Analysis of Differences in Electronic Mathematics Teaching Competencies Among In-Service Student Teachers at Farhangian University: A Descriptive Interpretation of Findings Based on the Technology Acceptance Model

Authors

    Fatemeh Sami Department of Mathematics, CT.C., Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
    Ahmad Shahvarani Semnani * Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, SR.C., Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran shahvarani@iau.ac.ir
    Amin Mahmoudi Kabria Department of Mathematics, CT.C., Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Keywords:

electronic teaching, mathematics education, teacher education, technological competency, Technology Acceptance Model

Abstract

This study aimed to examine differences in electronic mathematics teaching competencies among in-service student teachers at Farhangian University. In terms of methodology, the study was descriptive–analytical, and in terms of design, it employed a cross-sectional quantitative approach. The statistical population consisted of in-service teachers studying in the Mathematics Education program at Farhangian University, from whom 296 participants were selected through convenience sampling. Data were collected using a researcher-developed questionnaire designed to assess electronic teaching competencies, encompassing five components: clarity of content delivery, utilization of electronic instructional aids, organization and sequencing of content, instructional interaction, and technological skills. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, the independent samples t-test, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). The findings indicated statistically significant differences between trained and untrained teachers across all examined components, with the trained group reporting higher scores on all indicators. Given the cross-sectional nature of the research design and the absence of experimental manipulation, these findings are interpreted as “group differences” and as evidence of the “association between training and higher levels of reported competencies.” The findings were interpreted in light of the Technology Acceptance Model, and it is recommended that future studies directly investigate TAM constructs as well as dimensions of self-regulation using standardized attitudinal instruments.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Zou Y, Kuek F, Feng W, Cheng X. Digital Learning in the 21st Century: Trends, Challenges, and Innovations in Technology Integration. Frontiers in Education. 2025;10:1562391. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1562391.

2. Nieto-Taborda ML, Luppicini R. Accelerated Digital Transformation of Higher Education in the Wake of COVID-19: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Changes in Education. 2024;2(2):123-38. doi: 10.47852/bonviewIJCE42023125.

3. Abuhassna H, Adnan MABM, Awae F. Exploring the Synergy between Instructional Design Models and Learning Theories: A Systematic Literature Review. Contemporary Educational Technology. 2024;16(2):ep499. doi: 10.30935/cedtech/14289.

4. Cid-Martínez L, Aznar-Díaz I, Gómez-García G, Martínez-Domingo JA. A Systematic Review on the Level of Digital Competence of In-Service Spanish Teachers according to the DigCompEdu Framework. Education Sciences. 2025;15(6):655. doi: 10.3390/educsci15060655.

5. Saeidi A, Meiboudi H. Digital Competency of Teachers in the Teaching-Learning Process of Future Schools Using Fuzzy Delphi Approach. Educational and Scholastic Studies. 2025;13(4):75-88. doi: 10.48310/pma.2024.14639.4214.

6. Mayer RE. Multimedia Learning. 3rd ed: Cambridge University Press; 2020.

7. Scherer R, Siddiq F, Tondeur J. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM): A Meta-Analytic Structural Equation Modeling Approach to Explaining Teachers' Adoption of Digital Technology in Education. Computers & Education. 2019;128:13-35. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009.

8. Antonietti C, Cattaneo A, Amenduni F. Can Teachers' Digital Competence Influence Technology Acceptance in Vocational Education? Computers in Human Behavior. 2022;132:107266. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107266.

9. Barz N, Benick M, Dörrenbächer-Ulrich L, Perels F. Students' Acceptance of E-Learning: Extending the Technology Acceptance Model with Self-Regulated Learning and Affinity for Technology. Discover Education. 2024;3:114. doi: 10.1007/s44217-024-00195-7.

10. Wang Z, Wang Y, Zeng Y, Su J, Li Z. An Investigation into the Acceptance of Intelligent Care Systems: An Extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Scientific Reports. 2025;15:17912. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-02746-w.

11. Zimmerman BJ. Attaining Self-Regulation: A Social Cognitive Perspective. In: Boekaerts M, Pintrich PR, Zeidner M, editors. Handbook of Self-Regulation: Academic Press; 2000. p. 13-39.

12. Broadbent J, Poon WL. Self-Regulated Learning Strategies & Academic Achievement in Online Higher Education Learning Environments: A Systematic Review. The Internet and Higher Education. 2015;27:1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.007.

13. Barbour MK, Hodges CB. Preparing Teachers for Effective K-12 Online Learning in the Age of Disruptions: A Call for Transforming Teacher Education. Open Praxis. 2024;16(4):583-94. doi: 10.55982/openpraxis.16.4.727.

14. Kukkonen J, Kontkanen S, Kontturi H, Nenonen S, Parpala M, Tahvanainen V, et al. Examining Teacher Educators' Roles in Developing Preservice Teachers' Digital Competence. European Journal of Teacher Education. 2025:1-24. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2025.2505021.

15. Yaseen H, Mohammad AS, Ashal N, Abusaimeh H, Ali A, Sharabati AAA. The Impact of Adaptive Learning Technologies, Personalized Feedback, and Interactive AI Tools on Student Engagement: The Moderating Role of Digital Literacy. Sustainability. 2025;17(3):1133. doi: 10.3390/su17031133.

16. Slijepcevic N, Huang W. Evaluating the Impact of Online Learning on Academic Performance: Evidence from Higher Education. The Internet and Higher Education. 2025;67:101020. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2025.101020.

17. Varma SB, Adam S, Anyau E, Jah NbA, Ghani MHM, Rahmat NH. A Study of Social Constructivism in Online Learning. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences. 2023;13(4):1559-77. doi: 10.6007/IJARBSS/v13-i4/16820.

18. Fraenkel JR, Wallen NE, Hyun HH. How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. 10th ed: McGraw-Hill Education; 2019.

Downloads

Published

2026-11-01

Submitted

2026-04-01

Revised

2026-06-05

Accepted

2026-06-16

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Sami, F. ., Shahvarani Semnani, A., & Mahmoudi Kabria, A. . (2026). Analysis of Differences in Electronic Mathematics Teaching Competencies Among In-Service Student Teachers at Farhangian University: A Descriptive Interpretation of Findings Based on the Technology Acceptance Model. Assessment and Practice in Educational Sciences, 1-12. https://www.journalapes.com/index.php/apes/article/view/271

Similar Articles

11-20 of 216

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.