The integration of digital tools into mathematics instruction is crucial for enhancing students’ understanding and engagement with mathematical concepts. While research highlights the importance of teachers in using technology’s affordances, studies indicate that many educators still use digital tools in predominantly teacher-centred ways, focusing more on demonstration than interactive learning (Batane & Ngwako, 2016; Bice & Tang, 2022; Kurt, 2012).

Pedagogic orientation influences instructional decisions (Hughes et al., 2019; Polly et al., 2013). Teacher-centred approaches follow a transmission-based model, where educators take a directive role in delivering content, structuring resources, and providing explicit instruction. In contrast, student-centred approaches, grounded in constructivist principles, prioritise student engagement, collaboration, and conceptual exploration (Pampaka et al., 2012; Polly et al., 2013; Swan, 2006). Although research suggests that pedagogic orientation shapes teaching practices, its impact on teachers' decisions regarding technology use remains underexplored. Additionally, most existing studies were conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic, making their findings less applicable to the evolving post-pandemic educational landscape (Brestcher, 2021; Petko, 2012). Furthermore, comparative studies across different educational systems are still limited.

This study examines the relationship between mathematics teachers' pedagogic orientation—whether teacher- or student-centred—and their technology use in classrooms in Slovenia and Türkiye. Both countries face similar challenges, such as technical difficulties, limited professional development, and a lack of teacher confidence in effectively integrating technology. However, their national approaches to educational technology differ. Türkiye has implemented centralised ICT infrastructure projects, whereas Slovenia places greater emphasis on open-source tools and flexible curriculum integration. These differing strategies raise questions about their influence on teachers’ technology use. Given this context, we aim to address the following questions research questions: (1) What types of technology do mathematics teachers in Slovenia and Türkiye frequently use, and how often? (2) Is there a correlation between teachers’ pedagogic orientation and their frequency of technology use?

We hypothesise that Turkish teachers will use smart screens more frequently than Slovenian teachers due to their greater availability in Türkiye. Conversely, Slovenian teachers are expected to rely more on data projectors. Additionally, given the emphasis on calculator use in Slovenian mathematics curricula, Slovenian teachers are anticipated to use calculators more frequently than their Turkish counterparts. However, no specific hypotheses are made regarding the use of various software tools (e.g., computer algebra systems, dynamic geometry software, or programmable robots) due to limited prior research in this area. Nevertheless, we assume that teachers in both countries will incorporate educational software occasionally, with the exception of AI and programmable robotics tools, which are expected to be rarely used given their relatively recent introduction into mathematics education. We predict that student-centred teachers will integrate technology more frequently than teacher-centred educators, particularly with software applications that facilitate interactive and exploratory learning, such as dynamic geometry tools (based on Bretscher’s (2021) findings).

This study employed a descriptive, cross-sectional, correlational design to examine mathematics teachers’ use of technology in Slovenia and Türkiye. The sample included 179 Slovenian and 1810 Turkish lower and upper secondary mathematics teachers, recruited online through professional networks and social media. One Slovenian teacher was excluded from the study due to incomplete responses. Participants completed the adapted “Using ICT to Investigate Mathematical Knowledge in Teaching” survey (Bretscher, 2021) online, which was modified to include country-specific software and an additional section on mobile device usage. The survey, translated into Slovenian and Turkish, was piloted before administration. The final online survey included four sections: (A) access to technology (reported elsewhere), (B) frequency and impact of technology use, (C) pedagogic practices, and (D) demographics. The Rasch model was applied to analyse pedagogic practices, measuring teacher-centered versus student-centered orientations. Analyses were conducted in R using the TAM package, which accounted for missing data. Teachers' pedagogy scores were then imported into SPSS with AMOS 29. Descriptive statistics were used to examine technology use frequency, and bivariate correlations assessed relationships between pedagogic orientation, technology use, and technology-supported teaching practices. Welch’s t-tests compared Slovenian and Turkish teachers’ technology use and pedagogic practices.

Mathematics teachers' use of technology in Slovenia and Türkiye varies in both frequency and type. We found that Turkish teachers generally integrate hardware and software slightly more often than their Slovenian counterparts. A key finding of this study is the relationship between pedagogic orientation and technology use—teachers who adopt a student-centred approach tend to use technology more frequently in mathematics instruction (Bretscher, 2021; Li et al., 2018). However, certain tools, such as data projectors in Slovenia and smart screens in Türkiye, do not show this pattern, suggesting that the relationship between pedagogic orientation and technology might be influenced by other contextual factors (such as availability). Additionally, Turkish teachers engage more with technology in classroom practices, such as preparing presentations and controlling software on IWBs, whereas some instructional methods, like providing detailed software instructions, do not differ between the two countries. The study highlights that contextual factors, including national education policies, curriculum requirements, and teacher demographics (e.g. age), influence technology use (Clark-Wilson et al., 2023; Drijvers et al., 2014). For instance, the higher prevalence of smart screens in Turkish classrooms aligns with greater government investment in educational technology, while Slovenian teachers' frequent use of calculators reflects specific curriculum expectations. Our findings indicate that the concept of pedagogic orientation, as measured in this study, does not always translate effectively across different educational contexts. Some survey items did not function as intended, highlighting potential limitations in how these constructs were assessed. Additionally, we believe that categorising technology use strictly as teacher- or student-centred may oversimplify its role in instruction. Future research should develop more refined measures of pedagogic orientation. Moreover, software tools such as dynamic software, computer algebra systems, and programmable robots remain underused for mathematics teaching. This trend, observed in both countries, highlights persistent challenges in integrating technology meaningfully into mathematics education.

Batane, T., & Ngwako, A. (2016). Technology use by pre-service teachers during teaching practice: Are new teachers embracing technology right away in their first teaching experience? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 48–61. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2299 Bice, H., & Tang, H. (2022). Teachers’ beliefs and practices of technology integration at a school for students with dyslexia: A mixed methods study. Education and Information Technologies, 27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11044-1 Bretscher, N. (2021). Challenging assumptions about relationships between mathematics pedagogy and ICT integration: Surveying teachers in English secondary schools. Research in Mathematics Education, 23(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2020.1830156 Clark-Wilson, A., Robutti, O., & Sinclair, N. (Eds.). (2023). The mathematics teacher in the digital era: International research on professional learning and practice. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05254-5 Drijvers, P., Monaghan, J., Thomas, M., & Trouche, L. (2014). Use of technology in secondary mathematics: Final report for the International Baccalaureate. International Baccalaureate. Hughes, P., Swars Auslander, S., Stinson, D. W., & Fortner, C. K. (2019). Elementary teachers’ mathematical beliefs and mathematics anxiety: How do they shape instructional practices? School Science and Mathematics, 119(4), 213–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12329 Kurt, S. (2012). Examining teachers’ use of computer-based technologies: A case study. Education and Information Technologies, 18(4), 557–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9199-7 Li, Y., Garza, V., Keicher, A., & Popov, V. (2018). Predicting high school teacher use of technology: Pedagogical beliefs, technological beliefs and attitudes, and teacher training. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9355-2 Pampaka, M., Williams, J., Hutcheson, G., Wake, G., Black, L., Davis, P., & Hernandez-Martinez, P. (2012). The association between mathematics pedagogy and learners’ dispositions for university study. British Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 473–496. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23211458 Petko, D. (2012). Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their use of digital media in classrooms: Sharpening the focus of the “will, skill, tool” model and integrating teachers’ constructivist orientations. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1351–1359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.013 Polly, D., McGee, J. R., Wang, C., Lambert, R. G., Pugalee, D. K., & Johnson, S. (2013). The association between teachers’ beliefs, enacted practices, and student learning in mathematics. Mathematics Educator, 22(2), 11–30. Swan, M. (2006). Designing and using research instruments to describe the beliefs and practices of mathematics teachers. Research in Education, 75(1), 58–70. https://doi.org/10.7227/rie.75.5