Exploring Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions of Integrating Digital Pedagogy in Rural Schools

Exploring Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions of Integrating Digital Pedagogy in Rural Schools | 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 Exploring Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions of Integrating Digital Pedagogy in Rural Schools Jayaluxmi Naidoo This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5955932/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Integrating digital pedagogy in mathematics can change teaching and learning. Globally, education institutions adopted digital pedagogy during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. However, mathematics teachers in rural schools encounter many challenges when embracing digital pedagogy. This article focuses on a study of mathematics teachers’ perceptions of integrating digital pedagogy in rural schools. The study involved 28 mathematics teachers, all postgraduate students at the participant university, teaching at rural schools in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, post-COVID-19. The study was framed within the ambits of the Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) model and followed a mixed-methods approach, which included a questionnaire and semi-structured individual interviews. Thematic manual coding and NVivo were employed to analyse the qualitative data, while Excel was used to analyse the quantitative data. The findings reveal the strengths, challenges and scaffolding structures needed for successful implementation. While acknowledging the potential of digital pedagogy to promote learner interaction and improve mathematical understanding, it is apparent that teachers are concerned about the inadequate infrastructure, insufficient professional development, and lack of scaffolding structures in rural contexts. The study concludes with recommendations for mathematics teachers, policymakers, and other stakeholders to promote the strengths, address the challenges, and improve the scaffolding structures necessary to successfully integrate digital pedagogy in rural mathematics contexts. The aim of the study is to develop knowledge about digital pedagogy and improve mathematics educational outcomes in rural schools locally and globally through the effective integration of digital pedagogy. Digital Pedagogy Mathematics Mixed-Method Rural Schools SAMR Model Teachers Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 INTRODUCTION Rapid advancements in digital technology have transformed educational contexts globally. Digital tools and devices offer vast opportunities for promoting teaching and learning (Drijvers & Sinclair, 2024 ; Esteve-Mon et al., 2023 ; Haleem et al., 2022 ). For mathematics education, digital tools, such as interactive software programmes, virtual learning platforms, and online resources, promote learner engagement while improving the understanding of abstract mathematical concepts. Digital pedagogy for this study refers to the focused integration of digital tools into teaching and learning methods to advance educational outcomes in rural classrooms. It advances beyond using digital tools for substitution but rather includes using these tools for augmentation, modification, and redefinition, as outlined by the Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) (Puentedura, 2020 ). However, many obstacles hinder the effective integration of digital pedagogy in rural classrooms. These obstacles include limited access to high-speed internet, restricted availability of digital tools and devices, and the lack of professional development programmes tailored to the explicit needs of teachers in rural schools (Ahuja & Yadav, 2019 ; Brenya, 2024 ; Hennessy et al., 2022 ; Kamat & Nasnodkar, 2019 ). Moreover, the location of rural schools makes it difficult for teachers to collaborate and access ongoing professional training and development. Consequently, teachers in rural schools may feel uncertain or lack confidence in effectively integrating digital tools into pedagogy (Ahuja & Yadav, 2019 ; Jerry & Yunus, 2021 ; Redmond et al., 2021 ). Therefore, understanding teachers’ perceptions of digital pedagogy is essential to identify the factors that enable or constrain its effective implementation in rural contexts. Teachers’ views about digital pedagogy, their confidence in using digital tools, and their views on the effectiveness of digital tools in improving learner outcomes are vital for promoting the successful integration of digital pedagogy (Jerry & Yunus, 2021 ; Ndungo et al., 2025 ; Reinhold et al., 2021 ). This study responds to the main research question: What are mathematics teachers’ perceptions of integrating digital pedagogy in rural schools? By exploring mathematics teachers’ perceptions, the intention of this study is to offer insights that can inform policy decisions and the development of targeted interventions to support teachers in rural contexts. Ultimately, the study seeks to enhance mathematics educational outcomes in rural schools locally and globally by providing recommendations for the effective integration of digital pedagogy. REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH Teaching Strategies for Mathematics Education Effective teaching strategies in mathematics focus on developing critical thinking and encouraging active learning and participation. Activities that advance critical thinking and active learning include collaboration, problem-based learning, and group work (Ng et al., 2020; Ramadhani et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2023). These types of activities in the mathematics classroom encourage in-depth understanding and application of mathematical concepts to respond to real-world problems. When teachers incorporate varied activities into their teaching, it helps them adjust their pedagogical approach to support diverse learners with different learning styles and ability levels. Consequently, fostering and advancing inclusive educational environments (Joswick et al., 2023; Onyishi & Sefotho, 2021). In South Africa, the use of digital pedagogy and technology in classrooms is encouraged by policy. The draft e-Education White Paper endorses the use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in education (Department of Education, 2004). Concerning rural education, the draft policy for rural education encourages the promotion of access to technology and the integration of technology to support education in rural schools (Department of Basic Education, 2018). Moreover, the integration of digital pedagogy and the promotion of problem-based learning is also necessary for contemporary inclusive mathematics classrooms. Problem-based learning encourages learners to develop their critical thinking and active collaboration skills through real-world mathematics problems (Arbo & Ching, 2022). This type of pedagogy advances the link between mathematical concepts and their real-world practical applications. The use of digital tools and resources, such as mathematics software programmes, graphing calculators, interactive online platforms and videos, supports learners as they learn abstract mathematical concepts. Digital tools help learners visualise mathematical concepts so that learning becomes more engaging and interactive (Cirneanu & Moldoveanu, 2024; Haleem et al., 2022). The use of the blended learning and the flipped classroom approach has also been beneficial for the teaching and learning of mathematics. These transformative approaches support and advance learner understanding and engagement in the contemporary mathematics educational environment. In a blended educational environment, traditional in-person, face-to-face pedagogy is combined with digital tools (Cevikbas & Kaiser, 2023; Singh et al., 2021). This educational environment includes the use of digital tools, offering learners the opportunity to access and utilise online software, resources and activities at their own pace. Thus, learners experience personalised learning, and teachers focus on providing individual support during class time. In a flipped educational environment, learners learn new concepts via online lectures, resources, and readings prior to class (Egara & Mosimege, 2024; Yorganci, 2020). During class time, teachers encourage learners to engage in problem-solving, collaboration, group work and discussions. This approach encourages critical thinking and active learning (Cevikbas & Kaiser, 2023; Yohannes & Chen, 2024), enabling learners to apply mathematical concepts with guidance from the teacher. While these educational environments promote a deeper understanding of the mathematical concepts being taught, encouraging the use of these educational environments relies on the perceptions and attitudes of teachers towards them. Teacher Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Digital Pedagogy Recently, teacher perceptions and attitudes about the integration of digital pedagogy have progressed largely due to the COVID-19 pandemic (König et al., 2022). The pandemic compelled teachers globally to integrate technology into their pedagogy. While many teachers recognise the capability of digital tools to enrich learner outcomes and engagement, some have concerns about the challenges linked with implementation (Chen et al., 2022). Accordingly, teachers’ attitudes about integrating digital pedagogy are influenced by factors such as infrastructure, support, technological self-efficacy, and professional development (Admiraal et al., 2023; Maharjan, 2023; Ndungo et al., 2025). These factors are key in ensuring the effective integration of digital technology in educational environments. Due to teachers’ positive experiences with digital tools during the COVID-19 pandemic, the integration of digital pedagogy in traditional classroom contexts has advanced (Pozo-Rico et al., 2020). Similarly, many teachers indicate that they are more confident in effectively integrating digital pedagogy. Also, teachers acknowledge the potential of digital pedagogy to personalise learning experiences and prepare learners for the future (Timotheou et al., 2023). However, challenges persist, including concerns about the importance of ongoing professional development, training, and equal access to digital tools, devices and technology (Maharjan, 2023; Yin et al., 2023). Thus, teachers in rural educational contexts still face the challenges of limited access to the Internet, unstable connectivity, and a lack of infrastructure. Rural Educational Contexts Rural educational contexts for this study are sparsely populated regions with limited access to infrastructure, resources, social services and have higher poverty levels (Mubangizi, 2023). As a result, teachers in rural contexts encounter unique challenges when integrating digital pedagogy in their educational contexts. For instance, they may face difficulties due to inadequate and unstable Internet connectivity and outdated or non-existent infrastructure (Aruleba & Jere, 2022; Maharjan, 2023; Ndungo et al., 2025). These obstacles widen the gap in access to technology between urban and rural schools, leading to a digital divide from unequal availability and access to technology (Surianshah, 2021; Ye & Yang, 2020). These challenges can impede a teacher’s ability to use digital pedagogy effectively. In addition, budget constraints impact the procurement and maintenance of digital tools, software, and devices, which affects teachers’ ability to integrate digital pedagogy (Kormos & Wisdom, 2021). Apart from limited access to material resources, rural teachers also experience challenges relating to inadequate professional development and training, as well as limited access to scaffolding structures for advancing digital pedagogy. These challenges can undermine teachers’ conviction and readiness to embrace digital pedagogy (Spiteri & Rundgren, 2020). Despite these challenges, research has shown that rural teachers have a positive attitude towards digital pedagogy. For example, some rural teachers view digital pedagogy as a means of providing their learners with educational experiences and opportunities that might otherwise be inaccessible due to their geographical location (Kormos & Wisdom, 2021). Other teachers recognise the potential of digital pedagogy to support them in providing personalised and inclusive education in their classrooms (Kearney et al., 2022). Additionally, some teachers use digital pedagogy to connect their learners with broader learning communities (Carpenter & Munshower, 2020). Despite these positive attitudes and experiences, rural teachers emphasise the need for improved professional development to integrate digital pedagogy effectively. Professional Development for Mathematics Teachers Professional development for integrating digital pedagogy in mathematics classrooms has become increasingly important in recent years. Effective mathematic professional development programmes concentrate on advancing both technological skills and instructional applications specific to mathematics pedagogy (Thurm & Barzel, 2022). These programmes focus on interactive, hands-on experiences with digital tools, devices, and software programmes, such as dynamic geometry software and collaborative online platforms. Sustained professional development programmes focused on mathematical content are more effective than once-off workshops (Baker, 2022). Teachers benefit from this approach by updating their skills and receiving direction and guidance on teaching approaches, which builds their confidence levels and allows for continuous reflection and growth. In line with this, content-specific professional development programmes include peer mentoring, creating online communities of practice, and ongoing support to help mathematics teachers apply new strategies in their classrooms (Townley, 2020). For teaching and learning mathematics, important areas of focus for professional development programmes include using digital pedagogy for the visualisation of mathematical concepts, data analysis, and problem-solving. In addition, strategies for variation when using digital tools for instruction and formative assessments are important (Dalby & Swan, 2019; Haj-Yahya & Olsher, 2022). However, challenges exist, such as time constraints, varying levels of technological proficiency among teachers, and unequal access to digital tools and devices. Additionally, integrating digital pedagogy into the curriculum poses a challenge (Loong & Herbert, 2018; Ndungo et al., 2025). Notwithstanding this, professional development programmes that are well-designed and appropriately implemented can boost mathematics teachers’ confidence in integrating digital pedagogy effectively in their classrooms. However, attending professional development programmes poses a challenge for teachers located in rural contexts due to geographical location and possible isolation, as indicated by previous research conducted in developing areas, for example, in India and East Africa (Ahuja & Yadav, 2019; Maharjan, 2023; Ndungo et al., 2025). While existing literature emphasises the benefits of digital pedagogy and the significance of professional development for mathematics teachers, there is limited research on the perceptions and experiences of mathematics teachers in rural schools regarding its use. This gap is more evident in relation to the contextual, professional, and infrastructural challenges specific to rural contexts. The purpose of this study is to respond to this gap by exploring rural mathematics teachers’ perceptions and experiences, with the aim of revealing their needs for the successful use of digital pedagogy in mathematics education. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition Model The study under focus was framed within the ambits of the Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) model. The SAMR module was developed in 2006 by Puentedura and is widely used in research focusing on the use of technology in education (Puentedura, 2020 ). It is a model that helps teachers think about how and why they use technology, and how they can leverage it to transform their pedagogy. Thus, the SAMR model explores how integrating technology into pedagogy can transform teaching and learning experiences by affording teachers the opportunity to carefully and deliberately integrate technology (Tondeur et al., 2020 ). This is particularly useful in rural contexts, as it can guide teachers to make the most of available digital resources, tools and devices for effective teaching and learning. The SAMR model presents four ways or levels whereby technology is integrated into teaching (Buledi & Badariah, 2024 ). At the level of Substitution, in a rural context, digital pedagogy may be used to replace traditional pedagogy without any change in function. Substitution may involve replacing paper-based worksheets and activities with free digital worksheets, textbooks, and activities that learners can access anytime, anywhere (Haryani & Hamidah, 2022 ). This type of Substitution allows teachers to integrate digital pedagogy within their educational context with minimal disruption to their current pedagogy, making resources accessible even when tangible resources (such as printing paper, ink, and textbooks) are limited. In conjunction with Substitution, Augmentation is used to enhance or improve learning experiences by advancing learner engagement and collaboration, even with the use of basic technology. For instance, online platforms and discussion forums can be used so that all learners can receive feedback from the teacher and their peers on their challenges with problem-solving activities synchronously (Rinekso & Muslim, 2020 ). At the Modification level, traditional tasks are significantly redesigned with the integration of technology, allowing for an interactive and collaborative learning experience that may not be possible with traditional resources. This may include using project-based learning, which relies on technology, for example, creating a PowerPoint presentation focusing on specific mathematical concepts and incorporating images, video clips and other interactive slides to facilitate learning (Chua & Islam, 2021 ). Redefinition is the uppermost level of the SAMR model with far-reaching potential to transform teaching and learning experiences. At this level, technology enables new tasks to be created that were previously unimaginable in a traditional classroom context. Rural learners can now participate in virtual mathematics competitions, activities, and live conferences (Squire, 2022 ). At this level, learners have the opportunity to access material and human resources globally or engage in virtual simulations or experiments, regardless of geographical isolation. In light of these considerations, the SAMR model is suitable for framing the study under focus. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Research Design The main research question guiding this study focused on exploring mathematics teachers’ perceptions of integrating digital pedagogy in rural schools. To respond to the main research question, the study used a sequential explanatory mixed-methods approach to explore mathematics teachers’ perceptions of integrating digital pedagogy in rural schools. The design included two phases. The first phase was a quantitative phase, which was used to collect numerical data through a questionnaire. The second phase was a qualitative phase, which involved the use of semi-structured interviews to obtain an in-depth understanding of teachers’ perspectives and experiences. The sequential explanatory mixed-methods approach allowed for a thorough exploration of the research problem. Research Procedure Informed consent forms were distributed to 33 mathematics teachers who taught at rural schools. These teachers were also postgraduate students at the participating university. Twenty-eight mathematics teachers consented to participate in the study. The research involved two sequential phases. Phase one was the quantitative phase, which involved the distribution of a questionnaire to the 28 participants. The questionnaire included closed-ended and Likert Scale items focusing on biographical details, participants’ experiences and perceptions, and knowledge about digital pedagogy. Phase two was the qualitative phase. In this phase, individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 purposively selected mathematics teachers to provide in-depth perceptions of their experiences and knowledge of the use of digital pedagogy for mathematics. The blend of qualitative and quantitative approaches provided a comprehensive understanding of how digital pedagogy is perceived and implemented in rural contexts. Thus, this research design was appropriate to address the main research question, which sought to explore mathematics teachers’ perceptions of integrating digital pedagogy in rural schools. Ethical Considerations Participants for this study were mathematics teachers teaching at rural schools. These mathematics teachers were also postgraduate students at the participating university. Ethical clearance for this study was applied for and approved by the research office of the participating university (Research Ethics Approval Number: HSSREC/0003472/2021). Participants signed informed consent forms first, before participating in the study. The informed consent form was comprehensive (Burchfield et al., 2024) and provided thorough information about the study and the data generation process. Additionally, the informed consent form provided information to participants regarding the maintenance of their confidentiality and anonymity, as well as information concerning the secure storage of all data and the participants’ rights to leave the study without prejudice. Population and Sample The population for this study was 33 mathematics teachers teaching at rural schools, all of whom were also postgraduate students at the participating university. It must be acknowledged that due to their affiliation with the participating university, these participants would know more about digital tools and digital pedagogy due to the access and exposure to university resources. The study sample consisted of 28 teachers who consented to participate (n = 17 Male and n = 11 Female). These participants participated in phase one of the study and submitted a completed questionnaire. After that, 12 teachers were purposively selected (Ubah et al., 2020) to participate in phase two of the study based on an analysis of their responses to items on the questionnaire. Participant Coding Codes were allocated for each participant to maintain confidentiality and anonymity. Codes were allocated based on the order in which the signed informed consent forms were collected. The participant who submitted their signed informed consent form first was coded as Mathematics Teacher 1 (MT 1), and the participant who submitted their signed informed consent form last was coded as Mathematics Teacher 28 (MT 28). Table 1 shows the biographical information of the sample population for this study. Table 1 Demographics of the Participants Code Gender Age Teaching Experience Highest Qualification MT 1 Male 20-29 years 0-5 years Bachelor of Education Degree MT 2 Female 30-39 years 6-10 years Bachelor of Education Honours Degree MT 3 Male 30-39 years 6-10 years Bachelor of Commerce Degree MT 4 Male 30-39 years 6-10 years Bachelor of Science Degree MT 5 Male > 60 years > 20 years Master’s in Education Degree MT 6 Female 20-29 years 6-10 years Bachelor of Education Honours Degree MT 7 Male 30-39 years 6-10 years Bachelor of Education Honours Degree MT 8 Male 30-39 years 0-5 years Bachelor of Science Degree MT 9 Male 30-39 years 16-20 years Master’s in Education Degree MT 10 Male 50-59 years > 20 years Master’s in Education Degree MT 11 Male 40-49 years 11-15 years Bachelor of Education Honours Degree MT 12 Female 20-29 years 0-5 years Bachelor of Education Degree MT 13 Male 30-39 years 6-10 years Bachelor of Education Honours Degree MT 14 Male 20-29 years 0-5 years Bachelor of Education Degree MT 15 Female 50-59 years 11-15 years Master’s in Education Degree MT 16 Female 30-39 years 6-10 years Bachelor of Education Honours Degree MT 17 Male 30-39 years 6-10 years Bachelor of Education Degree MT 18 Female 40-49 years 11-15 years Bachelor of Science Degree MT 19 Female 40-49 years 16-20 years Bachelor of Education Degree MT 20 Male 30-39 years 6-10 years Bachelor of Education Degree MT 21 Female 40-49 years 11-15 years Bachelor of Education Degree MT 22 Female 30-39 years 6-10 years Bachelor of Education Degree MT 23 Male 50-59 years > 20 years Bachelor of Education Honours Degree MT 24 Female 30-39 years 11-15 years Bachelor of Science Degree MT 25 Female 50-59 years 16-20 years Master’s in Education Degree MT 26 Male 20-29 years 6-10 years Bachelor of Education Degree MT 27 Male 20-29 years 0-5 years Bachelor of Education Degree MT 28 Male 30-39 years 11-15 years Bachelor of Science Degree Data Collection Methods Data collection began in the third term of the 2022 school year (July-September 2022). Data collection for this study involved two sequential phases. The first data generation phase included the distribution of a questionnaire to all 28 mathematics teachers who consented to participate in the study. The second data generation phase involved conducting individual semi-structured interviews with 12 purposively selected mathematics teachers. Prior to conducting the study, the research design, methodology and instruments were shared and discussed with other experts in the field for peer review and validation. These experts reviewed the questionnaire for content validity and reliability. Thereafter, the experts perused the questions for the semi-structured interview to ensure credibility and trustworthiness. Moreover, the transcribed interviews were shared with the participants for member checking to ensure the credibility of the transcribed data. The Questionnaire The questionnaire followed a 3-point Likert Scale format with the response options Disagree, Neutral and Agree. The questionnaire included two sections with a total of six questions. Section A focused on the biographical details of the participants and included five closed-ended multiple-choice questions. Section B included one Likert Scale question with ten items focusing on the participants’ perceptions about using digital tools in their rural mathematics classrooms. To enhance the reliability and robustness of the data, the questionnaire items were developed after a thorough literature review and were aligned with the research objectives of the study. To ensure content validity, the questionnaire was discussed and shared with experts in the field for peer review and validation. The combination of Section A and Section B (biographical and targeted perceptual items) allowed for the triangulation of qualitative findings. This supported the credibility of the overall findings. A questionnaire was distributed in person to each participant at a time convenient for that participant to complete it. The questionnaire took the participants between 10-15 minutes to complete, and completed questionnaires were collected on the same day that they were distributed. The Semi-structured Interview A semi-structured interview was conducted one-on-one with each of the 12 purposively selected participants. Each interview lasted between 45-60 minutes. The interview started with a few common questions to place participants at ease. Thereafter, five carefully structured questions were asked. These questions focused on the participant’s experiences of using digital pedagogy for mathematics, their current pedagogy, and their perceptions of integrating digital pedagogy for mathematics. Data Analysis Quantitative Data Analysis The questionnaire analysis was conducted using Excel. The following steps were taken. Data was inputted and organised in columns and rows. Each row represented each of the 28 participants, and each column represented each of the 15 questions. For the closed-ended questions (e.g., Multiple-Choice Options), the actual options from the questionnaire were inputted (i.e., Male, 0-5 years, Female, 6-10 years, etc.). For the Likert Scale items, numerical values were inputted (e.g., 1-3, where 1 = Disagree, 2 = Neutral and 3 = Agree). After that, descriptive statistics were calculated. The mean was calculated for each Likert Scale item. This assisted in providing information about which option participants were inclined towards in terms of agreement, neutral or disagreement. Subsequently, the mode was calculated, which assisted in identifying the most frequent patterns from the data. For the closed-ended questions, frequency counts were done, which assisted in calculating how often each response occurred. In addition, bar charts were created to visually represent the data from the questionnaire. Qualitative Data Analysis The qualitative data analysis process followed a rigorous thematic analysis approach, which allowed for the classification of themes and subthemes. The first step was to transcribe each interview verbatim. Thereafter, the transcribed data was shared with the participants for member-checking. Once the participants verified their transcripts, the author carefully read each transcript on multiple occasions to ensure familiarisation with the data. After that, the transcribed data was imported into NVivo. Then, initial coding and preliminary nodes were created. Initial coding included inductive (emerging from the transcripts) and deductive (based on the main research question and the SAMR model) coding approaches. A word cloud was developed to visually represent the most frequent words used by the participants during the interviews. These words were compared with the themes and subthemes that were developed by inductive coding. The subsequent process included grouping initial codes, nodes and common words into possible themes and subthemes. Themes and subthemes were studied to ensure they accurately represented the data. Finally, the themes and subthemes were verified and finalised. This comprehensive analysis of the qualitative data generated for this study ensured a rigorous exploration of mathematics teachers’ perceptions of integrating digital pedagogy in rural schools. Limitations of the Research Methodology The limitation of this mixed-method study is the small sample size. This limitation may restrict the generalisability of the findings. In addition, disparities in participant experiences with digital pedagogy within rural school contexts may be subject to bias, affecting the reliability and comparability of the data collected across the sample (Boldt et al., 2017). Sample bias may also be due to the participants’ affiliation with the participating university and their access to university resources. Moreover, rural contexts may vary in access to resources, teachers’ expertise in and application of digital pedagogy, and the availability of the necessary infrastructure. These differences may affect the transferability of the findings. Numerous procedures were followed to address these limitations and ensure the credibility of the findings. First, data triangulation was used by including quantitative (questionnaires) and qualitative (semi-structured interviews) methods for collecting data. This allowed for the cross-validation of findings. Second, purposive sampling of participants for the qualitative phase ensured that the participants had diverse backgrounds and experiences in digital pedagogy. This procedure ensured that various perspectives were included. Third, member checking was used to ensure that participants established the accuracy of their responses. Finally, clear descriptions of the school contexts and participants’ experiences were included to advance the transferability of the findings to similar settings. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Quantitative Findings and Discussion Bar charts were created using Excel. The bar charts provide a visual representation of participant demographics concerning age, gender and teaching experience. Figure 1 displays the age and gender of the participants. From the information in Figure 1, the majority of the Male participants (n = 9) and the majority of Female participants (n = 4) were between 30-39 years old. The same number of Male and Female participants (n = 2) were 50 – 59 years old. Only one Male participant was older than 60 years. For the age group 40-49 years, there were three Female participants and one Male participant. For the age group 20-29 years, there were twice as many Male participants (n = 4) than Female participants (n = 2). Figure 2 illustrates the teaching experience of the participants. From Figure 2, it is evident that only the Male participants had teaching experience of greater than 20 years (n = 3), and more Male participants had teaching experience of between 6-10 years (n = 7) and 0-5 years (n = 4). More Female participants than Male participants had teaching experience of 11-15 years (n = 4) and 16-20 years (n = 2). The descriptive statistics calculated for the Likert Scale items are shown in Table 2. Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for the Likert Scale Items Item Mean Median Mode Count 1. I am confident in using digital tools to teach mathematics. 1.46 1 1 28 2. The integration of digital pedagogy will improve my learners’ understanding of mathematical concepts. 2.43 2 2 28 3. I have adequate training and support to use digital tools in my mathematics classroom. 1.03 1 1 28 4. The use of digital pedagogy is possible, given the infrastructure available in my rural school. 1.60 1 1 28 5. Learners in my classroom are motivated to learn mathematics with digital tools and resources. 2.32 2 2 28 6. Digital pedagogy helps me adapt my teaching instruction to the diverse learning needs of my learners. 2.21 2 2 28 7. I believe digital tools and resources improve my learners’ mathematical problem-solving skills. 2.57 3 3 28 8. The use of digital pedagogy requires more preparation time than traditional teaching methods. 2.43 2 2 28 9. I have challenges accessing stable Internet or digital resources in my rural school. 3 3 3 28 10. I believe integrating digital pedagogy into mathematics instruction is important for preparing my learners for the future. 2.54 3 3 28 An analysis of Table 2 indicates that most participants disagreed with Likert Scale items 1, 3 and 4. These responses indicate that the participants were not confident in using digital tools to teach mathematics, they did not have adequate training and support to use digital tools, and they disagreed that digital pedagogy is possible, given the infrastructure available in their rural schools. For items 2, 5, 6 and 8, the majority of participants provided a neutral response. Furthermore, the majority of participants agreed with items 7, 9 and 10. These responses signpost that the majority of participants agreed that using digital tools and resources could lead to an improvement in learners’ mathematical problem-solving skills. However, most participants face challenges accessing stable internet connections or digital resources at their schools. Nevertheless, they agreed that integrating digital pedagogy into mathematics instruction was important for preparing learners for the future. From the analysis of the descriptive statistics, it is evident that participants lack confidence in using digital tools to teach mathematics (Redmond et al., 2021; Reinhold et al., 2021). Participants indicated that they did not have sufficient training and support to use digital tools in their mathematics classrooms effectively. Furthermore, the implementation of digital pedagogy was not possible at some rural schools due to insufficient infrastructure. Nevertheless, participants agreed that digital pedagogy has the potential to enhance learners’ mathematical skills and prepare learners for the future (Timotheou et al., 2023). The analysis of questionnaire responses led to the invitation of 12 purposively selected participants for semi-structured interviews. Qualitative Findings and Discussion The individual semi-structured interview transcripts were uploaded onto NVivo, and a word cloud was generated using the word frequency query. The word cloud assisted in providing a visual representation of the words that were used most frequently by the participants. This step assisted in verifying the initial inductive coding for the study. The word cloud in Figure 3 reveals the keywords that NVivo generated. Subsequently, the interview transcripts were coded deductively to reveal key themes. The inductive and deductive coding revealed two major themes for this study. The first was the strengths of integrating digital pedagogy in rural mathematics classrooms, and the second was the challenges involved. Participants expressed a positive outlook towards the potential of integrating digital pedagogy to personalise learning opportunities, increase learner engagement and prepare learners for the digital workforce. Others emphasised significant challenges such as inadequate infrastructure, limited professional development, and lack of supporting structures. The study also reveals that participants often rely on traditional pedagogical strategies due to inadequate infrastructure. However, they were willing to integrate digital pedagogy if provided with the necessary support, professional development and training (Admiraal et al., 2023; Thurm & Barzel, 2022). This emphasises the need for targeted intervention programmes and sustainable resolutions to bridge the digital divide in rural contexts. The major themes and subthemes are discussed in the following section. Strengths of integrating digital pedagogy in rural mathematics classrooms Participants’ perceptions regarding the strengths of digital pedagogy revealed three major subthemes. These three subthemes included creating personalised learning opportunities, increasing learner engagement, and preparing learners for the digital workforce. Personalised learning opportunities Participants recognise the value of using digital tools and resources, indicating that digital pedagogy supports personalised learning. This is evident from the selected interview transcript excerpts below. MT 2: “…it is high time technology is incorporated…benefit both the teachers and learners…the mathematics syllabus is long…with the availability of technology, learners can be able to push their work and work at their own pace… finishing all the concepts.” MT 23: “… digital pedagogy appeals to the learners’ senses and enhances different learning styles…” MT 27: “…platforms and applications accommodate different learning styles and abilities … easy for learners to work at their own pace … enables educators … to adapt their lessons to meet the needs of their diverse learners…” Digital pedagogy allows teachers to personalise educational experiences. In this way, learner’s individual learning needs and styles are addressed (Kearney et al., 2022). Along similar lines, the SAMR (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition) model can support teachers in promoting personalised mathematics learning in the classroom. By using the SAMR model, teachers can gradually integrate technology at the Substitution and Augmentation levels. This approach will enable them to use technology gradually to enhance traditional teaching methods and to provide personalised feedback and learning experiences (Tondeur et al., 2020). At the Augmentation, Modification and Redefinition levels, learners can work with collaborative tools that focus on individual learning gaps, allowing them to work at their own pace. Increased learner engagement Participants indicated that digital pedagogy promotes dynamic learner interaction and engagement in the classroom. This is evident from the selected interview transcript excerpts below. MT 2: “… makes learning more fun and engaging for learners…digital pedagogy facilitates dynamic lessons where learners participate actively…” MT 5: “…maximises classroom time for engagement…more classroom interaction amongst learners and the teacher…” MT 9: “…increase interaction and learner engagement…” MT 27: “… digital tools enhance peer interaction…” Digital pedagogy promotes fun, interaction and engagement in the mathematics classroom (Cevikbas & Kaiser, 2023). Similarly, the SAMR model promotes learner interaction and engagement. At the Modification and Redefinition levels, teachers can use digital pedagogy to transform traditional activities into interactive, engaging experiences that make learning active and relevant. Preparation for the digital workforce Participants felt that learners should receive training in digital tools to develop essential skills for future educational and work opportunities. This is evident from the selected interview transcript excerpts below. MT 5: “…digital skills are important for the job market…” MT 9: “…digital tools enhance their educational and career prospects…” MT 14: “…digital pedagogy prepares learners for the digital future…” MT 23: “…teaching with digital tools and teaching digital skills prepares them for the technology-driven job market…” Integrating technology, digital tools and resources in the mathematics classroom helps learners develop important skills for the future (Timotheou et al., 2023). Moreover, the SAMR model supports the preparation of learners for the digital workforce. Guided by the SAMR model, teachers can encourage learners to participate in technology-based tasks in the classroom. At the Augmentation and Modification levels, teachers can support learners in acquiring essential skills needed to navigate complex technological environments. Learners are prepared for the digital workforce by being exposed to environments similar to those in contemporary technology-driven industries. Challenges of integrating digital pedagogy in rural mathematics classrooms Participants’ perceptions regarding the challenges of digital pedagogy revealed three major subthemes. These three subthemes included inadequate infrastructure, limited professional development and lack of supporting structures. Inadequate infrastructure Participants face challenges with integrating digital pedagogy in rural mathematics classrooms due to the lack of educational materials and resources, unstable internet connections and inadequate infrastructure to support digital pedagogy. The following excerpts from interview transcripts illustrate this point. MT 10: “…educational infrastructure and resources are limited…limited Internet access…learners don’t have access to many resources…” MT 17: “…difficult to use digital pedagogy…challenges…limited access to technology and reliable internet…” MT 20: “…I am limited in teaching with technology…lack of infrastructure…unstable internet access…” MT 21: “…instruction with technology-based tools is difficult…challenge with limited access to resources and materials…limited internet access…” To use digital pedagogy effectively, it is important to have adequate infrastructure, stable internet connections and the necessary educational resources and materials (Aruleba & Jere, 2022; Spiteri & Rundgren, 2020). Teachers in rural contexts should start by evaluating available technology and infrastructure. If resources are limited, the SAMR model can be a useful guide to teachers. Starting at the Substitution and Augmentation levels allows teachers to build a basis for more advanced technology integration over time, progressing to the Modification and Redefinition levels. Limited professional development Participants indicated that they are not adequately trained to integrate digital pedagogy effectively in their mathematics classrooms. This is evident from the selected interview transcript excerpts below. MT 4: “… I have limited devices and insufficient teacher training to use digital pedagogy…” MT 17: “… we need resources and training for both educators and students…” MT 28: “… to integrate digital pedagogy in mathematics, educators need continuous professional development to adapt to the different digital tools…” Teachers require devices, resources, tools, professional development and training on how to use these effectively (Brenya, 2024; Hennessy et al., 2022; Kamat & Nasnodkar, 2019). The SAMR model offers a useful framework for teachers, enabling them to gradually progress from the Substitution to the Augmentation levels. This approach guides and supports teachers as they become more comfortable with the use of digital tools and devices (Haryani & Hamidah, 2022). As the SAMR model guides teachers, their pedagogy evolves, providing learners with more productive and engaging learning experiences. Lack of scaffolding structures Participants believe that, in addition to professional development and training, collaborating with fellow teachers to share digital teaching strategies and resources would be beneficial. This collaboration would enhance their effectiveness in using digital pedagogy. Additionally, participants mentioned the need for technical support. MT 4: “… we need to build a network of support beyond the immediate environment and school…” MT 10: “… important to collaborate, share resources, and support each other…overcoming isolation in rural schools…” MT 20: “…ongoing technical support are essential for the successful integration of digital pedagogy…” MT 28: “…need to organise tech support groups to help with equipment… support from other teachers who can share their strategies…reduce feelings of isolation…” As is clear from these comments, collaboration and the sharing of resources, devices, and technology-based teaching strategies are beneficial, particularly given the limited digital resources, materials and devices available (Ye & Yang, 2020). Creating communities of practice or networks in rural areas is an important step to strengthen the support structures needed by teachers while also helping to reduce feelings of isolation, as mentioned by MT 10 and MT 28. Additionally, technical support is crucial to ensure that digital tools are used effectively and properly maintained (Esteve‐Mon et al., 2023). The findings of this study linked to the SAMR model are illustrated in Table 3. Table 3 Findings of the Study Linked to the SAMR Model SAMR Level Description Examples from Findings Substitution Digital pedagogy was used as a substitute for traditional pedagogy, with no change in function. The participating teachers used PowerPoint presentations for lessons instead of textbooks and worksheets. Augmentation Digital pedagogy was used as a substitute, but there was functional improvement when digital pedagogy was used. The participants used video clips during the lessons to initiate active learner interaction. Modification The use of digital pedagogy allowed the teachers to transform the activity/task. Learners engaged with the dynamic software programme GeoGebra to collaborate on problem-solving tasks. Redefinition Digital tools and pedagogy allowed for the redesign and recreation of new tasks/activities that would not be possible with traditional pedagogy. The participating teachers helped learners to participate in virtual mathematics competitions and contests so that learners could participate regardless of their location. As is evident, the SAMR model again offers a helpful scaffolding structure for teachers in rural schools. It supports teachers at the Substitution and Augmentation levels, allowing them to skilfully integrate technology at the Modification and Redefinition levels in ways that develop learning while maximising the potential of the available resources. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The study sought to explore mathematics teachers’ perceptions of integrating digital pedagogy in rural schools. This field of study offers valuable insights into mathematics education in rural contexts. The findings highlight both the strengths and challenges of integrating digital pedagogy in rural mathematics classrooms. Participants expressed a positive attitude toward integrating digital pedagogy in mathematics classrooms, noting that digital pedagogy offers opportunities to personalise learning, increase learner engagement and better prepare learners for careers in the digital workforce. On the other hand, participants felt that integrating digital pedagogy in mathematics classrooms was constrained by inadequate infrastructure, limited professional development and the lack of supporting structures. The findings of this study indicate that digital pedagogy can provide personalised learning by allowing students to progress at their own pace. Integrating digital pedagogy in the classroom can assist teachers in preparing learners for an increasingly digital world. Nonetheless, several challenges impede progress. Limited access to reliable internet, digital devices, and technology infrastructure is a widespread issue in rural contexts. This lack of access prevents teachers and learners from effectively utilising digital tools. Another significant challenge is professional development and training. Many teachers may not be familiar with digital tools or how to integrate them effectively into their pedagogy. The findings of this study underscore the need for recommendations, such as the following, to be put in place to close the digital divide in rural contexts. Short-term: Promoting collaboration and the establishment of teacher networks: The study revealed feelings of isolation among rural teachers. School management teams and district offices should encourage the promotion of digital teaching networks and teacher mentorship programmes. This will advance collaboration between schools and teachers with a view to establishing networks for teachers in rural areas and alleviating the isolation they feel. Collaboration and the creation of teacher networks can foster a supportive environment for the integration of digital pedagogy. Medium-term: Targeted professional development and training: The study revealed limited access to professional development and training in rural areas. The Department of Basic Education should implement continuous targeted programmes, workshops, and training sessions to support teachers in rural schools. These programmes will provide teachers with the essential information and skills needed to integrate digital pedagogy in rural contexts effectively. These targeted intervention programmes will also demonstrate sustainable solutions relating to integrating digital pedagogy in rural classrooms. These targeted professional development and training programmes ought to be evaluated regularly by observing classroom practice and obtaining feedback from teachers. Long-term: Investment in digital infrastructure: The study revealed limited access to technology-based devices, tools, internet access and technology infrastructure in rural schools. The Department of Basic Education needs to prioritise the provision of sufficient digital tools, devices, and reliable and stable internet access. This type of investment is important to scaffold the integration of digital pedagogy in rural schools. This investment will assist in bridging the digital divide that was evident in this study. These recommendations aim to bridge the gap in integrating digital pedagogy in rural mathematics classrooms with the aim of empowering teachers and improving learner interaction and achievement. Declarations Competing Interest There are no competing interests to declare. Clinical trial number Not applicable. Funding The author did not receive support from any organisation for the submitted work. Author Contribution J N is the sole contributor to this article’s conceptualisation, data generation, analysis, and write-up. Acknowledgement Not Applicable. Data Availability To protect the identity of the participants, the data cannot be shared openly. However, the data is available from the author upon reasonable request. References Admiraal, W., Kittelsen Røberg, K.I., Wiers-Jenssen, J., & Saab, N. (2023). Mind the gap: Early-career teachers’ level of preparedness, professional development, working conditions, and feelings of distress. Social Psychology of Education, 26 (6), 1759-1787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-023-09819-6 Aguirre, T., Aperribai, L., Cortabarría, L., Verche, E., & Borges, Á. (2022). Challenges for teachers’ and students’ digital abilities: A mixed methods design study. Sustainability, 14 (8), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084729 Ahuja, S., & Yadav, D. (2019). Effect of digital pedagogy interventions in rural areas. MIER Journal of Educational Studies Trends and Practices , 9 (2), 227-240. https://doi.org/10.52634/mier/2019/v9/i2/1385 Arbo, J.B., & Ching, D.A. (2022). Problem-based learning approach in developing mathematical skills. International Journal of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics , 2 (1), 26-47. https://doi.org/10.53378/352873 Aruleba, K., & Jere, N. (2022). Exploring digital transforming challenges in rural areas of South Africa through a systematic review of empirical studies. Scientific African, 16, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2022.e01190 Baker, C.K. (2022). Learning to design effective professional development: The influence of integrating a coaching tool with an elementary mathematics specialist course assignment. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 25 (5), 555-580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-021-09507-2 Boldt, A., De Gardelle, V., & Yeung, N. (2017). The impact of evidence reliability on sensitivity and bias in decision confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance , 43 (8), 1520–1531. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000404 Brenya, B. (2024). Higher education in emergency situation: Blended learning prospects and challenges for educators in the developing countries. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 16 (4), 1015-1028. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-01-2023-0044 Buledi, M.H., & Badariah, T.A.T. (2024). Exploring digital technology usage among English language instructors at a Saudi Higher Education Institution and validating a hierarchical structure of usage based on the SAMR model. IIUM Journal of Educational Studies, 12 (1), 90-111. https://journals.iium.edu.my/ijes/index.php/iejs/article/view/446/222 Burchfield, M.A., Rosenberg, J.M., & Stegenga, S.M. (2024). Informed or outdated consent? An investigation into the media release policies of school districts in the United States. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 2024 (1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2024.2313614 Carpenter, D., & Munshower, P. (2020). Broadening borders to build better schools: Virtual professional learning communities. International Journal of Educational Management, 34 (2), 296-314. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-09-2018-0296 Cevikbas, M., & Kaiser, G. (2023). Can flipped classroom pedagogy offer promising perspectives for mathematics education on pandemic-related issues? A systematic literature review. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 55( 1), 177-191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-022-01388-w Chen, C.H., Jong, M.S.Y., & Tsai, C.C. (2022). A comparison of in-service teachers’ conceptions of barriers to mobile technology-integrated instruction and technology-integrated instruction. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 38 (2), 35-50. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7299 Chua, K.J., & Islam, M.R. (2021). The hybrid project-based learning–flipped classroom: A design project module redesigned to foster learning and engagement. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education, 49 (4), 289-315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306419019838335 Cirneanu, A.L., & Moldoveanu, C.E. (2024). Use of Digital Technology in Integrated Mathematics Education. Applied System Innovation, 7 (4), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.3390/asi7040066 Dalby, D., & Swan, M. (2019). Using digital technology to enhance formative assessment in mathematics classrooms. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50 (2), 832-845. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12606 Department of Basic Education (2018). Rural education draft policy. Department of Basic Education. https://www.education.gov.za/Resources/Policies.aspx Department of Education (2004). White paper on e-Education. Department of Education. https://wcedeportal.co.za/eresource/257176 Drijvers, P., & Sinclair, N. (2024). The role of digital technologies in mathematics education: purposes and perspectives. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 56 (2), 239-248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01535-x Egara, F.O., & Mosimege, M. (2024). Effect of flipped classroom learning approach on mathematics achievement and interest among secondary school students. Education and Information Technologies, 29 (7), 8131-8150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12145-1 Esteve‐Mon, F.M., Postigo‐Fuentes, A.Y., & Castañeda, L. (2023). A strategic approach of the crucial elements for the implementation of digital tools and processes in higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, 77(3), 558-573. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12411 Haj-Yahya, A., & Olsher, S. (2022). Preservice teachers’ experiences with digital formative assessment in mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 53 (7), 1751-1769. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2020.1842527 Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Qadri, M.A., & Suman, R. (2022). Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review. Sustainable Operations and Computers, 3 , 275-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004 Haryani, F., & Hamidah, A.S. (2022). Exploring the impact of technology-integrated mathematics worksheets in the teaching and learning during COVID-19 pandemic. Mathematics Teaching Research Journal, 14 (3), 39-59. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1361559.pdf Hennessy, S., D’Angelo, S., McIntyre, N., Koomar, S., Kreimeia, A., Cao, L., Brugha, M., & Zubairi, A. (2022). Technology use for teacher professional development in low and middle-income countries: A systematic review. Computers and Education Open, 3 , 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100080 Jerry, M., & Yunus, M.M. (2021). Blended learning in rural primary ESL classroom: Do or don’t. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 20 (2), 152-173. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.2.9 Joswick, C., Skultety, L., & Olsen, A.A. (2023). Mathematics, Learning Disabilities, and Learning Styles: A Review of Perspectives Published by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Education Sciences, 13 (10), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13101023 Kamat, Y., & Nasnodkar, S. (2019). A survey on the barriers and facilitators to edtech adoption in rural schools in developing countries. International Journal of Intelligent Automation and Computing , 2 (1), 32-51. https://research.tensorgate.org/index.php/IJIAC/article/view/58 Kearney, M., Schuck, S., & Burden, K. (2022). Digital pedagogies for future school education: Promoting inclusion. Irish Educational Studies, 41 (1), 117-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2021.2024446 König, J., Gerhard, K., & Jäger-Biela, D.J. (2022). Practical learning opportunities and changes in teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs: Does the development of bachelor student teachers’ competence differ before and during COVID-19? Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung, 12 (2), 217-234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s35834-022-00357-3 Kormos, E., & Wisdom, K. (2021). Rural schools and the digital divide: Technology in the learning experience. Theory & Practice in Rural Education, 11 (1), 25-39. https://doi.org/10.3776/tpre.2021.v11n1p25-39 Loong, E. Y. K., & Herbert, S. (2018). Primary school teachers’ use of digital technology in mathematics: the complexities. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 30, 475-498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-018-0235-9 Maharjan, P. (2023). Digital devices used in a secondary school: A case study of access and use in learning mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Education (JME) , 5 (1), 110-123. https://doi.org/10.3126/jme.v5i1.60859 Mubangizi, B. (2023). What is ‘Rural’ in South Africa, and why does it matter? African Journal of Governance and Development, 12 (2), 1-6. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/ejc-ajgd_v12_n2_a1 Ndungo, I., Nazziwa, C., Kabiswa, W., Opio, P., Akugizibwe, E., & Mpungu, K. (2025). Enhancing STEM instruction through indigenous materials and ICT integration: A critical assessment of teachers’ knowledge, experiences, attitudes, and readiness. East African Journal of Education Studies , 8 (2).132-149. https://doi.org/10.37284/eajes.8.2.2872 Ng, O.L., Ting, F., Lam, W.H., & Liu, M. (2020). Active learning in undergraduate mathematics tutorials via cooperative problem-based learning and peer assessment with interactive online whiteboards. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29, 285-294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00481-1 Onyishi, C.N., & Sefotho, M.M. (2021). Differentiating instruction for learners’ mathematics self-efficacy in inclusive classrooms: Can learners with dyscalculia also benefit? South African Journal of Education, 41 (4), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v41n4a1938 Pozo-Rico, T., Gilar-Corbí, R., Izquierdo, A., & Castejón, J.L. (2020). Teacher training can make a difference: tools to overcome the impact of COVID-19 on primary schools. An experimental study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(22), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228633 Puentedura, R.R. (2020, January 25). SAMR- A research perspective. http://hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2020/01/SAMR_AResearchPerspective.pdf Ramadhani, R., Bina, N.S., Sihotang, S.F., Narpila, S.D., & Mazaly, M.R. (2020). Students’ critical mathematical thinking abilities through flip-problem-based learning model based on LMS-google classroom. Journal of Physics: Conference Series , 1657 (1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1657/1/012025 Redmond, P., Smart, V., Powell, A., & Albion, P. (2021). Primary teachers’ self-assessment of their confidence in implementing digital technologies curriculum. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69 (5), 2895-2915. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10043-2 Reinhold, F., Strohmaier, A., Finger-Collazos, Z., & Reiss, K. (2021). Considering teachers’ beliefs, motivation, and emotions regarding teaching mathematics with digital tools: The effect of an in-service teacher training. Frontiers in Education, 6 , 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.723869 Rinekso, A.B., & Muslim, A.B. (2020). Synchronous online discussion: teaching English in higher education amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. JEES (Journal of English Educators Society), 5 (2), 155-162. https://doi.org/10.21070/jees.v5i2.646 Singh, J., Steele, K., & Singh, L. (2021). Combining the best of online and face-to-face learning: Hybrid and blended learning approach for COVID-19, post-vaccine, & post-pandemic world. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 50 (2), 140-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395211047865 Spiteri, M., & Rundgren, S.N. (2020). Literature review on the factors affecting primary teachers’ use of digital technology. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25 (1), 115-128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9376-x Squire, K.D. (2022). From virtual to participatory learning with technology during COVID-19. E-Learning and Digital Media, 19 (1), 55-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/20427530211022926 Surianshah, S. (2021). Digital divide in education during Covid-19 pandemic. Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, 55 (3), 103-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/JEM-2021-5503-07 Thurm, D., & Barzel, B. (2022). Teaching mathematics with technology: A multidimensional analysis of teacher beliefs. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 109 (1), 41-63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10072-x Timotheou, S., Miliou, O., Dimitriadis, Y., Sobrino, S.V., Giannoutsou, N., Cachia, R., Martínez Monés, A., & Ioannou, A. (2023). Impacts of digital technologies on education and factors influencing schools’ digital capacity and transformation: A literature review. Education and Information Technologies, 28 (6), 6695-6726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11431-8 Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Baran, E. (2020). Enhancing pre-service teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A mixed-method study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68 (1), 319-343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09692-1 Townley, A.L. (2020). Leveraging communities of practice as professional learning communities in science, technology, engineering, math (STEM) education. Education Sciences, 10 (8), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10080190 Ubah, I.J.A., Spangenberg, E.D., & Ramdhany, V. (2020). Blended learning approach to mathematics education modules: An analysis of pre-service teachers’ perceptions. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19 (7), 298-319. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.7.17 Xu, E., Wang, W., & Wang, Q. (2023). The effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking: A meta-analysis based on empirical literature. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10( 1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01508-1 Ye, L., & Yang, H. (2020). From digital divide to social inclusion: A tale of mobile platform empowerment in rural areas. Sustainability, 12 (6), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062424 Yin, Y., Zheng, P., Li, C., & Wang, L. (2023). A state-of-the-art survey on Augmented Reality-assisted Digital Twin for futuristic human-centric industry transformation. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 81 , 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2022.102515 Yohannes, A., & Chen, H.L. (2024). The effect of flipped realistic mathematics education on students’ achievement, mathematics self-efficacy and critical thinking tendency. Education and Information Technologies , 2, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12502-8 Yorganci, S. (2020). Implementing flipped learning approach based on ‘first principles of instruction’ in mathematics courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36 (5), 763-779. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12448 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 26 May, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 12 May, 2025 Reviews received at journal 10 May, 2025 Reviews received at journal 08 May, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 03 May, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 30 Apr, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 29 Apr, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 28 Apr, 2025 First submitted to journal 21 Apr, 2025 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-5955932","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":449595890,"identity":"8154c448-8d4a-49f2-9270-6cac64a6d9e4","order_by":0,"name":"Jayaluxmi Naidoo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of KwaZulu-Natal","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jayaluxmi","middleName":"","lastName":"Naidoo","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-02-04 07:38:26","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5955932/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5955932/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":82050516,"identity":"e6b2410a-6a33-4461-9902-9f42ee4fdf19","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-06 09:57:25","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":23259,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAge and Gender of Participants\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5955932/v1/15dd154622d0ea1522be24dd.png"},{"id":82050517,"identity":"6f63a476-27e6-4a69-8e97-dea2eb2a54af","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-06 09:57:25","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":22484,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTeaching Experience of Participants\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5955932/v1/cb1de1fda43b90dc3e720289.png"},{"id":82050519,"identity":"65fdf54b-4f55-45aa-9c19-42eaaa548978","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-06 09:57:25","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":133957,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWord Cloud Generated by NVivo\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5955932/v1/d991237b84a3bd26b6df7dfc.png"},{"id":82053508,"identity":"6e13f83f-d3d5-4562-ad62-4758a3ce8e91","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-06 10:13:30","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1394323,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5955932/v1/f8e3d32a-4c98-4f65-9b0c-4b1dc7392efd.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Exploring Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions of Integrating Digital Pedagogy in Rural Schools","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eRapid advancements in digital technology have transformed educational contexts globally. Digital tools and devices offer vast opportunities for promoting teaching and learning (Drijvers \u0026amp; Sinclair, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Esteve-Mon et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Haleem et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). For mathematics education, digital tools, such as interactive software programmes, virtual learning platforms, and online resources, promote learner engagement while improving the understanding of abstract mathematical concepts. Digital pedagogy for this study refers to the focused integration of digital tools into teaching and learning methods to advance educational outcomes in rural classrooms. It advances beyond using digital tools for substitution but rather includes using these tools for augmentation, modification, and redefinition, as outlined by the Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) (Puentedura, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). However, many obstacles hinder the effective integration of digital pedagogy in rural classrooms. These obstacles include limited access to high-speed internet, restricted availability of digital tools and devices, and the lack of professional development programmes tailored to the explicit needs of teachers in rural schools (Ahuja \u0026amp; Yadav, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Brenya, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Hennessy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Kamat \u0026amp; Nasnodkar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, the location of rural schools makes it difficult for teachers to collaborate and access ongoing professional training and development. Consequently, teachers in rural schools may feel uncertain or lack confidence in effectively integrating digital tools into pedagogy (Ahuja \u0026amp; Yadav, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Jerry \u0026amp; Yunus, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Redmond et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, understanding teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of digital pedagogy is essential to identify the factors that enable or constrain its effective implementation in rural contexts. Teachers\u0026rsquo; views about digital pedagogy, their confidence in using digital tools, and their views on the effectiveness of digital tools in improving learner outcomes are vital for promoting the successful integration of digital pedagogy (Jerry \u0026amp; Yunus, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Ndungo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Reinhold et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study responds to the main research question: What are mathematics teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of integrating digital pedagogy in rural schools? By exploring mathematics teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions, the intention of this study is to offer insights that can inform policy decisions and the development of targeted interventions to support teachers in rural contexts. Ultimately, the study seeks to enhance mathematics educational outcomes in rural schools locally and globally by providing recommendations for the effective integration of digital pedagogy.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTeaching Strategies for Mathematics Education\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEffective teaching strategies in mathematics focus on developing critical thinking and encouraging active learning and participation. Activities that advance critical thinking and active learning include collaboration, problem-based learning, and group work (Ng et al., 2020; Ramadhani et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2023). These types of activities in the mathematics classroom encourage in-depth understanding and application of mathematical concepts to respond to real-world problems. When teachers incorporate varied activities into their teaching, it helps them adjust their pedagogical approach to support diverse learners with different learning styles and ability levels. Consequently, fostering and advancing inclusive educational environments (Joswick et al., 2023; Onyishi \u0026amp; Sefotho, 2021).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn South Africa, the use of digital pedagogy and technology in classrooms is encouraged by policy. The draft e-Education White Paper endorses the use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in education (Department of Education, 2004). Concerning rural education, the draft policy for rural education encourages the promotion of access to technology and the integration of technology to support education in rural schools (Department of Basic Education, 2018). Moreover, the integration of digital pedagogy and the promotion of problem-based learning is also necessary for contemporary inclusive mathematics classrooms. Problem-based learning encourages learners to develop their critical thinking and active collaboration skills through real-world mathematics problems (Arbo \u0026amp; Ching, 2022). This type of pedagogy advances the link between mathematical concepts and their real-world practical applications. The use of digital tools and resources, such as mathematics software programmes, graphing calculators, interactive online platforms and videos, supports learners as they learn abstract mathematical concepts. Digital tools help learners visualise mathematical concepts so that learning becomes more engaging and interactive (Cirneanu \u0026amp; Moldoveanu, 2024; Haleem et al., 2022).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe use of the blended learning and the flipped classroom approach has also been beneficial for the teaching and learning of mathematics. These transformative approaches support and advance learner understanding and engagement in the contemporary mathematics educational environment. In a blended educational environment, traditional in-person, face-to-face pedagogy is combined with digital tools (Cevikbas \u0026amp; Kaiser, 2023; Singh et al., 2021). This educational environment includes the use of digital tools, offering learners the opportunity to access and utilise online software, resources and activities at their own pace. Thus, learners experience personalised learning, and teachers focus on providing individual support during class time. In a flipped educational environment, learners learn new concepts via online lectures, resources, and readings prior to class (Egara \u0026amp; Mosimege, 2024; Yorganci, 2020). During class time, teachers encourage learners to engage in problem-solving, collaboration, group work and discussions. This approach encourages critical thinking and active learning (Cevikbas \u0026amp; Kaiser, 2023; Yohannes \u0026amp; Chen, 2024), enabling learners to apply mathematical concepts with guidance from the teacher. While these educational environments promote a deeper understanding of the mathematical concepts being taught, encouraging the use of these educational environments relies on the perceptions and attitudes of teachers towards them.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTeacher Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Digital Pedagogy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecently, teacher perceptions and attitudes about the integration of digital pedagogy have progressed largely due to the COVID-19 pandemic (K\u0026ouml;nig et al., 2022). The pandemic compelled teachers globally to integrate technology into their pedagogy. While many teachers recognise the capability of digital tools to enrich learner outcomes and engagement, some have concerns about the challenges linked with implementation (Chen et al., 2022). Accordingly, teachers\u0026rsquo; attitudes about integrating digital pedagogy are influenced by factors such as infrastructure, support, technological self-efficacy, and professional development (Admiraal et al., 2023; Maharjan, 2023; Ndungo et al., 2025). These factors are key in ensuring the effective integration of digital technology in educational environments.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDue to teachers\u0026rsquo; positive experiences with digital tools during the COVID-19 pandemic, the integration of digital pedagogy in traditional classroom contexts has advanced (Pozo-Rico et al., 2020). Similarly, many teachers indicate that they are more confident in effectively integrating digital pedagogy. Also, teachers acknowledge the potential of digital pedagogy to personalise learning experiences and prepare learners for the future (Timotheou et al., 2023). However, challenges persist, including concerns about the importance of ongoing professional development, training, and equal access to digital tools, devices and technology (Maharjan, 2023; Yin et al., 2023). Thus, teachers in rural educational contexts still face the challenges of limited access to the Internet, unstable connectivity, and a lack of infrastructure.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRural Educational Contexts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRural educational contexts for this study are sparsely populated regions with limited access to infrastructure, resources, social services and have higher poverty levels (Mubangizi, 2023). As a result, teachers in rural contexts encounter unique challenges when integrating digital pedagogy in their educational contexts. For instance, they may face difficulties due to inadequate and unstable Internet connectivity and outdated or non-existent infrastructure (Aruleba \u0026amp; Jere, 2022; Maharjan, 2023; Ndungo et al., 2025). These obstacles widen the gap in access to technology between urban and rural schools, leading to a digital divide from unequal availability and access to technology (Surianshah, 2021; Ye \u0026amp; Yang, 2020). These challenges can impede a teacher\u0026rsquo;s ability to use digital pedagogy effectively. In addition, budget constraints impact the procurement and maintenance of digital tools, software, and devices, which affects teachers\u0026rsquo; ability to integrate digital pedagogy (Kormos \u0026amp; Wisdom, 2021). Apart from limited access to material resources, rural teachers also experience challenges relating to inadequate professional development and training, as well as limited access to scaffolding structures for advancing digital pedagogy. These challenges can undermine teachers\u0026rsquo; conviction and readiness to embrace digital pedagogy (Spiteri \u0026amp; Rundgren, 2020).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite these challenges, research has shown that rural teachers have a positive attitude towards digital pedagogy. For example, some rural teachers view digital pedagogy as a means of providing their learners with educational experiences and opportunities that might otherwise be inaccessible due to their geographical location (Kormos \u0026amp; Wisdom, 2021). Other teachers recognise the potential of digital pedagogy to support them in providing personalised and inclusive education in their classrooms (Kearney et al., 2022). Additionally, some teachers use digital pedagogy to connect their learners with broader learning communities (Carpenter \u0026amp; Munshower, 2020). Despite these positive attitudes and experiences, rural teachers emphasise the need for improved professional development to integrate digital pedagogy effectively.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProfessional Development for Mathematics Teachers\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProfessional development for integrating digital pedagogy in mathematics classrooms has become increasingly important in recent years. Effective mathematic professional development programmes concentrate on advancing both technological skills and instructional applications specific to mathematics pedagogy (Thurm \u0026amp; Barzel, 2022). These programmes focus on interactive, hands-on experiences with digital tools, devices, and software programmes, such as dynamic geometry software and collaborative online platforms. Sustained professional development programmes focused on mathematical content are more effective than once-off workshops (Baker, 2022). Teachers benefit from this approach by updating their skills and receiving direction and guidance on teaching approaches, which builds their confidence levels and allows for continuous reflection and growth. In line with this, content-specific professional development programmes include peer mentoring, creating online communities of practice, and ongoing support to help mathematics teachers apply new strategies in their classrooms (Townley, 2020).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor teaching and learning mathematics, important areas of focus for professional development programmes include using digital pedagogy for the visualisation of mathematical concepts, data analysis, and problem-solving. In addition, strategies for variation when using digital tools for instruction and formative assessments are important (Dalby \u0026amp; Swan, 2019; Haj-Yahya \u0026amp; Olsher, 2022). However, challenges exist, such as time constraints, varying levels of technological proficiency among teachers, and unequal access to digital tools and devices. Additionally, integrating digital pedagogy into the curriculum poses a challenge (Loong \u0026amp; Herbert, 2018; Ndungo et al., 2025). Notwithstanding this, professional development programmes that are well-designed and appropriately implemented can boost mathematics teachers\u0026rsquo; confidence in integrating digital pedagogy effectively in their classrooms. However, attending professional development programmes poses a challenge for teachers located in rural contexts due to geographical location and possible isolation, as indicated by previous research conducted in developing areas, for example, in India and East Africa (Ahuja \u0026amp; Yadav, 2019; Maharjan, 2023; Ndungo et al., 2025).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile existing literature emphasises the benefits of digital pedagogy and the significance of professional development for mathematics teachers, there is limited research on the perceptions and experiences of mathematics teachers in rural schools regarding its use. This gap is more evident in relation to the contextual, professional, and infrastructural challenges specific to rural contexts. The purpose of this study is to respond to this gap by exploring rural mathematics teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions and experiences, with the aim of revealing their needs for the successful use of digital pedagogy in mathematics education.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition Model\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study under focus was framed within the ambits of the Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) model. The SAMR module was developed in 2006 by Puentedura and is widely used in research focusing on the use of technology in education (Puentedura, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). It is a model that helps teachers think about how and why they use technology, and how they can leverage it to transform their pedagogy. Thus, the SAMR model explores how integrating technology into pedagogy can transform teaching and learning experiences by affording teachers the opportunity to carefully and deliberately integrate technology (Tondeur et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This is particularly useful in rural contexts, as it can guide teachers to make the most of available digital resources, tools and devices for effective teaching and learning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe SAMR model presents four ways or levels whereby technology is integrated into teaching (Buledi \u0026amp; Badariah, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). At the level of Substitution, in a rural context, digital pedagogy may be used to replace traditional pedagogy without any change in function. Substitution may involve replacing paper-based worksheets and activities with free digital worksheets, textbooks, and activities that learners can access anytime, anywhere (Haryani \u0026amp; Hamidah, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). This type of Substitution allows teachers to integrate digital pedagogy within their educational context with minimal disruption to their current pedagogy, making resources accessible even when tangible resources (such as printing paper, ink, and textbooks) are limited.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn conjunction with Substitution, Augmentation is used to enhance or improve learning experiences by advancing learner engagement and collaboration, even with the use of basic technology. For instance, online platforms and discussion forums can be used so that all learners can receive feedback from the teacher and their peers on their challenges with problem-solving activities synchronously (Rinekso \u0026amp; Muslim, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the Modification level, traditional tasks are significantly redesigned with the integration of technology, allowing for an interactive and collaborative learning experience that may not be possible with traditional resources. This may include using project-based learning, which relies on technology, for example, creating a PowerPoint presentation focusing on specific mathematical concepts and incorporating images, video clips and other interactive slides to facilitate learning (Chua \u0026amp; Islam, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRedefinition is the uppermost level of the SAMR model with far-reaching potential to transform teaching and learning experiences. At this level, technology enables new tasks to be created that were previously unimaginable in a traditional classroom context. Rural learners can now participate in virtual mathematics competitions, activities, and live conferences (Squire, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). At this level, learners have the opportunity to access material and human resources globally or engage in virtual simulations or experiments, regardless of geographical isolation. In light of these considerations, the SAMR model is suitable for framing the study under focus.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"RESEARCH METHODOLOGY","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Design\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe main research question guiding this study focused on exploring mathematics teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of integrating digital pedagogy in rural schools. To respond to the main research question, the study used a sequential explanatory mixed-methods approach to explore mathematics teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of integrating digital pedagogy in rural schools. The design included two phases. The first phase was a quantitative phase, which was used to collect numerical data through a questionnaire. The second phase was a qualitative phase, which involved the use of semi-structured interviews to obtain an in-depth understanding of teachers\u0026rsquo; perspectives and experiences. The sequential explanatory mixed-methods approach allowed for a thorough exploration of the research problem.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Procedure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent forms were distributed to 33 mathematics teachers who taught at rural schools. These teachers were also postgraduate students at the participating university. Twenty-eight mathematics teachers consented to participate in the study. The research involved two sequential phases. Phase one was the quantitative phase, which involved the distribution of a questionnaire to the 28 participants. The questionnaire included closed-ended and Likert Scale items focusing on biographical details, participants\u0026rsquo; experiences and perceptions, and knowledge about digital pedagogy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePhase two was the qualitative phase. In this phase, individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 purposively selected mathematics teachers to provide in-depth perceptions of their experiences and knowledge of the use of digital pedagogy for mathematics. The blend of qualitative and quantitative approaches provided a comprehensive understanding of how digital pedagogy is perceived and implemented in rural contexts. Thus, this research design was appropriate to address the main research question, which sought to explore mathematics teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of integrating digital pedagogy in rural schools.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Considerations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants for this study were mathematics teachers teaching at rural schools. These mathematics teachers were also postgraduate students at the participating university. Ethical clearance for this study was applied for and approved by the research office of the participating university (Research Ethics Approval Number: HSSREC/0003472/2021). Participants signed informed consent forms first, before participating in the study. The informed consent form was comprehensive (Burchfield et al., 2024) and provided thorough information about the study and the data generation process. Additionally, the informed consent form provided information to participants regarding the maintenance of their confidentiality and anonymity, as well as information concerning the secure storage of all data and the participants\u0026rsquo; rights to leave the study without prejudice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePopulation and Sample\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe population for this study was 33 mathematics teachers teaching at rural schools, all of whom were also postgraduate students at the participating university. It must be acknowledged that due to their affiliation with the participating university, these participants would know more about digital tools and digital pedagogy due to the access and exposure to university resources. The study sample consisted of 28 teachers who consented to participate (n = 17 Male and n = 11 Female). These participants participated in phase one of the study and submitted a completed questionnaire. After that, 12 teachers were purposively selected (Ubah et al., 2020) to participate in phase two of the study based on an analysis of their responses to items on the questionnaire.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParticipant Coding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCodes were allocated for each participant to maintain confidentiality and anonymity. Codes were allocated based on the order in which the signed informed consent forms were collected. The participant who submitted their signed informed consent form first was coded as Mathematics Teacher 1 (MT 1), and the participant who submitted their signed informed consent form last was coded as Mathematics Teacher 28 (MT 28). Table 1 shows the biographical information of the sample population for this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDemographics of the Participants\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"604\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCode\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGender\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAge\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTeaching Experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHighest Qualification\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMT 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20-29 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0-5 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBachelor of Education Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMT 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30-39 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6-10 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBachelor of Education Honours Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMT 3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30-39 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6-10 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBachelor of Commerce Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMT 4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30-39 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6-10 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBachelor of Science Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMT 5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt; 60 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt; 20 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaster\u0026rsquo;s in Education Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMT 6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20-29 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6-10 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBachelor of Education Honours Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMT 7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30-39 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6-10 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBachelor of Education Honours Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMT 8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30-39 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0-5 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBachelor of Science Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMT 9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30-39 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16-20 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaster\u0026rsquo;s in Education Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMT 10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50-59 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt; 20 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaster\u0026rsquo;s in Education Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMT 11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40-49 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11-15 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBachelor of Education Honours Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMT 12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20-29 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0-5 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBachelor of Education Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMT 13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30-39 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6-10 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBachelor of Education Honours Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMT 14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20-29 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0-5 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBachelor of Education Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMT 15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50-59 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11-15 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaster\u0026rsquo;s in Education Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMT 16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30-39 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6-10 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBachelor of Education Honours Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMT 17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30-39 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6-10 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBachelor of Education Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMT 18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40-49 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11-15 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBachelor of Science Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMT 19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40-49 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16-20 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBachelor of Education Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMT 20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30-39 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6-10 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBachelor of Education Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMT 21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40-49 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11-15 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBachelor of Education Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMT 22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30-39 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6-10 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBachelor of Education Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMT 23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50-59 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt; 20 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBachelor of Education Honours Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMT 24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30-39 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11-15 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBachelor of Science Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMT 25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50-59 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16-20 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaster\u0026rsquo;s in Education Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMT 26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20-29 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6-10 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBachelor of Education Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMT 27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20-29 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0-5 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBachelor of Education Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMT 28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30-39 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11-15 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBachelor of Science Degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Collection Methods\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData collection began in the third term of the 2022 school year (July-September 2022). Data collection for this study involved two sequential phases. The first data generation phase included the distribution of a questionnaire to all 28 mathematics teachers who consented to participate in the study. The second data generation phase involved conducting individual semi-structured interviews with 12 purposively selected mathematics teachers. Prior to conducting the study, the research design, methodology and instruments were shared and discussed with other experts in the field for peer review and validation. These experts reviewed the questionnaire for content validity and reliability. Thereafter, the experts perused the questions for the semi-structured interview to ensure credibility and trustworthiness. Moreover, the transcribed interviews were shared with the participants for member checking to ensure the credibility of the transcribed data.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Questionnaire\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe questionnaire followed a 3-point Likert Scale format with the response options Disagree, Neutral and Agree. The questionnaire included two sections with a total of six questions. Section A focused on the biographical details of the participants and included five closed-ended multiple-choice questions. Section B included one Likert Scale question with ten items focusing on the participants\u0026rsquo; perceptions about using digital tools in their rural mathematics classrooms. To enhance the reliability and robustness of the data, the questionnaire items were developed after a thorough literature review and were aligned with the research objectives of the study. To ensure content validity, the questionnaire was discussed and shared with experts in the field for peer review and validation. The combination of Section A and Section B (biographical and targeted perceptual items) allowed for the triangulation of qualitative findings. This supported the credibility of the overall findings. A questionnaire was distributed in person to each participant at a time convenient for that participant to complete it. The questionnaire took the participants between 10-15 minutes to complete, and completed questionnaires were collected on the same day that they were distributed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Semi-structured Interview\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA semi-structured interview was conducted one-on-one with each of the 12 purposively selected participants. Each interview lasted between 45-60 minutes. The interview started with a few common questions to place participants at ease. Thereafter, five carefully structured questions were asked. These questions focused on the participant\u0026rsquo;s experiences of using digital pedagogy for mathematics, their current pedagogy, and their perceptions of integrating digital pedagogy for mathematics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eQuantitative Data Analysis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe questionnaire analysis was conducted using Excel. The following steps were taken. Data was inputted and organised in columns and rows. Each row represented each of the 28 participants, and each column represented each of the 15 questions. For the closed-ended questions (e.g., Multiple-Choice Options), the actual options from the questionnaire were inputted (i.e., Male, 0-5 years, Female, 6-10 years, etc.). For the Likert Scale items, numerical values were inputted (e.g., 1-3, where 1 = Disagree, 2 = Neutral and 3 = Agree).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter that, descriptive statistics were calculated. The mean was calculated for each Likert Scale item. This assisted in providing information about which option participants were inclined towards in terms of agreement, neutral or disagreement. Subsequently, the mode was calculated, which assisted in identifying the most frequent patterns from the data. For the closed-ended questions, frequency counts were done, which assisted in calculating how often each response occurred. In addition, bar charts were created to visually represent the data from the questionnaire.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eQualitative Data Analysis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe qualitative data analysis process followed a rigorous thematic analysis approach, which allowed for the classification of themes and subthemes. The first step was to transcribe each interview verbatim. Thereafter, the transcribed data was shared with the participants for member-checking. Once the participants verified their transcripts, the author carefully read each transcript on multiple occasions to ensure familiarisation with the data. After that, the transcribed data was imported into NVivo. Then, initial coding and preliminary nodes were created. Initial coding included inductive (emerging from the transcripts) and deductive (based on the main research question and the SAMR model) coding approaches.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA word cloud was developed to visually represent the most frequent words used by the participants during the interviews. These words were compared with the themes and subthemes that were developed by inductive coding. The subsequent process included grouping initial codes, nodes and common words into possible themes and subthemes. Themes and subthemes were studied to ensure they accurately represented the data. Finally, the themes and subthemes were verified and finalised. This comprehensive analysis of the qualitative data generated for this study ensured a rigorous exploration of mathematics teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of integrating digital pedagogy in rural schools.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLimitations of the Research Methodology\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe limitation of this mixed-method study is the small sample size. This limitation may restrict the generalisability of the findings. In addition, disparities in participant experiences with digital pedagogy within rural school contexts may be subject to bias, affecting the reliability and comparability of the data collected across the sample (Boldt et al., 2017). Sample bias may also be due to the participants\u0026rsquo; affiliation with the participating university and their access to university resources. Moreover, rural contexts may vary in access to resources, teachers\u0026rsquo; expertise in and application of digital pedagogy, and the availability of the necessary infrastructure. These differences may affect the transferability of the findings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNumerous procedures were followed to address these limitations and ensure the credibility of the findings. First, data triangulation was used by including quantitative (questionnaires) and qualitative (semi-structured interviews) methods for collecting data. This allowed for the cross-validation of findings. Second, purposive sampling of participants for the qualitative phase ensured that the participants had diverse backgrounds and experiences in digital pedagogy. This procedure ensured that various perspectives were included. Third, member checking was used to ensure that participants established the accuracy of their responses. Finally, clear descriptions of the school contexts and participants\u0026rsquo; experiences were included to advance the transferability of the findings to similar settings.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQuantitative Findings and Discussion\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBar charts were created using Excel. The bar charts provide a visual representation of participant demographics concerning age, gender and teaching experience. Figure 1 displays the age and gender of the participants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom the information in Figure 1, the majority of the Male participants (n = 9) and the majority of Female participants (n = 4) were between 30-39 years old. The same number of Male and Female participants (n = 2) were 50 \u0026ndash; 59 years old. Only one Male participant was older than 60 years. For the age group 40-49 years, there were three Female participants and one Male participant. For the age group 20-29 years, there were twice as many Male participants (n = 4) than Female participants (n = 2). Figure 2 illustrates the teaching experience of the participants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom Figure 2, it is evident that only the Male participants had teaching experience of greater than 20 years (n = 3), and more Male participants had teaching experience of between 6-10 years (n = 7) and 0-5 years (n = 4). More Female participants than Male participants had teaching experience of 11-15 years (n = 4) and 16-20 years (n = 2). The descriptive statistics calculated for the Likert Scale items are shown in Table 2.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDescriptive Statistics for the Likert Scale Items\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" align=\"\" width=\"623\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 359px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eItem\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMean\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMedian\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMode\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCount\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 321px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI am confident in using digital tools to teach mathematics.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 321px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe integration of digital pedagogy will improve my learners\u0026rsquo; understanding of mathematical concepts.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 321px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI have adequate training and support to use digital tools in my mathematics classroom.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 321px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe use of digital pedagogy is possible, given the infrastructure available in my rural school.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 321px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLearners in my classroom are motivated to learn mathematics with digital tools and resources.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 321px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDigital pedagogy helps me adapt my teaching instruction to the diverse learning needs of my learners.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 321px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI believe digital tools and resources improve my learners\u0026rsquo; mathematical problem-solving skills.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 321px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe use of digital pedagogy requires more preparation time than traditional teaching methods.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 321px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI have challenges accessing stable Internet or digital resources in my rural school.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 321px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI believe integrating digital pedagogy into mathematics instruction is important for preparing my learners for the future.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn analysis of Table 2 indicates that most participants disagreed with Likert Scale items 1, 3 and 4. These responses indicate that the participants were not confident in using digital tools to teach mathematics, they did not have adequate training and support to use digital tools, and they disagreed that digital pedagogy is possible, given the infrastructure available in their rural schools. For items 2, 5, 6 and 8, the majority of participants provided a neutral response.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the majority of participants agreed with items 7, 9 and 10. These responses signpost that the majority of participants agreed that using digital tools and resources could lead to an improvement in learners\u0026rsquo; mathematical problem-solving skills. However, most participants face challenges accessing stable internet connections or digital resources at their schools. Nevertheless, they agreed that integrating digital pedagogy into mathematics instruction was important for preparing learners for the future.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom the analysis of the descriptive statistics, it is evident that participants lack confidence in using digital tools to teach mathematics (Redmond et al., 2021; Reinhold et al., 2021). Participants indicated that they did not have sufficient training and support to use digital tools in their mathematics classrooms effectively. Furthermore, the implementation of digital pedagogy was not possible at some rural schools due to insufficient infrastructure. Nevertheless, participants agreed that digital pedagogy has the potential to enhance learners\u0026rsquo; mathematical skills and prepare learners for the future (Timotheou et al., 2023). The analysis of questionnaire responses led to the invitation of 12 purposively selected participants for semi-structured interviews.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQualitative Findings and Discussion\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe individual semi-structured interview transcripts were uploaded onto NVivo, and a word cloud was generated using the word frequency query. The word cloud assisted in providing a visual representation of the words that were used most frequently by the participants. This step assisted in verifying the initial inductive coding for the study. The word cloud in Figure 3 reveals the keywords that NVivo generated.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSubsequently, the interview transcripts were coded deductively to reveal key themes. The inductive and deductive coding revealed two major themes for this study. The first was the strengths of integrating digital pedagogy in rural mathematics classrooms, and the second was the challenges involved. Participants expressed a positive outlook towards the potential of integrating digital pedagogy to personalise learning opportunities, increase learner engagement and prepare learners for the digital workforce. Others emphasised significant challenges such as inadequate infrastructure, limited professional development, and lack of supporting structures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study also reveals that participants often rely on traditional pedagogical strategies due to inadequate infrastructure. However, they were willing to integrate digital pedagogy if provided with the necessary support, professional development and training (Admiraal et al., 2023; Thurm \u0026amp; Barzel, 2022). This emphasises the need for targeted intervention programmes and sustainable resolutions to bridge the digital divide in rural contexts. The major themes and subthemes are discussed in the following section.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStrengths of integrating digital pedagogy in rural mathematics classrooms\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants\u0026rsquo; perceptions regarding the strengths of digital pedagogy revealed three major subthemes. These three subthemes included creating personalised learning opportunities, increasing learner engagement, and preparing learners for the digital workforce.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePersonalised learning opportunities\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants recognise the value of using digital tools and resources, indicating that digital pedagogy supports personalised learning. This is evident from the selected interview transcript excerpts below.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMT 2:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip;it is high time technology is incorporated\u0026hellip;benefit both the teachers and learners\u0026hellip;the mathematics syllabus is long\u0026hellip;with the availability of technology, learners can be able to push their work and work at their own pace\u0026hellip; finishing all the concepts.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMT 23:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip; digital pedagogy appeals to the learners\u0026rsquo; senses and enhances different learning styles\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMT 27:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip;platforms and applications accommodate different learning styles and abilities \u0026hellip; easy for learners to work at their own pace \u0026hellip; enables educators \u0026hellip; to adapt their lessons to meet the needs of their diverse learners\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDigital pedagogy allows teachers to personalise educational experiences. In this way, learner\u0026rsquo;s individual learning needs and styles are addressed (Kearney et al., 2022). Along similar lines, the SAMR (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition) model can support teachers in promoting personalised mathematics learning in the classroom. By using the SAMR model, teachers can gradually integrate technology at the Substitution and Augmentation levels. This approach will enable them to use technology gradually to enhance traditional teaching methods and to provide personalised feedback and learning experiences (Tondeur et al., 2020). At the Augmentation, Modification and Redefinition levels, learners can work with collaborative tools that focus on individual learning gaps, allowing them to work at their own pace.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIncreased learner engagement\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants indicated that digital pedagogy promotes dynamic learner interaction and engagement in the classroom. This is evident from the selected interview transcript excerpts below.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMT 2:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip; makes learning more fun and engaging for learners\u0026hellip;digital pedagogy facilitates dynamic lessons where learners participate actively\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMT 5:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip;maximises classroom time for engagement\u0026hellip;more classroom interaction amongst learners and the teacher\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMT 9:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip;increase interaction and learner engagement\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMT 27:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip; digital tools enhance peer interaction\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDigital pedagogy promotes fun, interaction and engagement in the mathematics classroom (Cevikbas \u0026amp; Kaiser, 2023). Similarly, the SAMR model promotes learner interaction and engagement. At the Modification and Redefinition levels, teachers can use digital pedagogy to transform traditional activities into interactive, engaging experiences that make learning active and relevant.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePreparation for the digital workforce\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants felt that learners should receive training in digital tools to develop essential skills for future educational and work opportunities. This is evident from the selected interview transcript excerpts below.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMT 5:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip;digital skills are important for the job market\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMT 9:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip;digital tools enhance their educational and career prospects\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMT 14:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip;digital pedagogy prepares learners for the digital future\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMT 23:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip;teaching with digital tools and teaching digital skills prepares them for the technology-driven job market\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIntegrating technology, digital tools and resources in the mathematics classroom helps learners develop important skills for the future (Timotheou et al., 2023). Moreover, the SAMR model supports the preparation of learners for the digital workforce. Guided by the SAMR model, teachers can encourage learners to participate in technology-based tasks in the classroom. At the Augmentation and Modification levels, teachers can support learners in acquiring essential skills needed to navigate complex technological environments. Learners are prepared for the digital workforce by being exposed to environments similar to those in contemporary technology-driven industries.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eChallenges of integrating digital pedagogy in rural mathematics classrooms\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants\u0026rsquo; perceptions regarding the challenges of digital pedagogy revealed three major subthemes. These three subthemes included inadequate infrastructure, limited professional development and lack of supporting structures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eInadequate infrastructure\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants face challenges with integrating digital pedagogy in rural mathematics classrooms due to the lack of educational materials and resources, unstable internet connections and inadequate infrastructure to support digital pedagogy. The following excerpts from interview transcripts illustrate this point.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMT 10:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip;educational infrastructure and resources are limited\u0026hellip;limited Internet access\u0026hellip;learners don\u0026rsquo;t have access to many resources\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMT 17:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip;difficult to use digital pedagogy\u0026hellip;challenges\u0026hellip;limited access to technology and reliable internet\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMT 20:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip;I am limited in teaching with technology\u0026hellip;lack of infrastructure\u0026hellip;unstable internet access\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMT 21:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip;instruction with technology-based tools is difficult\u0026hellip;challenge with limited access to resources and materials\u0026hellip;limited internet access\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo use digital pedagogy effectively, it is important to have adequate infrastructure, stable internet connections and the necessary educational resources and materials (Aruleba \u0026amp; Jere, 2022; Spiteri \u0026amp; Rundgren, 2020). Teachers in rural contexts should start by evaluating available technology and infrastructure. If resources are limited, the SAMR model can be a useful guide to teachers. Starting at the Substitution and Augmentation levels allows teachers to build a basis for more advanced technology integration over time, progressing to the Modification and Redefinition levels.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLimited professional development\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants indicated that they are not adequately trained to integrate digital pedagogy effectively in their mathematics classrooms. This is evident from the selected interview transcript excerpts below.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMT 4:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip; I have limited devices and insufficient teacher training to use digital pedagogy\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMT 17:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip; we need resources and training for both educators and students\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMT 28:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip; to integrate digital pedagogy in mathematics, educators need continuous professional development to adapt to the different digital tools\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTeachers require devices, resources, tools, professional development and training on how to use these effectively (Brenya, 2024; Hennessy et al., 2022; Kamat \u0026amp; Nasnodkar, 2019). The SAMR model offers a useful framework for teachers, enabling them to gradually progress from the Substitution to the Augmentation levels. This approach guides and supports teachers as they become more comfortable with the use of digital tools and devices (Haryani \u0026amp; Hamidah, 2022). As the SAMR model guides teachers, their pedagogy evolves, providing learners with more productive and engaging learning experiences.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLack of scaffolding structures\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants believe that, in addition to professional development and training, collaborating with fellow teachers to share digital teaching strategies and resources would be beneficial. This collaboration would enhance their effectiveness in using digital pedagogy. Additionally, participants mentioned the need for technical support.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMT 4:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip; we need to build a network of support beyond the immediate environment and school\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMT 10:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip; important to collaborate, share resources, and support each other\u0026hellip;overcoming isolation in rural schools\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMT 20:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip;ongoing technical support are essential for the successful integration of digital pedagogy\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMT 28:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip;need to organise tech support groups to help with equipment\u0026hellip; support from other teachers who can share their strategies\u0026hellip;reduce feelings of isolation\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs is clear from these comments, collaboration and the sharing of resources, devices, and technology-based teaching strategies are beneficial, particularly given the limited digital resources, materials and devices available (Ye \u0026amp; Yang, 2020). Creating communities of practice or networks in rural areas is an important step to strengthen the support structures needed by teachers while also helping to reduce feelings of isolation, as mentioned by MT 10 and MT 28.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, technical support is crucial to ensure that digital tools are used effectively and properly maintained (Esteve‐Mon et al., 2023). The findings of this study linked to the SAMR model are illustrated in Table 3.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFindings of the Study Linked to the SAMR Model\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSAMR Level\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 254px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDescription\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExamples from Findings\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSubstitution\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 254px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDigital pedagogy was used as a substitute for traditional pedagogy, with no change in function.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe participating teachers used PowerPoint presentations for lessons instead of textbooks and worksheets.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAugmentation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 254px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDigital pedagogy was used as a substitute, but there was functional improvement when digital pedagogy was used.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe participants used video clips during the lessons to initiate active learner interaction.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eModification\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 254px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe use of digital pedagogy allowed the teachers to transform the activity/task.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLearners engaged with the dynamic software programme GeoGebra to collaborate on problem-solving tasks.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRedefinition\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 254px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDigital tools and pedagogy allowed for the redesign and recreation of new tasks/activities that would not be possible with traditional pedagogy.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe participating teachers helped learners to participate in virtual mathematics competitions and contests so that learners could participate regardless of their location.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs is evident, the SAMR model again offers a helpful scaffolding structure for teachers in rural schools. It supports teachers at the Substitution and Augmentation levels, allowing them to skilfully integrate technology at the Modification and Redefinition levels in ways that develop learning while maximising the potential of the available resources.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study sought to explore mathematics teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of integrating digital pedagogy in rural schools. This field of study offers valuable insights into mathematics education in rural contexts. The findings highlight both the strengths and challenges of integrating digital pedagogy in rural mathematics classrooms. Participants expressed a positive attitude toward integrating digital pedagogy in mathematics classrooms, noting that digital pedagogy offers opportunities to personalise learning, increase learner engagement and better prepare learners for careers in the digital workforce. On the other hand, participants felt that integrating digital pedagogy in mathematics classrooms was constrained by inadequate infrastructure, limited professional development and the lack of supporting structures.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study indicate that digital pedagogy can provide personalised learning by allowing students to progress at their own pace. Integrating digital pedagogy in the classroom can assist teachers in preparing learners for an increasingly digital world. Nonetheless, several challenges impede progress. Limited access to reliable internet, digital devices, and technology infrastructure is a widespread issue in rural contexts. This lack of access prevents teachers and learners from effectively utilising digital tools. Another significant challenge is professional development and training. Many teachers may not be familiar with digital tools or how to integrate them effectively into their pedagogy. The findings of this study underscore the need for recommendations, such as the following, to be put in place to close the digital divide in rural contexts.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eShort-term: Promoting collaboration and the establishment of teacher networks:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eThe study revealed feelings of isolation among rural teachers. School management teams and district offices should encourage the promotion of digital teaching networks and teacher mentorship programmes. This will advance collaboration between schools and teachers with a view to establishing networks for teachers in rural areas and alleviating the isolation they feel. Collaboration and the creation of teacher networks can foster a supportive environment for the integration of digital pedagogy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMedium-term: Targeted professional development and training:\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e The study revealed limited access to professional development and training in rural areas. The Department of Basic Education should implement continuous targeted programmes, workshops, and training sessions to support teachers in rural schools. These programmes will provide teachers with the essential information and skills needed to integrate digital pedagogy in rural contexts effectively. These targeted intervention programmes will also demonstrate sustainable solutions relating to integrating digital pedagogy in rural classrooms. These targeted professional development and training programmes ought to be evaluated regularly by observing classroom practice and obtaining feedback from teachers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLong-term: Investment in digital infrastructure:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eThe study revealed limited access to technology-based devices, tools, internet access and technology infrastructure in rural schools. The Department of Basic Education needs to prioritise the provision of sufficient digital tools, devices, and reliable and stable internet access. This type of investment is important to scaffold the integration of digital pedagogy in rural schools. This investment will assist in bridging the digital divide that was evident in this study.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese recommendations aim to bridge the gap in integrating digital pedagogy in rural mathematics classrooms with the aim of empowering teachers and improving learner interaction and achievement.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCompeting Interest\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere are no competing interests to declare.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eClinical trial number\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe author did not receive support from any organisation for the submitted work.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eJ N is the sole contributor to this article\u0026rsquo;s conceptualisation, data generation, analysis, and write-up.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot Applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo protect the identity of the participants, the data cannot be shared openly. However, the data is available from the author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAdmiraal, W., Kittelsen R\u0026oslash;berg, K.I., Wiers-Jenssen, J., \u0026amp; Saab, N. (2023). Mind the gap: Early-career teachers\u0026rsquo; level of preparedness, professional development, working conditions, and feelings of distress. \u003cem\u003eSocial Psychology of Education, 26\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1759-1787.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-023-09819-6\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAguirre, T., Aperribai, L., Cortabarr\u0026iacute;a, L., Verche, E., \u0026amp; Borges, \u0026Aacute;. (2022). Challenges for teachers\u0026rsquo; and students\u0026rsquo; digital abilities: A mixed methods design study. \u003cem\u003eSustainability, 14\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1-9.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084729\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAhuja, S., \u0026amp; Yadav, D. (2019). Effect of digital pedagogy interventions in rural areas. \u003cem\u003eMIER Journal of Educational Studies Trends and Practices\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(2), 227-240.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.52634/mier/2019/v9/i2/1385\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eArbo, J.B., \u0026amp; Ching, D.A. (2022). Problem-based learning approach in developing mathematical skills. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(1), 26-47. https://doi.org/10.53378/352873\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAruleba, K., \u0026amp; Jere, N. (2022). Exploring digital transforming challenges in rural areas of South Africa through a systematic review of empirical studies.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Scientific African, 16,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e1-13.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2022.e01190\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBaker, C.K. (2022). Learning to design effective professional development: The influence of integrating a coaching tool with an elementary mathematics specialist course assignment. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 25\u003c/em\u003e(5), 555-580.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-021-09507-2\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBoldt, A., De Gardelle, V., \u0026amp; Yeung, N. (2017). The impact of evidence reliability on sensitivity and bias in decision confidence. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1520\u0026ndash;1531. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000404\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBrenya, B. (2024). Higher education in emergency situation: Blended learning prospects and challenges for educators in the developing countries. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Research in Higher Education,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1015-1028.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-01-2023-0044\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBuledi, M.H., \u0026amp; Badariah, T.A.T. (2024). Exploring digital technology usage among English language instructors at a Saudi Higher Education Institution and validating a hierarchical structure of usage based on the SAMR model. \u003cem\u003eIIUM Journal of Educational Studies, 12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 90-111.\u0026nbsp;https://journals.iium.edu.my/ijes/index.php/iejs/article/view/446/222\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBurchfield, M.A., Rosenberg, J.M., \u0026amp; Stegenga, S.M. (2024). Informed or outdated consent? An investigation into the media release policies of school districts in the United States. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Research on Technology in Education, 2024\u003c/em\u003e(1),\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2024.2313614\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCarpenter, D., \u0026amp; Munshower, P. (2020). Broadening borders to build better schools: Virtual professional learning communities. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Educational Management, 34\u003c/em\u003e(2), 296-314.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-09-2018-0296\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCevikbas, M., \u0026amp; Kaiser, G. (2023). Can flipped classroom pedagogy offer promising perspectives for mathematics education on pandemic-related issues? A systematic literature review. \u003cem\u003eZDM\u0026ndash;Mathematics Education, 55(\u003c/em\u003e1), 177-191.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-022-01388-w\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChen, C.H., Jong, M.S.Y., \u0026amp; Tsai, C.C. (2022). A comparison of in-service teachers\u0026rsquo; conceptions of barriers to mobile technology-integrated instruction and technology-integrated instruction. \u003cem\u003eAustralasian Journal of Educational Technology,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e(2), 35-50.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7299\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChua, K.J., \u0026amp; Islam, M.R. (2021). The hybrid project-based learning\u0026ndash;flipped classroom: A design project module redesigned to foster learning and engagement. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education, 49\u003c/em\u003e(4), 289-315.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1177/0306419019838335\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCirneanu, A.L., \u0026amp; Moldoveanu, C.E. (2024). Use of Digital Technology in Integrated Mathematics Education. \u003cem\u003eApplied System Innovation, 7\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1-26.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.3390/asi7040066\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDalby, D., \u0026amp; Swan, M. (2019). Using digital technology to enhance formative assessment in mathematics classrooms. \u003cem\u003eBritish Journal of Educational Technology, 50\u003c/em\u003e(2), 832-845.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12606\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12606\u003c/a\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDepartment of Basic Education (2018).\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Rural education draft policy.\u003c/em\u003e Department of Basic Education.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"https://www.education.gov.za/Resources/Policies.aspx\"\u003ehttps://www.education.gov.za/Resources/Policies.aspx\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDepartment of Education (2004). \u003cem\u003eWhite paper on e-Education.\u003c/em\u003e Department of Education. https://wcedeportal.co.za/eresource/257176\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDrijvers, P., \u0026amp; Sinclair, N. (2024). The role of digital technologies in mathematics education: purposes and perspectives. \u003cem\u003eZDM\u0026ndash;Mathematics Education,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e56\u003c/em\u003e(2), 239-248.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01535-x\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEgara, F.O., \u0026amp; Mosimege, M. (2024). Effect of flipped classroom learning approach on mathematics achievement and interest among secondary school students. \u003cem\u003eEducation and Information Technologies, 29\u003c/em\u003e(7), 8131-8150.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12145-1\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEsteve‐Mon, F.M., Postigo‐Fuentes, A.Y., \u0026amp; Casta\u0026ntilde;eda, L. (2023). A strategic approach of the crucial elements for the implementation of digital tools and processes in higher education. \u003cem\u003eHigher Education Quarterly,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e77(3), 558-573. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12411\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHaj-Yahya, A., \u0026amp; Olsher, S. (2022). Preservice teachers\u0026rsquo; experiences with digital formative assessment in mathematics.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 53\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1751-1769.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2020.1842527\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHaleem, A., Javaid, M., Qadri, M.A., \u0026amp; Suman, R. (2022). Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review. \u003cem\u003eSustainable Operations and Computers,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e, 275-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHaryani, F., \u0026amp; Hamidah, A.S. (2022). Exploring the impact of technology-integrated mathematics worksheets in the teaching and learning during COVID-19 pandemic. \u003cem\u003eMathematics Teaching Research Journal, 14\u003c/em\u003e(3), 39-59. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1361559.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHennessy, S., D\u0026rsquo;Angelo, S., McIntyre, N., Koomar, S., Kreimeia, A., Cao, L., Brugha, M., \u0026amp; Zubairi, A. (2022). Technology use for teacher professional development in low and middle-income countries: A systematic review. \u003cem\u003eComputers and Education Open,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100080\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJerry, M., \u0026amp; Yunus, M.M. (2021). Blended learning in rural primary ESL classroom: Do or don\u0026rsquo;t. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 20\u003c/em\u003e(2), 152-173. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.2.9\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJoswick, C., Skultety, L., \u0026amp; Olsen, A.A. (2023). Mathematics, Learning Disabilities, and Learning Styles: A Review of Perspectives Published by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. \u003cem\u003eEducation Sciences, 13\u003c/em\u003e(10), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13101023\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKamat, Y., \u0026amp; Nasnodkar, S. (2019). A survey on the barriers and facilitators to edtech adoption in rural schools in developing countries. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Intelligent Automation and Computing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(1), 32-51. https://research.tensorgate.org/index.php/IJIAC/article/view/58\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKearney, M., Schuck, S., \u0026amp; Burden, K. (2022). Digital pedagogies for future school education: Promoting inclusion. \u003cem\u003eIrish Educational Studies, 41\u003c/em\u003e(1), 117-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2021.2024446\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eK\u0026ouml;nig, J., Gerhard, K., \u0026amp; J\u0026auml;ger-Biela, D.J. (2022). Practical learning opportunities and changes in teachers\u0026rsquo; self-efficacy beliefs: Does the development of bachelor student teachers\u0026rsquo; competence differ before and during COVID-19? \u003cem\u003eZeitschrift f\u0026uuml;r Bildungsforschung, 12\u003c/em\u003e(2), 217-234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s35834-022-00357-3\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKormos, E., \u0026amp; Wisdom, K. (2021). Rural schools and the digital divide: Technology in the learning experience. \u003cem\u003eTheory \u0026amp; Practice in Rural Education, 11\u003c/em\u003e(1), 25-39. https://doi.org/10.3776/tpre.2021.v11n1p25-39\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLoong, E. Y. K., \u0026amp; Herbert, S. (2018). Primary school teachers\u0026rsquo; use of digital technology in mathematics: the complexities. \u003cem\u003eMathematics Education Research Journal, 30,\u003c/em\u003e 475-498.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-018-0235-9\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-018-0235-9\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMaharjan, P. (2023). Digital devices used in a secondary school: A case study of access and use in learning mathematics. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Mathematics Education (JME)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(1), 110-123.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.3126/jme.v5i1.60859\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMubangizi, B. (2023). What is \u0026lsquo;Rural\u0026rsquo; in South Africa, and why does it matter? \u003cem\u003eAfrican Journal of Governance and Development, 12\u003c/em\u003e(2), 1-6.\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"https://hdl.handle.net/10520/ejc-ajgd_v12_n2_a1\"\u003ehttps://hdl.handle.net/10520/ejc-ajgd_v12_n2_a1\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNdungo, I., Nazziwa, C., Kabiswa, W., Opio, P., Akugizibwe, E., \u0026amp; Mpungu, K. (2025). Enhancing STEM instruction through indigenous materials and ICT integration: A critical assessment of teachers\u0026rsquo; knowledge, experiences, attitudes, and readiness. \u003cem\u003eEast African Journal of Education Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(2).132-149. https://doi.org/10.37284/eajes.8.2.2872\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNg, O.L., Ting, F., Lam, W.H., \u0026amp; Liu, M. (2020). Active learning in undergraduate mathematics tutorials via cooperative problem-based learning and peer assessment with interactive online whiteboards. \u003cem\u003eThe Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29,\u003c/em\u003e 285-294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00481-1\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOnyishi, C.N., \u0026amp; Sefotho, M.M. (2021). Differentiating instruction for learners\u0026rsquo; mathematics self-efficacy in inclusive classrooms: Can learners with dyscalculia also benefit? \u003cem\u003eSouth African Journal of Education, 41\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v41n4a1938\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePozo-Rico, T., Gilar-Corb\u0026iacute;, R., Izquierdo, A., \u0026amp; Castej\u0026oacute;n, J.L. (2020). Teacher training can make a difference: tools to overcome the impact of COVID-19 on primary schools. An experimental study. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e17(22), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228633\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePuentedura, R.R. (2020, January 25). SAMR- A research perspective. http://hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2020/01/SAMR_AResearchPerspective.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRamadhani, R., Bina, N.S., Sihotang, S.F., Narpila, S.D., \u0026amp; Mazaly, M.R. (2020). Students\u0026rsquo; critical mathematical thinking abilities through flip-problem-based learning model based on LMS-google classroom. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Physics: Conference Series\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1657\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1657/1/012025\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRedmond, P., Smart, V., Powell, A., \u0026amp; Albion, P. (2021). Primary teachers\u0026rsquo; self-assessment of their confidence in implementing digital technologies curriculum. \u003cem\u003eEducational Technology Research and Development, 69\u003c/em\u003e(5), 2895-2915. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10043-2\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eReinhold, F., Strohmaier, A., Finger-Collazos, Z., \u0026amp; Reiss, K. (2021). Considering teachers\u0026rsquo; beliefs, motivation, and emotions regarding teaching mathematics with digital tools: The effect of an in-service teacher training. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Education, 6\u003c/em\u003e, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.723869\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRinekso, A.B., \u0026amp; Muslim, A.B. (2020). Synchronous online discussion: teaching English in higher education amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. \u003cem\u003eJEES (Journal of English Educators Society), 5\u003c/em\u003e(2), 155-162. https://doi.org/10.21070/jees.v5i2.646\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSingh, J., Steele, K., \u0026amp; Singh, L. (2021). Combining the best of online and face-to-face learning: Hybrid and blended learning approach for COVID-19, post-vaccine, \u0026amp; post-pandemic world. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Educational Technology Systems, 50\u003c/em\u003e(2), 140-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395211047865\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSpiteri, M., \u0026amp; Rundgren, S.N. (2020). Literature review on the factors affecting primary teachers\u0026rsquo; use of digital technology. \u003cem\u003eTechnology, Knowledge and Learning, 25\u003c/em\u003e(1), 115-128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9376-x\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSquire, K.D. (2022). From virtual to participatory learning with technology during COVID-19.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;E-Learning and Digital Media, 19\u003c/em\u003e(1), 55-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/20427530211022926\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSurianshah, S. (2021). Digital divide in education during Covid-19 pandemic. \u003cem\u003eJurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, 55\u003c/em\u003e(3), 103-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/JEM-2021-5503-07\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThurm, D., \u0026amp; Barzel, B. (2022). Teaching mathematics with technology: A multidimensional analysis of teacher beliefs. \u003cem\u003eEducational Studies in Mathematics, 109\u003c/em\u003e(1), 41-63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10072-x\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTimotheou, S., Miliou, O., Dimitriadis, Y., Sobrino, S.V., Giannoutsou, N., Cachia, R., Mart\u0026iacute;nez Mon\u0026eacute;s, A., \u0026amp; Ioannou, A. (2023). Impacts of digital technologies on education and factors influencing schools\u0026rsquo; digital capacity and transformation: A literature review. \u003cem\u003eEducation and Information Technologies, 28\u003c/em\u003e(6), 6695-6726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11431-8\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTondeur, J., Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., \u0026amp; Baran, E. (2020). Enhancing pre-service teachers\u0026rsquo; technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A mixed-method study. \u003cem\u003eEducational Technology Research and Development, 68\u003c/em\u003e(1), 319-343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09692-1\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTownley, A.L. (2020). Leveraging communities of practice as professional learning communities in science, technology, engineering, math (STEM) education. \u003cem\u003eEducation Sciences, 10\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10080190\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUbah, I.J.A., Spangenberg, E.D., \u0026amp; Ramdhany, V. (2020). Blended learning approach to mathematics education modules: An analysis of pre-service teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19\u003c/em\u003e(7), 298-319. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.7.17\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eXu, E., Wang, W., \u0026amp; Wang, Q. (2023). The effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students\u0026rsquo; critical thinking: A meta-analysis based on empirical literature. \u003cem\u003eHumanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(\u003c/em\u003e1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01508-1\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYe, L., \u0026amp; Yang, H. (2020). From digital divide to social inclusion: A tale of mobile platform empowerment in rural areas. \u003cem\u003eSustainability, 12\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062424\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYin, Y., Zheng, P., Li, C., \u0026amp; Wang, L. (2023). A state-of-the-art survey on Augmented Reality-assisted Digital Twin for futuristic human-centric industry transformation. \u003cem\u003eRobotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 81\u003c/em\u003e, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2022.102515\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYohannes, A., \u0026amp; Chen, H.L. (2024). The effect of flipped realistic mathematics education on students\u0026rsquo; achievement, mathematics self-efficacy and critical thinking tendency.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Education and Information Technologies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2,\u003c/em\u003e 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12502-8\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYorganci, S. (2020). Implementing flipped learning approach based on \u0026lsquo;first principles of instruction\u0026rsquo; in mathematics courses.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36\u003c/em\u003e(5), 763-779. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12448\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Digital Pedagogy, Mathematics, Mixed-Method, Rural Schools, SAMR Model, Teachers","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5955932/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5955932/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eIntegrating digital pedagogy in mathematics can change teaching and learning. Globally, education institutions adopted digital pedagogy during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. However, mathematics teachers in rural schools encounter many challenges when embracing digital pedagogy. This article focuses on a study of mathematics teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of integrating digital pedagogy in rural schools. The study involved 28 mathematics teachers, all postgraduate students at the participant university, teaching at rural schools in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, post-COVID-19. The study was framed within the ambits of the Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) model and followed a mixed-methods approach, which included a questionnaire and semi-structured individual interviews. Thematic manual coding and NVivo were employed to analyse the qualitative data, while Excel was used to analyse the quantitative data. The findings reveal the strengths, challenges and scaffolding structures needed for successful implementation. While acknowledging the potential of digital pedagogy to promote learner interaction and improve mathematical understanding, it is apparent that teachers are concerned about the inadequate infrastructure, insufficient professional development, and lack of scaffolding structures in rural contexts. The study concludes with recommendations for mathematics teachers, policymakers, and other stakeholders to promote the strengths, address the challenges, and improve the scaffolding structures necessary to successfully integrate digital pedagogy in rural mathematics contexts. The aim of the study is to develop knowledge about digital pedagogy and improve mathematics educational outcomes in rural schools locally and globally through the effective integration of digital pedagogy.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Exploring Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions of Integrating Digital Pedagogy in Rural Schools","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-05-06 09:57:20","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5955932/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-05-26T11:11:25+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-05-12T15:35:26+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-05-10T17:58:07+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-05-08T14:56:09+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"329656699739214946792512286341940878561","date":"2025-05-03T06:29:26+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"281164860047414641342598139263606193852","date":"2025-04-30T21:09:46+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-04-29T09:28:12+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-04-28T06:31:39+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Education","date":"2025-04-21T16:19:34+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"173f6fe2-8e1b-43f6-9676-6e2978544a7d","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 6th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-05-29T12:38:33+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-05-06 09:57:20","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5955932","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5955932","identity":"rs-5955932","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}