Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2025, Iss. 1, pp. 67–85 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.

874

Assessing the role of online mathematics tools in

enhancing student learning and engagement
Olajumoke Olayemi Salami, Erica Dorethea Spangenberg
Department of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, University of Johannesburg,
PO Box 524, Auckland Park, 2006, South Africa

Abstract. As digital technology improves and educational standards rise, online

tools for teaching mathematics are one of the advancements recorded in digital
technologies. The use of digital tools for teaching, particularly a dreaded subject
like mathematics, helps to improve teaching and learning. This study explores
the influence of online learning tools on the teaching of mathematics in the era
of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR), where the fusion of digital, physical,
and biological spheres is revolutionising conventional education practices. In this
study, a survey of 596 secondary school mathematics educators was adminis-
tered to evaluate the correlation between online tool use and student performance
through correlation analysis and multinomial logistic regression. Results showed
a strong positive relationship between the use of online resources and student
engagement, problem-solving, and academic achievements. The study calls for
focused professional development and training activities to provide teachers with
the knowledge and skills needed to use online resources in their classrooms. In
addition, government and education stakeholders should invest in infrastructure to
enable fair access to digital learning resources so that a sizable number of teachers
and students can take advantage of technology-rich education.
Keywords: mathematics education, digital learning tools, technology integration,
fourth industrial revolution, teachers’ training, student engagement, educational
technology

1. Introduction
The Fourth Industrial Revolution, marked by quick progress in digital tech and how
it blends into all parts of society, is changing the education scene [9]. In this time of
big changes, math education leads the way, aiming to get students ready to succeed in
a world that’s becoming more digital. Teachers are taking a fresh look at old ways to
teach and learn math as they try to find new ideas to make the most of new tech [30].
This paves the way to explore how math education is changing in the Fourth Industrial
Revolution era, with a focus on how online tools boost learning results [31]. By looking
at where math education and digital progress meet, we will see how teachers are
changing their methods to fit students’ new needs in the digital world [1, 32]. Adding
online tools to math education gives new chances to get students involved, make
teaching personal, and help students understand concepts better. Interactive websites,
virtual models, and smart learning programs give students learning experiences that
fit their own needs and ways of learning [16].
In today’s digital world, online tools have caused a revolution in how we teach
and learn math [27]. These tools give students lively and hands-on ways to learn
that make math more fun and easier to grasp. Let’s look at the many ways people
use online tools to make learning math better. One big plus of online tools is that

 0000-0001-7075-2548 (O. O. Salami); 0000-0003-3073-9239 (E. D. Spangenberg)

# [email protected] (O. O. Salami); [email protected] (E. D. Spangenberg)
~ https://fuoye.edu.ng/members/olajumoke-salami/ (O. O. Salami);
https://www.uj.ac.za/members/prof-erica-spangenberg/ (E. D. Spangenberg)
© Copyright for this article by its authors, published by the Academy of Cognitive and Natural Sciences.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License Attribution
4.0 International (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

67
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2025, Iss. 1, pp. 67–85 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.874

they can fit each student’s needs and way of learning. Step-by-step guides you can
click through, things you can move around on the screen, and lessons with pictures
and sound let students learn math ideas at their own speed. This helps them get
it by doing things themselves [8]. Because of the adaptive component of much of
the software available online, real-time evaluation and feedback are possible so that
educators can understand where students are struggling and deliver focused support
to the students. Using algorithms and analytics, teachers are able to monitor learning
progress, identify errors, and adapt instructional interventions to meet individual
learning needs. The available online tools promote collaborative learning activities
where students can interact with each other on a peer-to-peer basis, as well as solve
problems together as a group, regardless of geographical position [10, 12, 25]. Virtual
classrooms, discussion forums, and collaborative projects foster a sense of community
and collective learning, enriching the educational experience beyond the confines of
the traditional classroom.
Digital inclusion of online tools in mathematics teaching requires deep knowledge of
important aspects that include digital equity, data privacy, and teacher preparedness.
That technology and stable internet access should be available to every student
to prevent differences in learning [22] is indeed critical. In other words, teachers
also need to be trained well enough to use digital tools effectively in the classroom.
Professional development programs related to digital literacy, teaching practices, and
technical skills are the bedrock on which to build to better train and prepare educators
to use online tools in a way that improves the learning of students. Digital resources
can activate students, adapt learning experiences to student needs, and facilitate a
richer knowledge and understanding of mathematical concepts [31]. By incorporating
these tools, teachers can develop interactive, accessible learning communities that
enable students to learn mathematics and more.
The pressure to enhance student performance has grown with programs such as
the No Child Left Behind Act and by creating academic standards. Standardised
tests, especially in mathematics, are frequently employed as an indicator of school
performance, and the results may influence school funding, teacher hiring, or school
administration [2]. In response to these high-stakes testing environments, teachers
have sought professional development and classroom resources to enhance instruc-
tion.
While research shows that technology can enhance learning and support mathemat-
ics instruction [19, 20], not all teachers are quick to adopt these tools, nor do they
always result in significant improvements in student outcomes. Continued research
is needed to explore the intersection of technology, teacher practices, student en-
gagement, and educational content, especially as the education system adapts to the
demands of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. This paper examines how mathematics
teachers used online tutoring platform and its connection to students’ performance
on standardised tests in this evolving educational landscape.
This study looks at how teachers use online mathematics tools to keep students
motivated about learning mathematics and help them do better in school. There
are studies in the literature that focus on the impact of using online tools to teach
mathematics, but gaps exist in some areas. One major gap is that very marginal
studies have been conducted on how online tools affect students with learning dis-
abilities, also advanced students who are not in middle or high school have not been
well researched. Another area that has not been well researched is addressing the
uncertainties surrounding the optimal combination of online tools with classroom
teaching for maximum benefit. Also, not a lot of research has been done on how
customising material affects how well each person learns. To fill in these gaps, this
study aims to answer three main questions: (i) How do online tools affect students’

68
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2025, Iss. 1, pp. 67–85 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.874

ability to solve mathematics problems and gain mastery of the subject? (iii) How does
personalising online tool content affect each student’s learning outcomes; lastly (iii)
How do teachers effectively combine online tools with classroom teaching to get all of
their students involved?
Computer tools used in mathematics education have been looked at in earlier
research, but this study adds new information in three main areas. First, it looks at
how online mathematics tools affect students with different levels of skill, including
those who have trouble learning. Second, it looks at how well teachers use internet-
based tools to get their students more involved in the learning process. Third, it
explores the effects of content customisation on individual learning outcomes. In
addressing these aspects, this study offers a more comprehensive insight into how
online resources support mathematics instruction across diverse educational settings.
The results offer valuable implications for teachers, policymakers, and technology
developers, ensuring more effective and inclusive digital learning environments in
mathematics education.

2. Literature review
Although many students find mathematics a complex subject, it is considered a
necessary part of K–12 education and a requirement for success in postsecondary
education [23]. Specifically, completing mathematics in high school has been linked to
increased career earnings, graduation rates, and access to colleges [21]. Mathematics
standardised tests are essential since mathematics plays a big part in future success,
and they have grown to be an essential part of today’s educational environment,
monitoring student progress, assessing teachers’ efficacy, and contrasting national
and international educational results. Numerous teachers are looking for instruc-
tional resources to help students improve their reasoning and content knowledge of
mathematics due to ongoing concerns about students’ poor performance. Although
not all technological tools are adopted effectively or receive strong teacher support,
strategic integration of technology can significantly enhance mathematics instruction
[18, 35]. It offers students valuable opportunities to explore mathematical concepts in
greater depth [26].
Teachers today have access to a wide range of instructional technologies. However,
this study primarily focuses on online mathematics resources—web-based technolo-
gies designed explicitly for math education in the context of the Fourth Industrial
Revolution. While educational technology encompasses tools like calculators or soft-
ware such as word processors, this research zeroes in on the use of online platforms.
Research shows that various methods are employed when integrating online math-
ematics resources in classrooms, leading to diverse impacts on the performance of
students. The sections below present an overview of key studies examining the influ-
ence of technology on student outcomes and how mathematics teachers utilise these
digital tools in their teaching practices.

2.1. Technology and students performance

There are many studies on the connection between computer technology and mathe-
matical performance. Still, a recurring theme in these studies is the differing effects of
the type and level of technology used. When computers were first used in classrooms
to encourage higher-order thinking in their students, Zhang and Wang [36] discovered
a positive correlation between computer use and mathematics performance. The cor-
relation between mathematics performance and the use of computers for lower-order
skills, however, was negative. This suggests that the way technology is applied has
a significant influence on how well mathematicians perform. One important factor
influencing the effect size was the technology used in the classroom. Numerous

69
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2025, Iss. 1, pp. 67–85 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.874

studies have since been conducted to investigate the connection between student
performance and the use of technology in school over the last 20 years. Current
meta-analyses have focused on the influence of technology on pupil achievement
in secondary mathematics, with a particular interest in how different approaches
influence performance [17, 28, 29, 34].
One of the earliest systematic reviews on this topic was conducted by Yu, Li and
Wang [34], who examined the effects of technology on secondary math outcomes across
various educational programs, such as instructional processes, computer-assisted
instruction (CAI), and curriculum innovations. The study defined CAI as technology
that supports mathematics learning, including tools like self-paced modules, additional
instruction in labs, and computer-managed progress tracking. Of the 100 studies
studied, thirty-eight experimental studies showed a modest but positive effect size of
+0.10 overall.
Further analysis revealed distinctions in how CAI was used: supplemental programs
like PLATO, which support traditional instruction, had the largest effect size (+0.19),
while core CAI (e.g., Cognitive Tutor) showed a smaller impact (+0.09). Computer-
managed learning systems, such as Accelerate Mathematics, had a negligible or even
negative effect (-0.02). This indicates that the type and implementation of online
resources can influence student performance in mathematics.
Li, Zhou and Wijaya [17] also explored the effect of computer technology on student
outcomes in mathematics across 46 studies, finding an average positive effect size
of +0.28. Like Yu, Li and Wang [34], the research indicated that not all technological
applications resulted in improved performance, with the method of implementation
being a key factor. For example, technologies combined with constructivist teaching
strategies resulted in greater gains than a traditional strategy. Also, work that included
more than six months of technology implementation period showed greater effect
sizes, thus reinforcing the value of long-term and thoroughly designed technology
implementation in education.
In a recent analysis, Sun et al. [29] pointed out shortcomings of previous meta-
analyses that had included studies with methodological design attributes that could
have exaggerated effect sizes. With more stringent inclusion criteria, they distilled
the field down to 75 studies concerning the application of online tools and computer
technologies, such as interactive whiteboards. Results revealed a moderately positive,
+0.15 effect of educational technologies on mathematics achievement. Their analysis
went into the factors of grade level, kind of intervention, intensity of the program, and
level of implementation to examine the effect of factors on effect sizes. In contrast to
previous work, they did not detect any mean-effect size differences between primary
and secondary grade levels.
However, like Yu, Li and Wang [34], Sun et al. [29] reported significant differences in
the effect sizes according to the types of technologies used. Findings within most of
the research were supplementary CAI (e.g., PLATO) and experienced the largest ES
+0.18). Additionally, a higher number of uses (at least 30 min/week) and program
implementation level were correlated to larger effect size values, suggesting the role of
both adherence to using and thorough adoption of educational technologies. A meta-
analysis by Slavin, Cheung and Zhuang [28] that specifically looked at mathematics
achievement with keen attention to algebra also discovered evidence that computer
technology might help students perform better. When analysing 82 research that
employed instructional techniques to boost student performance in mathematics,
technology-based curricula showed statistically significant average effect sizes of
+0.04, while technology tools demonstrated a higher weighted average effect size
of +0.311. This suggests that while both technology-integrated curricula and tools
positively influenced mathematics achievement, tools had a more substantial impact

70
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2025, Iss. 1, pp. 67–85 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.874

on improving student outcomes. Online tools such as PLATO and Cognitive Tutor
were used in technology curricula to facilitate or deliver mathematics instruction.
Conversely, “technology tools” referred broadly to items like interactive applets,
computer programs, and calculators. In contrast to previous meta-analyses, this
one had far broader inclusion criteria, looked at a more comprehensive range of
achievement measures, and may have overstated the size of its stated effect sizes.
The absence of effect sizes for various technology tools and curriculum types was
noted in earlier meta-analyses as a significant differentiator in the efficacy of student
performance outcomes. A great deal of research has been done over the past 20 years
regarding how computer technology affects math performance in students (table 1).
The use of online resources to augment regularly implemented instruction shows
promise for improving academic performance; however, more research on these online
mathematics resources is necessary due to the fluctuating effect sizes and ongoing
technological advancements.

Table 1
Synopsis of meta-analyses on how technology affects mathematical performance.
Authors Total number of studies Total effect size
Yu, Li and Wang [34] 38 +0.01
Li, Zhou and Wijaya [17] 46 +0.28
Slavin, Cheung and Zhuang [28] 82 +0.04
Sun, Zhan, Wan, Yang and Looi [29] 74 +0.15

2.2. Teachers’ use of technology

The success of technology integration in mathematics teaching is contingent upon
various factors, including the frequency of implementation, pedagogical design, and
teacher implementation style. Literature has proven that constructivist methods
using computers as explorative tools are more effective compared to conventional
computation-based approaches [13]. Additionally, problem-solving activities in col-
laboration and interactive video tutorials have been found to yield beneficial impacts
on students’ engagement and performance [6, 11]. Nonetheless, the effectiveness of
technology is greatly reliant on pedagogical decisions. The replacement of traditional
teacher instruction with technology is no assurance of improved outcomes [14]. The
effectiveness of technology integration is contingent on the design of the tool, the
teacher’s pedagogical approach, and the learning environment.
Teachers’ attitudes, professional development, and access to digital resources also
significantly contribute to technology implementation [4, 36]. To foster the successful
implementation of online teaching tools, teachers require professional development in
integrating technology into curriculum [2]. Adoption is influenced by state standards,
existing curriculum, school policies, and available resources [15]. Researchers ought
to explore various pedagogical methods and contextual variables influencing the use
of technology in classrooms in order to achieve optimum benefits [33].

2.3. Theoretical framework

It is necessary to have a model to comprehend how educators integrate technology in
the classroom and how it influences learning for students. Albeshree et al. [4] pointed
out that the success of educational technology relies on three elements: technology,
teacher, and learning environment. Teachers’ attitudes, professional competencies,
and pedagogical choices play a crucial role in the implementation and success of the
tools [11, 36].

71
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2025, Iss. 1, pp. 67–85 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.874

Technology use is also influenced by external circumstances like infrastructure

availability, professional development, and education policy alignment [15, 33]. De
Vita, Verschaffel and Elen [7] proposed the “technical demo” model, in which instruc-
tors showcase digital tools to learners in organised learning settings, emphasising the
role of instructor facilitation in technology adoption.
The orchestration of instruments provides a useful model for investigating how
teachers manage the use of digital tools in mathematics teaching. This study compares
various models of implementation, including isolated remediation and collaborative
learning, to determine the approaches that best enhance student engagement and
comprehension [24].

3. Methodology
This section discusses the processes taken to achieve this study’s objectives, includ-
ing the study design, population and sample, and other procedures.

3.1. Study design

This research adopts a cross-section research design, utilising statistical analysis
to examine the relationship among variables. A cross-sectional survey method is
employed to collect data at a specific point in time, providing an overview of the
current state of the impact of online tools used in high schools in the region. This
design is chosen for its ability to draw generalisable insights from a relatively large
and diverse sample of school leaders, teachers, and administrators, facilitating the
analysis of patterns and relationships between variables [5].

3.2. Population and sample

The population consists of teachers, mainly high school teachers. The list of teachers
was obtained from the state education board, which served as the sampling frame.
These teachers were sampled using online means. The data was collected between
June and October 2024.
This data for this study was by primary source: both quantitative and qualitative
survey data were collected from 596 secondary school mathematics teachers in Lagos
and Abuja during the 2023-2024 academic year, reflecting a response rate above the
online survey average reported [17]. The survey was obtained from academic years,
and the focus was on middle and high school teachers to the end-of-course (EOC)
exam’s role as a prerequisite in Nigerian education.
Two hundred and ninety-one (291) schools with teachers actively engaging with
Algebra Nation versus 14 schools with no teacher logins, workbooks, or training. This
method accounted for differences between groups, following a quasi-experimental
approach to mitigate the influence of uncontrolled factors [3].

3.3. Data collection tools

A structured questionnaire was administered to the participants online to collect
data (see the appendix A for the link to the survey). The questionnaire is divided into
six sections:
(i) General information
(ii) Online mathematical use
(iii) Student learning outcomes
(iv) Student engagement
(v) Support and resources
(vi) Effectiveness and learning abilities

72
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2025, Iss. 1, pp. 67–85 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.874

Also, participants were given questionnaires and semi-structured interviews to

gain deeper insights into how online tools such as Algebra Nation, Khan Academy,
Mathplanet, and GeoGebra help teach and learn mathematics, especially algebra. This
combination of surveys and interviews allows for the triangulation of data, providing
both broad quantitative insights and rich qualitative perspectives on the research
topics.

3.4. Data analysis

Quantitative data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics, version 29.
The analyses include descriptive statistics, such as frequencies, means, and standard
deviations, to summarise general information and the responses from the question-
naires. Pearson’s product-moment correlation was used to analyse the relationship
between the variables. Also, multinomial logistic regression was conducted since the
response variable is categorical, with the response variable classified as daily coded as
4, weekly coded as 3, occasionally coded as 2, and never coded as 1 to represent the
use of online tools. The multinomial logistic regression is specified as follows:

3.4.1. Multinomial logistic regression

Multinomial logit models are useful in cases where the variable to be explained is
nominal, and there is no order among the categories. They are termed as multinomial
because the distribution of the dependent variable is multinomial in nature.
When constructing a multinomial logistic regression model, the result consists of
multiple (greater than two or 𝐾) outcomes. We can conceptualise this scenario as
fitting 𝐾 − 1 separate binary logit models, with one of the outcomes serving as a
reference point. The 𝐾 − 1 outcomes are analysed in relation to the reference outcome.
(︂ )︂
𝑝(𝑌𝑖 = 1)
ln = 𝛽𝑖1 𝑋𝑖 (1)
𝑝(𝑌𝑖 = 𝐾)
(︂ )︂
𝑝(𝑌𝑖 = 2)
ln = 𝛽𝑖2 𝑋𝑖 (2)
𝑝(𝑌𝑖 = 𝐾)
up to the log odd ratio of
(︂ )︂
𝑝(𝑌𝑖 = 𝐾 − 1)
ln = 𝛽𝑖𝑘−1 𝑋𝑖 (3)
𝑝(𝑌𝑖 = 𝐾)

where 𝑌𝑖 = 1, 𝑌𝑖 = 2 are the categories in classification in the categorical response

variable coded as 1, 2, . . . . . . 𝐾 − 1 and 𝐾 is a category of reference. Taking exponential
of both sides, we have,
𝑝(𝑌𝑖 = 1) = 𝑝(𝑌𝑖 = 𝐾) = 𝑒𝛽1 𝑋𝑖 (4)
𝑝(𝑌𝑖 = 2) = 𝑝(𝑌𝑖 = 𝐾) = 𝑒𝛽2 𝑋𝑖 (5)
then the term
𝑝(𝑌𝑖 = 1) = 𝑝(𝑌𝑖 = 𝐾 − 1) = 𝑒𝛽𝐾−1 𝑋𝑖 (6)
The linear form is
(︂ )︂
𝑝(𝑌𝑖 = 1)
ln = 1.638 + 𝛽1 𝑋1 + 𝛽2 𝑋2 + 𝛽3 𝑋3 + . . . + 𝛽𝐾−1 𝑋𝐾−1 (7)
𝑝(𝑌𝑖 = 𝐾)

Interview data were thematically analysed using NVivo, seeking patterns and repeti-
tion in responses. The following analyses contextualise the quantitative findings by
exploring the factors and perceptions that underpin the use of online tools in teaching
mathematics.

73
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2025, Iss. 1, pp. 67–85 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.874

3.5. Ethical considerations

This research followed ethical standards to protect the rights and privacy of the
participants. All the participants voluntarily agreed to participate in the study, and
their data would be kept secret. The Institutional Review Board at the university
approved the study, following data protection rules for collecting and storing data.
Participants could withdraw from the study at any moment without any penalty. Strict
data protection procedures were used to maintain privacy and research ethics.

3.6. Instrument’s validity

To ensure data reliability and validity, the research instruments underwent expert
scrutiny and pilot study. Construct validity was established through internal consis-
tency. Cronbach’s alpha checks yielded 0.8942, indicating that the instrument is good
for the study. Ethical clearance covered all the matters of data protection and security.
The process of data collection ensured that results accurately captured participant
responses and adhered to ethical research practices.

4. Results
This section discusses the results obtained. First, it summarises the demographic
characteristics of the data obtained, followed by a multinomial logistics regression
analysis.
The teachers who used online tools for less than a year were 231 (38.8%), 298 (50%)
used online tools between 1-2 years, 46 (7.7%) used online tools between 2-3 years,
and 21 (7.7%) used online tools for 3 years and above (figure 1).

298

250 231
Number of teachers

200

150

100

50 46
21
0
Less than a year 1-2 years 2-3 years 3 years and over
Years of online tool use

Figure 1: Period of use of online mathematical tools.

The teachers who use online mathematical tools weekly were 287 (48.2%), 249
(41.8%) use online tools daily, 46 (7.7%) use online tools occasionally, and 14 (2.3%)
never used online tools (figure 2).
The teachers who use video lessons on the online tool were 93 (15.6%), 83 (13.9%)
use practice problems feature on the online tool, 131 (22.0%) use assessments and
quizzes features on Algebra Nation, 220 (36.9%) use interactive tools features on
the online tool, and 69 (11.6%) use teachers resources features on the online tool
(figure 3).

74
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2025, Iss. 1, pp. 67–85 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.874

287

249
250
Number of teachers

200

150

100

50 46

14
0
Weekly Daily Occasionally Never
Frequency of Algebra Nation use

Figure 2: Frequency of use of online mathematical tools.

Video lessons 93

Practice problems 83

Assessments and quizzes 131

Interactive tools 220

Teacher resources 69
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Number of teachers

Figure 3: Feature of Algebra Nation used.

4.1. Research Question 1: How do teachers combine online tools with

classroom instruction for optimal student engagement?
The results showed that the majority of teachers, 306 (51.3%), use online tools as
supporting aids rather than as main pedagogical practices. The findings also show
that teachers who use online tools more often (weekly or daily) have higher levels of
student engagement than sporadic users.
The teachers who use Algebra Nation as a primary resource were 67 (11.2%), 306
(51.3%) use Algebra Nation as a supplementary resource, 120(20.1%) use online tool
for-homework assignments, and 103 (17.3%) use online tool for in-class practice
(figure 4).
The teachers who teach Basic 7 were 57 (9.6%), those who teach Basic 8 were 67

75
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2025, Iss. 1, pp. 67–85 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.874

Primary resource 67

Supplementary resource 306

Homework assignments 120

In-class practice 103

0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Number of teachers

Figure 4: Integration of Algebra Nation into a lesson plan.

210
200
Number of teachers

150

104 100
100

67
57 58
50

0
Basic 7 Basic 8 Basic 9 Basic 10 Basic 11 Basic 12
Grade level

Figure 5: Classes taught by the teachers.

(11.2%), 104 (17.4%) teach Basic 9, 210 (35.2%) teach Basic 10, 100 (16.8%) teach
Basic 11, and 58 (9.7%) teach Basic 12 (figure 5). Basic 7 to Basic 12 imply Junior
Secondary School 1 (JSS 1) to JSS 3, then Senior Secondary School (SSS 1) to (SSS 3),
making six grade classes altogether. Table 2 contains the summary statistics of the
general information section.
The mean, median and mode of the five-point Likert scale are provided in table 2.
Table 3 contains the Pearson correlation analysis of the variables in the study.

4.2. Research Question 2: How do online tools affect students’ problem-solving

skills and conceptual understanding in mathematics?
The results (table 3) indicate a strong correlation between online tool use and
student learning outcomes (r = 0.9721), online tool use and student engagement

76
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2025, Iss. 1, pp. 67–85 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.874

Table 2
Summary statistics of the variables in figure 1 to figure 5.
Feature of Frequency of used
Grade Period of use Frequency of use
online tool of online tool
taught of online tool of online tool
used in lesson plans
Number
of valid 596 596 596 596 596
responses
Mean 3.68 1.76 1.64 3.15 2.43
Median 4.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00
Mode 4 2 1 4 2

Table 3
Correlation analysis of the variables in the study.
Online Student Student Support
Effecti- Learning
tool learning engage- and
veness abilities
use outcomes ment resources
Online tool use 1
Student learning
0.972076 1
outcomes
Student
0.95958 0.931724571 1
engagement
Support
0.421791 0.421249798 0.394149 1
and resources
Effectiveness 0.945013 0.921224158 0.905241 0.382027325 1
Learning abilities 0.979036 0.95470573 0.938712 0.425158618 0.931459 1

has a strong relationship (0.9596), online tool use and support (0.42180) has a weak
relationship, online tool use and effectiveness has a strong relationship (0.9450), online
tool use and learning abilities have a strong relationship (0.9790). These findings
suggest that interactive features and dynamic learning experiences provided by online
mathematical tools enhance problem-solving skills and conceptual understanding.
Student engagement, and support and resources have a weak relationship (0.3441).
Lastly, support and resources, and effectiveness have a weak relationship (0.3820).
Table 4 contains the likelihood ratio tests.

Table 4
Likelihood ratio tests.
Model fitting criteria Likelihood ratio tests
Effect
-2 log-likelihood of reduced model Chi-square df Sig.
Intercept 273.273 67.330 3 <.001
Support and resources 245.652 39.709 3 <.001
Overall effectiveness 213.011 7.068 3 .070
Student engagement 214.675 8.732 3 .033
Learning abilities 215.612 9.669 3 .022
Student learning outcomes 207.394 1.452 3 .693

The chi-square statistic is the difference in -2 log-likelihoods between the final model
and a reduced model. The reduced model is formed by omitting an effect from the final
model. The null hypothesis is that all parameters of that effect are 0. An unexpected
singularity in the Hessian matrix is encountered. This indicates that either some

77
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2025, Iss. 1, pp. 67–85 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.874

predictor variables should be excluded, or some categories should be merged. By

implication, student learning outcomes were not significant and could be removed
from the model. Table 5 contains the multinomial logistics regression.

4.3. Research Question 3: How does the customisation of online tool content
affect individual learning outcomes of the students?
The study underscores that although online tools generally enhance student learn-
ing, their effectiveness is contingent upon customisation. The multinomial logistic
regression analysis (table 5) reveals that educators who incorporate customised online
tools in teaching observe enhanced student engagement (p = 0.021) and enhanced
learning outcomes (p = 0.033).

Table 5
Multinomial logistic regression analysis.
Algebra Nation use B Std. Error Sig.
Never (1) Intercept -96.863 1749.037 .956
Support and resources (SR) -2.530 1.068 .018**
Overall effectiveness (OE) 11.393 328.078 .972
Student engagement (SE) 14.066 365.116 .969
Learning abilities (LA) -13.493 .000 .
Student learning outcomes (LO) 9.514 281.538 .973
Occasionally (2) Intercept 1.638 .801 .041∧
Support and resources (SR) -.711 .174 <.001**
Overall effectiveness (OE) 1.182 .541 .029*
Student engagement (SE) 1.519 .659 .021*
Learning abilities (LA) -1.943 .911 .033*
Student learning outcomes (LO) -.279 .602 .643
Weekly (3) Intercept .144 .810 .859
Support and resources (SR) -1.008 .181 <.001**
Overall effectiveness (OE) 1.056 .496 .033*
Student engagement (SE) 1.608 .632 .011*
Learning abilities (LA) -.805 .889 .365
Student learning outcomes (LO) -.721 .699 .302
*
– significant at the 0.05 level (p < 0.05),
**
– significant at the 0.01 level (p < 0.01),
∧
– indicates marginal significance (p ≈ 0.05).

The reference category is Daily.

(︂ )︂
𝑝(𝑁 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟 = 1)
ln = −96.863 − 2.530𝑆𝑅 + 11.393𝑂𝐸 + 14.066𝑆𝐸 − 13.493𝐿𝐴 + 9.514𝐿𝑂 (8)
𝑝(𝐷𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑦 = 4)

Odds are the ratio of the probability of an event happening to the probability of an
event not happening. The only significant variable with online tool use is support and
resources (0.018), with a coefficient of -2.530. The coefficient has a negative impact
on the log odds of the probability of support and resources for teachers who never use
online tools to teach relative to those who use them on a daily basis. Teachers who do
not use online tools see a reduction in assistance and resources by 2.530 compared
to those who do.

(︂ )︂
𝑝(𝑂𝑐𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 = 2)
ln = 1.638 − 0.711𝑆𝑅 + 1.182𝑂𝐸 + 1.519𝑆𝐸 − 1.943𝐿𝐴 − 0.279𝐿𝑂 (9)
𝑝(𝐷𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑦 = 4)

78
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2025, Iss. 1, pp. 67–85 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.874

From the table 5, SR, OE, SE and LA are significant with probability values of
<0.001, 0.029, 0.021, and 0.033, respectively.
Teachers who use online tools occasionally to teach relative to teachers who use
them daily reduce support and resources by 0.711, increase overall effectiveness by
1.182, increase students’ engagement by 1.519, and reduce learning abilities by 1.943.

(︂ )︂
𝑝(𝑊 𝑒𝑒𝑘𝑙𝑦 = 3)
ln = 0.144 − 1.008𝑆𝑅 + 1.056𝑂𝐸 + 1.608𝑆𝐸 − 0.805𝐿𝐴 − 0.721𝐿𝑂 (10)
𝑝(𝐷𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑦 = 4)

From the table 5, SR, OE, and SE are significant with probability values of <0.001,
0.033, and 0.011, respectively. Teachers who use online tools weekly to teach relative
to teachers who use them daily reduce support and resources by 1.008, increase
overall effectiveness by 1.056, and increase student engagement by 1.608.

4.4. Qualitative analysis

Thematic analysis of the responses of educators who are using online mathematical
tools in their classroom practices provided a significant understanding of the utility
and challenges regarding the effectiveness of an online mathematical tool. Emerged
two major themes: challenges regarding its integration with classroom instructions. A
summary of the analysis of responses is presented in tables 6 and 7 below.

Table 6
Thematic analysis of responses on desired features and resources in online mathematical tool.
Themes Second-level codes First-level codes
Enhanced features Advanced customization tools “We need more tools to modify con-
tent for students with varied abilities,
including gifted students and those
with learning disabilities.”
Gamification of learning “Incorporating gamified elements
could make learning mathematics
more engaging and fun for students.”
Virtual collaboration spaces “It would be helpful to have features
where students can collaborate in
real-time on problem-solving tasks.”
Additional resources Expanded video library “A wider range of video lessons cov-
ering different topics in depth would
benefit both teachers and students.”
Teacher training modules “Professional development materials
on effectively using online tools in
teaching would improve its impact.”

4.5. Themes and discussions

4.5.1. Theme 1: Enhanced features and resources
Educators wished for more advanced customisation tools and a wider range of in-
structional content. Gamification and virtual collaboration spaces were recommended
to better engage students and enhance peer interaction. These insights show that
digital tools will need to be continuously updated to meet the diverse needs of learners.

4.5.2. Theme 2: Challenges in using online mathematical tool

The main issues were infrastructure limitations, such as bad internet and a lack of
devices. One of the other major issues was teacher preparedness; teachers felt they
needed more focused training on how to use an online math tool effectively. Students’

79
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2025, Iss. 1, pp. 67–85 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.874

Table 7
Thematic analysis of responses on challenges in using the online mathematical tool.
Themes Second-level codes First-level codes
Infrastructure issues Internet connectivity “Unreliable internet makes it hard to
access online mathematical tool consis-
tently during lessons.”
Access to devices “Some students lack access to the de-
vices needed to use the platform effec-
tively.”
Teacher preparedness Limited training “Not all teachers are trained on how to
maximise online mathematical tool’s fea-
tures for classroom use.”
Resource constraints “Limited access to supplementary re-
sources reduce the platform’s effective-
ness.”
Student engagement Resistance to technology “Some students prefer traditional meth-
ods and find it hard to engage with online
tools.”

engagement was also an issue, as some were not comfortable learning in an online
environment.

5. Discussion
The results from this study showed important insight regarding high school teachers’
use of online math tools and their impact on teaching and learning. The information
showed that most teachers have been using the tools for between 1 and 2 years (50%),
and more (38.8%) have been using them for less than a year. This shows that the use
of online tools is a relatively recent occurrence, pointing to the ongoing move towards
online practice in teaching. On how frequently they use them, nearly half of the
teachers (48.2%) reported using online tools weekly, and 41.8% use them daily. This
indicates that numerous teachers recognise the value of these tools for instruction.
However, 7.7% use online tools sometimes, and 2.3% never use them, which indicates
that there are likely difficulties associated with the use of these tools that must be
studied further.
The research also analysed the features of online teachers’ tools. The most widely
used features included interactive tools (36.9%) and assessments/quizzes (22.0%),
with a preference for interactive and evaluative features. Video lessons (15.6%),
practice problems (13.9%), and teacher resources (11.6%) were used by fewer teachers.
The trends indicate that teachers favour dynamic, student-centred features compared
to passive content consumption. The incorporation of online tools into lesson plans
also highlights their instructional role. Most (51.3%) of the teachers utilise online tools
as supplementary materials instead of primary instructional approaches. Another
20.1% utilise them for homework, and 17.3% use them for in-class practice. Just
11.2% use online tools as primary materials, which supports the view that digital tools
augment, not supplant, conventional instruction.
The correlation analysis indicates the high correlations between online tool usage
and student learning outcomes (r = 0.9721), student engagement (r = 0.9596), and
learning capacities (r = 0.9790). The findings are consistent with earlier research
showing that technology-supported learning contexts support higher levels of stu-
dent engagement and conceptual comprehension [17, 34]. In particular, the weak
relationship between online tool usage and support/resources available (r = 0.4218)

80
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2025, Iss. 1, pp. 67–85 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.874

indicates that infrastructural and institutional issues could be impeding teachers’

successful use of technology. This is in line with concerns within the literature about
digital equity and professional development opportunities [2, 33]. The multinomial
logistic regression analysis also provides insight into teacher behaviour. Relative to
daily users, online tool occasional using teachers perceive declines in support and
resources (𝛽 = -0.711, p < 0.001) and learning capacity (𝛽 = -1.943, p = 0.033). On
the other hand, they perceive greater overall effectiveness (𝛽 = 1.182, p = 0.029) and
student engagement (𝛽 = 1.519, p = 0.021). Likewise, weekly online tool-using teachers
also have significant gains in overall effectiveness (𝛽 = 1.056, p = 0.033) and student
engagement (𝛽 = 1.608, p = 0.011). These results imply that though occasional and
weekly users continue to gain from online tools, daily users might have more support
mechanisms that enable seamless integration with lesson planning on a daily basis.
Also, the non-significant and weak association of student learning outcomes and
online tool use in the likelihood ratio test (𝜒2 = 1.452, p = 0.693) implies that al-
though engagement and effectiveness are enhanced, direct improvement in observable
academic performance could be contingent on other factors, including curriculum
alignment, student motivation, and assessment. This would mean that online tools
ought not to be considered autonomous solutions but instead as supplementary
teaching aids that need appropriate scaffolding and pedagogical support.
In spite of the generally beneficial impacts of online tools, the research also identifies
a significant limitation: the degree to which these tools can be tailored to meet varied
learning requirements. The results indicate that although online tools improve general
learning outcomes, their flexibility for adapting to students with exceptional abilities
or disabilities has yet to be fully investigated. Future studies should research online
learning environments in relation to online teaching and tools to meet the needs of a
wider variety of student abilities.

6. Implications
This study has various implications for both policy and practice in mathematics
education, such as:

1. Teacher training and development: The robust correlation between online tool
utilisation and student outcomes highlights the necessity for professional develop-
ment initiatives to improve teachers’ digital literacy and pedagogical competencies.
Workshops aimed at incorporating online technologies into current curricula and
tailoring materials for varied learning requirements are crucial.
2. Infrastructure and resource allocation: The relatively poor link between sup-
port/resources and online tool use underscores the necessity of enhancing
infrastructure, particularly dependable internet access and suitable digital tools.
Policymakers should prioritise investments in educational technology to eliminate
inequities and increase fair access.
3. Curriculum integration: The increasing usage of online tools as a supplementary
resource highlights the necessity for intentional curriculum design that effec-
tively integrates online technologies. Developing frameworks for hybrid teaching
approaches will ensure that digital resources complement traditional training
efficiently.
4. Future research should study the long-term impacts of online tools on different
student populations, including those with disabilities and gifted learners. Addi-
tionally, researching the connection between the customisation of material and
individual learning outcomes will provide useful information for tool makers and
educators.

81
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2025, Iss. 1, pp. 67–85 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.874

7. Limitations
Although this study contributes significantly to the literature on using online math-
ematical tools in high school education, it has several limitations. First, the study
relies on self-reported survey data, which may introduce response bias. Teachers’
perceptions of their online tool usage and effectiveness may not always align with
actual classroom practices. Future research could incorporate classroom observations
and student performance assessments for a more objective evaluation.
Second, it is limited by the geographic and educational context within which the
current study was framed. Variability in curriculum imperatives, technology infras-
tructure, and teacher training programs across regions makes the generalizability of
findings different. Comparative research across a diverse range of settings would serve
as a validation to extend these results.
Third, though the present study has shed light on general effectiveness, it failed to
explain the variation between different kinds of online mathematical tools. Interac-
tively, different types of tools, such as interactive simulations, virtual manipulatives,
and assessment platforms, may impact student learning. The relative effectiveness of
different types of online math tools is an issue that needs further study.
The study also fails to explain other external variables, such as administrative
support, school policies, and students’ access to technology outside the classroom.
These contextual elements are very important in explaining the outcomes of technology
integration in education and are worthy of further investigation.
Given these limitations, the outcomes are a good contribution to the continuous
discussion about the process of digitisation within mathematics education and serve
as a point of further investigation and elaboration in order to achieve the most optimal
utilisation of online tools during teaching and learning.

8. Conclusion
This study highlights the significant contribution of internet-based tools to the
learning of mathematics. High correlations were found between their usage and
increased student learning outcomes, engagement, and teaching effectiveness. More
than presenting these findings, it is necessary to consider their implications more
broadly.
For educators, professional development programs should emphasise providing
educators with the skills to enable them to successfully incorporate digital tools
into instructional practices. For policymakers, investments must be directed toward
technological infrastructure to promote equitable access to resources, especially in
disadvantaged areas. For curriculum developers, hybrid models of learning should
be created that can successfully combine digital tools with conventional methods of
teaching to enhance student engagement and understanding.
Moreover, future research needs to examine the long-term impact of digital tools on
students’ achievement based specifically on how various methods of customisation
affect learners with varying capabilities. Also, future research should further explore
the connection between pedagogical approaches and technology adoption to optimise
educational outcomes. By fostering a digitally inclusive learning environment, stake-
holders can utilise technology to assist learning differences as well as general learning
performance.
Acknowledgments: We want to acknowledge the effort of Dr. Olumide Adesina of Johannesburg
Business School, University of Johannesburg, for insight into methodology and statistical analysis.
Declaration on generative AI: AI was used for grammar to make reading more appealing.
Conflicts of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest associated with this manuscript.

82
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2025, Iss. 1, pp. 67–85 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.874

References
[1] Adesina, O.S., Obokoh, L.O. and Salami, O.O., 2024. Does the high school
external examination grades and the type of high school attended impact the
academic performance of freshmen university students? STEM Education, 4(4),
pp.328–345. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3934/steme.2024019.
[2] Agyei, E., Agyei, D.D. and Benning, I., 2024. Teaching Mathematics with Digital
Technologies: A Situational Analysis of High School Teachers’ Experiences in
Ghana. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology
Education, 28(1), pp.57–70. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.
2023.2265241.
[3] Ainur Rizqi, M., Sa’dijah, C. and Susiswo, S., 2023. Development of Linear
Equations e-Learning Media by Integrating Geogebra in Google Sites. Jurnal
Pendidikan MIPA, 24(2), p.481–492. Available from: https://doi.org/10.23960/
jpmipa/v24i2.pp481-492.
[4] Albeshree, F., Al-Manasia, M., Charles Lemckert, S.L. and Tran, D., 2022.
Mathematics teaching pedagogies to tertiary engineering and information tech-
nology students: a literature review. International Journal of Mathematical
Education in Science and Technology, 53(6), pp.1609–1628. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2020.1837399.
[5] Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K., 2009. Research Methods in Education.
6th ed. London: Routledge. Available from: https://islmblogblog.wordpress.com/
wp-content/uploads/2016/05/rme-edu-helpline-blogspot-com.pdf.
[6] Dahal, N., Pant, B.P., Shrestha, I.M. and Manandhar, N.K., 2023. Use of GeoGebra
in High School Mathematics: A Case of Geometric Transformation for Teaching
and Learning. In: G.Y. Sheu, ed. Recent Progress in Science and Technology. B
P International, vol. 1, p.66–81. Available from: https://doi.org/10.9734/bpi/
rpst/v1/4476F.
[7] De Vita, M., Verschaffel, L. and Elen, J., 2018. The Power of Interactive
Whiteboards for Secondary Mathematics Teaching: Two Case Studies. Jour-
nal of Educational Technology Systems, 47(1), pp.50–78. Available from: https:
//doi.org/10.1177/0047239518767112.
[8] Esperanza, P.J., Himang, C., Bongo, M., Selerio Jr., E. and Ocampo, L., 2023. The
utility of a flipped classroom in secondary Mathematics education. International
Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 54(3), pp.382–415.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2021.1957166.
[9] Fathurrohman, M., Nindiasari, H., Anriani, N. and Pamungkas, A.S., 2021.
Empowering mathematics teachers’ ICT readiness with android applications for
Bring Your Own Devices (BYOD) practice in education. Cogent Education, 8(1),
p.2002131. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.2002131.
[10] Fung, D., 2020. The impacts of effective group work on social and gender differ-
ences in hong kong science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education,
42(3), pp.372–405. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.
1713419.
[11] Goedl, P.A., Malla, G.B. and Sanders, M.G., 2024. Impact of Video Lectures on
Students’ Performance and Analysis of Viewer Demographics in Online Courses.
American Journal of Distance Education, 38(2), pp.150–167. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2024.2303346.
[12] Gök, M., 2020. Mathematical Mystery in a Cultural Game. World Journal of
Education, 10(6), p.64. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v10n6p64.
[13] Gurevich, I. and Barchilon Ben-Av, M., 2023. How do students assess the impact
of integrating digital technologies on the mathematics classroom? International

83
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2025, Iss. 1, pp. 67–85 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.874

Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 54(7), pp.1288–

1297. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2023.2179949.
[14] Joshi, D.R., Adhikari, K.P., Khanal, J., Belbase, S. and Khanal, B., 2023. Devel-
oping and integrating digital resources in online mathematics instruction and
assessment during Covid-19. Cogent Education, 10(2), p.2230394. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2230394.
[15] Jungić, V. and Burazin, A., 2021. On Experimental Mathematics and Mathematics
Education. The American Mathematical Monthly, 128(9), pp.832–844. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.1080/00029890.2021.1964275.
[16] Klemer, A., Rapoport, S. and Lev-Zamir, H., 2019. The missing link in teachers’
knowledge about common fractions division. International Journal of Mathematical
Education in Science and Technology, 50(8), pp.1256–1272. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2018.1522677.
[17] Li, X., Zhou, Y. and Wijaya, T.T., 2022. The effect of hawgent dynamic
mathematics software on mathematics achievement: A meta-analysis. Al-
Jabar : Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 13(1), pp.175–188. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.24042/ajpm.v13i1.11711.
[18] Mater, N.R., Haj Hussein, M.J., Salha, S.H., Draidi, F.R., Shaqour, A.Z., Qatanani,
N. and Affouneh, S., 2022. The effect of the integration of STEM on critical
thinking and technology acceptance model. Educational Studies, 48(5), pp.642–
658. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2020.1793736.
[19] National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000. Principles and Standards for
School Mathematics. Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathemat-
ics, Inc. Available from: https://web.archive.org/web/20240801135753if_/https:
//bibliotecadigital.mineduc.cl/bitstream/handle/20.500.12365/17719/
Principles%20and%20Standards%20for%20School%20Mathematics.pdf.
[20] National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2014. Principles to Actions: Ensuring
Mathematical Success for All. Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics, Inc. Available from: http://areaiihsmap.pbworks.com/w/file/
fetch/109255672/Principles.To.Actions.ebook.pdf.
[21] National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008. Foundations for Success: The Final
Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, D.C.: U.S. De-
partment of Education. Available from: https://www.loc.gov/item/2023692157/.
[22] Ng, D.T.K., Su, J., Leung, J.K.L. and Chu, S.K.W., 2024. Artificial intelligence
(AI) literacy education in secondary schools: a review. Interactive Learning
Environments, 32(10), pp.6204–6224. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/
10494820.2023.2255228.
[23] Noah, O.O., 2019. Effect of Computer Game-Based Instructional Strategy on
Students’ Learning Outcome in Mathematics. Journal of Education, Society and
Behavioural Science, 29(4), p.1–15. Available from: https://doi.org/10.9734/
jesbs/2019/v29i430113.
[24] Nti, I.K., Umar Bawah, F., Quarcoo, J.A. and Kalos, F., 2022. A Bibliometric
Analysis of Soft Computing Technology Applications Trends and Characterisation
in Educational Research: Africa. Africa Education Review, 19(3), pp.55–77.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2023.2284744.
[25] Olanrewaju, M.K. and Suleiman, Y., 2019. Effects of Collaborative Learning
Technique and Mathematics Anxiety on Mathematics Learning Achievement
among Secondary School Students in Gombe State, Nigeria. Asian Journal of
University Education, 15(1), pp.43–58. Available from: https://tinyurl.com/
35j97wnc.
[26] Safrida, L.N., Setiawan, T.B., Susanto, Yudianto, E., Ambarwati, R. and Putri,
I.W.S., 2020. Integrating GeoGebra into geometry space learning: a lesson from

84
Educational Technology Quarterly, Vol. 2025, Iss. 1, pp. 67–85 https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.874

traditional cultural festival tumpeng sewu. Journal of Physics: Conference Series,

1465(1), p.012046. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1465/
1/012046.
[27] Shah, N.H., Nazir, N., Arshad, M., Akhter, K., Shaheen, A.K., Younas, S. and
Ghazanfar, F., 2023. Effect of Students Attitude Towards Mathematics on their
Mathematical Achievement at Secondary School Level. International Journal of
Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 18(12), p.178–192. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v18i12.38765.
[28] Slavin, R.E., Cheung, A.C.K. and Zhuang, T., 2021. How Could Evidence-Based
Reform Advance Education? ECNU Review of Education, 4(1), pp.7–24. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531120976060.
[29] Sun, D., Zhan, Y., Wan, Z.H., Yang, Y. and Looi, C.K., 2025. Identifying the roles
of technology: a systematic review of STEM education in primary and secondary
schools from 2015 to 2023. Research in Science & Technological Education, 43(1),
pp.145–169. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2023.2251902.
[30] Thohir, M.A., Jumadi, J. and Warsono, W., 2022. Technological pedagogical
content knowledge (TPACK) of pre-service science teachers: A Delphi study.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(1), pp.127–142. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1814908.
[31] Thurm, D., Li, S., Barzel, B., Fan, L. and Li, N., 2024. Professional development for
teaching mathematics with technology: a comparative study of facilitators’ beliefs
and practices in China and Germany. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 115(2),
pp.247–269. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-023-10284-3.
[32] Tlili, A., Padilla-Zea, N., Garzón, J., Wang, Y., Kinshuk and Burgos, D., 2023.
The changing landscape of mobile learning pedagogy: A systematic literature
review. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(10), pp.6462–6479. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2039948.
[33] Vimbelo, S. and Bayaga, A., 2024. Transforming Mathematics Education in TVET
Colleges Through Humanising Pedagogy: An Exploration of Teaching Approaches,
Student Engagement, and Real-life Examples. IETE Journal of Education, 65(2),
pp.139–154. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/09747338.2024.2324808.
[34] Yu, Q., Li, B. and Wang, Q., 2024. The effectiveness of 3D holographic technology
on students’ learning performance: a meta-analysis. Interactive Learning Environ-
ments, 32(5), pp.1629–1641. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.
2022.2124424.
[35] Zambak, V.S. and Tyminski, A.M., 2020. Examining mathematical technological
knowledge of pre-service middle grades teachers with Geometer’s Sketchpad in
a geometry course. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science
and Technology, 51(2), pp.183–207. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/
0020739X.2019.1650302.
[36] Zhang, Y. and Wang, Q., 2020. Content learning opportunities, computer-based
instruction, and students’ mathematics and science achievement. International
Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 51(8), pp.1164–
1180. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2020.1717659.

A. Google Forms link

https://forms.gle/BR9LUHQ4VZEhBVvV8

85