High School Teachers Perceptions of the Challenges of Integrating Technology in Math Instruction

High School Teachers Perceptions of the Challenges of

Integrating Technology in Math Instruction

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study

Technology integration contributes significantly to mathematics instruction.

Pedagogy and skill levels should be considered for integrating technology while

developing mathematical literacy (Novita & Herman, 2021). As technology use increases

in schools, teachers need digital competence training to teach students mathematics

(Rodríguez-Muñiz et al., 2021). Becoming digitally competent is more pressing than

some issues in the education system (Shonfeld et al., 2021). The current basic qualitative

study explored the challenges high school teachers face in using and adopting technology

in math instruction. This study was conducted because research on teachers had focused

on technology integration and its impacts, technology use, and teachers’ beliefs about

technology (Thurm & Barzel, 2021). Limited information was available regarding the

challenges secondary mathematics teachers face in using and adopting technology in

instruction.

Educational professionals have the potential to cultivate a comprehension of the

technological tools utilized within high school mathematics classrooms as a result of this

research and its significance. As a result of this study, all stakeholders may develop a

more profound understanding of the need for technology use in the math classroom.

Additionally, this study may promote positive social change for students, allowing them

to critically analyze and evaluate information, solve complex problems, and think

creatively using digital tools. Students can create digital content, explore innovative

solutions, and express their ideas through multimedia, fostering creativity and innovation

skills (James et al., 2021).

This chapter provides a brief introduction and background on the topic. The

research problem and purpose are also presented. The study was guided by the research

questions discussed in this chapter. This chapter includes an introduction to the

theoretical foundation of the research and the methodological nature of the study. The key

terms, delimitations, and assumptions of the study are highlighted in Chapter 1. Finally,

this chapter includes the significance of the study, along with a summary of the chapter.

Background

American society is moving from digital literacy to digital competency (Falloon,

2020). Teachers train to effectively incorporate technologies in teaching and learning,

aiding in developing students’ digital literacy as a traditional approach; however, it has

become essential for teachers to further develop their digital competency (Fulgence,

2020). Digital competence is the effective use of digital technologies to communicate,

solve problems, and gather information at work, while learning, and while participating in

all aspects of life (Ilomäki & Lakkala, 2018). Technology integration in education refers

to using technology tools, resources, and strategies to enhance and support the teaching

and learning process (H. Chen et al., 2019).

Although digital competency is familiar, many teacher programs are still

developing ways to identify the necessary skills to be digitally competent and encourage

technology integration (Fulgence, 2020). The International Society of Technology

Education (ISTE, 2017) recognized teaching standards to ensure digital competency is

evident in classrooms across the K through 12th-grade band. The standards focus on

preparing students to drive their learning while deepening teacher practice, promoting

peer collaboration, and challenging teachers to rethink traditional approaches (ISTE,

2017).

The current study addressed a gap in practice regarding digital literacy

development and teacher digital competence adoption as a learning delivery model for

students. In terms of instructional practice, the goal of the study was to assist in

addressing teacher digital competence and consider viable ways to infuse technology into

math classroom instruction. Encouraging digital literacy among educators and learners

has become an appropriate approach to dealing with learning gaps in math classrooms; its

implementation must be more systematic, leading to efficient changes (Falloon, 2020).

The current study was needed because educators and decision makers should be

informed regarding incorporating technological teaching practices in high school math. In

addition, the study may assist educational professionals in designing mathematics

education programs that address the needs of students in high school math

technologyenriched classrooms. This study explored high school teachers’ perceptions of

the challenges in integrating technology into math instruction and discussed viable ways

to improve those challenges. This study could advance the current understanding of

digitally motivated teaching and learning effectiveness in high school math.

Problem Statement

The problem that was addressed through this study was that high school teachers

are challenged in integrating technology into math instruction. In a survey by the

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development [ASCD] and OverDrive

Education (2019), 47% of participating teachers expressed fears of being unprepared or

uncomfortable or lacking practical skills to incorporate digital tools in learning. Although

most teachers have knowledge of technology, many are apprehensive and hesitant to

approach technology innovatively so that instruction can break away from traditional

practices (Perienen, 2020). In a CompTIA (2021) study, 53% of the participating teachers

desired better technology training, digital literacy through professional development, and

better materials and resources. Many teacher education programs develop ways to

identify the necessary skills to become digitally competent to ensure student success in

the classroom (Fulgence, 2020).

In a study by Perienen (2020), 155 mathematics teachers were surveyed on

technology integration. Teachers agreed that technology use is beneficial for enhancing

math education and pedagogy. However, many teachers were not incorporating

technology in their teaching practices due to concerns about inadequate training in the

pedagogical implementation of information technologies needed for better computer

service, including internet services. Furthermore, Perienen found that teaching

experience, apparent accessibility, and technology integration were significantly

associated. This showed that teachers who had taught longer used technology less than

younger colleagues who perceived technology use as easy. Research literature indicated a

consensus that the problem is current, relevant, and significant to education regarding the

topic’s relevancy (CompTIA, 2021; Keen et al., 2022; Perienen, 2020); limited literature

was available regarding the challenges with technology integration in math instruction.

Therefore, the current study was needed to provide qualitative information concerning the

challenges high school teachers experience in integrating technology in math instruction.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this basic qualitative study was to explore Tennessee high school

teachers’ perceptions of the challenges in integrating technology in math instruction. The

high school teachers identified challenges they face integrating technology related to the

domains of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework. The

research questions guided this study on high school math teachers’ perceptions of

challenges they experience integrating technology in instruction. Participants included 10

teachers who taught high school math in Tennessee and agreed to complete a

semistructured interview.

Research Questions

The following research questions guided this study:

RQ1: What are high school teachers’ perceptions of the challenges in integrating

technology in math instruction?

RQ2: What do high school teachers consider viable strategies for infusing

instructional technology into math classrooms?

Theoretical Framework

In preservice programs, teachers are taught to effectively incorporate technologies

in teaching and learning, aiding in developing students’ digital literacy as a traditional

approach (Fulgence, 2020). Various components have been designed to support educators

using emerging technologies during instruction to build students’ digital capabilities

(Falloon, 2020). The TPACK framework from Mishra and Koehler (2006) combines

content knowledge, technology, and pedagogy into a comprehensive model leading to

efficient technological instructional processes. It has become vital for teachers to expand

their digital competency (Falloon, 2020; Fulgence, 2020). TPACK allows educators to

consider important domains of technology integration and use, which were directly

connected to the current study’s problem, purpose, and research questions. This

framework grounded this study and the development of the research questions and is

explained in detail in Chapter 2.

Nature of the Study

Quantitative research examines data using statistical methods based on specific

hypotheses (Creswell & Poth, 2016; Howitt & Cramer, 2011). This method was

unsuitable for the current study. The nature of this study was qualitative. Qualitative

research uses inductive reasoning to decode individual encounters, focusing on

experiences and actions to infer assumptions or theories (Ravitch & Carl, 2021). A

qualitative approach with a basic qualitative design addressed the current research

questions. Data were collected through interviews addressing the research problem and

purpose and grounded in the TPACK framework. Ten teachers were recruited across

several school districts in Tennessee. Qualitative research is consistent with conducting

interviews with participants to explore challenges faced in using and adopting technology

(Keen et al., 2022). Interviewing participants provides an extensive understanding of

interviewees’ experiences and viewpoints, proving information related to a topic of

concern (Knott et al., 2022). All high school mathematics teachers were recruited from

the state of Tennessee. Saldaña’s (2016) 3-cycle approach to thematic analysis was used

for data analysis. Open and inductive coding assisted in identifying the codes from the

data. Interviews with teachers who teach mathematics in high school classrooms were the

primary source of data.

Definitions

Throughout this study, the following operational terms were used:

Digital competence: The poised and actual use of digital technologies to

communicate, solve problems, and gather information in work, learning, and participation

in all aspects of life (Ilomäki & Lakkala, 2018).

Digital literacy: The skill set or use of technical tools and platforms to locate,

assess, and share information (Porat et al., 2018).

Information technology: Computers and telecommunications used to store,

retrieve, and send information electronically (Tallon et al., 2019).

Technology integration: The effective use of technology tools, resources, and

strategies to enhance and support the teaching and learning process (H. Chen et al., 2019).

Assumptions

Assumptions are claims made in a study that are not verifiable by the researcher

(Leedy & Ormrod, 2016). While conducting the current study, I made several

assumptions related to methodology, theory, and specific topics. I assumed that

participating teachers would provide truthful responses. During the data collection

process, participants either responded to or declined the invitation to complete the

interview. Additionally, I was confident that the study effectively portrayed teachers’

experiences with technology integration in math instruction, facilitating the identification

of potential challenges and the formulation of solutions for the research problem and

questions at hand. The study operated under the assumption that participating teachers

comprehended the questions posed during the interview and felt at ease with me asking

clarifying questions. In addition, I assumed that teachers applied technological

approaches under legislative mandates and peer-reviewed educational literature about

technology integration in education. This assumption was necessary because there was no

control over how technology was applied in the study context.

Scope and Delimitations

The scope of a study refers to the population used during research and the extent

to which the population is studied (Burkholder et al., 2016). The scope of the current

study involved teachers who teach students math in Grades 9–12 at high schools in

Tennessee. This study was delimited to 10 high school teachers from within multiple

school districts in Tennessee. Detailed information on teacher perceptions of challenges

in using and adopting technology in math instruction from the study may provide

transferable findings in Tennessee and similar states.

Delimitations establish restrictions for research concerning what it investigates

and addresses (Theofanidis & Fountouki, 2019). A delimitation of the current study was

using high school math teachers in Tennessee. This study did not include high school

teachers who teach other subjects. Also, this study did not include teachers from different

grade bands or grade levels. As a result of these design choices and delimitations, the

results of this study may not be transferrable to other states or regions of the United States

because the experiences of mathematics teachers in Tennessee may differ in fundamental

ways from those of teachers in other locations.

Limitations

The potential weaknesses of a study that affect the outcomes due to elements

beyond the researcher’s control are considered research limitations (Theofanidis &

Fountouki, 2019). Interviews are a valuable method for gathering in-depth information

and insights from participants. Awareness of limitations in qualitative interviews is

crucial for maintaining the credibility and ethical conduct of the study. Response bias

refers to participants providing answers they believe the interviewer wants to hear, rather

than their true thoughts or experiences, resulting in inaccurate or incomplete data

(Ravitch & Carl, 2021). The interviewer must remain focused to maintain integrity and

keep the conversation consistent with answering the interview questions (Theofanidis &

Fountouki, 2019).

Limiting the generalizability of findings in the current study was the limited

sample size and subjectivity due to reliance on participants’ perceptions and

interpretations. Another limitation included sampling bias that may have caused some

participants to agree to an interview if they had strong opinions or experiences related to

the research topic (see Burkholder et al., 2020). This could have skewed the data.

Mitigating limitations in qualitative interview research is an ongoing process that

involves careful planning, ethical considerations, and a commitment to data quality.

Significance

The gap in literature was addressed by providing practical information on

challenges high school teachers face in using and adopting technology in math instruction

in Tennessee. The gap in practice showed that digital literacy development and teacher

digital competence adoption need to be explored as a learning delivery model for

students. This study held academic significance with the potential to inspire educational

stakeholders to better understand the utilization of technology in high school math

classrooms. All educational stakeholders may understand challenges present with

technology integration in mathematics instruction. Educational administrators may

encourage technology use in math instruction and create systems that ensure technology

is incorporated in classrooms. Teachers and students should be trained and understand the

need for technological resources. This allows for the development of necessary skills and

capabilities that help students to compete effectively with societal and technological

advancements. Students may impact their communities by developing skills needed for

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics related careers.

The results of this study could foster positive social change by offering qualitative

insights into the challenges high school teachers face in integrating technology. This

information may guide decision makers in incorporating technological teaching practices

into high school math education. Using this study’s findings as a guide, educational

professionals could design mathematics education programs that focus on meeting the

needs of students in high school math technology-enriched classrooms.

Summary

As educational institutions continue developing and implementing best technology

mathematics practices, examining the math concepts and how they are taught is

significant. Although digital literacy has been at the forefront, it is more pressing to

develop digital competence and understand what it means. Digital competence is the

poised and essential use of digital technologies to communicate, solve problems, and

gather information in work, learning, and participation in all aspects of life (Ilomäki &

Lakkala, 2018). Along with digital competence is the aspect of technology integration in

education. Technology integration in education refers to the effective use of technology

tools, resources, and strategies to enhance and support the teaching and learning process

(H. Chen et al., 2019).

The current basic qualitative study explored the challenges high school teachers

experience in integrating technology in math instruction. The high school teachers

identified challenges they face integrating technology related to the domains of TPACK.

The TPACK framework from Mishra and Koehler (2006) was used to guide the study.

This study provided practical data regarding technology integration in mathematics

instruction to bridge a gap in the literature. Chapter 2 provides a review of existing

literature on mathematics education, achievement, teacher digital competence, and

technology integration in mathematics.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

The problem addressed in this study was that high school teachers are challenged

in integrating instructional technology in math instruction. The purpose of this basic

qualitative study was to explore the high school teachers’ perceptions of the challenges of

integrating technology in math instruction. Research relating to teacher digital

competence affecting student achievement on standardized assessments was less plentiful

than the capacity in which student digital competency indicates academic achievement.

Teacher digital competence has been found to affect academic achievement among

Konya and Ankara students (Akturk & Saka Ozturk, 2019) and elementary and secondary

school students in China (Liu et al., 2022). My literature search and review confirmed

that the topic is relevant to education but is limited in providing evidence of the

challenges high school teachers experience in integrating technology in math instruction.

The current study focused on digital literacy and its influence on technology use in the

high school math classroom. Also, the study addressed digital competence and its

numerous benefits and barriers in math education. The study addressed these concepts

separately to address the gap found in the literature review.

Chapter 2 includes the literature search strategies, theoretical framework, and

literature review. The summary and conclusion follow the literature review of key

concepts of digital literacy, benefits of digital literacy, digital literacy skills, digital

literacy barriers, digital competence, digital competence learning domains, digital

competence in high schools, digital competence for high school math teachers, and

teacher self-efficacy. This study explored high school teachers’ perceptions of the

challenges in integrating technology in math instruction.

Literature Search Strategy

This section describes the literature search strategies to explain the research

process. The following databases in the Walden University Library were used to gather

information for the literature review: EBSCOHost, SAGE, Google Scholar, Google,

ERIC, and ProQuest. The searches were narrowed to full-text and peer-reviewed journal

articles. Searches were also restricted to articles published from 2018 to 2023.

The following key terms were used to search for information: TPACK, TPACK in

K-12 education, quantitative study, digital literacy, digital literacy development,

technology in the classroom, applying the TPACK model, TPACK and technology in the

school, math achievement, high school math education, high school, high school math,

high school math teachers, math education, digital competence, and technology

integration in education. Most sources were published between January 2018 and August

2023. The literature review addressed the TPACK framework, digital literacy, digital

competence, and technology integration.

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Framework

Teachers are taught to efficiently incorporate technologies in instruction, aiding in

developing students’ digital literacy as a traditional approach (Fulgence, 2020). The

TPACK framework from Mishra and Koehler (2006) combines content knowledge,

technology, and pedagogy into a comprehensive model leading to efficient technological

instructional processes. The TPACK framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) expanded

Shulman’s (1986) pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) framework. Shulman’s idea

supported learning through pedagogical and content knowledge. Using this idea, Mishra

and Koehler added technology to enhance classroom instructional processes. There are

seven domains of the TPACK framework, including content knowledge (CK),

pedagogical knowledge (PK), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), technology

knowledge (TK), technology content knowledge (TCK), technological pedagogical

knowledge (TPK), and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK), which

relate to the combinations of content, technological, contextual knowledge, and

pedagogical improving the technology usage by teachers in the instructional process

(Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Salas-Rueda, 2019); Wang et al.,2023). Content knowledge

(CK) applies to the concepts taught by the teacher and their knowledge. Pedagogical

knowledge (PK) deals with how the ability is presented to facilitate learning. Pedagogical

content knowledge (PCK) focuses on the tools used to teach various concepts.

Technology knowledge uses technology according to the teacher’s discretion.

Technology content knowledge (TCK) deals with using technology and comprehending

the effects of using specific kinds of technology on the course concepts. Technological

pedagogical knowledge (TPK) focuses on how technology impacts learning, and

technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) combines content, technology,

contextual knowledge, and pedagogy, enhancing the instructional process of teachers

about technology (Cheng et al., 2022; Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Salas-Rueda, 2019).

These seven domains are applied to classroom instruction and allow for the optimal use

of technology.

Teachers must extend their digital competency (Falloon, 2020; Fulgence, 2020).

In a 2018 study by Kartal and Çinar, the TPACK model was applied to evaluate the

relationship of digital tools between technological applications, such as GeoGebra and

Mathematica, in math instruction. The information collected shared views of teachers that

considered technology as a visualization, simplifier, and motivation tool. Furthermore,

implementing the TPACK framework during instruction can help facilitate quality

teaching and learning experiences for students (Cheng et al., 2022; Salas-Rueda, 2019).

Content Knowledge

CK refers to the concepts teachers teach and their understanding and ability to

distribute those concepts (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Salas-Rueda, 2019). Mathematics

teachers undergo training to develop the knowledge necessary to confidently teach the

concepts students need to learn (Kartal & Çinar, 2018; Mishra & Koehler, 2006;

Shulman, 1986). CK is one component that influences students’ achievement, and

teachers’ understanding of this concept is vital to success for both teachers and students

(Salas-Rueda, 2019). To make an impactful difference in academic achievement, teachers

should understand how CK affects several aspects of the classroom, including

interpretations of the objectives students should learn. CK allows teachers to recognize

the best practice to listen to and answer students’ questions. CK involves the teachers

monitoring instruction and using questions to stimulate thinking (Kartal & Çinar, 2018;

Mishra & Koehler, 2006; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 2000).

With this component, conceptual understanding is derived as a comprehension of

concepts, operations, and relationships that helps students avoid critical problem-solving

errors and represent mathematical situations differently (NCTM, 2000).

Pedagogical Knowledge

PK deals with how the knowledge is presented to facilitate learning. PCK focuses

on the tools used to teach concepts (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Salas-Rueda, 2019). PK

implies that teachers effectively use the best strategies and practices to create instruction

for implementing math concepts (Salas-Rueda, 2019; Thurm & Barzel, 2021). Through

various professional development opportunities such as readings, group projects, and

active learning strategies, teachers gain knowledge of and practice with tools and

techniques to increase academic collaboration and maximize their PK (Mannila et al.,

2018). With this component of TPACK, teachers provide students with experiences and

tasks that will improve learning, differentiate instruction, and include research-based

instructional strategies including asking questions, activating prior knowledge, promoting

discourse, and identifying misconceptions (Das, 2019; NCTM, 2000), incorporated in the

planning process.

Learning objectives and concepts should be clearly defined in the planning

process to acknowledge the need for technology implementation to support the

pedagogical complexities (Mannila et al., 2018). Designing a technology-enhanced

mathematic lesson using a strategic plan allows teachers to increase mathematical

thinking and instruction (NCTM, 2000; Salas-Rueda, 2019). These technology-enhanced

mathematic lessons give the students a transformed experience and offer flexible learning

opportunities for mathematical concepts that are both engaging and exciting. Although

mathematics is challenging for many students, academic achievement is promising when

technology is used (Mannila et al., 2018).

Technological Knowledge

TK indicates using technology according to the teacher’s discretion, focusing on

how the teachers use their skills to incorporate various digital resources in instruction to

engage students (Cheng et al., 2022; Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Salas-Rueda, 2019). TCK

deals with using technology and comprehending the effects of using different kinds of

technology on the curriculum concepts. TPK focuses on how technology impacts

instruction, and TPCK combines content, technology, contextual knowledge, and

pedagogy, enhancing the instructional process of teachers regarding technology use

(Cheng et al., 2022; Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Salas-Rueda, 2019). Technology

knowledge and its variations impact student achievement as technology promotes student

engagement that is flexible and exciting. The NCTM (2015) indicated that digital tools

should be implemented to enhance the instructional process, experience, communication,

and application related to mathematics for students and educators. Digital tools include

the internet, mobile devices, computers, software and gaming programs, and other

applications.

Summary of Theoretical Framework

The TPACK framework from Mishra and Koehler (2006) combines TK, PK, and

CK into a comprehensive model leading to efficient technology use in instruction that

supports and promotes opportunities for learners to engage in enriched,

technologyenhanced learning environments. The components of TPACK can support

creative thinking and authentic and innovative problem solving, manipulate data, and

create possibilities for learners to explore tasks and answer questions that require an

elaborate response related to real-world concepts (Hernawati & Jailani, 2019; Hill &

Uribe-Florez, 2020; NCTM, 2015). Learning objectives and ideas should be clearly

defined to acknowledge the need for technology implementation to support the

pedagogical complexities (Mannila et al., 2018). Technology-enhanced mathematic

lessons provide teachers with guidelines to strengthen mathematical thinking and improve

math instruction (NCTM, 2000; Salas-Rueda, 2019).

Incorporating technology into the classroom has its challenges. However, in

previous studies, teachers recognized the need for technology and more professional

development to be more efficient in integrating technology into the classroom (Hernawati

& Jailani, 2019; Hill & Uribe-Florez, 2020; Liu et al., 2022). With the wave of

technology, teachers should develop technology skills that increase student achievement,

which is the goal. Further development of TPACK, as presented in a study by Rakes et al.

(2022), suggested a need to incorporate technology in mathematics instruction, focusing

on theoretical knowledge. Using TPACK as a framework can benefit mathematics

teachers and engage students on diverse levels (Rakes et al., 2022). The goal of the

current qualitative study was to better understand the difficulties encountered by high

school teachers when incorporating technology into their math instruction, focusing on

the facets of the TPACK framework.

Literature Review Related to Key Concepts and Variable

Digital Literacy Defined

Gilster (1997) defined digital literacy as understanding and using various

technological sources. Spires et al. (2019) argued that digital literacy involves using

digital platforms such as Microsoft Word to read and write digitally. Digital literacy is the

skill set or use of technological sources to locate, assess, and share information, as

defined by Porat et al. (2018). Digital literacy consists of abilities, understanding, and

views that allow individuals to use digital media analytically, responsibly, and creatively

(Vissenberg et al., 2022). According to researchers, digital literacy provides development

opportunities that protect against potential adversity related to online risk (Porat et al.,

2018; Vissenberg et al., 2022). Furthermore, digital literacy includes the skills to

•examine information decisively,

•interpret visual platforms,

•manage digital content, and

•use digital technologies (Liza & Andriyanti, 2020).

With new technology on the rise, teachers and students are often considered

computer and technically knowledgeable. However, Porat et al. (2018) examined six

digital literacy tasks performed by participants to assess their perceived competencies on

those tasks compared to their actual performance on appropriate digital tasks. Results

showed moderately strong connections with the six digital literacy skills. Porat et al.

claimed that participants needed to have understood their basic competencies, although

they presented high accuracy in their digital literacies.

Digital skills are an essential part of digital literacy. Digital literacy comprises

functional, practical, and more advanced critical and evaluative skills (Helsper et al.,

2020). Several researchers noted that there are several types of digital skills, which

include communication and engagement, content authoring, and productivity skills (Das,

2019; Helsper et al., 2020; Porat et al., 2018; Vissenberg et al., 2022).

Digital Literacy Skills

Students are immersed in technology daily due to the world around them and the

vast access to digital technologies (Lombardi et al., 2020). Students with access to

technology and familiarity with various devices may need to learn to use them

productively (Porat et al., 2018). Lombardi et al. (2020) determined that more than

technical savviness is required so students can succeed in acquiring the skills necessary to

perform in school and work. Lombardi et al. stated that digital literacy skills would

ensure employers hire students prepared for the workforce, where these skills are helpful

in jobs and careers. Though Lombardi et al. and Porat et al. (2018) established the need

for these skills, the focus should be on digital literacy skills and being able to implement

these skills as students learn them. As technology evolves, students are more productive

in society when using technology and digital literacy skills to generate, assess, and

communicate (Levano-Francia et al., 2019). According to NCTM (2000), students use

digital literacy skills in these significant ways:

•solving a problem and determining which tool to use,

•learn and implement the organization of digital tools (centered on templates),

•engaging in different tools to transform mathematics,

•clarify technological solutions to derive a recommended solution,

•justifying a solution is accurate using technology, and

•digitally supporting work with digital tools.

Although students engaged with ICT tools in several ways, the activities related to

these tools can be put into six fundamental areas of use (Das, 2019). Components of

digital mathematical literacy include the following:

•evaluate and decide on tools needed with multiple aptitudes,

•using numerous illustrations (notational, graphical, syntactical) to convert

between and troubleshoot digital and mathematical contexts,

•developing or accompanying mathematical understanding and using ICT

tools, and

•expressing mathematics with ICT tools.

These components involve seven proficiencies related to ICT tools and

mathematics.

As a foundation for the education community, digital literacy skills should be

developed to establish educational resources to identify students’ and teachers’ needs.

Presenting instruction related to digital literacy skills in various educational resources is

beneficial. However, digital literacy skills must develop simultaneously with

technological innovations, according to Chetty et al. (2018).

Benefits of Digital Literacy

Digital skills form an essential portion of digital literacy. Digital literacy goes

beyond having technical skills but includes cognitive aspects (Audrin & Audrin, 2022).

Digital literacy comprises functional, practical, and more advanced critical evaluative

skills (Helsper et al., 2020). Digital literacy, according to Porat et al. (2018), is defined as

using various forms of technology to locate, assess, and communicate information.

Digital literacy consists of skillsets and understanding that permit people to apply digital

media critically, responsibly, and creatively (Vissenberg et al., 2022).

The researchers of Porat et al. (2018) asserted that students must be exposed to

and practice digital literacy skills during school instruction to be prepared for their future

goals. Digital literacy skills should be attempted and used in real-world settings as early

as possible. At the same time, there is still an opportunity to assess and receive more

training if necessary (Saux & Cevasco, 2019). Levano-Francia et al. (2019) recognized

that today’s policy models use more digital components; therefore, these necessary skills,

competencies, and literacies must be developed.

Findings showed the importance of implementing technology in high school math

school classrooms and observed that high school students were able to use tools for

presentational purposes with spreadsheets, databases, or programming (Fasching &

Schubatzky, 2022; Hill & Uribe-Florez, 2020). One benefit of digital literacy is that it

enables self-paced learning, supports independent study, and improves reading, writing,

mathematics, and science (Fasching & Schubatzky, 2022). Researchers showed that

digital literacy supported creative thinking and authentic and innovative problem-solving

(Hernawati & Jailani, 2019; Hill & Uribe-Florez, 2020; NCTM, 2015). As students and

teachers enhance their digital literacy skills, they can engage and explore within flexible,

fun, and exciting learning environments that encourage students to engage in their

learning actively (Pangrazio et al., 2020; Porat et al., 2018). Digital literacy allows

students to understand information and communicate their knowledge through visual and

digitally enhanced components (Pangrazio et al., 2020), leading to lifelong learners.

Digital Literacy Barriers

Opeyemi et al. (2019) explored the barriers to incorporating technology to

enhance digital literacy in the classroom. The barriers evident were classified as

firstorder, which are external to the teacher, and second-order barriers are internal to the

teacher. Opeyemi et al. (2019) found that the need for adequate and well-trained

personnel is the ultimate reason teaching and learning is only equitable for some learners.

The extrinsic, first-order barriers to the teacher are related to the barriers evident

in society, the family, and the schools. According to Opeyemi et al. (2019), barriers

evident in society include but are not limited to unstable educational curriculum,

unbalanced government, and their policies, limited resources and applicable devices,

financial constraints, poor or limited internet service, poverty, and scarce subsidy from

the government. According to researchers, the teaching frameworks for digital literacy

skills need to be revised compared to those available for teaching core subject areas

throughout the educational system (Das, 2019; Saux & Cevasco, 2019). Resident in

family barriers is myths about parenting, cybercrime and social vices, and inadequate

academic training of the students. The barriers resident in schools includes established

opposition, uncertainty, inability to maintain, adverse conditions, and insufficient

classroom time.

The second-order barriers are related to the teachers’ beliefs about digital tools

and teachers’ digital capability and knowledge and are intrinsic (Hill & Uribe-Florez,

2020; Opeyemi et al., 2019). Barriers related to teachers’ beliefs about digital tools are

views and views of colleagues and other significant educational professionals, erroneous

information, and negative attitude concerning computers. Opeyemi et al. (2019) identified

those barriers to competence and digital literacy as an inability to properly apply and use

digital tools, teachers’ lethargy, and inadequately trained employees. According to the

conclusions of researchers, teachers must have the skills necessary to train students to be

prepared for college and the workforce; therefore, this information is essential in teaching

and learning and understanding the need to improve and apply valuable resources for

curriculum and assessment (Hill & Uribe-Florez, 2020; Opeyemi et al., 2019).

In conclusion, the first and second-order barriers included in this section are based

on research by Opeyemi et al. (2019). The first-order barriers related to society, family,

and schools are external to the teacher. The second-order barriers are those internal and

relate to the teacher’s beliefs about digital tools and teachers’ digital capability and

knowledge (Hill & Uribe-Florez, 2020; Opeyemi et al., 2019).

Digital Competence

Different competencies are required when navigating a digital world, including

finding relevant information through search engines and databases (Samuelsson &

Lindström, 2022). The American Library Association (2021) referred to these

competencies as distinct aspects of digital literacy and received increasing attention in

schools. Digital competence is one of eight key competencies, including technical

competence, creating the capability to use digital applications meaningfully and critically,

and participating and committing to the digital culture (Skantz-Åberg et al., 2022). Digital

competence and digital literacy are recognized differently because digital literacy is a

specific component of digital competence.

He and Li (2019) suggested that various literacies, including digital media,

information, ICT, the Internet, and e-skills define digital competence. Digital competence

involves a pedagogical concept involving sessions and aspects that encourage

technological representations in the classroom, learning, and teacher training

(TárragaMínguez et al., 2021). Due to the increase in digital technologies at all levels of

education, learning environments have evolved to include online and offline tools for

learning. Technology infused in education shifts understanding contexts from paper and

pencil formats to digital and hands-on designs (Falloon, 2020).

Frequently accustomed ideas in the literature for digital competence are media

competence, information and technology competence, digital literacy, computer

competence, and media literacy. These terms appear in different facets of society and

within political, research, and media debates, where their meanings overlap (Falloon,

2020; He & Li, 2019). To further develop an understanding of digital competence, there

are different frameworks and models where digital competence coincides. The UNESCO

(2018) model has three levels: basic notions, acquisition, knowledge deepening, and

knowledge generation, focusing on criteria related to the course of study and assessment,

instruction, ICT, structure and administration, and the teacher’s professional learning.

The four competency levels of the National Educational Technology Standards for

Teachers Model are initial, medium, expert, and transforming. The competency levels are

settled in five scopes: student learning and creativity, learning experience and evaluation,

work and learning in the digital age, digital citizenship and responsibility, and

professional development and leadership (National Educational Technology Standards for

Teachers (NETS-T), 2008; Tárraga-Mínguez et al., 2021). The European Union Model,

called “DigCompEdu,” concentrates on 22 specific competencies classified into six areas

with various levels of competence development (Redecker, 2017). These models pursue

to move beyond mere technical skill conceiving digital competence as an intricate idea

(Lucas et al., 2021; Tárraga-Mínguez et al., 2021).

According to a study by He and Li (2019), digital competence follows a

threecomponent approach. A model of digital competence proposed by the European

Commission with an extensive literature review follows three elements: instrument skills

and knowledge, advanced skills and knowledge, and attitudes to social‐ethical knowledge

and skills (Guitert et al., 2021). Instrumental skills and knowledge (ISK) are used for

technical tools and media. Advanced skills and knowledge (ASK) refer to collaborating,

creating content and information, communicating, solving problems, knowledge, and

active involvement. Attitudes to social‐ethical (ASE) knowledge and skills are for

involvement with digital tools in intercultural, analytical, innovative, accountable, and

self-directed practices (He & Li, 2019).

Technology Integration in High Schools

For schools to support students with a comprehensive educational experience,

educational professionals must encourage the integration of technology to reinforce and

foster a positive educational setting (Bingimlas, 2018). NCTM (2000) addressed

technology integration in math classrooms and supports strategic implementation for

teaching and learning. In 2015, NCTM issued a statement claiming that purposeful

utilization of technology in mathematics instruction includes implementing digital and

physical tools that are thoughtfully and critically designed to enhance learning,

application, experience, and communication for students and teachers. Technology can

support teaching and learning of mathematical objectives and pedagogy and efficient

instructional strategies that are consistent with research in instruction (NCTM, 2015)

Digital technology includes laptops, desktops, printers, scanners, and telephones.

In mathematics, teachers and students could use digital activities that form digital

calculators, interactive games, tools to create equations, graphs, formulas, and interactive

videos. Game-enhancing tools assisted in developing skills for solving word problems

that support students in internalizing math concepts (Hill & Uribe-Florez, 2020).

Technology should be infused into the math classroom. Teachers should use this

opportunity to engage students on various levels and meet them where they are. The

several types of technology implemented in the school can assist students in gaining and

increasing the analytical abilities and tools needed to become lifelong learners (Criollo-C

et al., 2021). Engaging in these technologies helps to develop skills required to use

different software and programs that are accessible with technology, for example,

Microsoft Office, Google, and the Internet. Various software enforces and reinforces

knowledge (Hernawati & Jailani, 2019; Hill & Uribe-Florez, 2020; NCTM, 2015).

There must be a strategic approach to implementing technology in mathematics

classrooms. Research showed that technology can assist students in solving problems by

attending to precision modeling mathematics and finding patterns (Wilkinson et al.,

2018). NCTM (2015) encouraged educators to incorporate digital tools to enhance the

instructional process, experience, communication, and application related to mathematics

for students and educators. This supports the teaching and learning of mathematical

objectives and effective teaching practices. With technology, whether game-enhanced

tools or other digital technologies, students gain a deeper understanding of mathematical

concepts and assist with applying concepts (Hill & Uribe-Florez, 2020). By incorporating

technology, teachers provide students with experiences and tasks that promote individual

learning, differentiate instruction, and include research-based instructional strategies to

assist students with internalizing mathematical concepts (Das, 2019; NCTM, 2000).

Research showed that digital technology could support creative thinking, authentic and

innovative problem-solving, manipulate data, and create opportunities (Hernawati &

Jailani, 2019; Hill & Uribe-Florez, 2020; NCTM, 2015). Although mathematics is

challenging for many students, incorporating technology is crucial to educational

attainment (Mannila et al., 2018).

As it relates to education, digital competence includes (1) teachers and learners

utilizing technology as a pathway to apply and retrieve information, (2) understanding

how to manage, gain, and assess gathered information using technology, and (3)

producing and sharing information with technological tools (He & Li, 2019). In

conclusion, technology integration requires people to be digitally competent, which

means that they know how to make decisions on how to use different devices and

software pedagogically (Tárraga-

Mínguez et al., 2021).

Technology Integration for High School Math Teachers

Since the millennial or digital native generation lives with and has access to many

digital technologies, it is imperative to meet the need for digital technologies in the

classroom (Liza & Andriyanti, 2020). Literature supports the consensus that researching

student digital competence is pertinent to facilitating academic achievement among

higher education students in Iran (Mehrvarz et al., 2021), engineering students (Salimi et

al., 2022), as well as among university students in Korea (H. J. Kim et al., 2019). Teacher

digital competency has been found to determine the effectiveness of academic

achievement among Konya and Ankara students (Akturk & Saka Ozturk, 2019) and

elementary and secondary school students in China (Liu et al., 2022). Therefore, teachers

should be trained and prepared to incorporate these competencies in the instruction to

assist students in continuing to develop skills (S. Kim et al., 2019).

Technology-enhanced mathematic lessons provide teachers with guidelines for

expanding and improving mathematical knowledge and instruction (NCTM, 2000;

SalasRueda, 2019). These technology-enhanced mathematic lessons give the students a

transformed experience and offer flexible learning opportunities for mathematical

concepts that are both engaging and exciting. Digital competence is needed to efficiently

utilize technology and advance students’ digital skills within the education process

(Melash et al., 2020). As technology evolves, teacher training programs should also

develop the approach to ensure student teachers have digital experiences to increase the

digital competence that allows them to incorporate technology effectively and efficiently

in classroom instruction (Basilotta-Gómez-Pablos et al., 2022; Melash et al., 2020;

Miguel-Revilla et al., 2020; Starkey, 2020). The impact is pivotal when teachers support

technology use during instruction (Das, 2019). Using technology makes mathematics

more simplified, enhances creativity, and allows teachers to provide timely formative

feedback (Awofala & Olaniyi, 2023; Das, 2019; National Academies of Sciences,

Engineering, and Medicine, 2018). Incorporating technology contributes to pedagogical

strategies fostering mathematical skills development (Freiman & Tassell, 2018; Sarı &

Bostancioglu, 2018).

With the ever-growing focus on technology implementation, teachers must review

current and relevant information related to student learning to enhance the educational

environment (Attard & Holmes, 2020). Different frameworks and models were formed to

develop the concept of digital competence and the competencies teachers need (ISTE,

2017; Redecker, 2017; UNESCO, 2018). The DigCompEdu (Redecker, 2017), ICT

competency framework for teachers (UNESCO, 2018), and TPACK (Mishra & Koehler,

2006) represent frameworks that focus on digital competence and technology integration.

These frameworks help to classify the several aspects surrounding the instructional

practices moving beyond digital literacy skills as a basis for understanding digital

competence is a more multifaceted skill (Lucas et al., 2021; Melash et al., 2020; Tárraga-

Mínguez et al., 2021). The implications of digital competence are more inclusive,

intricate, and challenging for the teaching profession than for other occupations

(Basilotta-Gómez-Pablos et al., 2022; Melash et al., 2020; Starkey, 2020). For teachers,

this includes having the ability to incorporate technology into instructional practices

effectively by consuming and accessing information, understanding how technology

works, and the ability to create and exchange information with digital technology (He &

Li, 2019).

The research findings indicated various areas where teachers across all grade

levels in schools could enhance their digital competence (Rice, 2021). Although

mathematics teachers use technology regularly and go beyond personal use to simplify

and expand instructional practices, technology still needs to be used more to teach

mathematical standards (Perienen, 2020). Teachers present difficulties adopting

technology due to anxiety, stress, hesitation, and apprehension when exploring innovative

computer-mediated teaching that requires them to move away from traditional teaching

practices (Fernández-Batanero et al., 2021; Perienen, 2020). When teachers lack digital

competence, it affects the many aspects negatively related to student achievement,

enhanced student skills, increased areas of concern in the education system, and academic

progress (Chetty et al., 2018; Novita & Herman, 2021).

Two factors impacting technology integration among teachers are perceived

effortlessness in using technology and setting up environments that influence computer

usage, as Perienen (2020) reported in a study. It is recommended that teachers should

have access to classrooms equipped and ready for technology-based teaching that

includes preloaded learning software and access to training to use the software (Jadhav et

al., 2022; Perienen, 2020). When teachers have high digital competence, integrating

technology into instructional practices facilitates student learning, improves learning

quality, increases motivation, and ensures students have skills needed for future

educational and career goals (Alabdulaziz, 2021; Çebi et al., 2022; Hill & Uribe-Florez,

2020).

Summary and Conclusions

Chapter 2 contained the literature search strategy, the conceptual framework, and

the literature review on TPACK, applying the TPACK model, quantitative study,

technology in the classroom, TPACK in K-12 education, digital literacy, digital literacy

development, TPACK and technology in the school, math achievement, high school

education, high school, high school math, high school math teachers, math education,

digital competence, and technology integration. Digital competence requires people to be

digitally competent, which means that they know how to make decisions on how to use

different devices and software pedagogically (Tárraga-Mínguez et al., 2021). Reviewing

models and frameworks related to digital competence is necessary to understand the

concept of digital competence and its connection to technology integration. Technology

integration in education refers to the effective use of technology tools, resources, and

strategies to enhance and support the teaching and learning process (H. Chen et al.,

2019).

The literature review contained a background of the concepts associated with this

study and shows a research gap that was addressed by this study. The gap in practice that

was discussed was integrating technology in math instruction and technology integration

challenges. This current qualitative study addressed the gap in practice regarding the high

school teachers’ experiences and challenges with integrating technology into math

instruction. Chapter 3 provides an exploration of the research method for this study.

Chapter 3: Research Method

The purpose of this basic qualitative study was to explore high school teachers’

perceptions of the challenges in integrating technology into math instruction. After the

introduction of this chapter, there is a discussion of the research design and its rationale,

which includes the research questions, a definition of the central concepts, a review of the

research tradition, and the rationale for choosing the research tradition. The role of the

researcher is explained in this chapter, along with the population, sampling strategy,

procedures for recruitment, participation, data collection, and data analysis. An

explanation of trustworthiness is also shared in this chapter. The ethical procedures

section provide guidelines that were followed to protect respondents. The last section of

Chapter 3 is a summary.

Research Design and Rationale

Qualitative research includes inductive reasoning to decode individual encounters

focusing on experiences and actions to infer assumptions or theories (Ravitch & Carl,

2021). There are various qualitative designs, such as basic, grounded theory,

ethnography, and phenomenology (Lichtman, 2023). Ethnography, grounded theory, and

phenomenology were not used in the current study. This study did not focus on cultural

groups and their real-life experiences, so an ethnographic design was not appropriate. A

grounded theory design involves developing a theory or conceptual framework based on

empirical data (Creswell & Poth, 2016) and did not align with my study. Like case

studies, phenomenological studies allow the researcher to gain an understanding of a

specific phenomenon from the viewpoint of the participants’ experiences (Creswell &

Poth, 2016). This focus was not appropriate for my study.

A basic qualitative design was appropriate to answer the research questions

focused on teachers’ perceptions of challenges in integrating technology in math

instruction and what they consider to be viable options to address those challenges. Data

were collected through teacher interviews that provided a wide range of responses

regarding experiences and challenges with integrating technology in math instruction.

Answers to the research questions were provided by analyzing the data collected. The

results of this study may lead to an understanding of teacher perceptions of challenges in

integrating technology in math instruction. These results have the possibility to improve

future math instruction for high school math teachers and students. The study was

conducted among high school math teachers in Tennessee from Grades 9–12.

The basic qualitative design in this study is consistent with other studies

performed in the education discipline. Baran et al. (2019) examined 215 preservice

teachers’ perceptions of support received from their teacher education programs as it

related to their TPCK. The themes identified included using teacher educators as role

models, reflecting on the role of technology in education, learning how to use technology

by design, collaborating with peers, scaffolding authentic technology experiences, and

providing continuous feedback. The results from this study connected the teacher

education strategies and the need to develop preservice teachers’ TPACK in teacher

education programs. My study aligned with previous studies and may contribute to

knowledge in education.

For this study, data from interviews were collected to provide a descriptive

analysis. Therefore, a qualitative approach was appropriate for this study. Quantitative

designs include numerical data and require statistical analysis. Therefore, quantitative

methods, such as experimental, correlational, and surveys, were not appropriate for this

study. The following research questions guided this study:

RQ1: What are high school teachers’ perceptions of the challenges in integrating

technology in math instruction?

RQ2: What do high school teachers consider viable strategies for infusing

instructional technology into math classrooms?

Role of the Researcher

In this basic qualitative study, I assumed the role of the interviewer. There was no

relationship with the participants. As a math teacher mentor, I had witnessed the

challenges high school teachers experience when incorporating technology into classroom

instruction. Eliminating bias based on my personal experience was essential for

maintaining the integrity and credibility of the study. To achieve this, I kept a research

journal, also known as a reflexive journal, as a valuable tool. This journal helped me

identify assumptions, reflect on firsthand experiences, monitor interactions, and record

decision making related to the study. Semistructured remote interviews were conducted

via the Zoom online videoconferencing platform with 10 high school math teachers. The

teachers were recruited via several Facebook private groups, including Tennessee

Teachers and Teachers of West TN. The goal was to focus on the information provided

by the interviewees during the interviews and reduce unintended bias.

Methodology

Participant Selection

The population for this study consisted of approximately 2,200 high school math

teachers in Tennessee (see Collins & Schaaf, 2020). About 25% of these teachers are

members of social media groups on Facebook. This made up the target population who

were invited to participate (see Appendix C). From this target population, a sample of 12

teachers (to account for attrition) was sought. Ten were obtained.

The two general sampling method techniques most used are probability and

nonprobability. According to Berndt (2020), probability sampling techniques include

random, systematic, stratified, and cluster. The nonprobability sampling techniques are

snowball sampling, quota sampling, self-selection sampling, and purposive sampling

(Berndt, 2020). Ravitch and Carl (2021) referred to purposeful or purposive sampling as a

deliberate selection of individuals and research settings. According to Patton (2002),

purposive sampling leads to a greater depth of information from a smaller number of

carefully selected cases. In addition, purposive sampling is used to select units (e.g.,

individuals, groups of individuals, institutions) based on specific purposes of answering a

study’s research questions.

A purposeful sampling strategy was implemented in the current study. Participants

were high school math teachers throughout Tennessee. Ten high school teachers were

recruited via Facebook private groups. The guidelines of the Walden University

Institutional Review Board (IRB) were followed throughout the recruitment phase. After

giving informed consent, teachers completed a demographic questionnaire (see Appendix

A) via Google Form. The participants were given 1 week to respond to the consent form

and demographic questionnaire. High school teachers who teach mathematics were

recruited from the participant pool. Recruited teachers were contacted by email

concerning their selection in the study.

Instrumentation

Interview questions from a researcher-designed protocol were used as the main

data collection instrument. Participants were asked interview questions, and responses

were recorded via Zoom. The transcription service available on Zoom was used. The

interview questions (see Appendix B) addressed participants’ perceptions of the

challenges in integrating technology in math instruction related to the domains of

TPACK, which aligned with the research questions, purpose, and problem of the study.

There are seven domains of the TPACK framework: CK, PK, PCK, TK, TPK, and TPCK.

Interview questions designed to address the domains of TPACK were noted with the

domain in parentheses following the question. Additional questions related to experience

with integrating technology and benefits, recommendations on viable strategies, and

perceptions of the advancement of integration of technology in math instruction. These

questions addressed the high school teachers’ perceptions of challenges in integrating

technology into math instruction.

Procedures for Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection

Each teacher received an invitation to participate in the social media private group

that contained a description of the study (see Appendix C), my information, and the

suggested time frame to complete the study. When the teachers clicked the link, they

proceeded to the informed consent form. After completing the consent form and a

demographic questionnaire, teachers were contacted by email concerning their selection

in the study and scheduling of their interviews.

Informed Consent

The informed consent form encompassed the study’s purpose, procedures, sample

question, voluntary nature (respondents’ right not to participate), risks and benefits,

payment, description of privacy, and contact information to ask questions or share

concerns. Agreement with the informed consent and its contents established that the

teacher had decided to participate in this study. To complete the demographic survey and

to schedule the interview, the participating teacher clicked an electronic icon stating “I

agree” to give consent.

Data Collection and Exiting the Study

After the participating teacher agreed to the terms of the informed consent form,

they were directed to a brief demographic survey and a scheduling link for the interview.

The scheduling link allowed the participants to select a time that fit my and participants’

schedules. Interview times and dates were scheduled within 1 week of their response,

whenever possible. Interviews were conducted remotely through Zoom, with a request for

teachers to avoid any distractions during the interview. Teachers were alerted before

beginning the interview of their ability to exit it at any point. Data collection was

completed in 2 weeks.

Ravitch and Carl (2021) stated that interviews are a valuable qualitative research

method for gathering in-depth information and insights from participants through the

experiences and perceptions of the interviewees. Before the interview, I introduced

myself and discussed the expectations and purpose of the study. Then, confidentiality was

reviewed, including the participant’s name and other identifying information. Participants

were reminded that they were free to refrain from answering any question and to stop

participating at any time.

The interviews were recorded using Zoom’s recording feature. Reflexive

journaling occurred during the interview, and the interviewing platform’s transcription

service was used to ensure that all participants’ responses were accurately captured.

During the interview, participants were asked to clarify their responses, and follow-up

questions were asked. Table 1 shows the interview steps that were followed for all

participants.

Table 1

Interview Protocol

Step Procedure

1 Researcher and participant introduction

2 Clearly state the purpose of the study and the expectation

3 Confidentiality review

4 Questions and clarifications from participant

5 Ask interview questions

6 Opportunity for follow-up questions or clarifications

7 Thank the participant for their time

Once the interview was complete, the participant was thanked for participating in

the study. Participants received compensation in the form of an electronic $20 gift card.

Participants were asked to review my summary and interpretation of the data. A transcript

was emailed within 1 week of the interview. Participants were asked to return any

corrections within 5 business days, after which the data were considered accurate as

transcribed. The participating teacher was provided with my contact information in case

of any questions or concerns.

Data Analysis Plan

Data analysis is the systemic process of analyzing, organizing, and examining data

(Kalpokaite & Radivojevic, 2019). The research questions for the current study were the

fundamental aspects that guided the data collection. Research questions drive the

interview questions that align with the purpose, problem, theory, framework, and data

collection (Lester et al., 2020).

The data analysis of the current study followed Saldaña’s (2016) 3-cycle approach

to thematic analysis. The notes and interview data were organized and reviewed to

prepare for data analysis. Coding is the connection between data collection and data

analysis (Rogers, 2018). According to Ravitch and Carl (2021), coding is a way to

organize and consolidate data into manageable pieces to engage logically. Codes

highlight a word, phrase, sentence, or paragraph describing a specific topic from the

collected data. Ravitch and Carl (2021) stated that all data can be coded, including

transcripts, field notes, archival data, photographs, videos, research memos, and research

journals.

First-cycle coding includes open and inductive coding, meaning that codes from

the data are identified and labels are assigned to words or phrases in the data. The coding

process is not entered with a set of predetermined codes. Second-cycle coding

encompasses axial coding, which means that the data are reviewed more than once using

one or more types of coding. Codes are categorized, which means synthesizing the codes

into consolidated meaning. After the second-cycle coding in the current study, the

thematic analysis took place. The category is one level higher than code in the hierarchy

of classification in qualitative data analysis in the process of thematic extraction (Ravitch

& Carl, 2021). Each category should have similar characteristics for data grouping.

Categories are moved into themes, which are phrases or sentences that describe a process

derived from the categories. Themes are response patterns identified from data that have

been coded. Themes are substantive and reflect the substance of what was said (Ravitch

& Carl, 2021). If a theme is identified, it can become a code to which text (or other

material) expressing that theme is assigned.

Trustworthiness

In qualitative research, minimizing bias of the researcher is crucial for maintaining

the rigor, credibility, and reliability of the study (Kalpokaite & Radivojevic, 2019).

Trustworthiness or rigor of a study refers to the degree of confidence in data,

interpretation, and methods used to ensure the quality of the study. Researchers should

establish protocols and procedures necessary for a study to be considered worthy of

consideration by readers (Stahl & King, 2020). It is necessary to answer several questions

about the study to ensure the quality of qualitative research. The answers to the questions

should identify the perspectives that have been presented in the research and other

perspectives that challenge current thinking and add new knowledge in the context of that

challenge (Burkholder et al., 2020). Lincoln et al. (1985) identified four components of

trustworthiness: credibility, transferability, confirmability, and dependability.

Credibility

The credibility of the study or confidence in the study’s truth and, therefore, the

findings is an essential criterion in establishing trustworthiness (Shenton, 2004).

Credibility is parallel to internal validity for quantitative research (Burkholder et al.,

2020). Internal validity refers specifically to whether an experimental treatment/condition

makes a difference or not and whether there is sufficient evidence to support the claim

(Bhandari, 2022). According to Burkholder et al. (2020), for qualitative research to be

credible, the findings of the study must be believable based on the data presented.

Member checks are used to bolster and explore a study’s credibility, also known as

participant or respondent validation (Shenton, 2004). Data or results are returned to

participants to check for accuracy and resonance with their experiences (Shenton, 2004).

Member checking can be done during the interview process, after the study, or both to

increase a qualitative study’s credibility. In this study, member checking occurred

following the interview as previously described. It is not limited to creating a research

design that seeks complexity and attends to real-life complexities that exist in a group

(Ravitch & Carl, 2021). Another important concept is understanding and engaging in

patterns recognized in the data (Ravitch & Carl, 2021).

Transferability

Transferability relates to the external validity of the results of the study. External

validity is generalizing the treatment/condition outcomes (Burkholder et al., 2020;

Creswell & Poth, 2016). External validity should be evident in the study and the results

should transfer to different settings, groups, or populations (Burkholder et al., 2020). To

ensure and improve transferability, thick descriptions can be implemented with the

findings. A thick description refers to providing detailed accounts of the participants’

perceptions, experiences, views, intentions, implications, and understandings. (Younas et

al., 2023).

Dependability

According to Burkholder et al. (2020), dependability means that evidence of

consistency in the data collection, analysis, and reporting and any adjustments or shifts in

methodology are documented and explained. A strategy to establish this aspect of

trustworthiness is audit trail. Audit trail refers to the process of maintaining detailed

records of the complete research process, including data collection, coding, and analysis

decisions. This audit trail allows other researchers to refer to the study notes and assess

the trustworthiness of the study (Lester et al., 2020).

Confirmability

According to Burkholder et al. (2020), confirmability refers to the level that a

qualitative study is confirmed or corroborated by others. A strategy to establish this

aspect of trustworthiness is through documentation of an audit trail. To accomplish this

the researcher will document every phase of the research process, including perceptions

of each step of the study (Ravitch & Carl, 2021). This documentation assists in

confirming and justifying the study, focusing on neutrality.

Ethical Procedures

This study complied with the Walden University IRB process (Walden IRB

approval no. 12-15-23-1072170). IRB approval was received prior to data collection. A

written informed consent form was provided to teachers before participating in this study,

acknowledging their rights as study participants. Participants did not disclose any

personal information, assuring confidentiality and information was deidentified and

anonymous. All files related to the study will be secured on a non-internet accessible

computer in the researcher’s home for five years after the completion of the study and

will then be deleted per university protocols.

Summary

The purpose of this basic qualitative study is to explore the high school teachers’

perceptions of the challenges in integrating technology in math instruction. A thematic

analysis was used for this study. Theme was used to answer the main research questions.

Categories are different responses addressing or responding to the main theme. According

to Ravitch and Carl (2021), coding is a way for data organization, consolidating

information into manageable pieces to engage logically.

The research questions explored high school math teachers’ perceptions of the

challenges they experience and viable strategies for integrating technology into classroom

instruction. In this study, the population consisted of teachers in Tennessee schools who

teach high school math. I gathered the data with interview questions reflecting on the

perceptions of the challenges in integrating technology in math instruction related to

domains of TPACK, which aligned with the research questions, the purpose, and the

problem of the study. This study complied with the Walden University IRB process and

observed all expected ethical practices.

The findings from the study are reviewed in Chapter 4. The data analysis process

details are specified, along with the results of each phase. This process resulted in the

emergence of themes that were used to answer research questions.

Chapter 4: Results

The purpose of this basic qualitative study was to explore high school teachers’

perceptions of the challenges in integrating technology into math instruction.

Understanding challenges present with technology integration in mathematics instruction

may allow educational administrators to encourage technology use in math instruction

and create systems that ensure technology is incorporated in classrooms. The goal of the

study was to answer the following research questions:

RQ1: What are high school teachers’ perceptions of the challenges in integrating

technology in math instruction?

RQ2: What do high school teachers consider viable strategies for infusing

instructional technology into math classrooms?

After the introduction of this chapter, there is a discussion of the setting, which

includes participant demographics and characteristics. The data collection process is also

explained in this chapter. The data analysis section includes the codes, categories, and

themes that emerged from the data. The results of the study are shared in this chapter. The

evidence of the trustworthiness of the study follows, which includes credibility,

transferability, dependability, and confirmability. The last section of Chapter 4 is a

summary.

Setting

Semistructured interviews were conducted via Zoom with 10 high school

mathematics teachers from Tennessee high schools. A purposeful sampling strategy was

used to recruit high school mathematics teachers throughout Tennessee via Facebook

private groups. On average, the 10 interviews took 33 minutes each. The interviews were

completed over a 9-day period. The interviews were recorded using Zoom’s recording

features and transcribed verbatim. Following transcription, the interview transcripts were

downloaded. The accuracy of the transcripts was verified with proofreading. The

information from these interviews served as the primary data for the study.

Demographics

Ten high school math teachers from Tennessee high schools participated in this

study. All participants were experienced and certified in teaching math, with their

experience ranging from 11 to 34 years. All participants had experience integrating

technology in math instruction. The participants also taught different educational levels,

ranging from Grade 9 to Grade 12. To protect the identity of the participants, I assigned

each participant an identification code from P1 to P10. Table 2 summarizes participants’

demographics, including participant number, grade level taught, years of experience with

teaching math, and years of experience integrating technology in math instruction.

Table 2

Summary of Demographics

Participant number Grade level taught Number of years of experience

teaching math

Number of years of

experience implementing

technology in math

instruction

1 9 18 5+

2 9–12 18 5+

3 10–12 12 5+

4 9–12 17 5+

5 9–10 17 5+

6 9–12 11 5+

7 12 34 1–5

8 9–12 11 5+

9 9–10 18 1–5

10 9 15 5+

All participants had at least 5 years of experience teaching high school math. The

average teaching experience was 17.1 years. Most participants (80%) had 5 or more years

of experience incorporating technology into math instruction.

Data Collection

Ravitch and Carl (2021) stated that interviews are a valuable qualitative method

for gathering in-depth information and insights from participants through the experiences

and perceptions of the interviewees. In the current study, qualitative data were gathered

from 10 high school (Grades 9–12) mathematics teachers using a semistructured

interview protocol. After receiving IRB approval, I posted a recruitment flyer on

Facebook private groups. After the participating teachers completed the informed consent

form, they were directed to complete the demographic survey. Once a notification was

received that the participant had completed the survey, the Zoom scheduling link for the

interview was sent via email.

After the participants scheduled an appointment, the Zoom meeting link and

scheduled time for the interview were sent to each participant via email. No issues arose

with available interview times and dates, and all interviews were scheduled within 1

week. Interviews were conducted remotely through Zoom. Data were collected over a

9day period from January 6 to January 14, 2024, with semistructured interviews lasting

an average of 33 minutes. The interviews were recorded and saved in an audio file. All

files were password protected to maintain confidentiality.

Following each interview, debrief sessions with the participants were conducted

to outline the subsequent steps in the study. Additionally, participants were encouraged to

review the interview transcripts and adjust their responses, if necessary. After the

interviews, the participants were thanked for participating in the study. The collected data

will be securely stored in a password-protected folder on a secure computer for 5 years

beyond the study’s conclusion. Table 3 summarizes interview information, including

participant number, date of interview, number of interview minutes, and number of

interview transcript pages. The interview transcripts were typed in single-spaced Times

New Roman 12-point font.

Table 3

Summary of Interview Information

Participant Date of interview Number of interview minutes Number of interview

transcript pages

1 January 6, 2024 24 minutes 9

2 January 7, 2024 60 minutes 15

3 January 8, 2024 55 minutes 15

4 January10, 2024 46 minutes 10

5 January 11, 2024 37 minutes 8

6 January 11, 2024 23 minutes 7

7 January 11, 2024 27 minutes 8

8 January 12, 2024 33 minutes 8

9 January 12, 2024 15 minutes 5

10 January 14, 2024 21 minutes 7

Data Analysis

Data analysis is the systemic process of analyzing, organizing, and examining

data (Kalpokaite & Radivojevic, 2019). The research questions for the current study were

the fundamental aspects that guided the data collection. Research questions drive the

interview questions that align with the purpose, problem, theory, framework, and data

collection (Lester et al., 2020). The data analysis of the current study followed Saldaña’s

(2016) 3-cycle approach to thematic analysis. The notes and interview data were

organized and reviewed to prepare for data analysis. The interview transcriptions were

analyzed. The data were analyzed into codes, categories, and themes.

While listening to the audio recordings, I reviewed the transcripts to obtain an

initial understanding of the data. This approach allowed me to comprehend the

participants’ responses. According to Ravitch and Carl (2021), coding is a way to

organize and consolidate the data into manageable pieces to engage logically. The codes

highlighted a word, phrase, sentence, or paragraph describing a specific topic from the

data. The generation of initial codes was initiated and listed. Following this phase,

noteworthy features of the data were systematically coded. This involved revisiting the

collected data, segmenting the text, and labeling specific portions during open coding.

Using the outcomes of the open coding, I conducted axial coding. To achieve this, I

reviewed the codes alongside the underlying data, seeking codes that could be grouped.

Subsequently, categories were established by building on existing codes. Tables 4 and 5

represent the open codes established in categories for RQ1 and RQ2.

Table 4

Open Codes in Categories for RQ1

Code Category

Microsoft translating equations and symbols properly Inadequate and poorly working

resources

Lack of 1-to-1 devices for students Lack of resources

Power outages

Internet issues

Lagging quality when multiple programs, devices, or platforms are used at once

Computer memory low

Lack of proper equipment

Ability to see student thinking while working on problems Lack of resources

Pulling all technology components into one lesson with limited time Limited time to incorporate

technology properly

Students using technology but do not understand math content Students

struggle but do not ask for help

Students using technology but

struggling

Students do not understand how to use the technology tool or platform Students do not understand how to

use the technology tool or platform

Compatibility of technology tools, programs, and software

Connecting between Microsoft, Google, and Apple

Technology updates needed

Lack of compatibility

Students buy-in and willingness

Gaining student attention

Students being lazy

Student willingness, participation,

and buy-in

Students’ lack of participation

Students do not bring charged laptops when in class

Technology is inoperable

Breakout room mediocre quality

Technology does not adapt to mathematics standards, concepts, and content

Poor quality in technology tools and programs

Poor quality in technology

Table 5

Open Codes in Categories for RQ2

Code Category

Doodle Notes

Blooket

Classkick

Nearpod

Desmos

Kahoot

Geometer Sketchpad

Educational websites

Edulastic

Math Excel

IXL

Platforms for online practice problems

Platforms for online notes

Moby Max

Delta Math

Formative assessments

Mastery Connect

Social media groups

Savvas curriculum

All Things Algebra curriculum

Technology tools and programs

integrated into math instruction

Loom for video recording

Canva for presentations

Adobe Connect

Zoom

Technology tools and programs used

for presentations, recordings, and class

sessions

Google Classroom

Google Slides for group work and online notes

Google Form for assessments

Google Games

Google Docs

Google applications

Calculators (graphing and scientific)

Texas Instruments products

Document camera

Chromebook

Smartboards

Screens placed around the classroom

Screenshare (Reflector App)

Technology tools used to enhance

instruction

Change it up

Using color and highlights

Play games

Project-based learning

Procedurally generated online problems

Visuals

Interactive platforms

Puzzles/mazes/scavenger hunts

Coteaching Internet

research

Manipulatives

Online card sort Real-

world connections

Drawing with technology

Instant feedback using technology tools

Strategies and techniques used in

instruction

The categories were sorted and arranged into coherent themes. Themes are

response patterns identified from data that have been coded. Themes are substantive and

reflect the substance of what was said (Ravitch & Carl, 2021). Identifying themes

involved bringing together components that exhibited similarities or codes that reflected

comparable ideas or experiences among participants. This pursuit of themes was

conducted manually. The codes were compiled into a Word document and structured into

themes, aligning with the interrelation between codes and themes. To achieve this

alignment, I revisited and thoroughly analyzed the transcripts from the interviews ,

facilitating the clustering of codes into themes. This iterative process of revisiting the

transcripts aimed to enhance comprehension of the collected data, thereby facilitating the

establishment of relationships among different codes. Tables 6 and 7 represent the themes

that emerged for each research question.

Table 6

Overview of Categories Organized Into Themes for RQ1

CATEGORY THEME

Lack of resources

Poor quality in technology

Lack of proper equipment

Limited time to incorporate technology properly

Lack of compatibility

Theme 1: Lack of resources, compatibility, and proper

equipment needed to efficiently integrate technology into

math instruction

Students using technology but struggling with the

math content

Students using technology tools inefficiently and

inappropriately

Student willingness, participation, and buy-in are

poor

Theme 2: Students lacking the skill, will, desire to

participate, and the ability necessary to effectively

incorporate technology into math instruction

Table 7

Overview of Categories Organized Into Themes for RQ2

CATEGORY THEME

Technology tools and programs integrated into

math instruction poor quality in technology

Technology tools and programs used for

presentations, recordings, and class sessions

Google applications

Technology tools used to enhance instruction

Theme 3: Technology tools and programs used to

enhance and integrate into math instruction

Strategies and techniques used in instruction Theme 4: Different strategies and techniques using

technology tools and programs in math instruction

Results

This basic qualitative study explored high school teacher perceptions of the

challenges in integrating technology into math instruction. Two research questions were

investigated. The first research question was: What are high school teachers’ perceptions

of the challenges in integrating technology in math instruction? In this section, the

findings of this study will be reported. Using the semistructured interview protocol

(Appendix B), 10 high school math teachers from Tennessee schools could give

openended responses regarding their perceptions of the challenges in integrating

technology into math instruction. The interviews took place on Zoom. The open and axial

coding cycles were completed from these perceptions, and four themes emerged from this

study.

Research Question 1

The first research question was: What are high school teacher perceptions of the

challenges in integrating technology in math instruction? Two themes related to the first

research question. The first theme was lack of resources, compatibility, and proper

equipment needed to efficiently integrate technology into math instruction. The second

theme was students lack the skill, will, desire to participate, and the ability necessary to

effectively incorporate technology into math instruction.

Theme 1

Theme 1 was lack of resources, compatibility, and proper equipment needed to

efficiently integrate technology into math instruction. This theme emerged from the

perceptions of Participants 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8, who described concerns with technology

tools and programs during math instruction. This study identified participants’ experience

with technology, including inadequate and poorly working resources, lack of resources,

lack of compatibility among different programs, poor quality in technology tools, lack of

proper equipment, and limited time to incorporate technology properly. Participant 8

shared concerns related to the previously mentioned experiences by saying,

We can look at the technical side of things and just the issues that students have at

the moment. Not everyone can access it quickly. The computer does not have

enough memory, or they are having internet issues that day, or something is going

on. So, there is that downfall because you are going to miss some kids. And it

seems to happen just about every day you are going to miss somebody. Somebody

is having some kind of problem somewhere.

Theme 1 created an understanding of what high school math teachers perceived as

challenges experienced with integrating technology tools and programs efficiently into

math instruction. When asked about challenges encountered when integrating technology

in math instruction, there was a similarity in all responses. For example, Participant 1

described challenges with the lack of resources by saying that:

We are one to one. So, each of our students is issued a laptop…and they do not

charge them at night, or they leave them at home. You know, and that is an issue,

because I do not have one. We do not have any extras. So then, if they do not have

their laptop, they cannot participate. I usually just pair them up with somebody,

but then they still do not get the full experience. So, that is a frustrating thing.

Participant 5 had a similar perspective, saying,

So frustrating is that every department has a cart and laptops. … one year, I

applied and got a grant…Well, that is cool and all until the lesson I want to do.

The other freshman teacher wants to use them. Well, wait a second. There is only

one set of computers. So that does not work. So, then I am like, okay, we need

more computers. Where are we going to get the money to do it? Well, our school

was not one-to-one, and so it is like, I am trying to teach the kids how to do all

these cool things on the computer. But I do not have the computers to teach the

kids things, and I could not keep them in my room.

Many participants also talked about the lack of proper equipment. A pattern

emerged regarding teachers having issues with internet connectivity, computer memory,

and lagging quality when multiple programs, devices, or platforms are used

simultaneously. Participant 6 used a program that lags during instruction and restricts the

use of all program components. Participant 7 also expressed concerns with lagging

quality and noted occasional delays they encountered, particularly when using their

camera during virtual sessions. Although cameras are suggested but not mandatory,

except for Bridge and Star Testing, they strive to keep theirs on. However, they

acknowledged that this practice could potentially hinder system performance.

Consequently, Participant 7 mentioned their willingness to deactivate their camera if it

began to affect the session, opting instead to share visual aids like notebook paper or

graphs to facilitate understanding.

Participant 3 expressed compatibility concerns between using various programs

and products like Microsoft and Apple as a tool during instruction. Other participants

shared concerns with transitioning between Google and Microsoft. Participant 1, a fairly

new to Tennessee discussed that their current district, is a Microsoft district. Microsoft

tools are predominantly used, whereas their previous district relied on Google

applications. Consequently, the teacher faces challenges in transitioning materials from

Google to Microsoft platforms. Despite efforts to integrate their existing resources, such

as scavenger hunts created using Google Forms, into the Microsoft environment, they

have encountered limitations due to compatibility issues. While they can incorporate

slides from Google into PowerPoint presentations, transferring forms between the

platforms has proven impossible. As a result, the speaker has been unable to utilize

certain materials to the same extent as before.

A pattern emerged in the perceptions of high school math teacher related to poor

quality in technology tools and programs. Specifically, Participant 8 shared experiences

of this challenge by saying,

There is also a concern that the platforms that we are using are not aligning

perfectly with the lesson itself, anyway. Just meaning the topic might be already

preset in Delta Math or I could say IXL, whereas Connexus may teach it

extremely differently. And so, there is this huge challenge of trying to overcome

that hump of, you know, trying to reinvent the wheel… it does provide some

challenges.

Participant 3 further voiced their experience with technology that does not align to

mathematics standards, concepts, and content. This participant emphasized the perpetual

challenge of aligning instructional tools with the required curriculum. They expressed

doubt about the creation of customized math technology solely for Tennessee. Aligning

the IXL content with their teaching objectives proved difficult, as it didn’t sufficiently

prepare students for their End-of-Course assessments. This process of realignment,

particularly when standards are integrated into technology, was described as grueling.

The participant highlighted the ongoing struggle faced by Mastery Connect in updating

their item banks to match new standards. They emphasized the significant time teachers

spend on this task and underscored the importance of ensuring that educational

technology aligns with mandated standards.

Another pattern in the data that was prevalent among participants was the limited

amount of time to incorporate technology properly. Interestingly, the study participants

who integrate technology into math instruction do not feel they have enough time during

class to efficiently use all resources available. For instance, Participant 8 said “I definitely

see the challenges of trying to pull all of the technology we’re trying to use into any one

lesson. It is kind of 50-50 if I can get it all in there or not. Some days are great. Some

days it does not happen.” The high school math teachers consistently shared experiences

related to the lack of resources, compatibility, and proper equipment needed to efficiently

integrate technology into math instruction.

Theme 2

Theme 2 was students lacking the skill, will, desire to participate, and the abilities

necessary to effectively use the technology incorporated into math instruction. The

perceptions about how high school math teachers described their experiences with

challenges integrating technology in class instruction were surveyed. This theme emerged

because many participants stated that there were concerns with students and technology

integration into math instruction. Participants expressed that students use technology but

struggle with the math content, students use technology tools inefficiently and

inappropriately, and student willingness, level of participation, and buy-in was poor.

Several participants mentioned the issue of students not being prepared for

instruction with proper tools such as a charged laptop, high speed internet, and a

calculator. Even more, a few other participants spoke about technology integration as it

related to student lack of participation and willingness. Participant 6 said, “The biggest

challenge is just getting kids to do it.” Participant 5 shared about student willingness by

highlighting a prevalent issue regarding students’ reluctance to learn how to utilize

technology effectively. Despite efforts to impart knowledge, they encountered instances

where students confidently provided incorrect answers when using calculators. In one

particular session, held towards the end of the semester, the teacher focused on quadratic

equations during a remedial instruction (RTI) session. They instructed the students to

input equations into their calculators, only to discover that one student was unable to do

so, having never been taught the process. This incident accentuated the cognitive aspect

of students’ willingness and ability to utilize technological tools effectively. The

participant emphasized that while tools like Desmos are valuable, they require prior

knowledge and understanding to be used successfully, especially in algebraic contexts.

Some participants cited having issues with lazy students. While Participant 4

discussed that students are not attentive:

The most struggle is just getting them to get into it, to do it and then of the ones

who come in. Most of them tend to play along with me, and most of them will do

that engagement piece with me. Some of them just open it to say they opened it

and then they minimize the screen and walk off. That is more of an attention

issue.

In line with the pattern of expressing concerns about students and technology

integration, Participants 2 and 7 identified that students use technology but struggle with

the math content as an issue. Participant 1 exclaimed that,

The only thing that I could really think would cause an issue with understanding

the content and the technology is if they do not know how to use the technology.

It becomes a hindrance. So, they are so focused on learning how to use the

technology they do not focus on the actual content involved.

Students using technology tools inefficiently and inappropriately was a problem

that the high school teachers identified during the interview. Some participants think that

students are fearful of manipulating technology tools and platforms. Participant 4 said,

“there is an issue when students are fearful of just manipulating in the program.”

Participant 4 went on to say in regard to this challenge:

The biggest one I had was trying to teach the kids which tool did what? So, I had

a live lesson on that one where I went through and said, okay, let’s look at what

this tool does. And I clicked on the button. And I would just start doing stuff. And

they’re like, oh, that’s what that does. So, I was trying to teach them that it is okay

to click on things to see what happens.

Both Theme 1 and 2 expressed participants’ responses to Research Question 1:

What are high school teacher perceptions of the challenges in integrating technology in

math instruction? The pattern that emerged for theme 1 is that high school math teachers

feel there is a lack of resources, compatibility, and proper equipment needed to efficiently

integrate technology into math instruction. The pattern that emerged for theme 2 is that

high school math teachers feel that students lack the skill, will, desire to participate, and

the ability necessary to effectively incorporate technology into math instruction. The next

research question revealed data about what high school math teachers consider as viable

strategies for infusing instructional technology into math classrooms.

Research Question 2

The second research question was: What do high school teachers consider viable

strategies for infusing instructional technology into math classrooms? Two themes related

to the second research question. The first theme was several technology tools and

programs used to enhance and integrate into math instruction. The second theme was

different strategies and techniques using technology tools and programs in math

instruction.

Theme 3

Theme 3 was technology tools and programs used to enhance and integrate into

math instruction. This theme emerged from most participants that described technology

tools and programs integrated into math instruction. The teachers in this study stated that

their experience with technology includes various tools, programs, and applications, for

example, Google applications, calculators, Kahoot, IXL, Math Excel, Delta Math, Moby

Max, and Nearpod.

Theme 3 generated an understanding of what high school math teachers perceived

as their experiences with integrating technology tools and programs efficiently into math

instruction. When asked about strategies for infusing technology in math instruction,

there was a similarity in all responses. For example, Participant 2 stated, “So, with the

kids, I have the TI-30, and I have gotten Desmo. In the classroom, because you know, the

two calculators on the test are the TI-30 and the Desmos, and so I flip and flop back and

forth between them.” Participant 2 also said, “I use Desmos a lot. And other online

platforms, too.” Participant 4 had a similar perception saying,

I think, with today’s age, and especially with the fact that we are virtual teachers.

We have to do everything technology, with these students. And even in brick and

mortar. These students tend to be more fascinated with anything that is electronic

versus pen and paper. You hand them a piece of paper and they look at it like,

what do you? What do you want me to do with this thing? You put a screen in

front of them and they are like, hey?

Many participants also talked about Google applications. A pattern emerged

regarding teachers using Google Classroom, Slides, Forms, and Docs. Participant 6

expressed experience with Google by stating their perception as:

Google slides, for example, different groups would have a different Google slide

presentation to work on where I wouldn’t necessarily have to be in different

breakout rooms. But they are working on a different thing and communicating on

that.

Participant 10 said “I use Edulastic for homework. The Edulastic is there for them

because they have 10 checks per question. So, as they’re doing their homework, they can

check their own answers as they go.” Participant 3 further expressed experiences with

technology programs by saying,

I either put my lesson itself together on Google Slides or Nearpod, one or the

other, depending on if I am going to use the activities in Nearpod or not. So, let’s

say, in non-Nearpod Day, a Google slides day. I would create my slides ahead of

time, and I always build in pieces in the slides where we have an opportunity to

switch over to Delta Math and practice.

Other participants shared experiences with using technology tools for

presentations, recordings, and class sessions. Participant 6 described it by saying, “A

Loom … I use it to teach. But that is where I record all my videos.” Participant 4 further

exclaimed the technology tools infused into math instruction by saying,

Classkick is one of the ones I like to use a lot because they can interact with it. It

was really good at letting the students really interact, especially being able to

move around like doing the angles and such. They were able to move the lines

around and see where the lines actually intersect and be able to play with that.

Usually, I draw a lot.

The high school math teachers consistently shared experiences related to the

technology tools and programs used to enhance and integrate into math instruction.

Theme 4

Theme 4 was different strategies and techniques using technology tools and

programs in math instruction. This theme emerged from most participants that described

strategies and techniques using technology tools and programs integrated into math

instruction.

Theme 4 generated an understanding of what high school math teachers perceived

as their experiences with different strategies and techniques using technology tools and

programs in math instruction. When asked about experiences with different technology

integrated in math instruction, there was a similarity in all responses. For example,

Participant 6 modified instruction to tailor towards catering to students who require more

visual aids. For instance, during a session, this teacher focused on concepts like

exponential to logarithmic forms, utilizing varied colors and incorporating drawings to

enhance comprehension. They actively emphasized vocabulary, employing techniques

such as highlighting while preparing notes and recordings. Acknowledging the challenges

posed by new curriculum, the teacher adopted a guided notes approach, offering students

options like PDF versions for printing or interactive versions via Nearpod, allowing them

to follow along and take notes synchronously during video instruction.

Participant 9 had a similar perception acknowledging a strategy to infuse

technology by incorporating competitive elements into activities as a common strategy to

engage their students. This approach not only taps into their competitive nature but also

facilitates learning in a manner that feels enjoyable and effortless. By capitalizing on this,

this teacher enhances the learning experience. Additionally, the teacher employs guided

notes with students a few days later to ensure focused learning and comprehension.

Many participants also talked about other techniques including grouping,

projectbased learning, and manipulatives. A pattern emerged regarding teachers using

interactive platforms. Participant 6 expressed experience with interactivity by stating their

perception as:

It’s hard sometimes to get them to connect to our activities, especially on the high

school level. So, I work with geometry. For the last couple of years, I’ve been

working with geometry, and I think some of the things that allowed them to be

motivated or to be engaged in the lesson are anything that we do that’s interactive.

So, I think strategies that I have used as I try to incorporate something that they

can do with me in the moment.

Participant 1 further expressed experiences with strategies by saying “Just try and have

more fun with it in the games. We will do puzzles, like mazes and scavenger hunts.”

Both Theme 3 and 4 expressed participants’ responses to Research Question 2:

What do high school teachers consider viable strategies for infusing instructional

technology into math classrooms? The pattern that emerged for theme 3 is that high

school math teachers feel there are several technology tools and programs used to

enhance and integrate into math instruction. The pattern that emerged for theme 4 is that

high school math teachers used different strategies and techniques using technology tools

and programs in math instruction.

Evidence of Trustworthiness

Trustworthiness or rigor of a study refers to the degree of confidence in data,

interpretation, and methods used to ensure the quality of a study. In qualitative research,

minimizing assumptions of the researcher is crucial for maintaining the rigor, credibility,

and reliability of research (Kalpokaite & Radivojevic, 2019). Lincoln and Guba (1985)

derived four components of trustworthiness. The components of trustworthiness as

delineated by Lincoln and Guba are credibility, transferability, confirmability, and

dependability.

Credibility

The credibility of the study or confidence in the study’s truth and, therefore, the

findings is an essential criterion in establishing trustworthiness (Shenton, 2004).

Credibility is parallel to internal validity for quantitative research (Burkholder et al.,

2020). According to Burkholder et al. (2020), for qualitative research to be credible, the

findings of the study must be believable based on the data presented. Member checks are

used to bolster and explore a study’s credibility, also known as participant or respondent

validation (Shenton, 2004). For this study, the data or results were returned to participants

to check for accuracy of responses. Member checking was completed after the interview

process to increase this qualitative study’s credibility.

Transferability

Transferability relates to the external validity of the results of the study. External

validity is generalizing the treatment/condition outcomes (Burkholder et al., 2020;

Creswell & Poth, 2016). External validity should be evident in the study and the results

should transfer to different settings, groups, or populations (Burkholder et al., 2020). To

ensure and improve transferability, rich descriptions were implemented with the findings.

A rich description refers to providing detailed accounts of the participants’ perceptions,

experiences, views, intentions, implications, and understandings. (Younas et al., 2023).

Each interview was audio-recorded and transcribed to capture the detailed accounts of the

perceptions of each participant.

Dependability

According to Burkholder et al. (2020), dependability means that evidence of

consistency in the data collection, analysis, and reporting and any adjustments or shifts in

methodology are documented and explained. To establish dependability, an audit trail

was implemented. During each interview, notes were taken to capture any additional

feedback from the participants. Audit trail refers to the process of maintaining detailed

records of the complete research process, including data collection, coding, and analysis

decisions.

Confirmability

According to Burkholder et al. (2020), confirmability refers to the level that a

qualitative study is confirmed or corroborated by others. A strategy to establish this

aspect of trustworthiness is through documentation of an audit trail. To accomplish this

the researcher documented every phase of the research process, including perceptions of

each step of the study (Ravitch & Carl, 2021). This documentation assisted in confirming

and justifying the study, focusing on neutrality.

Summary

In Chapter 4, the results of the study were provided based on the two research

questions. After thematic analysis of feedback from interviews completed by 10

participants, four major themes emerged. In this study, high school math teachers’

perspectives regarding challenges with integrating technology into math instruction in

Tennessee was explored. For research question 1, participants felt there is a lack of

resources, compatibility, and proper equipment needed to efficiently integrate technology

into math instruction and students lack the skill, will, desire to participate, and the ability

necessary to effectively incorporate technology into math instruction. For research

question 2, participants identified several technology tools and programs used to enhance

and integrate into math instruction, as well as different strategies and techniques using

technology tools and programs in math instruction. In Chapter 5, a discussion of findings,

limitations of the study, and researcher recommendations will be provided.

Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations

In this basic qualitative study, high school math teachers’ perspectives regarding

challenges with integrating technology into math instruction were explored. In addition,

viable strategies for infusing instructional technology into math classrooms were

explored. The data for the study were gathered from semistructured interviews with 10

high school math teachers from Tennessee high schools. The interviews were conducted

and audio recorded through Zoom. The participants had experience teaching math and

integrating technology into math instruction.

The data were analyzed using thematic analysis. From the thematic analysis, four

themes emerged that were used to answer the research questions:

•lack of resources, compatibility, and proper equipment needed to efficiently

integrate technology into math instruction

•students lacking the skill, will, desire to participate, and the ability necessary

to effectively incorporate technology into math instruction

•technology tools and programs used to enhance and integrate into math

instruction

•different strategies and techniques using technology tools and programs in

math instruction

Understanding challenges present with technology integration in mathematics

instruction may allow educational administrators to encourage technology use in math

instruction and create systems that ensure technology is incorporated in classrooms. In

this chapter, a discussion of the results of this study is provided. This chapter also

includes the interpretation of findings, limitations of the study, recommendations based

on findings, implications for social change, and a conclusion.

Interpretation of the Findings

The data collection commenced after the approval by the Walden University IRB.

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 10 high school math teachers from

Tennessee. The interviews encouraged the participants to share responses that would

answer the following research questions:

RQ1: What are high school teachers perceptions of the challenges in integrating

technology in math instruction?

RQ2: What do high school teachers consider viable strategies for infusing

instructional technology into math classrooms?

Using thematic analysis, I analyzed the data obtained for themes. The key themes

represented my interpretation of the findings of this study. The findings were then

interpreted using the current literature and TPACK, which was the theoretical framework

guiding this study.

Theme 1: Lack of Resources, Compatibility, and Proper Equipment Needed to

Efficiently Integrate Technology Into Math Instruction

The categories related to challenges to efficiently integrate technology into math

instruction led to the theme related to the lack of resources, compatibility, and proper

equipment. Participant 1 shared a desire to have an ample supply of devices to implement

into math instruction. The challenges that teachers face also included limited time to

incorporate technology properly. Participants 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 felt that technology

equipment was sometimes inoperable or incompatible when desiring to implement into

math instruction. The findings are supported by the existing literature. According to

Kaminskienė et al. (2022), teachers are frustrated with the technological challenges that

arise affecting the efficient integration in math instruction.

Theme 2: Students Lacking the Skill, Will, Desire to Participate, and the Ability

Necessary to Effectively Incorporate Technology Into Math Instruction

Participants expressed that challenges with students were a major issue when

attempting to effectively incorporate technology into math instruction. The challenges

that teachers shared included students’ lack of skill and will. Many participants stated this

concern with students using technology but still struggling with the math content. Also,

participants expressed that students use technology tools inefficiently and inappropriately

with low buy-in. Several participants mentioned the issue of students not being prepared

for instruction with proper tools such as a charged laptop, high speed internet, and a

calculator. Consistent with existing literature, integrating technology with challenges

directly related to the students decreases the levels of student engagement with math

instruction (Rone et al., 2023).

Theme 3: Technology Tools and Programs Used to Enhance and Integrate Into

Math Instruction

Participants in the current study reported their perceptions of technology tools and

programs used to enhance and integrate into math instruction. Participants also mentioned

that their experiences with technology included various tools, programs, and applications

(e.g., Google applications, calculators, Kahoot, IXL, Math Excel, Delta Math, Moby

Max, Edulastic, and Nearpod). Participant 10 stated

I use a couple of different platforms. I use Edulastic for homework. The Edulastic

is there for them because they have 10 checks per question. So, as they are doing

their homework, they can check their own answers as they go. If they are

continuing to get the wrong, they can get help, or along the lines if they are at

home and they get the green and they get the green check mark. They know that

they are on the right track. It is kind of like a personal tutor for them in a way, or a

temperature check is what I say. You know, this is your temperature check. Are

you on the right track, or do you need a little intervention? Because I can’t be with

all 85 students at the same time, it’s hard for me to know where they are. But this

is a way for them to be self-aware of where they are and get help, and for the most

part, my kids do that if they keep getting wrong answers when they enter it in.

They can ask, “What am I doing wrong?” And we look at it together. And I fix a

lot of problems that way.

Research confirmed that digital technology could support creative thinking and

authentic and innovative problem solving, manipulate data, and create opportunities

(Hernawati & Jailani, 2019; Hill & Uribe-Florez, 2020; NCTM, 2015). The current

findings could be attributed to similarities in responses among the participants when

asked about strategies for infusing technology in math instruction, which align to domains

of TPACK as explained by Mishra and Koehler (2006).

Theme 4: Different Strategies and Techniques Using Technology Tools and

Programs in Math Instruction

The category related to strategies and techniques used in instruction formed

Theme 4. Participants identified several techniques and strategies to incorporate

technology into math instruction. Such techniques and strategies included using color and

highlights with technology, playing games, project-based learning, online practice

problems, interactive platforms, electronic puzzles/mazes/scavenger hunts, internet

researching, using manipulatives, real-world connections, drawing with technology, and

using technology tools that provide instant feedback. A variety of teaching strategies

including gamified learning enhances student learning and motivation and reduces

anxiety (M. Chen et al., 2023). Consistent with literature, Participant 9 said playing some

sort of game because my students are very competitive, and we introduce things that

bring out their competitiveness. But it is also helping them learn without them knowing

that they are learning because they just want to win, according to their brains. You have

to use that. And then a few days. I like to do guided notes with students so that way they

can be focused.

There are several different strategies and techniques using technology tools and programs

in math instruction that high school math teachers used.

Limitations of the Study

Interviews were a valuable qualitative research method for gathering in-depth

information and insights from participants. The potential weaknesses of the study that

affect the outcomes due to elements beyond the researcher’s control are considered

research limitations (Theofanidis & Fountouki, 2019). One limitation of the present study

was response bias. Response bias refers to participants providing answers they believe the

interviewer wants to hear, rather than their true thoughts or experiences, resulting in

inaccurate or incomplete data (Ravitch & Carl, 2021). To mitigate the limitation of

response bias during the interviews, I remained focused to maintain integrity and kept the

conversation consistent with answering the interview questions.

Recommendations

Based on the results of the study, several recommendations may be made for

future research. The current study involved the participation of secondary math teachers

selected as subjects from various high schools within the state of Tennessee. As a result,

it is recommended that future studies in the field should broaden their participant pool to

include educators from diverse school districts, preferably spanning different states.

Furthermore, the current study relied on a single data source, specifically

semistructured interviews. It is recommended that future research endeavors employ

multiple data sources to enhance the strength of the findings. Triangulating data through

the integration of diverse methodologies such as focus groups, document review, or

qualitative questionnaires could be beneficial. This approach would not only provide a

more comprehensive understanding of the subject matter but would also contribute to the

validation and reliability of the research outcomes. Future researchers exploring the same

thematic domain are encouraged to adopt a multifaceted approach to data collection to

enrich the depth and breadth of their investigations.

I employed a purposeful sampling technique to explore the perspectives of

secondary high school teachers regarding their challenges in integrating technology into

math instruction. However, there was a notable gap in the understanding of elementary

and middle school teachers’ viewpoints on the challenges associated with incorporating

technology in math instruction. Consequently, it is recommended that future research

focus on elementary and middle school educators, given their pivotal role in integrating

technology into classroom teaching and learning.

Moreover, researchers are encouraged to explore a broader spectrum of thematic

areas, including digital technology, innovative teaching methods, the impact of

mathematics education on student achievement, inquiry-based learning, games and

gamification, and issues related to equity, diversity, and inclusion—topics identified as

contemporary trends in math education by Hussein (2023). To ensure a representative

sample, alternative sampling strategies such as stratified sampling may be employed in

future studies.

Furthermore, diversifying research designs and methodologies is advised.

Although I adopted a basic qualitative approach, future investigations may benefit from

the incorporation of quantitative methodologies. This shift would facilitate the collection

of numerical data, enhancing the precision and neutrality of the results. Additionally,

researchers are encouraged to explore alternative qualitative research designs beyond the

basic qualitative approach, such as the case study design. This multifaceted approach will

contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges associated with

integrating technology in math instruction across various educational levels.

Implications

Potential Impact for Positive Social Change

The current study has the potential to facilitate positive social change by exploring

high school teachers’ perceptions of challenges integrating technology and informing

decision makers regarding incorporating technological teaching practices in high school

math. Using this research as a guide, educational professionals could design mathematics

education programs that focus on meeting the needs of students in high school math

technology-enriched classrooms. This would allow for developing necessary skills and

capabilities that help students compete effectively with societal and technological

advancements.

This study may promote positive social change for students, allowing them to

critically analyze and evaluate information, solve complex problems, and think creatively

using digital tools. Students can create digital content, explore innovative solutions, and

express their ideas through multimedia, fostering creativity and innovation skills (James

et al., 2021). Existing literature on technology integration in math instruction supported

students’ engagement, growth of critical thinking skills and problem-solving abilities, and

academic achievement (Ali et al., 2023). Furthermore, students may impact their

communities by developing skills needed for science, technology, engineering, and

mathematics related careers.

Methodological and Theoretical Implications

Exploring high school math teachers’ perceptions of integrating technology within

the framework of TPACK holds significant methodological and theoretical implications.

Methodologically, adopting the TPACK framework provides a structured lens through

which to examine the complex interactions between TK, PK, and CK in the context of

math instruction. Researchers can employ mixed-method approaches, combining

qualitative techniques such as interviews or observations with quantitative measures to

assess teachers’ TPACK levels and their impact on instructional practices.

Furthermore, using TPACK as a theoretical framework would allow researchers to

delve into various components, such as teachers’ technological proficiency, pedagogical

strategies, and understanding of mathematical concepts. This holistic perspective would

enable a comprehensive analysis of the challenges and opportunities associated with

technology integration in math education. Moreover, investigating high school math

teachers’ perceptions through the TPACK lens would facilitate the identification of

specific areas in which educators may require additional support or professional

development. By pinpointing gaps in TPACK knowledge, educational stakeholders may

design targeted interventions to enhance teachers’ competencies and foster more effective

integration of technology in math instruction.

Theoretical implications of this study lie in its contribution to the ongoing

discourse surrounding the application of TPACK theory in different subject areas,

particularly mathematics education. By examining how high school math teachers

conceptualize and represent TPACK principles in their teaching practice, researchers may

contribute empirical evidence to enrich and refine the theoretical framework.

Additionally, the current study may shed light on the unique challenges of integrating

technology in the domain of math education, informing the development of

contextspecific models and theories within the broader TPACK framework. Insights

gained from this research may advance the understanding of how technology can be

effectively leveraged to enhance mathematical learning experiences and outcomes for

high school students. In conclusion, investigating high school math teachers’ perceptions

of technology integration through the lens of TPACK offers valuable methodological and

theoretical insights that may inform both research and practice in mathematics education.

By interpreting the intricate dynamics between TK, PK, and CK, this study has the

potential to shape future efforts aimed at promoting innovative and impactful teaching

practices in high school math classrooms.

Recommendations for Practice

To enhance the integration of technology into math instruction, it is advisable for

high school teachers to engage in ongoing training programs, workshops, and seminars

tailored specifically to platforms like Classkick, Nearpod, Desmos, and Kahoot. While

many educators already utilize these tools, there is a pressing need for further skill

development and proficiency to effectively integrate them into math curriculum. High

school math teachers would benefit from refining their time management abilities to

maximize the efficiency of technology integration in their instructional practices.

Moreover, students should receive training and guidance emphasizing the importance of

utilizing technological resources, aiming to address issues stemming from a lack of skills,

motivation, or willingness to engage with technology in math education.

Furthermore, educational administrators and leaders are encouraged to establish

systems that ensure the proper integration of technology in classrooms. This may entail

providing support structures, resources, and incentives for both teachers and students to

embrace technology-enhanced learning environments effectively. District leaders play a

crucial role in this endeavor by ensuring that technological tools, programs, and software

align with state standards, fostering coherence and consistency in technology integration

efforts across schools and classrooms. By implementing these recommendations,

educational institutions can create an environment conducive to leveraging technology to

its fullest potential in math instruction, enhancing student learning outcomes and

preparing them for the demands of the digital age.

Conclusion

The aim of this basic qualitative study was to explore the high school math

teachers’ perceptions of the challenges in integrating technology in math instruction. In

this basic qualitative study, the high school math teachers’ perceptions of the challenges

in integrating technology in math instruction were examined. The literature review

revealed that digital competence is necessary to understand connection to technology

integration. Technology integration in education refers to the effective use of technology

tools, resources, and strategies to enhance and support the teaching and learning process

(H. Chen et al., 2019). Through this study, there was an attempt to fill the gaps in

literature and practice by exploring high school teachers’ perceptions of the challenges in

integrating technology in math instruction. The data for the study were collected through

semistructured interviews with 10 high school math teachers. The research questions

explored high school math teachers’ perceptions of the challenges they experience and

viable strategies for integrating technology into classroom instruction. Thematic analysis

of collected data identified the following four major themes,

•lack of resources, compatibility, and proper equipment needed to efficiently

integrate technology into math instruction

•students lacking the skill, will, desire to participate, and the ability necessary

to effectively incorporate technology into math instruction

•technology tools and programs used to enhance and integrate into math

instruction

•different strategies and techniques using technology tools and programs in

math instruction

The four themes answered the two research questions and met the purpose of this study.

The findings also filled the gap in the literature by providing insight into high school

teachers’ perceptions of the challenges in integrating technology in math instruction in

Tennessee. The findings increased the understanding of viable strategies that high school

teachers consider when integrating technology into math instruction. The findings of this

study also supported positive social change by highlighting the challenges that high

school math teachers experience. The limitation of this study is related to response bias.

A follow-up study on the same topic using more participants and a more comprehensive

geographical location is recommended. The results of this study have implications for

educational professionals, teachers, students, and societies.

Students also viewed