See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335772544

Indonesian Teachers’ Knowledge of ICT and the Use of ICT in Secondary

Mathematics Teaching

Article in Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education · September 2019
DOI: 10.29333/ejmste/110352

CITATIONS READS

31 523

2 authors:

Mailizar Mailizar Lianghuo Fan

Syiah Kuala University East China Normal University
42 PUBLICATIONS 502 CITATIONS 112 PUBLICATIONS 1,307 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Third International Conference on Mathematics Textbook Research and Development (ICMT3) View project

Fan (范良火), L. (2021). Exploring Issues About Values in Mathematics Education. ECNU Review of Education, 4(2), 388–395. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mailizar Mailizar on 20 September 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2020, 16(1), em1799
ISSN:1305-8223 (online)
OPEN ACCESS Research Paper https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/110352

Indonesian Teachers’ Knowledge of ICT and the Use of ICT in

Secondary Mathematics Teaching
Mailizar Mailizar 1*
, Lianghuo Fan 2

1
Mathematics Education Department, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, INDONESIA
2
Asian Centre for Mathematics Education, East China Normal University, CHINA

Received 22 May 2019 ▪ Revised 14 June 2019 ▪ Accepted 28 June 2019

ABSTRACT
Indonesia, like many other countries, see Information and Communication Technology
(ICT) as a potential tool for enhancing the quality of education. However, there is a lack
of research examining Indonesian secondary mathematics teachers’ knowledge in the
integration of ICT. In this study, we aimed to investigate Indonesian secondary teachers’
knowledge in the use of ICT in secondary mathematics classrooms. The study employed
a quantitative method with a cross-sectional survey approach. It was conducted in one
of Indonesia’s provinces where the data were collected from 341 secondary
mathematics teachers through a questionnaire survey. The findings suggest that, to a
large extent, Indonesian secondary mathematics teachers have a largely inadequate
knowledge of ICT and knowledge of ICT use in teaching. Based on the findings, we
argue that it is crucial to improve Indonesian teachers’ knowledge of both aspects, and
more training courses for teachers’ knowledge development are needed.
Keywords: ICT, Indonesian mathematics education, teacher education, teacher
knowledge

INTRODUCTION
Like many other countries in the world, the current secondary mathematics curriculum in Indonesia emphasises
the use of ICT in the practice of teaching and learning. This is clearly stated in the secondary school mathematics’
curriculum document, as it says “in order to improve the effectiveness of teaching and learning, schools should
promote the use of information and communication technology such as computer, concrete material and other
media” (MoEC, 2007, p. 397).
The Indonesian government implemented a reformed curriculum in 1984 which signalled the first attempted
policy directive to integrate modern technologies into mathematics classrooms (Mailizar, Manahel and Fan, 2014).
It was an example of the government’s efforts to strengthen mathematics education in the country (Ruseffendi,
1988, p. 102). This indicates that the integration of modern technology in teaching and learning has been a feature
for quite a long time of the mathematics curriculum in the country. In a sense, this also explains that the integration
of modern technology in teaching and learning has been a feature of the Indonesian mathematics curriculum for
quite a long time.
It is widely believed that teachers play a significant role in the integration of ICT in the classroom. Therefore,
while earlier research on the integration of ICT has mostly focused on the students’ outcome (e.g., Hennessy, Fung,
& Scanlon, 2001; Sinclair & Jackiw, 2005; Smeets, 2005; Witte & Rogge, 2014), more recent studies have shifted focus
to teachers’ development of their knowledge (Clark-Wilson, Robutti, & Siclair, 2014). Researchers in many countries
have conducted studies on teachers’ knowledge of ICT or the use ICT in teaching, for example, Archambault and
Crippen (2009) and Debbagh and Jones (2018) in the United States, Loveless (2007) in the United Kingdom,
Doukakis, Koilias, Adamopoulos, and Giannopoulou (2011) in Greece, Al Harbi (2014) in Saudi Arabia, Owusu,
Lindsey, and Chris (2015) in New Zealand, Koh, Woo, and Lim (2013) in Singapore, to name a few.

© 2020 by the authors; licensee Modestum Ltd., UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the
terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
[email protected] (*Correspondence) [email protected]
Mailizar & Fan / Indonesian Teachers’ Knowledge of ICT

Contribution of this paper to the literature

• The study adopted TPACK framework, therefore, it enhances the literature regarding the application of the
framework to investigate secondary mathematics teachers knowledge through a questionnaire survey.
• The study is the first empirical study in Indonesia to investigate secondary teachers’ knowledge of ICT and
teachers’ knowledge of ICT use in teaching that involved a relative large numbers of participants.
• As a developing country that has the fourth largest education system in the world, the findings of this study
has implications not only for Indonesia but for other developing countries that are keen to integrate ICT in
the classroom.

In mathematics education, researchers have also investigated mathematics teachers’ knowledge about ICT and
the integration of ICT in mathematics classrooms, such as that by Handal, Campbell, Cavanagh, Petocz, and Kelly
(2013) in Australia, Stoilescu (2015) in Canada, and Agyei and Voogt (2011) in Ghana. Those studies found that
mathematics teachers did not have sufficient knowledge about ICT and how to use ICT in teaching.
However, the previous studies have left several gaps to be filled. First, regarding studies on mathematics
teachers’ knowledge of ICT and teachers’ knowledge of ICT use in teaching, most of the studies have been
conducted in developed countries. In contrast, it appears clear that there have been a limited number of publications
reporting on this issue for developing countries, including Indonesia. Second, in the Indonesian context, the
previous studies on teachers’ knowledge about the use of ICT in teaching (e.g., Marzal, 2013; Puspiratini, Sunaryo,
& Suryani, 2013; Rimilda, 2015) also had left several gaps. For instance, Marzal’s (2013) study did not investigate
teachers’ knowledge of using mathematical software (e.g., Dynamic Geometry and Computer Algebra System)
while Rimilda’s (2015) study involved five participants who were student teachers at the schools they were doing
teaching practicum. As a result, those studies were not aimed to, nor did they fully reveal Indonesian secondary
mathematics teachers’ knowledge of ICT integration. Therefore, this study seeks to investigate Indonesian
secondary mathematics teachers’ knowledge of ICT and the use of ICT in mathematics teaching.

AIMS AND RESEARCH QUESTION

The aim of this study was to investigate Indonesian secondary mathematics teachers’ knowledge about ICT and
the use of ICT. Specifically, the study seeks to answer the following research questions: What knowledge do
Indonesian secondary mathematics teachers have about ICT and its use in teaching? This study addressed teachers’
knowledge into two domains: knowledge of ICT and knowledge of ICT use in teaching. Details of both concepts
are explained conceptual framework section below.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The literature presents several frameworks that have been used to understand and investigate teachers’
knowledge. A prominent one was initially proposed by Shulman (1986) and called Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(PCK). This framework identifies “the distinctive bodies of knowledge for teaching” (Shulman, 1986, p. 8). He
defined pedagogical content knowledge that “represents blending of content and pedagogy in an understanding
of how particular topics, problems, or issues are organized, represented, and adapted to the diverse interests and
abilities of learners, and presented for instruction.”
Researchers (e.g., Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Brantley-Dias, Kinuthia, Shoffner, de-Casto, & Rigole, 2007;
Chinnappan & Thomas, 2008; Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Niess, 2005; Pierson, 2001) extended Shulman’s framework
to gain insights to understand and define teachers’ knowledge about the use of digital technologies. They argue
that teachers need knowledge that build on and intersect with what Shulman (1986) described to use the digital
tool effectively in the classroom. Therefore, this additional knowledge has been conceptualised in various ways
including Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Niess, 2005; Pierson, 2001),
and ICT-TPCK (Angeli & Valanides, 2009).
Pierson (2001) believes that teachers would be able to effectively use technology in the classroom when they
employ pedagogical knowledge and content knowledge extensively in combination with technology knowledge.
The combination of the three knowledge areas, namely technological, pedagogical and content knowledge, would define
effective technology integration. Following Pierson (2001), Niess (2005) refers to the term TPCK as technology-
enhanced PCK.
Furthermore, in the same year as Niess (2005), based on their study on collaborative design of online courses
by teacher educators and master students, Koehler and Mishra (2005) conceptualised the knowledge that a teacher
would need to effectively teach with technology. They extended Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) (Shulman,
1986) as a conceptual basis for conceptualisation of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK), which was

2 / 13
 EURASIA J Math Sci and Tech Ed

Figure 1. The components of the TPACK framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006)

Table 1. Definition of TPACK constructs

TPACK Constructs Definition
Technology knowledge (TK) Knowledge about how to use ICT hardware and software and associated peripherals
Content knowledge (CK) Knowledge of the subject matter
knowledge about the methods and processes of teaching such as classroom
Pedagogical knowledge (PK)
management, assessment, lesson plan development
Knowledge of representing content knowledge and adopting pedagogical
Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) strategies to make the specific content/topic more understandable for the learners
(see Shulman, 1986)
Knowledge about how to use technology to represent and create the content in
Technological content knowledge (TCK)
different ways without consideration about teaching
Technological pedagogical knowledge Knowledge of the existence and specifications of various technologies to enable
(TPK) teaching approaches without reference towards subject matter
Technological pedagogical content Knowledge of using various technologies to teach and/represent and/ facilitate
knowledge (TPCK) knowledge creation of specific subject content

then abbreviated as TPACK by Thompson and Mishra (2008). According to Voogt, Fisser, Pareja Roblin, Tondeur,
and van Braak (2013), the TPACK framework (see Figure 1) proposed by Mishra and Koehler (2006) has become
well known compared to the other conceptualisations such as Pierson’s (2001) and Niess’s (2005). The core idea of
the TPACK framework is the interactions between three types of knowledge: (a) technological knowledge; (b)
pedagogical knowledge; and (c) content knowledge.
Chai, Koh, and Tsai (2013) define each construct of TPACK as presented in Table 1. These definitions of TPACK
components seem concise and distinctive for the elements particularly in relation to TCK, TPK and TPCK.
Angeli and Valanides (2009) adapted TPACK becoming ICT-TPCK through an interaction of five areas. They
renamed the technology domain as Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) as well as they added two
knowledge domains: knowledge of student and knowledge of the context within which learning occurs. Therefore,
in the model (see Figure 2), Angeli and Valanides (2009) present five domains of knowledge that teachers would
need when they integrate ICT in teaching: content knowledge; pedagogical knowledge; knowledge of learners;
knowledge of context; and knowledge of ICT.
The two models share some common principle elements. First, they strongly address the existing various
components of digital technology and their affordance for teaching and learning. This requires teachers to
understand ICT broadly enough to apply it effectively in the classroom and to recognise when ICT can assist them
in achieving the goal of teaching and learning. Second, the integration of ICT in teaching requires teachers to
understand the existence of various ICT tools and their pedagogical affordance (see Angeli & Valanides, 2009;

3 / 13
Mailizar & Fan / Indonesian Teachers’ Knowledge of ICT

Figure 2. ICT-TPCK (Angeli & Valanides, 2009)

Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Finally, both models also address knowledge of pedagogical strategies and ability to apply
those strategies for the use of ICT for a specific learning tasks or contents. Drawing upon those two models, we
classified constructs of knowledge investigated in this study as follows.
We adopted Angeli and Valanides’s (2009, p. 158) definition to define knowledge of ICT that is knowing how
to operate a computer and how to use a multitude tools/software as well as troubleshoot in problematic situation.
This is similar to Chai et al. (2013) definition which is knowledge about how to use hardware and software and
associated peripherals. The definition of knowledge of ICT in this study is knowing how to operate hardware as
well as knowing how to use software and the internet.
Knowledge of ICT use in teaching is a complex notion, and it is a challenge to develop a concise definition of
this concept. We defined it based on TPCK (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) that has seven components namely TK, CK,
PK, PCK, TCK, TPK, TPCK. Handal et al. (2013) adopted the TPCK model to investigate secondary mathematics
teachers’ knowledge through administration of an instrument called TPCK-M (Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge of Mathematics) n consisted of three major theoretically-based constructs: technological content
knowledge (TCK), technology pedagogical knowledge (TPK), and technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPCK). The instrument of teachers’ knowledge of ICT use in teaching consisted of TCK, TPK and TPCK, which we
then reframed as: ICT-Content Knowledge (ICT-CK), ICT-Pedagogical Knowledge (ICT-PK) and ICT-Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (ICT-PCK).
Finally, based the discussion above, the construct of teachers’ knowledge investigated in this study is presented
in Table 1.

METHOD

Research Design
The study adopted a quantitative approach, as it is considered to provide more reliability, validity, objectivity
and generalizability to the findings. More specially, a questionnaire can be administered to a large number of
participants. As it has been argued, if the researchers collects data based on a representative sample of the
population, by employing a quantitative approach, they are more able to generalise statements made about the
topic being examined (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009).

Research Participants
Indonesia is a large country, and due to practical reasons we were unable to collect data throughout the whole
country. The population for this study was, in a strict sense, all the upper secondary mathematics teachers who
teach grade 10-12 students in one of Indonesia’s provinces, which has 367 senior secondary schools and 1,443

4 / 13
 EURASIA J Math Sci and Tech Ed

Table 2. Construct of knowledge of ICT and knowledge of ICT use in teaching

Construct of Knowledge Description
Knowing how to operate hardware and how to use software and the internet without
Knowledge of ICT
consideration of any mathematical content and teaching approaches
Knowledge of ICT use in teaching Description
Knowing how to use ICT to represent, communicate, solve and explore mathematical
ICT-Content Knowledge
contents, ideas, or problems without consideration of teaching approaches.
Knowing how to use ICT to provide advantages to specific aspects of teaching
ICT-Pedagogical Knowledge
approaches without reference to specific subject matter
Knowing how to use ICT to teach, represent and facilitate learning of specific content
ICT-Pedagogical Content Knowledge
of mathematics with specific teaching approaches to enhance teaching and learning

mathematics teachers. To determine the sample size, we referred to the table for determining minimum returned
sample size developed by Barlett, Kotrlik, and Higgins (2001). According to the table, with a confidence interval
(margin of error) of +/- 5%, and a confidence level of 95%, about 306 participants were required for the sample. We
randomly selected schools from each city and regency in the province. In total, there were 93 secondary schools
selected for the distribution of 440 copies of the questionnaires. In total, 355 questionnaires were returned.
However, 14 questionnaires were found incomplete. Participants’ demographic backgrounds are presented in
Table 2.

Research Instrument
We developed a questionnaire that included two parts, namely, teacher’ demographic backgrounds and
teachers’ knowledge. With regard to teachers’ knowledge of ICT, as previously discussed in the conceptual
framework section, this study refers to the definition proposed by Angeli and Valanides (2009, p. 158). In terms of
teachers’ knowledge of ICT use in teaching, as previously discussed, this study refers to Mishra & Koehler’s TPACK
(2006) and Handal et al. (2013). Some questionnaire items about teachers’ knowledge of ICT use into teaching were
adopted from Handal et al. (2013). This is because, as mentioned earlier, they also adopted the TPACK model to
develop a questionnaire called TPCK-M that consists of three constructs: technological content knowledge (TCK),
technology pedagogical knowledge (TPK), and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK).
Furthermore, all the responses on teachers’ knowledge were coded in a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 = strongly
disagree to 5 = strongly agree (See. Appendix).

Reliability and Validity

Reliability. Internal consistency reliability was employed to examine the instrument’s reliability. The inter-item
correlation was assessed by using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha of over 0.7 (Muijs, 2004). The result showed that
data the instrument has reasonably high reliability with an alpha coefficient of .974.
Validity. Content and construct validity were used to evaluate the validity of the questionnaire. Regarding
content validity, as mentioned previously, the development of the questionnaire was based on the literature review
and conceptual framework as well as the existing instruments. Moreover, the process of development took several
stages involving experts reviewing the instrument aiming to enhance content validity of the instrument.
Confirmatory factor analysis was use to examine whether each item measures the subscale that was supposed to
measure. According to Muijs (2004), factor loading for survey items helps to show a correction between the item
and the overall factor. The results showed that a value of scales of teachers’ knowledge is .944, which falls into the
range of being superb. Moreover, all items were grouped into one of the four factors. Factor analysis of the data
revealed four factors (eigenvalues of 17.3, 2.9, 2.1 and 1.0) and 75.5% of total variation was explained by these
factors. This scale had high factor loading (ranging from .634 to .822, .756 to .816, .614 to .874, and .556 to .645 on
these fours factors).

Data Analysis Procedure

All responses on teachers’ knowledge were coded in a 5-point scale. Descriptive and inferential statistical
analysis were employed to answer the research questions. Regarding descriptive analysis, a frequency distribution
of responses on all the items of teachers’ knowledge was calculated and presented in tables. Furthermore, Means
of all the items were also explained by using Handal et al.’s (2013) questionnaire score range (See Table 3). For
inferential statistical analysis, a repeated measure ANOVA and paired- t test were employed to examine significant
differences in teachers’ knowledge across survey items.

5 / 13
Mailizar & Fan / Indonesian Teachers’ Knowledge of ICT

Table 3. Participants Demographic Background

Demographic Background Frequency Percentage
Gender
Male 213 62.6
Female 128 37.4
Age
30 Years or Less 17 5
31-35 Years 71 20.8
36-45 Years 94 27.5
46-55 Years 100 29.4
Over 55 Years 59 17.3
Teaching Experience
Over 30 years 58 16.9
21-30 Years 93 27.2
11-20 Years 76 21.9
6-10 Years 82 24.6
1-5 Years 32 9.5
Highest Level of Education
Post Graduate Degree 29 8.6
Undergraduate Degree 310 90.8
Post-Secondary Degree 2 0.6

Table 4. Questionnaire score range

Score Range Score Range
1.0 ≤ x < 1.5 Very low
1.5 ≤ x < 2.0 Low
2.0 ≤ x < 2.5 Moderately low
2.5 ≤ x < 3.0 Slightly below average
3.0 Average
3.0 < x ≤ 3.5 Slightly above average
3.5 < x ≤ 4.0 Moderately high
4.0 < x ≤ 4.5 High
4.5 < x ≤ 5.0 Very high

RESULTS
As previously discussed, the study investigated secondary mathematics teachers’ knowledge and of ICT and
teachers’ knowledge of ICT in teaching. We present results of both types of knowledge from the survey. We first
present mean scores and standard deviations for each items, which is then followed by results of repeated measure
ANOVA and a paired-t test.

Teachers’ Knowledge of ICT

We present the results of the teachers’ knowledge of ICT in Table 4, including knowledge of hardware,
knowledge of general software, knowledge of mathematical software and knowledge of online resources. The mean
score of knowledge of hardware was 3.14 which indicates slightly above average, and their knowledge of
computer/laptop was higher than their knowledge of calculator and tablet/handheld device.
Moreover, the mean score of teachers’ knowledge of general software was 2.71, indicating that the participants’
knowledge of this was slightly below average. It also showed that the participants’ knowledge of word processing
software was higher than their knowledge of the other general software. The results revealed that teachers’
knowledge of mathematical software was moderately low (Mean = 2.07). For this type of software, the results
showed that participants’ knowledge of Dynamic Mathematics Software and Dynamic Geometry Software were
higher than their knowledge of Computer Algebra System and Statistical Software. In addition, the results revealed
that participant’s knowledge of online resources was moderately low (Mean = 2.14) in which their knowledge of
online teaching and learning resources was higher than their knowledge of learning management system software.
As most mean scores fall into the low category, it can be concluded that teachers had insufficient knowledge of ICT.
A repeated measures ANOVA was run in order to determine if there was statistically significant difference in
teachers’ knowledge of hardware, teachers’ knowledge of general software, and teachers’ knowledge of

6 / 13
 EURASIA J Math Sci and Tech Ed

Table 5. Mean scores of participants’ responses to items of ICT knowledge

Teachers’ Knowledge of ICT Mean Standard Deviation
Knowledge of hardware
a. Graphing Calculator 2.57 1.22
b. Tablet/Mobile Device 3.18 1.04
c. Computer/Laptop 3.66 0.88
Mean 3.14
Knowledge of general software
a. Word processor software(e.g., Ms Word) 3.85 0.90
b. Presentation software (e.g., Ms PowerPoint) 3.54 0.98
c. Online presentation software (e.g., Prezi) 1.99 0.94
d. Spreadsheet software (e.g., Ms Excel) 3.48 1.01
e. Mind mapping software (e.g., Inspiration) 2.04 0.99
f. Animation software (e.g., Macromedia Flash) 2.17 1.00
g. Three dimensional visualisation software (e.g., Sketch Up) 1.91 0.92
Mean 2.71
Knowledge of Mathematical software
a. Computer Algebra System (e.g., Maple and Maxima) 2.09 1.10
b. Dynamic Geometric Software (e.g., Geometer’s Sketchpad and Cabri Geometry) 2.04 1.01
c. Dynamic Mathematics Software (e.g., Geogebra and Autograph) 2.32 1.06
d. Statistical Software (e.g., Tinkerplots and Fathom) 1.87 0.92
Mean 2.07
Knowledge of online tools
a. Online Learning Resources (e.g., Khan Academy) 2.21 1.18
b. Learning Management System (e.g., Moodle) 2.07 1.06
Mean 2.14

mathematical software across the items. In terms of teachers’ knowledge of hardware, Mauchly’s test indicated that
the assumption of sphericity had been violated, x2(2) = 28.07, p = 0.00, therefore the degree of freedom was corrected
using Huynh-Feldt estimate of sphericity (ε = .92). The results show that there was significant difference in teachers’
level of knowledge of hardware across the items, i.e., from high to low, knowledge about computer/laptop,
tablet/mobile device, and graphing calculators (F (1.84, 540.01) = 163.21, p = 0.00).
Regarding teachers’ knowledge of general software, Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity
had been violated, x2 (20) = 516.59, p=0.00, therefore the degree of freedom was corrected using the Greenhouse-
Geisser estimate of sphericity (ε=.48). The results show that there was a significant difference in teachers’ level of
knowledge of general software across the items, from the highest about word processor software (e.g., MS Word),
presentation software (e.g., MS PowerPoint) and spreadsheet software (e.g., MS Excel) to the lowest about three
dimensional visualisation software (e.g., Sketch Up), online presentation software (e.g., Prezi) and mind mapping
software (e.g., Inspiration) (F(2.86, 686.55) = 461.36, p = .00).
In terms of teachers’ knowledge of mathematical software, Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of
sphericity had been violated, 𝑥𝑥 2 (44) = 615.47, 𝑝𝑝 = 0.00, therefore the degree of freedom was corrected using the
Greenhouse-Geisser estimate of sphericity (𝜀𝜀 = .69). The results showed that there was a significant difference in
teachers’ level of knowledge of mathematical software across the items, from the highest to the lowest, about
Dynamic Mathematics Software (e.g., Geogebra and Autograph), about Computer Algebra System (e.g., Maple and
Maxima), about Dynamic Geometric Software (e.g., Geometer’s Sketchpad and Cabri Geometry), and about
Statistical Software (e.g., Tinkerplots and Fathom) (F (6.38, 1665.11) = 35.48, p = 0.00).
Moreover, a paired t-test was carried out to examine if there was a statistically significant difference in teachers’
knowledge of online resources across the two items. The results showed that there was a significant difference in
the score for teachers’ knowledge for online learning resources (M = 2.21, SD = 1.18) and learning management
systems (M 2.07, SD = 1.06); t (287) = 4.15, p= .00, implying that, according to the responses, the teachers’ knowledge
regarding online learning resources is significantly better than their knowledge about learning management
system.

Teachers’ Knowledge of ICT Use in Teaching

As aforementioned, in this study, teachers’ knowledge of ICT use in teaching consisted of three components,
namely ICT-content knowledge, ICT-pedagogical knowledge and ICT-pedagogical content knowledge. Table 5
depicts the participating teachers’ responses to all the related questionnaire items in the survey in terms of the mean
scores.

7 / 13
Mailizar & Fan / Indonesian Teachers’ Knowledge of ICT

Table 6. Mean scores of participants’ responses to items of ICT-content knowledge

Teacher Knowledge of ICT Use in Teaching Mean Std. Deviation
ICT-Content Knowledge
a. Use ICT to represent mathematical ideas 3.10 1.03
b. Use ICT to communicate mathematical processes 3.02 1.08
c. Use ICT to solve mathematical problems 2.90 1.10
d. Use ICT to explore mathematical ideas 2.84 1.08
Mean 2.96
ICT-Pedagogical Knowledge
a. Use ICT for direct instruction 3.33 0.93
b. Use ICT for inquiry-based teaching and learning 3.14 0.94
c. Use ICT for project-based teaching and learning 2.85 0.95
d. Use ICT for discovery-based teaching and learning 2.81 0.91
e. Use ICT for collaborative-based teaching and learning 2.72 0.97
Mean 2.97
ICT-Pedagogical Content Knowledge
a. Use ICT to teach topics of mathematics that are better learned when employing specific teaching
3.20 0.90
approaches
b. Use strategies that combine mathematical content, ICT and teaching approaches to support
3.10 0.93
students’ understandings as they are learning mathematics
c. Use ICT in teaching that enhances mathematical content and how it taught 3.06 0.97
d. Use ICT to incorporate authentic tasks in teaching mathematics through project-based learning 2.88 1.08
e. Use ICT to teach students to develop their mathematics problem solving through inquiry-based
2.07 1.06
learning
Mean 2.87

The results show that teachers’ ICT-content knowledge (Mean = 2.96), ICT-pedagogical knowledge (Mean =
2.97) and ICT-pedagogical content knowledge (Mean = 2.87) were slightly below average. The results suggest that
teachers had insufficient knowledge of ICT use in teaching.
In order to determine if there was a statistically significant difference in teachers’ knowledge across the
categories, we run repeated measures ANOVA. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been
violated, 𝑥𝑥 2 (2) = 97.98, 𝑝𝑝 = 0.00, therefore the degree of freedom was corrected using Huynh-Feldt estimate of
sphericity (𝜀𝜀 = .80). The results showed that there was significant differences in teachers’ level of knowledge of ICT
use in teaching across those three components, i.e., from high to low, about ICT-pedagogical knowledge, about
ICT-content knowledge and about ICT-pedagogical content knowledge (F (1.59, 513.85) = 48.9, p = .013). The results
suggest that teachers’ ICT-pedagogical content knowledge was the lowest one across all categories of teachers’
knowledge of ICT use in teaching.

DISCUSSION
The study of teachers’ knowledge of the use of ICT in teaching has gained more attention in this decade. Such
study continues to be relevant for understanding and improving the integration of digital technology in the
classroom. As this study focused on teachers’ knowledge of ICT and teachers’ knowledge of ICT use into teaching,
we discuss and relate the finding to the literature regarding both types of knowledge.
To a large extent, the findings revealed that Indonesian secondary mathematics teachers had insufficient
knowledge of ICT and ICT use in teaching. Regarding the knowledge of hardware, the findings revealed that the
participants’ knowledge of computers/laptops was higher than their knowledge of tablets/handheld devices,
which is higher than their knowledge about graphing calculators. It is not surprising that teachers perceived their
knowledge of computers/laptops to be high due to the fact they need to use this tool in daily life. However, that
the lowest level of teachers’ knowledge was found in the area of graphing calculator, is quite surprising to us.
According to the literature (see Mailizar, Manahel, & Fan, 2014; Ruseffendi, 1988), the integration of calculators in
Indonesian secondary mathematics classrooms has been attempted since 1984. It seems that a long history of the
use of this digital tool in policy directives does not have a significant impact on teachers’ knowledge of this tool.
Furthermore, according to Mailizar (2018), only 25.5 % of the mathematics teaches had learned how to use the
graphic calculator.
Along with knowledge of operating hardware, we also looked at teachers’ knowledge of general hardware and
mathematical software. The results showed that the participants’ knowledge of general software was higher than
their knowledge of mathematical software. This finding supports Fuglestad’s (2007) study which revealed that
teachers had some basic knowledge of software for general use such as word processing and the spreadsheets but

8 / 13
 EURASIA J Math Sci and Tech Ed

the teachers had lack of knowledge of specific mathematics software such as dynamic geometry software. This
finding indicates that, with widely available specific software for teaching and learning mathematics, Indonesian
secondary mathematics teachers need to enhance knowledge of mathematical software as it is widely believe such
knowledge plays significant role in designing and implementing ICT-based mathematics lessons in the classroom.
The majority of participants reported that their knowledge of word processor software (e.g., MS Word) was the
highest one which then followed by their knowledge of presentation software (e.g., MS PowerPoint). The finding
is not surprising since such software are widely available and commonly used on many occasions. It is in line with
Kazoka and William’s (2016) study in Tanzania revealing that the majority (75%) of secondary school teachers were
able to use MS Word and 50% of teachers were able to use MS PowerPoint. In the Indonesian context, this finding
supports Marzal’s (2013) study showing that over 60% of science and mathematics teachers have knowledge of
using MS PowerPoint, MS Word, and the Internet while less than 10% of the teachers are able to use specific
software such as SPSS. However, teachers’ knowledge of general software might not has significant impact on the
integration of ICT in mathematics classrooms since such software do not have features for facilitating students to
construct their mathematical knowledge.
When it comes teachers’ knowledge of mathematical software, the findings revealed that teachers’ knowledge
of this category of software was lower than their knowledge of general software. As mentioned earlier, in this study,
we investigated teachers’ knowledge of several types of mathematical software: Dynamic Mathematics Software
(DMS), Dynamic Geometry Software (DGS), Computer Algebra System (CAS), and Statistical Software. The results
revealed that teachers’ knowledge of DMS and DGS to be higher than their knowledge about Statistical Software
and CAS. Jones (2005) also found the similar finding and suggested that it is reasonable for teachers to rate their
knowledge of DGS higher than their knowledge of other types of software since DGS has become the most widely
used software in schools all over the world. To gain a better understanding on teachers’ knowledge of DMS and
DGS, we looked specific software and found that teacher knowledge of GeoGebra was the highest one across DMS
and DGS software. As open source software, GoeGebra is widely available and easily accessible for students and
teachers. This condition might have had an impact on teachers’ knowledge of this software. We believe that it is
potential to improve Indonesian mathematics teachers’ knowledge of mathematical software, as it has been
emerged over small numbers of teachers.
The last aspect of teachers’ ICT knowledge is knowledge of online resources. The results show that teachers’
had low knowledge of these resources in which their knowledge of learning management systems (LMS) was lower
than knowledge of online learning resources. According to Pynoo et al. (2012) LMS is relatively new technology in
secondary education as this technology was first adopted in higher education. As a new technology, it is not
surprising that the teachers do not have the sufficient knowledge to use it.
As described earlier, the second aspect of teachers’ knowledge investigated in this study was teachers’
knowledge of ICT use in teaching. The finding revealed teachers do not have sufficient knowledge of ICT use in
teaching. As discussed in the conceptual framework, this study adapted the TPACK framework in investigating
this knowledge. Hence, the findings are discussed and related to previous studies using the framework.
The finding is consistent with previous studies using the TPACK framework to understand teachers’ knowledge
in other countries such as (e.g., Al Harbi, 2014; Archambault & Crippen, 2009). For instance, Al Harbi found that
Saudi high school teachers (not limited to mathematics teachers) have a low to moderate level of TPACK
knowledge.
Concerning mathematics teachers, the similar finding was also found by Agyei and Voogt (2011) and Handal
et al. (2013). This indicates mathematics teachers’ lack of knowledge about integrating ICT has been an issue not
only in developing countries such as Ghana (see Agyei & Voogt, 2011) but also in developed countries such as
Australia (see Handal et al., 2013). Consequently, it becomes a challenge for education stockholders in countries
across the globe, including Indonesia, to improve teachers’ knowledge of this aspect in order to support the
integration of the technology.
As discussed in the conceptual framework section, teachers’ knowledge in the use of ICT consists of three
aspects: ICT-Content Knowledge, ICT-Pedagogical Knowledge, and ICT-Pedagogical Content Knowledge. The
results revealed that teachers’ ICT-Content Knowledge and ICT-Pedagogical Knowledge were higher than
teachers’ ICT-Pedagogical Content Knowledge which is in line with Al Harbi’s (2014) study. This indicates that
ICT-Pedagogical Content Knowledge is more sophisticated and complex than ICT-Pedagogical Knowledge and
ICT-Content Knowledge. Consequently, teachers find it much more difficult to gain this knowledge.
It appears clear from this study that Indonesian secondary mathematics teachers’ lack of knowledge of both ICT
and ICT use might link to the deficiency of training programs as it was found by Mailizar (2018) that revealed that
35% of Indonesian secondary mathematics teachers had never participated in any ICT-related training course.
Furthermore, a large number (46%) of Indonesian secondary mathematics teachers are aged over 46 years old and
they are described by Harendita (2013) as digital migrants. Digital migrants are widely believed to be less quick to

9 / 13
Mailizar & Fan / Indonesian Teachers’ Knowledge of ICT

adopt new technologies than digital native and they need more professional development and training concerning
ICT and its use in classroom.
Finally, this study suggests that it is crucial to equip Indonesian secondary mathematics teachers with
knowledge of ICT and knowledge of ICT use in teaching through providing training courses emphasising on
connection of pedagogical and mathematical content of ICT integration rather than simply training on technical
knowledge for the use of ICT resources. This has been strongly supported by research evidence in the literature
(e.g., Becta, 2004; Hew & Brush, 2007; Koehler & Mishra, 2005). For example, Koehler and Mishra (2005) argue that,
when training teachers to integrate ICT in teaching, it is important to teach ICT in contexts that represent the
connection between technology, content and pedagogy.

CONCLUSION
This study investigated Indonesia secondary mathematics teachers’ knowledge of ICT and teachers’ knowledge
of ICT use in teaching. The results of this study revealed that, to large extent, Indonesian secondary mathematics
teachers had insufficient knowledge of ICT and knowledge of ICT use in teaching. It revealed that teachers’
knowledge of computer was higher than their knowledge of handheld devices and graphing calculator. The finding
also suggested that teachers’ knowledge of general software was higher than their knowledge of mathematical
software. Regarding knowledge of ICT use in teaching, this study depicted that teachers’ ICT-Pedagogical Content
Knowledge was lower than teachers’ ICT-Pedagogical Knowledge and ICT-Content Knowledge.
Based on the findings, we suggest several important points that need to take into account. For future research,
it needs a further study to examine the development of Indonesian secondary school’s mathematics teacher’s
knowledge in the use of ICT for teaching a specific content of mathematics, such as Geometry and Algebra.
Furthermore, regarding practical implication, the study suggests that Indonesian education stakeholders need to
facilitate secondary mathematics teachers in improving their knowledge of ICT and knowledge of ICT use in
teaching. Particularly, the Indonesian government needs to provide ICT training courses to improve not only
teachers’ technical knowledge of the use of ICT and their pedagogical and mathematical content knowledge of ICT
integration.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The completion of this paper was in part supported financially by a research grant from the Asian Centre for
Mathematics Education, East China Normal University (Project No. 92900-120215-10514).

REFERENCES
Agyei, D. D., & Voogt, J. (2011). ICT use in the teaching of mathematics: Implications for profesional development
of pre-service teacher in Ghana. Educational Information Technology, 16, 423-439.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-010-9141-9
Al Harbi, H. E. M. (2014). An examination of Saudi high school teachers’ ICT knowledge and implementation. Queensland
University of Technology, Queensland.
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issue for the conceptualization,
development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advance in technilogical pedagogical content knolwedge
(TPCK). Computer & Education, 52, 154-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006
Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United
States Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 71-88.
Barlett, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W., & Higgins, C. C. (2001). Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size
in survey research. Information technology, learning, and performance journal, 19(1), 43.
Becta. (2004). A review of the research literature on barriers to the uptake of ICT by teachers. Conventry: British
Educational Communication and Technology Agency.
Brantley-Dias, L., Kinuthia, W., Shoffner, M., B, de-Casto, C., & Rigole, N., J. (2007). Developing Pedagogical
Technology Integration Content Knowledge in preservice teachers: A case study approach. Journal of
Computing in Teacher Education, 23(4), 143-149.
Chai, C., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). A Review of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Educational
Technology & Society, 16(2), 31-51.
Chinnappan, M., & Thomas, M. (2008). Teaching and learning with technology: Realising the potential. In H. J.
Forgasz, A. Barkatsas, B. Bishop, S. Clarke, W. Keast, Seah & P. Sullivan (Eds.), Research in mathematics
education in Australasia 2004-2007.

10 / 13
 EURASIA J Math Sci and Tech Ed

Clark-Wilson, A., Robutti, O., & Siclair, N. (Eds.). (2014). The mathematics teacher in the digital era: Mathematics
education in the digital era (Vol. 2). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4638-1
Debbagh, M., & Jones, W. M. (2018). Examining English language teachers’ TPACK in oral communication skills
teaching. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 27(1), 43-62.
Doukakis, S., Koilias, C., Adamopoulos, N., & Giannopoulou, P. (2011). Computer Science Teachers’ In-service Training
Needs and Their Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Paper presented at the World Summit on
Knowledge Society, Heidelberg, Germany.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education (Vol. 7). Boston: MacGraw-Hill.
Handal, B., Campbell, C., Cavanagh, M., Petocz, P., & Kelly, N. (2013). Tecnologycal Pedagogical Content
Knowledge of secondary mathematics teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education,
13(1), 22-40.
Harendita, M. (2013). Why Resist? A Closer Look at Indonesian Teachers’ Resistance to ICT International Journal of
Indonesian Studies, 1, 41-57.
Hennessy, S., Fung, P., & Scanlon, E. (2001). The role of the graphic calculator in mediating graphing activity
International Journal of Mathematics for Education in Science and Technology, 32(2), 267-290.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390010022176
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps
and recommendation for future research Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 223-252.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5
Jones, K. (2005). Implications for the classroom: Research on the use of dynamic software. In J. Edwards & D. Wright
(Eds.), Integrating ICT into the Mathematics Classroom (pp. 27-29). Derby: Association of Teachers of
Mathematics.
Kazoka, R., & William, F. (2016). Secondary school teachers’ knowledge and practice toward the use of ICT. Merit
Research Journal of Education and Review, 4(2), 14-18.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development
of technological pedagogical content knowledge Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32, 131-152. doi:
https://doi.org/10.2190/0ew7-01wb-bkhl-qdyv
Koh, J. H. L., Woo, H.-L., & Lim, W.-Y. (2013). Understanding the relationship between Singapore preservice
teachers’ ICT course experiences and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) through ICT
course evaluation. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 25(4), 321-339. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-013-9165-y
Loveless, A. (2007). Preparing to teach with ICT: subject knowledge, Didaktik and improvisation. The Curriculum
Journal, 18(4), 509-522. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09585170701687951
Mailizar, Manahel, A., & Fan, L. (2014). A historical overview of Mathematics curriculum reform and development
in modern Indonesia. Teaching Innovations, 27(3). doi: doi:10.5937/inovacije1403058M
Mailizar. (2018). Investigating Indonesian teachers’ knowledge and use of ICT in mathematics teaching. (PhD), University
of Southampton.
Marzal, J. (2013). Pengembangan skill dan kompetensi TIK guru Matematika dan IPA di kota Jambi melalui e-
tutorial berbasis kebutuhan guru [Improvement of mathematis teachers’ comptence and skill of ICT through
teacher’s need based e-tutorial]. Tehno-Pedagogy, 3(1), 28-41.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher
knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Muijs, D. (2004). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. London: Sage.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209014
Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology
pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education,, 21(5), 509-523.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.006
Owusu, K. A., Lindsey, C., & Chris, A. (2015). Assessing New Zealand high school science teachers’ technological
pedagogical content knowledge Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 34(3), 345-373.
Pierson, M. (2001). Technology integration practice as a fuction of pedagogical expertise. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 33(4), 413-430. https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.2001.10782325
Puspiratini, E. W., Sunaryo, S., & Suryani, E. (2013). Pemodelan Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)
berbasis teknologi informasi komunikasi (TIK) dengan pendekatan struktiral equation modeling (SEM) Paper
presented at the Seminar Nasional Manajemen Teknologi XVIII, Surabaya, Indonesia.

11 / 13
Mailizar & Fan / Indonesian Teachers’ Knowledge of ICT

Pynoo, B., Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Duyck, W., Sijnave, B., & Duyck, P. (2012). Teachers’ acceptance and use of an
educational portal. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1308-1317.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.026
Rimilda, R. (2015). Analysis Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Mahasiswa Program Studi Pendididikan
Matematika FKIP Unsyiah pada materi Bangun Ruang Sisi Datar [Analysing of Unsyiah’s Pre-service teachers’
TPACK on Topic of three–dimensional geometry. (Master), Syiah Kuala University, Banda Aceh, Indonesia.
Ruseffendi, E. T. (1988). Pengantar kepada membantu guru mengembangkan kompetensinya dalam pengajaran matematika
untuk meningkatkan CBSA [Introduction to help teachers to develop competence in teaching mathematics to improve
the student active learning]. Bandung, Indonesia: Tarsito.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Sinclair, N., & Jackiw, N. (2005). Understanding and projecting ICT trends in mathematics education. Teaching
secondary mathematics with ICT, 235-251.
Smeets, E. (2005). Does ICT contribute powerful learning environments in primary education? . Computer &
Education, 44, 345-355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.04.003
Stoilescu, D. (2015). A critical examination of the technological pedagogical content knowledge framework:
Secondary school mathematics teachers integrating technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
52(4), 514-547. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115572285
Thompson, A., & Mishra, P. (2008). Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK! . Journal of Computing in Teacher
Education, 24(2), 38-64.
Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content
knowledge–a review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109-121.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00487.x
Witte, K. D., & Rogge, N. (2014). Does ICT matter for effectiveness and efficiency in mathematics education?
Computer & Education, 75, 173-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.012

APPENDIX

Main Items of the Questionnaire

1. Please indicate your response to the following statements
Strongly Neither Agree Strongly
Agree Disagree
Agree nor Disagree Disagree
a. I know how to operate a Graphing calculator □5 □4 □3 □2 □1
b. I know how to operate a Tablet/Mobile Device □5 □4 □3 □2 □1
c. I know how to operate a Computer/Laptop □5 □4 □3 □2 □1

2. Please indicate your response to the following statements

Strongly Neither Agree Strongly
Agree Disagree
Agree nor Disagree Disagree
a. I know how to use word processor software(e.g. Ms Word) □5 □4 □3 □2 □1
b. I know how to use presentation software (e.g. Ms PowerPoint) □5 □4 □3 □2 □1
c. I know how to use online presentation software (e.g. Prezi) □5 □4 □3 □2 □1
d. I know how to use spreadsheet software (e.g., Ms Excel) □5 □4 □3 □2 □1
e. I know how to use mind mapping software (e.g. Inspiration) □5 □4 □3 □2 □1
f. I know how to use animation software (e.g. Macromedia Flash) □5 □4 □3 □2 □1
g. I know how to use three-dimensional visualisation software
□5 □4 □3 □2 □1
(e.g., SketchUp)

12 / 13
 EURASIA J Math Sci and Tech Ed

3. Please indicate your response to the following statements

Strongly Neither Agree Strongly
Agree Disagree
Agree nor Disagree Disagree
a. I know how to use the Maple software □5 □4 □3 □2 □1
b. I know how to use the Mathematica software □5 □4 □3 □2 □1
c. I know how to use the Maxima software □5 □4 □3 □2 □1
d. I know how to use the Geometer’s Sketchpad software □5 □4 □3 □2 □1
e. I know how to use the Cabri Geometry software □5 □4 □3 □2 □1
f. I know how to use the GeoGebra software □5 □4 □3 □2 □1
g. I know how to use the Autograph software □5 □4 □3 □2 □1
h. I know how to use the Tinkerplots software □5 □4 □3 □2 □1
i. I know how to use the Fathom software □5 □4 □3 □2 □1
j. I know how to use the SPSS software □5 □4 □3 □2 □1

4. Please indicate your response to the following statements

Strongly Neither Agree Strongly
Agree Disagree
Agree nor Disagree Disagree
a. I know how to use Web based applications (e.g., rumah belajar,
□5 □4 □3 □2 □1
m-edukasi, Youtube, and KhanAcademy) in teaching
b. I know how to use Learning management system (e.g.
□5 □4 □3 □2 □1
Blackboard, Moodle) in teaching

5. Please indicate your response to the following statements

Strongly Neither Agree Strongly
Agree Disagree
Agree nor Disagree Disagree
a. I can use ICT to represent mathematical ideas. □5 □4 □3 □2 □1
b. I can use ICT to communicate mathematical processes. □5 □4 □3 □2 □1
c. I can use ICT to solve mathematical problems □5 □4 □3 □2 □1
d. I can use ICT to explore mathematical ideas □5 □4 □3 □2 □1

6. Please indicate your response to the following statements

Strongly Neither Agree Strongly
Agree Disagree
Agree nor Disagree Disagree
a. I can use ICT in teaching by employing direct instruction □5 □4 □3 □2 □1
b. I can use ICT in teaching by employing inquiry based learning □5 □4 □3 □2 □1
c. I can use ICT in teaching by employing project based learning □5 □4 □3 □2 □1
d. I can use ICT in teaching by employing discovery learning □5 □4 □3 □2 □1
e. I can use ICT in teaching by employing collaborative learning □5 □4 □3 □2 □1

7. Please indicate your response to the following statements

Strongly Neither Agree Strongly
Agree Disagree
Agree nor Disagree Disagree
a. I can use ICT to teach topics of mathematics that are better
□5 □4 □3 □2 □1
learned when employing specific teaching approaches
b. I can use strategies that combine mathematical content, ICT
and teaching approaches to support students’ understandings □5 □4 □3 □2 □1
as they are learning mathematics
c. I can use ICT in teaching that enhances mathematical content
□5 □4 □3 □2 □1
and how it taught
d. I can use ICT to incorporate authentic tasks in teaching of
□5 □4 □3 □2 □1
mathematics through project based learning
e. I can use ICT to teach students to develop their mathematics
□5 □4 □3 □2 □1
problem solving through inquiry-based learning

http://www.ejmste.com

13 / 13

View publication stats