Digital Tools in
Mathematics Classrooms: Norwegian Primary Teachers’ Experiences
Maria Fjærestad,
OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan
University
Constantinos Xenofontos,
OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan
University
Authors’ Note
Constantinos Xenofontos https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2841-892X
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Maria
Fjærestad at mariafjaer@gmail.com and Constantinos
Xenofontos at constantinos.xenofontos@oslomet.no.
Abstract
This
article explores the integration of digital tools in Norwegian primary school
mathematics classrooms, focusing on teachers’ experiences. With the increasing
use of technology in education, digital tools have the potential to enhance
mathematics instruction by enabling personalised
learning, increasing student engagement, and offering dynamic ways to visualise mathematical concepts. However, these tools also
present challenges, such as the potential for student distraction and a lack of
teacher confidence in using technology effectively. Using a collective case-study
approach, we conducted semi-structured interviews with eleven mathematics
teachers to examine how digital tools impact student learning, instructional
practices, and the nature of mathematics education. The findings reveal both
the potential of digital tools to foster differentiated learning and their
limitations, including concerns about over-reliance on technology and
difficulties in maintaining classroom focus. This study contributes to the
ongoing conversation about digitalisation in
education, offering insights into the practical realities teachers encounter and
recommendations for optimising the use of digital
tools in mathematics classrooms.
Keywords:
digital
tools, teachers’ experiences, didactical tetrahedron, Norway
Introduction
The
growing integration of digital tools into education has gathered considerable
attention worldwide, particularly as technology assumes an increasingly central
role in classroom practices. The Nordic countries of Norway, Sweden, Denmark,
and Finland have been frontrunners in adopting digital tools for education,
with government policies strongly advocating for technology integration in
daily teaching (Olofsson et al., 2021). In Norway, which is the focus of the present
paper, this emphasis is reflected in policy documents such as the mathematics
curriculum (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2019) and the
national strategy for digital competence and infrastructure in kindergartens
and schools (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2023). As indicated
by recent findings from the Programme for
International Student Assessment – PISA (OECD, 2023), Norwegian students use
digital tools more frequently than their peers in any other country. This is
perhaps unsurprising given that over 90% of students in years 1 to 10 (ages 6
to 16) are provided with digital devices by their school districts (Amdam et al., 2024). However, Norwegian teachers’ levels of
professional digital competence vary significantly. Also, despite the growing
body of Norwegian literature examining the digital competence of prospective
teachers (e.g., Tveiterås & Madsen, 2022), practising teachers (e.g., Folkman et al., 2023), and
teacher educators (e.g., Lindfors et al., 2021) from
a general education perspective, far less work has been undertaken specifically
within the context of mathematics education.
This study focuses on the
experiences of primary school teachers in Norway as they contend with this
evolving digital landscape in relation to school mathematics. Teachers are
instrumental to the success of digitalisation
initiatives, as they bear the responsibility of incorporating technology into
their instructional methods and ensuring it supports rather than detracts from student
learning. The effectiveness of digital tools is thus closely linked to how
teachers perceive and use them. If teachers lack confidence in these tools or
view them more as distractions than assets, the potential benefits of
technology may not be fully realised (Loong &
Herbert, 2018). Therefore, understanding teachers’ experiences is essential for
evaluating the actual impact of digital tools on mathematics education.
Three key questions guide
our work, focusing on teachers’ experiences and perspectives. Each question
should be read as beginning with “According to teachers, …”
· RQ1:
In what ways do digital tools impact students in the mathematics classroom?
· RQ2:
In what ways do these tools affect teachers and their teaching practices?
· RQ3:
In what ways do digital tools reshape the nature of mathematics as a subject?
The work presented here is
significant for its potential to inform teachers, policymakers, and researchers
about the practical realities of integrating digital tools into mathematics
education. While the theoretical benefits of digitalisation
are widely acknowledged, a deeper understanding of teachers’ everyday
experiences offers a more nuanced perspective on how technology affects
teaching and learning. This study focuses on the views of those directly
involved in the classroom, aiming to provide practical recommendations for optimising the use of digital tools in mathematics
education. In the following pages, we first review relevant academic literature
to provide context for the study. Then, we outline the research methodology,
key findings, discussion, and implications.
Digital Tools in
Mathematics Education
Meirbekov et al. (2022) describe
digital tools as resources and services used in the educational process to
develop key competencies such as critical thinking. These tools include online
platforms that enable the creation of tests, logical tasks, real-time collaboration,
and the visual presentation of information. In the context of mathematics
education, Loong and Herbert (2018) broaden the definition to encompass both
physical devices and digital learning resources, such as tablets, computers,
and educational games. For the purposes of this article, we use the term ‘digital
tools’ to refer to both technological devices and learning software. The use of
digital tools has grown significantly, particularly in mathematics classrooms,
where traditional methods are increasingly supplemented or replaced by tablets,
smartboards, and computers (Kunnskapsdepartementet,
2023). These tools, including tablets and software such as GeoGebra[1],
Excel, computer algebra systems (CAS), and various dynamic geometry software,
support students with complex operations and enhance their understanding of
concepts. This shift enables students to explore and manipulate mathematical
ideas that were previously difficult to visualise
without the use of technology (Swensen, 2014).
Research on integrating digital tools in Norwegian schools and beyond
stresses both their potential benefits and the obstacles they may present. One
advantage lies in adaptive learning platforms that tailor activities according
to students’ progress, offering personalised support
in subjects such as mathematics (Swensen, 2014; Viberg
et al., 2023). Digital resources open up possibilities
for deepening conceptual understanding. For instance, software like GeoGebra enables students to explore geometric and algebraic
ideas interactively, fostering stronger engagement and insight (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2019; Swensen, 2014). Meanwhile,
adaptive platforms respond to students’ progress by adjusting task difficulty
and providing immediate feedback, allowing each learner to work at a level that
challenges them appropriately (Kunnskapsdepartementet,
2023; Viberg et al., 2023). In addition, digital
tools can significantly increase student engagement. Educational games and
interactive simulations are particularly effective at capturing students’
interest, making learning mathematics more enjoyable and immersive. When
learners are more engaged, they are more likely to participate actively in
lessons and perform better academically (Deater-Deckard
et al., 2013; Fadda et al., 2022).
Despite these promising attributes, studies highlight challenges that
can compromise the potential of digital tools. One recurring concern is
distraction, as devices may lure students into non-academic activities and
undermine concentration on mathematical tasks (Klette
et al., 2018). While these tools offer opportunities for interactive learning,
they also present temptations for students to disengage from the lesson, for
example by browsing social media or playing games (Bergdahl et al., 2020). This
challenge mirrors international findings, where teachers grapple with similar
issues in tech-rich classrooms (e.g., Hennessy et al., 2007; Loong &
Herbert, 2018; McCulloch et al., 2018). In addition, many teachers, in Norway
and elsewhere, feel ill-prepared to harness technology fully, often reverting
to traditional methods due to insufficient training and limited confidence (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2023; Madsen, 2020; Munthe et al., 2022). Some also remain cautious about
overreliance on technology, stressing the importance of pen-and-paper methods
in developing core mathematical skills (Kunnskapsdepartementet,
2019; Marpa, 2021). Finally, many teachers hold
beliefs that an overreliance on technology may weaken students’ abilities to
perform basic calculations and solve problems independently of digital aids
(Beck, 2016).
Theoretical
Framework: The Didactical Tetrahedron
Traditionally, educational
theory has concentrated on the interaction between three core components: the
teacher, the student, and the content (Mølstad & Karseth, 2016). These three components form the vertices of
the well-known didactical triangle. More recently, in recognising the complexities of classroom realities,
scholars have visualised these components in a
three-dimensional shape (known as the didactical tetrahedron) by
adding a fourth vertex, representing artefacts—namely, the materials or tools
used in the classroom (see Goodchild & Sriraman, 2012; Jukić
Matić & Glasnović Gracin, 2016; Rezat & Sträßer, 2012). In
our work, we build on the ideas of Ruthven (2012), who encourages us to regard
digital tools as a type of artefact. From this perspective, the didactical
tetrahedron provides a robust and comprehensive framework for analysing how digital tools shape and transform the
teaching and learning of mathematics. This approach recognises
the significant role that digital tools play in mediating and reshaping
relationships between teachers, students, and mathematical content. Within this
expanded framework, technology is not merely a supplementary tool but an active
agent that influences the nature of these interactions. For instance,
technology enables teachers to present mathematical content dynamically, using
tools such as dynamic geometry software to visualise
abstract concepts in real time. This approach can enhance student engagement by
creating more interactive and exploratory learning environments. Moreover,
digital tools allow students to interact with content in novel ways, fostering
deeper conceptual understanding through manipulation and experimentation.
This
framework involves various relationships (Ruthven, 2012). The
teacher-technology dynamic is crucial in enhancing instruction, enabling
teachers to communicate content, deliver lessons, and facilitate interactive
learning experiences. Teachers must continually develop their ability to manage
and integrate these resources into their pedagogy. Similarly, the
student-technology relationship encourages exploration, discovery, and a deeper
understanding of content. Whether students engage with technology independently
or under guidance, it offers them different levels of control over their
learning. The content-technology interaction transforms static content into
dynamic forms that can be manipulated, visualised, or
simulated, greatly enriching subjects such as mathematics through tools like
dynamic geometry software. Although the teacher-student relationship remains
central, technology redefines this connection, positioning teachers more as
facilitators who guide students through independent explorations using
technological tools.
Thus,
the didactical tetrahedron serves as a valuable heuristic for examining both
the potential benefits and challenges posed by digital tools in mathematics
education. On the one hand, it identifies opportunities for creating more
student-centred, investigative learning environments.
On the other, it highlights the need for teachers to adapt their pedagogical
strategies to effectively integrate technology into their instructional
practices. By considering technology alongside the traditional elements of the
learning environment (i.e., teacher, student, content), this framework ensures
a holistic approach to understanding the evolving nature of mathematics
education in the digital age. Interestingly, while Ruthven (2012) provides an
extensive discussion on the didactical tetrahedron and its components, he does
not provide any visual representation of it. For this reason, Figure 1 provides
an illustration of how we interpret Ruthven’s ideas and the relevance of the
framework to the research questions in this study, as outlined earlier in the
introduction.
Figure 1:
The Didactical Tetrahedron
(Ruthven, 2012).
This
Study and Its Methods
This paper draws on data
from the master’s thesis of the first author, under the supervision of the
second author. The study adopts a collective case-study methodology (Goddard
& Foster, 2002), an approach grounded in the premise that understanding
selected cases can provide deeper insights and potentially contribute to
improved theorisations of
a broader range of cases (Stake, 2005). Here, we focus on the collective case
of a group of eleven teachers working in the same school. Nevertheless, to emphasise the importance of acknowledging individual
voices, participants were encouraged to share personal experiences as primary
mathematics teachers, in keeping with the narrative research approach seen in
other studies (e.g., Kaasila, 2007). Narrative
research seeks to explore how participants construct stories to make sense of
their professional worlds, aiming to foster honesty and trust between the
researcher and participants by prioritising the
voices of individuals (Litchman, 2013).
Context
and Participants
Despite
the wide digitalisation of Norwegian schools (Amdam et al., 2024), not all schools in the country use
digital tools in the same way, as their integration depends on several
contextual factors. Variations arise from differences in regional and municipal
funding, which influence the availability of technology and infrastructure
(Rohatgi et al., 2021). Individual schools also exercise autonomy in selecting
and implementing digital tools, leading to diverse approaches tailored to their
specific educational goals (Ottestad, 2013).
Furthermore, disparities in teacher training and digital competence create
inconsistent usage patterns, with some teachers leveraging technology
extensively for pedagogical purposes while others limit it to administrative
tasks (Krumsvik, 2006). These variations are further
amplified by differences in leadership priorities and the unique needs of each
student population, resulting in a non-uniform adoption of digital tools across
schools (Ottestad, 2013; Krumsvik,
2006). Despite Norway’s high ranking in digitalisation,
such differences highlight the ongoing challenges of achieving equitable and
effective use of technology in education (Amdam et
al., 2024).
This study involved eleven
teachers working in the same primary school (covering years 1-7, ages 6-13), where
digitalisation has been widely embraced, in a
southeastern town in Norway. Following the 2010 generalist teacher education
reform (International Association for the Evaluation of
Educational Achievement [IEA], 2015), primary teachers in Norway may
possess one of two types of qualifications: those qualified to teach years 1-7
(exclusively primary school teachers) and those qualified to teach years 5-10
(upper primary and lower secondary teachers). In our study, we did not
differentiate between these two qualification types. All participants were
selected through purposive sampling. The rationale behind this selection
process was to ensure that participants had direct experience in integrating
digital tools into their mathematics teaching. By choosing purposive sampling,
the study targeted individuals who could provide valuable insights into both
the benefits and challenges of using technology in the classroom (Brinkmann
& Kvale, 2015). The participants varied in terms
of gender and teaching experience, ranging from early-career teachers to those
with over two decades in the profession. Additionally, all participants were
employed in a school that provided digital resources to students, such as iPads,
in line with current practices in Norwegian schools, where digital competence
is a growing priority. To maintain the anonymity of participants, the following
pseudonyms are offered: Kari, Sofie, Lars, Anne, Ole, Nils, Astrid, Kåre, Sigurd, Solveig, and Ingrid. No further demographic information
is provided (e.g., age, years of experience) for two reasons. First, these
factors are not relevant to our work here. Secondly, since the participants
work at the same school in a small town in Norway, such information may
compromise their anonymity.
Data
Collection
Data
collection, conducted by the first author over a period of two months, was
carried out through individual semi-structured interviews. This method was
chosen for its flexibility, allowing participants to share their experiences in
depth while providing a consistent framework for comparison across interviews (Xenofontos, 2018). Each audio-recorded interview lasted
between 45 and 60 minutes, during which participants were asked about their use
of digital tools, the perceived impact on student engagement, and any
challenges they faced in balancing technology with traditional teaching
methods. The interview guide was structured around key topics corresponding to
three vertices of the didactical tetrahedron (Ruthven, 2012: the student, the
teacher, and mathematics. Table 1 presents sample questions from the interview
guide. Since the interviews were semi-structured, not all participants were
asked the same questions, as some topics naturally emerged during the
conversation. The flexible format of the semi-structured interviews enabled us
to cover key topics without adhering to a strict order.
Table 1
The Interview Guide with Sample
Questions
|
Key Topic |
Sample Questions |
|
Students’ Use of Digital
Tools |
How
often do your students use digital tools in mathematics? Can you provide
specific examples? What
advantages have you experienced that make digital tools beneficial for
students in mathematics? What
challenges have you encountered that make digital tools less useful for
students in mathematics? |
|
Teachers’ Use of Digital
Tools in Mathematics |
How
often do you use digital tools in planning and conducting lessons? Can you
provide specific examples? What
advantages have you experienced that make digital tools beneficial for
teachers in mathematics? Do
you feel you have sufficient knowledge to guide students in a digital
mathematics class? Why or why not? |
|
Digital Tools and
the Subject of Mathematics Itself |
From
your experience, which mathematical topics benefit from the use of digital
tools? Can you give specific examples? Which
mathematical topics can be influenced negatively? Can
you give specific examples? In
what ways has technology changed mathematics as a school subject? In what
ways has it not? |
Data
Analysis
As
noted earlier, this study is based on the master’s project of the first author,
under the supervision of the second. Consequently, the primary data analysis
was carried out by the former, with substantial input from the latter. As the
master’s thesis supervisor, the second author acted as a ‘critical friend’
(Richards & Shiver, 2020), performing member checks on the transcripts. The
interview transcripts were subjected to a thematic analysis, following Braun
and Clarke’s (2006) six-step framework: familiarising
with the data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing
themes, defining and naming themes, and finally, producing a comprehensive
report. This approach was selected for its robustness in identifying, analysing, and interpreting patterns within qualitative
data, while also maintaining trustworthiness in qualitative research through
systematic coding (Killi & Xenofontos,
2024; Nowell et al., 2017). The analysis began with a detailed reading of the
transcripts to gain an overall understanding of the data. Initial codes were
generated, focusing on themes such as the perceived benefits of digital tools
in fostering student motivation and the challenges posed by digital
distractions. Both inductive and deductive approaches were applied during the
coding process. Pre-existing theories about technology in education informed
some of the initial codes, while others emerged directly from the data,
reflecting the participants’ unique experiences. The codes were then grouped
into broader categories, falling under the three vertices of the didactical
tetrahedron, which served as our broader themes.
Ethical
Considerations
Ethical
approval for the study was obtained from the Norwegian Agency for Shared
Services in Education and Research (Sikt), ensuring
that the research adhered to national guidelines on the ethical treatment of
human subjects. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to
the interviews. Participants were fully briefed on the purpose of the study,
their rights as participants, and the voluntary nature of their involvement.
They were also informed that they could withdraw from the study at any point
without any repercussions. To maintain confidentiality, and privacy in
qualitative research, as Brinkmann and Kvale (2015) emphasise, participants were assigned pseudonyms, while any
identifying information was removed from the transcripts and final report. The
recordings and transcripts were stored securely, and only researchers could
access the raw data.
Findings
This
section is organised using three vertices from the
didactical tetrahedron (i.e., the student, the teacher, and the subject of
mathematics) and how these relate to the fourth vertex, technology, and, more specifically
the use of digital tools. In doing so, we deliberately avoid quantifying how
many teachers addressed an issue, as our purpose is to map, and not quantify
their experiences. Readers should keep in mind that we present these findings
without discussing or attempting to interpret them, as we wish to provide a
more truthful depiction of teachers’ own experiences. Discussion of the
findings and connections to the academic literature takes place in a subsequent
section.
The
Student
Personalisation and Adapted Learning
Several teachers
highlighted the benefits of using digital tools in mathematics to tailor
instruction based on students’ abilities and needs. For instance, Anne
appreciates how these tools automatically adjust levels of difficulty for
children. In her own words, “[m]any of these maths platforms increase in difficulty when a student is
doing well. It’s much easier to tailor tasks digitally instead of manually
searching for appropriate exercises”. Kåre agrees, pointing out that digital tools offer equal
opportunities for students regardless of their background. He also emphasises their value for students with reading or writing
difficulties, arguing that “[i]t’s been particularly
useful for children with dyslexia or dyscalculia, who can use headphones to
have tasks read aloud. This makes it easier for them to understand and complete
the work correctly”. For Sofie (quote below), digital tools are invaluable in
promoting independent learning. Instead of forcing students to complete tasks
within a set time, they can work at their own pace with a variety of personalised tasks. Many platforms also provide
instructional videos for additional support:
The advantage is probably that it offers many differentiation options.
You can choose which level to work at, so some students can push themselves
further. [...] It’s very self-instructive. And
especially if they make too many mistakes in a task, a video will appear to
repeat the explanation, and so on. It offers different approaches and types of
tasks than the book allows. [...] Kikora[2]
is really good because you can choose – I can decide
what they should work on, and they can also choose themselves, to some extent.
And it adjusts according to their skills. You can take a longer time or less
time. It’s great, especially for weaker students, as they can work at their own
pace without having to rush and miss the last pages of the book.
Overall, teachers agree that the use of digital tools in mathematics
education offers significant advantages by providing tailored, self-paced
learning experiences for students of varying abilities. From enhancing individualised instruction to supporting students with
learning challenges, these tools help foster independence and ensure that all
students can engage with the material at their own level and pace.
Increased
Motivation
The
11 participants shared remarkably similar views on how the use of digital tools
in the mathematics classroom enhances students’ motivation. Ingrid, for
example, highlighted how these tools offer gaming experiences that transform students’
attitudes towards maths, making it less frustrating
and more engaging. As she put it, “[i]t’s like those
tools are self-motivating, you know. It’s timed, and you get a certificate and
things like that. At least, I’ve found that students think it’s motivating”. Solveig
echoed this view, noting how:
[t]here are so many fun programmes that motivate. [...] It’s as if they [students]
are in a game, solving mathematical problems. So, it has a lot to do with
motivation. [...] I’ve also seen students who struggle with learning their
times tables. If they use a multiplication app, their brain somehow filters out
everything to do with maths and just allows the
gaming experience.
Sofie also emphasised the role of motivation, focusing on how learning
from peers sustains engagement. She described how digital tools create
different types of participation in the classroom: “If you have an interactive
smartboard in the classroom... I used it a lot, particularly with the younger students.
You could project the book and other resources, making students more involved.
It’s motivating because they pay more attention when they know they might be
called on. It’s fun for them to come to the front, press buttons, and interact.
That can be a real motivating factor”.
The participants also
mentioned that digital tools give students the chance to teach their teacher
something new. As Ole explained, “Students are very knowledgeable. They’re
incredibly skilled. I get a lot of help from them. They teach me a lot, and
that gives them a sense of achievement, being able to teach older teachers
something new”. Nils expanded on this, noting how this creates a sense of
accomplishment for students: “They’re given the freedom to explore, and some of
them might discover something I haven’t noticed. It becomes a shared learning
experience. We learn together. I can say, ‘Wow, look at this! She’s found this
answer or discovered this method.’ Then I’ll ask, ‘Can you explain how you did
that?’ That’s great”.
In conclusion, the
interviewees agree that digital tools in maths offer
adaptations that provide all students with the same opportunities for success,
regardless of ability or need. Many programmes adjust
the level of difficulty based on previous answers, promoting independent work.
Additionally, several teachers noted that digital learning games ignite
interest, making mathematics more motivating for many students.
Negative
Effects on Students
While digital tools
offer many opportunities, teachers also voiced concerns about the challenges
technology presents to students’ learning. A common concern is that a wide
variety of online tools encourages students to click through tasks without
fully engaging, often rushing to complete them by guessing. Ingrid, for
example, shared her experience:
Sometimes they just sit
and click through the tasks just to move on. We see this often. If websites and
apps allow it, children will progress without thinking or critically assessing
their answers. When they get something wrong, some don't even bother to
ask—they just keep going. [...] It’s hard to stop this behaviour
because it becomes automatic, and monitoring 22 students at once to see what
each is doing is impossible.
Kåre noted that
notifications and lights from students’ iPads create a distracting environment
and suggested that devices should be set aside for students to concentrate
fully on classroom activities. He also stressed how digital tools often cause
disruptions, as students’ familiarity with and interest in devices frequently
pull their attention away from the task at hand:
There are so many other
things you can use an iPad for, and those distractions are always lurking in
the background. It’s like having your phone on the table—you know a Snap could
come in any moment, or that Messenger notification you’re waiting for could pop
up. It’s the same for students with their iPads—there’s always something else
tempting them. [...] It’s a massive distraction.
Similarly, Ole observed
how easy internet access can lead to distractions. He believes that digital
tools often divert students’ focus from important learning:
I see individual
students pushing boundaries, using the iPad or computer for things other than
classwork. It’s so easy for them to switch between a subject page and another
site like Safari or Google without us noticing. They pretend to be working.
They quickly switch back when I approach. [...]
They take advantage because they know more about it than I ever will.
In summary, while digital
tools offer valuable opportunities in mathematics education, teachers express
concern over their potential to distract students and encourage superficial
engagement. Many students rush through tasks without critical thought, often
becoming distracted by the many features of their devices. Teachers also find
it difficult to monitor behaviours effectively, as students can easily navigate
between educational tasks and other online distractions, undermining their
learning experience.
The
Teacher
Adapted Teaching
As previously mentioned,
digital tools offer opportunities to tailor mathematics to students’ abilities
and needs, providing better conditions for success within the classroom. The
respondents claim that the teachers’ task of adapting lessons becomes
significantly easier when using digital tools during planning. For example, Ole
believes that technology allows for assigning tasks directly to students,
rather than spending time photocopying for each individual:
“I can assign tasks directly in Skolestudio[3],
for instance. It's great for adapting to each student’s level and development,
so I can tailor tasks according to where they are. If a student is in Year 7
but works at a Year 5 level in maths, I can give
appropriate tasks without wasting time at the photocopier”.
Ole
has noticed this saves a lot of time, a view shared by Kåre,
who adds that “as long as there’s the internet, there are endless resources
available”. Lars also takes advantage of digital tools for creating creative
lessons, as the internet offers “room to find a bit of inspiration”. As he
said, “[i]n maths
specifically, there are so many apps and websites to find drills. I use maths puzzles as homework for those who want an extra
challenge, so it’s primarily a tool for me. And there are many good tips out
there, so I see it as more of a tool for myself”.
According
to Sigurd, teachers gain a clearer overview of students’ progress when working
digitally, which helps them plan tailored lessons. As stated, “[i]t’s useful to get an overview of all the students – results,
understanding – if the programmes are designed for
that. You can check how long they’ve worked, what they’ve understood. It gives
me an indicator that I can match with my own perception”. Ole experienced this
when schools in Norway closed due to the Covid pandemic, and many teachers had
to shift to digital teaching:
Not all students can focus
on a lesson in class, but digital tools can help by allowing students to
receive instructions via Teams. This became very clear during the pandemic when
we had to quickly switch to online teaching. Digitalisation
really took off, and we had to adapt. It became much easier to give feedback
directly in the text, without waiting until Friday to hand back a marked book.
All
in all, as teachers argued, digital tools in education offer significant
benefits by allowing teachers to tailor lessons to individual students’ needs,
streamline their workflow, and access a vast array of resources. Teachers find
that digital platforms save time and enable them to provide quicker, more personalised feedback, which was especially valuable during
the shift to online teaching. By offering better insights into students’
progress, these tools support more effective and customised
teaching, ultimately enhancing the learning experience for all students.
Administrative Work and Planning
Several participants
highlight how digital tools have simplified administrative tasks. For Kari,
daily life has become much easier since digitalisation,
as she can now store everything in one place. With internet access, she can
access all documents on her computer, phone, or iPad, no matter where she is.
She explains:
I have a much better
overview of what I’ve covered and what I still need to cover because everything
is in one document on my PC. I can also open it on my iPad or phone when I’m
elsewhere. It’s stored in the cloud, so I can add things wherever I am without
needing to carry a book. It’s made my daily life much easier.
Anne
relates to this and adds that communicating with students outside school hours
has also become easier:
I also distribute the
weekly plan on Teams and communicate with the students. They can ask me
questions if they’re unsure about something. [...] I can also acquire knowledge
if there’s something I’m unsure about. [...] Yes, I use it a lot. [...] There’s
no point in coming in on Thursday and saying you didn’t understand the homework
because you have the opportunity to ask me throughout
the week. If they’ve forgotten the homework at home, they can message me, and
I’ll send it to them digitally. It gives them fewer excuses for not getting
things done, and it significantly lightens the workload. [...]
I find it practical for planning – doing things digitally and keeping them
digital. Cloud storage allows me to access everything from both my iPad and PC.
Anne
sees mostly advantages in using digital tools, particularly for mathematics.
For her, it has been a positive contribution to planning. Kåre
agrees, adding that digital tools have been helpful for assigning homework. He
shares that “[t]he availability of many online resources gives us another
option for assigning homework, which can be useful. It provides variety for the
students and allows me to follow up in different ways, beyond just collecting
and marking or reviewing in class”.
Overall,
the majority of teachers report that the adaptation to
digital tools has made their administrative work, especially in planning for
mathematics lessons, significantly easier.
Lack of Digital Competence
The
participating teachers’ use of digital tools in mathematics seems linked to
their age. Anne, a younger teacher, feels confident using digital tools, having
grown up with them. She explains, “I have sufficient competence [...] I enjoy
it and probably learn most of it on my own. But it’s unfortunate that it
depends on personal interest.” Ingrid shares a similar view, saying, “I
remember some [tools] from university, but I’ve mostly kept up with them on my
own. It hasn’t been an issue for me, but I imagine older teachers find it
harder”.
On the other hand, Ole is
one of those who rarely use digital tools in mathematics, explaining that “I’m
a bit old-fashioned, you know, so I use them very rarely, really”. Others of a
similar age have stuck with traditional teaching methods, as this is what they
feel comfortable with. Sigurd, for example, says that:
[i]n
primary school, too much goes wrong, I think. You try to show something on a screen,
and it’s not synchronised. There’s just so much
hassle, and I’m not that good with it. I’m not exactly a tech wizard. For me to
use it, it has to work. When things don’t work, I
struggle a bit. And we have to adjust, and the kids
don’t have the software, or it doesn’t come up, they make mistakes, ‘what am I
doing wrong.’ There’s just so much of that, it gets a
bit … It takes up a lot of time. […] And as I said, I’m not particularly
comfortable using it. I can manage, but that’s about it. I feel it often takes
a lot of time away from actual learning.
For Sigurd, the use of
digital tools detracts from time that could otherwise be spent teaching
mathematics, a feeling also shared by others. Kari, for example, mentions that
many teachers have to adapt because of how fast things
have progressed. For her, this takes far too long. She believes this is one
reason why some teachers choose not to incorporate digital tools in their
mathematics lessons:
It’s partly because
progress has sped up a bit. You’ve been working in one way, and then suddenly
you have to completely adapt. […] I think some
teachers feel they don’t have the time to familiarise
themselves with it properly, because their day is already so full. I think some
see it as more of a time thief, and sometimes they don’t realise
its value. If you’d invest the time, it might have made your day easier, but
there’s just no time or energy to start that process.
In summary, the use of
digital tools in mathematics teaching seems to correlate with teachers’ age and
ease with technology. Younger teachers tend to embrace these tools with
confidence, while older teachers often prefer traditional methods, citing
difficulties with technology and the additional time required for integration.
The rapid pace of technological advancement has left some teachers feeling
overwhelmed, viewing the adoption of digital tools as a time-consuming
challenge rather than a beneficial resource for their teaching.
The
Subject of Mathematics
Effective
Support for School Mathematics
The
teachers provided examples of why they believe digital tools are effective for
school mathematics. For Sofie, they are particularly useful for practising large quantities of tasks: “As I said, when we
need to practise more. If I feel the book doesn’t
have enough exercises, for example, the multiplication table or geometry, I use
it for practice”. Similarly, Nils admits, “I’ve found the multiplication table
to be really useful. I’ve used various websites and
multiplication songs”. Astrid shares an example from her class:
We use it a lot for number
learning. [...] Especially geometry and things like that. For example, when
working with volume, you can use Minecraft[4].
It becomes clear when you ask them to build something, pretending one block in
Minecraft is a cubic centimetre, and they then build
a cubic decimetre. The fact that the cubic decimetre contains so many more blocks than the centimetre is difficult for some students to grasp, but it
becomes clear when you’re building block by block. [...] It’s also a platform
the kids are familiar with, and I imagine they remember it better.
Kari has also noticed that
digital tools present mathematical ideas in ways a textbook cannot:
I’ve looked at something
called Brilliant[5], a maths app. [...] It has great visualisations
for understanding mathematics, showing how things look in practice. For
example, when working with fractions, it provides excellent illustrations. I’m
very focused on different models like that. [...] There are also apps for
number lines, which you can generate with a few clicks instead of drawing them
by hand.
Overall, teachers’
experiences demonstrate that digital tools enhance the subject of mathematics
by offering alternative methods and visual aids that engage students in new
ways. These tools not only provide more practice opportunities but also allow
for clearer demonstrations of complex topics and concepts, like geometry and
number learning. By using platforms familiar to students, digital tools help
motivate and support students in understanding mathematical ideas, making
learning more accessible and effective.
Challenges
for School Mathematics
For
the teachers in this study, there is no doubt that school mathematics has
changed over the years. For example, Sofie claims that “we are now more focused
on understanding. […] There’s a bit less memorisation
and more comprehension”. Ole, on the other hand, argues that the fundamental
understanding of mathematics is lost if one solely relies on digital tools:
I think they will miss out
on the essential basic skills required. For example, in maths,
physically using a protractor. How do you place it on the paper to get the
correct angle? If it’s only done digitally, they will lose the basic skill of
knowing what a protractor is and how to use it in the most elementary way. That
will disappear.
Ole believes that physical
work with pen and paper is necessary for students to achieve the desired
learning outcomes in mathematics. Lars also remarks, “I do think it’s
unfortunate that so much has become digital, although it certainly offers
opportunities. So, I think a good mix is important. Not just one or the other.
[…] No, it’s related to hand-eye coordination. So, I would never fully abandon
pen and paper”. Kåre, in turn, gives an example of
why he believes a combination is crucial:
I think some students
would feel less ownership if everything was done digitally. Research has also
shown that holding a pencil triggers different processes in the brain compared
to working digitally. So, I think it’s very important to do both. Of course, we
need to include the digital aspect because we live in a digital world. We can’t
rely only on pencils and books, but we can’t go fully digital either. I think
we would lose something very important. […] I believe understanding might be
slightly diminished, and students would have fewer tools to work with. They
wouldn’t be able to just grab a grid book and sketch or make tally marks.
They’d feel helpless if they found themselves without a computer one day. It
could also affect their confidence and belief in their problem-solving
abilities because there are always many ways to solve a problem.
For the participants, the
consensus is clear: while digital tools offer significant advantages in
mathematics, they cannot entirely replace the value of physical work with pen
and paper. They advocate for a balanced approach, combining digital and
traditional methods, to ensure that students not only thrive in a digital world
but also retain essential problem-solving skills and the confidence that
physical tools provide.
Discussion
The
integration of digital tools in mathematics education offers both promising
opportunities and significant challenges, as reflected in the experiences of
the teachers interviewed. A prominent theme that emerged from the study is the
potential of digital tools to enhance personalised
learning. Several teachers shared examples of how these tools adjust to
students’ individual needs, allowing for differentiated instruction that is
difficult to achieve through traditional methods. For instance, tools like Kikora automatically increase the difficulty of tasks based
on student performance, enabling learners to work at their own pace. This
aligns with Swensen’s (2014) observations on the value of adaptive learning
environments, particularly in subjects like mathematics, where student
abilities vary widely. By allowing students to engage with material that
matches their level of understanding, these tools foster greater independence
and confidence in learners, a conclusion supported by previous research (Viberg et al., 2023).
In addition to fostering personalised learning, digital tools were reported to
increase student motivation. Teachers described how the gamified aspects of
many educational platforms transform mathematics from a subject, which students
often find daunting into a more engaging experience. Several participants noted
that students see these activities as less stressful and more like games, increasing
the possibility of their active participation in lessons. This reflects the
findings of Deater-Deckard et al. (2013) and Fadda et
al. (2022), who argue that the interactive nature of digital tools can
significantly enhance engagement, particularly when compared to more static,
traditional learning methods. However, while motivation is a benefit, it is
important to consider whether this heightened engagement consistently
translates into deeper mathematical understanding, a question that remains open
in the literature.
Despite these advantages,
the study also reveals significant concerns about the capacity for distraction
when using digital tools. Teachers reported that students often become
preoccupied with non-educational apps and websites, and this compromises their
ability to focus on mathematical tasks. This issue is particularly acute in
classrooms where students have open access to the internet or a wide range of
apps, leading them to browse social media or play games during lessons. These
findings align with those of Klette et al. (2018),
who noted that while digital tools can enhance student engagement, they also
introduce new distractions that are difficult for teachers to manage. Such
distractions can impede the benefits of personalised
learning, as students may fail to fully engage with the material, instead
rushing through tasks without fully processing their answers.
Related to the issue of
distraction is the challenge of over-reliance on digital tools. Some teachers
expressed concern that students, particularly those at the primary level, may
become dependent on these tools for solving mathematical problems. As Ole
pointed out, the frequent use of digital tools for calculations or visualisations could weaken students’ grasp of basic
mathematical skills. This is consistent with Swensen’s (2014) suggestion that
over-reliance on technology can impede the development of core competencies,
such as mental arithmetic and manual problem-solving, which are essential for
building a strong foundation in mathematics. While digital tools offer powerful
ways to explore complex concepts, they must be integrated in ways that complement,
rather than replace, traditional methods.
Teacher competence with
digital tools also emerged as a critical factor influencing their integration
into mathematics education. Several participants, particularly those with more
years of teaching experience, indicated a lack of confidence in using technology
effectively. Teachers, like Sigurd, explained how they often avoid using
digital tools due to technical difficulties and additional time required to
integrate them meaningfully into lessons. This challenge reflects broader
trends in the literature, where insufficient training and a lack of familiarity
with digital platforms are cited as major barriers to the effective use of
technology in education (Madsen, 2020). For digital tools to fulfil their
potential to enhance mathematics instruction, teachers must receive adequate
professional development that addresses both technical skills and pedagogical
strategies for integrating technology into their teaching.
Interestingly, the
teachers in this study also emphasised the need for a
balanced approach between digital and traditional teaching methods. While they
acknowledged the value of digital tools for promoting engagement and individualised instruction, many expressed concerns that
these tools alone are insufficient to develop a full range of mathematical
skills. Ole’s reflections on the importance of manual
tasks, such as using a protractor or completing problems by hand, underline the
need to retain aspects of traditional mathematics education, which promotes
foundational skills that technology cannot easily replicate. This perspective
aligns with the findings of Loong and Herbert (2018), who argue that a
combination of digital and manual approaches is necessary to ensure that
students develop both conceptual understanding and procedural fluency.
In summary, while digital
tools offer considerable advantages in mathematics education – particularly in
terms of personalisation and engagement – they also
introduce challenges that require careful navigation. Teachers must find ways
to leverage these tools without allowing them to dominate the learning process,
therefore ensuring that students remain focused to develop the necessary skills
to succeed in mathematics. The findings of this study suggest that ongoing
professional development is key to equipping teachers with the skills and
confidence to integrate digital tools effectively. Moreover, a balanced
approach that incorporates both digital and traditional methods may offer the
best path forward, allowing students to benefit from the innovations of technology
while preserving the strengths of manual problem-solving.
Implications
While this study was
conducted within the specific context of Norwegian primary schools, some of the
findings can be generalised to broader contexts, while others may remain unique
to the local Norwegian educational system. Norway’s strong emphasis on digitalisation, as seen in government policies advocating
for technology integration (Kunnskapsdepartementet,
2023), provides a context where digital tools are more prevalent than in other
educational systems. This has led to particular challenges
and opportunities related to access, teacher training, and student engagement,
which may not be directly applicable in countries with different levels of
technological infrastructure or educational priorities.
Regarding the
context-specific interest of our findings, the
teachers’ concerns about distractions from digital tools, such as students being
tempted to engage with non-educational content during class, might be
particularly heightened in Norway where individual devices are widely available
to students (Klette et al., 2018). Additionally, the
specific platforms and tools mentioned by the teachers, such as Kikora and Skolestudio, are tailored to the Norwegian curriculum, making
some of the experiences and feedback context-specific.
On the other hand, from a more global perspective, the broader pedagogical
challenges of integrating digital tools into mathematics instruction (such as
balancing traditional methods with digital tools, fostering student motivation
through gamification, and concerns over students losing foundational skills due
to over-reliance on technology) are themes that resonate with international
research (e.g., Loong & Herbert, 2018; McCulloch et al., 2018). These
findings suggest that many of the pedagogical strategies and reflections shared
by Norwegian teachers could be relevant in other educational contexts where
digital tools are being integrated into classrooms.
Our study highlights
implications for practice, teacher education, and policy, both within and
beyond the Norwegian context. The effective use of digital tools necessitates
significant investment in teacher education (Masoumi
& Noroozi, 2023). Building teachers’ confidence
and skills in utilising these tools is essential.
Initial teacher education and professional development initiatives should prioritise equipping teachers with digital pedagogical
expertise through hands-on learning, encompassing both technical and
instructional applications. Digital tools have the potential to enhance
engagement and enable personalised learning,
but striking a balance between technology and more “conventional” approaches
is crucial. Integrating the strengths of digital tools, such as visualisation and adaptive learning, with analogue
approaches, including the use of concrete materials and geometric drawings, can
promote a deeper understanding of mathematics (Sarama & Clements, 2016). Furthermore,
teachers need strategies to manage distractions in technology-enhanced
classrooms. Measures such as restricting access to non-educational apps and
websites can help maintain focus (Neuwirth, 2022). In addition, equitable
access to quality digital tools and reliable internet infrastructure is vital
(Imran, 2023). Funding must address regional disparities and include regular
updates to tools, devices, and technical support. Finally, curriculum
guidelines should clearly define the role of digital tools in mathematics,
ensuring alignment with learning objectives and their integration with
traditional methods (Livingstone, 2019).
Reflections on the Use of the Didactical Tetrahedron
as a Theoretical Framework
The use of Ruthven’s
(2012) adaptation of the didactical tetrahedron in this study provided a
comprehensive approach to analysing how digital tools
shape interactions in the mathematics classroom. Incorporating technology as a
fourth component within the traditional teacher-student-content triangle proved
particularly useful in understanding the multifaceted impacts of digitalisation. This framework allowed us to recognise not only the potential of digital tools in
enhancing instruction but also the complexity of their integration into
pedagogical practices. While the application of this framework provided
valuable insights within the Norwegian context, it holds broader relevance for
global educational settings as well. In any educational environment where
digital tools are introduced, the didactical tetrahedron can serve as a robust
model for understanding the interplay between teachers, students, content, and
technology. By framing technology as an active agent in the learning process,
this model encourages educators and policymakers worldwide to consider not just
the availability of digital tools, but how they reshape teaching strategies and
learning outcomes. This perspective can guide the implementation of technology
in classrooms globally, ensuring that it complements rather than disrupts the
learning process. Furthermore, the framework’s adaptability to various
educational settings suggests that its use can transcend local specificities,
offering a universal lens through which to examine the integration of digital tools.
In contexts where digital tools are being introduced with varying degrees of
teacher confidence or student engagement, the didactical tetrahedron helps in
identifying and addressing challenges similar to those
observed in the Norwegian context, such as teacher preparedness or student
distraction. As educational systems around the world continue to embrace digitalisation, the didactical tetrahedron can offer a
valuable framework for both researchers and educators to navigate these
changes.
Limitations and Suggestions
for Future Research
Overall, our findings
support several previous studies in this field, contributing to the existing
body of knowledge and enhancing the understanding of the topic. This
strengthens the confidence in both our findings and the broader literature.
However, like many qualitative studies, our research has limitations. One such
limitation is that findings from a smaller number of participants may not be
easily transferable to all contexts (Brinkmann & Kvale,
2015). While the aim of this study is not to generalise
to the wider teacher population of Norway, we acknowledge that a larger number
of participants could have provided a more diverse foundation for exploring the
possibilities and challenges associated with digital tools.
On the other hand,
focusing on one specific school allows us to delve deeply into how teachers
there work to ensure good learning outcomes in alignment with societal
developments. Although a smaller sample offers less variation, it provides
detailed, context-rich insights, which are highly valuable in qualitative
research. It is important to recognise that the
findings from this particular school may not reflect
the experiences of all teachers across Norway. Several factors, such as the
municipality’s economy, access to digital resources, and individual teachers’
experiences with technology, could influence how digital tools are perceived
and used in the classroom.
Researchers and
practitioners must be mindful of various measures to ensure the quality of the
research despite these limitations. Furthermore, the formulation of our
research questions acknowledges that the findings will be shaped by subjective
experiences, opinions, and interpretations, which is typical in qualitative
studies. That said, these limitations present opportunities for further
research. If there is a desire to expand this work, we suggest including a
broader sample of teachers from different regions in Norway to compare findings
and potentially increase the transferability of the results. Additionally,
while this study focuses on teachers’ perspectives, future research could
explore the views of other key actors, such as students, curriculum designers,
teacher educators, and parents, offering a more comprehensive understanding of
the use of digital tools in mathematics.
References
Amdam, S. H.,
Nagel, I., Njå, M. B., & Forsström,
S. (2024). Self-control or crime control: Teachers’
insights on good practices in 1:1 classrooms and implications for professional
development. Education
Sciences, 14(11), 1267. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14111267
Beck, E. E. (2016). Undring, handlingsrom og
teknodemokratiske potensialer: Hva vil vi med IKT? [Wonder, agency, and technodemocratic
potentials: What do we want with ICT?]. In T.
Strand, O. A. Kvamme, & T. Kvernbekk (Eds.), Pedagogiske fenomener: en
innføring [Pedagogical phenomena:
An introduction] (pp.
390-404). Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
Bergdahl, N., Nouri, J., Fors,
U., & Knutsson, O. (2020). Engagement,
disengagement and performance when learning with technologies in upper
secondary school. Computers & Education, 149, 103783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103783
Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2015). InterViews:
Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. SAGE Publications.
Deater-Deckard, K., Chang, M., & Evans, M.A. (2013).
Engagement states and learning from educational games. New Directions for
Child and Adolescent Development, 139, 21-30. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20028
Fadda, D., Pellegrini, M.,
Vivanet, G. & Callegher,
C. Z. (2022). Effects of digital
games on student motivation in mathematics: A meta-analysis in K-12. Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(1), 304-325. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12618
Folkman, A. K., Josefsson, K. A., & Fjetland,
K. J. (2023). Norwegian teachers’ experiences with distance teaching and online
schooling during the covid-19 pandemic. Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research, 67(3), 447-462. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2021.2021445
Goddard, J. T. &
Foster, R. (2002). Adapting to diversity: Where cultures collide – Educational
issues in Northern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Education, 27(1), 1-20. http://journals.sfu.ca/cje/index.php/cje-rce/article/view/2819
Goodchild, S., &
Sriraman, B. (2012). Revisiting the didactic triangle: from the particular to
the general. ZDM Mathematics Education, 44, 581-585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-012-0449-3
Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K. & Brindley, S.
(2007). Teacher perspectives on
integrating ICT into subject teaching: commitment, constraints, caution, and
change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(2), 155-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027032000276961
Imran, A. (2023). Why
addressing digital inequality should be a priority. The Electronic Journal
of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 89(3), e12255. https://doi.org/10.1002/isd2.12255
International
Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). (2015).
Norway: Teachers, teacher education, and professional development. In TIMSS
2015 encyclopedia: Education policy and curriculum in mathematics and science.
Retrieved December 29, 2024, from https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/encyclopedia/countries/norway/teachers-teacher-education-and-professional-development/
Jukić Matić, L., & Glasnović Gracin, D. (2016). The use of the textbook as an
artefact in the classroom: A case study in the light of a socio-didactical
tetrahedron. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 37(2),
349-374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13138-016-0091-7
Killi,
E. K., & Xenofontos, C. (2024). Teaching mathematics to
children of immigrant backgrounds: Primary teachers’ perspectives from Norway. Journal
for Theoretical & Marginal Mathematics Education, 3(1), 0306. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13621544
Klette, K., Sahlström,
F., Blikstad-Balas, M., Luoto,
J., Tanner, M., Tenberg,
M., Roe, A. & Slotte, A. (2018). Justice through participation: student engagement in
Nordic classrooms. Education Inquiry, 9(1), 57.77. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2018.1428036
Krumsvik, R. (2006). The digital challenges of school and
teacher education in Norway: Some urgent questions and the search for answers. Education and
Information Technologies, 11, 239-256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-006-9010-8
Kunnskapsdepartementet (2023). Strategi for
digital kompetanse og infrastruktur i barnehage og skole [Strategy for digital competence
and infrastructure in kindergartens
and schools]. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/strategi-for-digital-kompetanse-og-infrastruktur-i-barnehage-og-skole/id2972254/
Kunnskapsdepartementet. (2019). Læreplan i
matematikk (MAT01-05). Fastsatt som forskrift. Læreplanverket for
kunnskapsløftet 2020 [Curriculum in mathematics (MAT01-05). Established as a
regulation. Curriculum framework for the knowledge promotion reform 2020]. https://www.udir.no/lk20/mat01-05?lang=nob
Kaasila, R.
(2007). Using narrative inquiry
for investigating the becoming of a mathematics teacher. ZDM Mathematics
Education, 39(3), 205-213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-007-0023-6
Lindfors, M., Pettersson, F.,
& Olofsson, A. D. (2021). Conditions for professional digital competence:
The teacher educators’ view. Education Inquiry, 12(4), 390-409.
Litchman. M. (2013). Qualitative research in education: A
user’s guide. SAGE.
Livingstone, K. A.
(2019). The place of information and communication technologies in curriculum
design and development. International Journal of Education and Development
Using Information and Communication Technology, 15(4), 180-197.
Loong, E. Y-K. &
Herbert, S. (2018). Primary school teachers’ use of digital technology in
mathematics: the complexities. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 30,
475-498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-018-0235-9
Madsen, S. S. (2020).
What is the motivation of Norwegian and New Zealand teacher educators for using
digital technology when teaching? Nordic Journal of Comparative and
International Education, 4(2), 42-63. https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.3826
Marpa, E. P. (2021). Technology in the teaching of
mathematics: An analysis of teachers’ attitudes during the COVID19 pandemic. International
Journal on Studies in Education, 3(2), 92-102. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijonse.36
Masoumi, D., & Noroozi, O.
(2023). Developing early career teachers’ professional digital competence: A
systematic literature review. European Journal of Teacher Education,
1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2023.2229006
McCulloch, A. W., Hollebrands, K., Lee, H., Harrison, T. & Mutlu, A.
(2018). Factors that influence secondary mathematics teachers’ integration of
technology in mathematics lessons. Computers & Education, 123,
26-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.04.008
Meirbekov, A., Maslova, I., & Gallyamova,
Z. (2022). Digital education tools for critical thinking development. Thinking
Skills and Creativity, 44, 101023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101023
Munthe, E., Erstad, O., Njå, M.
B., Forsström, S., Gilje, Ø., Amdam,
S., Moltudal, S., & Hagen, S. B. (2022). Digitalisering
i grunnopplæring: Kunnskap, trender og framtidig kunnskapsbehov [Digitalisation in primary education: Knowledge, trends, and future
knowledge needs].
Kunnskapssenter for utdanning, Universitetet i Stavanger.
Mølstad, C. E.
& Karseth, B. (2016). National curricula in Norway and Finland: The role of
learning outcomes. European Educational Research Journal, 15(3),
329-344. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904116639311
Neuwirth, L. S. (2022).
Flipd app reduces cellular phone distractions in the
traditional college classroom: Implications for enriched discussions and
student retention. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory
& Practice, 24(2), 386-420. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025120921348
Nowell, L. S., Norris,
J. M., White, D. E. & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to
meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 16(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
OECD (2023). Learning
during—and from—disruption. PISA 2022 Results, Bd. II. Paris: OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en
Olofsson, A. D.,
Lindberg, J. O., Pedersen, A. Y., Arstorp, A.-T.,
Dalsgaard, C., Einum, E., Caviglia, F., Ilomäki, L., Veermans, M., Häkkinen,
P., & Willermark, S. (2021). Digital competence
across boundaries—Beyond a common Nordic model of the digitalisation
of K-12 schools? Education Inquiry, 12(4), 317-328. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2021.1976454
Ottestad, G. (2013). School leadership for ICT and teachers’
use of digital tools. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 8(1-2),
107-125. https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN1891-943X-2013-01-02-07
Rezat, S., & Sträßer, R. (2012). From the
didactical triangle to the socio-didactical tetrahedron: artifacts as
fundamental constituents of the didactical situation. ZDM Mathematics
Education, 44, 641-651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-012-0448-4
Richards, K. A. R.,
& Shiver, V. N. (2020). Managing the critical friendship: Using self-study
in the doctoral supervision process. Studying Teacher Education, 16(2),
240-257. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2020.1763291
Rohatgi, A., Bundsgaard, J., & Hatlevik, O. E. (2021). Digital inclusion in Norwegian and Danish schools - analysing variation in teachers’ collaboration, attitudes,
ICT use and students’ ICT literacy. In T. S. Frønes,
A. Pettersen, J. Radišić, & N. Buchholtz (Eds.), Equity, equality and diversity in the
Nordic model of education (pp. 139-172). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61648-9_6
Ruthven, K. (2012). The
didactical tetrahedron as a heuristic for analysing
the incorporation of digital technologies into classroom practice in support of
investigative approaches to teaching mathematics. ZDM Mathematics Education,
44, 627-640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-011-0376-8
Sarama, J., &
Clements, D. H. (2016). Physical and virtual manipulatives: What is “concrete?”
In P. S. Moyer-Packenham (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching and
learning mathematics with virtual manipulatives (pp. 71-93). Springer.
Stake, R.E. (2005).
Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE
handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.) (pp. 433-466). SAGE. https://au.sagepub.com/en-gb/oce/the-sage-handbook-of-qualitative-research/book242504
Swensen, H. (2014). Omvendt undervisning og tilpasset opplæring [Flipped classroom and differentiated instruction]. In M. Johannesen & L. Øgrim
(Eds.), Digital praksis i skolen [Digital practice in schools] (pp.
120-134). Gyldendal Norsk Forlag.
Tveiterås, N. C., & Madsen, S. S. (2022). From tools to complexity?
– A systematic literature analysis of digital competence among pre-service
teachers in Norway. In Ł. Tomczyk & L. Fedeli (Eds.), Digital literacy
for teachers (pp. 345-389). Springer
Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1738-7_18
Viberg, O., Grönlund, Å. & Andersson, A. (2023). Integrating digital technology in mathematics
education: a Swedish case study. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(1),
232-243. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1770801
Xenofontos, C. (2018). Greek-Cypriot
elementary teachers’ epistemological beliefs about mathematics. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 70, 47-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.007