The hidden curriculum of digital peer interaction: a multisite ethnography in online higher education

  • Eka Ariyati 
    Universitas Tanjungpura, Pontianak, Indonesia
    Indonesia
  • Zulfariati
    Universitas Mahaputra Muhammad Yamin, Solok, Indonesia
    Indonesia
  • Bernardus Agus Rukiyanto
    Universitas Sanata Dharma, Depok, Indonesia
    Indonesia
  • Aliah Bagus Purwakania Hasan
    Universitas Al Azhar Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia
    Indonesia

Abstract

Peer interaction in Digital Learning Environments (DLEs) is commonly treated as supplementary to online instruction, yet it can function as a key site where hidden curriculum is enacted through informal socialization. This study examines how peer-to-peer interaction transmits, negotiates, and reinterprets unwritten norms that shape students’ academic identities and participation practices in online higher education. Using a multisite ethnographic case study grounded in sociocultural theory and critical pedagogy, data were collected over three months from three Indonesian higher education institutions using synchronous and asynchronous digital platforms. Participants included 36 students and 6 lecturers. Data comprised virtual classroom observations, online discussion forum archives, and semi-structured interviews, and were analyzed using thematic analysis supported by NVivo 12. Findings indicate that peer interaction generated four clusters of hidden curriculum: (1) digital ethics enacted through peer regulation of communication tone, response timing, and visibility practices that shaped credibility and participation; (2) academic integrity negotiated through peer-shared strategies that blurred boundaries between mutual support and misconduct; (3) emotional work expressed in affective labor to sustain group harmony and minimize conflict-related sanctions; and (4) hidden hierarchies produced by unequal platform literacy and social capital, positioning certain students as informal gatekeepers of information and belonging. These peer-mediated norms operated as forms of governance outside formal course design, shaping participation strategies, sense of belonging, and academic identity construction. The study offers context-specific evidence from Indonesian online higher education and highlights the importance of critical digital pedagogy that renders implicit norms discussable and supports more inclusive online learning practice.

Keywords
  • Hidden curriculum, Peer interaction, Digital learning environments, higher education, Multisite ethnography, Critical pedagogy
Lisensing Information
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

References
  1. Andarvazh, M. R., Afshar, L., & Yazdani, S. (2017). Hidden curriculum: An analytical definition. Journal of Medical Education, 16(4), 198–207.
  2. Apple, M. W. (2023). The hidden curriculum and the nature of conflict. In A. Darder, M. Baltodano, & R. Torres (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (3rd ed., pp. 434–452). Routledge.
  3. Assen, H. (2018). From a teacher-oriented to a learner-oriented approach to teaching: The role of teachers’ collective learning processes. Educational Studies, 44(3), 1–15.
  4. Azimpour, E., & Khalilzade, A. (2015). Hidden curriculum. World Essays Journal, 3(1), 18–21.
  5. Bayne, S., Evans, P., Ewins, R., Knox, J., & Lamb, J. (2020). The manifesto for teaching online. MIT Press.
  6. Behmanesh, D., Jalilian, S., Heydarabadi, A. B., Ahmadi, M., & Khajeali, N. (2025). The impact of hidden curriculum factors on professional adaptability. BMC Medical Education, 25(1), 186. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-xxxxx
  7. Costa, C., & Li, H. (2025). Digital cultural knowledge and curriculum: The experiences of international students as they moved from on-campus to online education during the pandemic. Learning, Media and Technology, 50(2), 178–190.
  8. da Rocha-Alvarez, M. I. (2024). A phenomenological study of social-emotional learning (SEL) through COVID-19 (Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Global).
  9. Darvin, R. (2019). Youth, technology, and the hidden curriculum of the 21st century. Youth and Globalization, 1(2), 210–229. https://doi.org/10.1163/25895745-00102003
  10. Dastgir, G., & Fakhar-Ul-Zaman, D. A. A. (2023). Unveiling the hidden curriculum: Exploring the role of teachers in shaping values and moral lessons for students beyond the classroom. Jahan-e-Tahqeeq, 6(3), 516–524.
  11. Elliot, D. L., Bengtsen, S. S., Guccione, K., & Kobayashi, S. (2020). The hidden curriculum in doctoral education. Springer.
  12. Freire, P. (1970). The adult literacy process as cultural action for freedom. Harvard Educational Review, 40(2), 205–225.
  13. Giroux, H. A. (1983). Theories of reproduction and resistance in the new sociology of education: A critical analysis. Harvard Educational Review, 53(3), 257–293.
  14. Hidalgo, B. G., Rivera, L. A., & Delgadillo, R. S. (2019). Integration of learning management system technology and social networking sites in the e-learning mode: A review and discussion. Computers in Education Journal, 10(2), 1–15.
  15. Koutsouris, G., Mountford-Zimdars, A., & Dingwall, K. (2021). The ‘ideal’ higher education student: Understanding the hidden curriculum to enable institutional change. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 26(2), 131–147.
  16. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (2001). Legitimate peripheral participation in communities of practice. In J. Lave & E. Wenger, Supporting lifelong learning (pp. 121–136). Routledge.
  17. Luk, S. H., & Yeoh, B. (2024). Education-migration brokers, international student mobilities and digital transformations in pre- and post-pandemic times. Geography Compass, 18(1), e12730.
  18. Lupton, D. (2021). Young people’s use of digital health technologies in the global north: Narrative review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(1), e18286.
  19. Mueller, A. (2023). Habitual rhetoric: Digital writing before digital technology. University of Pittsburgh Press.
  20. Myles, B. S., Trautman, M. L., & Schelvan, R. L. (2024). The hidden curriculum: Understanding unstated rules in social situations. Future Horizons.
  21. Rowe, C. (2022). Performance and politics in a digital populist age: Imagining alternatives. Routledge.
  22. Schmader, T., & Sedikides, C. (2018). State authenticity as fit to environment: The implications of social identity for fit, authenticity, and self-segregation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(3), 228–259.
  23. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). How people learn II: Learners, contexts, and cultures. National Academies Press.
  24. Selwyn, N. (2020). Re-imagining learning analytics: A case for starting again? The Internet and Higher Education, 46, 100745.
  25. Simoni, Z. R. (2023). The eager conformist, the well-rounded collaborator, and the independent innovator: A qualitative exploration of teachers’ conceptions of the ideal student, the hidden curriculum, and social class. Sociological Focus, 56(4), 424–444.
  26. Turnbull, D., Chugh, R., & Luck, J.-A. (2023). Learning management systems and social media: A case for their integration in higher education institutions. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 52(1), 1–15.
  27. Venter, A. (2020). Synchronising informal and formal learning spaces to facilitate collaborative online learning. Africa Education Review, 17(6), 1–15.
  28. Vu, N. T., & Tran, N. M. H. (2022). Synchronous online learning in higher education. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 9(1), 131–160.
  29. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  30. Zahnoun, F. (2021). The socio-normative nature of representation. Adaptive Behavior, 29(4), 417–429.

Downloads

PDF

Statistic

Abstract Views
: 217 times
PDF
: 63 times