{"paper_id":"40aa9e82-e525-4eb1-ae2d-809b213175fa","body_text":"Guiding Principles for the Integration of Smartboards in Grade 12 Classrooms at a Soshanguve Secondary School | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Guiding Principles for the Integration of Smartboards in Grade 12 Classrooms at a Soshanguve Secondary School thabo mhlongo, Katlego Celestine Prudence Motlhoki This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6449305/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The integration of smartboards in South African classrooms, particularly in under-resourced township schools, has been championed as an innovative solution to improve teaching and learning outcomes. This study explores the application of smartboards in Grade 12 classrooms at a secondary school in Soshanguve, Gauteng Province. Despite significant investments in technological infrastructure, challenges persist in effectively utilising smartboards due to factors such as inadequate teacher training, unreliable infrastructure, and limited professional development. Guided by the Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework and employing an exploratory case study design within an interpretivist paradigm, this research collected qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with teachers. Findings reveal that while teachers possess basic technological competencies and recognise the pedagogical potential of smartboards, their practical application is constrained by infrastructural limitations and insufficient support mechanisms. Recommendations include targeted professional development, reliable technological maintenance, and the development of context-sensitive guidelines to maximise the educational benefits of smartboard integration in township schools. Special Education Smartboards technology integration township schools teacher competence pedagogical strategies INTRODUCTION The Global South has increasingly become the subject of scholarly focus across disciplines such as anthropology, education, and political science (Bouquillion et al., 2023; Rahayu et al., 2024). The discourse often centres on globalisation’s influence and the integration of Western technologies into developing contexts (Haug et al., 2021; Hüther & Diermeier, 2021). In South Africa, technology has been positioned as a critical catalyst for socio-economic transformation, particularly within the education sector (Ingram, 2021; Heeks, 2022 ). The Gauteng Department of Education's initiative to introduce smartboards in township schools, particularly in areas such as Soshanguve, sought to address educational disparities by enhancing classroom engagement and academic performance (Mugani, 2020 ; Kgosi et al., 2023 ). However, despite the proliferation of smart classrooms, teachers often underutilise smartboards, largely employing them as substitutes for traditional teaching tools rather than as interactive, pedagogical instruments (Msiza et al., 2020). This study seeks to explore the guidelines and practical realities associated with integrating smartboards in Grade 12 classrooms at a Soshanguve secondary school. Specifically, the study is guided by two central research questions: How do Grade 12 teachers at Soshanguve Secondary School apply their technological knowledge to integrate smartboards in their classrooms for teaching and learning? and What are the pedagogical strategies that teachers use in conjunction with smartboards in their classrooms for teaching and learning? By addressing these questions, the study aims to uncover both the opportunities and challenges of smartboard integration, contributing to the development of context-sensitive practices that can enhance teaching and learning outcomes in under-resourced educational settings. LITERATURE REVIEW Smartboards represent a significant advancement in educational technology, transforming static learning environments into interactive spaces (Akar, 2020; Izadpanah, 2024). Their multimedia capabilities cater to diverse learning styles, facilitating visual, auditory, and kinaesthetic learning (Aldalalah, 2021 ; Matemera, 2020). Studies highlight their capacity to promote learner engagement and enable teachers to store, retrieve, and deliver content efficiently (Chau et al., 2020; Khosa & Molotsi, 2020 ). Effective integration of smartboards hinges on teachers’ technological proficiency (Snoek, 2021). Although substantial efforts have been made to equip South African teachers with basic ICT skills (Ajibade & Bertram, 2020; Demirbilek, 2022), many remain limited to rudimentary functions such as basic writing or navigation (Wahyuni et al., 2020; Hussein et al., 2022 ). Without advanced training, teachers are unable to exploit features like multimedia integration, interactive simulations, or lesson recording, thereby constraining the pedagogical potential of smartboards. The South African curriculum advocates for learner-centred pedagogies (Bremner et al., 2022 ). Smartboards, by design, support such pedagogical frameworks by fostering active engagement and collaborative learning (Cahyati et al., 2021). Teachers can employ differentiated instruction, constructivist approaches, experiential learning, and gamification strategies to make learning dynamic and accessible (Mokoena et al., 2020; Siraj et al., 2021 ). However, a lack of training in these strategies limits their effective deployment in classrooms. Persistent challenges such as unreliable infrastructure, theft, lack of teacher training, and teacher resistance continue to hinder smartboard integration in township schools (Mokoena et al., 2022; Mokgwathi et al., 2023). Additionally, overly generalised policy guidelines fail to account for contextual realities specific to individual schools (Moosa et al., 2024 ). Contextually responsive frameworks are therefore necessary to enable meaningful technology integration. The Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework underpins this study. TPACK elucidates the interrelationship between technological knowledge (TK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), and content knowledge (CK) (Mishra & Koehler, 2009; Karchmer-Klein & Konishi, 2023 ). This framework offers a lens to examine how teachers at Soshanguve Secondary School navigate these knowledge domains to integrate smartboards into their teaching practices effectively. METHODOLOGY Research Design and Approach This study adopted a qualitative, exploratory case study design, situated within the interpretivist paradigm. The research was guided by the philosophy of interpretivism , which recognises the subjective and socially constructed nature of reality (Alharahsheh & Pius, 2020 ; Nickerson, 2022 ). Specifically, the study embraced social constructivism as its ontological position, viewing reality as constructed through social interactions and individual experiences (Boyland, 2019 ). This orientation allowed the researcher to explore deeply the perceptions and lived experiences of teachers integrating smartboards into their teaching practice at a Soshanguve secondary school. Epistemologically, the study aligned with the interpretivist paradigm, acknowledging that knowledge is subjective and context-bound, constructed through engagement with participants' narratives (Bianchi, 2023 ). The researcher’s role was thus to interpret the participants’ meanings and understand the context-specific experiences related to smartboard integration. An inductive research approach was employed, enabling the researcher to move from specific observations to broader generalisations and theories (Vears & Gillam, 2022 ). Given the limited research in this area, the inductive approach was appropriate to allow new themes and insights to emerge organically from the collected data (Abdukarimova & Zubaydova, 2021 ). The conceptual framework guiding this study was the Research Onion model proposed by Saunders et al. (2007). This model facilitated a systematic, coherent design process by addressing each critical layer of the research design, including philosophy, approach, strategy, methodological choice, time horizon, and techniques and procedures (Al-Ababneh, 2020 ). Research Strategy The research strategy employed was an exploratory case study , which allowed for an in-depth examination of the integration of smartboards within a single case: a secondary school in Soshanguve (Gioia, 2021 ; Tefo, 2022 ). This strategy was selected due to its strength in exploring complex phenomena within real-life contexts and its suitability for addressing the \"how\" and \"why\" questions relevant to this study (Mishra & Dey, 2022 ; Wood et al., 2020 ). Methodological Choice A mono-method qualitative approach was selected to allow for an in-depth understanding of the teachers' experiences (Kyngäs, 2020). Although a mixed-methods design is sometimes used for educational technology research, the qualitative method alone was deemed most appropriate given the study’s focus on rich, descriptive data concerning teacher perceptions, attitudes, and practices (McBeath & Bager-Charleson, 2020; Mik-Meyer, 2020 ). Time Horizon The study utilised a cross-sectional time horizon , with data collected at a single point in time (Cohen et al., 2017). This choice aligned with the study’s exploratory nature and time constraints, as the research was to be completed within a limited timeframe of fewer than 12 months (Mugani, 2020 ). Population and Sampling The target population for this study consisted of teachers using smartboards in Grade 12 classrooms across township schools. The accessible population was narrowed to teachers from a single secondary school in Soshanguve. Two non-probability sampling methods were employed: Purposive sampling , to ensure participants possessed relevant experience and knowledge regarding the use of smartboards in their teaching practice (Willie, 2024 ). Convenience sampling , capitalising on the researcher's proximity to the study site, enabling easy access to participants and efficient data collection (Pandey & Pandey, 2021 ). The final sample comprised five Grade 12 teachers actively using smartboards in their classrooms. The sample size was appropriate for qualitative research, allowing for depth of inquiry and rich data collection (Mugani, 2020 ). Data Collection Data were collected through semi-structured interviews , which provided flexibility to explore emerging themes while ensuring alignment with the research objectives (Magaldi & Berler, 2020 ). This method enabled the researcher to probe deeply into participants’ experiences, practices, and perceptions of smartboard integration. The interviews were audio-recorded (with consent), transcribed verbatim, and conducted in settings familiar to the participants to encourage openness and candid responses. The researcher initiated interviews with general questions before progressing to more specific queries to create a comfortable environment and ensure depth in the responses. Data Analysis The collected data were analysed using a combination of methods. Firstly, thematic coding was employed to identify recurring patterns and themes from the participants' narratives (Mishra & Dey, 2022 ; Gioia, 2021 ). Secondly, the TPACK framework provided a structured lens for understanding how teachers integrate smartboards within their pedagogical practice and subject content (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Karchmer-Klein & Konishi, 2023 ). Thirdly, computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) supported the systematic coding, organisation, and interpretation of the data (Vignato et al., 2022 ; Smit & Scherman, 2021 ). To ensure accuracy, the researcher triangulated data with existing literature, sought supervisor reviews, and maintained a transparent audit trail throughout the analysis process. Quality Criteria and Trustworthiness To enhance the trustworthiness of the study, four criteria were rigorously applied. Firstly, credibility was ensured through prolonged engagement with participants, triangulation of data sources, and verification of findings with participants to confirm the accuracy and authenticity of the data (Baixinho & Costa, 2020 ; Shufutinsky, 2020 ). Secondly, transferability was addressed by deeply contextualising the study, providing detailed descriptions of the school environment and participant characteristics to enable potential application of the findings to similar educational contexts (Weise et al., 2020 ). Thirdly, dependability was achieved by carefully documenting the research design and process, thereby facilitating replication by future researchers (Kyngäs, 2020; Pandey & Pandey, 2021 ). Finally, confirmability was ensured by maintaining reflexivity throughout the research process to minimise bias, alongside preserving a comprehensive audit trail of data collection and analysis activities (Giustini, 2024 ). Ethical Considerations Ethical compliance was strictly upheld throughout the research process. Participants were provided with detailed information about the study and offered written consent before participation, thereby ensuring informed consent (Alderson & Morrow, 2020 ). Participation in the study was entirely voluntary, and participants were informed of their right to withdraw from the research at any stage without facing any penalty (Bos, 2020 ). Furthermore, anonymity and confidentiality were preserved by assigning pseudonyms to participants and securely storing all data with restricted access to protect their identities (Resnik, 2018). Finally, the researcher maintained a high level of respect for participants by ensuring sensitivity to their comfort and autonomy throughout the research process. RESULTS AND FINDINGS This section presents the results of the data analysis, organized around the research questions and themes that emerged during the coding process. The data from the interviews were analyzed using qualitative coding and categorized according to the TPACK framework, which served as a lens to explore the integration of smartboards in teaching and learning. The findings are presented with an emphasis on the voices of the participants, as well as the challenges and opportunities identified through the analysis. Table 1 highlights the responses of the participates per themes in questions asked by the researcher. Table 1 Responses from All Participants Question Participant 1 Participant 2 Participant 3 Participant 4 Participant 5 Teaching environment Crowded classrooms, lack of resources. Small classrooms with limited seating and ventilation issues. Adequate space but lack of modern technology. Overcrowded classrooms and outdated infrastructure. Overcrowded classrooms, unclean, and not conducive for learning. Use of technology in school ICT is available, but smartboards are rare. Smartboards present but not consistently used; basic technology like projectors are more common. Limited technology use, smartboards available but not always functional. Limited smartboard use due to technical issues; rely more on traditional methods. Previously advanced with smartboards, but technology deteriorated. Smartboards present but not always working. Infrastructure support Limited ICT tools for both teachers and learners. School has Wi-Fi but no consistent access to tech for learners at home. Learners from low-income families lack devices at home; school provides some tech support. School infrastructure has Wi-Fi and smartboards, but home access is limited for most learners. Some ICT infrastructure present, but many learners come from disadvantaged backgrounds with limited home tech access. Technological tools available Projectors, smartboards, laptops, Wi-Fi. Smartboards, laptops, and projectors, but availability fluctuates. Smartboards and Wi-Fi, though usage is inconsistent. Laptops, smartboards, projectors, and Wi-Fi. Smartboards, laptops, projectors, and Wi-Fi present in some rooms. Guidance on choosing tech tools Minimal guidance, often teacher-driven experimentation. ICT committee provides some support. No official guidelines; decisions are based on trial and error or advice from other teachers. ICT committee offers some guidance, but teachers mostly choose tools independently. ICT committee available to guide on tech integration, but support is optional. Teaching strategies used Lecture, group discussions, peer teaching, scaffolding. Group discussions, peer teaching, multimedia integration. Lecture, discussions, and multimedia integration when available. Lecture, multimedia integration, peer teaching, and scaffolding. Question and answer, group discussions, scaffolding, peer teaching. Pedagogical approach choice Based on learner level and available resources. Depends on learners’ comprehension and tech availability. Adaptive approach based on learner pace and content. Pedagogical strategies vary depending on learner needs and technology availability. Dependent on learner pace, socioeconomic context, and availability of smartboards. Technology to create engagement Videos, smartboards when available. Multimedia tools like videos and projectors. Videos, images, and interactive presentations. Smartboards and interactive tools when possible. Videos and smartboards stimulate learner engagement when tech works. Impact of technology on learner learning Improved attention and understanding through multimedia. Smartboards and interactive tools increase engagement but limited due to availability. Positive, though inconsistent, impact of smartboards on learning and engagement. Increases learner focus when multimedia is available, but not a frequent occurrence. Smartboards and multimedia increase engagement, with published research showing higher attention and results when used compared to traditional methods. Integration of technology and learner needs Technology helps to cater to different learning styles but is often inconsistent. Technology accommodates various learners when available, but tech barriers exist for disadvantaged learners. Technology helps with differentiation in instruction but is underutilized. Accommodates different learners’ needs when technology is functional. Technology supports inclusive learning, especially through smartboards. Technology supporting assessment Mostly uses traditional methods for assessment; technology supports peer and group learning. Technology limited in supporting assessments due to inconsistent tech availability. Some digital assessments, but heavily reliant on traditional tests and grading. Minimal tech-supported assessments due to infrastructure challenges. Little use of technology in assessments due to infrastructure issues and classroom dynamics. Findings for RQ1: How do Grade 12 teachers at Soshanguve Secondary School apply their technological knowledge to integrate smartboards in their classrooms for teaching and learning? The application of technological knowledge by teachers was varied and largely dependent on the availability of functional technology. Participants expressed a mix of positive intentions and frustrations when it came to using smartboards in their classrooms. Technological Knowledge (TK) Some teachers demonstrated a strong awareness of the potential of smartboards. They could identify the functions and features of the technology, such as the ability to display multimedia content, annotate lessons in real-time, and use interactive features to engage learners. However, their ability to apply this knowledge was often compromised by inconsistent access to working smartboards. Participant 1 expressed, “We know what the smartboard can do, but it’s often not working, and there’s no backup plan.” This sentiment was echoed by Participant 2, who said, “The smartboard can be a great tool, but it’s just not reliable enough for me to rely on it every day.” Impact of Limited Resources In cases where the smartboard was functional, teachers employed a variety of teaching strategies to incorporate technology into lessons. Participant 4 explained, “When it works, I can show videos, animations, and diagrams that make the lesson more engaging.” This aligns with the TPACK framework’s emphasis on integrating technology to complement content and pedagogy effectively (Mhlongo & Sedumedi, 2023 ). However, the overall technological knowledge of teachers was not always translated into effective classroom practices, primarily because of the inconsistent availability of smartboards. Support and Professional Development Teachers also indicated that there was limited support from the school’s ICT committee. Participant 3 highlighted, “There’s no structured training on how to effectively use smartboards in teaching. Sometimes we’re left to figure it out on our own.” The lack of professional development on how to use smartboards within a pedagogical context contributed to underutilization of the technology. This suggests that even though teachers had access to technological tools, they were not always equipped to use them optimally in their teaching. Findings for RQ2: What are the pedagogical strategies that teachers use in conjunction with smartboards in their classrooms for teaching and learning? Participants shared a variety of pedagogical strategies that they adapted based on the availability and functionality of smartboards. These strategies were often aligned with the principles of active learning and learner engagement, which are key tenets of effective teaching. Active Learning and Engagement : Teachers often used the smartboards to display dynamic content such as videos, simulations, and interactive diagrams. Participant 1 described how they used the smartboard to show videos related to chemical reactions during a chemistry lesson: “Using the smartboard helps my learners visualize complex concepts that would otherwise be difficult to understand with just a textbook.” This approach supports the idea that technology can enhance learner engagement and understanding, particularly when it allows for the presentation of content in multiple formats (audio, visual, and interactive). Collaborative Learning Several teachers also used the smartboard to encourage collaborative learning. For instance, Participant 5 explained, “Sometimes, I invite learners to come up and interact with the smartboard during lessons. It encourages them to engage more deeply with the material.” This approach aligns with the constructivist approach to learning, which emphasizes collaboration and peer learning. When functioning, the smartboards facilitated these pedagogical strategies by allowing learners to interact with the lesson in ways that were not possible with traditional teaching tools. Pedagogical Adaptation : However, as noted by Participant 2, the integration of smartboards often required teachers to adapt their pedagogical strategies: “Sometimes the smartboard is just not available, so I adapt by using a traditional whiteboard or PowerPoint slides on a projector.” This adaptability reflects the dynamic relationship between pedagogy and technology, where effective teaching requires flexibility in response to the technological environment. Findings for Other Emerging Themes Challenges with Infrastructure Overcrowded classrooms and outdated infrastructure were recurring challenges mentioned by participants. As Participant 4 remarked, “When there are too many learners in the class, it’s hard for everyone to benefit from the smartboard, even if it’s available.” These challenges highlight how classroom management and physical space issues can limit the effectiveness of technology integration, even when teachers are well-prepared and willing to use it. The Need for Support and Professional Development Teachers consistently emphasized the importance of professional development. Participant 3 expressed, “If we had more training on how to incorporate smartboards into our teaching, it would make a huge difference.” This aligns with the research by Mhlongo and Sedumedi ( 2023 ), which suggests that sustained professional development is crucial for effective technology integration. DISCUSSION This study explored the integration of smartboards in Grade 12 classrooms at a secondary school in Soshanguve, focusing on teachers’ technological knowledge, pedagogical strategies, and the challenges encountered in applying smartboard technology effectively. The findings, interpreted through the lens of the TPACK framework, reveal significant insights into both the opportunities and constraints associated with smartboard use in under-resourced educational contexts. A key observation from the study is that, while teachers possessed basic technological competencies, their practical application of smartboards was constrained by recurring infrastructural challenges and limited professional development. Consistent with previous research (Mhlongo & Sedumedi, 2023 ; Hussein et al., 2022 ), the teachers were aware of smartboard functionalities, including multimedia presentations and real-time annotations, which can enhance lesson engagement. However, the reliability of smartboards emerged as a critical limitation. Participants consistently reported that technical malfunctions and the inconsistent availability of smartboards reduced their confidence in incorporating the technology as an integral part of their teaching practice. This aligns with earlier studies highlighting the necessity for stable infrastructure to support the integration of educational technologies (Moosa et al., 2024 ; Mugani, 2020 ). Pedagogically, teachers demonstrated flexibility and creativity by employing strategies that promoted active learning and learner engagement. The use of videos, simulations, and interactive exercises facilitated visualisation of complex concepts, particularly in subjects such as chemistry. When functional, smartboards supported collaborative learning environments, allowing learners to interact directly with the content. This finding corroborates prior research advocating for learner-centred approaches that leverage educational technology to enhance engagement and conceptual understanding (Cahyati et al., 2021; Siraj et al., 2021 ). Nonetheless, the potential of these pedagogical strategies was frequently undermined by infrastructural deficiencies. Overcrowded classrooms, outdated facilities, and inconsistent internet access significantly impeded the full utilisation of smartboards. These physical and technological barriers compounded the challenges faced by teachers, particularly in adapting their pedagogical approaches to maximise the benefits of smartboards. Such findings echo the work of Mokgwathi et al. (2023), who identified infrastructural inadequacies as a pervasive issue in South African township schools. The study also underscores the crucial need for sustained professional development and institutional support. Teachers expressed a clear desire for ongoing training to enhance their ability to integrate smartboards effectively within pedagogical frameworks. The current reliance on self-directed learning and ad-hoc guidance from ICT committees is insufficient for fostering comprehensive technological proficiency. These insights align with recommendations from Dlamini (2022), who emphasises the importance of structured, context-sensitive training programmes tailored to the realities of teachers in under-resourced environments. Furthermore, the absence of clear, context-specific guidelines for technology integration emerged as a notable gap. Teachers largely relied on trial and error or informal peer support to navigate the complexities of smartboard use. This finding reinforces the argument for developing detailed, practical frameworks that accommodate the unique challenges of township schools while providing clear pathways for effective technology adoption (Moosa et al., 2024 ). While smartboards possess significant pedagogical potential, their effectiveness in Soshanguve classrooms is contingent upon addressing systemic barriers. Reliable infrastructure, professional development, and tailored guidelines are essential to transform smartboards from underutilised assets into transformative educational tools. CONCLUSION This study sought to investigate the integration of smartboards in Grade 12 classrooms at a secondary school in Soshanguve, with particular attention to teachers’ technological knowledge, pedagogical practices, and the contextual factors influencing effective utilisation. The findings reveal that although teachers demonstrate foundational technological awareness and an appreciation of smartboards' pedagogical value, the practical realisation of these benefits is hindered by infrastructural challenges and limited support mechanisms. The application of the TPACK framework illuminated the complex interplay between technological knowledge, pedagogy, and content delivery. Teachers endeavoured to use smartboards to enhance learner engagement and foster active, collaborative learning environments. However, infrastructural inadequacies, such as unreliable equipment and overcrowded classrooms, often restricted the full implementation of these strategies. In addition, the lack of sustained professional development left teachers without the necessary pedagogical tools to fully exploit smartboards' capabilities. To address these challenges, several recommendations are proposed. Firstly, targeted and continuous professional development programmes should be implemented, equipping teachers with advanced competencies in both the technical operation of smartboards and their pedagogical application. Secondly, infrastructural improvements, including reliable maintenance of smartboards and improved internet connectivity, are vital to ensure consistent access to technology. Thirdly, the development of context-sensitive, school-level guidelines will provide teachers with clearer frameworks for integrating smartboards effectively into their daily practice. Future research should consider longitudinal studies to examine the long-term impact of smartboard integration and associated professional development initiatives on teaching efficacy and learner outcomes. Additionally, expanding the scope of research to include learner perspectives would provide a more holistic understanding of the smartboard's role in the educational environment. While smartboards hold considerable promise for enhancing teaching and learning in South African township schools, their potential can only be realised through a concerted effort to strengthen infrastructural support, foster teacher development, and tailor integration strategies to the specific realities of under-resourced educational settings. By addressing these critical factors, smartboards can evolve from underutilised technological artefacts into dynamic tools that transform classroom experiences and advance educational equity. References Abdelhakim, A. S. (2021). Adopted Research Designs by Tourism and Hospitality Postgraduates in The Light‎ of Research Onion. International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Management, 4(2), 98-124. https://doi.org/10.21608/ijthm.2021.206774 Abdukarimova, N., & Zubaydova, N. (2021). Deductive and inductive approaches to teaching grammar. JournalNX, 372-376. Al-Ababneh, M. (2020). Linking ontology, epistemology and research methodology. Science & Philosophy, 8(1), 75-91. Aldalalah, O. M. A. (2021). The Effectiveness of Infographic via Interactive Smart Board on Enhancing Creative Thinking: A Cognitive Load Perspective. International Journal of Instruction, 14(1), 345-364. Alderson, P., & Morrow, V. (2020). The ethics of research with children and young people: A practical handbook. Sage. Alharahsheh, H. H., & Pius, A. (2020). A review of key paradigms: Positivism VS interpretivism. Global Academic Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(3), 39-43. Allan, G. (2020). Qualitative research. In Handbook for research students in the social sciences (pp. 177-189). Routledge. Baixinho, C. L., & Costa, A. P. (2020). Researchers' scientific credibility and knowledge transfer. SciELO Brasil, 24, e20200008. Bianchi, G. (2023). Epistemological and Methodological Challenges of Subjectivity. In Figurations of Human Subjectivity: A Contribution to Second-Order Psychology (pp. 89-116). Springer. Boyland, J. R. (2019). A social constructivist approach to the gathering of empirical data. Australian Counselling Research Journal, 13(2), 30-34. Bremner, N., Sakata, N., & Cameron, L. (2022). The outcomes of learner-centred pedagogy: A systematic review. International Journal of Educational Development, 94, 102649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2022.102649 Bos, J. (2020). Research ethics for students in the social sciences. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48415-6 Gioia, D. (2021). A systematic methodology for doing qualitative research. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 57(1), 20-29. Giustini, D. (2024). A practice-based epistemological perspective. Critical Approaches to Institutional Translation and Interpreting: Challenging Epistemologies. Heeks, R. (2022). Digital inequality beyond the digital divide: conceptualizing adverse digital incorporation in the global South. Information Technology for Development, 28(4), 688-704. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2022.2068492 Hussein, H. A., Ahmed, A. M. H., Shawkat, S. A., & Kamil, R. A. (2022). The effect of using smart board technology on the educational process in the colleges of education in terms of features and challenges. AIP Conference Proceedings. Karchmer-Klein, R., & Konishi, H. (2023). A mixed-methods study of novice teachers’ technology integration: Do they leverage their TPACK knowledge once entering the profession? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 55(3), 490-506. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1976328 Kgosi, M. K., Makgato, M., & Skosana, N. M. (2023). Teachers' views on the application of educational technologies in the classroom: A case of selected Tshwane West secondary schools in Gauteng. Journal of Curriculum Studies Research, 5(2), 151-166. https://doi.org/10.46303/jcsr.2023.23 Khosa, C., & Molotsi, A. (2020). Teachers’ perspectives on the use of smart boards in teaching Business Studies in the Tshwane West District. South Africa International Conference on Education. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70. Magaldi, D., & Berler, M. (2020). Semi-structured interviews. Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences, 4825-4830. Mhlongo, T., & Sedumedi, T. D. (2023). Conceptual Change in Life Sciences Learning: The Impact of Teaching Tools on Knowledge Representation. Indonesian Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 6 (3), 300-310. Mik-Meyer, N. (2020). Multimethod qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 5, 357-374. Mishra, S., & Dey, A. K. (2022). Understanding and identifying ‘themes’ in qualitative case study research. SAGE Publications India, 11, 187-192. Moosa, S., Ncube, R., & Ramnarain, U. (2024). Translating policy to practice: The status of ICT in STEM education in South Africa. In Information and Communications Technology in STEM Education (pp. 1-13). Routledge. Mugani, P. (2020). The pedagogical impact of Smart Classrooms on teaching and learning of grade 11 in the Tshwane South District. Nickerson, C. (2022). Interpretivism paradigm & research philosophy. Simply Sociology, 5. Pandey, P., & Pandey, M. M. (2021). Research methodology tools and techniques. Bridge Center. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. Pearson Education. Shufutinsky, A. (2020). Employing use of self for transparency, rigour, trustworthiness, and credibility in qualitative organisational research methods. Organisation Development Review, 52(1), 50-58. Siraj, S., et al. (2021). Smart Learning Tools for Enhancing Basic Education System. International Journal, 10(3). Smit, B., & Scherman, V. (2021). Computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software for scoping reviews: A case of ATLAS.ti. SAGE Publications, 20, 16094069211019140. Tefo, R. M. (2022). The influence of smartboards on the teaching and learning of grade 12 physical science in Tshwane district, Gauteng, South Africa. Vears, D. F., & Gillam, L. (2022). Inductive content analysis: A guide for beginning qualitative researchers. Focus on Health Professional Education, 23(1), 111-127. Vignato, J., Inman, M., Patsais, M., & Conley, V. (2022). Computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software, phenomenology, and Colaizzi’s method. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 44(12), 1117-1123. Weise, A., Büchter, R., Pieper, D., & Mathes, T. (2020). Assessing context suitability (generalizability, external validity, applicability or transferability) of findings in evidence syntheses in healthcare—An integrative review of methodological guidance. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(6), 760-779. Willie, M. M. (2024). Population and Target Population in Research Methodology. Golden Ratio of Social Science and Education, 4(1), 75-79. Wood, L. M., Sebar, B., & Vecchio, N. (2020). Application of rigour and credibility in qualitative document analysis: Lessons learnt from a case study. The Qualitative Report, 25(2), 456-470. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2020.4240 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {\"props\":{\"pageProps\":{\"initialData\":{\"identity\":\"rs-6449305\",\"acceptedTermsAndConditions\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"archivedVersions\":[],\"articleType\":\"Research Article\",\"associatedPublications\":[],\"authors\":[{\"id\":442931490,\"identity\":\"b28c0e72-06fe-4822-a4da-04e6db3b3fd6\",\"order_by\":0,\"name\":\"thabo mhlongo\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9814-5691\",\"institution\":\"Tshwane university of technology\",\"correspondingAuthor\":true,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"thabo\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"mhlongo\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":442931491,\"identity\":\"d8fed7d6-4b25-4f6a-9032-e0f67b8bf59c\",\"order_by\":1,\"name\":\"Katlego Celestine Prudence Motlhoki\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Tshwane university of technology\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Katlego\",\"middleName\":\"Celestine Prudence\",\"lastName\":\"Motlhoki\",\"suffix\":\"\"}],\"badges\":[],\"createdAt\":\"2025-04-14 22:22:51\",\"currentVersionCode\":1,\"declarations\":{\"humanSubjects\":true,\"vertebrateSubjects\":true,\"conflictsOfInterestStatement\":false,\"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines\":true,\"humanSubjectConsent\":true,\"humanSubjectClinicalTrial\":false,\"humanSubjectCaseReport\":true,\"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines\":true},\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6449305/v1\",\"doiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6449305/v1\",\"draftVersion\":[],\"editorialEvents\":[],\"editorialNote\":\"\",\"failedWorkflow\":false,\"files\":[{\"id\":80883549,\"identity\":\"4ee96ad7-bcaf-46d4-99fa-e7c4ce4be3a5\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-04-18 08:14:11\",\"extension\":\"pdf\",\"order_by\":0,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"manuscript-pdf\",\"size\":1151216,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"manuscript.pdf\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6449305/v1/1729cd97-fbee-4e71-bf4d-cc2da06a7390.pdf\"}],\"financialInterests\":\"The authors declare no competing interests.\",\"formattedTitle\":\"\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eGuiding Principles for the Integration of Smartboards in Grade 12 Classrooms at a Soshanguve Secondary School\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"fulltext\":[{\"header\":\"INTRODUCTION\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThe Global South has increasingly become the subject of scholarly focus across disciplines such as anthropology, education, and political science (Bouquillion et al., 2023; Rahayu et al., 2024). The discourse often centres on globalisation\\u0026rsquo;s influence and the integration of Western technologies into developing contexts (Haug et al., 2021; H\\u0026uuml;ther \\u0026amp; Diermeier, 2021). In South Africa, technology has been positioned as a critical catalyst for socio-economic transformation, particularly within the education sector (Ingram, 2021; Heeks, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR15\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe Gauteng Department of Education's initiative to introduce smartboards in township schools, particularly in areas such as Soshanguve, sought to address educational disparities by enhancing classroom engagement and academic performance (Mugani, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR26\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e; Kgosi et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR18\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e). However, despite the proliferation of smart classrooms, teachers often underutilise smartboards, largely employing them as substitutes for traditional teaching tools rather than as interactive, pedagogical instruments (Msiza et al., 2020).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e This study seeks to explore the guidelines and practical realities associated with integrating smartboards in Grade 12 classrooms at a Soshanguve secondary school. Specifically, the study is guided by two central research questions: \\u003cb\\u003eHow do Grade 12 teachers at Soshanguve Secondary School apply their technological knowledge to integrate smartboards in their classrooms for teaching and learning?\\u003c/b\\u003e and \\u003cb\\u003eWhat are the pedagogical strategies that teachers use in conjunction with smartboards in their classrooms for teaching and learning?\\u003c/b\\u003e By addressing these questions, the study aims to uncover both the opportunities and challenges of smartboard integration, contributing to the development of context-sensitive practices that can enhance teaching and learning outcomes in under-resourced educational settings.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"LITERATURE REVIEW\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eSmartboards represent a significant advancement in educational technology, transforming static learning environments into interactive spaces (Akar, 2020; Izadpanah, 2024). Their multimedia capabilities cater to diverse learning styles, facilitating visual, auditory, and kinaesthetic learning (Aldalalah, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR4\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e; Matemera, 2020). Studies highlight their capacity to promote learner engagement and enable teachers to store, retrieve, and deliver content efficiently (Chau et al., 2020; Khosa \\u0026amp; Molotsi, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR19\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEffective integration of smartboards hinges on teachers’ technological proficiency (Snoek, 2021). Although substantial efforts have been made to equip South African teachers with basic ICT skills (Ajibade \\u0026amp; Bertram, 2020; Demirbilek, 2022), many remain limited to rudimentary functions such as basic writing or navigation (Wahyuni et al., 2020; Hussein et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR16\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e). Without advanced training, teachers are unable to exploit features like multimedia integration, interactive simulations, or lesson recording, thereby constraining the pedagogical potential of smartboards.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe South African curriculum advocates for learner-centred pedagogies (Bremner et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR11\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e). Smartboards, by design, support such pedagogical frameworks by fostering active engagement and collaborative learning (Cahyati et al., 2021). Teachers can employ differentiated instruction, constructivist approaches, experiential learning, and gamification strategies to make learning dynamic and accessible (Mokoena et al., 2020; Siraj et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR31\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e). However, a lack of training in these strategies limits their effective deployment in classrooms.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePersistent challenges such as unreliable infrastructure, theft, lack of teacher training, and teacher resistance continue to hinder smartboard integration in township schools (Mokoena et al., 2022; Mokgwathi et al., 2023). Additionally, overly generalised policy guidelines fail to account for contextual realities specific to individual schools (Moosa et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR25\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2024\\u003c/span\\u003e). Contextually responsive frameworks are therefore necessary to enable meaningful technology integration.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework underpins this study. TPACK elucidates the interrelationship between technological knowledge (TK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), and content knowledge (CK) (Mishra \\u0026amp; Koehler, 2009; Karchmer-Klein \\u0026amp; Konishi, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR17\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e). This framework offers a lens to examine how teachers at Soshanguve Secondary School navigate these knowledge domains to integrate smartboards into their teaching practices effectively.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec3\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec4\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"METHODOLOGY\",\"content\":\"\\u003ch2\\u003eResearch Design and Approach\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eThis study adopted a qualitative, exploratory case study design, situated within the interpretivist paradigm. The research was guided by the philosophy of \\u003cb\\u003einterpretivism\\u003c/b\\u003e, which recognises the subjective and socially constructed nature of reality (Alharahsheh \\u0026amp; Pius, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR6\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e; Nickerson, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR27\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e). Specifically, the study embraced \\u003cb\\u003esocial constructivism\\u003c/b\\u003e as its ontological position, viewing reality as constructed through social interactions and individual experiences (Boyland, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR10\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e). This orientation allowed the researcher to explore deeply the perceptions and lived experiences of teachers integrating smartboards into their teaching practice at a Soshanguve secondary school.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eEpistemologically, the study aligned with the interpretivist paradigm, acknowledging that knowledge is subjective and context-bound, constructed through engagement with participants' narratives (Bianchi, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR9\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e). The researcher’s role was thus to interpret the participants’ meanings and understand the context-specific experiences related to smartboard integration.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eAn \\u003cb\\u003einductive research approach\\u003c/b\\u003e was employed, enabling the researcher to move from specific observations to broader generalisations and theories (Vears \\u0026amp; Gillam, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR34\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e). Given the limited research in this area, the inductive approach was appropriate to allow new themes and insights to emerge organically from the collected data (Abdukarimova \\u0026amp; Zubaydova, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR2\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eThe conceptual framework guiding this study was the \\u003cb\\u003eResearch Onion model\\u003c/b\\u003e proposed by Saunders et al. (2007). This model facilitated a systematic, coherent design process by addressing each critical layer of the research design, including philosophy, approach, strategy, methodological choice, time horizon, and techniques and procedures (Al-Ababneh, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR3\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003eResearch Strategy\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe research strategy employed was an \\u003cb\\u003eexploratory case study\\u003c/b\\u003e, which allowed for an in-depth examination of the integration of smartboards within a single case: a secondary school in Soshanguve (Gioia, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR13\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e; Tefo, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR33\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e). This strategy was selected due to its strength in exploring complex phenomena within real-life contexts and its suitability for addressing the \\\"how\\\" and \\\"why\\\" questions relevant to this study (Mishra \\u0026amp; Dey, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR24\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e; Wood et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR38\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003eMethodological Choice\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eA \\u003cb\\u003emono-method qualitative\\u003c/b\\u003e approach was selected to allow for an in-depth understanding of the teachers' experiences (Kyngäs, 2020). Although a mixed-methods design is sometimes used for educational technology research, the qualitative method alone was deemed most appropriate given the study’s focus on rich, descriptive data concerning teacher perceptions, attitudes, and practices (McBeath \\u0026amp; Bager-Charleson, 2020; Mik-Meyer, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR23\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003eTime Horizon\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe study utilised a \\u003cb\\u003ecross-sectional time horizon\\u003c/b\\u003e, with data collected at a single point in time (Cohen et al., 2017). This choice aligned with the study’s exploratory nature and time constraints, as the research was to be completed within a limited timeframe of fewer than 12 months (Mugani, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR26\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec8\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003ePopulation and Sampling\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe target population for this study consisted of teachers using smartboards in Grade 12 classrooms across township schools. The accessible population was narrowed to teachers from a single secondary school in Soshanguve.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTwo non-probability sampling methods were employed:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cul\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cb\\u003ePurposive sampling\\u003c/b\\u003e, to ensure participants possessed relevant experience and knowledge regarding the use of smartboards in their teaching practice (Willie, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR37\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2024\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cb\\u003eConvenience sampling\\u003c/b\\u003e, capitalising on the researcher's proximity to the study site, enabling easy access to participants and efficient data collection (Pandey \\u0026amp; Pandey, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR28\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003c/ul\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe final sample comprised \\u003cb\\u003efive Grade 12 teachers\\u003c/b\\u003e actively using smartboards in their classrooms. The sample size was appropriate for qualitative research, allowing for depth of inquiry and rich data collection (Mugani, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR26\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003eData Collection\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eData were collected through \\u003cb\\u003esemi-structured interviews\\u003c/b\\u003e, which provided flexibility to explore emerging themes while ensuring alignment with the research objectives (Magaldi \\u0026amp; Berler, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR21\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e). This method enabled the researcher to probe deeply into participants’ experiences, practices, and perceptions of smartboard integration.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e The interviews were audio-recorded (with consent), transcribed verbatim, and conducted in settings familiar to the participants to encourage openness and candid responses. The researcher initiated interviews with general questions before progressing to more specific queries to create a comfortable environment and ensure depth in the responses.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec10\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eData Analysis\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe collected data were analysed using a combination of methods. Firstly, thematic coding was employed to identify recurring patterns and themes from the participants' narratives (Mishra \\u0026amp; Dey, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR24\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e; Gioia, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR13\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e). Secondly, the TPACK framework provided a structured lens for understanding how teachers integrate smartboards within their pedagogical practice and subject content (Koehler \\u0026amp; Mishra, 2009; Karchmer-Klein \\u0026amp; Konishi, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR17\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e). Thirdly, computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) supported the systematic coding, organisation, and interpretation of the data (Vignato et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR35\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e; Smit \\u0026amp; Scherman, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR32\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e). To ensure accuracy, the researcher triangulated data with existing literature, sought supervisor reviews, and maintained a transparent audit trail throughout the analysis process.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec11\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eQuality Criteria and Trustworthiness\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTo enhance the trustworthiness of the study, four criteria were rigorously applied. Firstly, credibility was ensured through prolonged engagement with participants, triangulation of data sources, and verification of findings with participants to confirm the accuracy and authenticity of the data (Baixinho \\u0026amp; Costa, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR8\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e; Shufutinsky, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR30\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e). Secondly, transferability was addressed by deeply contextualising the study, providing detailed descriptions of the school environment and participant characteristics to enable potential application of the findings to similar educational contexts (Weise et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR36\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e). Thirdly, dependability was achieved by carefully documenting the research design and process, thereby facilitating replication by future researchers (Kyngäs, 2020; Pandey \\u0026amp; Pandey, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR28\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e). Finally, confirmability was ensured by maintaining reflexivity throughout the research process to minimise bias, alongside preserving a comprehensive audit trail of data collection and analysis activities (Giustini, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR14\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2024\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec12\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eEthical Considerations\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEthical compliance was strictly upheld throughout the research process. Participants were provided with detailed information about the study and offered written consent before participation, thereby ensuring informed consent (Alderson \\u0026amp; Morrow, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR5\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e). Participation in the study was entirely voluntary, and participants were informed of their right to withdraw from the research at any stage without facing any penalty (Bos, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR12\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e). Furthermore, anonymity and confidentiality were preserved by assigning pseudonyms to participants and securely storing all data with restricted access to protect their identities (Resnik, 2018). Finally, the researcher maintained a high level of respect for participants by ensuring sensitivity to their comfort and autonomy throughout the research process.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \"},{\"header\":\"RESULTS AND FINDINGS\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThis section presents the results of the data analysis, organized around the research questions and themes that emerged during the coding process. The data from the interviews were analyzed using qualitative coding and categorized according to the TPACK framework, which served as a lens to explore the integration of smartboards in teaching and learning. The findings are presented with an emphasis on the voices of the participants, as well as the challenges and opportunities identified through the analysis.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eTable\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab1\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e highlights the responses of the participates per themes in questions asked by the researcher.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" colnum=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\" colnum=\\\"5\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\" colnum=\\\"6\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab1\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 1\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eResponses from All Participants\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e\\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"6\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/colgroup\\u003e\\u003cthead\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eQuestion\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e\\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eParticipant 1\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e\\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eParticipant 2\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e\\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eParticipant 3\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e\\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eParticipant 4\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e\\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eParticipant 5\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003c/thead\\u003e\\u003ctbody\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eTeaching environment\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCrowded classrooms, lack of resources.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSmall classrooms with limited seating and ventilation issues.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAdequate space but lack of modern technology.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOvercrowded classrooms and outdated infrastructure.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOvercrowded classrooms, unclean, and not conducive for learning.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eUse of technology in school\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eICT is available, but smartboards are rare.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSmartboards present but not consistently used; basic technology like projectors are more common.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eLimited technology use, smartboards available but not always functional.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eLimited smartboard use due to technical issues; rely more on traditional methods.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePreviously advanced with smartboards, but technology deteriorated. Smartboards present but not always working.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eInfrastructure support\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eLimited ICT tools for both teachers and learners.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSchool has Wi-Fi but no consistent access to tech for learners at home.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eLearners from low-income families lack devices at home; school provides some tech support.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSchool infrastructure has Wi-Fi and smartboards, but home access is limited for most learners.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSome ICT infrastructure present, but many learners come from disadvantaged backgrounds with limited home tech access.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eTechnological tools available\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eProjectors, smartboards, laptops, Wi-Fi.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSmartboards, laptops, and projectors, but availability fluctuates.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSmartboards and Wi-Fi, though usage is inconsistent.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eLaptops, smartboards, projectors, and Wi-Fi.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSmartboards, laptops, projectors, and Wi-Fi present in some rooms.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eGuidance on choosing tech tools\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMinimal guidance, often teacher-driven experimentation.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eICT committee provides some support.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eNo official guidelines; decisions are based on trial and error or advice from other teachers.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eICT committee offers some guidance, but teachers mostly choose tools independently.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eICT committee available to guide on tech integration, but support is optional.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eTeaching strategies used\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eLecture, group discussions, peer teaching, scaffolding.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eGroup discussions, peer teaching, multimedia integration.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eLecture, discussions, and multimedia integration when available.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eLecture, multimedia integration, peer teaching, and scaffolding.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eQuestion and answer, group discussions, scaffolding, peer teaching.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003ePedagogical approach choice\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBased on learner level and available resources.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDepends on learners’ comprehension and tech availability.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAdaptive approach based on learner pace and content.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePedagogical strategies vary depending on learner needs and technology availability.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDependent on learner pace, socioeconomic context, and availability of smartboards.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eTechnology to create engagement\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eVideos, smartboards when available.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMultimedia tools like videos and projectors.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eVideos, images, and interactive presentations.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSmartboards and interactive tools when possible.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eVideos and smartboards stimulate learner engagement when tech works.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eImpact of technology on learner learning\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eImproved attention and understanding through multimedia.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSmartboards and interactive tools increase engagement but limited due to availability.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePositive, though inconsistent, impact of smartboards on learning and engagement.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIncreases learner focus when multimedia is available, but not a frequent occurrence.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSmartboards and multimedia increase engagement, with published research showing higher attention and results when used compared to traditional methods.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eIntegration of technology and learner needs\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTechnology helps to cater to different learning styles but is often inconsistent.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTechnology accommodates various learners when available, but tech barriers exist for disadvantaged learners.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTechnology helps with differentiation in instruction but is underutilized.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAccommodates different learners’ needs when technology is functional.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTechnology supports inclusive learning, especially through smartboards.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eTechnology supporting assessment\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMostly uses traditional methods for assessment; technology supports peer and group learning.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTechnology limited in supporting assessments due to inconsistent tech availability.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSome digital assessments, but heavily reliant on traditional tests and grading.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMinimal tech-supported assessments due to infrastructure challenges.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eLittle use of technology in assessments due to infrastructure issues and classroom dynamics.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\u003c/tbody\\u003e\\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eFindings for RQ1: \\u003cb\\u003eHow do Grade 12 teachers at Soshanguve Secondary School apply their technological knowledge to integrate smartboards in their classrooms for teaching and learning?\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eThe application of technological knowledge by teachers was varied and largely dependent on the availability of functional technology. Participants expressed a mix of positive intentions and frustrations when it came to using smartboards in their classrooms.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003eTechnological Knowledge (TK)\\u003c/strong\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eSome teachers demonstrated a strong awareness of the potential of smartboards. They could identify the functions and features of the technology, such as the ability to display multimedia content, annotate lessons in real-time, and use interactive features to engage learners. However, their ability to apply this knowledge was often compromised by inconsistent access to working smartboards. Participant 1 expressed, “We know what the smartboard can do, but it’s often not working, and there’s no backup plan.” This sentiment was echoed by Participant 2, who said, “The smartboard can be a great tool, but it’s just not reliable enough for me to rely on it every day.”\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003eImpact of Limited Resources\\u003c/strong\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eIn cases where the smartboard was functional, teachers employed a variety of teaching strategies to incorporate technology into lessons. Participant 4 explained, “When it works, I can show videos, animations, and diagrams that make the lesson more engaging.” This aligns with the TPACK framework’s emphasis on integrating technology to complement content and pedagogy effectively (Mhlongo \\u0026amp; Sedumedi, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR22\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e). However, the overall technological knowledge of teachers was not always translated into effective classroom practices, primarily because of the inconsistent availability of smartboards.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003eSupport and Professional Development\\u003c/strong\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eTeachers also indicated that there was limited support from the school’s ICT committee. Participant 3 highlighted, “There’s no structured training on how to effectively use smartboards in teaching. Sometimes we’re left to figure it out on our own.” The lack of professional development on how to use smartboards within a pedagogical context contributed to underutilization of the technology. This suggests that even though teachers had access to technological tools, they were not always equipped to use them optimally in their teaching.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eFindings for RQ2: \\u003cb\\u003eWhat are the pedagogical strategies that teachers use in conjunction with smartboards in their classrooms for teaching and learning?\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eParticipants shared a variety of pedagogical strategies that they adapted based on the availability and functionality of smartboards. These strategies were often aligned with the principles of active learning and learner engagement, which are key tenets of effective teaching.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cb\\u003eActive Learning and Engagement\\u003c/b\\u003e: Teachers often used the smartboards to display dynamic content such as videos, simulations, and interactive diagrams. Participant 1 described how they used the smartboard to show videos related to chemical reactions during a chemistry lesson: “Using the smartboard helps my learners visualize complex concepts that would otherwise be difficult to understand with just a textbook.” This approach supports the idea that technology can enhance learner engagement and understanding, particularly when it allows for the presentation of content in multiple formats (audio, visual, and interactive).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003eCollaborative Learning\\u003c/strong\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eSeveral teachers also used the smartboard to encourage collaborative learning. For instance, Participant 5 explained, “Sometimes, I invite learners to come up and interact with the smartboard during lessons. It encourages them to engage more deeply with the material.” This approach aligns with the constructivist approach to learning, which emphasizes collaboration and peer learning. When functioning, the smartboards facilitated these pedagogical strategies by allowing learners to interact with the lesson in ways that were not possible with traditional teaching tools.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cb\\u003ePedagogical Adaptation\\u003c/b\\u003e: However, as noted by Participant 2, the integration of smartboards often required teachers to adapt their pedagogical strategies: “Sometimes the smartboard is just not available, so I adapt by using a traditional whiteboard or PowerPoint slides on a projector.” This adaptability reflects the dynamic relationship between pedagogy and technology, where effective teaching requires flexibility in response to the technological environment.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eFindings for Other Emerging Themes\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003eChallenges with Infrastructure\\u003c/strong\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eOvercrowded classrooms and outdated infrastructure were recurring challenges mentioned by participants. As Participant 4 remarked, “When there are too many learners in the class, it’s hard for everyone to benefit from the smartboard, even if it’s available.” These challenges highlight how classroom management and physical space issues can limit the effectiveness of technology integration, even when teachers are well-prepared and willing to use it.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003eThe Need for Support and Professional Development\\u003c/strong\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eTeachers consistently emphasized the importance of professional development. Participant 3 expressed, “If we had more training on how to incorporate smartboards into our teaching, it would make a huge difference.” This aligns with the research by Mhlongo and Sedumedi (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR22\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e), which suggests that sustained professional development is crucial for effective technology integration.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"DISCUSSION\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThis study explored the integration of smartboards in Grade 12 classrooms at a secondary school in Soshanguve, focusing on teachers\\u0026rsquo; technological knowledge, pedagogical strategies, and the challenges encountered in applying smartboard technology effectively. The findings, interpreted through the lens of the TPACK framework, reveal significant insights into both the opportunities and constraints associated with smartboard use in under-resourced educational contexts.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eA key observation from the study is that, while teachers possessed basic technological competencies, their practical application of smartboards was constrained by recurring infrastructural challenges and limited professional development. Consistent with previous research (Mhlongo \\u0026amp; Sedumedi, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR22\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e; Hussein et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR16\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e), the teachers were aware of smartboard functionalities, including multimedia presentations and real-time annotations, which can enhance lesson engagement. However, the reliability of smartboards emerged as a critical limitation. Participants consistently reported that technical malfunctions and the inconsistent availability of smartboards reduced their confidence in incorporating the technology as an integral part of their teaching practice. This aligns with earlier studies highlighting the necessity for stable infrastructure to support the integration of educational technologies (Moosa et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR25\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2024\\u003c/span\\u003e; Mugani, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR26\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePedagogically, teachers demonstrated flexibility and creativity by employing strategies that promoted active learning and learner engagement. The use of videos, simulations, and interactive exercises facilitated visualisation of complex concepts, particularly in subjects such as chemistry. When functional, smartboards supported collaborative learning environments, allowing learners to interact directly with the content. This finding corroborates prior research advocating for learner-centred approaches that leverage educational technology to enhance engagement and conceptual understanding (Cahyati et al., 2021; Siraj et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR31\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eNonetheless, the potential of these pedagogical strategies was frequently undermined by infrastructural deficiencies. Overcrowded classrooms, outdated facilities, and inconsistent internet access significantly impeded the full utilisation of smartboards. These physical and technological barriers compounded the challenges faced by teachers, particularly in adapting their pedagogical approaches to maximise the benefits of smartboards. Such findings echo the work of Mokgwathi et al. (2023), who identified infrastructural inadequacies as a pervasive issue in South African township schools.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe study also underscores the crucial need for sustained professional development and institutional support. Teachers expressed a clear desire for ongoing training to enhance their ability to integrate smartboards effectively within pedagogical frameworks. The current reliance on self-directed learning and ad-hoc guidance from ICT committees is insufficient for fostering comprehensive technological proficiency. These insights align with recommendations from Dlamini (2022), who emphasises the importance of structured, context-sensitive training programmes tailored to the realities of teachers in under-resourced environments.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e Furthermore, the absence of clear, context-specific guidelines for technology integration emerged as a notable gap. Teachers largely relied on trial and error or informal peer support to navigate the complexities of smartboard use. This finding reinforces the argument for developing detailed, practical frameworks that accommodate the unique challenges of township schools while providing clear pathways for effective technology adoption (Moosa et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR25\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2024\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWhile smartboards possess significant pedagogical potential, their effectiveness in Soshanguve classrooms is contingent upon addressing systemic barriers. Reliable infrastructure, professional development, and tailored guidelines are essential to transform smartboards from underutilised assets into transformative educational tools.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"CONCLUSION\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThis study sought to investigate the integration of smartboards in Grade 12 classrooms at a secondary school in Soshanguve, with particular attention to teachers\\u0026rsquo; technological knowledge, pedagogical practices, and the contextual factors influencing effective utilisation. The findings reveal that although teachers demonstrate foundational technological awareness and an appreciation of smartboards' pedagogical value, the practical realisation of these benefits is hindered by infrastructural challenges and limited support mechanisms.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe application of the TPACK framework illuminated the complex interplay between technological knowledge, pedagogy, and content delivery. Teachers endeavoured to use smartboards to enhance learner engagement and foster active, collaborative learning environments. However, infrastructural inadequacies, such as unreliable equipment and overcrowded classrooms, often restricted the full implementation of these strategies. In addition, the lack of sustained professional development left teachers without the necessary pedagogical tools to fully exploit smartboards' capabilities.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTo address these challenges, several recommendations are proposed. Firstly, targeted and continuous professional development programmes should be implemented, equipping teachers with advanced competencies in both the technical operation of smartboards and their pedagogical application. Secondly, infrastructural improvements, including reliable maintenance of smartboards and improved internet connectivity, are vital to ensure consistent access to technology. Thirdly, the development of context-sensitive, school-level guidelines will provide teachers with clearer frameworks for integrating smartboards effectively into their daily practice.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFuture research should consider longitudinal studies to examine the long-term impact of smartboard integration and associated professional development initiatives on teaching efficacy and learner outcomes. Additionally, expanding the scope of research to include learner perspectives would provide a more holistic understanding of the smartboard's role in the educational environment.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWhile smartboards hold considerable promise for enhancing teaching and learning in South African township schools, their potential can only be realised through a concerted effort to strengthen infrastructural support, foster teacher development, and tailor integration strategies to the specific realities of under-resourced educational settings. By addressing these critical factors, smartboards can evolve from underutilised technological artefacts into dynamic tools that transform classroom experiences and advance educational equity.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"References\",\"content\":\"\\u003col\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eAbdelhakim, A. S. (2021). Adopted Research Designs by Tourism and Hospitality Postgraduates in The Light\\u0026lrm; of Research Onion. International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Management, 4(2), 98-124. https://doi.org/10.21608/ijthm.2021.206774\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eAbdukarimova, N., \\u0026amp; Zubaydova, N. (2021). Deductive and inductive approaches to teaching grammar. JournalNX, 372-376.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eAl-Ababneh, M. (2020). Linking ontology, epistemology and research methodology. Science \\u0026amp; Philosophy, 8(1), 75-91.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eAldalalah, O. M. A. (2021). The Effectiveness of Infographic via Interactive Smart Board on Enhancing Creative Thinking: A Cognitive Load Perspective. International Journal of Instruction, 14(1), 345-364.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eAlderson, P., \\u0026amp; Morrow, V. (2020). The ethics of research with children and young people: A practical handbook. Sage.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eAlharahsheh, H. H., \\u0026amp; Pius, A. (2020). A review of key paradigms: Positivism VS interpretivism. Global Academic Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(3), 39-43.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eAllan, G. (2020). Qualitative research. In Handbook for research students in the social sciences (pp. 177-189). Routledge.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBaixinho, C. L., \\u0026amp; Costa, A. P. (2020). Researchers\\u0026apos; scientific credibility and knowledge transfer. SciELO Brasil, 24, e20200008.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBianchi, G. (2023). Epistemological and Methodological Challenges of Subjectivity. In Figurations of Human Subjectivity: A Contribution to Second-Order Psychology (pp. 89-116). Springer.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBoyland, J. R. (2019). A social constructivist approach to the gathering of empirical data. Australian Counselling Research Journal, 13(2), 30-34.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBremner, N., Sakata, N., \\u0026amp; Cameron, L. (2022). The outcomes of learner-centred pedagogy: A systematic review. International Journal of Educational Development, 94, 102649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2022.102649\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBos, J. (2020). Research ethics for students in the social sciences. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48415-6\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eGioia, D. (2021). A systematic methodology for doing qualitative research. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 57(1), 20-29.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eGiustini, D. (2024). A practice-based epistemological perspective. Critical Approaches to Institutional Translation and Interpreting: Challenging Epistemologies.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eHeeks, R. (2022). Digital inequality beyond the digital divide: conceptualizing adverse digital incorporation in the global South. Information Technology for Development, 28(4), 688-704. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2022.2068492\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eHussein, H. A., Ahmed, A. M. H., Shawkat, S. A., \\u0026amp; Kamil, R. A. (2022). The effect of using smart board technology on the educational process in the colleges of education in terms of features and challenges. AIP Conference Proceedings.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eKarchmer-Klein, R., \\u0026amp; Konishi, H. (2023). A mixed-methods study of novice teachers\\u0026rsquo; technology integration: Do they leverage their TPACK knowledge once entering the profession? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 55(3), 490-506. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1976328\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eKgosi, M. K., Makgato, M., \\u0026amp; Skosana, N. M. (2023). Teachers\\u0026apos; views on the application of educational technologies in the classroom: A case of selected Tshwane West secondary schools in Gauteng. Journal of Curriculum Studies Research, 5(2), 151-166. https://doi.org/10.46303/jcsr.2023.23\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eKhosa, C., \\u0026amp; Molotsi, A. (2020). Teachers\\u0026rsquo; perspectives on the use of smart boards in teaching Business Studies in the Tshwane West District. South Africa International Conference on Education.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eKoehler, M., \\u0026amp; Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMagaldi, D., \\u0026amp; Berler, M. (2020). Semi-structured interviews. Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences, 4825-4830.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMhlongo, T., \\u0026amp; Sedumedi, T. D. (2023). Conceptual Change in Life Sciences Learning: The Impact of Teaching Tools on Knowledge Representation. \\u003cem\\u003eIndonesian Journal of Science and Mathematics Education\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e6\\u003c/em\\u003e(3), 300-310.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMik-Meyer, N. (2020). Multimethod qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 5, 357-374.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMishra, S., \\u0026amp; Dey, A. K. (2022). Understanding and identifying \\u0026lsquo;themes\\u0026rsquo; in qualitative case study research. SAGE Publications India, 11, 187-192.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMoosa, S., Ncube, R., \\u0026amp; Ramnarain, U. (2024). Translating policy to practice: The status of ICT in STEM education in South Africa. In Information and Communications Technology in STEM Education (pp. 1-13). Routledge.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMugani, P. (2020). The pedagogical impact of Smart Classrooms on teaching and learning of grade 11 in the Tshwane South District.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eNickerson, C. (2022). Interpretivism paradigm \\u0026amp; research philosophy. Simply Sociology, 5.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003ePandey, P., \\u0026amp; Pandey, M. M. (2021). Research methodology tools and techniques. Bridge Center.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSaunders, M., Lewis, P., \\u0026amp; Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. Pearson Education.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eShufutinsky, A. (2020). Employing use of self for transparency, rigour, trustworthiness, and credibility in qualitative organisational research methods. Organisation Development Review, 52(1), 50-58.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSiraj, S., et al. (2021). Smart Learning Tools for Enhancing Basic Education System. International Journal, 10(3).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSmit, B., \\u0026amp; Scherman, V. (2021). Computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software for scoping reviews: A case of ATLAS.ti. SAGE Publications, 20, 16094069211019140.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eTefo, R. M. (2022). The influence of smartboards on the teaching and learning of grade 12 physical science in Tshwane district, Gauteng, South Africa.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eVears, D. F., \\u0026amp; Gillam, L. (2022). Inductive content analysis: A guide for beginning qualitative researchers. Focus on Health Professional Education, 23(1), 111-127.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eVignato, J., Inman, M., Patsais, M., \\u0026amp; Conley, V. (2022). Computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software, phenomenology, and Colaizzi\\u0026rsquo;s method. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 44(12), 1117-1123.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eWeise, A., B\\u0026uuml;chter, R., Pieper, D., \\u0026amp; Mathes, T. (2020). Assessing context suitability (generalizability, external validity, applicability or transferability) of findings in evidence syntheses in healthcare\\u0026mdash;An integrative review of methodological guidance. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(6), 760-779.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eWillie, M. M. (2024). Population and Target Population in Research Methodology. Golden Ratio of Social Science and Education, 4(1), 75-79.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eWood, L. M., Sebar, B., \\u0026amp; Vecchio, N. (2020). Application of rigour and credibility in qualitative document analysis: Lessons learnt from a case study. The Qualitative Report, 25(2), 456-470. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2020.4240\\u003cstrong\\u003e\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003c/ol\\u003e\"}],\"fulltextSource\":\"\",\"fullText\":\"\",\"funders\":[],\"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow\":false,\"hasManuscriptDocX\":true,\"hasOptedInToPreprint\":true,\"hasPassedJournalQc\":\"\",\"hasAnyPriority\":true,\"hideJournal\":true,\"highlight\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Tshwane University of Technology\",\"isAcceptedByJournal\":false,\"isAuthorSuppliedPdf\":false,\"isDeskRejected\":\"\",\"isHiddenFromSearch\":false,\"isInQc\":false,\"isInWorkflow\":false,\"isPdf\":false,\"isPdfUpToDate\":true,\"isWithdrawnOrRetracted\":false,\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"researchsquare\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"externalIdentity\":\"\",\"sideBox\":\"\",\"snPcode\":\"\",\"submissionUrl\":\"/submission\",\"title\":\"Research Square\",\"twitterHandle\":\"researchsquare\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":false,\"editorialSystem\":\"\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"\",\"inReviewEnabled\":false,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true},\"keywords\":\"Smartboards, technology integration, township schools, teacher competence, pedagogical strategies\",\"lastPublishedDoi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6449305/v1\",\"lastPublishedDoiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6449305/v1\",\"license\":{\"name\":\"CC BY 4.0\",\"url\":\"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/\"},\"manuscriptAbstract\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThe integration of smartboards in South African classrooms, particularly in under-resourced township schools, has been championed as an innovative solution to improve teaching and learning outcomes. This study explores the application of smartboards in Grade 12 classrooms at a secondary school in Soshanguve, Gauteng Province. Despite significant investments in technological infrastructure, challenges persist in effectively utilising smartboards due to factors such as inadequate teacher training, unreliable infrastructure, and limited professional development. Guided by the Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework and employing an exploratory case study design within an interpretivist paradigm, this research collected qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with teachers. Findings reveal that while teachers possess basic technological competencies and recognise the pedagogical potential of smartboards, their practical application is constrained by infrastructural limitations and insufficient support mechanisms. Recommendations include targeted professional development, reliable technological maintenance, and the development of context-sensitive guidelines to maximise the educational benefits of smartboard integration in township schools.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"manuscriptTitle\":\"Guiding Principles for the Integration of Smartboards in Grade 12 Classrooms at a Soshanguve Secondary School\",\"msid\":\"\",\"msnumber\":\"\",\"nonDraftVersions\":[{\"code\":1,\"date\":\"2025-04-18 07:50:01\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6449305/v1\",\"editorialEvents\":[{\"type\":\"communityComments\",\"content\":0}],\"status\":\"published\",\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"researchsquare\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"externalIdentity\":\"\",\"sideBox\":\"\",\"snPcode\":\"\",\"submissionUrl\":\"/submission\",\"title\":\"Research Square\",\"twitterHandle\":\"researchsquare\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":false,\"editorialSystem\":\"\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"\",\"inReviewEnabled\":false,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true}}],\"origin\":\"\",\"ownerIdentity\":\"c244d2c3-8a83-4a80-a682-16c176465869\",\"owner\":[],\"postedDate\":\"April 18th, 2025\",\"published\":true,\"recentEditorialEvents\":[],\"rejectedJournal\":[],\"revision\":\"\",\"amendment\":\"\",\"status\":\"posted\",\"subjectAreas\":[{\"id\":47155700,\"name\":\"Special Education\"}],\"tags\":[],\"updatedAt\":\"2025-04-18T07:50:02+00:00\",\"versionOfRecord\":[],\"versionCreatedAt\":\"2025-04-18 07:50:01\",\"video\":\"\",\"vorDoi\":\"\",\"vorDoiUrl\":\"\",\"workflowStages\":[]},\"version\":\"v1\",\"identity\":\"rs-6449305\",\"journalConfig\":\"researchsquare\"},\"__N_SSP\":true},\"page\":\"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]\",\"query\":{\"redirect\":\"/article/rs-6449305\",\"identity\":\"rs-6449305\",\"version\":[\"v1\"]},\"buildId\":\"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7\",\"isFallback\":false,\"isExperimentalCompile\":false,\"dynamicIds\":[84888],\"gssp\":true,\"scriptLoader\":[]}","source_license":"CC-BY-4.0","license_restricted":false}