From Access to Integration: Rural Mathematics Teachers’ Experiences of Digitalisation in South Africa

Abstract

Digitalisation continues to shape debates in mathematics education, yet its classroom enactment remains uneven, particularly in rural and under-resourced school contexts. This study examined how mathematics teachers perceive and experience digitalisation, focusing on digital competence, barriers to integration, and readiness to adopt technology. Guided by the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework, the study employed a qualitative design based on interviews with practising teachers. The findings show that digitalisation was constrained by limited awareness of mathematics-specific digital tools, uneven confidence and competence in their use, and structural barriers such as inadequate infrastructure, poor connectivity, and restricted access to devices. Although some teachers recognised the value of digital tools and expressed willingness to use them, this did not consistently translate into meaningful classroom practice. The study argues that digitalisation in mathematics education extends beyond the availability of technology and requires teacher competence, pedagogical readiness, institutional support, and equitable resourcing. Overall, the findings show that digitalisation in the participating rural schools remains emergent, uneven, and shaped by both teacher-related and structural conditions.

1. Introduction

Digitalisation continues to shape contemporary debates on educational improvement, and mathematics education has remained central to these discussions. Across the literature, digital tools are associated with opportunities to enhance the teaching and learning of mathematics through dynamic visualisation, multiple representations, learner engagement, immediate feedback, and exploratory problem-solving (Assadi & Hibi, 2020; Batiibwe, 2024; Bueno et al., 2021). In mathematics, where learners are expected to work with abstraction, symbolic notation, graphs, spatial relationships, and generalisation, such tools can expand pedagogical possibilities (Kilpatrick et al., 2001). However, digitalisation is not simply a neutral or technical process of introducing devices and software into classrooms. It is also shaped by questions of access, institutional support, uneven resourcing, and the social conditions under which teachers and learners encounter technology. The educational value of digitalisation therefore does not lie in the mere presence of technology, but in how digital tools are understood, accessed, and used in relation to mathematical content, classroom practice, and the structural realities of schooling.

This point is important because digitalisation is often presented in policy and institutional discourse as though access to devices and connectivity will naturally improve teaching and learning. Yet research consistently shows that this assumption is too simplistic. Teachers may have some familiarity with technology while still struggling to integrate digital tools in pedagogically meaningful ways (Ince-Muslu & Erduran, 2020; Morales-López et al., 2021). In mathematics education, this challenge is particularly pronounced because effective teaching requires more than the transmission of content. It requires teachers to support learners in reasoning, explaining, visualising, conjecturing, and moving flexibly across representations. This means that meaningful digitalisation in mathematics is not simply a technical matter, but a pedagogical, disciplinary, and structural one, shaped by who has access to digital tools, under what conditions, and with what forms of institutional support.

The promise of digital tools in mathematics education has been widely documented. Mathematics-specific technologies such as GeoGebra, graphing applications, simulations, and interactive platforms can support conceptual understanding by making mathematical relationships more visible and dynamic (Batiibwe, 2024; Bueno et al., 2021). At the same time, the effective use of such tools depends heavily on teacher competence, pedagogical judgement, and confidence. Assadi and Hibi (2020) argue that technology can enrich mathematical learning only when it is integrated in ways that support inquiry and conceptual engagement rather than routine presentation. Similarly, research has shown that teachers’ readiness to use digital tools is shaped not only by technical skill but also by their understanding of how technology connects with mathematical ideas and pedagogical goals (Ince-Muslu & Erduran, 2020; Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

These concerns become even more pressing in African and South African contexts, where digitalisation is often mediated by structural inequality. Studies from the continent suggest that teachers and teacher educators may express positive attitudes towards educational technology while simultaneously reporting limited familiarity with mathematics-related applications and weak confidence in curricular integration (Arhin et al., 2024; Mukuka & Alex, 2024). Such findings are important because they move beyond simple narratives of acceptance or resistance. They suggest instead that teachers may be willing to embrace digitalisation, yet remain insufficiently supported to enact it meaningfully in practice. In South Africa, these challenges are further intensified by persistent inequalities in infrastructure, access, and professional support. Research has shown that many schools continue to face constraints related to inadequate equipment, poor connectivity, shortages of computers and projectors, and uneven levels of staff preparedness for educational technology use (Graham et al., 2021, 2024; Mokotjo & Mokhele, 2021). Even where technology is available, its use may remain limited, selective, or routine rather than pedagogically transformative.

Rural school contexts bring these issues into particularly sharp focus. In such settings, the realities of teaching often expose the gap between policy aspirations and classroom conditions. Digitalisation may be shaped not only by the presence of digital tools, but also by who has access to them, when they are used, and for what pedagogical purposes. This makes rural mathematics classrooms especially important sites for inquiry (Warschauer, 2004; Selwyn, 2011). They offer insight into how digitalisation is experienced by practising teachers whose work is shaped by uneven infrastructure, local constraints, and shifting institutional priorities. Recent scholarship has also suggested that digital inequality should not be understood only in terms of physical access to devices. It must also be understood in terms of digital competence, institutional support, and opportunities for meaningful pedagogical engagement (Age & Machaba, 2025; Mphuthi et al., 2025; Ngoveni et al., 2025). From this perspective, digitalisation is not a uniform educational process, but a differentiated one shaped by the interaction of teacher knowledge, school conditions, and wider patterns of inequality.

Despite growing scholarship on digitalisation in mathematics education, the field still presents an important gap. Much of the literature has focused on the potential benefits of digital tools, broad educational technology trends, or the preparedness of pre-service teachers and teacher educators. Comparatively less attention has been given to practising mathematics teachers working in rural and under-resourced school contexts, where digitalisation is often shaped by material constraints, uneven institutional support, and limited opportunities for sustained pedagogical engagement with technology. As a result, digitalisation is frequently discussed as a policy aspiration or pedagogical possibility, while less is known about how it is actually experienced and negotiated by teachers in their everyday mathematics classrooms. This study addresses that gap by exploring how practising mathematics teachers in a rural South African circuit experience the use of digital tools, with particular attention to their awareness and use of such tools, their confidence and competence, the barriers affecting integration, and their readiness to adopt technology in practice.

This study draws on interviews with six practising mathematics teachers in a rural circuit in Capricorn North District. In doing so, it examines digitalisation not as an abstract reform ideal but as a situated and uneven educational practice grounded in teachers’ lived realities. The study was guided by the following research question: How are rural mathematics teachers’ experiences of digitalisation shaped by their digital competence, readiness to integrate technology, and the structural conditions of their school contexts?

2. Theoretical Framework

This study was guided by the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework developed by Mishra and Koehler (2006), building on Shulman’s (1986) concept of pedagogical content knowledge. TPACK was suitable for this study because it provides a lens for understanding technology integration not as a technical skill in isolation, but as the interaction of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge. In mathematics education, this is particularly important because effective teaching requires more than access to devices or general technological awareness. Teachers need to understand how digital tools can be used to represent mathematical ideas, support reasoning, and enhance learners’ conceptual understanding. The framework was therefore appropriate for examining teachers’ awareness of digital tools, their competence and confidence in using them, and their readiness to integrate such tools into mathematics teaching.

The relevance of TPACK to this study lies in its ability to explain why digitalisation in mathematics classrooms may remain uneven even when technology is available. As Koehler and Mishra (2009) explain, meaningful technology integration depends on the intersection of content, pedagogy, and technology rather than on any one of these domains alone. This is important in the present study because some teachers appeared to have limited familiarity with mathematics-specific digital tools, while others reported selective use of laptops and projectors in particular grades or teaching periods. Such variation suggests that digital tool use was shaped not only by access, but also by teachers’ ability to connect technology meaningfully to mathematical content and classroom practice. In this way, TPACK helps to interpret the findings beyond simple claims of use or non-use.

At the same time, this study recognises that teacher knowledge alone does not fully explain digitalisation in rural school contexts. Teachers’ use of technology is also shaped by structural conditions such as infrastructure, institutional support, and uneven access to resources. TPACK was therefore used in a contextualised manner, as a framework for understanding both teachers’ knowledge-related readiness and the challenges that constrained its enactment in practice. In this study, the framework was useful for interpreting findings on limited awareness of digital tools, structural barriers to integration, and teachers’ varying readiness to adopt technology in mathematics teaching. It therefore provided a coherent basis for analysing digitalisation as both a pedagogical and contextual process.

While TPACK provides a valuable lens for interpreting teachers’ knowledge-related readiness for technology integration, it is less explicit in accounting for broader structural and institutional conditions that may constrain classroom enactment. In this study, the framework was therefore used not only to interpret teachers’ technological, pedagogical, and content-related orientations, but also to identify tensions where these dimensions did not align in practice. For example, the formal availability of digital tools did not necessarily translate into pedagogically meaningful use, and expressions of willingness were not always matched by enabling school conditions. TPACK was thus used as the primary interpretive lens for examining teacher-related dimensions of digitalisation, while the study also remained attentive to the structural inequalities that shaped the possibilities for enactment in this rural context.

3. Literature Review

Empirical research on digitalisation in mathematics education shows that classroom use of digital tools remains uneven across contexts. Although such tools are associated with improved visualisation, learner engagement, and conceptual understanding, their integration depends on more than the availability of devices or software (Assadi & Hibi, 2020; Bueno et al., 2021). Studies further show that teachers’ use of digital tools is shaped by subject-specific competence, structural conditions, and the support available for implementation (Ince-Muslu & Erduran, 2020; Peters et al., 2022; Mukuka & Alex, 2024). Across the literature, four recurring patterns are evident: limited digital competence and awareness of mathematics-related tools, structural barriers to integration, uneven readiness to adopt technology, and a gap between the promise of digitalisation and its classroom enactment (Agyei, 2021; Graham et al., 2021; Ngoveni et al., 2025). This section reviews these patterns in relation to international, African, and South African scholarship on digitalisation in mathematics education.

3.1. Limited Digital Competence and Awareness of Digital Tools

A recurring finding in the literature is that teachers’ general familiarity with technology does not necessarily translate into meaningful use of digital tools in mathematics teaching. This distinction matters because mathematics requires teachers to use technology not simply for presentation, but to represent concepts, support reasoning, and connect multiple forms of representation. Morales-López et al. (2021) found that pre-service mathematics teachers showed some technological and pedagogical knowledge, but this did not always translate into effective classroom use. Ince-Muslu and Erduran (2020) similarly show that awareness, confidence, and planning are central to meaningful integration. Research on GeoGebra reinforces this point, as teachers often value it for visualisation and engagement while still needing stronger pedagogical grounding to use it effectively (Assadi & Hibi, 2020; Saralar-Aras, 2022).

African and South African studies reflect similar patterns. Mukuka and Alex (2024) found that mathematics teacher educators valued digital tools but reported only modest familiarity with mathematics-related software. In South Africa, De Freitas and Spangenberg (2019) found uneven levels of technological pedagogical content knowledge, while Dewa and Ndlovu (2022) argue that teacher education does not always adequately model subject-specific digital pedagogy. Recent work also suggests that teachers may feel confident with basic tools, yet remain less prepared to use more demanding digital resources in pedagogically rich ways (Ngoveni et al., 2025). Overall, the literature suggests that digital competence in mathematics education is not merely technical, but deeply pedagogical and subject-specific.

3.2. Structural Barriers to Digital Integration

Beyond teacher-related factors, the literature consistently highlights the role of structural conditions in shaping digital integration. Even willing teachers may be constrained by poor infrastructure, weak connectivity, a lack of devices, and inconsistent institutional support. Peters et al. (2022) argue that digital competence must be understood within the environments in which teachers work. This is especially important in mathematics classrooms, where effective digital use often depends on functioning equipment, internet access, and suitable software.

African scholarship strongly highlights these material constraints. Agyei (2021) found that teachers across Sub-Saharan Africa were generally positive about ICT-related professional development, yet classroom uptake remained limited by weak support conditions. Similar concerns are reported in rural contexts where teachers value ICT but face persistent barriers related to training, connectivity, and resources (Simuja & Shikesho, 2024). South African studies confirm this pattern. Mokotjo and Mokhele (2021) found that GeoGebra integration was hindered by equipment shortages and poor learner access to computers, while Graham et al. (2021, 2024) show that many schools still lack the resources and support needed for meaningful digital use. More recent work in teacher preparation and ODeL contexts shows that data costs, unstable internet, and limited institutional support continue to shape digital participation (Mphuthi et al., 2025; Ngoveni, 2025). These studies make it clear that digitalisation in mathematics education is inseparable from structural conditions.

3.3. Uneven Readiness and Willingness to Adopt Technology

Another pattern across the literature is that teachers vary considerably in their readiness to adopt digital tools. Readiness is uneven, and willingness does not always translate into sustained classroom use. This unevenness is shaped by prior exposure, perceived usefulness, confidence, training, and contextual support. Saralar-Aras (2022) found that teachers were positive about using GeoGebra but still uncertain about implementation, while Peters et al. (2022) argue that readiness includes motivational and institutional dimensions, not just technical ability.

African studies reflect a similar picture. Mukuka and Alex (2024) found that willingness was closely linked to perceived usefulness and technological proficiency, while Arhin et al. (2024) show that positive attitudes alone are insufficient without continued support. Other studies suggest that readiness can be strengthened through purposeful professional development (Benning et al., 2023). In South Africa, teachers and student teachers are often described as willing but underserved, particularly in rural contexts where structured support is weak (Mphuthi et al., 2025; Ngoveni et al., 2025). Readiness, therefore, appears to be shaped not only by individual disposition but by unequal opportunities to learn and practise.

3.4. Digitalisation as an Aspiration Rather than an Established Practice

The literature further suggests that digitalisation is often more visible in policy and professional discourse than in everyday classroom practice. Although digital tools are widely promoted, implementation remains selective and uneven. Ince-Muslu and Erduran (2020) argue that technology integration in mathematics depends on a complex interaction of teacher-related and contextual factors, while Peters et al. (2022) similarly show that competence development does not automatically lead to classroom enactment.

This gap is particularly visible in African and South African scholarship. Agyei (2021) found that positive responses to ICT training did not necessarily lead to sustained classroom use. In South Africa, Graham et al. (2021) found that technology was often used in routine rather than transformative ways, while Dewa and Ndlovu (2022) argue that access has sometimes been mistaken for meaningful integration in teacher education. Recent studies sharpen this view by showing that rural teachers may value technology yet remain underserved by the systems meant to support them (Ngoveni et al., 2025). The literature therefore suggests that digitalisation in mathematics education remains emerging rather than fully embedded.

Taken together, these themes show that digitalisation in mathematics education is not simply a matter of placing technology in schools. It depends on subject-specific digital competence, enabling material conditions, and sustained support that can help teachers move from willingness to confident enactment. It is within this broader context that the present study examines how rural mathematics teachers experience the use of digital tools in their teaching.

4. Methodology

This study was located within an interpretivist paradigm and adopted a qualitative research approach. An interpretivist orientation was appropriate because the study sought to understand how mathematics teachers interpreted and made sense of digitalisation within their own school contexts. Rather than treating technology use as a fixed or measurable variable, the study was concerned with the meanings participants attached to digital tools, the ways they understood their own competence and readiness, and how these understandings were shaped by the institutional and material conditions of their schools. A qualitative approach was therefore suitable because it enabled an in-depth exploration of teachers’ situated accounts of digitalisation, including how they described, interpreted, and gave meaning to their experiences of awareness, constraint, confidence, and technology use in mathematics teaching (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

4.1. Research Design

The study employed a qualitative case study design. This design was appropriate because the research examined digitalisation within a bounded real-life setting, namely three rural schools located in a single circuit in Capricorn North District. A case study design enabled exploration of teachers’ experiences of digitalisation in relation to the specific institutional and material conditions in which they worked, including access to digital resources, school-level support, and uneven opportunities to engage with technology. In this way, the design enabled a context-sensitive understanding of digitalisation as it was experienced in everyday mathematics teaching practice (Yin, 2018).

4.2. Study Context and Participants

The study was conducted in three schools purposively selected from nine schools within a single rural circuit in Capricorn North District. The study formed part of a broader engaged scholarship programme in the circuit, which provided the contextual basis for identifying the participating schools and teachers. Purposive sampling was used because the study sought information-rich cases that could illuminate teachers’ experiences of digitalisation in mathematics teaching. One school was deliberately selected because it had CAMI1 software installed on its school laptops, thereby providing a context in which teachers could potentially access a specialised digital learning resource. Teachers 3 and 4 were drawn from this school. The remaining two schools were selected for their close proximity to this site, enabling exploration of teachers’ experiences across schools within the same circuit but with differing levels of exposure to digital resources. This sampling decision was also intended to examine whether the mere presence of specialised software such as CAMI was sufficient to translate into meaningful classroom use—an issue that later emerged as significant in the findings.

Importantly, the school with installed CAMI software was not treated as evidence of established digital integration. Rather, its inclusion enabled the study to examine the gap between formal access to a digital resource and teachers’ reported classroom experience of such tools. As later discussed in the findings, the CAMI school provided an important lens for examining the gap between digital resource availability and meaningful use. The selected schools, therefore, provided a useful basis for examining digitalisation not as an assumed practice, but as a context-dependent and uneven process.

The participants were six practising teachers who were teaching mathematics in the selected schools. Their inclusion in the study was based on their relevance to the study’s focus and their participation in the broader engaged scholarship initiative within the circuit. The participants also differed in their teaching experience. Teachers 1, 3, and 5 had more than 10 years of experience teaching mathematics. Teacher 4 had more than 5 years but less than 10 years of experience, while Teachers 2 and 6 had less than 3 years of experience teaching mathematics. In qualitative research, participant selection is guided by the depth and relevance of the insight participants can provide rather than by statistical representativeness (Cohen et al., 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The six teachers therefore constituted an appropriate sample for examining how digitalisation was understood, experienced, and enacted within this rural context.

4.3. Data Generation

Data were generated through semi-structured interviews with the six participating teachers. Semi-structured interviews were suitable because they provided sufficient structure to address the study’s focus while also allowing participants to describe their experiences in detail (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Cohen et al., 2018). This flexibility was important because the study aimed not only to establish whether digital tools were available, but also to understand how teachers perceived them, how they used or avoided them, and what they regarded as enabling or constraining their integration into mathematics teaching (Cohen et al., 2018). This was consistent with an interpretivist orientation, as the interviews were used not only to document reported practices, but also to access the meanings teachers constructed around digitalisation within their particular professional contexts.

The interviews were conducted in English and lasted approximately 30 to 45 minutes per participant. Through these interviews, teachers reflected on their awareness of digital tools, their confidence in teaching mathematics with technology, their competence with available digital resources, and their readiness to adopt these tools more meaningfully in practice. The interviews also generated insight into broader contextual issues, including infrastructure, institutional support, and uneven access to technological resources. Importantly, the interviews enabled the identification of discrepancies between formal resource provision and teachers’ reported experience. For example, teachers from the school where CAMI software was installed did not necessarily describe that access as translating into actual classroom use or meaningful exposure to digital tools.

4.4. Data Analysis

The data were analysed using thematic analysis. Thematic analysis was appropriate because it enabled the researcher to identify, organise, and interpret recurring patterns across the interview data in relation to teachers’ experiences of digitalisation (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The analysis followed an iterative process. First, the interview transcripts were read repeatedly in order to develop familiarity with the data and to note recurring ideas related to teachers’ awareness of digital tools, their confidence and competence, barriers to technology use, and readiness to adopt digital resources in mathematics teaching. Second, initial codes were generated from meaningful segments of text that spoke directly to these issues. At this stage, coding remained closely grounded in participants’ own accounts and language.

Third, codes that reflected similar ideas were compared across the dataset and grouped into broader categories. For example, codes related to unfamiliarity with mathematics-specific tools, uncertainty about pedagogical use, and limited exposure to digital resources were grouped under a broader category of limited digital competence and tool awareness. In a similar way, codes relating to connectivity problems, equipment shortages, and inadequate infrastructure were grouped under the structural barriers to digital integration, while codes reflecting hesitation, willingness, confidence, and selective uptake informed the category of uneven readiness to adopt technology. These categories were then reviewed and refined in relation to the full dataset until they developed into the final themes.

The final stage of analysis involved interpreting the themes in relation to the research question and the study’s theoretical lens. This meant moving beyond surface description to consider what the patterns revealed about teachers’ experiences of digitalisation in a rural mathematics context. The analysis yielded three main themes: limited digital competence and tool awareness, structural barriers to digital integration, and uneven readiness to adopt technology. These themes captured both shared patterns across participants and important points of variation in how digitalisation was understood and enacted. The TPACK framework informed the interpretation by sensitising the analysis to the relationship between technological awareness, pedagogical readiness, mathematics teaching, and the contextual conditions shaping classroom enactment.

4.5. Trustworthiness

Trustworthiness was addressed through credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Credibility was enhanced through close engagement with the interview data and careful interpretation of participants’ accounts in relation to the research focus. Dependability was supported through clear alignment between the research purpose, data generation process, and analytical procedures. Confirmability was strengthened by grounding interpretations in the interview data rather than in prior assumptions. Transferability was addressed by providing a sufficient description of the study context, participants, and research process so that readers may judge the relevance of the findings to similar contexts.

4.6. Ethical Considerations

Ethical principles were observed throughout the study. Participation was voluntary, and participants’ identities, as well as the identities of their schools, were protected through anonymisation. In reporting the findings, participants were identified using labels such as Teacher 1 to Teacher 6 in order to preserve confidentiality. Care was also taken to represent participants’ views respectfully, particularly because the study explored issues related to confidence, preparedness, and the challenges associated with digitalisation in under-resourced rural contexts. Ethical attention was therefore necessary both to protect participants and to ensure responsible reporting of their professional experiences.

5. Findings

The analysis revealed three interconnected themes shaping teachers’ experiences of digitalisation in the teaching and learning of mathematics: limited digital competence and awareness of tools, structural barriers to digital integration, and uneven readiness to adopt technology. These themes did not operate independently. Rather, they intersected across participants’ accounts, with limited awareness of subject-specific digital tools often coinciding with low confidence, selective pedagogical use, and constrained opportunities for classroom enactment. Across the interviews, digital tools were described as unfamiliar, unevenly accessible, and only selectively used in practice. Notably, even Teachers 3 and 4, who were based at the school where CAMI software had been installed, reported no meaningful experience of using digital tools in mathematics teaching. The findings therefore point not simply to the presence or absence of digitalisation, but to differing degrees of readiness, access, and pedagogical uptake across the participating schools.

5.1. Limited Digital Competence and Awareness of Digital Tools

A recurring pattern across the interviews was teachers’ limited awareness of digital tools that could support mathematics teaching. Several participants either stated directly that they were unfamiliar with such tools or spoke in ways that reflected uncertainty about how they could be used pedagogically. This points to limited digital competence, particularly in relation to subject-specific applications for mathematics teaching.

Teacher 2 provided the clearest example of this when they stated, “I am not really aware of the digital tools that are available for teaching mathematics. I do not use them much, mainly because I do not know enough about them. My digital literacy is low, and access to devices and connectivity is also a challenge.” Teacher 2’s account suggests that the issue was not resistance to technology, but limited exposure and inadequate preparation. This became even more apparent when the teacher added, “No, not really. I am not familiar with tools such as GeoGebra, even though I know that some teachers use it for topics like geometry. I have not been exposed to those tools properly”. The teacher further linked this to teacher preparation, arguing that “in this time of technology, teachers should be trained to use digital resources in teaching. If that does not happen during teacher preparation, then new teachers enter the classroom without the necessary skills.”

Teacher 1 also reflected uncertainty about the use of technology. Although the teacher referred to videos and software, the teacher acknowledged that “we do talk about technology, such as videos and software, but to be honest, it is not always clear how it is being used. Sometimes the teacher may display videos, but it is not clear whether learners are really engaging with them or using them on their own.” This suggests that even where digital tools were present in school discourse, their pedagogical purpose remained uncertain. Taken together, the accounts of Teachers 1 and 2 show that limited awareness extended beyond simple unfamiliarity with particular tools. It also involved uncertainty about the pedagogical purpose of digital resources in mathematics teaching. In this sense, the issue was not merely whether teachers had encountered technology, but whether they could identify its subject-specific value for representing mathematical ideas and supporting learner understanding. This pattern begins to suggest that digital competence in this context was weakly connected to mathematics-specific pedagogical use rather than absent in an absolute sense.

A clearer contrast across participants is visible here. Whereas Teachers 1 and 2 both reflected uncertainty about the pedagogical use of digital tools, Teacher 2’s account indicated much lower awareness of mathematics-specific resources such as GeoGebra, whereas Teacher 1 appeared somewhat more familiar with technology in general school use. This suggests that limited digital competence was shared across participants, but not to the same degree or in the same form

The case of Teachers 3 and 4 adds an important layer to this subtheme. Both teachers were from the school where CAMI software had been installed on school laptops, yet their accounts did not reflect a meaningful experience of digital tools in practice. Teacher 3 stated, “Sometimes devices or software are provided, and learners may use them for a short time, especially in the beginning, but later they stop using them. I think part of the problem is that teachers are not always actively guiding learners on how to use those tools for learning mathematics.” Teacher 4, despite being based in the same school, similarly did not describe active experience of using digital tools in mathematics teaching. This is significant because it shows that the formal presence of specialised software did not automatically translate into teacher familiarity, sustained use, or pedagogical integration. Access, in this case, remained largely nominal rather than meaningfully enacted. The experiences of Teachers 3 and 4 are particularly important because they contrast formal access with limited classroom enactment. Their accounts suggest that the availability of software alone did not lead to meaningful integration. When read alongside the earlier comments from Teachers 1 and 2, a broader pattern emerges: across participants, digitalisation was constrained not only by whether tools were available, but also by whether teachers understood how to use these tools meaningfully in mathematics teaching.

Teacher 6 introduced an important nuance. The teacher indicated that the school had bought him/her a laptop and that “most of the teachers use the laptops with the projectors while teaching only in selected periods.” However, the teacher’s account did not point to broad or confident integration across the mathematics curriculum. Rather, it suggested that where digital tools were used, such use remained restricted and selective. These accounts indicate that digitalisation was constrained not only by the availability of tools but also by teachers’ limited ability to connect digital resources to the pedagogical demands of mathematics teaching. The pattern across participants, therefore, points to a gap between nominal exposure to technology and meaningful subject-specific integration in classroom practice.

This contrast is especially visible when Teachers 3 and 4 are read alongside Teacher 6. Although Teachers 3 and 4 were located in the school where CAMI software was installed, neither described meaningful classroom use, whereas Teacher 6 reported some practical uptake through the selective use of laptops and projectors. The comparison suggests that formal access to specialised software did not necessarily result in stronger enactment than more limited but practically used resources in another school context.

5.2. Structural Barriers to Digital Integration

A second subtheme concerned the structural constraints on digitalisation. Even where there was some awareness or willingness, teachers pointed to practical barriers such as poor connectivity, inadequate infrastructure, and limited access to resources. These conditions appeared to restrict the regular and meaningful use of technology in mathematics classrooms.

Teacher 1 identified connectivity as a major obstacle when they explained, “Connectivity is also a challenge, so that limits what we can do.” The teacher’s broader account also reflected demanding school conditions, as they noted that “the workload is too much. We offer extra lessons from Monday to Friday and on Saturdays. Sometimes we are even expected to continue on Sundays. There are days when we stay at school until 7:00 p.m. That causes a lot of stress because there is not enough time to rest.” Although this comment was not directly about technology, it suggests a school environment in which pressure and fatigue may further limit teachers’ capacity to experiment with digital approaches.

Teacher 2 also linked their limited use of digital tools to material constraints, stating that “access to devices and connectivity is also a challenge.” Teacher 3 reinforced this structural dimension more explicitly: “The main challenge is technology and infrastructure. In some cases, we have devices and connectivity, but the infrastructure is still inadequate. For example, there may be shortages in classrooms or difficulties in using the available resources effectively.” Teacher 5 similarly pointed to shortages of equipment, noting, “We still need more resources, such as projectors and laptops. Once those are available, it will be easier to integrate technology into classroom teaching”. A clear pattern across Teachers 1, 2, 3, and 5 was that structural barriers were experienced not as isolated technical inconveniences, but as conditions that shaped whether digitalisation could become part of routine mathematics teaching. Connectivity problems, equipment shortages, and inadequate infrastructure were described as recurring constraints rather than exceptional difficulties. This suggests that limited digital integration was not simply a matter of individual teacher choice but was closely tied to the material conditions within which teaching took place. At the same time, the accounts were not identical. Teachers 1, 2, 3, and 5 all described structural constraints, but they emphasised different aspects of them, ranging from connectivity and workload to infrastructure and equipment shortages. This indicates that structural barriers were widely shared across participants, while also being experienced in contextually different ways.

The experience of Teachers 3 and 4 again complicates a simple access narrative. Although they were based in the school where CAMI software was installed, they still did not report a meaningful experience of digital tools in mathematics teaching. This suggests that structural provision alone was insufficient. The installation of software did not guarantee regular use, teacher uptake, or sustained pedagogical engagement. In this sense, the barrier was not merely the absence of resources, but the failure of available resources to become part of routine classroom practice.

Teacher 6 further complicated the picture by showing that some resources were available and already in use. The teacher explained that the school had bought him/her a laptop and that “most of the teachers use the laptops with the projectors while teaching only in selected periods.” However, they also noted that “they do not use the tools while teaching grades 8 and 9” and that “they use these tools to teach Grades 10 to 12.” This suggests that the structural issue was not simply a shortage of resources, but also their uneven allocation and prioritisation within the school. The findings therefore show that digitalisation was shaped not only by teacher willingness, but also by the material and organisational realities of schooling. Across participants, structural conditions influenced whether digital tools could be accessed, prioritised, and used regularly, making digital integration an uneven institutional process rather than a purely individual one.

A further contrast emerges between Teachers 3 and 4, who had nominal access to CAMI without meaningful enactment, and Teacher 6, whose school context appeared to support at least limited routine use of laptops and projectors. This comparison strengthens the argument that the presence of digital resources alone was not the decisive factor; what mattered was whether school conditions enabled those resources to become part of everyday practice.

5.3. Uneven Readiness to Adopt Technology

The data also showed clear variation in teachers’ readiness to adopt technology. Some participants appeared hesitant or underprepared, while others expressed interest and openness to digital integration. Readiness therefore emerged not as a fixed state, but as a continuum shaped by confidence, perceived value, and contextual possibility.

Teacher 4’s account suggests that readiness to use digital tools was tied to confidence in teaching mathematics itself. Teacher 4 stated, “I am not fully confident in teaching mathematics. I feel more comfortable teaching other subjects, and that affects how I approach mathematics in the classroom.” The teacher then linked this directly to technology, explaining, “I think the issue starts before technology. If a teacher is not confident or willing to teach mathematics itself, then it is unlikely that the teacher will go further and explore digital tools for teaching the subject. So, the first issue is confidence and willingness to teach mathematics.” Teacher 4’s view suggests that digitalisation cannot be separated from teachers’ broader pedagogical confidence in the subject. This is especially significant given that the teacher was based in the school with CAMI software, yet still did not describe a meaningful experience of using digital tools in mathematics. The issue, therefore, was not access alone, but readiness to translate access into pedagogical action.

Teacher 3 also emphasised the importance of willingness and training. He remarked, “I think willingness is part of it. Some teachers may not yet see the value of using interactive tools in mathematics teaching. Others may not have enough training to understand how these tools can support learning. So, training is needed, not only in using the technology, but also in understanding its benefits.” At the same time, Teacher 3 recognised the potential of technology, stating, “Yes, I do. Even if it takes some time to set up during the lesson, it can still help the teacher cover concepts more effectively. In the end, it may actually save time and improve understanding.” Their account reveals a tension between recognising the potential value of digital tools and not yet experiencing their routine or confident use in practice.

Teacher 5 reflected a more positive disposition towards adoption. The teacher stated, “I am willing to use technology in the teaching and learning of mathematics. We have not fully implemented everything yet, but we are in the process of preparing the necessary materials.” The teacher further emphasised its potential value, adding, “Yes, I do. I believe that when technology is used effectively in mathematics instruction, it significantly benefits learners. It can make concepts clearer and improve understanding.” Teacher 2, by contrast, showed limited readiness, stemming from both low awareness and low confidence. The teacher admitted, “To be honest, I am not confident in teaching mathematics. I am still a new teacher, and I do not feel that I have a strong mathematics background”. Comparison across participants suggests that readiness to adopt technology was unevenly distributed rather than uniformly low or high. Teachers 2 and 4 showed lower readiness, shaped by limited confidence in mathematics teaching and limited familiarity with digital tools, whereas Teachers 3 and 5 expressed a more positive orientation towards technology, despite acknowledging practical and training-related constraints. Readiness in this study, therefore, emerged as relational and context-dependent, rather than as a fixed individual attribute.

A more systematic comparison across participants shows that Teachers 2 and 4 occupied the lower end of the readiness continuum, although for somewhat different reasons. Teacher 2’s position was shaped more strongly by low awareness and limited confidence as a new teacher, whereas Teacher 4 linked readiness more directly to a lack of confidence in teaching mathematics itself. By contrast, Teachers 3 and 5 expressed stronger willingness to adopt technology, even though this willingness remained constrained by training needs and school conditions.

Teacher 6 added an important middle position to this continuum. The teacher’s account suggested that some level of readiness and practical uptake already existed among certain teachers, since “most of the teachers use the laptops with the projectors while teaching only in selected periods.” However, because this use was confined to selected periods and to Grades 10 to 12, the evidence still points to partial rather than fully developed integration. Teacher 6’s account, therefore, complicates any simple division between readiness and non-readiness by showing that some enactment had begun, but remained limited, selective, and uneven across the school context.

When read against the other participants, Teacher 6 occupies a middle position between expressed willingness and sustained integration. This is analytically important because it shows that participants were not divided into neat categories of either readiness or resistance. Instead, the findings point to a continuum ranging from low awareness and hesitation to partial, selective enactment.

6. Discussion

The discussion interprets the findings in relation to three interconnected themes: limited digital competence and tool awareness, structural barriers to digital integration, and uneven readiness to adopt technology. Guided by the TPACK framework, the discussion shows that teachers’ experiences of digitalisation in mathematics teaching were shaped not only by their knowledge and confidence, but also by the material and institutional realities of the rural school context. Rather than treating digitalisation as a binary matter of use or non-use, the study points to a more differentiated pattern in which access, readiness, and pedagogical enactment varied across participants and schools. In this respect, the study contributes to broader debates by showing that digitalisation in rural mathematics education is not adequately understood through the presence of resources alone, but through the extent to which teachers are able and supported to translate those resources into meaningful classroom practice.

6.1. Limited Digital Competence and Awareness of Digital Tools

The first theme indicates that limited awareness of digital tools and uncertainty about their pedagogical use remained central constraints on digitalisation in mathematics teaching. Teacher 2’s unfamiliarity with GeoGebra and broader uncertainty about available tools suggest that the challenge was not merely low general digital literacy, but limited subject-specific technological knowledge. Interpreted through TPACK, these points indicate weaknesses in technological knowledge and technological content knowledge, as teachers were not only uncertain about using devices but also about how specific tools could support the teaching of mathematical concepts. This aligns with Morales-López et al. (2021), who found that teachers may demonstrate some technological familiarity while still lacking the specialised knowledge required for meaningful integration, and with Bueno et al. (2021), who argue that effective digitalisation in mathematics depends on teachers’ ability to connect technology to disciplinary content and pedagogical purpose.

This theme is further reinforced by the contrast between formal access and reported experience. Teachers 3 and 4 were based at the school where CAMI software had been installed, yet they still described no meaningful experience of digital tools in mathematics teaching. This is significant because it shows that the existence of a digital resource does not in itself lead to pedagogical uptake. In TPACK terms, access without the knowledge and support required for meaningful enactment is unlikely to translate into practice. Teacher 6’s account adds nuance by suggesting that some digital use had begun, but only in selected periods, which again points to limited and uneven pedagogical integration rather than confident routine use.

What this study adds to the literature is a clearer demonstration that the problem is not only one of limited access or low technical skill, but of weak subject-specific enactment. Even where digital resources were formally available, participants did not necessarily describe the pedagogical confidence or mathematics-specific orientation needed to use them meaningfully. The study, therefore, sharpens existing work on teacher competence by showing that, in rural mathematics contexts, nominal exposure to digital tools may coexist with minimal classroom integration.

6.2. Structural Barriers to Digital Integration

The second theme highlights that digitalisation was also constrained by structural conditions within which teachers worked. Participants repeatedly cited poor connectivity, inadequate infrastructure, and device shortages as practical barriers to the use of technology. These accounts show that digitalisation cannot be explained through teacher competence alone. Even where some willingness existed, structural conditions limited the extent to which technology could become part of routine mathematics teaching. This supports South African scholarship, showing that digital inequality is sustained not only by teacher-related factors, but also by inadequate infrastructure, weak institutional support, and uneven access to digital resources (Graham et al., 2021, 2024; Mphuthi et al., 2025; Ngoveni et al., 2025).

From a theoretical perspective, this theme also points to the limits of a narrow reading of TPACK. Although the framework is useful for explaining the interaction of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge, it is less explicit about the broader institutional and infrastructural realities that shape whether such knowledge can be enacted in practice. In this study, for example, teachers’ limited classroom use of digital tools could not be explained only in terms of knowledge or readiness. It was also shaped by poor connectivity, uneven access to equipment, and school-level patterns of resource allocation. TPACK, therefore, helped interpret teacher-related dimensions of digitalisation, but it was less able, on its own, to explain the structural conditions that constrained enactment in this rural context. This suggests that meaningful digital integration depends not only on teachers’ knowledge, but also on the institutional and material conditions within which such knowledge must be enacted.

6.3. Uneven Readiness to Adopt Technology

The third theme shows that teachers’ readiness to adopt technology varied considerably. Some participants were hesitant and underprepared, while others expressed interest and willingness to integrate digital tools into teaching. Teacher 4’s account is especially important because it links readiness for technology with confidence in teaching mathematics. Teacher 4’s view suggests that digitalisation cannot be separated from broader pedagogical confidence in the subject. From a TPACK perspective, technological readiness is closely tied to teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical self-assurance. Where confidence in mathematics teaching is weak, movement towards technology integration is likely to remain limited.

At the same time, not all teachers occupied the same position. Teacher 5 expressed a much more positive orientation towards digital integration, while Teacher 3 also recognised the value of digital tools, even as he emphasised the need for training. Teacher 6 further suggests that some teachers had moved beyond willingness to actual implementation, although this remained limited and selective. Readiness in this study, therefore, emerged on a continuum, ranging from unfamiliarity and low confidence to partial and constrained use. This aligns with research showing that openness to digital tools does not necessarily lead to sustained practice unless teachers are supported in connecting technological possibilities with pedagogical and disciplinary goals (Arhin et al., 2024; Mukuka & Alex, 2024). The findings, therefore, extend the literature by showing that uneven readiness is not simply a matter of personal disposition but reflects the interaction of knowledge, confidence, school priorities, and material opportunity. A further contribution of the study is that it shows readiness as differentiated rather than uniform across teachers working within the same rural circuit. This is important because discussions of readiness often risk treating teachers as a single group that is either willing or resistant. By contrast, the present study shows a continuum ranging from hesitation and low confidence to partial and selective enactment. This more differentiated picture helps explain why digitalisation may remain uneven even within apparently similar school contexts.

Taken together, the three themes show that digitalisation in the participating rural schools was neither wholly absent nor fully embedded in mathematics teaching. Instead, it emerged as a selective and uneven practice shaped by the interaction of limited digital competence, structural constraints, and differentiated teacher readiness. The findings therefore move beyond a simple binary of use and non-use. The accounts of Teachers 3 and 4 demonstrate that access to a digital resource does not necessarily produce meaningful classroom experience, while Teacher 6’s account shows that some degree of digital uptake had begun, although unevenly distributed across periods and grades. The study’s main contribution lies in showing that digitalisation in rural mathematics education is best understood as a context-bound process in which provision, pedagogical confidence, subject-specific competence, and institutional support must align before technology can become meaningfully integrated into practice. In this way, the study adds a more differentiated and practice-oriented account to existing debates that often treat access, willingness, or tool availability as sufficient indicators of progress.

A key contribution of this study is its demonstration that digitalisation in rural mathematics education cannot be understood solely through access to technology. By comparing teachers’ reported awareness, readiness, and classroom use across differently resourced school contexts, the study shows that the presence of digital tools did not necessarily translate into meaningful pedagogical integration. In particular, the findings highlight that digitalisation was shaped by the interplay between subject-specific teacher competence, uneven structural conditions, and the extent to which available resources became part of routine classroom practice. The study, therefore, adds to existing scholarship by offering a more context-sensitive account of digitalisation as an uneven and relational process, rather than as a simple function of technological provision or teacher willingness.

7. Conclusions

This study showed that digitalisation in the teaching and learning of mathematics in the participating rural schools was uneven, selective, and only partially embedded in practice. Teachers’ experiences were shaped by limited awareness of mathematics-related digital tools, low confidence and preparedness among some participants, and structural barriers such as inadequate infrastructure, poor connectivity, and uneven access to devices. At the same time, digitalisation was not entirely absent, as some teachers reportedly used laptops and projectors in selected periods, mainly in Grades 10 to 12. Viewed through the TPACK framework, the findings suggest that meaningful digitalisation depends not only on the availability of resources but also on teachers’ ability to connect technology with pedagogy and mathematical content in purposeful ways. The study, therefore, concludes that digitalisation in these schools was a context-bound practice. It was shaped by the interaction of teacher competence, institutional priorities, and material conditions, and a more meaningful integration will require stronger teacher support and more equitable access to digital resources across grades. This study contributes to understanding digitalisation in rural mathematics teaching by showing the gap between availability and meaningful integration, even in schools with specialised tools such as CAMI.

8. Limitations

This study was limited by its small qualitative sample of six teachers from one rural circuit, which means that the findings cannot be generalised to all school contexts. In addition, the study relied solely on self-reported interview data. The findings, therefore, reflect participants’ accounts and interpretations of digitalisation rather than direct evidence of how digital tools were enacted in classroom practice. This is important because interview data can illuminate how teachers make sense of their experiences, but they may not fully capture the complexity, frequency, or quality of actual technology use in mathematics lessons. The absence of classroom observations, lesson artefacts, or other supplementary sources of evidence further limited the study’s ability to compare reported practice with enacted practice across grades and schools. The study was also confined to a single rural circuit, so the findings should be understood as context-specific rather than broadly representative. The study nevertheless offers useful interpretive insights into how digitalisation is understood and experienced in a rural mathematics-teaching context.

9. Recommendations

The study recommends that teacher development initiatives in rural schools should focus not only on general digital literacy, but also on mathematics-specific digital tools and their pedagogical use in classroom practice. Schools and education authorities should also address infrastructural barriers such as connectivity, access to devices, and the availability of projectors and laptops, while ensuring that digital resources are distributed more equitably across grades rather than concentrated mainly in examination classes. Future research should extend this work by including classroom observations and a broader sample of schools to examine how digitalisation is enacted in practice and how grade-level differences shape the use of digital tools in mathematics teaching.