Given the ongoing advancement of technology across many areas, the use of technology has become not only a significant tool, but an inevitable component of education. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 2000) underlines the importance of technology in mathematics education as follows: “technology is essential in teaching and learning mathematics; it influences the mathematics that is taught and enhances students’ learning” (p. 11). Although there is an increasing access to technology in classrooms, mathematics teachers have difficulty in integrating it into their teaching practices (Erduran & Ince, 2018). Teachers’ knowledge determines how effectively technology is used during instruction (Guerrero, 2010). Therefore, mathematics teachers should be equipped with the necessary knowledge and the positive stance to arrange an effective utilization of technology in supporting students’ learning.

What teachers’ knowledge should encompass has been the subject of many studies. Shulman (1987) proposed that approaching to content and pedagogy as separate entities in education is inadequate, and instead, integration and balance between the two must be achieved. Thus, Shulman (1987) offered pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Subsequent studies, building upon Shulman’s conceptualization of PCK, have associated technology with the discussion of teacher knowledge. For example, Niess (2005) abbreviated technology-enhanced PCK as TPCK. Similarly, Koehler and Mishra (2005) used TPCK to refer to the term “technological pedagogical content knowledge” which presents how teachers’ understanding of technologies and pedagogical content knowledge interact with one another to produce effective teaching with technology. Then, in 2007, TPCK was changed to TPACK, to make it a more easily pronounced and remembered term (Angeli &Valanides, 2015).

If a teacher is competent in using technology but lacks the ability to transfer this knowledge effectively during teaching or to integrate technology with the content, there is an issue related to TPACK (Hew & Brush, 2007; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). From the perspective of mathematics, teachers should have necessary TPACK in all areas of mathematics, such as numbers and geometry. According to Mathematics Education in Europe report (2011), numbers, algebra, data and chance, and geometry are the areas of mathematics which are widely presented in the curricula of European countries. Compared to these areas, probability is stated as a less frequent one. Similarly, NCTM (2000) stated that number and operations, algebra, geometry, measurement, and data analysis and probability are the main contents of mathematics. In this respect, mathematics teachers should not see technology as “a way to keep kids busy” (Hew & Brush, 2007, p. 229), but have high self-efficacy related to their TPACK in different areas of mathematics. Since self-efficacy is a domain-specific construct (Pajares, 1996), the purpose of this study is to investigate whether mathematics teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs toward TPACK differ across the areas of mathematics.

According to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy, which is a central aspect of social cognitive theory, is a concept related to perceived capability. In more detail, self-efficacy is defined as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p.3). Self-efficacy covers some distinctive features. One of the features is that self-efficacy includes judgments of capabilities to perform activities rather than personal characteristics. Another feature is that self-efficacy measures are not only domain-specific but also context-specific. For example, a student may have lower self-efficacy about learning in a competitive classroom than in a cooperative classroom. In addition, self-efficacy beliefs are multidimensional so that they vary across specific tasks within a particular domain (Zimmerman & Cleary, 2006).

By considering these points, the research question is given below.

Do self-efficacy beliefs of mathematics teachers regarding their technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) vary across the areas of mathematics?

Since the purpose of the study is to investigate whether mathematics teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs toward their TPACK differ in the areas of mathematics, it is needed to focus on each area of mathematics thoroughly. Thus, this study used multiple-case holistic design based on the classification of Yin (2014) and each mathematics teacher constitutes a case. The participants were selected based on the purposive sampling. The first criterion is to select mathematics teachers who graduated from the same university. Hence, they would have similar backgrounds in terms of the undergraduate courses. Another criterion is related to their years of teaching experience. Based on these criteria, two mathematics teachers who have one year-experience and two mathematics teachers who have five year-experience were determined as participants. To ensure teaching experience criterion, data will be collected at the end of the spring semester of 2022-2003 academic year. To collect data, items which are directly related to TPACK and self-efficacy from some highly used instruments in the literature (e.g., Canbazoğlu-Bilici, Yamak, Kavak, & Guzey, 2013; Schmidt et al., 2009) were adapted for the interviews. During the interview, three sections will be followed. In the first section of the interview, some questions related to personal information will be asked. Then, TPACK and self-efficacy focused questions for each area of mathematics (numbers, algebra, geometry, measurement, statistics and probability) will be asked. For example, mathematics teachers will be asked whether they can use technological tools to determine students’ misconceptions in geometry. Depending on the answer, they will be asked to give an example and explain their reason in detail. In the last section, students will be asked to compare their TPACK with respect to the areas of mathematics. In data analysis, six steps which are presented by Creswell (2013) will be used. In more detail, the data will be prepared for analysis and read to have a general idea. Based on data, codes and themes will be formed. Then, which themes will be represented will be selected and the results will be interpreted.

In this section, the expected outcomes of the study are presented. According to Bandura (1997), individuals’ self-efficacy beliefs are shaped by various factors such as experience, observation, and the opinions of others. This study involves mathematics teachers from different years of teaching experience. It is expected that mathematics teachers with one year-experience will have lower self-efficacy compared to others since they may not have chance to try their ideas regarding technology integration in practice. In addition, there are many technological tools in geometry such GeoGebra, Cabri, and Geometer’s Sketchpad. Mathematics teacher might have more experience in using some open-source software such as GeoGebra. Thus, the participants might present high self-efficacy for geometry compared to other areas of mathematics. During the interviews, mathematics teachers in this study will be asked to give examples which are particular to the area of mathematics at stake after TPACK and self-efficacy related questions. This part is expected to present rich data for the purpose of the study. In this respect, the participants will be provided a computer during the interviews.

Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2015). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring, developing, and assessing TPCK. Springer. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York : W.H. Freeman. Canbazoğlu-Bilici, S., Yamak, H., Kavak, N., & Guzey, S.S. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge self-efficacy scale (TPACK-SeS) for preservice science teachers: Construction, validation and reliability. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 52, 37-60. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. New York, NY: SAGE Publications, Inc. Erduran, A. & Ince, B. (2018). Identifying mathematics teachers’ difficulties in technology integration in terms of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK). International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 4(2), 555-576. Guerrero, S. (2010). Technological pedagogical content knowledge in the mathematics classroom. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 26(4), 132-139. Hew, K. & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223-252. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152. Mathematics Education in Europe Common Challenges and National Policies (2011). The Education Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency: Brussell. Retrieved from https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/3532f22d-eea2-4bb2-941b-959ddec61810 Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM. Niess, M.L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509–523. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Academic Settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543-578. Schmidt, D.A., Baran, E., Thompson, A.D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J., & Shin, T.S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 12-149. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22. Yin. R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Zimmerman, B. & Cleary, T. (2006). Adolescents’ development of personal agency: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and self-regulatory skill. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.). Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (45-69). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.