A Review of the Implementation of Technology-Enhanced Heutagogy in Mathematics Teacher Education

Abstract

Low achievement in mathematics across educational levels has long been a concern for researchers. Recent evidence points to equipping teachers with skills and competencies that align with the demands of the modern, technology-rich world. This systematic review explored how technology-facilitated heutagogical practices contribute to the professional development of preservice and in-service mathematics teachers. Drawing on 21 empirical studies published between 2017 and 2024, this review identified three major findings. First, technology-enhanced heutagogical practices promote teaching skills by fostering learner autonomy, self-reflection, and professional identity development. Second, tools such as mobile apps, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), adaptive learning platforms, and collaborative digital environments support the integration of heutagogical principles. Third, implementation is challenged by limited digital access, institutional constraints, and the need for gradual adaptation to self-determined learning models. These findings prove the need for policy and institutional investment in digital infrastructure, blended learning models, and teacher support. Theoretically, this study affirms heutagogy as a relevant pedagogical approach for preparing mathematics teachers in dynamic learning contexts. There is also a need for more empirical studies to investigate scalable models for technology-driven heutagogy, especially in resource-constrained settings.

1. Introduction

The enduring challenge of low achievement in mathematics across all educational levels has driven a global push to improve the quality of mathematics teacher education (Bethell, 2016; Mullis et al., 2020). Research shows that effective mathematics instruction depends partly on teachers who deeply understand mathematical concepts and pedagogical strategies suited to diverse learners (Ball et al., 2008; Mukuka & Alex, 2024). Consequently, teacher training programs are expected to equip preservice mathematics teachers with the knowledge and skills needed to meet the evolving demands of the classroom. Such programs must therefore address content mastery and the development of competencies such as critical thinking, problem-solving, and adaptability (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Shulman, 1987). In this context, heutagogy, or self-determined learning, has emerged as an important framework in teacher education, which emphasizes learner autonomy, adaptability, and critical reflection as foundational skills for teacher education (Alex & Mukuka, 2024; Blaschke, 2012; Mukuka et al., 2024).

Heutagogy, initially developed by Hase and Kenyon (2000), promotes learning that is learner-centered and self-determined, thereby fostering independence and the ability to reflect critically on one’s own learning processes. In heutagogical approaches, learners play a more active role in determining what, how, and when they learn. This creates an enabling environment for cultivating skills essential for lifelong learning and adaptability—qualities especially relevant to the rapidly changing field of education (Blaschke & Hase, 2015). In teacher education, heutagogy aligns well with the need to prepare teachers for dynamic educational settings, where they must be able to make informed instructional decisions, apply new knowledge independently, and adapt to diverse classroom contexts (Gibbs & Coffey, 2004; McLoughlin & Lee, 2010). This self-determined learning paradigm is particularly valuable in mathematics education, where the development of problem-solving and reflective skills is critical (Alex & Mukuka, 2024; Hase & Kenyon, 2013).

Technology enhances heutagogical practices by offering flexible, interactive, and personalized learning environments that support teachers’ self-determined and self-directed learning (Mukuka et al., 2024). Technologies such as online simulations, digital collaboration platforms, and virtual teaching tools provide opportunities for teachers to engage deeply with mathematical content while practicing critical reflection and problem-solving skills (McLoughlin & Lee, 2010). For example, digital platforms that enable teachers to design and implement lesson plans can foster a greater sense of autonomy and confidence (Blaschke & Hase, 2019). Research highlights that, when technology is used to support heutagogical practices, teachers become more adept at integrating innovative instructional methods and adapting to varying educational challenges (Blaschke, 2019). Thus, technology amplifies heutagogical strategies and facilitates a transformative learning process that prepares teachers to meet the demands of 21st-century classrooms.

Despite the growing body of literature on mathematics teacher education and technology integration, systematic reviews remain scarce. This shortfall is especially evident regarding reviews that aim to examine how heutagogical principles such as learner autonomy, self-reflection, and adaptability are fostered through technology. A recent review by Mukuka et al. (2024) confirms this, highlighting that, despite many studies exploring technology’s impact on mathematics teacher education, few have adopted a heutagogical perspective. Heutagogy emphasizes the development of self-determined learning skills. This highlights a need for a systematic review that not only investigates technological tools and strategies but also assesses their effectiveness in supporting the heutagogical development of preservice mathematics teachers or in-service teachers engaged in professional development training. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the extent to which technology-enhanced learning environments support heutagogical practices in mathematics teacher education. Specifically, this paper seeks to answer the following research questions:

• How does technology-facilitated heutagogical practice support the development of teaching skills among preservice and in-service mathematics teachers?
• Which technological tools and strategies are most effective in integrating heutagogical principles in mathematics teacher education programs?
• What challenges and limitations exist in implementing technology-driven heutagogical practices in mathematics teacher education?

2. Theoretical Perspectives

According to Hase and Kenyon (2000), heutagogy is a self-determined learning theory that represents a paradigm shift in educational practice, with emphasis on learner autonomy and the capacity to manage one’s learning journey. It extends the foundations of pedagogy and andragogy by emphasizing characteristics such as learner readiness, self-direction, reflexivity, and intrinsic motivation, which empower individuals to determine what, how, and when they learn (Hase & Kenyon, 2013). Distinct from andragogy, which centers on facilitating learning for adults, heutagogy advances the notion of learners as the primary agents in determining what and how they learn, with teachers or instructors serving as facilitators rather than directors of learning (Agonács & Matos, 2019; Blaschke, 2019; Moore, 2020). In other words, andragogy supports self-directed learning within a guided framework, whereas heutagogy promotes a fully autonomous and self-determined learning process (Jones et al., 2019; Links, 2018). Thus, heutagogical principles align well with the evolving demands of teacher education, where the focus has shifted toward equipping teachers with the skills necessary for lifelong learning and adaptability in dynamic classroom environments (Ahiakpa et al., 2023; Blaschke, 2018; Blaschke & Hase, 2015; Gregory et al., 2018).

2.1. Key Principles of Heutagogy and Teacher Training

A review by Agonács and Matos (2019) recognized the fact that the list of heutagogy’s principles is quite lengthy (Blaschke & Hase, 2016) and may not be viable for categorization. As a result, Blaschke and Hase (2016) simplified the list to five broad categories, namely, learner-centered and learner-determined learning, capability, self-reflection and metacognition, double-loop learning, and non-linear learning. In this study, these five key principles are considered relevant to the training of mathematics teachers. They align with established theoretical and practice-based principles of mathematics teacher education. These include the development of content and pedagogical knowledge, reflective practice, professional identity, and the integration of theory with classroom experience (Ball et al., 2008; Kuntze, 2020; Superfine et al., 2013).

2.1.1. Learner-Centered and Learner-Determined Learning

Learner-centered and learner-determined learning highlights that the learner is self-driven and independent, taking the lead in choosing what to learn, as well as how to learn and evaluate it. This means that learners should have the freedom to make choices about their educational experiences. In the context of teacher education, this principle fosters the development of critical and reflective skills that enable teachers to independently address the challenges that they encounter in diverse classroom settings. For instance, Hase and Kenyon (2013) observed that effective learner-centered activities often revolve around three elements: challenge, autonomy, and support. These components mirror the core principles of heutagogy while also aligning with foundational practices in teacher education contexts. Specifically, mathematics teacher education emphasizes the importance of linking theory to practice through lesson study, virtual lesson observation, and reflective engagement with real classroom experiences (Alex & Mukuka, 2024; Kuntze, 2020; Mukuka & Alex, 2024). These practices empower preservice teachers to develop ownership of their learning and translate theoretical insights into responsive teaching strategies tailored to diverse educational contexts. When this is supported by strong, collaborative relationships, it leads to outcomes that meet expectations in shaping reflective teachers.

2.1.2. Capability

Capability involves the ability to apply one’s skills in both new and known situations, along with possessing self-confidence, effective communication, creativity, teamwork, and positive values. These attributes are quite essential in teacher education, as they influence how teachers perceive their capability to manage classrooms, design effective lessons, and address the varied needs of learners. It is noteworthy that the progression from competency to capability in learning is not a fixed or easily identifiable moment. As Hase and Kenyon (2013) suggest, while it may be difficult to pinpoint exactly when capability emerges, teachers or instructors can play a key role in nurturing it. This involves designing learning environments that allow students to apply their existing competencies in meaningful ways, thereby preparing them to act when authentic learning opportunities arise. In mathematics teacher education, digital tools can be strategically employed to support this development. For instance, preservice teachers can build their mathematical knowledge for teaching by observing a range of instructional styles through recorded lessons on platforms like YouTube or other virtual learning environments. Such exposure cultivates analytical and adaptive thinking, enabling them to reflect on different pedagogical approaches and adapt these insights to their own evolving practice (Alex & Mukuka, 2024). Similarly, using collaborative digital concept-mapping tools can help teachers visually organize mathematical concepts, connect pedagogical ideas, and engage in collective knowledge-building. Encouraging them to maintain personal teaching blogs and interact with peers through comments could further promote critical reflection and the ability to transfer learning across contexts. These experiences foster capability by integrating digital fluency with pedagogical insight, empowering mathematics teachers to navigate and shape complex educational landscapes.

2.1.3. Self-Reflection and Metacognition

Self-reflection and metacognition are premised on the notion that learners should not only consider what they have learned but also reflect on the methods that they used to learn it. Additionally, they should understand the processes behind their learning, which is the essence of metacognition. As such, it is worth noting that self-reflection and metacognition are essential attributes in mathematics teacher education because they enable teachers to critically evaluate their learning processes and outcomes. According to a recent exploratory study by Alex and Mukuka (2024), providing trainee teachers with opportunities to determine their own learning and reflect on their experiences helps them to develop their professional identities. This includes defining their future goals, identifying ideal teacher traits, and envisioning their desired teaching and learning environments. These reflective practices are consistent with the broader principle of cultivating professional identity and adaptive expertise through structured reflection (Cooney & Krainer, 1996; Conner & Marchant, 2022), which is foundational in both preservice and in-service teacher development.

2.1.4. Double-Loop Learning

Double-loop learning is essential for preparing mathematics teachers, as it encompasses both psychological and behavioral engagement from learners. According to Hase and Kenyon (2013), “double-loop learning involves self-reflection on the individual learning process: reflection on what has been learned and how it has been learned” (p. 59). As such, this approach encourages learners to reflect not only on the content that they have learned but also on the methods of learning and how these experiences have shaped their values and beliefs (Blaschke & Hase, 2015; Moore, 2020; Thakur, 2013). Hase and Kenyon (2013) explain that technology plays a key role in facilitating double-loop learning by enabling learners to connect and collaborate through various digital tools. These include social networking sites like LinkedIn, academia.edu, Twitter, and Facebook, as well as bookmarking and organizational platforms such as Diigo, Evernote, and Del. Learners can use these tools not only to search for solutions but also to seek support and multiple perspectives by participating in online discussions, forums, and chat groups. This interactive environment encourages them to engage with diverse viewpoints, share ideas, and reflect on potential solutions collectively (Downton & Sullivan, 2020). In mathematics teacher education, this principle aligns with the emphasis on interpreting student thinking and using it to guide instruction, an essential skill that requires teachers to question their assumptions and adapt their teaching strategies accordingly.

2.1.5. Non-Linear Learning and Teaching

Non-linear learning and teaching is an approach where the learning path is determined by the learner rather than being predefined by the teacher. This means that learners have the autonomy to choose their own learning journey, eventually leading to a more flexible and individualized learning experience. This approach is relevant in mathematics teacher education, as it encourages teachers to develop adaptive teaching strategies and fosters a deeper understanding of how students learn in diverse ways (Canning, 2010; Kajander & Colgan, 2024). By embracing non-linear learning, mathematics teachers can better support their students’ unique learning needs and promote a more engaging and effective learning environment (Schleicher, 2012). Additionally, non-linear learning and teaching enable teachers to provide learners with open-ended, problem-based activities that challenge them to develop innovative solutions (Blaschke & Hase, 2015). This aligns with the principle of culturally responsive and inclusive pedagogy in teacher education, which emphasizes differentiated instruction and universal design for learning to meet the needs of diverse learners (Egara & Mosia, 2025).

2.2. Heutagogy and Technology Integration

Technology plays a pivotal role in operationalizing heutagogical principles, as it provides the tools and environments necessary for self-determined and adaptive learning. Research shows that online platforms, digital collaboration tools, and simulation software enable preservice teachers to explore, experiment, and reflect on their learning experiences (Alex & Mukuka, 2024; Chimpololo, 2020; Khan & Thomas, 2022). For instance, digital teaching simulations allow teachers to engage in authentic teaching scenarios that foster autonomy and critical thinking (Weigand et al., 2024).

Additionally, technology facilitates the personalization of learning, a cornerstone of heutagogy. Learners can access diverse resources, engage with peers in collaborative learning communities, and tailor their educational experiences to their interests and professional goals (Alex & Mukuka, 2024; Cochrane, 2014; Mukuka et al., 2024). Studies indicate that integrating technology into teacher education enhances teachers’ abilities to innovate and adapt to various classroom contexts, which ultimately improves their preparedness for the demands of 21st-century education (Gumbi et al., 2024; Schleicher, 2012).

By combining heutagogical principles with technology integration, teacher training programs can foster a transformative learning environment that equips both preservice and in-service mathematics teachers with the skills and mindsets needed to thrive in modern classrooms (Blaschke & Hase, 2019; Mukuka et al., 2024). These benefits are further illustrated by Hase and Kenyon’s (2013) seven practical guidelines for incorporating technology into heutagogical learning environments. These include promoting digital content creation, collaborative knowledge construction, reflective journaling, scaffolded autonomy, negotiated learning, real-world application, and open, learner-driven environments. Together, these strategies exemplify how technology can actively shape a self-determined learning culture in teacher education.

3. Methodology

3.1. Article Selection Process

As stated earlier, this study is a systematic review of the existing literature focusing on technology-enhanced heutagogy in mathematics teacher education. Drawing on methodological guidance from Moher et al. (2015) and Page et al. (2021) on effective systematic review procedures, the process comprised four key steps: a literature search, the selection of relevant studies, data extraction, and data analysis.

The search was conducted between December 2024 and January 2025, targeting empirical studies published between 2017 and 2024. The review was motivated by promising findings from an earlier empirical investigation on the heutagogy and virtual “air campus” experiences of mathematics trainee teachers from a South African university (Alex & Mukuka, 2024). The said study highlighted the potential of technology-enhanced learning environments to support self-determined learning practices. Initial keyword searches included entering the phrase “Technology-Enhanced Heutagogy in Mathematics Teacher Education” into Google Scholar, which yielded a total of 506 documents.

The first filtering phase involved title-level screening to retain only studies situated within the context of teacher education. The removal of duplicates and a focus on articles published on teacher education trimmed the list to 94 articles. Next, non-empirical studies were excluded to align the review with the aim of evaluating practical applications and the implementation of heutagogical practices. This decision is consistent with recommendations from prior research (Agonács & Matos, 2019; Blaschke, 2021; Mukuka et al., 2024), which emphasize that empirical studies can provide concrete evidence of the impact of technology-enhanced heutagogy on learner autonomy and professional development. This refinement reduced the number of studies to 61.

While these 33 excluded review articles were not included in the core data analysis, they were not discarded entirely. Some of these offered valuable insights relevant to this study’s rationale, theoretical perspectives, and discussion sections.

An additional screening step was applied to ensure disciplinary relevance. Studies that did not directly or indirectly address mathematics teacher education were excluded. “Directly addressing” mathematics teacher education refers to studies involving preservice mathematics teachers or in-service mathematics teachers engaged in professional development training. “Indirectly addressing” mathematics teacher education includes studies that focused more broadly on teacher education, such as those with mixed samples where mathematics teachers were included or those that, while centered on other areas of teacher education, demonstrated clear relevance to mathematics teacher education. Based on this criterion, 40 articles were retained.

To ensure methodological rigor and the credibility of sources, this review only included articles published in journals indexed in Scopus and/or ERIC databases. While Google Scholar provides broader coverage, it often includes non-peer-reviewed sources or publications from journals and conference proceedings that lack stringent quality controls (Halevi et al., 2017; Harzing & Alakangas, 2016). Thus, we felt that the decision to rely exclusively on curated academic databases supported the integrity and trustworthiness of the findings. Applying this criterion yielded a pool of 30 empirical studies for full-text review.

During data extraction, nine of these were found not to sufficiently address any of the three research questions, as they focused solely on either technology or heutagogy without integrating both. Nonetheless, these studies were retained for background context and were used in shaping the study rationale, theoretical framing, and implications sections. The above criteria are summarized in a PRISMA flowchart in Figure 1.

The final dataset comprised 21 empirical studies that directly addressed the core research questions of the review. It is important to note that not all 21 articles were exclusively centered on mathematics teacher training. As highlighted in previous studies (Alex & Mukuka, 2024; Mukuka et al., 2024), empirical research focused on mathematics teacher education and heutagogy remains scarce. Therefore, some of the retained studies, conducted within broader STEM education contexts, were included due to their relevance, particularly when they directly or indirectly involved mathematics preservice or in-service teachers. A list of all 21 articles, including their respective authors and publication years, is presented in

Table 1. Themes from reviewed studies and key findings.

Theme	Key Findings	Relevant Sources
Heutagogy and teaching skills in technology-enhanced contexts	Technology-enabled environments, such as virtual campuses, blended learning platforms, and mobile learning tools, have been found to foster heutagogical practices, including self-reflection, creativity, collaboration, and professional identity development among preservice teachers. For example, a virtual “air campus” enabled trainees to observe lessons and refine their teaching practices. Similarly, blended learning frameworks promoted student agency and adaptability, while mobile-based heutagogical interventions supported peer collaboration and independent/lifelong learning.	Alex and Mukuka (2024); Blaschke (2021); Chamo et al. (2023); Chimpololo (2020, 2021); Handayani et al. (2023); Walsh et al. (2022); Wong et al. (2019); Youde (2020)
Technological tools and strategies that support heutagogy in teacher training	Tools such as adaptive learning platforms, gamification, online discussion forums, dynamic mathematics software (e.g., GeoGebra), MOOCs, and robotic coding applications have been effective in heutagogically driven teacher training sessions. Edcamps and mobile social media platforms (e.g., Twitter, Voxer, and WhatsApp) also promote self-directed and collaborative professional learning. Structural strategies such as School-University Partnership mediated Lesson Study (SUPER-LS) and blended learning facilitate heutagogical engagement by combining independent learning with collaborative mentorship.	Carpenter and Green (2017); Carpenter and Linton (2018); Çakır et al. (2021); Chimpololo (2021); Chamo et al. (2023); Khan and Thomas (2022); Kusdiyanti et al. (2023); Lexman et al. (2024); Purnomo and Jailani (2019); Rusli et al. (2020); Saralar-Aras and Türker-Biber (2024); Wang et al. (2019); Zakaria et al. (2024)
Challenges in implementing technology-driven heutagogy	Key challenges include limited institutional support, insufficient training, resistance to self-determined learning approaches, limited access to digital tools and the internet, and limited time. This requires structured scaffolding and mindset shifts. Other challenges include low engagement in online peer-to-peer interactions, difficulty translating heutagogical learning into classroom practice due to institutional constraints, and variability in technology adoption across disciplines. Limitation in fostering interpersonal dynamics through digital platforms is another notable challenge.	Blaschke (2021); Carpenter and Green (2017); Carpenter and Linton (2018); Chimpololo (2020, 2021); Chamo et al. (2023); Handayani et al. (2023); Humble and Mozelius (2021); Khan and Thomas (2022); Lexman et al. (2024); Wong et al. (2019); Youde (2020); Zakaria et al. (2024)

, and each article is appropriately cited in the reference list.

3.2. Data Extraction and Analysis

All the retained articles (see Table 1) underwent full-text reading and analysis. Guided by Braun and Clarke’s (2006) framework for thematic analysis, this process involved familiarization with the data, initial coding, theme identification, review, and aligning the emerging themes with the research questions. Through this process, three main themes emerged from the data, each corresponding directly to one of the three research questions (as outlined in Table 1). A data extraction tool was developed to ensure a systematic and comprehensive analysis. This tool comprised five columns capturing the (i) author names and year of publication, (ii) research focus, (iii) research approach, (iv) participant details, and (v) key findings. The extracted information not only facilitated a response to the research questions but also provided insights into the methodological and demographic characteristics of the included reviewed articles. These characteristics are discussed in the following section.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Characteristics of Reviewed Studies

As indicated earlier, this paper presents findings from a desk review that examined the extent to which technology-enhanced learning environments support heutagogical practices in mathematics teacher education. The review covered empirical studies published between 2017 and 2024. As illustrated in Figure 2, the publication trend over this period reveals no consistent trajectory that would allow for a clear prediction regarding increases or decreases in publication rates on this topic. The highest number of reviewed studies appeared in 2024 (n = 5), followed by 2021 (n = 4). The years 2019 and 2022 each recorded three studies, while 2020 and 2023 had two studies each. Among the reviewed articles, only one study was published in 2017, and only one study was published in 2018.

The fluctuating publication pattern mirrors the observations made by Mukuka et al. (2024), who highlighted a scarcity of research that explicitly investigates the intersection between technology use and heutagogical practices in mathematics teacher education. This finding aligns with the conclusions drawn by Blaschke and Hase (2019), who noted that, while heutagogy is gaining traction in educational discourse, its application within specific disciplines is still under-explored. This implies that, although digital platforms offer significant affordances for learner autonomy and self-determined learning (Alex & Mukuka, 2024), empirical research remains limited, especially in teacher training contexts.

Another notable feature is that the reviewed studies span 12 countries, which reflects a relatively global interest, albeit with varying levels of engagement. Indonesia was the most represented, contributing four studies. Turkey, Malawi, the United States, Israel, Malaysia, and India each contributed two studies, while South Africa, Sweden, Australia, China, and the United Kingdom were represented by one study each. For articles that did not explicitly state the research location, the first author’s institutional affiliation was used as a proxy for the country where the study was undertaken.

In terms of research methodologies, eight studies employed mixed-methods designs. Seven studies adopted a quantitative approach, while six employed qualitative methodologies. A preference for mixed methods aligns with established research methodologies in education, where integrating both qualitative and quantitative data supports a more comprehensive approach (Fraenkel et al., 2006).

Regarding research participants, preservice undergraduate teachers were the most commonly studied group, featuring in 12 of the reviewed articles. Six studies involved in-service teachers engaged in professional development programs, while five included teacher educators (lecturers). Only three studies focused on postgraduate students. It is important to note that some studies included more than one participant group, which accounts for the cumulative participant count exceeding 21 studies that were reviewed. For instance, all studies that involved lecturers also included preservice teachers, except for one that focused exclusively on academic staff.

4.2. Main Findings

The main findings of this review are organized around three themes that are linked to the three research questions. The first theme involves an exploration of how technology-facilitated heutagogical practices contribute to the development of teaching skills among preservice mathematics teachers. The second theme identifies the technological tools and strategies that have proven effective in embedding heutagogical principles within teacher training programs. The third theme examines the challenges and limitations of implementing technology-driven heutagogical approaches, especially those related to systemic, pedagogical, and contextual barriers.

Table 1 presents the three themes identified in this review, a brief summary of the major findings for each theme, and the corresponding studies that address them. These findings are relevant to mathematics teacher education because they highlight how heutagogical approaches, when supported by appropriate technologies, can foster critical competencies such as self-determined learning, pedagogical adaptability, and reflective practice.

4.2.1. Heutagogy and Teaching Skills in Technology-Enhanced Contexts

Arising from the findings presented in Table 1, it suffices to state that the integration of technology in mathematics teacher education has enhanced independent learning, self-reflection, and professional identity development among preservice teachers (Chamo et al., 2023; Handayani et al., 2023). Heutagogical practices emphasize learner autonomy and flexibility, and studies reveal that technology-facilitated environments create opportunities for preservice teachers to take ownership of their learning journey. Alex and Mukuka (2024) found that virtual mathematics lessons helped trainee teachers to determine what they wanted to learn from the virtual “air campus” of their choice. This digital engagement enabled trainees to observe teaching practices virtually, analyze student misconceptions, and reflect on their evolving professional identities. This is consistent with Engelbrecht et al. (2020), who contend that digital technologies foster innovative ways of thinking and transform the environments in which mathematics is taught and learned. Similarly, blended learning environments have been found to foster student agency and adaptability by allowing preservice teachers to navigate both synchronous and asynchronous learning experiences (Chamo et al., 2023; Wong et al., 2019).

Mobile technology has also been instrumental in supporting self-determined learning and collaborative professional development. Chimpololo (2020, 2021) found that student teachers in Malawi frequently used mobile devices to engage in peer-to-peer learning and resource sharing. This aligns well with heutagogical principles.

Beyond mobile learning, online professional development resources also play a crucial role in supporting teaching skills. Walsh et al. (2022) found that an online numeracy guide, designed with heutagogical principles in mind, enhanced teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and allowed them to engage in self-reflection and double-loop learning. This highlights the potential of well-structured digital resources in fostering heutagogical learning in preservice mathematics teacher education. With insights from Lock et al. (2021), it is evident that mobile technology and online professional development resources are instrumental in promoting heutagogical learning, thereby supporting the development of self-determined, reflective, and adaptive teachers.

These findings from the reviewed studies suggest that, for technology-facilitated heutagogical practices to be effective in mathematics teacher education, institutions must provide accessible digital platforms that support independent learning and professional identity formation. Blended learning models that enable preservice teachers to navigate both self-paced and collaborative learning environments are essential. Additionally, there is a need to enhance mobile technology integration to support peer collaboration and interactive learning opportunities for both preservice and in-service mathematics teachers.

4.2.2. Technological Tools and Strategies That Support Heutagogy in Teacher Training

As outlined in Table 1, a variety of technological tools and strategies have been identified as effective in fostering heutagogical practice in mathematics teacher education. These include adaptive learning platforms, gamification, online discussion forums, MOOCs, mobile apps, and robotic coding applications (Çakır et al., 2021; Carpenter & Green, 2017; Chimpololo, 2021; Kusdiyanti et al., 2023; Lexman et al., 2024).

Voxer, Edcamps, and social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp have also emerged as valuable tools for self-determined professional learning (Purnomo & Jailani, 2019). Carpenter and Green (2017) found that Voxer-supported heutagogical learning allowed teachers to collaborate beyond their immediate school networks, fostering autonomy, reflection, and peer engagement. Similarly, Edcamps provided teachers with the opportunity to explore new instructional strategies and classroom technology tools, promoting a self-determined learning culture (Carpenter & Linton, 2018).

In addition, dynamic mathematical tools such as GeoGebra, mBlock programming, and adaptive learning platforms have been found to enhance teaching skills. Saralar-Aras and Türker-Biber (2024) reported that preservice teachers who engaged in technology-supported lesson planning activities demonstrated higher confidence in integrating digital tools into their teaching. Similarly, robotic coding applications helped mathematics teachers develop computational thinking skills, a critical component of 21st-century teaching (Çakır et al., 2021).

Furthermore, mobile technology and MOOCs have played a vital role in facilitating heutagogical learning. Wang et al. (2019) found that MOOCs enabled flexible, learner-controlled navigation, allowing teachers to choose personalized learning pathways based on their needs. Similarly, Chimpololo (2021) found that mobile learning interventions, combined with heutagogical strategies, improved independent learning habits and collaboration among student teachers.

The implications of these findings are significant for the future of mathematics teacher education. As Blaschke (2021) highlighted, technology-enhanced heutagogy promotes self-determined and lifelong learning, which is essential for preparing teachers to adapt to the evolving educational landscape. Lock et al. (2021) further emphasize that heutagogical approaches, when integrated with digital platforms, can effectively support the development of autonomous and reflective practitioners. Mukuka et al. (2024) also affirm the importance of virtual learning environments in fostering professional identity formation and critical thinking among preservice teachers. Similarly, the data described by Rusli et al. (2020) provide evidence that integrating heutagogical practices into teacher training supports flexible, technology-enhanced learning in mathematics and science education. By embracing these strategies, mathematics teacher education programs can better prepare prospective mathematics teachers to navigate and thrive in a technology-rich educational landscape.

In addition, the growing prominence of generative artificial intelligence (AI) also presents new opportunities to further enhance the benefits of technology-driven heutagogy. AI-powered tools can support preservice and in-service teachers in developing self-determined learning habits by offering personalized feedback, adaptive learning pathways, and access to diverse instructional resources (Pelton & Pelton, 2024). However, realizing this potential requires clear institutional guidance on the ethical and pedagogically sound use of AI in teacher education (European Commission, 2022). Universities, instructors, and policymakers must work collaboratively to ensure equitable access to recommended AI tools and to foster critical AI literacy among educators, thereby reinforcing the heutagogical emphasis on autonomy, reflection, and lifelong learning.

4.2.3. Challenges in Implementing Technology-Driven Heutagogy

Despite the benefits of technology-enhanced heutagogical practices, several barriers hinder their widespread adoption in teacher education. These include limited institutional support, resistance to self-determined learning, access constraints, and time limitations (Blaschke, 2021; Chamo et al., 2023; Youde, 2020; Zakaria et al., 2024).

One of the key challenges is the difficulty in transitioning from traditional pedagogy to heutagogical learning models. Blaschke (2021) found that students initially struggled with self-determined learning approaches, requiring supportive scaffolding and gradual adaptation. Similarly, Chamo et al. (2023) reported that teacher educators and preservice teachers needed time to adjust to blended learning frameworks that emphasized heutagogical autonomy.

Access to technology and institutional constraints also pose significant barriers. Chimpololo (2020) found that, while mobile devices supported self-determined learning, a lack of access to laptops and stable internet limited the effectiveness of technology integration. Additionally, resource disparities among institutions prevented the equitable implementation of technology-driven heutagogical practices. Similar findings are echoed in a study by Mukuka et al. (2021), which found that limited access to digital technology tools hindered teachers and learners from staying connected during the COVID-19 lockdown. This situation has not improved even in the aftermath of the COVID-19 lockdown, particularly in low-resource settings like Zambia, as similar challenges have been reported in recent studies (Bwalya & Rutegwa, 2023; Mukuka & Alex, 2025).

Furthermore, low engagement in online peer learning and digital professional development remains a challenge. Humble and Mozelius (2021) highlight that misalignment with learners’ starting points can reduce motivation, while an unclear course design may impede learner autonomy. While platforms like Edcamps and Voxer facilitate collaborative learning, some educators found the overwhelming quantity of available digital resources challenging to navigate (Carpenter & Green, 2017). Additionally, inconsistent institutional policies on self-determined professional learning create barriers to widespread adoption (Carpenter & Linton, 2018).

It is also worth noting that access to digital resources does not guarantee effective implementation in the classroom. Therefore, we agree with Engelbrecht and Borba (2024), who emphasize that “many educators require proper initial training and ongoing support to effectively integrate technology into their teaching. If not, technology can easily become a barrier rather than contributing to education.” (p. 288). These points clearly illustrate that a lack of access to digital technology, coupled with inadequate technological proficiency among preservice and in-service teachers and teacher educators, can hinder the effective implementation of heutagogy, especially in our technologically driven world.

5. Conclusions

This review highlights three key insights into integrating technology-facilitated heutagogical practices in mathematics teacher education. First, such practices support both preservice and in-service teachers in developing teaching skills by fostering autonomy, self-reflection, and professional identity. Second, a range of technological tools, such as mobile apps, MOOCs, adaptive learning platforms, and collaborative digital spaces, have proven effective in embedding heutagogical principles. Third, implementing technology-enhanced heutagogy is hindered by challenges, including limited access to digital resources, institutional constraints, inadequate technological proficiency, and the need for gradual adaptation to self-determined learning models.

Policy and practical implications suggest that teacher education programs must invest in accessible digital infrastructure, promote blended learning models, and provide ongoing support for learners and educators. Theoretically, this review reinforces heutagogy as a relevant and responsive pedagogical approach in preparing mathematics teachers for dynamic, technology-driven classrooms.

Future research could explore context-specific strategies for scaling heutagogical practices, particularly in resource-constrained environments; examine the long-term impacts on teacher identity and instructional effectiveness; and evaluate the role of emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence and augmented and virtual reality, in advancing heutagogical learning in mathematics teacher education.