Technology integration in mathematics education has been studied for many years. These studies have a general acceptance that there is no single way of mathematics education and teaching with technology. There are many technological tools used in mathematics education in the literature. The main problem is how the mathematics teacher will use or integrate technological tools (Hunter 2015; Kimmons et al., 2020; Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Previous research on technology integration has been focused on different aspects of integration of technology such as students’ characteristics (Kimmons et al., 2020), teachers’ characteristics (Koehler & Mishra, 2009), technological tools or teaching environment (Hunter 2015). PICRAT model uses a matrix to show the students’ role in technology-integrated instruction and teachers’ practices for technology integration in their instruction. The levels of teachers’ technology integration can be examined clearly in the PICRAT model (Kimmons et al., 2020).

Self-regulation is one of the significant areas in investigating how teachers integrate technology. Zimmerman (2000) defines self-regulation as “self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions that are planned and cyclically adapted to the attainment of personal goals” (p. 14). Individuals set their goals, monitor and control their behaviors, thoughts and feelings, and make self-reflection themselves. There is limited research on teacher self-regulation for teaching (Capa Aydin et al., 2009; Capa Aydın & Uzuntiryaki Kondakci, 2014; Järvenoja & Järvelä, 2016; Zakaria & Maarof, 2010). In the literature, there was not a consensus on the terminology on teacher self-regulation strategies that used in teaching, but in this study, I will use “teacher self-regulation” for teachers’ self-regulation strategies for their teaching.  In addition, teacher self-regulation is significant in technological integration environments to regulate both their own actions and beliefs about teaching content and about technological tools.

In light of gaps in the literature about technology integration, in this study, I will investigate the technology integration of teachers who integrate technology into their instructional design by using the PICRAT model. In addition, for a significant contribution to teacher self-regulation for mathematics teaching, I will examine their self-regulation strategies for teaching by adapting Zimmerman’s self-regulation model to teacher self-regulation. According to these goals, the research question is “How do middle school mathematics teacher self-regulation strategies interact with technology-integrated instructional design and implementation?”

This study is a qualitative research study. Specifically, the design of this study is a case study. Case studies give an in-depth description and detailed analysis of a bounded system (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). As a bounded system (Yin, 2014), in this study, mathematics teachers who integrate technology in their teaching will be selected as participants to investigate their teacher self-regulation for teaching. For this study, a middle school mathematics teacher is selected to investigate technology integration and self-regulation for teaching. Participant who teaches mathematics in a public school was selected. Elif was graduated from Boğaziçi University with honors degree. She took her master’s degree at Bogaziçi University. She mentioned some educational technology tools such as Geogebra, Geometric Sketchpad, Cabri, and articulate storyline that she learned in university education. She had four years of teaching experience in one school and it as her first year in the second school. In this school, number of students in each class is around 40, so classes are very crowded. The school has lower-level students’ achievement. In the data collection process, an introduction interview was conducted with a participant to understand the participant’s general ideas about technology integration and self-regulation strategies for teaching. Elif designed five instructions, each 40 minutes long. In each instruction, before the lesson, semi-structured pre-interviews were conducted. Each instruction was recorded for data analysis. Upon completion of each instruction, semi-structured post-interviews were conducted with the participants. The introduction interview, pre-interview, and post-interview questions were prepared based on the PICRAT model and Zimmerman’s self-regulation model. In this study, the open coding strategy was used to analyze data. All videos of the instructions and interviews were transcribed and then we started to analyze data to investigate the technology integration of participants in different parts of the instructional design. Some data chunks that include participant's significant ideas were determined. These data chunks can be a word, a sentence, or a paragraph. After reading and determining significant parts of the data, we found data that had similar content to labeled them in a code. To understand the technology integration of the participants, we placed the codes in the PICRAT matrix to create categories by using the codes. In addition, all data were analyzed based on the categories in the Zimmerman’s self-regulation model.

Elif designed four technology-integrated instructions using Geogebra, Phet, the Education Information Network (EBA) provided by Ministry of Education, and a smart notebook accessible digitally on the smartboard and in printed form for students. During the pre-interview she emphasized the importance of mathematical topic, yet her main focus was on the students’ needs and characteristics. Data showed that she integrated technology at a maximum level of interactive-amplification level in the PICRAT matrix. Her main purpose in her technology integration is not to use technology as a goal but to use it as a tool to help students participate in the instruction and learn more permanently. To gain deeper insights beyond determining the level of technology integration, Elif's self-regulation strategies and the perspective from which she positions technology in her instructions were investigated. Elif showed the goal setting, strategic planning and self-motivation beliefs strategies during the planning process. During the planning and implementation and self-evaluation process, Elif focused on both students’ needs and her technology integration. Elif made a self-evaluation based on the feedback she received from students and her own self-observations while making causal attributions. Elif explained of her success in technology integration with reasons that depend more on herself rather than on external reasons. By using her self-observation for technology-integrated instruction, she decided to investigate more tools and try the tools in detail before the instruction to make the topic more concrete and increase students’ participation in instruction. All data indicated that teacher’s self-regulation in technology-integrated instructional design is significant for effective technology integration. In future studies, the question of which self-regulation strategies teachers should use in the planning, implementation and self-evaluation stages for effective technology integration in teaching can be examined in more detail.

Capa-Aydin, Y., Sungur, S., & Uzuntiryaki, E. (2009). Teacher self-regulation: Examining a multidimensional construct. Educational Psychology, 29(3), 345–356. doi:10.1080/01443410902927825 Capa Aydın, Y., & Uzuntiryaki Kondakci, E. (2014). Öğretmen Özdüzenlemesi. In G. Sakız (Ed.), Özdüzenleme-Öğrenmeden Öğretime Özdüzenleme Davranışlarının Gelişimi, Stratejiler ve Öneriler (pp. 217–228). Ankara, Turkey: Anı Yayıncılık. Hunter, J. (2015). Technology Integration and High Possibility Classrooms: Building from TPACK (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315769950. Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S. (2016). Socially shared regulation of learning in collaborative groups: A reciprocal perspective. Frontline Learning Research, 4(2), 20-37. Kimmons, R., Graham, C. R., & West, R. E. (2020). The PICRAT model for technology integration in teacher preparation. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 20(1). https://citejournal.org/volume-20/issue-1-20/general/the-picrat-model-for-technology-integration-in-teacher-preparation. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70. Zakaria, E., & Maarof, N. (2010). The Instructional Self-Regulation Model: A model of teacher self-regulation in the instructional process. Journal of Educational Psychology and Counseling, 2(4), 67–86. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). “Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective,” in Handbook of Self-Regulation, eds M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner (San Diego, CA: Academic Press), 13–40. doi: 10.1016/b978-012109890-2/50031-7.