Original Research

Primary school teachers’ experiences of teaching mathematics, incorporating smartboards

Sheila Madzikanda, Sfiso C. Mahlaba

Received: 19 Aug. 2025; Accepted: 10 Dec. 2025; Published: 13 Apr. 2026

Copyright: © 2026. The Author(s). Licensee: AOSIS.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Abstract

Background: The Gauteng Department of Basic Education introduced smartboards into education early in 2010 and provided continuous training to teachers around the province. However, 15 years later, a discernible gap still exists in how primary school teachers incorporate and experience teaching mathematics, using smartboards.

Aim: To investigate how primary school teachers incorporate smartboards into mathematics teaching and to explore their experiences of using this technology in the classroom.

Setting: This study was conducted with primary school teachers from one school in the Gauteng province, which taught mathematics using smartboards.

Methods: A qualitative design was adopted with data collected through lesson observations and one-on-one semi-structured interviews with eight primary school teachers, and the data underwent thematic analysis.

Results: Primary school teachers reported positive experiences of incorporating smartboards and confidence in using this technology for mathematics teaching and learning. However, teachers acknowledged certain limitations in their proficiency in using smartboards for teaching. Teachers also indicated several disadvantages related to incorporating smartboards in their mathematics classrooms.

Conclusion: Teachers indicated both advantages and disadvantages of integrating smartboards when teaching mathematics. However, they also indicated benefits within the broader educational system and classroom practices, which outweighed the drawbacks.

Contribution: This study contributes to research on the interplay between teachers’ acceptance of technology and their ability to incorporate it effectively in mathematical teaching within primary school, emphasising the need for continuous teacher training and provision of resources, particularly in resource-constrained schools. It recommends the integration of smartboards into the teaching and learning of mathematics in primary schools.

Keywords: learner engagement; primary school mathematics; smartboards; technology integration; teachers’ experiences; technology-enhanced learning.

Introduction

Technology use in education has evolved significantly, and teachers in contemporary South African classrooms frequently use smartboards for teaching. Numerous primary school teachers value smartboards for their role in improving mathematics instruction (Mihai 2020), as the boards combine features of traditional boards with the capabilities of digital technology (Mosina 2019). Using animations, interactive simulations, and visual representations, teachers can design lessons that offer hands-on learning experiences and simplify abstract mathematical concepts (Kaimara et al. 2021). Smartboards also provide access to educational software and online resources, enabling teachers to cater to diverse learning needs and to create interactive and stimulating educational environments.

On the other hand, mathematics often challenges learners as a result of its reliance on abstract representations. Smartboards can help by providing visual and dynamic representations that clarify abstract concepts and offer immediate feedback, supporting differentiated teaching for different levels of understanding (De Vita, Verschaffel & Elen 2014; Matemera 2020). For example, tasks such as navigating city maps can help learners explore spatial relationships, whilst dividing rectangles into equal parts can facilitate learners’ understanding of fractions. These interactive features support the development of conceptual understanding through active participation, preparing learners to engage with future technological tools in various aspects of their lives (McMillan & Schumacher 2014).

The effectiveness of smartboards when teaching mathematics is influenced by teachers’ expertise in using the technology for teaching (De Vita et al. 2014; Li et al. 2025), yet this expertise is not evenly distributed, as teachers’ perceptions of smartboard benefits are mediated by varying levels of training, support, and prior Information and Communications Technology (ICT) experience, which can considerably differ in the quality of implementation. Thus, teachers need to continually develop their technological–pedagogical knowledge (Baier-Mosch et al. 2024) required for effective smartboard integration in mathematics classrooms. Teachers should not only be capable of operating smartboards but also know how to use the boards innovatively to support learning (Galimullina, Ljubimova & Ibatullin 2020). So, why focus on primary school teachers’ incorporation and experiences of teaching mathematics using smartboards?

The rationale for this focus is grounded in smartboards having been introduced in South African primary schools to integrate digital technologies into teaching and learning, which can benefit mathematics, a subject perceived as abstract and challenging (Mahlo & Maghid 2022; Mihai 2020; Schoenfeld 2022). Despite more than 15 years since their introduction, and although some research in South Africa explores their use in schools, little is known about how primary school teachers incorporate smartboards into mathematics teaching and what their lived experiences reveal about the benefits, challenges, and required pedagogical adjustments. This knowledge is important because teachers are agents of change in the classroom, and their lived experiences towards technology are vital to its adoption and efficacy (Granić 2022). Given the foundational role of primary mathematics and the disparities in teacher training, infrastructure, and resource availability across schools (Spaull & Kotze 2015), understanding these experiences is critical for designing effective professional development programmes and ensuring that smartboards are used to enhance mathematics teaching and learning. The study was guided by the research question: how do primary school teachers incorporate smartboards into mathematics lessons, and what are their experiences of using this technology for teaching?

The following section reviews the literature on smartboards in mathematics and teacher training, followed by the theoretical frameworks. Thereafter, we discuss the methods used to generate and analyse data, after which the findings and the conclusion are discussed.

Literature review

The role of smartboards in mathematics teaching and learning

Smartboards can enhance mathematics education when teachers deliberately incorporate them into lesson design, transforming traditional lecture-based teaching into interactive and engaging learning experiences (Orhani 2023; Yannier, Hudson & Koedinger 2020). For instance, teachers can manipulate geometric figures, illustrate graphs, and use animations to represent mathematical problems, thereby making abstract concepts more tangible and easier for learners to comprehend (Kaput, Hegedus & Lesh 2020; Orhani 2023). Smartboards also allow teachers to integrate a variety of applications, such as calculators, analogue clocks, mathematics software, and internet resources, enabling the implementation of diverse teaching approaches beyond traditional lectures (Matemera 2020). Through these practices, teachers can promote multimodal learning, exploratory discourse, and self-directed learning, affording learners opportunities to actively engage with mathematical concepts, processes, and problem-solving tasks (De Vita et al. 2014; Murcia 2014). Incorporating smartboards in this way also prepares learners for the technological demands of the digital age (Haleem et al. 2022). However, effective incorporation depends on teachers’ technological proficiency. Without sufficient training, smartboards may be used in a lecture-based manner, merely replacing a chalkboard rather than transforming instruction (De Vita et al. 2014; Zhou & Brown 2023). Additionally, the cost of smartboards can create disparities between well-resourced and under-resourced schools, limiting equitable access and reducing the transformative potential of the technology (Haleem et al. 2022). Professional development and equitable provision of resources are therefore essential to ensure that smartboards are implemented in ways that meaningfully enhance mathematics teaching and learning.

Teachers’ experiences with smartboard integration in mathematics teaching

Research has indicated both positive and negative experiences regarding integrating smartboards when teaching mathematics. Al-Mashaqbeh, Al-Momani and Al-Momani (2013) in Jordan found that mathematics teachers were enthusiastic about smartboards because they transformed lessons into dynamic experiences through visuals and interactive activities, helping students grasp abstract concepts more effectively. South African teachers also appreciated smartboards for making learning enjoyable, interactive, and accessible, especially for visual and kinaesthetic learners (Mashiteng 2020). Another South African study found that smartboards can enhance teachers’ creativity in using different pedagogical strategies (Ndwandwe, Ramaligela & Mtshali 2024). Teachers recognised the potential of smartboards in creating interactive and participatory lessons that can allow teachers to scaffold learning (Vygotsky 1978). However, despite these benefits, teachers face challenges in integrating smartboards into mathematics teaching. Teachers often grapple with challenges like technical difficulties, inadequate training and professional development, and lack of technical support (Al-Mashaqbeh et al. 2013; Mashiteng 2020). These challenges suggest that the positive outcomes of teaching mathematics using smartboards can be realised only if teachers are equipped with the necessary skills and resources.

How teachers incorporate smartboards in mathematics classrooms

Interactive smartboards have increasingly become integral tools in mathematics education, offering multimodal opportunities for teachers to create engaging, visual, and interactive learning environments. Research shows that smartboards enable teachers to dynamically represent abstract mathematical concepts through diagrams, graphs, and animations, thereby facilitating conceptual understanding (Mercer 2019; Miller & Glover 2010). Teachers often incorporate smartboards to demonstrate problem-solving steps, manipulate geometric shapes, and visualise algebraic patterns, enhancing learners’ active participation and collaboration (Burrill 2017; Schmid 2011). In mathematics classrooms, smartboards also support the integration of digital resources, such as dynamic geometry software, online simulations, and interactive quizzes, which allow learners to test conjectures and receive immediate feedback (Glover et al. 2015; Türel 2012). Additionally, the smartboards promote dialogic teaching, as teachers can use annotation and drag-and-drop features to co-construct solutions with learners during whole-class discussions (Digregorio & Sobel-Lojeski 2010; Shi et al. 2019). However, effective incorporation depends not only on teachers’ technological proficiency but also on their pedagogical understanding of how to align smartboard features with mathematical learning goals (Hennessy & London 2013). Thus, examining how teachers employ smartboards in mathematics lessons provides a critical context for understanding the challenges in meaningfully integrating technology.

Research on smartboard integration in mathematics education has evolved from descriptive accounts of tool usage to more analytical examinations of how teachers use smartboards to support pedagogy and learning (Karthigesu & Mohamad 2020). Scholars agree that smartboards enhance interactive teaching by enabling teachers to visualise abstract mathematical ideas through animations, dynamic graphs, and real-time manipulations that make conceptual relationships more explicit (Mercer, Hennessy & Warwick 2019; Miller & Glover 2010). This interactive functionality allows teachers to move beyond chalk-and-talk teaching towards more dialogic and exploratory engagement, aligning with constructivist and sociocultural views of learning (Slay, Siebörger & Hodgkinson-Williams 2008). Furthermore, studies highlight the potential of smartboards in enabling collaborative learning, as learners can manipulate objects, test conjectures, and demonstrate solutions directly on the smartboard, promoting shared reasoning and collective meaning-making (Schmid 2011; Shi et al. 2019). In terms of lesson delivery, teachers use smartboards to integrate multimedia content such as videos, digital simulations, and interactive geometry software, which help contextualise abstract concepts and sustain learner engagement (Hennessy & London 2013; Swan & Hofer 2011; Türel 2012). Incorporating such multimodal resources supports differentiation and inclusivity, allowing teachers to adapt teaching and learning to learners’ diverse needs. Moreover, smartboards provide opportunities for assessment and feedback, as teachers can use interactive quizzes, polls, and annotation tools to gauge understanding and offer immediate, visual feedback (Glover et al. 2015; Türel 2012). This instant feedback loop supports formative assessment practices and encourages metacognitive reflection amongst learners. However, whilst evidence emphasises the pedagogical affordances of smartboards, effective implementation depends heavily on teachers’ technological–pedagogical fluency, institutional support, and access to continuous professional development (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich 2010; Sani-Bozkurt & Yelken 2021). Smartboards, when used purposefully, can transform mathematics teaching from a teacher-centred mode to an interactive, collaborative, and assessment-rich environment that enhances conceptual understanding and learner engagement.

Theoretical framework

The theoretical framework for this study combines the Technological–Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) theories, with TAM as the main framework and TPACK as a supporting framework.

Technology acceptance model

The TAM framework argues that users’ acceptance and use of technology are primarily determined by their perceptions of its usefulness and ease of use (Davis 1989). The perceived usefulness (PU) is defined as the users’ beliefs about whether using certain technological tools would enhance their job efficiency, whilst perceived ease of use (PEOU) refers to the degree to which the user believes that the technological tool would be used without any extra mental and physical effort (Davis 1989; Yang & Appleget 2024). Thus, whether teachers will adopt smartboards for teaching mathematics in primary schools depends on whether they see smartboards as useful and whether they see smartboards as easy or difficult to use (Granić & Marangunić 2019). Hence, PU and PEOU are directly correlated with increased technology acceptance and use (Davis 1989). Statements like ‘using smartboards improves my teaching efficiency’ exemplify the teachers’ PU of smartboards, whilst statements like ‘I find smartboards easy to learn and use’ represent teachers’ PEOU. Although the TAM includes additional constructs such as attitudes towards use, behavioural intentions, and actual use, this study focuses specifically on the core variables of PU and PEOU. These variables are most directly relevant to understanding teachers’ technological–pedagogical knowledge (TPK) and the way they integrate smartboards into mathematics lessons. Constructs such as attitudes or behavioural intentions are more suited to studies examining adoption patterns or usage frequency (Lee, Ramasamy & Subbarao 2025; Venkatesh & Davis 2000), which are beyond the scope of the current qualitative study. Limiting the application of TAM to PU and PEOU allows a more targeted exploration of how teachers perceive the utility and usability of smartboards in their pedagogical practices. Nevertheless, the exclusion of the other TAM constructs is a recognised limitation of the framework, which is addressed in this study by supplementing TAM with the TPACK framework to capture pedagogical considerations that TAM alone does not encompass.

Technological–pedagogical content knowledge

The TPACK framework argues that effective integration of technology into teaching requires teachers to seamlessly integrate technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (Mishra & Koehler 2006). Pioneers of the framework still argue that:

[S]uccessful technology integration relies not only on high levels of knowledge in each of these domains but also on combined considerations across these fields of knowledge that guide the pedagogical design of teaching and learning activities. (Petko, Mishra & Koehler 2025:1)

This framework is useful in analysing how primary school teachers integrated smartboards with pedagogy and content, which enabled the researchers to identify gaps and explain challenges and successes. Through this framework, we argue that for teachers to effectively incorporate smartboards in their daily mathematics teaching practices, they should be proficient in these three types of knowledge, and they should also be proficient in blending these three types of knowledge. Recent developments in the framework have argued that as teaching and learning occur in different contexts, technology integration should consider the particular and specific teaching and learning contexts (Petko et al. 2024; Petko, Koehler & Mishra 2025). This perspective highlights that TPACK is not a fixed set of knowledge but rather a dynamic construct that becomes meaningful only when adapted to the specific teaching and learning context in which technology is applied.

Within mathematics classrooms, these contextual considerations become especially visible when smartboards are introduced. For example, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) informs how teachers select and sequence mathematical tasks in ways that anticipate learners’ difficulties; TCK shapes how mathematical representations (such as graphs, geometric figures, or algebraic structures) can be dynamically visualised through smartboard affordances and TPK guides decisions on how smartboard features (e.g. drag-and-drop, annotation, or interactive simulations) can encourage the development of active participation and discourse around mathematical ideas. In this sense, the intersections of PCK, TCK, and TPK illustrate how TPACK is not an abstract knowledge domain but a contextualised construct that manifests through the specific ways mathematics and technology are combined in practice.

The TPACK framework conceptualises teachers’ knowledge as the interplay between content, pedagogy, and technology (Mishra & Koehler 2006). Whilst content knowledge is a critical component of this framework, the present study does not attempt to evaluate teachers’ mathematical content knowledge directly. Instead, the study focuses specifically on TPK, teachers’ ability to integrate technological tools, such as smartboards, into their pedagogical practices. This focus is appropriate because the aim of this study is to examine how teachers use smartboards to mediate teaching and learning, rather than to assess the depth of their mathematical content expertise in teaching using smartboards.

Research methods and design

This study adopted an interpretive paradigm and adopted a qualitative research approach with an interpretative phenomenological design (Nizza, Farr & Smith 2021) to explore primary school teachers’ lived experiences of teaching mathematics, using smartboards. These approaches focus on meaning-making through participants’ narratives of their lived experiences (Creswell & Poth 2018). Given our focus on how primary school mathematics teachers incorporate smartboards in their classrooms and how they experience this process, combining these approaches was deemed well-suited for this study.

Participants

In this study, eight primary school teachers were selected purposefully because they had been trained by the Gauteng Department of Education to teach mathematics using smartboards and had continued to do so since their training. The teachers represented a range of grade levels and, during the study, taught different mathematics topics, providing a variety of classroom contexts for examining smartboard integration.

Data collection

Two complementary methods were used to collect data in the current study: classroom observations and semi-structured one-on-one interviews.

• Observations: Each teacher was observed whilst teaching mathematics topics that incorporated smartboards. The focus of the observations was on how smartboards assisted in mediating the representation of mathematical concepts, the structuring of classroom discourse, and the facilitation of learning activities. These foci were deliberately aligned with the TPACK dimensions. For example, TPK, which is the primary focus in this study within the TPACK framework, was reflected in how teachers used the interactive features of the smartboard to support learner engagement and participation.
• Interviews: After the observations, each teacher participated in a semi-structured one-on-one interview (Nizza et al. 2021). The interview protocol was designed to explore the lived experiences of teachers, of how they integrated the smartboard in their mathematics teaching, whilst also probing constructs from both TAM and TPK. Questions addressed teachers’ perceptions of usefulness and ease of use using questions such as ‘what do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of using smartboard technology for teaching and learning mathematics?’ Furthermore, we explored the reflections of teachers on their pedagogical strategies (TPK) when using smartboard to teach mathematics using questions such as ‘how do you actively involve learners in the teaching and learning process when utilising smartboard technology?’

Data analysis

Data were analysed by using reflexive thematic analysis to tell an ‘interpretative story about data in relation to a research question’ (Braun & Clarke 2023:7187), going beyond reporting patterns and themes. Thematic analysis involves six steps: (1) familiarising oneself with the dataset, (2) coding, (3) generating initial themes, (4) developing and reviewing themes, (5) refining, defining, and naming themes, and (6) writing (Braun & Clarke 2023). Using this method of analysis allowed for the identification of themes in the collected dataset and for explaining ways in which primary school teachers incorporated smartboards in mathematics lessons and to understand their experiences in using smartboards to teach mathematics. The process of data analysis began by transcribing the interviews verbatim. Thereafter, each transcript was carefully read iteratively to familiarise ourselves with the data. Once satisfied, we applied coding to each transcript (Saldaña 2021), highlighting different segments of the text in the transcript and assigning a code to capture the substance of the highlighted text in relation to the purpose of the study. Subsequently, the search for and refining of themes began by grouping codes into provisional categories meant to describe a group of codes and, wherever misaligned, new categories were developed or discarded. The emerging themes were named to generate three themes, which were used to present the findings of the study presented in the subsequent section.

Ethical considerations

Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the University of Johannesburg Faculty of Education Research Ethics Committee on 29 November 2023. The ethical clearance number is SEM2-2023-135. The researchers obtained permission from the principal of the primary school where the study was conducted. Participants gave written informed consent, which outlined the study’s purpose, methodology, and their rights. The researchers protected participants’ confidentiality by using pseudonyms and informing them of their right to withdraw from the study at any point without any negative consequences. Data were stored on a password-protected laptop accessible only to the research team.

Results

Three key themes were identified related to the posed research question: (1) teachers’ perceptions of smartboards as tools for interactive, inclusive, and engaging mathematics learning, (2) challenges of using the smartboard to teach mathematics and (3) teachers’ perceived confidence in using smartboards to teach mathematics. The upcoming findings are presented under these three themes, with the data from the observations supporting the data from the semi-structured one-on-one interviews. In this study, the theoretical framework is not applied directly in the presentation of findings but is instead mobilised in the discussion section, where the constructs of TAM and TPK are used to interpret and make sense of the findings.

Teachers’ perceptions of smartboards as tools for interactive, inclusive, and engaging mathematics learning

The analysis revealed that teachers used a range of strategies to engage learners using smartboards in mathematics lessons. Teachers reported that the interactive capabilities of the smartboard allowed learners to assume an active role in the learning process. Learners participated by writing responses directly on the board, engaging with educational games, and interacting with multimedia resources such as YouTube videos. Notably, during one observed lesson, learners continued singing even after the educational video had ended, demonstrating sustained engagement and enthusiasm:

‘Learners sometimes get the opportunity to write their responses on the smartboard. They also play different games for lesson consolidation or fun. Sometimes they watch, sing along, or participate orally in YouTube videos that were saved for the lesson.’ (Teacher FB, interviewee, teacher)

Some participants perceived smartboards as tools that enhance interactivity, engagement, and inclusivity in mathematics lessons. Teachers use multimedia (images, sounds, videos) and interactive features to cater to diverse learning styles, support visual representations (e.g. diagrams), and create lessons that actively involve learners, reflecting positive experiences with smartboard integration:

‘I design lessons that cater for all learners by including images, sound, videos, etc., which require learners to interact with the board … it is interactive.’ (Teacher KB, interviewee, teacher)

‘When I teach using the smartboard, I play videos linked to the lesson, and learners love that. It really simplifies things.’ (Teacher MS, interviewee, teacher)

‘It boosts student engagement. It accommodates different learning styles. It can be used for drawing and creating diagrams.’ (Teacher CK, interviewee, teacher)

‘It improves teaching. It provides for different learning styles.’ (Teacher ST, interviewee, teacher)

Thus, smartboards were incorporated into mathematics lessons primarily as interactive platforms that extended beyond traditional teaching by allowing learners to write responses, play games, and engage with multimedia such as videos and images. Their experiences highlight the perceived value of smartboards in boosting learner engagement, catering to diverse learning styles, and enhancing lesson quality. These insights indicate that teachers viewed smartboards not only as tools for teaching mathematical content but also as resources for creating inclusive, participatory, and motivating mathematics learning environments. Teacher FR also viewed smartboards as helping to counter the perception of mathematics as a difficult subject. By incorporating videos, games, and interactive elements, smartboards provide alternative explanations and create opportunities for learner involvement, which teachers believe makes mathematical concepts more accessible and easier for learners to grasp:

‘[… Y]ou know, mathematics is always viewed as a difficult subject, but the smartboard is helping to challenge this perception. When I introduce a concept, and I see that it is not easy for learners to grasp easily, I look for videos or games to enhance my explanation. During my teaching using the smartboard, I learned that if I include the learners, they grasp the concepts more.’ (Teacher FR, interviewee teacher)

Furthermore, teachers described smartboards as making mathematics lessons more interactive and engaging by enabling the use of images, sounds, videos, and diagrams to accommodate diverse learning styles. They also highlighted the practicality of being able to save and reuse digital notes, which not only allowed lessons to be continued seamlessly across days but also reduced preparation time when teaching the same topic to multiple classes. These experiences point to smartboards being valued for both their capacity to enrich classroom participation and their efficiency in everyday teaching practice:

‘Teachers have digital notes when they use smartboards, which can be saved and be used later, which is efficient if you have to teach the same lesson multiple times to multiple classes.’ (Teacher FR, interviewee, teacher)

‘You can save the lesson and continue the following day. It makes the work easier.’ (Teacher ST, interviewee, teacher)

Teacher FR saw smartboards as a valuable tool for making abstract mathematical concepts more accessible to learners. By allowing learners to manipulate digital objects, such as rotating 3D shapes to explore their properties, smartboards supported active participation and a more concrete understanding of complex ideas:

‘Smartboards allow for some item to be manipulated to ensure learner[s] understand abstract concept. Example of this would be teaching 3D objects and using images on the smartboard, learners are able to go to the board, twist and turn the object to identify features of the object.’ (Teacher FR, interviewee, teacher)

Teachers highlighted how smartboard inbuilt tools, such as shapes, grids, and lines, streamline lesson planning and delivery. For example, Teacher FB emphasises that smartboards streamline lesson preparation and delivery by providing ready-made tools and visual resources. This benefit not only adds variety and colour to mathematics lessons, making them more engaging, but also frees up time for deeper explanation and learner activities rather than routine board work, enhancing both efficiency and teaching quality:

‘I use tools, shapes, grids, lines, etc. and these are readily available. This makes lesson planning easy. It also helps add variety in activities and lesson presentations. Lesson plans are always colourful, and the lessons are interesting. Prior planning promotes a good flow of the lesson. More time is spent explaining a concept and doing activities instead of writing on the board.’ (Teacher FB, interviewee, teacher)

Another teacher indicated how smartboard-based activities like puzzles and drag-and-drop classification tasks are used to promote interactive learning. These tools engage learners in hands-on, visual tasks that support concept development in areas such as shape and colour recognition, whilst also making learning playful and stimulating:

‘I teach them puzzles, where they should remove each block of a puzzle to reveal a full picture. They also use a click and drag activities to classify items according to colour or shape.’ (Teacher MS, interviewee, teacher)

The observations revealed that teachers effectively leveraged smartboard features, particularly video and interactive games, to enhance learner engagement and understanding in mathematics lessons. One teacher introduced long division by first demonstrating the procedure step-by-step, followed by a smartboard video that reinforced the concept and stimulated active classroom discussion. This multimedia approach helped to clarify the mathematical process and encouraged learner participation. In another classroom, an interactive counting game was used as a recap activity. Learners enthusiastically engaged with the game, and its instant feedback mechanism provided an effective scaffolding for developing counting skills. Video clips were also strategically incorporated to promote active learning and deepen content understanding. For example, during a lesson on patterns, an animated video featuring colourful, singing characters was used to introduce the topic (see Figure 1). The use of vibrant visuals and musical elements captured learners’ attention and facilitated their understanding through visual and auditory stimuli. The interactive nature of the video fostered high levels of engagement, and learners could apply their knowledge with confidence, successfully completing pattern exercises in their workbooks. These examples underscore the potential of the smartboard to create dynamic, learner-centred environments that support concept development and meaningful participation.

FIGURE 1: Video clips on patterns used by Teacher MS.

Teachers also described smartboards as tools that create opportunities for shared participation between themselves and learners. Features such as touch interaction and dual-screen functions allowed teachers and learners to work side by side during explanations, whilst the interactive nature of activities was said to make lessons more enjoyable and collaborative. Teachers emphasised that involving learners directly in manipulating mathematical content on the smartboard not only promoted collaboration but also made the learning process more engaging and interactive:

‘With the smartboard, since it uses the touch, it’s very easy, the teacher can use a dual screen, and the learner can be on the other side and the teacher on the other side while explaining.’ (Teacher FY, interviewee, teacher)

‘[… F]un and it promotes collaboration.’ (Teacher KB, interviewee, teacher)

‘I involve learners especially when we do Maths lessons.’ (Teacher CK, interviewee, teacher)

‘It’s great to see students so eager to work together to solve problems and complete tasks on the board.’ (Teacher FB, interviewee, teacher)

An example of the use of the dual screen was observed in the classroom of Teacher FB, who used the same screen to display two analogue clocks displaying different time readings (see Figure 2). Teacher FB also highlighted how smartboards simplified the teaching of mathematical concepts, such as time, by offering built-in interactive tools. The availability of a manipulable digital clock reduces reliance on physical resources, allows for customisation, and supports hands-on learner participation through rotating clock hands and group activities, making lessons both more efficient and engaging. Thus, these built-in interactive tools, such as the analogue clock and the patterns practice song (Figure 1), can improve the teaching quality by allowing the teacher to spend more time on explaining concepts and activities, rather than on routine tasks:

FIGURE 2: Different uses of the analogue clock by Teacher FB.

‘Teaching time has never been easy because of the real clock found in the Gallery Essentials that can be manipulated by both the teacher and students when teaching time on the smartboard. I teach the analogue clock using the smartboard. Gone are the days when I would look for paper or plastic analogue clocks. The clock is readily available in Gallery Essentials. I use the arrows in the toolbar as minute and hour hands. I decide the length and colour of each, and I can rotate the hands as much as I want. Learners take turns to rotate the arrows to point at the correct time asked by the teacher. I also clone the clock to provide clocks with different times for group or class activities. Teaching time has never been this easy.’ (Teacher FB, interviewee, teacher)

The usefulness of the built-in analogue clock from the smartboard can be appreciated in the way Teacher FB used it during teaching and learning, as observed by the first author. Teacher FB demonstrated how the analogue clock in the smartboard can be duplicated to perform different functions at once (first image in Figure 2), display different formats of time in the smartboard – a digital and an analogue clock – to teach learners the concept of time (see second image in Figure 2), and for changing colours and the length of pointers of the analogue clock (see third image from Figure 2).

Smartboards were viewed as a means to actively involve learners in exploring mathematical concepts, particularly in areas that are often abstract, such as fractions. By allowing learners to manipulate parts of shapes directly on the board, teachers could visually demonstrate how fractions relate to one another (e.g. one-quarter equals two-eighths) and provide hands-on experiences that reinforce understanding. This approach supports interactive learning, as students can participate in constructing and deconstructing the mathematical objects themselves, rather than passively observing. Teachers highlighted that such activities make abstract ideas more tangible, facilitate conceptual clarity, and enable learners to articulate their reasoning whilst engaging with the content. Overall, these experiences indicate that smartboards are incorporated not merely as a presentation tool but also as a platform for active learner engagement and the concretisation of mathematical concepts, reflecting teachers’ positive experiences in using the technology to enhance both understanding and participation in mathematics lessons:

‘When I am teaching fractions, I ask learners to come and take out a given fraction from the whole shape.’ (Teacher ST, interviewee, teacher)

‘I would give an activity. For example, there was a time when I was teaching fractions, and I was able to divide fractions from different shapes. When I divided the shapes, they were perfectly equal, and learners could detach them and put them back while explaining, for example, to show that one quarter equals to two eights. It makes concepts easier.’ (Teacher FY, interviewee, teacher)

Several teachers emphasised that smartboard activities promoted high levels of student engagement by stimulating cognitive, affective, and collaborative problem-solving dimensions. Participants also noted that learners were eager to interact with the smartboard and complete activities. These aspects can positively affect learners’ mathematical performance and meaning-making. However, they expressed differing opinions on the most effective ways to integrate smartboards into lessons.

Smartboards also contribute to creating a lively and stimulating classroom atmosphere. The ability to seamlessly switch between different content types, such as text, images, videos, or interactive activities, was seen as an important affordance for maintaining learners’ attention and enthusiasm throughout mathematics lessons. This flexibility enabled teachers to vary their teaching strategies in ways that prevented monotony and kept learners actively engaged. By describing the smartboard as ‘one of the best tools’, the teacher stresses not only its practical usefulness but also its perceived transformative impact on classroom dynamics. Such accounts suggest that teachers experience smartboards as more than just technological aids; they view them as integral to encouraging an engaging, responsive, and motivating learning environment for mathematics:

‘They draw attention to the fact that it makes education livelier and thrilling … The smartboard is one of the best tools I have used as a teacher. It allows me to seamlessly switch among different content types and activities, keeping my learners always alert and enthusiastic.’ (Teacher FB, interviewee, teacher)

Smartboards can stimulate high learner motivation and participation, with many learners eager to engage directly with the board. This enthusiasm suggests that smartboards help create a more inclusive and interactive classroom environment in which learners are actively involved in mathematical tasks:

‘Sometimes you wouldn’t know who to choose as everyone wants to go to the board.’ (Teacher FR, interviewee, teacher)

‘Sometimes you get chaos in the classroom, chaos in the sense that every learner wants to participate. Everyone wants to go to the front to participate, and at the same time, you cannot have everyone in front of the class.’ (Teacher FY, interviewee, teacher)

During the observation of Teacher FR’s lesson, all the learners eagerly participated, wanting to go to the board to manipulate real-world digital displays, such as a pizza during a lesson on fractions. This attitude demonstrated their active involvement and interest in the topic of fractions.

Challenges related to using the smartboard for teaching mathematics

Several teachers highlighted that technical problems disrupt the teaching and learning process, especially in mathematics lessons that depend on continuity and flow. Teacher FG explained:

‘Technical problems can be a real problem. A few times, it took a lot of time to correct things, which made the learning processes very erratic … load shedding is a major challenge to using smartboards effectively’. (Teacher FG, interviewee, teacher)

This example illustrates how both systemic errors and contextual factors, such as power outages, affect lesson delivery. Teacher KB elaborated similarly, stating that ‘a lot of technical interruptions takes place. Power cuts also are a problem because everything stops’, which highlights the complete halt in teaching when electricity is unavailable. Teacher ST added a concrete consequence of these challenges by mentioning that:

‘[A] specific example I can give is that in the process of teaching and if electricity goes, if you didn’t save your work, you will lose everything’. (Teacher ST, interviewee, teacher)

This view shows that the problem is not only the interruption itself but also the potential loss of teaching materials. Hence, teachers’ experiences reveal that whilst smartboards hold promise, frequent technical interruptions and power outages undermine lesson flow and disrupt both teaching and learning.

Despite the challenges related to technical difficulties and power outages, teachers developed coping strategies and maintained a positive outlook towards smartboard use in mathematics classrooms. As a coping strategy, Teacher MS explained that ‘I save my lessons as backup in case of technical interruptions’, indicating that teachers should develop strategies to anticipate and minimise disruptions, ensuring that teaching and learning continue despite setbacks. Teachers also recognised that smartboards are not flawless but still perceive them as valuable teaching tools, especially in mathematics, in which interactive resources enhance engagement. For example, Teacher FY reflected that

‘… just like any gadget, technical faults may happen, but there are more advantages than disadvantages’

to illustrating a positive outlook, suggesting that teachers value the benefits of the smartboard enough to tolerate occasional challenges.

Teachers further reported that unreliable internet connectivity discouraged them from relying on online resources, as slow network speeds often made lesson delivery time-consuming and inefficient. They also pointed out that some smartboard features were difficult for learners to use, which reduced teaching and learning time as teachers had to spend additional time in assisting learners. Moreover, teachers noted that many learners wanted to interact with the smartboard, which sometimes led to a loss of teaching and learning time when the class focused too long on a single activity. Teachers also indicated that learners often become overly excited when they see the smartboard, which disrupts the lesson as many attempt to interact with it simultaneously. This situation demands strong classroom management skills, requiring the teacher to maintain order and instil discipline to ensure effective lesson delivery.

It was also clear from the teachers that the reliability of Internet connectivity directly influenced the lesson flow. In mathematics teaching, in which smartboards are often used to access online resources, demonstrations, or videos, poor connectivity slows the lesson down and wastes teaching and learning time. Network instability emerges as a significant external factor that can hinder teachers’ ability to integrate smartboards effectively in mathematics teaching and learning. Such instability disrupts lesson pacing, reduces opportunities for interactive learning, and may force teachers to revert to less-engaging methods whilst waiting for connectivity to be restored:

‘Sometimes if the network is bad, it’s time-consuming.’ (Teacher ST, interviewee, teacher)

Teacher FB shared a more specific classroom-related challenge related to learners’ interaction with the smartboard during mathematics lessons, drawing attention to the fact that learners find it difficult to operate the text pen on the smartboard, which can be interpreted as a pedagogical limitation of the smartboard text pen. Whilst the text pen is designed to allow learners to engage directly with content, in practice, the pen slows down the pace of the teaching and learning activities because learners struggle to correct their mistakes on the smartboard. Teacher FB highlights that giving every learner a turn to participate in the learning through the smartboard can make whole-class participation impractical, whilst also being time-consuming:

‘Using the text pen, learners find it difficult to delete when they mess up. It is not advisable to make learners work on exercises written with the text pen … time-consuming if every child has to participate a lot of time can be spent in one activity.’ (Teacher FB, interviewee, teacher)

Teachers’ experiences show that some interactive features of smartboards, whilst theoretically supportive of active learning, may not be suitable in all contexts. In mathematics, in which participation and practice are critical, a tool that delays progress can hinder lesson objectives. Teachers, therefore, have to pragmatically choose which features to use and when.

Teachers also lamented that coercing learners to share their responses with peers might cause discomfort and shyness in learners about sharing their answers or interacting with the smartboard before their peers:

‘Learners with difficulties are not comfortable to write their responses in front of the class.’ (Teacher FB, interviewee, teacher)

Some teachers began using the smartboard before formal training by the Gauteng Department of Basic Education, effectively setting the precedent for integrating the technology into mathematics instruction. Teachers expressed a strong need for extensive training to use the smartboard effectively for teaching and learning. One teacher noted that, although they had received training, they still faced difficulties with certain features. However, they used their training as a foundation to navigate these challenges and enhance learning for both themselves and their learners. Teachers also highlighted the challenge of avoiding over-reliance on smartboards, emphasising that smartboards are supportive tools – not substitutes – for the teacher’s instructional role:

‘I was the first teacher to use the smartboard at School X, and I had not received training in using it.’ (Teacher FB, interviewee, teacher)

‘I need a lot of training, she laughs.’ (Teacher CK, interviewee, teacher)

‘Although I have undergone training, I still miss some things on the smartboard. However, the little that I know works to our benefit.’ (Teacher FG, interviewee, teacher)

‘Temptation to over-rely on technology as a substitute of a teacher. This is a challenge every teacher needs to overcome when they start using smartboards because they are only tools that help facilitate teaching and learning but not a replacement of the teacher.’ (Teacher FR, interviewee, teacher)

Additionally, teachers indicated that sometimes learners require more explanation, which may not be possible if teachers are using the smartboard. For example, Teacher FB explained that they do not always engage learners using smartboards in mathematics lessons because their learners require extensive explanation and guidance, and time constraints often limit opportunities for meaningful learner engagement:

‘It is not all the time that I engage learners in smartboard-assisted Maths because they are at a level where they need a lot of explanation and guidance to grasp a concept. Engaging learners requires a lot of time. It is not always possible to have enough time for learner engagement in every lesson.’ (Teacher FB, interviewee, teacher)

These difficulties highlight the importance of continuous professional development in equipping teachers with the necessary skills to effectively use smartboards for teaching mathematics.

Teachers’ perceived confidence in using smartboards to teach mathematics

Teachers also indicated their perceived confidence in teaching mathematics using the smartboard. Because they received training, teachers indicated their confidence in using smartboards and the features accompanying the technology:

‘The reason being that I was trained, and I am able to use some of the activities that engage learners, the matching, games, and the activities that come along with the smartboard, I am able to use most of them.’ (Teacher FY, interviewee, teacher)

Teacher CK rated themselves 4 out of 5, indicating that they find smartboards to be an effective teaching tool that enhances learner engagement by presenting lessons in a television-like format that supports understanding. Teacher MS also rated themselves 4 out of 5, explaining that they consistently integrate smartboard use in lesson planning across all subjects, although limited instructional time poses a challenge to covering all content thoroughly:

‘I rate myself with 4 because using smartboards for lessons is good, and it makes learners engaged easily in all lessons. To them is like they are watching TV, which provides them with knowledge of how they must do the lesson.’ (Teacher CK, interviewee, teacher)

‘I rate myself a 4 because in every subject that I plan, I involve smartboard teaching, and the reason for that is because, for each subject taught in a week, I teach it once a week, and the time used is not enough to cover everything.’ (Teacher MS, interviewee, teacher)

Discussion

This study explored how primary school teachers incorporate smartboards into mathematics lessons and investigated their experiences of using this technology in teaching. The findings of the study revealed that teachers used different methods to enhance learner engagement and active participation through smartboard integration. They indicated several challenges related to the integration of smartboards, and they perceived themselves as confident in using smartboards for teaching mathematics.

Firstly, teachers integrated multimedia tools such as videos and games to encourage active learner participation through the smartboard. Teachers considered the interactive features of the smartboard, such as the ability to save notes, allowing learners to write responses on the board and manipulating digital tools such as the analogue clock as useful for engaging learners and representing abstract content in dynamic visual content. By integrating smartboard multimedia tools and interactive features, teachers create opportunities for visual learning, transforming abstract content into dynamic and accessible representations that enhance learners’ understanding (Akar 2020:267; Orhani 2023).

Stanciulescu, Castronovo and Oliver (2024) found that learners had positive experiences when they actively participated in visually oriented lessons. Moreover, the saving function has been shown to support learners’ recall, thereby improving both understanding and performance whilst fostering greater alignment between teaching and learning (De Vita et al. 2014). The findings are aligned with findings from De Vita et al. (2014) and Murcia (2014), who argued that smartboards allow learners to participate actively in learning through interactive engagement and that the smartboards are accommodated for different learning styles.

These activities not only promoted active learning but also created dynamic and responsive classroom environments conducive to deeper understanding (Ndwandwe et al. 2024; Vygotsky 1978). Using different multimedia and interactive tools can allow primary school teachers to simplify mathematical content, which has been historically deemed difficult. By facilitating active learning, teachers ensure that the lesson activities serve their intended purpose and ensure that learners are engaged in the activity (Nguyen et al. 2021:10; Yalman & Basaran 2021).

The findings further indicate that teachers found smartboards to be useful in enhancing their duties of teaching mathematics, indicating that they had a good perception of the usefulness of smartboards (Davis 1989). The findings indicate that the primary school teachers who participated in this study could successfully integrate technology into their classrooms, demonstrating a competent level of TPK and the ability to apply technology meaningfully in mathematics teaching (Mishra & Koehler 2006). Therefore, the finding that teachers used different methods and smartboard tools to enhance learner engagement through active learning and also to teach specific mathematical topics is promising.

Secondly, besides using different methods and smartboards to enhance learner engagement and participation, primary school teachers reported several challenges related to integrating smartboards in mathematics teaching. These challenges ranged from teacher–training related challenges and technical problems with the smartboard. According to Orhani (2023), teachers reported requiring continuous training on how to use smartboards for teaching, as well as challenges related to technical issues, necessitating that teachers require technical assistance during lessons. Yalman and Basarn (2021) also found that teacher training is required because some teachers continued to use the smartboards and the traditional blackboard, which is in line with the findings from this study. This finding suggests that whilst smartboards can increase learner engagement, they may also complicate classroom dynamics, requiring teachers to balance interactivity with management. This view aligns with Vygotsky’s (1978) notion that mediated tools can either scaffold or complicate the learning process, depending on the context of use.

The findings of the study indicated that smartboard use can cause classroom disruptions, which can cause classroom management issues for teachers. This view also aligns with findings from Yalman and Basarn (2021), who confirmed that smartboard use negatively affected classroom management. Network-related problems, load shedding, learners struggling to use the smartboard, and time consumed when using the smartboard were some of the challenges reported by the teachers in this study, which were overly common to other studies. Perhaps, they are common within the South African context in which such problems have been reported in different studies that integrate ICT into teaching and learning (e.g. Mnisi, Mtshali & Moses 2024; Tigere & Netshitangani 2022). Contrary to previous findings that position learner distraction as a barrier to effective smartboard integration (e.g. Hatfield 2025), the teachers in this study did not report such experiences. This finding suggests that user perceptions, central to the TAM, are shaped not only by the technology’s inherent affordances but also by contextual factors such as teacher mediation, classroom culture, and teaching and learning purposes.

This study contributes to the literature by showing that whilst smartboards are promising for enhancing mathematics teaching, their effectiveness is undermined by systemic barriers such as inadequate training, technical failures, and infrastructural constraints, particularly within the South African context. Interestingly, unlike findings in other settings (Hatfield 2025), this study did not reveal learner distraction as a major concern, suggesting that the challenges of smartboard use may be context-specific and mediated by local classroom realities. Furthermore, the findings of this study indicate that successful smartboard integration in mathematics classrooms depends not only on teachers’ TPK but also on the contextual enablers that shape the TAM constructs of PEOU and PU (Davis 1989; Mishra & Koehler 2006). These findings resonate with the recent theoretical argument laid out by Petko et al. (2024) and Petko et al. (2025), who argued that contextual factors are critical to consider when incorporating technology in the classroom.

Lastly, the findings indicate that teachers demonstrate confidence in using smartboards for mathematics teaching, reflecting a strong sense of self-efficacy in integrating technology into instructional practice and highlighting the development of TPK. This aligns with Priyanda et al. (2025), who emphasise that TPK enables teachers to employ technology in ways that meaningfully engage learners in mathematical activities. Teachers’ reports that smartboards are routinely embedded across their lessons further suggest a progression from developing TPK towards more robust forms of integrated knowledge, where technology, pedagogy, and mathematical content intersect coherently (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Petko et al. 2025). Although our findings revealed that teachers felt confident in using the smartboard, we also found that this confidence does not necessarily eliminate the need for further training. Studies such as Cabus, Haelermans and Franken (2015) and the South African study by Graham, Stols and Kapp (2021) similarly reveal that whilst teachers are comfortable with technology in principle, they often still lack a deeper pedagogical understanding for maximising its educational potential. Moreover, rural SA science teachers in a study by Shambare and Jita (2024) expressed confidence but also emphasised that existing professional development did not adequately address the pedagogical integration of content, technique, and technology. Thus, our findings align with a growing body of research that suggests high confidence coexists with real gaps in TPK that further training can help address. This paradox is further illuminated by teachers’ willingness to incorporate smartboards into all lessons, which reflects a strong sense of PU and their positive attitude towards adopting smartboards in teaching mathematics (Granić & Marangunić 2019). This observation indicates that competence in using smartboards does not necessarily equate to confidence or sustainability, pointing to a gap between individual teacher capability and institutional professional development support. Furthermore, the findings align with Granić (2022), who argued that self-efficacy and the ability to apply the smartboard in specific mathematical contexts are important determinants of teachers’ PU.

The findings of this study have indicated that primary school teachers effectively used smartboards to enhance learner engagement, transform abstract mathematics into visual and interactive lessons, and demonstrate competent TPK integration. Teachers’ confidence and positive perceptions of usefulness reflect strong pedagogical and technological knowledge, aligning with TAM principles. However, challenges such as limited training, technical issues, and contextual constraints reduce PEOU and hinder sustainable integration. Addressing these barriers through professional development and systemic support is essential to fully realise the potential of smartboards in mathematics teaching.

Conclusion

The findings indicate that primary school teachers incorporate smartboards into mathematics lessons by using a variety of multimedia tools and interactive features, such as videos, games, manipulable clocks, and the ability to save and annotate notes. These tools facilitate active learning, enhance learner engagement, and transform abstract mathematical content into visual and dynamic representations, supporting deeper understanding and recall. Teachers reported high confidence in using smartboards, indicating a competent TPK and reflecting their ability to integrate technology meaningfully with pedagogy and content. Simultaneously, they encountered challenges, including limited training, technical challenges, and contextual constraints such as load shedding and time-consuming classroom management, which highlight the importance of systemic support and professional development. Overall, teachers’ experiences suggest that smartboards are a valuable tool for teaching mathematics, with significant potential to enhance learning when accompanied by adequate training and resources. One implication of this study is that whilst smartboards hold substantial potential for enriching mathematics teaching and learning, their effectiveness depends on sustained systemic support through ongoing professional development and reliable infrastructural resources. Without training gaps, technical challenges, and contextual barriers such as load shedding being addressed, the benefits of smartboards may not be fully realised, particularly in promoting active, engaging, and conceptually rich mathematics learning. Education policymakers should prioritise investments not only in smartboard procurement but also in teacher training, technical support, and infrastructure reliability. Policies must ensure equitable access across schools so that smartboards do not deepen digital divides between well-resourced and under-resourced contexts. Lastly, further research is needed to examine how smartboard use impacts specific areas of mathematics learning outcomes and to explore the longitudinal effects of smartboard integration on both teachers’ pedagogical practices and learners’ performance.

Acknowledgements

This article includes content that overlaps with research originally conducted as part of Sheila Madzikanda’s Master’s thesis titled ‘Primary school teachers’ experiences of teaching mathematics, using smartboard technology’ submitted to the Faculty of Education, Department of Science and Technology Education, now Department of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education at the University of Johannesburg in 2024. The thesis was supervised by Dr Sfiso C. Mahlaba. Portions of the data, data analysis, and/or discussion have been revised, reduced, and adapted for journal publication. The original thesis is available at https://hdl.handle.net/10210/511712. The author affirms that this submission complies with ethical standards for secondary publication, and appropriate acknowledgement has been made in the original work.

The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.

Sheila Madzikanda: Conceptualisation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Project administration, Resources, writing the original dissertation, Writing – review & editing. Sfiso C. Mahlaba: Conceptualisation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. All authors reviewed the article, contributed to the discussion of results, approved the final version for submission and publication, and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, Sfiso C. Mahlaba.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings, and content.

References