A systematic literature review of Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) in mathematics education: Future challenges for educational practice and research

Abstract

This systematic literature review examines the development of Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) in mathematics education and its impact on teaching. The study analyzed 25 peer-reviewed articles published between January of 2018 and December of 2022 from the Scopus and ERIC databases to answer four research questions. The results reveal that most studies on TPACK have been conducted in Turkey, the United States, Costa Rica, and Malaysia, with both in-service and pre-service mathematics teachers as subjects. The majority of the studies focus on the use of digital technology and identify factors that hinder the development of TPACK among mathematics teachers, including lack of confidence, resistance to change, lack of institutional support, and inadequate resources. The study recommends active participation in pedagogical technology training for teachers and prospective teachers to improve mathematics teaching. Although the use of technology in teaching and learning offers many benefits, it also presents challenges that need to be addressed to effectively integrate technology into mathematics teaching and enhance the development of TPACK among mathematics teachers.

Keywords:

• mathematics education
• systematic literature review
• technological pedagogical content knowledge
• TPCK
• TPACK

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Our study offers a comprehensive review of the role of technology in mathematics education, focusing on a conceptual framework known as TPACK (Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge). This framework helps teachers integrate technology into their teaching methods effectively. Despite its promise, implementing TPACK isn’t straightforward. Teachers often face challenges like outdated technology and a lack of proper training. Our review highlights not only the benefits but also the gaps and challenges in the existing literature. We aim to guide future research toward solving these challenges, ultimately helping educators make better use of technology. Whether you’re an educator, policy-maker, or parent, this research can help you understand how technology can be effectively utilized to enhance mathematics education, providing students with the skills they need for the 21st century.

1. Introduction

The use of technology in education has received much criticism due to the lack of a theoretical foundation (Buckingham, 2013). The fact that technology has simply been introduced in learning is not adequate (Sulistyanto et al., 2023). Many questions have emerged, particularly related to what teachers should know to properly integrate technology into learning, and several studies have attempted to provide answers (Durdu & Dag, 2017; Koehler et al., 2013; Lee & Kim, 2014; Mishra, 2019). Therefore, technological, pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) has been introduced as a conceptual framework for knowledge-based teachers to teach effectively with technology (Luo & Zou, 2022). Facts show that in implementing TPACK, teachers experience access and tool constraints (Dalal et al., 2017). However, TPACK must be implemented in education to ensure that learning is meaningful (Brantley-Dias & Ertmer, 2013; Pradana et al., 2020).

In mathematics education, research on the application of technology has thus far been carried out in the form of case studies or experimental designs (Rashad, 2016), and in these studies, teachers were able to review and adjust learning practices based on the strength and direction of the moderator variables in line with each construct in TCK or TPK. A case study Bretscher (2022) has illustrated the central TPACK constructs with some examples of teachers’ strategies of utilising transitions in and out of dynamic geometry environments to teach the circle theorem. In addition, other research Hernawati and Jailani (2019) has shown unattained objectives, indicating that teachers still need greater understanding of how to design technology-integrated lesson plans that support 21st-century learning using the seven TPACK constructs.

Facing the dynamics and challenges of TPACK in the future will require a deep understanding of the nature and importance of this framework. A good understanding of TPACK will be useful for effective integration of technology into teaching practices in a way that support student learning. In addition, relevant research should be conducted and developed to verify and guarantee that TPACK is running properly.

Previous research on TPACK in mathematics education has focused on case studies, implementation, and instructional design. For instance, Niess (2011) explored how pre-service mathematics teachers develop TPACK knowledge and skills through a structured training program. The study found that while pre-service teachers gained a better conceptual understanding of mathematics, their TPACK competency also improved, emphasizing the role of intentional instructional design. Another study by Polly et al. (2016) examined the TPACK development of in-service mathematics teachers during a one-year professional development program. The results suggested that ongoing professional development and mentorship are essential for the effective integration of technology in teaching mathematics. More recently, a study by Özgür (2020) investigated how mathematics teachers adapt their TPACK frameworks when teaching in blended learning environments. The study concluded that teaching in a blended environment required a shift in TPACK strategies, especially in balancing pedagogical and technological elements, highlighting the evolving nature of TPACK in mathematics education.

Despite the importance of understanding how to effectively integrate technology into mathematics teaching, there are gaps in the literature regarding TPACK in mathematics education. These gaps are commonly related to either the challenges encountered by teachers when integrating technology into their teaching practice in this subject area (Baram & Uygun, 2016). Regarding the potential of TPACK to support and enhance students’ mathematics learning, it is crucial to direct future research towards filling these gaps in the literature and addressing the challenges that teachers may encounter when implementing technology-based teaching strategies in this subject area.

1.1. Conceptualisation of the TPACK framework

Historically, the knowledge base of teacher education has focused on the contents of teacher knowledge (Shulman, 1986; Veal & James, 1999). Recently, the focus of teacher education has shifted to pedagogy, particularly general pedagogical practices that are separated from learning materials and often at the expense of content knowledge (Ball & Wilson, 1990). We can conceptualise these two branches of teacher knowledge as two independent circles. Shulman (1986) proposed the idea of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), which is different from the simplistic view of technology. This framework focuses on relationships, interactions, feasibility and boundaries among and between content, pedagogy and technology. In this model, knowledge of content (C), pedagogy (P) and technology (T) is the centre of the development of good teaching processes. Nonetheless, instead of considering them as separate, the focus of this model is on the complex interactions of these three bodies of knowledge.

The technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPCK) framework makes it possible to separate some of the main issues necessary for scientific discussion on educational technology. Our model considers how content, pedagogy and technology limit each other dynamically. In addition, we also show how the TPCK framework can be used to develop pedagogical strategies and analytical lenses to examine any changes in teacher knowledge about successful technology-assisted teaching.

Pierson (2001) started using the concept of TPCK, which refers to “technology-assisted PCK”. This is a multifaceted set of knowledge and skills that teachers require to teach a particular subject for a particular grade. Then, Niess and Ronau (2009) amended Pierson’s definition of TPCK and suggested that TPCK is not only a kind of knowledge or skill but also a kind of dynamic knowledge (which includes the development of subject knowledge and technology knowledge, as well as teaching and learning knowledge) and a kind of creative thinking related to how technology supports teaching and learning. Not only creative thinking, but also reflective thinking (Kholid et al., 2020, 2022, 2022; Sa’dijah et al., 2020). Koehler and Mishra (2005) proposed the concept of TPCK based on Shulman’s PCK (Shulman, 1986, 1987). Technology knowledge began to be clearly identified as teacher knowledge, and TPCK came to be considered a conceptual framework for the structure of teacher knowledge. Koehler et al. (2007) changed TPCK to TPACK. The new name meant more than just inserting the letter A to make it easier to pronounce; rather, it emphasised the need for three types of knowledge (content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, technological knowledge) to form a unity through interaction. Below, we will discuss the TPACK framework which describes the relationships, interactions and interrelationships between aspects (Jang & Chen, 2010; Spector et al., 2014)

Figure 1 depicts the framework of TPACK. It was developed based on the PCK concept proposed by Shulman (1986, 1987) to describe how teachers’ understanding of educational technology and PCK interact with each other to create effective technology-assisted teaching. Other authors also had similar ideas despite the use of different labelling schemes. Furthermore, TPACK connects the knowledge and skills that teachers should have to effectively integrate technology into mathematics learning. The TPACK framework recognises the interdependence of technology, pedagogy and content knowledge and focuses on the importance of understanding how these three aspects are related in mathematics education. In extending the PCK framework to the TPACK framework (Spector et al., 2014), researchers are also interested in the interaction between new technological resources and teachers’ pedagogical content and knowledge. This framework highlights the fact that the use of technology can never be separated from other aspects of teacher practices.

Figure 1. TPACK framework.

1.2. Challenges

There are many challenges and opportunities surrounding the use of TPACK in mathematics education and research. For example, it is important to support teachers to develop their TPACK skills and understanding, and research is needed to gain better understanding of how technology can be effectively integrated into mathematics teaching. In addition, regarding the fact that technology is continuously evolving and that new tools and resources are increasingly available, it is crucial to stay up to date with the latest developments and understand how they can be used to support student learning. However, teachers may encounter some challenges due to changes in software and hardware. When there is a change in the software or hardware used by teachers, the teachers need time to upgrade their skills (Galbraith et al., 2001).

To counter the constraints and effectively integrate technology into mathematics teaching, it is important for teachers to have firm TPACK skills and be supported by professional development and resources that can help them use technology effectively in their teaching (Harris et al., 2018). In addition, schools and districts have a role to play in ensuring that teachers have access to the technology and resources they need to effectively integrate technology into their teaching and providing ongoing support and training to help teachers stay up to date with the latest developments in technology and pedagogy.

TPACK in mathematics education is relevant not only for teachers but also for students in many countries; Koh et al. (2018) has provided an example in developing countries. Nonetheless, the use and availability of technology in education can vary widely, affected by various factors including the economic development of a country, the availability of infrastructure and resources, and students’ access to technology outside of school. Teachers in some countries may have access to a variety of technological resources and may be well trained in terms of using technology in mathematics teaching (Wahyu et al., 2019). On the other hand, teachers in other countries may face limited access to technology and resources and may have less experience using technology in teaching. Regardless of the country or context in which teaching takes place, teachers can use the TPACK framework to understand the knowledge and skills needed to effectively integrate technology into mathematics teaching.

In addition, research on the utilisation of technology can be used to effectively support mathematics teaching and learning. Although many resources and tools are available to support teaching, clear instructions on how they can be used effectively in the classroom or how they can support student learning are not always given (Kholid et al., 2019, 2020). Such instructions are very useful, especially for teachers who are still lacking in pedagogical knowledge (Dalal et al., 2017; Luik et al., 2018). Research can serve to fill this gap by identifying the most effective technologies to support mathematics learning and by providing instructions on how to use these technologies to support student learning. Furthermore, research on TPACK in mathematics education can help identify the challenges and barriers encountered by teachers in integrating technology into teaching, as well as provide solutions and strategies to overcome these challenges. This includes the identification of the type of professional development and support that teachers need to develop their TPACK skills and understanding and the identification of the most effective types of resources and technology to support mathematics teaching.

1.3. Goal of the review

This study aimed to collect, assess and synthesise empirical data about TPACK in mathematics education. This was a systematic, comprehensive and retrospective scientific review that aimed to answer the predetermined research questions using a methodical and explicit methodology. The systematic literature review (SLR) procedure was guided by the following research questions (RQs):

RQ1:

What are the research characteristics, in terms of year, country and subjects?

RQ2:

What kind of technology is used in the TPACK practice?

RQ3:

What is the readiness of the subjects to use technology in mathematics learning?

RQ4:

What are the factors that hinder the subjects’ TPACK development?

2. Methodology

This section describes the methodology that was used to review recent research (between January 2018 and December 2022) on TPACK in mathematics education. In this study, the authors used a modified approach, namely PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis), which used two databases (Scopus and Eric) to conduct a systematic review based on some keywords (“TPACK” OR “TPCK” AND “Mathematics Education” OR “Mathematics Learning” OR “Mathematics Teaching”).

SLR is a method that can be used to find, select and critically assess relevant research, as well as to collect and analyse data from research to be presented in the form of a scientific work that is structured systematically and explicitly (Juandi, 2021). SLR offers several benefits that can encourage researchers to conduct future studies based on the findings presented in previous publications (Kitchenham et al., 2009). To help ensure the quality and reproducibility of the review process, PRISMA has developed a standardised and peer-reviewed methodology that uses a list of best practices (Conde et al., 2020). The basic PRISMA components consist of identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion. Figure 2 presents the flowchart of PRISMA.

Figure 2. PRISMA protocol flow chart.

2.1. The systematic review processes

This systematic study used two popular and reliable databases, namely Scopus and Eric, which contain tens of thousands of technical and scientific papers, books, reports and other materials. This systematic review was carried out in December 2022 in four stages.

In the first stage, using the predetermined keywords, we obtained a total of 196 articles from the two databases ($n=82$ - Scopus; $n=114$ - Eric). In this case, for the keyword “Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge”, we used two common acronyms, namely “TPACK” and “TPCK”. Meanwhile, for the keyword “Mathematics Education”, this study used a number of synonyms; based on a thesaurus and commonly used terms in previous research, several similar words related to mathematics education were utilised, including mathematics learning and mathematics teaching. In the second stage, the 196 articles were screened, and 162 were excluded based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. In the third stage, the remaining articles were carefully examined. Only 25 articles were selected for further analysis. Most of the articles were excluded for various reasons, most commonly because they were duplicates, they did not use the predefined keywords in the main body, they were not scientific articles (we excluded the following categories of documents: conference proceedings, books, book reviews, magazines, short surveys, short communications, correspondences, newsletters, discussions, product reviews, editorials, publisher’s notes, and erratum), they only used the term “TPACK” in the reference, or they did not present discussion on mathematics education. The inclusion and exclusion criteria used in the systematic review are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Criteria of inclusion and exclusion

Criteria	Inclusion	Exclusion
Article title and content	An appropriate title that complied with the study’s requirements	Did not match the requirements of the study and had an irrelevant title
Year of publication	Publications from 2018 to 2022	Publications outside the range specified
Type of publication	Solely journal articles	Reviews, editorials and non-empirical studies
Language	English	Other
Field of article study	Mathematics education	Other
Accessibility	Full-text articles or open access	Preview articles or articles requiring a payment

In the last stage, we performed an analysis to answer the RQs (see Section 1.3). The 25 articles selected for the systematic review were analysed. To start the analysis, the abstract of each of the articles was read carefully to identify relevant themes or sub-themes. Afterwards, each article was thoroughly reviewed to collect appropriate additional information relevant to the research objectives. The flow of the abstraction and data analysis used in this study, which was based on a modified PRISMA protocol, is presented in Figure 2.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Characteristics of TPACK in mathematics education

Twenty-five publications published between January 2018 and December 2022 and relevant to the research questions were found by searching two popular databases, Scopus and Eric. There were three years in which six articles were published, namely 2018 (24%), 2019 (24%) and 2021 (24%); five articles were published in 2020 (20%), and two were published in 2022 (8%; see Figure 3). In terms of the database from which the articles were collected, eight of the selected articles (32%) were obtained from the Scopus database, 11 articles (44%) were obtained from the Eric database, and the remaining 24% were indexed in both databases.

Figure 3. Study distribution by year of publication.

Reports of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 1989, 2000, 2014) have shown that technology-assisted teaching to support conceptual development has become a focus in mathematics education in recent decades. Nowadays, mathematics teaching requires not only content knowledge (i.e. knowing what to teach) but also pedagogical skills (i.e. understanding how to instruct and how to solve students’ learning problems and challenges) and familiarity with the best learning technologies (Nantschev et al., 2020). A number of studies Gadanidis and Geiger (2010); Pierce and Stacey (2010); Roschelle et al. (2010) have shown that the use of technology can help in acquiring mathematics knowledge and skills and developing more complex mathematical competencies, including reasoning, problem solving and proving.

TPACK has been used as a conceptual framework to characterise the knowledge base that teachers require to effectively use technology in the classroom (Koehler & Mishra, 2005) since 2005. Therefore, the TPACK framework has been extensively researched over the last 15 years. This is evident from the distribution of research on TPACK by region. Five continents were represented in the distribution of research on TPACK in mathematics education, namely Asia (20%), Europe (40%), North America (32%), South America (4%) and Australia (4%), as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Study distribution by country of publication.

Most of the studies found were from Turkey (7), followed by the United States (4), Costa Rica (3), and Malaysia (2). The countries with only one article were the Netherlands, Canada, Australia, Austria, Hong Kong, Spain, Brazil, the Philippines and Iran. The fact that Turkey produced the highest number of studies might be because of the success of the FATIH project (Ozudogru & Ozudogru, 2019). The FATIH Project in Education is a project that aims to promote technology in schools and provide equal opportunities in education by effectively using computer technology in the teaching and learning processes. This project has five components, namely: (1) provision of hardware and software infrastructure; (2) provision and management of educational electronic contents; (3) effective use of information technology in the curriculum; (4) provision of trainings for teachers; and (5) use of reliable, manageable and scalable technology.

In 2012, a new mathematics curriculum for primary and secondary education was approved in Costa Rica. This curriculum recommends a complete revision of the national mathematics curriculum, which should conform to international standards but still consider local conditions (Morales-López & Poveda-Vásquez, 2022). In 2015, the government of Costa Rica and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) conducted an experimental study on students in the seventh grade to determine the effectiveness of technology in improving students’ abilities in mathematical reasoning, argumentation and communication. The results of IDB Working Paper Series No. IDB-WP-561 (Berlinski & Busso, 2015) unexpectedly showed that the use of technology had a negative impact on student learning; this is in contrast to many previous studies showing that, when used properly, technology provides students with opportunities to explore and understand mathematics in all its dimensions. However, the IDB assessment mentioned that finding the right approach to use technology effectively in the classroom remains a major challenge. Meanwhile, in the latest development of the mathematics curriculum in Malaysia, GeoGebra activities have been included in the textbooks (Za’ba et al., 2020). This might be the reason why many studies on TPACK were found in Costa Rica and Malaysia.

There are some factors that inhibit the use of technology in the classroom, including cost, accessibility, time and lack of understanding of how to effectively use technology to assist students in various subject areas. Many countries have allocated budgets for the development of educational technology, but only in the form of investment in the administrative sector (rather than the pedagogical sector). Therefore, it is not surprising that several countries had only a few or even no studies on TPACK. In general, teachers who attempt to use the resources provided by the school have to do it independently, receiving either lacking or no pedagogical support. This is in line with the assertion that Technology has arrived in schools, but the focus is always more on the control, infrastructure modernization, and change management. Administrative management programs are developed better than learning programs. There has been advancement in virtualization of learning, but it is nothing compared to the multi-layer and level of education (Moran, 2007).

Technology plays an increasing role in the lives of children outside the classroom; it can also help students learn more difficult concepts and encourage peer collaboration. Due to these benefits, modern theories of education recommend that teachers integrate technology into their classrooms. In addition to understanding how pedagogical and content knowledge should be integrated, it is also important for teachers to learn about, and with, technology. This is because technological resources are essential to education, especially regarding the fact that the use of these resources can improve teaching and learning processes and the fact that these resources provide opportunities for innovation in content, methods and pedagogy. Therefore, in relation to the research subjects, we only identified two types of subjects, namely teachers and prospective teachers. The distribution is shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Subject-type distribution of research investigations

Subject	${\mathit{n}}_{\mathit{i}}$	Ref
Teachers	15	{Formatting Citation}
Teacher candidates	10	[41, 55–63]

To understand the relationship between the integration of new technologies into mathematics teaching among teachers and their professional growth, it is important to understand how TPACK was obtained or developed in several stages (Za’ba et al., 2020). Since the beginning of its development, TPACK has been used as a framework that guides prospective teachers in designing technology-assisted mathematics learning activities (Yan et al., 2018). Most of the reported TPACK interventions involve preservice teachers in designing lesson plans without any digital artefacts (Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Niess, 2013). In addition, the study by Kim (2018) explained that prospective mathematics teachers have a number of similar characteristics; that is, traditional views related to their descriptions of the characteristics of mathematics (instrumentalist and Platonist views) and how mathematics is learned (passive view) are more dominant than descriptions of how mathematics is taught (facilitator view) and how technology is used (partner view).

3.2. Research objects’ technology types

We were concerned about “misperception” related to the definition of technology, so we investigated the different types of technology in each study on TPACK. The majority of subjects (n = 25 articles) believed that “technology” refers only to modern “digital technology”. It is clear that the technology that is the focus in contemporary literature is more recent and digital, and has some inherent characteristics that make direct application difficult. However, Koehler and Mishra (2009) emphasised in their article on TPACK that traditional technologies, such as pencils and boards, are also categorised as technology.

Pencils and boards are some examples of traditional pedagogical technology that are known for their specificity (pencils and boards are for writing), stability (pencils and boards do not change significantly over time) and functional transparency (pencils and boards have a simple method of use directly related to their function) (Simon, 1988). These technologies have achieved perceptual transparency over time (Bruce & Hogan, 2019); they have become common and, in many cases, are no longer even considered technology. On the other hand, digital technologies—such as laptops, computers, software applications and smartphones—are protean (can be used in many ways (Papert, 1980)), unstable (fast-changing) and opaque (the development processes or the processes within/behind the technology is hidden/not shown to users (Turkle, 2011)). Due to these characteristics of digital technologies, they have posed new difficulties for teachers using them in the teaching processes. Some examples of digital technologies found in some of the selected articles are interactive whiteboards (IWBs) (Gonzales & Gonzales, 2021), GeoGebra (Alizadeh-Jamal et al., 2018; Gonzales & Gonzales, 2021; Ishartono et al., 2022; Kholid et al., 2022) and Adobe Flash (Yan et al., 2018).

Whether or not the use of technology will improve student learning relies on teachers’ decisions when using technology to design and give assignments (van Leendert et al., 2021). Such decisions are determined by the teachers’ knowledge about mathematics, technology and pedagogy. Niess (2005) also highlighted that teachers often practiced with digital technology but still failed to relate it to formal knowledge in the classroom. Moreover, employing technology in mathematics class may improve students’ literacy (Kholid et al., 2022; Muhaimin & Kholid, 2023; Septiani & Kholid, 2023; Setiaputra & Kholid, 2023). According to research, inexperienced teachers felt that they were not fully ready to use computers in their classes (Enochsson & Rizza, 2009; Voogt & McKenney, 2017). This resulted from the teachers’ negative beliefs about the use of technology in the teaching and learning process (Karatas, 2014). Conventional teachers tend to use low-level technology, while more constructivist teachers tend to use high-level technology (Judson, 2006). In fact, a lack of training has caused many teachers to be unable and unready to effectively integrate technology into their mathematics classes (Günbaş, 2020). However, Polly (2011) conducted a one-year examination of mathematics teachers’ professional development in technology to improve their TPACK, and the results showed the opposite: teachers’ beliefs about technology did not change before, during or after professional development, resulting in limited use of technology during their mathematics teaching (Kim et al., 2013). Kopcha (2012) claimed that, because technical trainings are not related to actual practice, such trainings are inadequate to prepare teachers to successfully integrate technology into the classroom.

Based on the above-mentioned discussion, we recommend that future research should focus not only on digital technology but also on supervision for teachers who encounter difficulties when using digital technology, allowing them to make the best use of the existing conventional technology. We agree that students in the present time are known as the technology generation because they grow up in an environment that is full of the latest technology. Therefore, integrating digital technology into education can be way to help students learn in their native environment (Günbaş, 2020). Within the TPACK framework, teachers are required to design, implement and assess technology-assisted teaching (Niess, 2011). If the technology in question is digital technology, as mentioned by Za’ba et al. (2020), then it is more appropriate to address this expectation with prospective teachers. In light of this, it is imperative for teacher education programs to help prospective teachers develop technological skills and pedagogical and content knowledge, allowing them to effectively integrate technology into their future classrooms (Günbaş, 2020; Ozudogru & Ozudogru, 2019)

3.3. Technology integration readiness of subjects in math education

Teachers play a vital role in creating efficient and effective teaching and learning processes, both at the present time and for the future. They help students move from their family environment to the school environment, which might be strange to them; they help students bring the outside world into the classroom; they also help them move the classroom to the outside world. In an educational process, teachers’ beliefs play a crucial role in the selection of teaching methods (Alizadeh-Jamal et al., 2018). Teachers’ beliefs about teaching shape their teaching strategy to influence students’ mental and practical processes, helping them to better adapt to their living environment, behave more effectively and develop all aspects of their personality (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997). Mathematics teachers will not be able to effectively integrate technology into their teaching processes unless they ask themselves important questions about how they should arrange and direct information and communication technology (ICT)-assisted activities as well as what language and mathematical concepts they should use (Morales-López, 2019).

In terms of the research objectives in the selected articles, we divided the third question—the subjects’ readiness to integrate technology into mathematics learning—into two categories. The first category consisted of publications in the form of experimental articles that aimed to determine the improvement in the subjects’ TPACK after treatment. The second category was descriptive articles that only described the subjects’ readiness without giving any treatment (no changes were observed). The distribution across the two groups is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Study distribution by research purpose.

Recently, the development of teacher competency in technology integration has become a concern in teacher training (Njiku et al., 2021). The use of the VuStat application in microteaching practices has been proven to increase the TPACK skill (Mutlu et al., 2019) of prospective mathematics teachers from 58.6% to 87.3%. Microteaching is a method in which prospective teachers demonstrate their knowledge of a subject to a small number of peers. Through professional development programs, mathematics teachers’ understanding of TPACK also increased (Alizadeh-Jamal et al., 2018; Baysal, 2018; Niess & Roschelle, 2018; Yan et al., 2018; Young et al., 2019). Due to insufficient training on pedagogical technology, prospective teachers perceived that they were not ready to integrate technology into the classroom (Günbaş, 2020). After attending the training, however, they gained understanding of how to use pedagogical technology in mathematics teaching (Günbaş, 2020). On the other hand, there is a weakness of teacher training which focuses only on one form of technology (Niess & Roschelle, 2018). Given the fact that digital technology changes quickly, there are more tools available for mathematics learning (Niess & Roschelle, 2018; van Leendert et al., 2021), and as a consequence, teachers may have to constantly make adjustments to make the most of these tools. Therefore, there is a need for relevant professional development programs that not only require teachers’ active engagement but also facilitate the context of authentic learning (Njiku et al., 2021). Training on pedagogical technology has also been shown to increase awareness of the importance of tools, but such training has shown only an insignificant effect on TPACK knowledge and skills (van Leendert et al., 2021).

The TPACK framework effectively represents important knowledge in lesson planning and the teaching skills of prospective teachers. The TK skills of prospective teachers develop with an efficient use of technology-enhanced lessons (TEL) (Gonzales & Gonzales, 2021). TEL is the process of creating TK using various forms of technology (Chai et al., 2010). Based on empirical data, prospective teachers have the ability to quickly adapt to the digitisation of learning activities, yet their pedagogical skills, especially related to the development of learning objectives, lag behind (Gonzales & Gonzales, 2021). Thus, each and every plan to prepare prospective teachers for implementing technology-assisted teaching must come with pedagogical skills that are in line with the TK to be used. In general, teachers are aware of their need for more training (Morales-López & Poveda-Vásquez, 2022; Rodríguez-Muñiz et al., 2021). Nonetheless, there is no sufficient evidence to validate that teachers’ current knowledge allows them to integrate technology as a didactic material in teaching after attending training in the second year (Morales-López et al., 2021).

By encouraging teachers to integrate technological resources into learning, distance education during a pandemic has provided a significant opportunity to increase teachers’ TPACK (Kiyici & Övez, 2021; Morales-López & Poveda-Vásquez, 2022; Patriarca et al., 2019; Rakes et al., 2022; Rodríguez-Muñiz et al., 2021). It can be concluded that mathematics teachers believe that their level of TPACK competency after a pandemic and their technology acceptance are sufficient (Morales-López & Poveda-Vásquez, 2022; Patriarca et al., 2019; Rakes et al., 2022)In addition, the research findings also showed that prospective teachers in Turkey had a high level of readiness to integrate technology into mathematics learning because they obtained high TPACK scores (Başaran, 2020; Karakus, 2018). The more computers are used, the better the perceptions of TPACK (Başaran, 2020). It is possible that the FATIH Project played a significant role in teacher readiness in this case (Karakus, 2018). Based on additional information Başaran (2020); Ozudogru and Ozudogru (2019)], male prospective teachers had a higher level of readiness than female prospective teachers in terms of integrating technology into mathematics learning. The findings of some studies indicated a substantial relationship between the dimensions of TPACK and gender (Altun & Akyıldız, 2017; Erdogan & Sahin, 2010; Markauskaite, 2006; Öz, 2015). Women were less interested in integrating technology into teaching and learning processes (Dakers et al., 2009; Sanders, 2006); male teachers demonstrated a higher level of confidence when using educational technology (Jamieson-Proctor et al., 2010). On the other hand, neither gender nor teaching experience had a significant effect on mathematics teachers’ self-efficacy in TPACK and technology integration (Bakar et al., 2020); both males and females, had positive self-efficacy in initiating the integration of technology and introducing TPACK.

Based on the findings of previous research, in terms of the characteristics of mathematics, mathematics learning and the use of technology, prospective teachers with constructivist-oriented beliefs or student-centred teaching showed a higher level of mathematical knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and technological content knowledge than those with traditional beliefs or teacher-centred teaching (Kim, 2018).

3.4. TPACK-related factors

Using technology in a classroom is much more difficult than using it in everyday life. Teachers and prospective teachers realise that the use of technological tools in teaching and learning processes offers many benefits, but they also realise the difficulties that teachers or students encounter when using the tools in school (Morales-López et al., 2021). The disruption of technology use before, during and after the pandemic has become a “new normal” in education, and it is likely to continue. Nonetheless, there is also concern that the requirement to integrate technology due to the pandemic may cause its implementation to lack careful consideration regarding use in education (Engelbrecht et al., 2020). In light of this, the use of technology in education is ambiguous for two reasons. First, it is evident that technology is needed for communication and lesson development. Second, there have been few formal trainings (either beginner or advanced) on how to use technological resources in the classroom (Morales-López & Poveda-Vásquez, 2022). Therefore, to make the best of technology in mathematics learning, the number of trainings must be increased and teachers must attend relevant training and mentoring (Rakes et al., 2022). By referring to the TPACK framework from the 25 selected articles, we identified some factors that influence how teachers and prospective teachers use technology in mathematics teaching. These factors can be divided into two categories, namely internal and external factors.

Internal factors come from the individual. Each individual, either a teacher or prospective teacher, has limitations that can hinder the application of technology in mathematics learning. This study finds that learning becomes ineffective when teachers or prospective teachers lack confidence when presenting a learning material based on TPACK (Karakus, 2018). Oftentimes, they fail to deliver the material according to the learning objectives, thus hindering student learning processes. The next factor is related to age (Kiyici & Övez, 2021). To achieve the expected goals, the use of technology in the classroom requires experience and skills. Unfortunately, there are many elderly teachers who find it difficult to use technology in the classroom because they have limited technology-related skills (Morales-López & Poveda-Vásquez, 2022) and a lack of experience in using technology (Bakar et al., 2020). According to Kiyici and Övez (2021) and Ozudogru and Ozudogru (2019), variation in study programs leads to variation of knowledge. It is not necessary to compare graduates from the informatics education study program with graduates from the mathematics education study program in terms of designing and operating technology. In fact, poor understanding of technological content actually hinders the implementation of TPACK in the classroom, even when teachers have good math competence (Patriarca et al., 2019).

On the other hand, external factors are factors that come from outside of individuals, either teachers or prospective teachers, including the absence of institutional support (Nantschev et al., 2020), stagnation in the education system due to the failure of educational institutions to adapt to the modern era, and a lack of educational flexibility. As a consequence, teachers’ skills in using technology in the classroom do not improve. The lack of trainings on educational technology for teachers and prospective teachers (Günbaş, 2020) is an implication of the lack of institutional support. In addition, another external barrier to the implementation of TPACK in learning is a location that is not strategic (Yan et al., 2018). According to research Yan et al. (2018), remote areas rarely receive governmental attention, so these areas do not have access to proper logistics, including educational technology facilities. Another factor is collaboration, or the lack thereof. A group of educators who work in an educational institution share the same objective, namely imparting knowledge to students. They often collaborate to develop effective technology-assisted learning resources. The absence of effective communication among teachers often hinders learning, including regarding the use of technology (Njiku et al., 2021).

4. Conclusion

The conceptual framework of TPACK addresses the imperative for knowledge-based teachers to effectively incorporate technology in their teaching practices. Research findings reveal that during the implementation of TPACK, teachers may encounter obstacles related to limited access and availability of technological resources. Throughout this paper, we identified various studies on TPACK in mathematics education that were conducted between 2018 and 2022. Most of the studies came from Turkey (7 articles), the United States (4 articles), Costa Rica (3 articles) and Malaysia (2 articles). On the other hand, the countries with only one article on TPACK were the Netherlands, Canada, Australia, Austria, Hong Kong, Spain, Brazil, the Philippines and Iran. The subjects of the studies varied, including both in-service and pre-service mathematics teachers.

We found that most of the studies (n = 25 articles) on TPACK in mathematics education focused on the use of digital technology. Some of these studies were categorised as experimental studies, as they aimed to measure any increase in the subjects’ TPACK skills after a treatment was given. On the other hand, some studies were categorised as descriptive studies, as they only described the subjects’ readiness without giving any treatment (unchanged condition).

We identified factors that influence the readiness of subjects to use technology in mathematics learning. It was found that using technology in a classroom is more difficult than using it in everyday life. This is influenced by a variety of factors. One category of such factors is internal factors (i.e. factors that come from the individuals). In addition, there are also external factors (i.e. factors that come from outside the individuals), such as lack of institutional support, stagnation in the education system due to the failure of educational institutions to adapt to the modern era, and lack of educational flexibility, making it difficult for teachers to improve their skill in using technology in the classroom.

Based on the literature reviewed, we identified several factors that hinder the development of TPACK among mathematics teachers. These include internal factors, such as lack of confidence in using technology, lack of motivation to learn new technology and resistance to change, as well as external factors, such as lack of institutional support, inadequate resources and limited access to technology. It is important to address these factors to effectively integrate technology into mathematics teaching and improve the development of TPACK among mathematics teachers.

5. Limitations

Although this review identifies some important trends and objectives of future research on TPACK in mathematics education, it also has some limitations. The first limitation is related to the technique used for the article search: our search was limited to the Scopus and Eric databases and to articles published between January 2018 and December 2022. Various other databases, including Web of Science, SCCI, SAGE, ProQuest, IEEE Explore and Springer, may be used in future investigations. In addition, this review was limited to research in the form of scientific articles. Future reviews may include a wider range of sources, such as conference papers, editorials, theses and dissertations, allowing researchers to explore TPACK more deeply. In addition, several studies only scratch the surface of what is known about how TPACK develops in mathematics education without providing a comprehensive description. Therefore, the discussion and conclusions of this review are limited to the few studies that explicitly describe their findings.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan (LPDP).

Notes on contributors

Muhammad Noor Kholid

Muhammad Noor Kholid from Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta with research interest into TPACK and mathematical thinking.

Agus Hendriyanto

Agus Hendriyanto, Sani Sahara, and Krida Singgih Kuncoro are doctoral candidates in mathematics education at Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia with research interests are in Didactical Design, educational design, and educational technology.

Sani Sahara

Agus Hendriyanto, Sani Sahara, and Krida Singgih Kuncoro are doctoral candidates in mathematics education at Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia with research interests are in Didactical Design, educational design, and educational technology.

Lukman Hakim Muhaimin

Lukman Hakim Muhaimin is a master student in mathematics education at Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia with research interest in the development of curricula and mathematical literacy.

Dadang Juandi

Dadang Juandi is a senior researcher in mathematics education Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia with research interest is in meta analysis.

Imam Sujadi

Imam Sujadi is a lecturer in the Mathematics Education Sebelas Maret University Surakarta with research interest into problem-solving, mathematical literacy and TPACK.

Krida Singgih Kuncoro

Agus Hendriyanto, Sani Sahara, and Krida Singgih Kuncoro are doctoral candidates in mathematics education at Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia with research interests are in Didactical Design, educational design, and educational technology.

Mazlini Adnan

Mazlini Adnan is a senior lecturer in Universitas Pendidikan Sultan Idris Malaysia with research interest into teaching and learning environment.