Original Research

A TPACK-informed study on equipping pre-service teachers with digital tools, artificial intelligence and open educational resources: Integrated strategies in STEM education

Annie M. Kgosi, Wiets Botes, Simone Neethling, Lebohang Mahlo, Mpumelelo F. Zondi

Received: 01 Sept. 2025; Accepted: 02 Dec. 2025; Published: 24 Mar. 2026

Copyright: © 2026. The Authors. 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 Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) has accelerated the integration of digital technologies across all education sectors, significantly impacting Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) teacher preparation. While digital tools can enhance learners’ critical thinking, conceptual understanding, and problem-solving skills, many pre-service teachers (PSTs) continue to graduate without the capacity to effectively integrate these tools into classroom practice. This highlights an urgent gap need to strengthen teacher education programmes for technology driven environments.

Aim: This study aims to investigate the technological strategies employed by teacher educators in South Africa to prepare PSTs for teaching Mathematics and other STEM subjects using digital technologies, artificial intelligence (AI) and open education resources (OERs).

Setting: The study is situated within the South African teacher education context, where universities and teacher preparation programmes are tasked with preparing PSTs to navigate rapidly digitalised STEM classrooms.

Methods: This is a conceptual article grounded in two theoretical frameworks: the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework and the Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) model. A critical analysis of literature, policies, and current practices is undertaken to examine strategies and contextual challenges in aligning these tools with PSTs preparation.

Results: The analysis highlights that while multiple technological strategies exist, including simulation tools, dynamic mathematical software, virtual manipulatives, and collaborative online platforms, their implementation is inconsistent. Teacher educators persistently face challenges such as limited infrastructure, inadequate professional development, and misalignment in use of digital technologies and pedagogy.

Conclusion: The study concludes that digital technology integration in Mathematics and STEM teacher preparation requires deliberate alignment of TPACK and the SAMR model. Teacher educators play a critical role in modelling effective practice, yet systemic challenges hinder the full potential of digital tools in preparing PSTs. Addressing these gaps demands a coherent strategy that combines institutional support, curriculum innovation, and ongoing professional development.

Contribution: This article contributes to the growing body of knowledge on technology integration in teacher education by identifying strategies and challenges specific to the South African context. It offers a conceptual basis for developing best practices that can guide teacher educators in effectively preparing PSTs to teach in the 21st-century, technology-rich Mathematics and STEM classrooms.

Keywords: digitalized mathematics classrooms; techniques and strategies; TPACK; SAMR model; digital technologies; pre-service teachers (PSTs); STEM education.

Introduction

Study rationale

The integration of digital technologies is reshaping Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education, offering new possibilities for enhancing teaching and learning. National and international bodies such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM 2000), the National Research Council (1996), and the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE 2000) have long emphasised the need for a technology-rich curriculum in mathematics, science and technology. These organisations advocate and recommend technology not as a supplementary tool, but as an essential, embedded component of the learning process. According to ISTE (2000), digital tools should function as instruments for both learning and communication, seamlessly integrated into subject-specific instruction.

Despite these recommendations and the growing presence of digital technologies, pre-service teachers (PSTs) often enter the profession with a limited understanding of how to apply these tools effectively in the classroom (Grossman, Hammerness & McDonald 2009). Many teachers hold preconceived ideas about teaching that do not align with the demands of a digitalised educational environment (Grossman et al. 2009). For example, tools such as GeoGebra offer opportunities to bridge this gap by enhancing conceptual understanding in topics such as Geometry, Algebra, Functions, and Statistics. Through interactive and visual engagement, PSTs can experience real-time feedback, explore mathematical structures dynamically, and gain insights into abstract concepts. The use of digital tools supports deeper cognitive development by enabling visualisation and encouraging active learning. As Rakha (2023) notes, digitisation involves the integration of digital technologies into the teaching and learning process and promoting more meaningful engagement with content.

The challenge in teacher education

We argue that despite the widespread advocacy of technology integration, PST preparation remains inadequately theorised and inconsistently implemented, particularly in contexts such as South Africa. Empirical evidence suggests that teacher educators frequently struggle to effectively model the use of digital tools, leading to PSTs graduating with limited understanding of how to integrate technology meaningfully into mathematics and STEM instruction (Clark-Wilson, Robutti & Thomas 2020; Drijvers & Sinclair 2024). As a result, many PSTs exit teacher education programmes without the competencies required to meet the expectations of 21st-century teaching, which is shaped by the rapid digital transformation of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) (Gümüs 2022; Schwab 2016).

While the integration of digital tools in education offers significant potential, such as enhanced visualisation, interactive learning, and real-time feedback and personalised instruction, its success largely hinges on the readiness and capacity of teachers (Drijvers & Sinclair 2024; Viberg et al. 2024). Challenges often include evaluating the quality of digital resources, embedding them into coherent lesson plans, managing technical difficulties, and navigating limited infrastructure (Forgasz 2006; Mhlongo, Ndlovu & Chirinda 2024; Thomas & Palmer 2014). These barriers underscore the critical need for continuous professional development, not only for in-service teachers but also for teacher educators responsible for preparing PSTs (Pepin et al. 2017).

Global and South African contexts

While global trends emphasise AI integration, adaptive learning platforms, immersive technologies and data analytics, South African teacher education faces distinct challenges, including infrastructure disparities, varying levels of digital access, persistent socio-economic inequalities, and unreliable electricity supply in some regions (Ncube & Tawanda 2025; Oubibi et al. 2024). The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic exposed and exacerbated these digital divides, revealing significant gaps in both teacher and student digital readiness, with many rural students unable to access online learning during lockdowns (Loglo & Zawacki-Richter 2023; Ncube & Tawanda 2025).

This context necessitates strategies that are both globally informed and locally responsive. Recent policy developments in South Africa, including the Basic Education Laws Amendment (BELA, Republic of South Africa 2024) act and the Department of Basic Education’s (DBE 2023) Digital Learning Framework, signal growing recognition of the need for systematic digital transformation. However, implementation remains uneven, with rural and under-resourced schools particularly at a disadvantage (Ajani 2024). Teacher education institutions thus bear the responsibility of preparing PSTs not only to use technology in well-resourced contexts but also to adapt and innovate within the resource-constrained environments, a capability we term ‘adaptative digital competence’.

To address this gap, teacher educators must take an active role in promoting PSTs’ cognitive and pedagogical development by embedding digital technologies into their training programmes. Digitisation plays a pivotal role in the global education landscape, enabling personalised learning, fostering collaborative and innovative teaching practices (Clark-Wilson et al. 2020; Drijvers & Sinclair 2024; Rakha 2023; Szilvia 2023). Viberg et al. (2024) further argue that this approach supports the cultivation of critical thinking, analytical reasoning, and adaptive problem-solving skills, which align with the evolving demands of modern STEM classrooms. Taylor et al. (2021) affirm that digital technologies hold transformative potential for education. Equipping PSTs with the skills to leverage these tools not only enhances their employability but also ensures their readiness for implementing 21st-century teaching practices. These insights position digital tools not as optional add-ons but as essential components of effective mathematics education and cognitive development.

This study emphasises the need to prepare PSTs for teaching in digitalised STEM classrooms. Digital tools serve as mediating instruments that support learning across all levels, enabling PSTs to engage deeply with mathematical concepts. Tools such as dynamic geometry software and algebraic visualisation platforms help PSTs make abstract concepts more accessible, foster problem-solving abilities, and build stronger conceptual foundations in topics such as geometry and algebra. This research examines the technological strategies and techniques employed by teacher educators in preparing PSTs to integrate digital technology into STEM teaching, with a specific focus on the South African education context. The study aims to examine the strategies used by teacher educators in the South African context to prepare PSTs integrate digital tools in STEM instruction and to evaluate these strategies using technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) and Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) as analytical lenses. The study is guided by the following research questions.

Research questions

• How do teacher educators in South Africa currently integrate digital tools into mathematics and STEM teacher preparation programmes?
• To what extent do these technology integration strategies reflect TPACK knowledge domains and SAMR levels of technology use?
• What best-practice implications can support teacher educators in preparing pre-service teachers for digitally mediated STEM teaching?

These research questions pave a way for theoretical frameworks section that incorporates TPACK and SAMR that grounds this study. Furthermore, the subsequent section will outline the conceptual methodology and literature synthesis process. Together, these sections will provide the study’s relevant literature thematically and eventually study implications, recommendations and conclusions.

Theoretical frameworks

This study is guided by the two theoretical frameworks: the TPACK model (Mishra & Koehler 2006), and the SAMR model (Puentedura 2006), and their detailed application is discussed next.

Technological pedagogical content knowledge framework

This study is based on the TPACK model. As conceptualised by Mishra and Koehler (2006), TPACK highlights the intersection of three primary domains of teacher knowledge:

• Content Knowledge (CK): Mastery of the subject matter to be taught, including its concepts, theories, and frameworks.
• Pedagogical Knowledge (PK): Understanding of teaching methods, instructional strategies, and classroom management practices.
• Technological Knowledge (TK): Proficiency in operating standard and specialised digital tools, as well as the ability to select and use these tools to enhance learning.

Technological pedagogical content knowledge (Koehler & Mishra 2009) extends as a framework that helps teachers to integrate technology effectively into their teaching and represents the knowledge teachers need as follows: (1) the conception and use of technology, (2) pedagogical techniques that use technologies in constructive ways to teach content, and (3) technology-based STEM instruction. The framework positions effective teaching as the outcome of balanced integration of these domains, where teachers (1) understand the affordances and limitations of technology, (2) employ pedagogical techniques that leverage technology constructively to teach specific content, and (3) apply technology-based instructional strategies to enhance STEM learning outcomes. Figure 1 illustrates the TPACK framework, emphasising the dynamic interplay among CK, PK, and TK in designing technology-enhanced learning experiences (Koehler et al. 2013b).

FIGURE 1: Technological pedagogical content knowledge.

FIGURE 2: Adaptation of Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition Model.

Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition model

The SARM model for Technology Integration was developed by Puentedura (2006). The model is adopted as an analytical framework in this study to evaluate the depth of technology integration in STEM education classrooms.

This model provides a continuum from enhancement (Substitution and Augmentation) to transformation (Modification and Redefinition):

• Substitution: Technology acts as a direct tool substitute, with no functional change.
• Augmentation: Technology substitutes, but with functional improvement.
• Modification: Technology allows for significant task redesign.
• Redefinition: Technology enables the creation of entirely new tasks previously inconceivable.

Puentedura (2006) offers an understanding of how the adoption of technology can have an impact on teaching and learning from a simple to a complex concept. The research uses qualitative research methods to obtain detailed descriptions and narratives from STEM teachers involved in the research and to determine how they use exemplification in the context of technology education. The second levels or phases are modification and redefinition, and they represent the transformation of the traditional approaches to teaching and learning to the 21st-century approach, where active integration of technology is projected. In STEM education, the enhancement phases represent the incremental use of digital tools to support existing instructional approaches, while the transformation phases reflect a shift towards 21st-century pedagogy that redefines learning through active, collaborative, and technology-rich engagement. By combining these frameworks, the commentary situates strategies within both the knowledge and integration dimensions of technology-enhanced mathematics teaching.

The TPACK framework guides the examination of teacher educators’ knowledge integration, while the SAMR model is used to map strategies along the technology integration continuum. Together, these frameworks enable the study to identify the depth of digital tool use in STEM teacher education; to analyse strategies concerning both knowledge domains (TPACK) and integration levels (SAMR) and finally evaluate how digital technologies are operationalised without neglecting the exemplification of the use of concrete, illustrative examples that make abstract mathematical concepts accessible to PSTs.

Literature review

The rapid digital transformation of education has foregrounded the need for PSTs to develop robust TPACK so that they can orchestrate a range of digital tools, AI applications and open resources in STEM classrooms. Recent studies show that while PSTs increasingly encounter digital platforms in their initial teacher education, their preparedness to design inquiry-rich, technology-enhanced STEM learning remains uneven and often tool-centred rather than pedagogy-centred (Aleksieva 2025; Wahono et al. 2025). Technological pedagogical content knowledge provides a useful lens for this conceptual article because it emphasises the intersection of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge. It frames digital tools, AI and open educational resources (OERs) not as add-ons but as integral components of subject-specific STEM teaching strategies, providing fertile ground for technology-rich STEM lessons (Mahlo & Waghid 2023). Recent evidence from TPACK-oriented professional teacher development indicates that when technology integration is explicitly scaffolded around authentic STEM tasks, PSTs report gains in confidence, self-efficacy and readiness to teach in digitally mediated classrooms (Ribeirinha et al. 2025; Wahono et al. 2025).

Artificial intelligence is increasingly positioned as a meta-tool that can personalise learning, support assessment and extend inquiry-based pedagogies in STEM education. Systematic reviews of AI in teaching and teachers’ professional development highlight AI’s growing role in automating routine feedback, providing adaptive practice and supporting data-informed instructional decisions, while simultaneously raising concerns about ethics, bias and teacher agency (Tan, Cheng & Ling 2024). Within PST education, recent bibliometric and empirical studies show a sharp rise in research on AI-supported teacher preparation, especially around AI literacy, generative AI tools and their pedagogical use in designing lessons and assessments (Kuzu 2025; Guan, Zhang & Gu 2025). New models such as AI-integrated TPACK (often referred to as AI-TPACK) explicitly extend the TPACK framework by adding AI-specific TK and design principles, encouraging PSTs to align AI tools with disciplinary goals and learner needs rather than using them in isolation (Pingmuang, Koraneekij & Khlaisang 2025). In STEM contexts, AI-enhanced simulations, intelligent tutoring systems, and data dashboards can deepen problem-based learning and collaborative inquiry. However, it is essential that PSTs are guided to critically interrogate AI outputs, consider issues of transparency and bias, and design tasks that augment rather than replace human reasoning.

A TPACK-informed study on strategies for equipping PSTs with digital tools, therefore, needs to foreground AI not only as a technical innovation but as a pedagogical partner whose educational value depends on teachers’ integrated technological, ethical and subject-specific judgement. Open educational resources and open educational practices (OEPs) have become central to global efforts to democratise access to high-quality STEM learning materials and to foster more participatory forms of knowledge creation. Recent work shows that teachers perceive OERs as powerful levers for inclusive and equitable education, citing their adaptability, cost-effectiveness and potential to support more meaningful and motivating learning experiences (Romero-Ariza et al. 2025). Professional development interventions that explicitly cultivate open practices, such as designing renewable assignments where teachers and students co-create and remix STEM OERs, have been found to strengthen teachers’ capacity to engage in open pedagogy. This contrasts with merely downloading static resources (Arispe, Hoye & Palmer 2023).

Within the South African and broader Global South context, research highlights OERs and OEPs as strategic responses to structural inequities in access to textbooks, laboratories and up-to-date STEM content, while also foregrounding challenges related to connectivity, contextual relevance and institutional support (Madhav & Leibowitz 2024). For PSTs, TPACK-informed OER and OEP design tasks, such as adapting open STEM simulations, creating multilingual open worksheets, or designing inquiry-oriented open problem sets, can help develop multiple types of knowledge. These include TK (e.g. platforms and licensing), PK (e.g. open, collaborative assessment) and content knowledge (e.g. core STEM concepts). In a conceptual study focused on equipping PSTs with digital tools, OERs and OEPs thus represent both content (what resources are used) and practice (how teaching is enacted), aligning firmly with TPACK’s emphasis on situated, design-based learning in teacher education. Another prominent trend is the increasing emphasis on teacher preparation for integrating digital tools into curriculum planning and classroom instruction. Internationally, countries such as France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States encourage teachers to redesign curricula by leveraging digital materials to create meaningful and engaging learning experiences (Confrey 2018; Pepin et al. 2017). Digital curriculum resources (DCR), including e-textbooks and other digital mathematical tools, are viewed as critical for fostering interactive learning and collaborative teaching environments. However, despite their potential, teachers face challenges in evaluating the quality of DCR and incorporating it systematically into their instruction (Geraniou & Mavrikis 2015).

Virtual and augmented reality, simulations and immersive open educational resources

Virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR) and interactive simulations offer immersive, experience-rich environments that are particularly well suited to STEM topics involving abstract or microscopic phenomena. Recent reviews of VR in preservice teacher education report positive effects on motivation, self-efficacy and the development of complex teaching skills, while cautioning that careful instructional design is needed to avoid cognitive overload and superficial engagement (Van der Want & Visscher 2024). More particularly, Kgosi’s (2025) review of digital tools and AI methods in FET mathematics highlights both the promise in terms of conceptual mastery and engagement while also highlighting the current underutilisation because of limited pedagogical integration.

Empirical work with pre-service science teachers using VR classrooms for micro-teaching shows that intention to adopt VR is strongly shaped by perceptions of pedagogical usefulness, ease of integration and institutional support (Han 2025; Ogegbo et al. 2024). In the context of STEM teacher education, VR-based OERs enable PSTs to explore complex anatomical and physical systems beyond the limits of static diagrams and resource-poor school laboratories. A recent qualitative study with South African life science PSTs, for example, found that using VR-based OERs (via Meta Quest 3 headsets and Human Anatomy VR) enhanced participants’ conceptual understanding of cardiovascular processes, stimulated inquiry-based pedagogical thinking and contributed to the development of immersive digital pedagogies aligned with experiential learning theory (Botes 2025). Augmented reality applications used by PSTs in science and language classrooms similarly highlight gains in visualisation, learner engagement and multimodal explanation, while also surfacing concerns about classroom management, technical reliability and equity of access (Abualrob, Al Saadi & Frehat 2025). From a TPACK perspective, these studies underscore that VRs and ARs and simulations become powerful when PSTs learn to align them with clear conceptual goals (CK), inquiry-oriented and collaborative pedagogies (PK) and context-appropriate technological choices (TK), rather than treating them as motivational add-ons.

Mobile technologies, collaborative platforms and digital game-based learning

Mobile learning and cloud-based collaborative platforms have also emerged as key infrastructures for supporting STEM learning, particularly in resource-constrained or rural settings. Research on mobile learning in rural STEM contexts shows that teachers and learners value mobile platforms for their ability to host visualised experiments, support anytime-anywhere access to STEM content and enable collaborative knowledge sharing; however, adoption is mediated by perceived usefulness, social influence and infrastructural constraints (Mutambara & Bayaga 2021). Recent work on mobile technologies in PST education further indicates that PSTs use mobile devices and professional learning networks not only to consume content but also to curate resources, share ideas and experiment with classroom-ready activities (Ajani 2024; Pingmuang et al. 2025).

Collaborative digital platforms, such as learning management systems, shared design spaces and online discussion environments, create opportunities for co-designing STEM lessons, peer feedback and reflection. Studies of collaborative design practices show that when PSTs work in small groups to design technology-enhanced lessons, the quality of their designs and their TPACK growth are shaped by the heterogeneity of group knowledge and motivational profiles, as well as by structured facilitation (Backfisch et al. 2023). Similarly, research on digital game-based learning in STEM teacher education suggests that participation in game-based design and implementation deepens PSTs’ understanding of systems thinking, sustainability concepts and learner engagement strategies (Gumbi, Ndlovu & Ramnarain 2024).

Taken together, mobile technologies, simulations, collaborative platforms and game-based environments provide a rich ecosystem of digital tools that can be purposefully integrated with OERs and OEPs. For a TPACK-informed study on equipping PSTs, the key challenge is not merely to expose students to these tools, but to design learning experiences in which they select, adapt and justify combinations of AI tools, mobile apps, VRs and ARs resources, simulations and open materials to address specific STEM learning goals, learner profiles and contextual constraints (Aleksieva 2025; Vera & Arroyo 2025). This conceptual article, therefore, positions AI, digital tools, OERs and OEPs, immersive technologies and collaborative platforms as mutually reinforcing components within a TPACK-aligned framework for preparing pre-service STEM teachers to design equitable, inquiry-driven and future-oriented classroom practices.

Digital tools to mediate cognitive development in STEM education

Drawing on Vygotsky’s (1978b) sociocultural theory, technology is understood as a mediating tool that shapes both communication and cognitive development. In this view, tools are not merely instrumental but play an essential role in structuring how individuals think, learn, and interact. Vygotsky (1978a) emphasised that cognitive development is deeply embedded in social interaction and is significantly influenced by the tools available within a cultural context. Bruner (1987) extends this perspective by distinguishing between practical tools, which operate in the physical world, and symbolic tools, which are used for communication. He argues that both types of tools, when used as mediating instruments, affect not only the nature of communication but also the structure of cognitive processes and the language through which knowledge is expressed. This implies that technologies, particularly digital tools, reshape how individuals think and learn, influencing their cognitive engagement and interaction with content.

Research methods and design

A conceptual article serves to synthesise and interpret existing knowledge while offering fresh perspectives to ongoing scholarly debates (Gilson & Goldberg 2015). The methodological approach remains qualitative, relying on detailed descriptions and narratives drawn from professional teaching practice and the broader literature to illustrate strategies that align with the TPACK framework and SAMR model. Subsequently, the study adopts a commentary approach, which is employed to provide a reflective and practice-oriented lens for examining how the TPACK framework (Koehler & Mishra 2009) and the SAMR Model (Puentedura 2006) can be operationalised within STEM teacher education. The commentary is articulated through explicit teaching strategies that have been trialled, adapted, and refined within STEM teacher preparation programmes. This narrative style makes visible their pedagogical reasoning that underpins technology integration choices (Loughran 2006; Shulman 1986). The qualitative approach adopted in the study ‘reflects the recent systematic literature review (SLR) on the critical review of digital tools and AI-driven methods in the South African context in the study’ (Kgosi 2025:39–52). The descriptive and exploratory analyses were used to identify effective practices across the SLR, which delved into some pertinent issues concerning digital tools and AI methods.

In the preceding study, Kgosi (2025) argued that research underscores the adoption of AI methods, ingrained in the use of digital technologies, which has gained momentum across the education sector. Its implementation, particularly in mathematics education, especially in the FET teaching phase, remains inconsistent and underutilised by teacher educators and teachers in general. Her argument centres around teachers’ lack of training or confidence in teaching using digital tools and AI-designed methods. This underutilisation limits the interactive and dynamic potential in teaching and learning, not merely in mathematics disciplines but in STEM education generally. This implies that there is a need to critically review the growing presence of digital tools, AI platforms, and other digitalised platforms that can serve the needs of STEM education (Kgosi 2025:40). Data were sourced using an SLR for the period 2014–2024. Table 1 was extracted and categorised from the SLR article (see Kgosi 2025).

Table 1 categorises the technologies and OERs for PSTs in STEM education. An important aspect of establishing how AI methods and digital technology tools can be used as strategies to inform this study is through the integration of the TPACK (Koehler & Mishra 2009) lens, complemented by the SAMR model (Puentedura 2006). Both these frameworks have been identified as relevant to the study; hence, they influence Table 1. A TPACK lens is particularly relevant in understanding how STEM teacher educators integrate technology in a way that complements the content, instructional strategies and technological integration, which foregrounds the intersection of the three key domains that were unpacked in the theoretical framework section. For this study, the TPACK framework is a framework that helps teachers to integrate technology effectively into teaching practices. It also represents the knowledge teachers need while providing a lens to assess how well-equipped teachers can integrate technology in their teaching practices (Kgosi 2025:44), which speaks to the conception and use of technology in STEM education. The study also highlights the focus on the identified gaps for teacher preparedness, particularly when combining content, pedagogy and technology, which involves pedagogical strategies that employ technology in a constructive way to teach the content. On the other hand, the SAMR model complements the TPACK lens by evaluating the depth and impact of technology use in teaching and learning through the four progressive SAMR levels: Substitution, Augmentation, Modification and Redefinition.

Analysis of categorisation

The analysis reveals several important trends in the integration of technology within STEM education. Firstly, the dominance of AI tools, which accounted for 30.2% of the reviewed literature, reflects the rapidly growing role of AI in teaching and learning. This surge demonstrates the transformative potential of AI; however, it also emphasises the need to prepare PSTs to use AI ethically, evaluate AI-generated content critically, and understand the limitations of these technologies. Mathematical software such as GeoGebra and Desmos continues to hold a foundational place in STEM teacher education, representing 22.1% of the reviewed tools. Their widespread use underscores their effectiveness in promoting conceptual understanding and facilitating interactive visualisation of mathematical concepts. Open educational resources also emerged as a crucial area, representing 17.0% of the reviewed technologies. In resource-constrained contexts such as South Africa, OERs offer an equitable solution by providing freely accessible, adaptable, and culturally relevant materials, further reinforcing their importance in supporting fair access to quality education. In contrast, technologies such as hardware and devices appeared far less frequently, at only 5.2%. This could suggest that basic infrastructure has become normalised in some institutions, but it may also point to persistent challenges in under-resourced settings where access to devices remains limited and problematic. This article also highlights that the transformative potential of many advanced technologies remains underutilised. Tools capable of supporting higher-level integration under the SAMR model, such as AI, VR, and collaborative platforms, are present but not yet widespread in practice. Key barriers appear to include limited development of TPACK among teacher educators, insufficient infrastructure, a lack of ongoing professional development, and inadequate institutional support.

FIGURE 3: Technologies and open education resources for pre-service teachers in STEM education.

Patterns of TPACK integration further illustrate this gap. Full TPACK integration emerges with select tools such as AI (30.2% mentions) (see Table 2) and collaborative platforms, enabling contextualised STEM tasks (e.g. adaptive simulations aligning CK on algebraic structures with PK for collaborative inquiry). However, most practices show siloed knowledge: hardware and infrastructure (5.2%) (see Table 2) emphasises TK alone, while mobile tools and OERs (17%) combine TK with partial PK but neglect South African-specific CK, such as multilingual adaptations. Teacher educators’ low digital confidence exacerbates this, as superficial tool use fails to foster PSTs’ ability to orchestrate technology for 21st-century competencies such as problem-solving.

Finally, the analysis reinforces the importance of contextualising technology use in South Africa. Technologies must function effectively within low-bandwidth environments, multilingual classrooms, and diverse access scenarios, including shared or personal devices under Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) strategies. They must also address electricity constraints and support cultural relevance with locally grounded content and examples. Overall, the categorisation highlights both the progress made and the challenges that remain in ensuring equitable, effective, and transformative technology integration in STEM teacher education.

Ethical considerations

Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the Sol Plaatje University Senate Ethics Committee (No. 101179402).

Results

In relation to the first research question, the above analysis reveals that teacher educators in South Africa draw on a rich but unevenly used composite of digital tools when preparing PSTs for mathematics and STEM teaching. The categorisation of technologies highlights the prominence of AI tools (30.2% of documented mentions) (see Table 2) and digital mathematical software such as GeoGebra and Desmos (22.1%), alongside open educational resources (17%), immersive technologies (VR/AR), mobile devices, collaborative platforms, simulations and digital game-based environments. These findings echo the pivotal role digitisation plays in expanding access to education, enabling personalised learning pathways, and fostering collaborative and innovative teaching practices (Clark-Wilson et al. 2020; Drijvers & Sinclair 2024; Rakha 2023; Szilvia 2023). However, digital literacy and confidence among teachers remain significant barriers to the effective integration of technology in education.

Teacher educators face persistent challenges in ensuring that PSTs develop the necessary digital literacy skills and confidence for meaningful technology use in classrooms. Teacher educators find it challenging to embed digitisation into teacher preparation, which is currently a critical step in preparing PSTs for the 21st-century STEM instructions, specifically in providing PSTs with the required strategies to teach in their STEM classrooms (Clark-Wilson et al. 2020; McGlynn-Steward et al. 2019; Pepin et al. 2017; Rakha 2023). For instance, many teachers lack confidence in using digital tools and are sceptical of their relevance to subjects such as Mathematics (Clark-Wilson & Hoyles 2017). This scepticism, compounded by delays in adopting digital tools, limits teachers’ ability to integrate technology effectively, leaving students unable to connect STEM concepts comprehensively (Geraniou & Mavrikis 2015). Structural barriers, such as limited access to appropriate technology, inadequate technical support, and regional disparities, further exacerbate these issues, thus contributing to inequities in teacher preparation and implementation of digital learning strategies (Forgasz 2006; Rakha 2023; Thomas & Palmer 2014).

Teacher educators themselves often lack sufficient professional development to equip PSTs with the skills needed for technology integration, resulting in further challenges in teaching PSTs to evaluate and adapt digital curriculum resources for their lessons (Pepin et al. 2017). The abundance of digital resources available poses an additional challenge: many teachers struggle to assess their quality and suitability, hindering meaningful technology integration (Confrey 2018; Pepin et al. 2017). This issue is compounded by the tendency of some teachers to use technology in a superficial manner, rather than as a tool to support deep conceptual understanding and critical thinking (Artigue 2002). The shift towards modernised teaching approaches emphasises the need for student-centred learning supported by digital tools, such as virtual manipulatives, e-textbooks, and interactive software such as GeoGebra and Desmos (Matussin, Abdullah & Shahrill 2015; Mishra, Koehler & Kereluik 2009).

Addressing the second research question, TPACK–SAMR analysis indicates that most documented practices cluster at the Substitution and Augmentation levels of the SAMR model, with relatively few examples of Modification or Redefinition. From a TPACK perspective, technology use is often dominated by TK, with limited integration of CK and PK into coherent technology-rich tasks. Patterns of use reveal that hardware and basic infrastructure tend to reflect TK alone, while mobile tools and OERs typically combine TK with elements of PK, but with limited explicit attention to content knowledge (CK) and to South African-specific curriculum demands such as multilingual classrooms. In contrast, full TPACK integration appears more clearly in selected examples involving AI, simulations, VR and collaborative platforms, where digital tools are aligned with specific conceptual goals and inquiry-oriented pedagogies.

Yet such transformative practices are not widespread. Overall, most technology use corresponds to Substitution and Augmentation, with fewer instances of Modification or Redefinition in which tasks are fundamentally redesigned or newly conceptualised through technology. These findings also foreground the South African context as a decisive factor in shaping technology integration. Teacher educators must design strategies that work within low-bandwidth and unreliable electricity conditions, accommodate diverse access arrangements (including shared devices and BYOD), and make use of locally relevant, culturally responsive content.

Altogether, the findings suggest that while there is significant potential for digital tools, AI and OERs to support PST preparation, realising this potential requires a shift from sporadic, tool-driven use towards context-sensitive, TPACK-aligned and SAMR-informed practices. This provides the foundation for the best-practice implications articulated in the recommendations that address the third research question.

In response to the third research question, this study proposes a set of best-practice implications to guide teacher educators and programme designers in preparing PSTs for digitally mediated STEM teaching in South Africa. These best practices will be discussed in the following recommendations section.

Discussion

Recommendations

This study emphasises the pivotal role of the TPACK framework in preparing PSTs for 21st-century classrooms, particularly in integrating technology into mathematics teaching. Based on the findings and alignment with the TPACK framework, the following suggestions are proposed: The study further highlights several critical issues and debates surrounding the preparation of PSTs for integrating technology into mathematics instruction. Based on the findings and theoretical insights, the following suggestions are made:

• Systematically embedding TPACK and SAMR in Teacher Education Programmes: Teacher education programmes should systematically adopt the TPACK framework to align CK, PK, and TK complemented by the SAMR model into respective curricula. Also, to move beyond superficial tool exposure, teacher educators need to provide structured opportunities for PSTs to select, combine and critically evaluate digital tools in relation to specific STEM concepts and learner needs. By embracing this integrated model, PSTs can develop a holistic understanding of how to utilise technology to transform teaching practices effectively.
• Advancing Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK): Building on Shulman’s (1986) emphasis on PCK, programmes must focus on helping PSTs transform STEM subject matter knowledge into teachable, locally meaningful forms. Digital tools, such as virtual manipulatives, dynamic geometry software, visual simulations and multilingual OERs, can be used to address common misconceptions and respond to multilingual classroom realities. In South Africa, this includes utilising technology to overcome challenges and fostering meaningful student engagement with STEM concepts.
• Develop teacher educators’ own digital, AI and open resource literacies: Institutions should invest in ongoing professional development that strengthens teacher educators’ TPACK, particularly in relation to emerging tools. Collaborative professional learning communities can create spaces for teacher educators to experiment with digital tools, co-design technology-rich STEM tasks, critically interrogate products of AI and share best practices of OER and OEP-based teaching. This addresses the documented gap in teacher educators’ confidence and skills to integrate technology deeply into their practice.
• South African Curriculum Context: Given the unique challenges and opportunities in South African ICT schools, teacher education programmes should prioritise local curriculum reform to align with international standards while addressing contextual needs. Programmes should therefore prioritise low-bandwidth, mobile-friendly and offline-capable tools; promote the use of adaptable OERs that can be localised; and explicitly prepare PSTs to design technology-enhanced lessons for schools with varying levels of access. Conceptualising ‘adaptive digital competence’ as a programme outcome can help to ensure that PSTs are equipped not only to teach with sophisticated tools in well-resourced schools but also to innovate with limited technologies in rural and township settings.

Conclusion

This study concludes that the TPACK and SAMR framework offers a comprehensive and robust foundation for preparing PSTs to integrate technology effectively into their teaching practices. By blending content knowledge, pedagogical strategies, and technological proficiency, PSTs can create engaging, inclusive, and learner-centred classrooms that address the evolving demands of 21st-century education. The research highlights the need for teacher educators to prioritise TPACK-based approaches, ensuring that PSTs are well-equipped to navigate the challenges of modern classrooms. Furthermore, fostering a culture of innovation and adaptability among PSTs can lead to transformative teaching practices that leverage technology as a tool for enhancing learning outcomes. Ultimately, aligning teacher education with the TPACK framework not only empowers PSTs to teach with technology but also contributes to the broader goal of improving the quality and relevance of education in an increasingly digital world. This study underscores the importance of preparing PSTs to integrate technology into mathematics instruction through a robust knowledge framework such as TPACK. The convergence of content, pedagogy, and technology enables PSTs to navigate the complexities of modern classrooms and address diverse learning needs effectively. The research highlights the need for innovative strategies to bridge gaps in teacher education, emphasising:

• the role of digital technologies in enhancing STEM instruction
• the reform of teacher education programs to meet global technological and pedagogical standards.

By embracing these recommendations, teacher education programmes can better equip PSTs with the skills and knowledge needed to create transformative learning experiences, aligning with the demands of 21st-century education. The integration of TPACK into teacher education offers a pathway to developing confident, competent, and innovative mathematics educators who are prepared to navigate the digital age effectively.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the reviewers for providing comments to help complete this article.

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

Annie M. Kgosi: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Visualisation, Project administration, Data curation, Resources, Writing – review & editing. Wiets Botes: Conceptualisation, Formal analysis, Visualisation, Project administration, Data curation, Resources, Funding acquisition. Simone Neethling: Conceptualisation, Formal analysis, Visualisation, Project administration, Data curation, Resources, Funding acquisition. Lebohang Mahlo: Formal analysis, Visualisation, Project administration, Data curation, Resources. Mpumelelo F. Zondi: Formal analysis, Visualisation, Project administration, Data curation, Resources. 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 from the corresponding author, Annie M. Kgosi, upon reasonable request.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. It does 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