggled to redesign tasks, revise examples, or differentiate assessment in culturally responsive ways. This integrated pattern suggests that readiness is not guaranteed by conceptual exposure or normative commitment unless these are activated through reflective and practice-based learning.

Finally, the integration of findings suggests that readiness is best understood as a multidimensional and context-sensitive developmental outcome. The quantitative data identified the strongest statistical contributors, while the qualitative findings explained how these contributors operated in practice. Taken together, both strands of evidence indicate that culturally responsive digital pedagogy readiness in preservice elementary teacher education is shaped primarily through cycles of reflection, mentored practicum, and applied digital adaptation, rather than through coursework or attitudes alone.

Overall, the findings indicate that preservice elementary teachers reported moderate but meaningful levels of culturally responsive digital pedagogy readiness. The instrument showed strong content validity and acceptable-to-good internal consistency in the final dataset. At the explanatory level, the quantitative and qualitative findings converged in showing that reflective practice, practicum exposure quality, and digital teaching self-efficacy were the most important contributors to readiness. By contrast, multicultural coursework exposure played only a limited role, while positive attitudes toward diversity did not automatically translate into inclusive pedagogical enactment. These combined results provide a strong empirical basis for understanding readiness as a practice-based, reflective, and context-sensitive construct in primary teacher education.