Keywords

Introduction

Children’s early mathematical skills are among the strongest predictors of their later academic achievement (Duncan et al., 2007). Supporting early mathematical development is therefore considered a key objective of early childhood education (ECE). A potential way to support the development of early mathematical skills is the use of educational technology (ET). Educational technology (ET) is generally defined as “electronic tools and applications that help deliver learning content and support the learning process” (Cheung & Slavin, 2013a, p. 279). In elementary and secondary education, cumulative evidence points to the potential of ET for improving learning outcomes in a variety of content domains (e.g., Cheung & Slavin, 2013a, b). An increasing number of studies recently pointed to the beneficial effects of ET for ECE as well (Griffith et al., 2020; Verbruggen et al., 2021). However, studies on ECE teachers’ use of ET in early mathematics education and the factors that are associated with this ET use are limited. We aimed to complement current insights into this topic by systematically analyzing ECE teachers’ use of ET in early mathematics education, in association with potentially influencing teacher and school characteristics.

Studies on elementary and secondary school teachers’ use of ET in their (mathematics) instruction point to the complex interplay between, on the one hand, teachers’ actual use of ET and, on the other hand, general and ICT-related teacher and school characteristics that contribute to this use. In line with these findings, Vanderlinde and van Braak (2010) developed the e-capacity model, distinguishing among different teacher level and school level conditions that are assumed to contribute to the effective integration of ET in regular classroom instruction. The e-capacity model consists of four concentric circles (see Fig. 1), with teachers’ actual use of ET in the inner circle. The surrounding circles define the ICT-related teacher conditions, the ICT-related school conditions, and the school improvement conditions that are assumed to contribute to the implementation of ET in regular classroom instruction. As shown in the inner circle of Fig. 1, teachers can implement ET in their instruction in view of different goals, i.e., (a) to stimulate their students’ basic ICT skills (acquiring knowledge and skills in ICT), (b) as an information tool (offering information to students via ET), and (c) as a learning tool (practicing domain-specific knowledge and skills in other domains than ICT). According to the e-capacity model, the implementation of ET is influenced by teachers’ ICT competencies and their professional development in the domain ICT. Teachers’ ICT competencies are typically described in terms of their basic ICT skills and technology-related teaching skills (Fraillon et al., 2014; Sailer et al., 2021). Teachers’ basic ICT skills refer to their “ability to use [digital technologies] to investigate, create, and communicate in order to participate effectively at home, at school, in the workplace, and in society” (Fraillon et al., 2014, p. 17). Teachers’ technology-related teaching skills encompass their technological pedagogical knowledge that is required to effectively use digital technologies in their instruction in general and in specific content domains (Sailer et al., 2021). Professional development related to both basic ICT skills and technology-related teaching skills helps teachers to continuously align their mastery of these important skills with the rapidly-changing digital technologies sector. The next circle in the model refers to the ICT-related school conditions that are assumed to contribute to the effective use of ET in regular classroom instruction. Its major components involve the quantity and the quality of the school’s ICT infrastructure, the school’s vision and policy related to the integration of ET in regular classroom instruction, and the organization of coordination and support to facilitate this integration. General school improvement conditions, including the organization of the leadership at school, teachers’ participation in decision making and their professional relations, form the outer circle in the model.

Fig. 1
A concentric circle diagram depicts I C T curriculum implementation and I C T as a lever for instructional change. Inner circle 1 is teacher's actual use of I C T. Circle 2 is I C T related teacher conditions. Circle 3 is I C T related school conditions. Circle 4 is school improvement conditions.

The e-capacity model (Vanderlinde & van Braak, 2010, p. 544)

Full size image

Previous empirical research provided evidence for the assumed relations within the e-capacity model in the context of ECE in general. These studies addressed ECE teachers’ use of ET across all content domains, without specific focus on the domain of early mathematics. In other words, they pointed to ET use in ECE including the domain of mathematics, but without specific focus on or analyses related to only the domain of mathematics. These studies revealed that ECE teachers generally implement ET (across the different content domains of the ECE curriculum), but that the frequency of its implementation is rather limited. When implementing ET in their classrooms, ECE teachers were shown to use a variety of programs to reach a rich diversity of educational goals (e.g., Blackwell et al., 2013, 2014; Kerckaert et al., 2015; Masoumi, 2015; Nikolopoulou, 2014; Nikolopoulou & Gialamas, 2015; Romero-Tena et al., 2020). The programs used ranged from domain-specific programs focusing on the acquisition of young children’s competencies in a specific content domain and/or on the remediation of difficulties in the acquisition of these competencies to domain-general software (e.g., Powerpoint) that can be used in diverse domains. Turning to the goals of ET use, it was shown that ECE teachers aim to address diverse aims, ranging from entertainment and communication to stimulating young children’s development in specific content domains. Departing from the e-capacity model described above, Kerckaert et al. (2015) studied Flemish ECE teachers’ use of ET in terms of goals and contributing variables. Their study revealed that ECE teachers integrate ET in their classrooms in view of two major goals, namely (a) to support preschoolers’ acquisition of basic ICT skills and attitudes, and (b) to stimulate the development of preschoolers’ competencies related to domain-specific contents and to support individual learning needs. These researchers further found that ECE teachers used ET most frequently in view of supporting preschoolers’ acquisition of ICT skills and attitudes, and less frequently in view of stimulating preschoolers’ development in specific content domains as mathematics.

Additionally, and in line with the assumed associations in the e-capacity model, the previously conducted studies on ECE teachers’ use of ET in their classrooms pointed to the contribution of both teacher and school characteristics to this use (Blackwell et al., 2013, 2014; Kerckaert et al., 2015; Nikolopoulou & Gialamas, 2015; Pynoo et al., 2013; Romero-Tena et al., 2020). However, findings revealed a complex and mixed picture of a rich diversity of both general and ICT-related variables that might be associated with ECE teachers’ ET use. Turning to teacher characteristics, studies pointed to the association between ET use and teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about the affordances of ET, ICT competences, ICT professional development, computer experience, experience in education, work situation, degree/qualification, and the grade in which they teach. With respect to school characteristics, the limited number of available studies identified the type and location of the school, the school’s ICT policy and infrastructure as important variables. But current findings about the contributions of these teacher and school characteristics to ECE teachers’ general (across all content domains) ET use are mixed.

Given the small number of studies on ECE teachers’ use of ET in general and the absence of studies analyzing this use in specifically the domain of mathematics, their mixed findings and the period in which they were conducted (i.e., studies conducted 5–10 years ago, in a rapidly changing ET society, requiring continuous and up-to-date studies on ET use), we aimed to complement current insights into ECE teachers’ use of ET in early mathematics education by systematically analyzing (a) ECE teachers’ use of ET in mathematics education (RQ1), (b) the different types of programs they use (RQ2), (c) the aims they try to address with this use (RQ3), and (d) the teacher and school variables associated with ET adoption (RQ4). We relied on the conceptual framework of Vanderlinde and van Braak (2010) on teachers’ use of ET and the variables that are assumed to contribute to the adoption of ET in educational practice. Taking into account the findings of Kerckaert et al. (2015) on the aims with which Flemish ECE teachers implement ET in their classrooms, we defined the major goals of ET use as (a) supporting preschoolers’ acquisition of basic ICT skills and attitudes, and (b) stimulating the development of preschoolers’ competencies related to domain-specific contents and to support individual learning needs. As teachers’ attitudes and beliefs are shown to contribute to their classroom instruction as well (Blömeke et al., 2015; Gasteiger & Benz, 2018; see also Kerckaert et al., 2015), we added ECE teachers’ attitudes towards the use of ET in preschool instruction and their mathematical self-efficacy as additional contributing variables to the study. As such, we aimed to complement and extend current insights into ECE teachers’ ET use by (a) analyzing ET use in the specific content domain of early mathematics education (and not in general, across all content domains), (b) relying on the theoretical framework of Vanderlinde and Van Braak (2010), including the most relevant potentially contributing variables in view of ET use.

We conducted the study in Belgium, Flanders, where ECE is organized for children aged 2.5–6 years. ECE teachers are trained as generalists during a 3-year professional Bachelor program including both theoretical and practical learning opportunities (180 ECTS credits, with 60 ECTS credits per year). ECE teachers are expected to stimulate children’s development in a broad range of curricular domains, including mathematics, in informal learning situations (Eurydice, 2020). Typically, these informal learning situations consist of age-appropriate play-based learning activities integrating core competencies from different curricular domains.

Method

Participants were 342 ECE teachers from 219 different schools. Almost all participants were female (98%) and owned a computer at home (99%). Their age ranged from 22 to 62 years (M = 41 years), and they had at least 1 but not more than 41 years (M = 18 years) teaching experience. All participants gave their active informed consent. The study procedures were approved by the Social and Societal Ethics Committee of KU Leuven (G-2019 11 1814).

All participants were individually offered a structured interview or questionnaire focusing on ET use in mathematics education and its associated teacher and school characteristics. Although we aimed to conduct individual face-to-face interviews with all teachers, we had to change to digital interviews and digital questionnaires due to the national COVID-19 regulations for 200 of the 342 teachers (respectively 74 and 126 teachers). The method applied in the context of this study thus varied across participants, ranging from individual face-to-face interviews with the first 142 teachers via individual digital interviews with 74 teachers to digital questionnaires with the last 126 teachers (due to COVID-19 regulations). As we originally designed the study as an interview study with individual face-to-face interviews and as most teachers were individually interviews, we will further refer to interviews (and not questionnaire) as method applied in the study. Moreover, as there were no differences between these three groups of participants in ET use (Kruskal-Wallis test, H(2) = 2.30, p = 0.32), we grouped all participants in our analyses.

During the interviews, teachers were first asked about their adoption of ET in mathematics education (yes/no). In case they did not adopt ET in mathematics education, teachers were invited to report on the reasons for not using ET in their mathematics instruction. In case teachers reported to adopt ET, they were asked which concrete programs they did use. Additionally, for the (maximum) three programs they most frequently used, we offered them a series of questions addressing the goals and frequency of implementation, supported with a Likert-scale to facilitate the comparability and analysis of their answers. Concretely, they were asked to report whether and how often they used it (a) to foster preschoolers’ basic ICT skills and attitudes (scale consisting of 4 items, e.g., “I use this program to teach my preschoolers basic ICT skills”, to be rated on a 5-point Likert-scale, ranging from “never” to “daily”; max. score 20) and (b) to offer mathematical contents and to support individual learning needs (scale consisting of 6 items, e.g., “I use this program for illustrating certain topics in the domain of mathematics”, to be rated on a 5-point Likert-scale, ranging from “never” to “daily”; max. score 30). Finally, we asked them a series of questions - again supported by a Likert-scale for ease of responding and scoring - on teacher and school variables that might contribute to the adoption of ET in their mathematics education. These questions were organized along eight different scales as described in the e-capacity model (Vanderlinde & Van Braak, 2010): (a) ICT policy, e.g., “In my school, there is a clear ICT policy plan” (11 items, 6-point Likert-scale, “completely disagree” to “completely agree”, max. score 66), (b) ICT infrastructure, e.g., “In my classroom, there are sufficient computers available for the preschoolers” (7 items, 6-point Likert-scale, “completely disagree” to “completely agree”, max. score 42), (c) ICT professional development, e.g., “I try to keep informed about everything that has to do with ICT in education” (4 items, 6-point Likert-scale, “completely disagree” to “completely agree”, max. score 24), (d) ICT competences, e.g., “How well can you use ICT for the following purposes? Using ICT for lesson preparation” (18 items, 5-point Likert-scale, “not” to “excellent”, max. score 90), (e) attitudes towards (i.e., perception of) ET use in education, e.g., “To what extent do you agree with the following statement: ICT improves the quality of education” (6 items, 6-point Likert-scale, “completely disagree” to “completely agree”, max. score 36), (f) years of computer experience at home, i.e., “How many years of experience do you have with computers in your private life/ spare time?”, (g) years of computer experience in classroom, i.e., “How many years of experience do you have with computers in the classroom?”, and (h) self-efficacy in the domain of mathematics, e.g., “How confident do you feel about your ability to solve the following math problem? Calculating the price of a TV with 30% discount” (5 items, 4-point Likert-scale, “very unconfident” to “very confident”, max. score 20) (Oppermann et al., 2016). Cronbach’s alpha per scale ranged from .74 to .87, indicating sufficient to good internal consistency. Table 1 presents the descriptives (internal consistency, means, SD and range) per scale.

Table 1 Cronbach’s alpha, range, mean and SD per scale
Full size table

We analyzed our data using SPSS Version 27.0. To answer RQ1 and RQ2, we descriptively analyzed teachers’ use versus non-use of ET in mathematics education and, in case of using ET, computed how frequently they reported the use of (a) programmable ET (i.e., robots and programming languages, such as Beebot and Scratch Junior), (b) specific practice programs (i.e., programs to practice knowledge or skills in one specific mathematical subdomain, such as Tangrams), (c) comprehensive practice programs (i.e., programs to practice knowledge or skills in multiple mathematical subdomains, either within the same environment or in different related environments, such as Math Garden or Lego apps), (d) digital stories (e.g., digital storybooks on YouTube), and (e) other ET programs that cannot be classified into one of the four other groups (i.e., other content domain, domain-general programs, or no information about the name and/or type of the program). We computed the frequency of using ET to enhance basic ICT skills and attitudes versus to support other learning contents and individual learning needs per type of ET program (see RQ2, distinction among 5 different types of programs) to answer RQ3. Finally, we conducted binary logistic analysis (backward method) to answer RQ4, predicting ECE teachers’ adoption of ET in mathematics education on the basis of all teacher and school variables included in the interview questionnaire.

Results

Our analyses indicated that almost 2/3 of the teachers (217 teachers) used ET in mathematics education, and thus also that about 1/3 did not (RQ1). Teachers mainly referred to constraints in the school’s ICT infrastructure, namely (a) insufficient ICT infrastructure at school (44 teachers), (b) too expensive (38 teachers), (c) not included in teaching methods and materials used in my classroom or at school (38 teachers), and to insufficient knowledge and skills to effectively implement ET in their instruction, namely (a) never thought of using ET in mathematics it before (53 teachers), (b) no or insufficient information about selection and implementation of programs (48 teachers).

The 217 teachers adopting ET reported a total of 326 different ET programs (RQ2). Comprehensive practice programs were most frequently reported (100 teachers), followed by general (e.g., Powerpoint) or unspecified (unclear) programs (87 teachers). Digital stories (56 teachers), programmable ET (35 teachers) and specific practice programs (38 teachers) were less often mentioned. Most teachers reported using multiple programs, either within the same type of programs (64 teachers) or across multiple types of programs (56 teachers).

Next, with respect to the aim of using ET in mathematics education (RQ3), teachers reported the acquisition of basic ICT skills and attitudes at least as frequently as the support of mathematical competencies and individual learning needs for each of the different types of programs. Specific and comprehensive practice programs were used in view of both aims on an on average monthly basis, and thus as frequently offered to the children to support their ICT skills and attitudes as to enhance their mathematical development or address their individual learning needs. But for the three other types of programs, teachers mainly aimed at fostering the acquisition of ICT skills and attitudes, with less attention for their development in the domain of mathematics. Digital stories and general or unspecified programs were used to support basic ICT skills and attitudes every week (on average), but only every trimester respectively every month in view of mathematical support and individual learning needs. Programmable ET was used least frequently, with an average monthly use in view of fostering ICT skills and attitudes and an average trimester use in view of enabling mathematical contents and individual learning needs.

Finally, we analyzed the association between teachers’ adoption of ET (yes/no) and the teacher and school characteristics included in the interview questionnaire using binary logistic regression analysis (RQ4). As shown in Table 2, this analysis revealed that the school’s ICT infrastructure and teachers’ ICT competences and computer experience at home were positively related to teachers’ use of ET. Teachers who reported being equipped with more ICT infrastructure in their school and possessing more ICT competences and computer experience at home were more likely to adopt ET.

Table 2 Results of the binary logistic regression predicting ET adoption (n = 342)
Full size table

Discussion

We aimed to complement and extend current insights into ECE teachers’ ET use in early mathematics education by (a) analyzing ET use in the specific content domain of early mathematics education (and not in general, across all content domains), (b) relying on the theoretical framework of Vanderlinde and Van Braak (2010), including the most relevant potentially contributing variables in view of ET use. We therefore interviewed 342 teachers about their adoption of ET, the programs they use and their aims of using these programs, as well as the school and teacher characteristics that might contribute to ET adoption. A first major finding of the present study is that the majority of teachers reports to adopt ET in early mathematics education. However, a substantial amount of them refrains from doing so: about 1/3 of the teachers did not include ET in their early mathematics education. Teachers who did not adopt ET in their early mathematics instruction mainly pointed to difficulties related to the available ICT infrastructure at their schools and to their own ICT knowledge and skills as major obstacles to effectively use ET. This was confirmed in our regression analyses on the teacher and school variables that might contribute to the (non-)use of ET in early mathematics education, identifying the school’s ICT infrastructure, teachers’ ICT competences and their computer experience at home as key variables for including ET in ECE mathematics education. Teachers who did include ET in their mathematics education were better equipped at school in terms of ICT infrastructure, and had better developed ICT competences and more computer experience at home than teachers who did not include ET in their early mathematics education. These findings are in line with previous studies on the topic, and have important implications for educational policy and teacher training and professional development. First, these findings point to the need for sufficient financial support for improving the schools’ ICT infrastructure. As discussed in Sailer et al. (2021), the availability of sufficient ICT, both in terms of quantity and in terms of quality of infrastructure, functions as a threshold to effectively implement ET in educational practice. However, as these researchers’ findings indicate, sufficient and qualitatively-strong ICT infrastructure is a necessary but insufficient condition for effective ET use. Having available the necessary equipment, teachers also need to have well-developed ICT competences, both in terms of digital skills and in terms of pedagogical-technological competencies. Whereas teachers’ digital skills enable them to design instructional activities that allow both passive and active learning processes in their students, teachers need sufficient pedagogical-technological competencies to fully employ the potential of ET in their classrooms and enable constructive learning processes as well. Teacher training and professional development initiatives need to provide ECE teachers ample theoretical and practical learning opportunities to acquire these important ICT competencies. As such, the effective use of the available ET can be promoted, resulting in rich learning opportunities for young children including ET.

As a second major finding, we point to the rich diversity of ET programs that ECE teachers use in mathematics education, ranging from domain-general to domain-specific programs. Teachers generally preferred the use of comprehensive practice programs that allow to stimulate the development of their preschoolers along a range of mathematical competencies in their mathematics education. These programs were used to enhance children’s mathematical development as well as their basic ICT skills and attitudes. The latter finding also applies to specific practice programs that focus on a specific skill within the domain of mathematics: when using these programs ECE teachers mentioned focus on mathematical aims as frequently as focus on ICT-related goals. However, general programs as programmable ET, digital storybooks or domain-general and unspecified programs were used more frequently to foster the acquisition of basic ICT skills and attitudes than to support children’s mathematical development and individual learning needs. Teachers’ rather limited focus on mathematical aims when using ET in their mathematics education might be due to the instrument we used to assess this theme. Concretely, the items included in the scale for supporting mathematical contents and individual learning needs did not only question teachers’ use of ET in view of general mathematical goals for all children, but also addressed contents related to specific individual remediation and support for children with learning difficulties. As the latter items apply to only a limited number of children and reflect a very specific use of ET in the domain of early mathematics, they might have resulted in an underestimation of teachers’ mathematical aims when including ET in their mathematics education. Future studies that include a broader range of items, addressing both general (for all children) and specific (in view of differentiation) aims of using ET, are needed to evaluate this hypothetical explanation. Also, ECE teachers’ views on the most powerful learning environments for children in the domain of mathematics might help to explain this surprising finding. It is possible that the teachers who participated to our study evaluated informal play situations not including ET as more powerful learning environments for enhancing core mathematical competencies in young children than ET-based programs. Consequently, they might primarily aim for mathematical development in playful situations not involving ET, and offer ET-related learning opportunities as an add-on that allows to also, and even primarily, foster the acquisition of ICT skills and attitudes, next to the mathematical competencies included in the program. As we only included teachers’ attitudes towards using ET in education in general, and did not address their beliefs about the role of ET in supporting preschoolers’ early mathematical development and in early mathematics instruction, future studies are needed to address this hypothetical explanation. As discussed in Lowrie and Larkin (2020), it is important to involve preschool teachers in discussions about ET integration in their regular classroom practices (in the domain of STEM). These discussions do not only add to the meaningful embedding of ET in play-based learning environments for preschoolers (with learning-supportive offline activities preceding and following the ET use), but also help teachers to build constructive beliefs about the potential of ET in preschool education. Future studies that actively involve preschool teachers in the design of technology-enhanced learning environments for young children in the domain of early mathematics and that include observation methods and in-depth interviews with ECE teachers will help to both foster and better understand ECE teachers’ meaningful integration of ET in the domain of early mathematics and in early childhood education more generally. Although our interview data provide a comprehensive overview of the reported ET use in early mathematics education in a large and representative sample of ECE teachers, these self-report data do not give us a deep and detailed understanding of their actual practices. Observation studies with a smaller sample of teachers are needed to get a deepened understanding of the actual classroom practices. Together, the findings of these observation and design studies will increase our scientific insights into ECE teachers use of ET to foster young children’s mathematical development, and offer building blocks for improving teacher training and professional development initiatives and, as such, current practices in early childhood education.