General description on research questions

Norwegian schools have undergone major digitalization over the past 20 years. Digital competence was introduced as a basic skill in the National Curriculum in 2006 (The Ministry of Education and research, 2006; The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2019). The basic skills are defined as necessary tools for learning and development across all subjects, as stated in the Framework for basic skills (The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2017).

Today there is a one-to-one coverage of digital tools in over 90 % Norwegian schools, but we have a growing debate about the use of the digital tools in schools and the daily life of the students. The last years a group of people selected by the government have looked at the use of screens for children aged 0-19, and the group came with their advice in November 2024 (NOU 2024: 20, ch. 1). One advice was to have a more well thought out use of screens in schools.  

The use of digital tools in schools is regulated by the teachers. In Norwegian schools we have a majority of general teachers in the lower grades. The number of subject teachers is increasing as we move up the grades.

The research question of this study is: How do Norwegian teachers in primary and lower secondary schools reason for the use of digital tools in mathematics education?

Theoretical framework

Shulman (1986) introduced the idea that knowledge content and the pedagogical approach should be both taken into consideration in teaching, also from the teacher’s perspective and not only from the learner's perspective. According to Shulman (1986), teachers must have special knowledge of what is to be taught as well as which pedagogical adaptations should be made for them to succeed in their profession. Shulman called the interaction between content and pedagogical knowledge pedagogical content knowledge (PCK).

Several years later as technology became a natural part of teaching and learning in many classrooms, Koehler and Mishra (2009) extended the PCK model with the component technological knowledge. According to Koehler and Mishra appropriate educational use of technology requires the development of a complex, situated form of knowledge. They further describe that this model has three main components that deal with the teacher's professional, pedagogical, and technological competence, called the TPACK model (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).

The TPACK model emphasizes the teacher's reasons for the interaction between and the complexity of the three main components (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Especially the interaction with all three components, TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) is interesting for our research focus.

Another framework that focuses on the role of digital tools in education, called the SAMR model (Puentedura, 2010), describes four levels of technology integration in classroom activities – substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition.

The four levels in the SAMR-model:

Substitution - tech acts as a direct tool substitute, with no functional change

Augmentation - tech acts as a direct tool substitute, with functional improvement

Modification - tech allows for significant task redesign

Redefinition - tech allows for the creation of new tasks, previously inconceivable

Since the model focuses on what the digital tool offers, and thereby how the students use the tool, we find that it is suitable for classroom observation.

The participants in this study are teachers from two schools in Norway, one primary school with approximately 75 students and 15 teachers (School 1) and one lower secondary school with approximately 300 students and 30 teachers (School 2). The data from School 1 were collected in 2023-2024 and the data from School 2 were collected in 2024-2025. At the start of the project at each school we observed each math teacher for at least one lesson, where we observed and analyzed the digital tools used by the students according to the SAMR model (Puentedura, 2010). We carried out unstructured observations (Given, 2008), where we observed at math education in general and more specifically the use of digital tools. During the observations we documented as much as possible in our field notes. The notes were in a narrative style. Our role in the observations was neither complete observer nor complete participant. The role might best be defined as observer as participant (Given, 2008), as our presence in the classroom influenced the students. This data collection was conducted in August 2023 for School 1 and September 2024 for School 2. The data gathered from the lesson observations as well as observation of several meetings among the teachers at each school, were used to develop an interview guide for conducting teacher interviews. Two focus group interviews (Chrzanowska, 2002) with five teachers in total from School 1 were conducted in January 2024. Teachers from grades 1, 2, and 3 participated in one group, and the teachers from grades 5 to 7 in the other group. In January 2025 two focus group interviews with a total of four teachers from school 2 were conducted, where all the teachers taught at that point or have recently taught math in all grades from grade 8 to grade 10. We analyzed the data by using the presented theoretical concepts, and we also open for what the material could inform us about beyond these concepts, thus being abductive in the analyzing process (Alveson & Sköldberg, 2009).

In all math classes that were observed at School 1, the use of digital tools was similar. Students in the same class used the same app, and this was initiated by the teacher. All the apps we observed contained gamification elements and served the purpose of training on already taught content. Seen from a learning mathematics perspective the tools did not offer any functional improvement. We categorize the use of digital tools at School 1 as substitution, according to the SAMR model. The uncritical use of digital tools also emerges in the teachers’ interviews. Their reasoning was not connected to the mathematical content (content knowledge in Figure 1). The teachers’ reasoning was mostly connected to the student's motivation. We categorize this as pedagogical content. In general, the results show that the teachers at School 1 have low TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge). In School 2 we observed different use of digital tools. In example one, all students in the class and the teacher worked with the same app. The teacher taught both new mathematical content and introduced an unfamiliar digital tool. In example two, all the students in the classroom worked on the same digital tool for repetition. In the third example, only a few of the students in the class chose to use digital tools when they solved problems. We categorize the observed use of digital tools as redefinition and substitution. In the interviews, the teachers have a clear approach to the use of digital tools. “It depends on the content,” one teacher said. Further into the interview, it becomes clear that this kind of use was where the teacher values that the digital tool offers greater possibilities to understand the mathematical content. In general, the results show that the teachers at School 2 have high TPACK.

Alvesson, M. & Sköldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive Methodology: 2 new vistas for qualitative research (2. ed.). Sage Publishing. Chrzanowska, J. (2002). Interviewing groups and individuals in qualitative market research (Vol. 2). Sage. Given, L. M. (Ed.) (2008). The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. (Vols. 1-0). SAGE Publications, Inc., https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909 Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 9(1), 60-70. Puentedura, R. (2010). SAMR and TPCK: Intro to advanced practice. In. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.2307/1175860 The Ministry of Education and research. (2006). Læreplanverket for Kunnskapsløftet (Midlertidig utg. juni 2006. ed.). The Ministry of Education and research; The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2017). Framework for basics skills. www.udir.no Retrieved from https://www.udir.no/laring-og-trivsel/rammeverk/rammeverk-for-grunnleggende-ferdigheter/ The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2019). Læreplanverket Kunnskapsløftet 2020. Retrieved from https://www.udir.no/laring-og-trivsel/lareplanverket/