Over the last thirty years, the incorporation of digital technologies into mathematics education has attracted substantial attention (Borba, 2021; Clark-Wilson et al., 2014). Digital tools are viewed as valuable for boosting student motivation and promoting a more robust understanding of mathematical ideas (Hohenwarter et al., 2010). These technologies have to potential to enable the creation of dynamic, interactive, and engaging learning experiences for students (Lavicza et al., 2020), with researchers strongly supporting their integration into mathematics education at all educational levels (Clark-Wilson & Hoyles, 2017).

Despite these efforts, effectively integrating technology into mathematics education remains a challenge for governments and teachers. Many teachers either use digital tools sporadically or fail to make use of the full potential that they offer (Bretscher, 2015). In Türkiye, for example, only 58.7% of teachers report using digital tools such as computers or interactive whiteboards (IWBs) (Kocak & Gülcü, 2013). Additionally, teachers face challenges such as technical issues, limited access to digital content, and a lack of confidence and expertise in effectively using technology (Kocak & Gülcü, 2013).

Türkiye, as a developing country, has made efforts to integrate technology into education through large-scale initiatives, such as the Ministry of National Education’s (MoNE) technology investment program, which provided schools nationwide with tablets and IWBs (Tolu, 2014). The Turkish government’s focus has been on equipping schools with hardware, managing e-content, embedding ICT into curricula, providing professional development to teachers, and ensuring the effective use of technology in the classroom. However, studies indicate that teachers continue to face barriers in adopting these tools meaningfully (e.g., Kocak & Gülcü, 2013).

Given these persistent challenges, it is crucial to investigate the reasons why mathematics teachers use digital technologies in the classroom, how they incorporate the technologies, what knowledge they require for successful integration, and what barriers they encounter. This study focuses on two cases of Turkish mathematics teachers who were given the freedom to choose the topic and technology they wished to use.

Conceptual Framework

The Structuring Features of Classroom Practice (SFCP) framework provides a comprehensive approach to understanding how teachers integrate technology into the actual classroom through five key dimensions (Ruthven, 2014): Working environment, Resource system, Activity format, Curriculum script, and Time economy. Unlike the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework widely used in the literature (Koehler & Mishra, 2009), which emphasises distinguishing different types of knowledge, the SFCP framework offers a more practical lens for examining technology integration and their associated expertise in real classroom settings (Ruthven, 2014).

In this work, we focus on the resource system dimension of the SFCP. The resource system in a technology-enriched classroom involves teachers using technology alongside other teaching resources to enhance students’ understanding. Teachers need to understand the unique affordances of digital technologies and use them to support mathematical learning, particularly in helping students grasp mathematical concepts. Teachers are encouraged to explain the mathematical connections between different representations in the digital tools and to highlight how dynamic values affect these representations. Additionally, they are expected to be mindful of when to use digital tools during different phases of a lesson, such as extending ideas, addressing misconceptions, or forming and testing conjectures. Part of an ongoing study, this research explores the affordances that teachers identify in digital mathematical tools and the factors influencing their selection of specific tools for classroom use, answering the question: “What affordances do mathematics teachers identify in digital mathematical tools, and what factors influence their selection of specific tools for classroom use?”.

Participants: This study involved two Turkish lower secondary teachers: Sara, aged 31-40, with 16-25 years of teaching experience and a Master’s in Education, and Gamze, also aged 31-40, with 10-15 years of teaching experience and a BA in Mathematics Education. Data Collection: Classroom observations and teacher interviews were the primary data collection methods in this study. The participant teachers were observed using various technologies (hardware such as IWBs, smart screens, data projectors, laptops, tablets, and software like dynamic geometry software, computer algebra systems, and Open Education Resource (OER) platforms) to support students’ understanding of mathematical concepts. A non-participant observation approach (Yin, 2014) was adopted, guided by the SFCP framework. An observation protocol was developed based on the five dimensions of the SFCP framework, with prompt questions to guide the observations. Each teacher was observed across four lessons, lasting 30 to 40 minutes each. Observations were conducted from the back or side of the classroom to minimise disruption. Interviews: Semi-structured post-lesson interviews were conducted with the teachers to explore their perceptions, intentions, and reflections on their observed practices. The interviews took place after each lesson or after two consecutive lessons. All interviews were audio-recorded. Context for Teachers: Sara and Gamze had varying experiences with technology. Both integrated technology into their teaching (primarily hardware) but expressed lower confidence with more complex tools like GeoGebra. Both valued the potential of technologies for mathematics education but recognized a need for professional development to use advanced tools more effectively. In their observed lessons, Sara taught 5th-grade students, focusing on measurement concepts, including the perimeter of geometric shapes and time. Gamze also taught 5th grade, covering measurement and perimeter concepts, and extending to the properties of 3D shapes. Both teachers used technology such as smart screens for teaching and presenting content, along with the government-initiated open resource platform (Eğitim Bilişim Ağı: EBA) to access videos and tasks. However, student access to individual digital devices like laptops or tablets was limited in the classroom. Analysis: The ongoing analysis involved creating detailed narratives from audio recordings and notes, focusing on lessons with digital technology. Directed content analysis, guided by the SFCP framework, was used to identify themes from previous research and refine them through an iterative process. The final coding scheme included both predetermined and newly identified themes related to the SFCP dimensions. Preliminary findings are presented here in this paper.

Case study teachers commonly reported key benefits of using technology in mathematics teaching, particularly in enhancing visualisation and interactivity. Technology was often noted for aiding the teaching of geometric concepts by providing visual representations that saved time compared to manual drawing. Another major advantage was increasing student engagement, especially through interactive features like touchscreens and gamified elements, which motivated students, even those who were typically quiet. As one teacher reflected, “A student whose attention might wander suddenly becomes highly focused when I turn on the [smart] board.” Tools like Kahoot were also mentioned for their competitive aspect, which encouraged participation: “They enjoy it much more... even a child who is usually not that active participates.” They also appreciated the potential of technology in terms of providing immediate feedback. Despite these shared affordances, there were differences in how teachers perceived and applied technology in their lessons. Gamze placed a strong emphasis on managing student interactions through technology, using the IWB strategically to encourage less active students to participate. Additionally, she valued gamification and reducing student anxiety, pointing out that students felt less pressure when lessons were framed as games. Sara preferred familiar, simple tools that students were comfortable with, avoiding complex platforms that could overwhelm younger students. She believed familiarity boosted motivation and engagement but acknowledged that technology had less impact when teaching well-established topics. Gamze’s tool selection was influenced by factors like interactivity, instructional goals, familiarity, and challenges such as program costs and technical issues. The case study reveals that teachers predominantly utilise technology to enhance visualization, engage students, and provide real-time feedback, with tool selection being influenced by factors such as complexity, topic, and desired interactivity. We believe that both the similarities and differences in teachers’ perspectives considerably shape classroom practices, and further exploration of these factors is ongoing.

Borba, M.C. (2021). The future of mathematics education since COVID-19: Humans-with-media or humans-with-non-living-things. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 108(1), 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10043-2 Bretscher, N. (2015). Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching using Technology - [Doctoral Thesis, King’s College London]. https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/theses/mathematical-knowledge-for-teaching-using-technology(8047ac6c-c4f7-41af-9291-2e0c2236ebd2).html Clark-Wilson, A., Robutti, O., & Sinclair, N. (2014). Introduction. In A. Clark-Wilson, O. Robutti, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), The mathematics teacher in the digital era: An international perspective of technology focused professional development (pp. 1–10). Springer. https://doi.org/DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-4638-1_1 Clark-Wilson, A., & Hoyles, C. (2017). Dynamic digital technologies for dynamic mathematics: Implications for teachers’ knowledge and practice. London. Hohenwarter, J., Hohenwarter, M., & Lavicza, Z. (2010). Evaluating difficulty levels of dynamic geometry software tools to enhance teachers’ professional development. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 17(3), 127-134. Kocak, O., Gulcu, A. (2013). Teachers’ remarks on interactive whiteboard with LCD panel technology. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(4), 294-300. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?, Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70. Lavicza, Z., Prodromou, T., Fenyvesi, K., Hohenwarter, M., Juhos, I., & Koren, B. (2020). Integrating STEM-related technologies into mathematics education at large scale. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 27(1), 3-12. Ruthven, K. (2014). Frameworks for analysing the expertise that underpins successful integration of digital technologies into everyday teaching practice. In A. Clark-Wilson, O. Robutti, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), The mathematics teacher in the digital era: An international perspective of technology focused professional development (pp. 373–394). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4638-1_16 Tolu, H. (2014). The Politics of the ICT4ED (Fatih) Project in Turkey. Policy Futures in Education, 12(6), 832-849. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, Sage. https://doi.org/10.1097/FCH.0b013e31822dda9e