You are here:

Conditions Influencing Mathematics Teachers´ Uptake of Digital Tools – a Systematic Literature Review

, , , University of Gothenburg, Sweden

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Austin, TX, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-27-8 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA


With the digitization of society citizens need to develop competencies often referred to as 21th century skills. OECD emphasize mathematical literacy for students as a necessity to be able to take part in a modern society and work life. Despite these efforts, research reports a gap between expectations and actual usage. To understand and describe this gap we conducted a systematic literature review that outlines how mathematics teachers’ describe conditions for their uptake of digital tools in their teaching. Based on our review we suggest two crucial themes specific for explaining teachers’ uptake in mathematics. First, time to learn software specific for conceptual mathematical understanding and secondly, teachers subject specific perceptions about teaching and learning mathematics. The result shows that future research is needed to continue clarifying how digital tools can support teachers and as a consequence their students’ mathematics learning, suitable for the 21st century.


Utterberg, M., Lundin, J. & Lindström, B. (2017). Conditions Influencing Mathematics Teachers´ Uptake of Digital Tools – a Systematic Literature Review. In P. Resta & S. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2016-2029). Austin, TX, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 24, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality and behaviour. Milton Keynes: OUP.
  2. Artigue, M. (2000). Instrumentation Issues and the Integration of Computer Technologies into Secondary Mathematics Teaching. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the GDM. Potsdam, 2000. (download:
  3. Bebell, D., Russell, M., & O’Dwyer, L. (2004). Measuring teachers’ technology uses: Why multiple-measures are more revealing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(1), 45-63.
  4. Becta. (2004). A review of the research literature on barriers to the uptake of ICT by teachers. London, UK, BECTA.
  5. Bingimlas, K.A. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: A review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science& Technology Education, 5(3), 235-245.
  6. Bretscher, N. (2014). Exploring the quantitative and qualitative gap between expectation and implementation: A survey of English mathematics teachers’ uses of ICT. In N. Sinclair, A. Clark-Wilson& O. Robutti (Eds.), The Mathematics Teacher in the Digital Era: An International Perspective on Technology Focused Professional Development (pp. 43-70). Springer
  7. Collins, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology. In L. Idol & B.F. Jones (Eds.), Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform (pp. 121-138). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  8. Cuban, L. (2013). Inside the black box of classroom practice. Change without reform in American education. Harward Education Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts. Danish Clearinghouse for Educational Research Concept note June 2007. (download:
  9. DeVaus, D. (2013). Research Design in Social Research. Sage.
  10. Davies, P. (2000). The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education, 26 (3-4), 365-378.
  11. Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3): 319-340.
  12. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
  13. Ertmer, P.A. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47-61.
  14. Ertmer, P.A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational technology research and development, 53(4), 25-39.
  15. Ertmer, P.A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required by Jonassen's vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers& Education, 64, 175-182.
  16. Ertmer, P.A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers& Education, 59(2), 423-435.
  17. Goodson, I.F., & Mangan, J.M. (1995). Subject cultures and the introduction of classroom computers. British Educational Research Journal, 21(5), 613-628.
  18. Handal, B. (2003). Teachers' mathematical beliefs: A review. The Mathematics Educator, 13(2), 47-57.
  19. Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
  20. Healy, L.I. & Lagrange, J.-B. (2010). Introduction to Section 3. In C. Hoyles and J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics Education and Technology-Rethinking the Terrain. (pp 287-292). Springer.
  21. Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). The impact of primary school teachers’ educational beliefs on the classroom use of computers. Computers& Education, 51(4), 1499-1509.
  22. Hew, K.F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223-252.
  23. Horsley, T., Dingwall, O., & Sampson, M. (2011). Checking reference lists to find additional studies for systematic reviews. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 8.
  24. Howard, S.K., Chan, A., Mozejko, A., & Caputi, P. (2015). Technology practices: Confirmatory factor analysis and exploration of teachers' technology integration in subject areas. Computers& Education, 90, 24-35.
  25. Howard, S., & Maton, K.A. (2011). Theorising knowledge practices: a missing piece of the educational technology puzzle. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3), 191-206.
  26. Hoyles, C. (1992). Mathematics teaching and mathematics teachers: A meta-case study. For the learning of mathematics, 12(3), 32-44.
  27. Inan, F.A., & Lowther, D.L. (2010). Laptops in the K-12 classrooms: Exploring factors impacting instructional use. Computers& Education, 55(3), 937-944.
  28. Jalali, S., & Wohlin, C. (2012, September). Systematic literature studies: database searches vs. Backward snowballing. In Proceedings of the ACM-IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering and measurement (pp. 29-38).
  29. Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele, UK, Keele University, 33(2004), 1-26.
  30. Law, N. (2009). Mathematics and science teachers’ pedagogical orientations and their use of ICT in teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 14(4), 309-323.
  31. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers college record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  32. Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers' use of information and communications technology: a review of the literature. Journal of information technology for teacher education, 9(3), 319-342.
  33. OECD (2013). The PISA Assessment and Analytical Framework: Mathematics, Reading, Science, Problem and Financial Litercy. OECD Publishing
  34. Olive, J., Makar, K., Hoyos, V., Kor, L.K., Kosheleva, O., & Strässer, R. (2009). Mathematical knowledge and practices resulting from access to digital technologies. In C. Hoyles& J.B. Lagrange (Eds.) Mathematics education and technologyrethinking the terrain: The 17th ICMI Study (pp. 133-177). Springer US.
  35. Penuel, W.R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of research on technology in education, 38(3), 329-348.
  36. Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. John Wiley& Sons.
  37. Prestridge, S. (2012). The beliefs behind the teacher that influences their ICT practices. Computers& Education, 58(1), 449458.
  38. Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York, NY: Free Press.
  39. Ryan, G.W., & Bernard, H.R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. (2nd ed., pp. 769-802). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
  40. Selwyn, N. (1999). Differences in educational computer use: the influence of subject cultures. Curriculum Journal, 10(1), 2948.
  41. Selwyn, N. (2008). From state‐of‐the‐art to state‐of‐the‐actual? Introduction to a special issue. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17(2), 83-87.
  42. Silvernail, D.L., & Lane, D.M. (2004). The impact of Maine’s one-to-one laptop program on middle school teachers and students. Maine Education Policy Research Institute (MEPRI), University of Southern Maine.
  43. Slavin, R.E. (1986). Best-evidence synthesis: An alternative to meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Educational researcher, 15(9), 5-11.
  44. Stipek, D.J., Givvin, K.B., Salmon, J.M., & MacGyvers, V.L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and teacher education, 17(2), 213-226.
  45. Trigueros, M., Lozano, M.D., & Sandoval, I. (2014). Integrating technology in the primary school mathematics classroom: The role of the teacher. In N. Sinclair, A. Clark-Wilson& O. Robutti (Eds.), The Mathematics Teacher in the Digital Era: An International Perspective on Technology Focused Professional Development (pp. 111-138). Springer Netherlands.
  46. Valsiner, J. (1997). Culture and the development of children's action: A theory of human development. John Wiley& Sons.
  47. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., & Davis, F.D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 425-478.
  48. Voogt, J., Erstad, O., Dede, C., & Mishra, P. (2013). Challenges to learning and schooling in the digital networked world of the 21st century. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(5), 403-413.
  49. Wohlin, C. (2014, May). Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering. ACM.
  50. Zbiek, R.M., & Hollebrands, K. (2008). A research-informed view of the process of incorporating mathematics technology into classroom practice by in-service and prospective teachers. In M.K. Heid & G.W. Blume (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics: Volume 1 (pp. 287-344). Information Age Publishing.
  51. Agyei, D.D., & Voogt, J.M. (2011). Exploring the potential of the will, skill, tool model in Ghana: Predicting prospective and practicing teachers’ use of technology. Computers& Education, 56(1), 91-100.
  52. Andrews, P. (1999). Some institutional influences on secondary mathematics teachers' use of computers. Education and Information Technologies, 4(2), 113-128.
  53. Anthony, A.B., & Clark, L.M. (2011). Examining dilemmas of practice associated with the integration of technology into mathematics classrooms serving urban students. Urban Education, 46(6), 1300-1331.
  54. Baya'a, N., & Daher, W. (2013). Mathematics Teachers' Readiness to Integrate ICT in the Classroom. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 8(1), 46-52.
  55. Berry, J.S., Graham, T., Honey, S., & Headlam, C. (2007). A Case Study of the Issues Arising When Teachers Adopt the Use of a New Form of Technology in their Teaching for the First Time. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 14(3), 150-160.
  56. Blackley, S., & Walker, R. (2015). One-to-one laptop programs: Is transformation occurring in mathematics teaching. Issues in Educational Research, 25(2), 99-117.
  57. Coffland, D.A., & Strickland, A.W. (2004). Factors related to teacher use of technology in secondary geometry instruction. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 23(4), 347.
  58. Crisan, C., Lerman, S., & Winbourne, P. (2007). Mathematics and ICT: A framework for conceptualising secondary school mathematics teachers’ classroom practices. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 16(1), 21-39.
  59. Fishman, B.J., Penuel, W.R., Hegedus, S., & Roschelle, J. (2011). What happens when the research ends? Factors related to the sustainability of a technology-infused mathematics curriculum. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 30(4), 329-353.
  60. Forgasz, H.J. (2002). Teachers and computers for secondary mathematics. Education and Information Technologies, 7(2), 111-125.
  61. Forgasz, H. (2006). Factors That Encourage or Inhibit Computer Use for Secondary Mathematics Teaching. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25(1), 77-93.
  62. Glazer, E. (2004). From a caterpillar to a butterfly: The growth of a teacher in developing technology-enhanced mathematical investigations. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(1), 115-138.
  63. Goos, M., & Bennison, A. (2008). Surveying the technology landscape: Teachers’ use of technology in secondary mathematics classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(3), 102-130.
  64. Güven, B., Çakiroğlu, Ü., & Akkan, Y. (2009). The gap between expectations and reality: Integrating computers into mathematics classrooms. AsiaPacific Education Review, 10(4), 505-515.
  65. Handal, B., Campbell, C., Cavanagh, M., Petocz, P., & Kelly, N. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge of secondary mathematics teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 13(1), 22-40.
  66. Handal, B., Cavanagh, M., Wood, L.N., & Petocz, P. (2011). Factors leading to the adoption of a learning technology: The case of graphics calculators. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(2), 343-360.
  67. Henry, J.J., & Clements, D.H. (1999). Challenges for teachers attempting to integrate a mathematics innovation. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(3), 240-260.
  68. Koo, A.C. (2008). Factors Affecting Teachers' Perceived Readiness for Online Collaborative Learning: A Case Study in Malaysia. Educational Technology& Society, 11(1), 266-278.
  69. Moses, P., Wong, S.L., Bakar, K.A., & Mahmud, R. (2013). Perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use: antecedents of attitude towards laptop use among science and mathematics teachers in Malaysia. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(3), 293-299.
  70. Norton, S. (1999, July). Secondary mathematics teachers’ responses to computers and their beliefs about the role of computers in their teaching. In Making the Difference: Proceedings of the Twenty-second Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (MERGA) (pp. 404-410).
  71. Norton, S., McRobbie, C.J., & Cooper, T.J. (2000). Exploring secondary mathematics teachers’ reasons for not using computers in their teaching: Five case studies. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(1), 87-109.
  72. Oncu, S., Delialioglu, O., & Brown, C.A. (2008). Critical components for technology integration: How do instructors make decisions? The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 27(1), 19-46.
  73. Pierce, R., & Ball, L. (2009). Perceptions that may affect teachers’ intention to use technology in secondary mathematics classes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(3), 299-317.
  74. Pierce, R., & Stacey, K. (2013). Teaching with new technology: four ‘early majority’teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16(5), 323-347.
  75. Polly, D. (2014). Elementary school teachers’ use of technology during mathematics teaching. Computers in the Schools, 31(4), 271-292.
  76. Rodd, M., & Monaghan, J. (2002). Graphic calculator use in Leeds schools: Fragments of practice. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 11(1), 93-108.
  77. Simonsen, L.M., & Dick, T.P. (1997). Teachers' perceptions of the impact of graphing calculators in the mathematics classroom. Journal of computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 16, 239-268.
  78. Stoilescu, D. (2015). A Critical Examination of the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Framework Secondary School Mathematics Teachers Integrating Technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(4), 514-547.
  79. Stols, G., Ferreira, R., Pelser, A., Olivier, W.A., Vander Merwe, A., De Villiers, C., & Venter, S. (2015). Perceptions and needs of South African Mathematics teachers concerning their use of technology for instruction. South African Journal of Education, 35(4), 01-13.
  80. Stols, G., & Kriek, J. (2011). Why don’t all maths teachers use dynamic geometry software in their classrooms? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(1), 137-151.
  81. Thomas, M.O.J. (1996). Computers in the mathematics classroom: A survey. In Proceedings of the 19th Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia Conference (pp. 556-563).
  82. Thomas, M.O. (2006, July). Teachers using computers in mathematics: A longitudinal study. In Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 5, pp. 265-272).
  83. Thomas, M.O., & Hong, Y.Y. (2013). Teacher Integration of Technology into Mathematics Learning. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 20(2), 69-84.
  84. Thomas, M.O., & Vela, C. (2003). Computers in the Primary Classroom: Barriers to Effective Use. International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 4, 347-354.
  85. Wachira, P., & Keengwe, J. (2011). Technology integration barriers: Urban school mathematics teachers’ perspectives. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(1), 17-25.
  86. Ware, J., & Stein, S. (2014). Teachers’ Critical Evaluations of Dynamic Geometry Software Implementation in 1: 1 Classrooms. Computers in the Schools, 31(3), 134-153.
  87. Zuber, E.N., & Anderson, J. (2013). The initial response of secondary mathematics teachers to a one-to-one laptop program. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 25(2), 279-298.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact