Human, Social, and Digital Capital in Educational Development: Evidence from Pasirmae Village

Abstract

Persistent disparities in educational quality between rural and urban areas frequently stem from limited infrastructure, financial capacity, and access to educational facilities, yet Pasirmae Village exemplifies how community resources are mobilized to support educational continuity. This study interprets how human capital and social capital operate and interact in shaping community-based educational practices in Pasirmae Village, while digital capital is treated as a contextual supporting factor that facilitates access rather than as a primary analytical construct equal to the others. Employing a qualitative case study design, data were collected through participant observation, document analysis, and in-depth interviews with teachers, school administrators, community leaders, and parents. The data were analyzed thematically to identify patterns in the roles and interrelations of these capitals. The findings reveal that human capital, reflected in parental educational awareness and educators’ pedagogical competence, functions as the primary driver of learning quality, while social capital, manifested in trust, dense social networks, active participation, and mutual cooperation, reinforces and sustains collective educational initiatives. Digital capital provides contextual support, but its contribution depends on usage patterns, supervision, and the capacity of households to mobilize it for learning.

Keywords: digital capital; educational development; human capital; Pasirmae Village; social capital.

Introduction

Education in rural areas has long been framed within a deficit-oriented paradigm that emphasizes infrastructural scarcity, financial limitations, and teacher shortages as the principal barriers to educational advancement. Such a perspective tends to reduce rural communities to passive recipients of external intervention, thereby obscuring the endogenous capacities embedded in local social relations. In response, contemporary scholarship has advanced a strength-based perspective that highlights the role of internal community assets particularly human and social capital in sustaining educational processes under constrained conditions (Emery & Flora, 2020; Green & Haines, 2016). However, despite this shift, prior studies have predominantly examined these forms of capital in isolation or as static variables, leaving insufficient attention to their interactional dynamics and context-specific operation in rural education systems. Moreover, limited empirical work has explored how these capitals intersect with emerging dimensions such as digital access and informational resources in rural settings, thereby revealing a gap in understanding the multidimensional configuration of capital in contemporary educational contexts. Education, as a central mechanism of human development, is not solely determined by material inputs but is deeply shaped by relational and social environments. In this Persistent disparities in educational quality between rural and urban areas frequently stem from limited infrastructure, financial capacity, and access to educational facilities, yet Pasirmae Village exemplifies how community resources are mobilized to support educational continuity. This study aims to interpret how human capital and social capital operate and interact in shaping community-based educational practices in Pasirmae Village, framing digital capital as a contextual supporting factor that facilitates access rather than as a primary analytical construct equal to the others, rather than constructing generalized theoretical models. Employing a qualitative case study design, data were collected through participant observation, document analysis, and in-depth interviews with teachers, school administrators, community leaders, and parents as key informants, with the data analyzed thematically to identify patterns in the roles and interrelations of these capitals. The findings reveal that human capital, reflected in parental educational awareness and educators’ pedagogical competence, functions as the primary driver of learning quality, while social capital manifested in trust, dense social networks, active participation, and the cultural practice of mutual cooperation operates as a reinforcing mechanism that sustains collective educational initiatives, with their relational interaction allowing social cohesion to amplify the effectiveness of individual capacities in addressing local educational constraints while digital capital provides contextual support; this study contributes by providing a context-bound interpretation of how community-derived resources function as an adaptive mechanism in rural education, offering an empirically grounded insight into the micro-level dynamics of educational development in resource-limited settings.

regard, James Coleman conceptualizes social capital as a functional resource embedded in social relations, where trust, shared norms, and network density facilitate coordinated actions that support the accumulation of human capital (Coleman, 1988). Within this study, Coleman’s framework is operationalized to analyze how everyday interactions among parents, teachers, and community members enable the maintenance of learning processes despite structural limitations. In contrast, Pierre Bourdieu provides an analytical lens to examine how power relations, social hierarchies, and symbolic legitimacy influence the distribution and conversion of different forms of capital (Bourdieu, 1986). Specifically, Bourdieu’s perspective is employed to interpret how variations in authority, cultural recognition, and institutional positioning shape the effectiveness of social capital in generating educational outcomes. By integrating these two frameworks, this study does not merely juxtapose them but uses Coleman to explain the functional dimension of social relations, while Bourdieu is used to interrogate the structural constraints and inequalities that condition those relations, thereby enabling a more comprehensive analysis of capital interaction. The relevance of this inquiry becomes particularly salient within the context of rural Indonesia, especially in Pandeglang Regency, Banten Province, where educational disparities remain persistent despite gradual improvements in the Human Development Index. Structural challenges such as unequal distribution of educational facilities, limited teacher development opportunities, and high dropout rates continue to characterize the region (Suryadarma & Jones, 2021; UNESCO, 2022). While previous studies have highlighted the role of community participation in mitigating these issues, they have not sufficiently explained how different forms of capital interact dynamically within specific local contexts. Furthermore, the growing penetration of digital technologies in rural areas introduces an additional layer of capital digital capital that remains underexplored in relation to human and social capital configurations. This gap underscores the need for a more integrative and context-sensitive analysis that moves beyond generalized assumptions about rural education. At the micro level, rural communities demonstrate adaptive capacities through practices such as mutual cooperation, parental involvement, and informal support systems for schooling. These practices suggest that education is sustained not only through formal institutional arrangements but also through embedded social mechanisms. Empirical studies indicate that strong social ties can enhance institutional resilience, improve student retention, and maintain learning continuity in resource-limited environments (Syafii et al., 2025; Wahyudi & Kurniawan, 2023). Nevertheless, variations in outcomes across communities indicate that the presence of social capital alone is insufficient to guarantee effectiveness. This condition necessitates an analytical approach that accounts for both the functional and structural dimensions of capital, as well as their interaction with emerging forms such as digital capital, which may mediate access to information, learning resources, and broader educational opportunities. This study is situated in Pasirmae Village, which is selected as a critical and information-rich case rather than a merely convenient site. The village represents a context where structural limitations coexist with relatively stable educational practices, making it analytically significant for examining how community-based resources operate under constraint. Unlike typical deficit-characterized rural settings, Pasirmae demonstrates sustained educational engagement despite limited external support, thereby offering a unique opportunity to explore the mechanisms through which human and social capital are mobilized and maintained. The case is therefore positioned as a critical case that allows for in-depth interpretation of capital interaction, with the potential to generate transferable insights for similar rural contexts rather than universal generalizations (Aprillia & Iryanti, 2024; Group, 2020; Yasya et al., 2022). The integration of human capital and social capital in this study is not treated as a static combination but as a dynamic and relational process shaped by both social practices and structural conditions. While previous research has emphasized the compensatory role of social capital in resource-constrained environments (Reay, 2020; Rodríguez & Núñez, 2021; Tan et al., 2023), this study extends the discussion by examining how such compensation is mediated by local power relations, institutional legitimacy, and the evolving role of digital access. In doing so, it seeks to reinterpret the relationship between habitus and capital conversion, particularly in rural educational settings where informal practices intersect with formal institutional demands. This perspective enables a more nuanced understanding of how community-driven educational processes are sustained and transformed over time. Given these considerations, this study aims to interpret how human capital and social capital operate, interact, and are conditioned by local structures in supporting educational development in Pasirmae Village. The novelty of this research lies in three aspects: first, the integrative use of Coleman’s and Bourdieu’s frameworks as complementary analytical tools rather than parallel references; second, the empirical contribution of a context-specific rural Indonesian case that provides grounded insight into capital interaction; and third, the incorporation of an emerging dimension of digital capital as part of the broader capital configuration. By addressing these dimensions, this study seeks to extend existing rural education scholarship beyond descriptive applications of theory toward a more relational and contextually embedded understanding of educational development.

Methods

This study adopts a qualitative research approach with an embedded case study design to interpret how human capital and social capital operate within a specific rural educational context. The qualitative paradigm is selected for its epistemological capacity to capture socially constructed meanings, relational dynamics, and locally grounded practices that shape educational processes. The case study design enables an in-depth and context-sensitive examination of interactions among actors, institutions, and community structures, particularly in situations where formal resources are limited but social mechanisms remain active. Rather than aiming for generalization, this design supports an analytically bounded explanation grounded in empirical realities. Accordingly, the methodological orientation prioritizes interpretive depth, contextual richness, and relational analysis. The research was conducted in Pasirmae Village, which was selected as a critical and information-rich case based on three criteria: (1) the presence of sustained educational practices despite infrastructural limitations, (2) observable community participation in schooling processes, and (3) the coexistence of formal institutional constraints and informal social support systems. Informants were determined through purposive sampling to ensure relevance and depth of insight. A total of 15 informants were involved, consisting of 5 educators, 3 school administrators, 4 parents, and 3 community leaders, all of whom were directly engaged in educational activities within the village. The inclusion criteria required participants to have at least two years of active involvement in educational or community-based initiatives, ensuring experiential knowledge of the studied phenomena. This composition allows for a multi- perspective understanding of how human and social capital are

enacted across different roles within the local educational ecosystem. Data collection was conducted over a three-month period to ensure sufficient engagement and contextual immersion. Three complementary techniques were employed to achieve data triangulation and analytical depth. First, semi-structured in-depth interviews were carried out with all informants, focusing on their experiences, perceptions, and practices related to education, community involvement, and resource mobilization. Each interview lasted between 45 and 90 minutes and was recorded and transcribed for analysis. Second, participatory observation was conducted in both school and community settings, covering classroom activities, parent–teacher interactions, and community meetings, thereby enabling the researcher to capture naturally occurring practices and validate interview data. Third, document analysis included school records, village administrative reports, and local educational program archives, which provided contextual and institutional evidence to support the findings. The combination of these methods ensured comprehensive coverage of both formal and informal dimensions of educational practices. The adequacy of evidence was determined through the principle of theoretical saturation, where no substantially new themes or patterns emerged from additional data collection. Saturation was reached after iterative cycles of data collection and preliminary analysis, particularly when recurring patterns related to trust networks, educator commitment, and community participation became consistently observable across different informant groups. To enhance trustworthiness, the study employed multiple validation strategies, including source triangulation (across informants), method triangulation (across interviews, observations, and documents), and peer debriefing to reduce interpretive bias (Aseri & Amos, 2025). These procedures ensure the credibility, dependability, and confirmability of the research findings. Data analysis followed an inductive and iterative thematic approach, drawing on the interactive model of qualitative analysis. The process involved three interconnected stages: data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing. During data reduction, transcripts and field notes were systematically coded using open and axial coding techniques, generating categories such as educator competence, parental engagement, trust-based networks, and coordination challenges. Data display was conducted through thematic matrices and relational mapping to identify patterns of interaction among forms of capital. Conclusions were drawn through continuous comparison between empirical evidence and theoretical constructs, ensuring that interpretations remained grounded in the data while being analytically informed. To operationalize the theoretical integration, this study employs a dual analytical framework. The perspective of Coleman is used to examine how social capital functions at the micro level through trust, norms, and network relations that facilitate educational practices. In contrast, Bourdieu’s framework is utilized to analyze how these practices are conditioned by structural factors such as power relations, legitimacy, and access to resources. Rather than treating these theories as abstract references, both are embedded in the coding process: indicators of trust, reciprocity, and participation are linked to Coleman’s functional logic, while indicators of authority, symbolic recognition, and unequal access are interpreted through Bourdieu’s structural lens. This dual operationalization enables a layered analysis that captures both the enabling and constraining dimensions of capital interaction. The study introduces an interpretive heuristic in the form of the relation “Practice = Habitus × Capital × Field,” not as a formal empirical model but as an analytical device to guide interpretation. In this context, habitus is observed through internalized dispositions such as commitment to education and pedagogical orientation; capital is identified through social and cultural resources such as networks, trust, and knowledge; and field refers to the institutional and structural environment, including school governance and resource availability. These dimensions are not measured quantitatively but are interpreted qualitatively through coded evidence. For example, repeated observations of parental attendance in school meetings, combined with interview statements expressing trust in educators, are interpreted as strong social capital, while disparities in decision-making authority among actors are analyzed as manifestations of field-related power structures. This approach avoids the risk of false precision while still providing a systematic framework for interpreting complex interactions. To enhance analytical clarity, a limited use of interpretive scaling (ranging from low to high) is employed as a heuristic aid rather than a measurement instrument. These scales are assigned by the researcher based on triangulated qualitative evidence, including consistency across interviews, frequency of observed practices, and support from documentary sources. Explicit criteria are used to guide this process: for instance, a “high” level of social capital is indicated by dense interaction, mutual trust, and sustained collective action, whereas a “low” level reflects fragmented networks and minimal participation. These scores are not treated as core data but as illustrative summaries that support comparative interpretation within the case. Inter-subjective consistency is maintained through iterative review of coding decisions and alignment with empirical evidence. By integrating thematic analysis with a structured interpretive heuristic, this methodological approach ensures internal coherence while preserving the epistemological integrity of qualitative inquiry. It allows the study to move beyond descriptive accounts toward an explanation of how educational practices emerge from the interaction between dispositions, resources, and structural conditions within a specific rural context.

Result and Discussion

Informant Characteristics and Household Economic Conditions

Human Capital: Learning Competence and Motivation

Table 1. Comparative Overview of Human Capital Dimensions

Table 2. Social Capital Dimensions and Educational Support

Social Capital: Networks, Trust, and Collective Support

Empirical Configuration of Capital: Human, Social, and Digital Dimensions

Table 3. Empirical Interaction of Human, Social, and Digital Capital

Bourdieu’s Typological Analysis: Habitus, Capital, and Field

Table 4. Typological Classification of Educational Practices

Table 5. Coding Indicators and Typological Scores

Comparative Interpretation of Educational Practices

Table 6. Comparative Interpretation of Educational Practices

Capital Synergy as a Survival Strategy

Social Capital Dynamics: Bonding, Bridging, and Linking

Table 7. Empirical Findings on Social, Human, and Digital Capital

Table 8. Bourdieu’s Typological Comparison

Conclusion

s were drawn through continuous comparison between empirical evidence and theoretical constructs, ensuring that interpretations remained grounded in the data while being analytically informed. To operationalize the theoretical integration, this study employs a dual analytical framework. The perspective of Coleman is used to examine how social capital functions at the micro level through trust, norms, and network relations that facilitate educational practices. In contrast, Bourdieu’s framework is utilized to analyze how these practices are conditioned by structural factors such as power relations, legitimacy, and access to resources. Rather than treating these theories as abstract references, both are embedded in the coding process: indicators of trust, reciprocity, and participation are linked to Coleman’s functional logic, while indicators of authority, symbolic recognition, and unequal access are interpreted through Bourdieu’s structural lens. This dual operationalization enables a layered analysis that captures both the enabling and constraining dimensions of capital interaction. The study introduces an interpretive heuristic in the form of the relation “Practice = Habitus × Capital × Field,” not as a formal empirical model but as an analytical device to guide interpretation. In this context, habitus is observed through internalized dispositions such as commitment to education and pedagogical orientation; capital is identified through social and cultural resources such as networks, trust, and knowledge; and field refers to the institutional and structural environment, including school governance and resource availability. These dimensions are not measured quantitatively but are interpreted qualitatively through coded evidence. For example, repeated observations of parental attendance in school meetings, combined with interview statements expressing trust in educators, are interpreted as strong social capital, while disparities in decision-making authority among actors are analyzed as manifestations of field-related power structures. This approach avoids the risk of false precision while still providing a systematic framework for interpreting complex interactions. To enhance analytical clarity, a limited use of interpretive scaling (ranging from low to high) is employed as a heuristic aid rather than a measurement instrument. These scales are assigned by the researcher based on triangulated qualitative evidence, including consistency across interviews, frequency of observed practices, and support from documentary sources. Explicit criteria are used to guide this process: for instance, a “high” level of social capital is indicated by dense interaction, mutual trust, and sustained collective action, whereas a “low” level reflects fragmented networks and minimal participation. These scores are not treated as core data but as illustrative summaries that support comparative interpretation within the case. Inter-subjective consistency is maintained through iterative review of coding decisions and alignment with empirical evidence. By integrating thematic analysis with a structured interpretive heuristic, this methodological approach ensures internal coherence while preserving the epistemological integrity of qualitative inquiry. It allows the study to move beyond descriptive accounts toward an explanation of how educational practices emerge from the interaction between dispositions, resources, and structural conditions within a specific rural context.

Result and Discussion Informant Characteristics and Household Economic Conditions The empirical findings indicate that households in Pasirmae Village share relatively similar structural conditions in terms of socio-educational and economic background. Based on interview data and village documentation, most parents have low levels of formal education, with fathers generally completing only primary school (approximately fourth grade) and mothers completing elementary education. Household composition tends to be relatively large, with between five and nine children per family, as reported consistently by informants. From an economic perspective, interview responses and supporting administrative data show that average household income is approximately IDR 500,000 per week, reflecting subsistence-level livelihoods. All informants explicitly identified financial limitations as a barrier to continuing education beyond basic levels; however, observational and interview data also indicate variation in educational practices across households despite similar economic conditions. These findings suggest that while structural constraints are evident, differences in learning practices cannot be attributed solely to economic factors. This conclusion is derived from cross-case comparison of interview narratives and observed household routines, which show differing levels of parental involvement, study supervision, and educational encouragement. At this stage, the data are presented descriptively, indicating variation in household educational practices without attributing causal relationships. All informants consistently identified economic constraints as a primary barrier to accessing higher levels of education.

However, the findings indicate that financial limitations alone do not fully determine educational outcomes. Variations in educational practices among households suggest the influence of other determining factors, particularly the configuration of human capital and social capital within the family structure.

Human Capital: Learning Competence and Motivation Empirical observations and interview data reveal variation in learning-related behaviors across the three focal households (K1, K2, and K3) (see Table 1). In K1, the student (Tatu Mulyana) demonstrates consistent study routines, the ability to complete assignments independently, and strong engagement during observed learning sessions. Interview data with family members indicate the presence of a relative working as a lecturer, which is frequently referenced by the student as a source of motivation. Academic records provided by the school show that the student is ranked third in class. These indicators consistent study behavior, independent task completion, and stable academic performance form the basis for categorizing K1 as demonstrating relatively strong learning competence and motivation. In K2, interview data indicate that learning activities are regularly supported by older siblings rather than parents. Observations show that the student completes school tasks but often requires guidance, particularly when encountering difficulties. Academic performance is described by teachers as “adequate but inconsistent,” which is supported by school records showing fluctuating results. Access to digital devices is comparable to K1; however, interview responses suggest that motivation is often driven by external encouragement rather than internal initiative. These observations indicate a moderate

Informant Level of Human Capital Learning Motivation Academic Performance Self-Regulated Learning Capacity Supporting Educational Environment Interpretative Summary K1 (Tatu Mulyana) High Predominantly intrinsic motivation, reflecting strong internal learning drive High academic achievement, ranked third in school Strong independence in managing study activities Presence of a lecturer within the extended family serving as symbolic educational capital Demonstrates comprehensive internalization of human capital through high motivation, academic excellence, and autonomous learning behavior K2 (Murni) Moderate Primarily extrinsic motivation influenced by external encouragement Moderate academic capability Partial independence; still relies on guidance from older siblings Comparable access to digital learning resources but limited internal learning reinforcement Reflects transitional human capital development with adequate resource access but incomplete formation of self- regulated learning K3 (Sipa) Low Weak learning motivation with minimal internal or external reinforcement Relatively low academic engagement Limited independence in learning activities Minimal parental involvement and limited academic support Indicates constrained human capital formation characterized by low motivation, reduced autonomy, and insufficient educational support

Dimension of Social Capital Context Level Key Characteristics Educational Implications Bonding Social Capital Household (K1) Strong and cohesive family relationships that effectively transmit educational values and learning motivation. Enhances learning consistency, strengthens academic encouragement, and supports sustained educational engagement. Bonding Social Capital Household (K2) Moderate family cohesion with significant sibling involvement compensating for limited parental participation. Maintains educational continuity through peer- like family support and shared academic responsibility. Bonding Social Capital Household (K3) Weak family cohesion with limited interpersonal support among family members. Reduces the effectiveness of educational encouragement and may hinder student academic development. Bridging Social Capital Community Level Dense kinship networks characterized by high trust, reciprocity, and informal mutual assistance among residents. Facilitates sustained access to education by providing informal financial, emotional, and logistical support. Linking Social Capital Institutional Level Strong parental trust in educational institutions despite limited direct involvement due to economic and time constraints. Strengthens institutional legitimacy and maintains school participation, although parental engagement in school activities remains constrained.

level of learning competence, characterized by partial independence and reliance on external support. In K3, both interview and observational data show limited engagement with learning activities. The student demonstrates irregular study habits and often requires prompting to complete assignments. Parental involvement is minimal, as indicated by both interview responses and absence during observed study periods. Teachers describe the student’s academic participation as low, which is consistent with available school documentation. These indicators limited study routine, low task completion independence, and minimal support are used to describe comparatively lower levels of observed learning competence and motivation. Importantly, categorizations such as “high,” “moderate,” and “low” are used here as descriptive summaries derived from triangulated qualitative evidence rather than as fixed measurements.

Social Capital: Networks, Trust, and Collective Support The findings in Table 2 show that social capital is present in all households, particularly in the form of bonding and bridging social capital. Family relationships serve as the primary support system for learning activities. In K1, these relationships are highly cohesive and effectively transmit educational values. In K2, sibling support compensates for limited parental involvement. In K3, weaker family cohesion reduces the effectiveness of social support in educational processes. At the community level, dense kinship networks create high levels of trust and reciprocity among residents. Relationships between families function as an informal support system that helps sustain access to education despite economic constraints. In addition, parents demonstrate strong trust in educational institutions, although their direct participation in school activities remains limited due to economic pressures and time constraints.

Empirical Configuration of Capital: Human, Social, and Digital Dimensions The findings in Table 3 also indicate variations in how households utilize digital resources related to education. All three households report access to smartphones; however, observational and interview data reveal differences in patterns of use. In K1 and K2, digital devices are observed being used for school-related activities, such as accessing assignments or searching for learning materials. In contrast, in K3, device usage during observation periods is more frequently associated with entertainment activities, with limited evidence of educational use. These observations suggest that digital capital should be understood not only in terms of access to devices but also in terms of usage patterns, supervision, and learning orientation. Interview data also indicate that the cost of internet access approximately IDR 5,000 per day is perceived as a financial burden, particularly among lower-income households. This constraint affects the frequency and duration of digital engagement for educational purposes. At this stage, the results indicate variation in the effective use of digital resources rather than equivalence across households. No causal claims are made; instead, the data describe observable differences in how digital tools are incorporated into daily learning practices. Bourdieu’s Typological Analysis: Habitus, Capital, and Field To organize the observed variations, this study uses an interpretive heuristic based on the relation Practice = Habitus × Capital × Field, as introduced in the method section. Within this framework, habitus is inferred from observed learning dispositions (e.g., study routines, persistence), capital from available resources and support (e.g., family assistance, knowledge access), and field from contextual conditions (e.g., school environment, economic constraints). Based on coded qualitative data, three empirical patterns are identified. In K1, learning practices are characterized by consistent study routines, observable support structures, and stable academic outcomes. In K2, practices show partial consistency, with reliance on external support and variable outcomes. In K3, learning practices appear less structured, with limited support and lower engagement (see Table 4).

Capital Dimension Household Category Empirical Characteristics Educational Implications Human Capital K1 and K2 Households demonstrate adequate educational awareness and learning support through supervision and encouragement of academic activities. Observed as associated with enhanced students’ learning motivation, appears to support improved academic engagement, and is reflected in consistent educational achievement. Human Capital K3 Limited parental supervision and lower emphasis on academic monitoring. Appears associated with reduced learning discipline and is reflected in weakened academic performance outcomes. Social Capital K1 and K2 Strong family interaction and supportive social environment that promotes collaborative learning behavior. Observed as associated with facilitated knowledge exchange, appears to support strengthened learning commitment, and is reflected in enhanced educational resilience. Social Capital K3 Weaker social reinforcement toward academic activities, with limited educational encouragement from family and community. Is associated with reduced learning consistency and lower educational engagement. Digital Capital K1 and K2 Smartphones and online learning platforms are primarily utilized for educational purposes. Appears to support access to learning resources, is associated with improved digital literacy, and reflected in enhanced academic productivity. Digital Capital K3 Digital devices are mainly used for entertainment rather than educational activities. Observed as associated with decreased learning engagement and reduced effectiveness of digital learning opportunities. Digital Capital (Economic Constraint) All Households (Especially Low- Income) Daily internet access cost (approximately IDR 5,000) imposes financial pressure on economically vulnerable households. These constraints are reflected in disparities influenced not only by technological access but also by the efficiency and sustainability of digital resource utilization.

These patterns are summarized using indicative scores (e.g., 28, 18, and 5), which function as heuristic representations of relative positioning rather than precise measurements. The scores are derived from the aggregation of coded indicators across habitus, capital, and field dimensions, based on triangulated evidence from interviews, observations, and documents. For example, in K1, repeated observations of independent study, consistent parental encouragement, and documented academic performance contribute to a higher composite assessment. In contrast, in K3, limited observational evidence of structured learning and minimal support contributes to a lower composite assessment (see Table 5). Based on the analytical formulation (Habitus × Capital) + Field = Practice, three typologies of educational practice are identified: 1. High Typology (Score: 28 – K1) Educational practices are highly effective due to the alignment of strong habitus, well-integrated capital, and a supportive field. Learning activities are structured, consistent, and self-directed.

Typology Level Score Category Characteristics of Habitus Characteristics of Capital Field Conditions Educational Practice Outcomes High Typology (K1) 28 Strong, structured, and internalized learning dispositions that promote discipline and autonomy. Well-integrated and balanced forms of capital, including social, cultural, and human capital, effectively supporting learning processes. Highly supportive educational and social environment that reinforces learning continuity and motivation. Educational practices demonstrate high effectiveness, characterized by structured, consistent, and self-directed learning activities. Moderate Typology (K2) 18 Learning habitus is present but not consistently internalized, resulting in fluctuating learning behaviors. Social capital is relatively strong; however, other forms of capital are not optimally utilized. Moderately supportive environment that provides opportunities but lacks reinforcement for sustained learning engagement. Educational practices show moderate effectiveness, with learning outcomes influenced by partial utilization of available resources. Low Typology (K3) 5 Weak or underdeveloped learning dispositions, leading to limited motivation and inconsistent learning behaviors. Limited human and cultural capital, restricting access to knowledge and skill development. Unsupportive or constrained environmental conditions that hinder learning participation and development. Educational practices are ineffective, reflected in low learning engagement and minimal academic achievement.

Dimension Indicator Coding Criteria Score Range K1 (High Typology) K2 (Moderate Typology) K3 (Low Typology) Habitus Learning discipline Consistency of study routines and task completion 1–5 5 3 1 Learning autonomy Ability to manage learning independently 1–5 5 3 1 Educational aspiration Commitment toward educational achievement 1–5 4 2 1 Capital Human capital Educational support, learning competence, and motivation 1–5 4 3 1 Social capital Family support, trust, and social networks 1–5 4 4 2 Cultural/Symbolic capital Presence of educational role models and value transmission 1–5 3 2 1 Field School environment Institutional support and learning opportunities 1–5 2 1 0 Community environment Community encouragement and educational climate 1–5 1 0 -2 Composite Score Sum of all coded indicators Aggregated qualitative assessment 8–40 28 18 5 Typology Classification Interpretation of composite score Relative positioning within the case study

High Typology Moderate Typology Low Typology

and documentary analysis. Scores ranged from 1 (very weak) to 5 (very strong), with field conditions allowing contextual adjustment where constraining environmental factors reduced the overall score. The composite score was calculated by summing all indicator scores across the dimensions of habitus, capital, and field, following the analytical heuristic (Habitus × Capital) + Field = Practice. For example, K1 obtained a score of 28 due to strong learning discipline, autonomy, educational aspirations, integrated forms of capital, and supportive field conditions. K2 achieved 18, reflecting moderate internalization of learning dispositions and partial utilization of available capital. K3 received 5 because qualitative evidence indicated weak habitus formation, limited capital resources, and restrictive field conditions. These scores function as interpretive summaries for comparative analysis rather than standardized quantitative measurements.

2. Moderate Typology (Score: 18 – K2) Educational practices are moderately effective. Although social capital is strong, the absence of a stable learning habitus limits optimal utilization of available resources. 3. Low Typology (Score: 5 – K3)Educational practices are ineffective, characterized by weak habitus, limited human capital, and unsupportive environmental conditions, resulting in low learning engagement.

Comparative Interpretation of Educational Practices The comparative analysis indicates that similar structural conditions such as low income, limited parental education, and comparable access to technology do not necessarily lead to similar educational outcomes (see Table 6). Differences are primarily determined by the interaction between habitus and capital. In K1, the presence of symbolic capital in the form of a role model contributes significantly to positive educational outcomes. In K2, the lack of internalized learning dispositions results in partial utilization of available resources. In K3, weak family support and inadequate environmental conditions hinder the development of effective learning practices.

Capital Synergy as a Survival Strategy The findings of this study suggest that, within the specific context of Pasirmae Village, households draw upon the interaction between human capital and social capital to maintain children’s participation in education despite economic constraints. Empirical evidence from interviews and observations indicates that practices such as mutual cooperation (gotong royong), trust-based relationships, and kinship support networks contribute to sustaining everyday learning activities. These patterns are consistent with prior studies emphasizing the role of community cohesion in mitigating structural limitations in rural education (Dufur et al., 2022; Putnam, 2020). However, rather than confirming a generalizable mechanism, the present findings should be understood as context-bound indications derived from a limited number of household cases. At the same time, the data indicate that the presence of strong social relationships does not uniformly correspond with improved educational engagement. In several instances, social support appears to function primarily as a stabilizing factor that maintains participation rather than as a mechanism that enhances learning quality. This observation resonates with existing research suggesting that the effectiveness of social capital depends on the availability and quality of human capital within households (Li & Qiu, 2021; Van der Gaag & Snijders, 2020). For example, interview data describing parental saving practices for children’s education may be interpreted as an emerging orientation toward long- term human capital investment, although the extent of its impact cannot be conclusively established within this study. However, the study also reveals that strong social capital alone is insufficient to ensure upward social mobility through education. Without systematic strengthening of human capital such as structured tutoring, parental guidance, and capacity- building interventions social capital tends to function merely as a coping mechanism rather than a transformative force. This finding aligns with contemporary research indicating that the conversion of social capital into educational outcomes is contingent upon the quality of human capital embedded within households (Li & Qiu, 2021; Van der Gaag & Snijders, 2020). Notably, the practice of small-scale parental savings reflects an emerging awareness of the importance of investing in children’s human capital for long-term mobility.

Empirical Configuration of Human, Social, and Digital Capital The empirical findings from the qualitative case studies suggest that variations in children’s educational outcomes appear to be shaped by the internalization and interaction of human capital and social capital, rather than by income levels or technological access alone (Table 7). Despite relatively homogeneous socio-economic conditions characterized by low parental education, comparable household incomes of approximately IDR 500,000 per week, and limited material facilities substantial divergences are observed in learning practices, particularly regarding motivation and learning autonomy. These patterns may be interpreted as related to the distinct ways in which families mobilize and enact their available resources within specific contextual constraints. In the K1 household (Tatu Mulyana), human capital is strongly internalized, as reflected in intrinsic motivation, independent learning behavior, and high academic achievement. This condition is reinforced by the presence of a lecturer within the extended family, functioning as symbolic capital that shapes educational aspirations. This finding supports Pierre Bourdieu’s argument that symbolic capital can transform economic limitations into cultural advantages through value internalization.

Case Structural Conditions Habitus Characteristics Forms of Capital Identified Educational Outcomes Interpretation K1 Low family income, limited parental education, similar access to technology Strong internalized learning disposition influenced by positive role modeling Symbolic capital through the presence of a role model Positive and consistent educational achievement The integration of symbolic capital strengthens learning motivation and fosters effective educational engagement despite structural limitations. K2 Low family income, limited parental education, similar access to technology Moderately developed learning disposition with inconsistent learning commitment Available educational resources and technological access, but weak internalization Partial educational achievement and inconsistent learning outcomes The absence of strong internalized learning values limits the optimal use of available capital, leading to uneven academic performance. K3 Low family income, limited parental education, similar access to technology, and weak environmental support Weak learning disposition and low academic motivation Minimal family support and limited environmental capital Low educational achievement and ineffective learning practices Insufficient family support and unfavorable environmental conditions restrict the development of productive learning habitus, resulting in suboptimal educational outcomes.

In contrast, the K2 household (Murni) demonstrates partial internalization of human capital. Although access to digital resources is comparable to K1, learning remains dependent on external support, particularly from older siblings. This indicates that digital capital operates primarily as an enabling factor rather than a determinant of educational success. This observation is consistent with critiques of digital determinism, which argue that technology alone does not improve learning outcomes without adequate human capacity and supportive social structures (Livingstone & Helsper, 2020; Selwyn, 2021). In the K3 household (Sipa), weak human capital formation is evident in low motivation, lack of learning independence, and minimal parental involvement. The absence of effective cultural capital transmission within the family constrains the development of an academic habitus. Although digital access is available, its utilization is largely counterproductive, being dominated by entertainment activities. Furthermore, the economic burden of daily internet costs exacerbates household constraints. Structurally, inadequate housing conditions such as the absence of a proper study space further hinder the conversion of social capital into productive human capital, reinforcing educational stagnation.

Social Capital Dynamics: Bonding, Bridging, and Linking From a social capital perspective, the configuration of bonding, bridging, and linking reflects how nuclear family relations and kinship networks function as a social

Capital Dimension Sub-Dimension / Indicator K1 (Tatu Mulyana) K2 (Murni) K3 (Sipa) Analytical Meaning (Academic Interpretation) Human Capital Learning motivation High, intrinsic and self-driven Low, requires external guidance Low, lacks independent learning motivation Human capital in K1 is more internalized as an academic habitus; K2 remains in a stage of structural dependence; K3 shows reliance on external motivation Academic achievement Ranked 3rd in school Not prominent Not prominent Achievement reflects effective accumulation of human capital Learning autonomy Independent Requires guidance from older sibling Requires guidance; lacks learning independence Differences in the quality of self- regulated learning Social Capital – Bonding Parent–child relationship Very strong and supportive Good but limited Weak Bonding social capital in K1 functions optimally in transmitting educational values Sibling relationship Very strong Very strong Good In K2, siblings act as substitutes for parental roles Social Capital – Bridging Relationship with community Very strong (extended family) Very strong (extended family) Very strong (extended family) Community networks create a sense of security and collective support Relationship with other parents Active and harmonious Active and harmonious Harmonious due to kinship ties Strong horizontal social capital in all cases Social Capital – Linking Trust in school High High Moderately high Schools are perceived as legitimate, trust-based institutions Parental participation Moderately active Moderately active Less active Participation is constrained by economic and time limitations Digital Capital Child’s smartphone ownership Available Available Available Digital capital is evenly distributed Usage function Learning media (home-based learning) Learning media (home-based learning) Learning media (home-based learning) Digital capital acts as an enabling factor, not a primary determinant Digital cost burden IDR 5,000/day IDR 5,000/day IDR 5,000/day The digital divide lies in quality of use rather than access

Capital Dimension Sub- Dimension / Indicator K1 (Tatu Mulyana) K2 (Murni) K3 (Sipa) Analytical Meaning (Academic Interpretation) Learning Habitus Study pattern at home Structured and consistent Unstructured Unstructured K1’s habitus aligns with the logic of formal education Bourdieu Typology (Habitus × Capital) + Field Score 28 (High Typology) Score 18 (Moderate Typology) Score 5 (Low Typology) K1 demonstrates more productive learning practices within the educational field Social Implications Social mobility potential High Moderate Low Social capital without strengthening human capital is insufficient to drive upward mobility

infrastructure that shapes trust and norms of reciprocity, which in turn serve as a medium for transmitting educational values and intergenerational social support (Denny Pratama & Lestari, 2020; M. Sari & Wahyudi, 2021). Findings from national studies indicate that family- and community-based social cohesion significantly contributes to the sustainability of educational participation, particularly in contexts characterized by limited access to resources. The interaction between social capital and human capital suggests that the effectiveness of social networks is largely determined by individuals’ capacity to develop cognitive and non-cognitive competencies (du Plooy, 2020; Roskruge, 2024). Empirical studies in the Indonesian educational context demonstrate that without strengthening the quality of human resources, social capital tends to function merely as an adaptive mechanism rather than as an instrument of social transformation (Hidayat & Nugroho, 2020; Kurniawan et al., 2023). Therefore, the integration of individual capacity building and the utilization of social networks becomes a critical prerequisite for improving educational outcomes. Within the dimension of linking social capital, the level of public trust in educational institutions is relatively high; however, this is not always accompanied by optimal levels of participation. Recent national research identifies structural constraints such as household economic pressure, time limitations, and low parental educational literacy as the primary factors inhibiting active engagement in formal education processes (Rahmawati & Putri, 2022; Santoso, 2024). This condition reflects a gap between institutional legitimacy and participatory practices at the community level. Accordingly, optimizing the role of social capital in enhancing educational quality requires an integrated approach that combines the strengthening of human capital with context-sensitive policy interventions. Adaptive strategies aligned with the socio-economic conditions of communities are essential to ensure that social capital functions not merely as a survival mechanism, but also as a catalyst for inclusive and sustainable educational transformation. From a social capital perspective, all three households exhibit relatively strong bonding and bridging social capital. Internal family relationships and extended kinship networks create dense structures of trust and reciprocity. These findings corroborate James Coleman’s thesis that social capital within family and community contexts functions as a mechanism for value transmission and social support across generations. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of social capital varies depending on its interaction with human capital. In K1, social capital acts as an accelerator of human capital development, as family relationships reinforce educational values and long- term aspirations. In K2, social capital primarily functions as a survival mechanism, maintaining educational continuity without significantly enhancing quality or achievement. This suggests that strong social networks alone are insufficient to drive upward mobility in the absence of robust human capital. Linking social capital, reflected in parental trust toward educational institutions, is consistently high across cases. Schools are perceived as legitimate and trustworthy institutions. However, parental participation remains moderate due to economic constraints and time limitations. This indicates a gap between institutional trust and actual engagement, a pattern also identified in recent studies on community-based education in developing contexts (Bank, 2020; OECD, 2021).

Bourdieu’s Typological Analysis: Habitus, Capital, and Field Applying the analytical formulation Habitus × Capital × Field, the study identifies three qualitative patterns of educational practice (Table 8). The results demonstrate that differences in learning outcomes are fundamentally shaped by the interaction between habitus and capital within specific structural conditions. In K1, educational practice attains an optimal level owing to the alignment of a strong learning habitus, integrated capital comprising human, social, and symbolic forms, and a supportive field; despite economic limitations, the internalization of educational values together with symbolic role models fosters effective and independent learning practices. In K2, educational practice remains suboptimal, since the availability of digital capital without a stable habitus engenders dependence on external guidance, thereby confirming that technology does not serve as a primary determinant of educational success. In K3, educational practice is characterized by disruption and stagnation. Weak habitus, limited parental involvement, and inadequate environmental conditions hinder the development of effective learning behaviors. The misuse of digital capital further exacerbates these challenges, illustrating how structural constraints and weak cultural transmission impede the conversion of capital into productive educational outcomes.

Comparative Interpretation and Theoretical Implications The comparative analysis suggests that households with similar structural conditions such as income level, parental education, and access to basic technology may exhibit different educational practices. This observation supports the broader sociological argument that resources do not operate independently but are mediated by dispositions and relational contexts (Lutfi et al., 2023; D. P. Sari et al., 2023). Within this study, habitus appears to play a role in shaping how available resources are interpreted and utilized in everyday learning activities. In terms of theoretical contribution, this study does not propose a new general model of capital interaction but offers a context-specific illustration of how human, social, and digital capital intersect within a rural Indonesian village. The novelty lies in the empirical detailing of these interactions at the household level, particularly the observation that similar levels of access may produce different outcomes depending on patterns of use, relational support, and learning orientation. This contributes modestly to existing literature by providing grounded evidence from a specific setting rather than by advancing a broad theoretical claim. Furthermore, the findings underscore the importance of adopting a strength-based approach in educational interventions. Policies should not be limited to material assistance or technological provision but must prioritize the development of family-based learning environments, the strengthening of educational habitus, and the integration of community-based support systems. Such an approach is consistent with recent global policy frameworks emphasizing holistic and context-sensitive strategies in addressing educational inequality (UNESCO, 2022). Conclusion Based on the results of data analysis and discussion, it can be concluded that educational resilience in the village depends primarily on internal strengths and human capital to mitigate economic constraints; however, as the analysis is confined to one rural locality, the conclusions remain strictly context-bound and are not intended for generalization beyond this specific setting. Students exhibiting strong intrinsic motivation and self- directed learning capacities, such as Tatu Mulyana who attained third rank in his school, achieved relatively stronger academic results, whereas those whose self-motivation was still developing relied on supplementary family support, including guidance from older siblings. Within this localized context, digital capital emerged only as a supporting condition rather than a core finding in sustaining home-based learning. Furthermore, social capital in Pasirmae Village is notably

strong and serves as the primary foundation of the local educational ecosystem. High levels of trust in educational institutions, combined with harmonious relationships among community members rooted in extended family ties, create a conducive environment for children’s development. Within the family structure, the role of parents particularly mothers as primary reminders for completing school assignments represents a tangible manifestation of social capital at the micro level. Despite these strengths, the most significant challenge remains economic in nature. Although there is a strong aspiration to break the cycle of poverty through higher education, low household income (approximately IDR 500,000 per week) constrains parents’ ability to finance future educational needs. Nevertheless, proactive efforts such as independent savings initiatives reflect a long-term investment orientation among families. Overall, the optimization of human capital and social capital in Pasirmae Village operates synergistically, where limitations in physical infrastructure are compensated by strong social networks and individual commitment. Future strategies for sustainable rural educational development should prioritize strengthening parental mentoring capacities and fostering more structured integration of technology to address financial constraints. Given the relatively intensive use of smartphones among village students for home-based learning, it is recommended that local governments or schools establish community-based digital learning centers to reduce the burden of daily internet expenses currently faced by families.

References

Aprillia, M. P., & Iryanti, S. S. (2024). REVITALISASI PENDIDIKAN ISLAM DI ERA DIGITAL: MEMBANGUN KESEIMBANGAN ANTARA TRADISI DAN INOVASI. AL-MUADDIB: Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Kependidikan, 6(1), 25–44.

Aseri, S. M., & Amos, O. (2025). Impact of Curriculum Reform Strategies in Enhancing Academic Achievement in Public Secondary Schools in Morogoro Municipality, Tanzania. International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Research Studies, 5(1), 19–24.

Bank, W. (2020). Realizing the future of learning: From learning poverty to learning for everyone, everywhere. World Bank Publications.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood Press.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.

Denny Pratama, L., & Lestari, W. (2020). PENGARUH PELATIHAN TERHADAP KOMPETENSI PEDAGOGIK GURU MATEMATIKA. 04(01), 278–285. du Plooy, D. R. (2020). Social Capital and the Well-Being of Migrants to Australia: Exploring the Role of Generalised Trust and Social Network Resources. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 79, 1–12.

Dufur, M. J., Parcel, T. L., & Troutman, K. P. (2022). Does capital at home matter more than capital at school? Social capital effects on academic achievement. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 78, 100678.

Emery, M., & Flora, C. (2020). Spiraling-up: Mapping community transformation with community capitals framework. Community Development, 51(3), 299–312.

Green, G. P., & Haines, A. (2016). Asset building and community development (4th ed.). Sage.

Group, W. B. (2020). EdTech in Indonesia – Ready for take-off?

Hidayat, A., & Nugroho, Y. (2020). Peran modal manusia dan modal sosial dalam meningkatkan kualitas pendidikan di Indonesia. Jurnal Pendidikan Indonesia, 9(2), 115–128.

Kurniawan, D., Setiawan, B., & Ramadhan, F. (2023). Social capital and human capital integration in improving educational outcomes. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, 29(1), 45–59.

Li, X., & Qiu, Z. (2021). Social capital and educational outcomes: Evidence from rural households. International Journal of Educational Development, 85, 102444.

Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2020). Parenting in the digital age: The challenges of parental mediation. Journal of Children and Media, 14(1), 1–17.

Lutfi, A., Hidayat, T., Suklani, Ahsan, Kardipah, S., & Nugroho, W. (2023). PROFESIONALISME GURU DALAM PENGEMBANGAN MEDIA : STUDI LITERATUR ATAS MEDIA MICROSOFT TEAM SEBAGAI PLATFORM PEMBELAJARAN. JURNAL JISPENDIORA, 2(1), 33–47. OECD. (2021). Education at a Glance 2021: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing.

Putnam, R. D. (2020). The upswing: How America came together a century ago and how we can do it again. Simon & Schuster.

Rahmawati, D., & Putri, A. (2022). Kepercayaan masyarakat dan partisipasi pendidikan: Analisis modal sosial. Jurnal Kebijakan Pendidikan, 14(2), 89–102.

Reay, D. (2020). Social mobility and the role of education: Reconsidering Bourdieu. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 41(3), 352–368.

Rodríguez, M., & Núñez, J. (2021). Social capital and educational outcomes in disadvantaged contexts. Educational Studies, 47(5), 567–584.

Roskruge, M. (2024). The Relationship between Social Capital and Migrant Integration: Discussion of Bonding/Bridging Capital Effects. In Econstor Working Papers.

Santoso, H. (2024). Hambatan struktural dalam partisipasi pendidikan keluarga di Indonesia. Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Pembangunan, 12(1), 1–15.

Sari, D. P., Sapriya, & Wiyanarti, E. (2023). Social studies learning as a space for identity construction and social awareness development in elementary education. Jurnal Pendidikan Ilmu Sosial, 32(1), 15–26.

Sari, M., & Wahyudi, T. (2021). Modal sosial dalam pendidikan berbasis keluarga dan komunitas. Jurnal Pendidikan Sosial, 11(2), 67–80.

Selwyn, N. (2021). Education and technology: Key issues and debates (3rd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.

Suryadarma, D., & Jones, G. W. (2021). Education in Indonesia: Trends, disparities, and policy challenges. Asian Population Studies, 17(1), 1–15.

Syafii, M. H., Purnomo, H., & Rahmatullah, A. S. (2025). Inclusive education and social transformation: Analysing the role of education policy in increasing equality among rural students in Indonesia. Educational Research for Social Change, 14(1), 43–69. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15311475

Tan, C., Liu, H., & Zhao, Y. (2023). Social capital and school effectiveness in rural areas: Evidence from developing countries. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 53(4), 689–706. UNESCO. (2022). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO Publishing. Van der Gaag, M., & Snijders, T. A. B. (2020). The resource generator: Social capital quantification with concrete items. Social Networks, 62, 53–64.

Wahyudi, T., & Kurniawan, D. (2023). Strengthening rural education through community-based approaches in Indonesia. Journal of Rural Studies, 95, 45–56. Yasya, N., Maharani, B. A., Ardiansyah, Nabiila. P., Sabelia, A., & Hidayat, T. (2022). Risk and Return of Sustainable Awarded Company: Comparison between Stock Index Sri-Kehati and LQ45. Jurnal Keuangan Dan Perbankan, 19(1), 37–50.