Reframing Constructivist Mathematics Pedagogy through Artificial Intelligence for Core Mathematics Topics in the FET Phase, Gauteng North, South Africa
Keywords:
constructivism; artificial intelligence; mathematics education; digital pedagogy; implementation science; mathematics teachersAbstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly positioned within mathematics education discourse as a potential resource for supporting learner engagement and conceptual exploration across core mathematics topics. In parallel, constructivist pedagogy continues to emphasise learning as an active, reflective, and socially mediated process grounded in learners’ meaning making and interaction. Despite these parallel developments, existing conceptual scholarship rarely integrates AI and constructivist mathematics pedagogy in ways that attend explicitly to curriculum content, educational phase, and contextual implementation conditions. This limitation is particularly pronounced in Global South contexts. This article is explicitly conceptual in nature and addresses this gap by advancing an AI-enhanced constructivist mathematics pedagogy framework focused on core mathematics topics in the Further Education and Training (FET) phase in Gauteng North. The study draws on a systematic theoretical synthesis of literature spanning constructivist learning theory, digital pedagogy, and implementation science. Within the framework, AI is theorised as a pedagogical mediator rather than a driver of instruction, with attention given to how adaptive tools can be aligned with individual meaning making, how collaborative platforms can support dialogic knowledge construction, and how implementation science foregrounds issues of adoption, sustainability in under-resourced educational settings. The framework constitutes the central scholarly contribution of the article, integrating pedagogical, curricular, and systemic considerations while foregrounding teacher agency, ethical responsibility, and contextual readiness. Although grounded in the FET mathematics context of Gauteng North, the framework is conceptually transferable to comparable educational systems and provides a basis for future empirical inquiry, theoretical refinement, and context-responsive pedagogical design in mathematics education.
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.25.3.18
References
Acharya, R. (2025). Examining Interpretivism in Social Science Research: Exploring Subjectivity, Context, and Meaning in Social Inquiry. Education Science & Technology.
Ahmed, S. K., Mohammed, R. A., Nashwan, A. J., Ibrahim, R. H., Abdalla, A. Q., Ameen, B. M. M., & Khdhir, R. M. (2025). Using thematic analysis in qualitative research. Journal of Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health, 6, 100198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glmedi.2025.100198
Almulla, M. A. (2023). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for students’ critical thinking, creativity, and problem solving to affect academic performance in higher education. Cogent Education, 10(1), 2172929. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2172929
Anderson, V. (2020). A digital pedagogy pivot: Re-thinking higher education practice from an HRD perspective. Human Resource Development International, 23(4), 452–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2020.1778999
Aphane, T. M. (2022). The Influence of the South African Learner Progression Policy on Learners in the Fet Phase (Master's thesis, University of Pretoria (South Africa)).
Brownson, R. C., Shelton, R. C., Geng, E. H., & Glasgow, R. E. (2022). Revisiting concepts of evidence in implementation science. Implementation Science, 17, 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01201-y
Chuang, S. (2021). The applications of constructivist learning theory and social learning theory on adult continuous development. Performance Improvement, 60(3), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21963
Do, H.-N., Do, B. N., & Nguyen, M. H. (2023). How do constructivism learning environments generate better motivation and learning strategies? The design science approach. Heliyon, 9(11), e22862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22862
Garófalo, L., Rodés, V., Porta, M., & Rodríguez Enríquez, C. (2021). Teacher education in the emergency: A MOOC-inspired teacher professional development strategy grounded in critical digital pedagogy and pedagogy of care. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2021(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.657
Gilje, Ø. (2024). Digital pedagogy in educational chronotopes: Didactical choices for teaching, learning, and assessment. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 19(3), 439–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2024.2379789
Herlandy, P. B., & Syahfutra, W. (2025). An iterative design of ubiquitous learning modules for enhancing digital pedagogy in the Sekolah Penggerak. Research and Development in Education, 5(1), 449–462. https://doi.org/10.22219/raden.v5i1.40545
Holtrop, J. S., Scherer, L. D., Matlock, D. D., Glasgow, R. E., & Green, L. A. (2021). The importance of mental models in implementation science. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 680316. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.680316
Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: four approaches. AMS review, 10(1), 18-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
Jumaah, F. M. (2024). Exploring constructivist learning theory and its applications in teaching English. The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations, 6(8), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.37547/tajssei/Volume06Issue08-02
Kesler, A., Shamir-Inbal, T., & Blau, I. (2022). Active learning by visual programming: Pedagogical perspectives of instructivist and constructivist code teachers and their implications on actual teaching strategies and students’ programming artifacts. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(1), 28-55. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211017793
Khalil, M. K., Abdel Meguid, E. M., & Elkhider, I. A. (2018). Teaching of anatomical sciences: A blended learning approach. Clinical Anatomy, 31(3), 323-329. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.23052
Kiesler, N. (2022). Reviewing constructivist theories to help foster creativity in programming education. In 2022 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1–9). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE56618.2022.9962699
Kislov, R., Pope, C., Martin, G. P., & Wilson, P. M. (2019). Harnessing the power of theorising in implementation science. Implementation Science, 14(1), 103. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0957-4
Koptseva, N. P. (2020). Constructivist pedagogy in context of modern philosophy of education. Perspectives of Science and Education, 41. https://doi.org/10.32744/pse.2020.6.4
Leeman, J., Rohweder, C., Lee, M., Brenner, A., Dwyer, A., Ko, L. K., O’Leary, M. C., Ryan, G., Vu, T., & Ramanadhan, S. (2021). Aligning implementation science with improvement practice: A call to action. Implementation Science Communications, 2, 99. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-021-00201-1
Maaranen, K., Cornér, T., Kynäslahti, H., Sintonen, S., Byman, R., & Jyrhämä, R. (2025). The professional development of teacher educators in digital pedagogy amid change: Comparing competence during 2018 and 2021. Journal of Teacher Education and Educators, 14(1), 20–36.
Ncube, C. N., & Tawanda, T. (2025). Critical digital pedagogy for contemporary transformative practices in the Global South: A literature review. Cogent Education, 12(1), 2523133. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2523133
Nilsen, P., Thor, J., Bender, M., Leeman, J., Andersson-Gäre, B., & Sevdalis, N. (2022). Bridging the silos: A comparative analysis of implementation science and improvement science. Frontiers in Health Services, 1, 817750. https://doi.org/10.3389/frhs.2021.817750
Oppong-Gyebi, E., Bonyah, E., & Clark, L. J. (2023). Constructive instructional teaching and learning approaches and their mathematical classroom teaching practices: A junior high school perspective. Contemporary Mathematics and Science Education, 4(1), ep23002. https://doi.org/10.30935/conmaths/12541
Passey, D. (2020). Theories, theoretical and conceptual frameworks, models and constructs: Limiting research outcomes through misconceptions and misunderstandings. Studies in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.21428/8c225f6e.56810a1a
Pham, X. L., Nguyen, D. T., Nguyen, L. N. H., Nguyen, T. H., & Tran, T. M. D. (2025). A constructivist-based interactive learning management system leveraging Google Codelabs. Interactive Learning Environments. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2025.2479168
Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/piag91272
Purwadi, R. E., & Suhana, A. (2025). Integrating ethical artificial intelligence in secondary education: A framework for responsible digital pedagogy. International Journal of Teaching and Learning, 2(11), 1259–1275.
Rapley, E. (2018). ‘Seeing the light.’Personal epiphanies and moving towards interpretivism; a researcher’s tale of exploring teacher pedagogic practice. Ethnography and Education, 13(2), 185-203. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2017.1315311
Rapport, F., Smith, J., Hutchinson, K., Clay-Williams, R., Churruca, K., Bierbaum, M., & Braithwaite, J. (2021). Too much theory and not enough practice? The challenge of implementation science application in healthcare practice. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 28(6), 991–1002. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13600
Rich, K. M., & Yadav, A. (2020). Applying levels of abstraction to mathematics word problems. TechTrends, 64(3), 395-403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00479-3
Rich, K. M., Yadav, A., & Zhu, M. (2019). Levels of abstraction in students’ mathematics strategies: What can applying computer science ideas about abstraction bring to elementary mathematics?. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 38(3), 267-298. https://doi.org/10.70725/909557yyhihb
Sabesan, S., Malica, M., Gebbie, C., Scott, C., Thomas, D., & Zalcberg, J. (2021). Implementation of the Australasian Teletrial Model: Translating ideas into action using implementation science. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 29(8), 641–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X211017805
Sajja, R., Sermet, Y., Cikmaz, M., Cwiertny, D., & Demir, I. (2024). Artificial intelligence-enabled intelligent assistant for personalized and adaptive learning in higher education. Information, 15(10), 596. https://doi.org/10.3390/info15100596
Sarkies, M. N., Francis-Coad, J., Braithwaite, J., & Johnson, J. K. (2022). A comparative analysis of implementation and improvement science frameworks: Aligning and differentiating key concepts. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 22, 166. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01661-2
Strielkowski, W., Grebennikova, V., Lisovskiy, A., Rakhimova, G., & Vasileva, T. (2025). AI?driven adaptive learning for sustainable educational transformation. Sustainable Development, 33(2), 1921-1947. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3221
Trivedi, R. (2025). Core Concepts in Real Analysis. Educohack Press.
Toktarova, V., & Semenova, I. (2020). Constructivist approach to digital learning: Development of electronic educational resources for mathematics education. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1691(1), 012112. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1691/1/012112
Touloukian, C., Price, D., & Eller, K. H. (2024). Listening to and learning from teachers: An ecological perspective of culturally responsive digital pedagogies during a historic moment. Teachers College Record, 126(9), 3–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681241298809
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1979.81.4.02a00580
Yue, M., Jong, M. S. Y., & Dai, Y. (2022). Pedagogical design of K-12 artificial intelligence education: A systematic review. Sustainability, 14(23), 15620. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315620
Zhou, X., & Zeng, J. (2022). Three?component mathematics for students. Infant and Child Development, 31(1), e2283. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2283
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Carlit Casey Tibane
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
All articles published by IJLTER are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No-Derivatives 4.0 International License (CCBY-NC-ND4.0).
