Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:30:08 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
24 SES 01 A: Teacher Identity, Beliefs & Working Conditions
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
24. Mathematics Education Research
Paper Navigating Boundaries Without Arrival: Epistemic Barriers for Mathematics Teacher Educators Gaziantep University, Turkey (Türkiye) Presenting Author:In many contexts, teacher education programmes are organised around a structural division between mathematics and mathematics education, while institutional arrangements simultaneously require sustained collaboration across these domains. As a result, mathematics teacher educators (MTEs) often work in professional settings where epistemic expectations, evaluative norms, and priorities are not fully aligned. To make sense of such conditions, researchers has increasingly drawn on boundary crossing as an analytic lens for examining professional learning and identity formation across domains (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011; Whitchurch, 2008). Within mathematics teacher education, this perspective has been particularly influential in studies of collaboration between mathematicians and mathematics educators, where boundary practices are commonly framed as productive—supporting integration between mathematics content and pedagogy, mutual learning, and the emergence of hybrid professional positions (Bleiler, 2015; Goos & Bennison, 2018). These dynamics are especially visible in hybrid departmental structures, where academics with doctoral training in mathematics and mathematics education work within the same departments or programmes and share responsibility for teacher education (Özmantar & Agaç, 2025; Marshman & Goos, 2025). Hybrid departments institutionalise cross-disciplinary proximity and render boundary engagement a persistent feature of everyday professional practice. Research conducted in such contexts has documented both opportunities for collaboration and enduring asymmetries in recognition, authority, and epistemic legitimacy across disciplinary lines (Özmantar & Agaç, 2025). However, much of the literature on boundary crossing and hybrid work is underpinned by developmental assumptions. Boundary engagement is typically expected to culminate in transformation, epistemic settlement, or productive hybridity. Even when difficulty, tension, or liminality are acknowledged, these experiences are frequently interpreted as transitional phases on a pathway toward integration (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011; Whitchurch, 2008). Recent scholarship has begun to question this teleological orientation. Marshman and Goos (2025), for example, argue that theoretical advancement requires closer attention to trajectories where sustained boundary engagement does not lead to integration or settlement. Large-scale studies of MTEs similarly document heterogeneous identity configurations across hybrid departmental contexts, pointing to the need for more fine-grained and longitudinal analyses of how such configurations are maintained (Özmantar & Agaç, 2025). Responding to these concerns, this paper foregrounds a boundary-work trajectory that resists dominant developmental narratives. Drawing on boundary-crossing theory (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011), we introduce non-arrival as an analytic lens for examining situations in which sustained boundary engagement does not consolidate into transformation, settlement, or coherent epistemic repositioning. Rather than treating non-arrival as individual failure or temporary disruption, we conceptualise it as a patterned outcome of boundary conditions where prior forms of epistemic authority may lose currency while alternative forms of legitimacy remain difficult to secure. The analysis is situated in a hybrid mathematics teacher education context where disciplinary boundaries are structurally embedded and continuously negotiated. Adopting a longitudinal qualitative orientation, the paper attends to how boundary engagement reshapes epistemic positioning, professional voice, and claims to competence over time. This focus moves beyond accounts that privilege participation or structural proximity as indicators of integration, and instead examines how boundary practices can function as epistemic barriers, shaping what can be said, by whom, and with what authority in mathematics teacher education work. The contribution of this paper to mathematics education research is twofold. First, it challenges the assumption that increased cross-disciplinary collaboration or hybrid organisational designs will naturally generate integrative professional learning. Second, it offers conceptual resources for theorising boundary practices that produce durable forms of non-arrival rather than developmental progression. In doing so, the work advances a more differentiated understanding of boundary work—one that accounts for epistemic constraint alongside transformation and hybridity, and that is attentive to the kinds of professional trajectories that existing frameworks tend to overlook. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study adopts a longitudinal qualitative conceptual self-study design to examine boundary engagement in mathematics teacher education from a close-grained, reflexive perspective. Conceptual self-study in teacher education positions the researcher’s professional experience not as an object of improvement, but as an analytic site for interrogating the limits of existing theoretical frameworks and for generating new conceptual insights (LaBoskey, 2004; Loughran, 2007). Importantly, the study did not begin as a self-study; rather, it emerged through sustained empirical engagement with boundary-work data that exposed limitations in dominant developmental interpretations of boundary practices. The study is situated in a hybrid departmental context in which mathematics teacher education is organised through ongoing collaboration between academics with backgrounds in mathematics and mathematics education. Within this context, the analysis centres on a single, theoretically significant professional trajectory. The decision to focus on one trajectory reflects an analytic commitment to depth, continuity, and process, rather than comparison or representativeness. The case is treated as a theory-challenging instance that enables close examination of boundary engagement that does not align with prevailing assumptions of transformation, hybridity, or epistemic settlement. Data generation unfolded across three analytically connected phases over approximately eight, and the study remains ongoing. In the first phase, in-depth interviews were conducted as part of a broader research programme on boundary practices in mathematics teacher education. During analysis, one trajectory emerged as analytically disruptive due to the persistence of boundary engagement without indications of developmental resolution. The second phase involved follow-up interviews, adopting a longitudinal qualitative orientation that foregrounds continuity and stability in professional experience (Neale, 2019). In the third phase, the study was reconfigured as a conceptual self-study, incorporating reflexive written accounts generated by the researcher to examine how boundary engagement is interpreted, rationalised, and managed within ongoing professional practice. Analysis was iterative and theoretically informed. Rather than coding toward predefined developmental outcomes, analytic attention focused on patterns of continuity, repetition, and non-resolution across time. Particular attention was paid to shifts in epistemic positioning, professional voice, and claims to competence. Reflexivity functioned as a methodological resource throughout the analysis, enabling systematic consideration of how researcher positioning shaped interpretation, consistent with conceptual and relational approaches to self-study (LaBoskey, 2004; Loughran, 2007). This methodological approach does not seek generalisation across cases. Instead, it aims to generate theoretical insight by closely examining a longitudinal trajectory that reveals conditions under which boundary practices consolidate into epistemic barriers rather than developmental progression. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The analyses conducted in this study indicate that boundary engagement in mathematics teacher education does not necessarily culminate in transformation, hybridity, or epistemic settlement, as commonly assumed in boundary crossing frameworks. Instead, the findings highlight a trajectory in which sustained participation at disciplinary boundaries may consolidate into a condition of non-arrival, characterised by the erosion of epistemic authority without the establishment of a viable alternative position. Drawing on longitudinal analysis, the study shows that boundary practices can destabilise previously robust forms of professional competence and confidence. Initial epistemic resources that are valued and recognised within one disciplinary domain may lose currency when boundary engagement becomes a routine feature of professional practice. Crucially, this destabilisation is not followed by the emergence of a new, hybrid, or reconfigured epistemic identity. Rather than indicating transition, the findings point to durability and continuity in this state, suggesting that non-arrival may function as a stable professional condition rather than a temporary phase. Conceptually, the study reframes boundary practices as potentially operating not only as sites of learning and integration but also as epistemic barriers that regulate access to legitimacy, voice, and recognition. This challenges developmental narratives that equate participation, proximity, or collaboration with epistemic advancement. By foregrounding non-arrival as an analytically consequential outcome, the study contributes a language for theorising professional trajectories that remain unresolved despite sustained boundary engagement. The expected contribution of this paper lies in extending boundary crossing theory by identifying limits in its explanatory reach when applied to mathematics teacher education contexts characterised by hybrid departmental structures. Rather than proposing a replacement framework, the study offers a conceptual refinement that invites mathematics education researchers to attend more closely to trajectories marked by epistemic constraint, loss, and non-settlement. References Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169. Bleiler, S. K. (2015). Increasing awareness of practice through interaction across communities: The lived experiences of a mathematician and mathematics teacher educator. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18(3), 231–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-014-9275-6. Goos, M., & Bennison, A. (2018). Boundary crossing and brokering between disciplines in pre-service mathematics teacher education. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 30, 255–275. LaBoskey, V. K. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 817–869). Loughran, J. J. (2007). Researching teacher education practices: Responding to the challenges, demands, and expectations of self-study. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 12–20. Marshman, M., & Goos, M. (2025). Exploring the identities of hybrid mathematics teacher educators. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education. Advance online publication. Neale, B. (2019). What is qualitative longitudinal research? Bloomsbury Academic. Özmantar, M. F., & Agaç, G. (2025). Mathematics teacher educators’ self-identifications and cross-disciplinary research tendencies: Implications for boundary crossing and identity transformations. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-025-09698-y Whitchurch, C. (2008). Shifting identities and blurring boundaries: The emergence of third space professionals in UK higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(4), 377–396. 24. Mathematics Education Research
Paper Contextual Factors Affecting Out-of-Field Teaching of Mathematics: Reflections from the Field 1: The University of Queensland, Australia; 2: University of Tasmania, Australia; 3: University of the Sunshine Coast; 4: Deakin University Presenting Author:Across the globe, education systems are grappling with a persistent and escalating challenge: the shortage of qualified teachers. This crisis is not confined to one region or subject area; it is systemic and far-reaching. Mathematics, however, stands out as a critical pressure point. In Australia, for example, estimates suggest that up to 40% of mathematics teachers are teaching out-of-field (OOF), that is, teaching beyond their formal qualifications. Similar patterns are evident across Europe and internationally (Hobbs & Porsch, 2021), where shortages in STEM subjects have prompted schools to adopt emergency staffing measures. These practices, while necessary in the short term, raise profound questions about educational quality, teacher identity, and the sustainability of workforce strategies. This study focuses on the phenomenon of OOF teaching in mathematics and the systemic conditions that shape professional education (PE) for teachers. Rather than framing OOF teaching as an individual deficit, the research positions it as a structural issue embedded within policy, organisational practices, and cultural norms. The central question guiding this inquiry is: How do policy contexts and organisational practices influence representations of, and support for, teachers currently teaching mathematics out-of-field? The objective is to map the ecological conditions that sustain OOF teaching and to identify how PE currently supports or thwarts teachers' efforts to transition to in-field. Two theoretical frameworks underpin this investigation. First, Professional Capital (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012) provides a lens for examining teacher development through human, social, and decisional capital. This perspective highlights how teachers’ engagement with PE is shaped not only by individual knowledge and skills but also by collaborative networks and organisational decision-making. Second, Bronfenbrenner’s (1994) Ecological Systems Theory offers a multi-level approach to understanding the systemic influences on OOF teaching. By analysing interactions across the macrosystem (policy and cultural norms), exosystem (institutional structures), and mesosystem (school-level practices), the study foregrounds the complexity of conditions that enable or constrain OOF teachers' uptake of PE. Although the empirical focus is on Australia, the phenomenon of OOF teaching is global. Teacher shortages are documented across Europe, with a similar reliance on flexible workforce strategies and policy discourses that emphasise teacher mobility and lifelong learning (Viac & Fraser, 2020). By situating the Australian case within these international trends, the study contributes to global debates on workforce adaptability and professional learning. It interrogates how cultural norms and structural arrangements, such as credentialing systems, funding models, and data collection practices, shape responses to OOF teaching across jurisdictions. Ultimately, this research seeks to move beyond short-term solutions and deficit framings. By mapping the educational ecology that sustains OOF teaching, it aims to inform policy and practice in ways that value teacher specialisation and support requalification pathways. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study forms part of a broader project, Shifting the Culture of Out-of-field Professional Education for Teachers (SCOPE-T), and draws on a review of literature and policy documents relating to professional education (PE) for out-of-field (OOF) teachers. The review sought to establish a comprehensive picture of current PE offerings and representations before examining how these conditions might be adapted to better support pathways into in-field practice. Members of the research team collected and analysed a wide range of documents from professional associations (10 documents), teacher registration bodies across eight jurisdictions (25 documents), government departments and agencies (54 documents), unions (6 documents), and additional organisations (10 documents). A specialised subset of these documents relating to mathematics education forms the basis of the analysis reported in this paper. Document analysis was conducted collaboratively, with each researcher examining material aligned with their professional expertise. The analysis focused on explicit or implicit references to OOF teaching, including indirect indications such as references to new, returning, or retraining teachers. While some documents made no mention of OOF teaching, others contained substantial material that could be coded and categorised using Bronfenbrenner’s (1994) ecological systems theory. After initial coding, researchers with expertise in mathematics teacher education met to refine interpretations, compare emerging themes, and verify analytical reliability. This process also drew upon the team’s professional capital (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012), which shaped the ecological mapping and strengthened interpretative validity. The analytical process combined Bronfenbrenner’s (1994) ecological systems theory with the notion of professional capital. Professional capital (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012) served as the interpretative lens for early discussion, enabling the team to draw on their human, social, and decisional capital when identifying themes and determining their significance. These themes were then located within Bronfenbrenner’s ecological framework, producing maps illustrating the systemic conditions sustaining OOF teaching and potential pathways by which teachers may move towards in-field status. Across the wider project, three recurring domains emerged as central to these pathways: workplace support, initial teacher education and retraining, and professional education opportunities. To enrich the document analysis, the study also incorporates insights from semi-structured interviews with participants across four Australian states, representing a diverse range of policy and PE stakeholders. For the mathematics-focused analysis reported here, transcripts from ten participants connected to mathematics education were examined. Their perspectives provide experiential depth to the findings, illustrating how policies, organisational practices, and PE offerings are understood and enacted within the field. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This study demonstrates that out-of-field (OOF) teaching in mathematics is sustained by the interaction of influences across Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems. The three pathways to becoming in-field identified in the study, initial teacher education (ITE), professional education (PE), and workplace learning, do not function independently. Instead, they intersect in ways that can either support or hinder teachers’ development. The ecological mapping highlights how assumptions about mathematical competence, simplistic “content met/not met” classifications, and fragmented program structures limit opportunities for meaningful disciplinary and pedagogical growth. Participants emphasised that strong mathematical foundations are essential for later pedagogical development, underscoring the need for PE and ITE programs that integrate content knowledge with pedagogy. A key finding is the foundational yet undervalued role of ITE. Weak recruitment pipelines, variable program structures, and restrictive accreditation processes shape teachers’ confidence and professional identity well before they enter the classroom. These upstream conditions influence how schools perceive new teachers’ capabilities and contribute to patterns of OOF placement. At the macrosystem level, enduring narratives, such as the belief that “anyone can teach mathematics”, normalise the deployment of beginning teachers into OOF roles, reinforcing systemic patterns that undervalue disciplinary expertise. The analysis also shows that partnerships are essential. Stakeholders consistently identified the need for coordinated action between universities, schools, policymakers, and professional learning providers. However, current efforts remain fragmented, limiting the systems’ capacity to offer coherent pathways into in-field practice. Overall, the findings indicate that coherent action across ecological levels is necessary to create the conditions that support teachers to become in-field. References Australian Government Department of Education (DoE). (2022). The national teacher workforce action plan December 2022. https://www.education.gov.au/national-teacher-workforce-action-plan Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) (2020). Guidelines for the accreditation of initial teacher education programs in Australia. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/accreditation_guidelines_2021_17-feb-2021_contents_web_final.pdf?sfvrsn=9276dd3c_0 Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) (2021). Australian teacher workforce data: National teacher workforce characteristics report. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/research/australian-teacher-workforce-data/atwdreports Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) (2022). Australian professional standards for teachers. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/standards Barker, M., Goos, M., & Coupland, M. (2024). Relieving out-of-field teaching in Australian secondary mathematics: Analysis of out-of-field secondary mathematics teacher upskilling initiatives in Australia. Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute (AMSI). Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., Vol. 3). Elsevier. Goos, M. & Marchant, T. (2025). Relieving out-of-field teaching in Australian secondary mathematics: Upskilling program design elements. Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute (AMSI). Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College, Columbia University. Hobbs, L., & Porsch, R. (2021). Teaching out-of-field: challenges for teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 44(5), 601–610. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2021.1985280 Hobbs, L., Ross, E., Cirkony, C., McCandless, T., Caldis, S., Dutton, J., Goos, M., Oates, G., Shelley, K., Delaney, S., & Speldewinde, C. (2025). Australia’s professional education ecosystem for out-of-field teachers: Seeking diverse pathways for teacher learning. Professional Development in Education (submitted December 2025) Oates, G., Muir, T., Murphy, C., Reaburn, R., & Maher, N. (2021). What influences mathematics teacher educators’ decisions in course design: Activity theory and professional capital as an investigative approach. In M. Goos & K. Beswick (eds.). The learning and development of mathematics teacher educators (pp. 345–366). Springer Nature. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-62408-8_18 Ross, E., Goos, M., Oates, G., Hobbs, L., Speldewinde, C., Cirkony, C., Delaney, S., Dutton, J. & Caldis, S. (2025). “Anyone Can Teach Maths”: Workplace Perspectives on Out-of-Field Teaching of Mathematics. In S. M. Patahuddin, L. Gaunt, D. Harris & K. Tripet (Eds.), Unlocking minds in mathematics education. Proceedings of the 47th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 389–396). Canberra: MERGA. http://merga.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/MERGA47_2025_Ross2_RR.pdf Viac, C. & Fraser, P. (2020). Teachers’ well-being: A framework for data collection and analysis. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 213. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/c36fc9d3-en Weldon, P. R. (2016). Out-of-field Teaching in Australian Secondary Schools. Policy Insights (vol. 6). Melbourne: ACER. https://research.acer.edu.au/policyinsights/6/ 24. Mathematics Education Research
Paper From Classroom to Platform: How YouTube Production Reconfigures Preservice Mathematics Teachers’ Pedagogical Thinking Gaziantep University, Turkey (Türkiye) Presenting Author:Over the last decade, YouTube has become an influential site for mathematics learning across educational contexts. Research shows that students regularly use YouTube for exam preparation, revisiting difficult topics and self-paced study beyond classroom time (Seo et al.,2018; Ranga,2017; Tadbier&Shoufan,2021). Its accessibility, content archive, and visual affordances attract learners seeking flexible, autonomous engagement with mathematical ideas. Consequently, YouTube occupies an important—though unevenly structured—place in the international ecology of mathematics education. This growing reliance has generated substantial research on learner interaction with mathematical content. Much of this work conceptualises YouTube through engagement, focusing on how users engage with videos. Drawing on Shao’s (2009) consumption, participation, production framework and multidimensional models of engagement (Hollebeek,2011; Khan,2017), studies examine viewing practices, user responses (e.g., likes and comments), and self-regulatory strategies such as rewatching. Within this literature, mathematics learning on YouTube is framed as a self-directed process aligned with learners’ goals, particularly in exam-oriented contexts (Cardoso et al.,2014; Klinger&Walter,2022). A parallel strand of research examines those who produce educational content for YouTube. Creators are motivated by knowledge sharing, identity expression, and community building, alongside monetisation and professional branding (Maynard, 2021; Chun,2008; Burgess et al.,2020; Hoiles et al.,2017). This work highlights how YouTube fosters educational communities shaped by visibility and platform economics. However, creators are typically treated as a separate professional group rather than as participants in teacher education. Taken together, these bodies of literature leave a pedagogical gap: learners are conceptualised as consumers of mathematics instruction, while producers are treated as a distinct category of actors shaped by creativity, community and market forces. What remains missing is an account of what happens when future teachers are positioned within this environment—not as viewers, but as producers of mathematics teaching. This gap matters because YouTube is not a neutral medium for delivering mathematical content. Research shows that platform logics—such as attention optimisation, visual appeal, and time constraints—influence which explanations gain visibility and how content circulates (Broxton&Khroustaleva,2012; Nurmalasari & Masitoh,2020). Mathematics often requires sustained reasoning, diagnosis of misconceptions, and careful conceptual development. When instruction is shaped by algorithmic visibility and compressed formats, teaching may be transformed in ways that teacher education has not yet theorised. This raises a question: How do teachers learn to teach in environments in which interaction is limited, feedback is delayed or absent, and understanding must be anticipated rather than negotiated in real time? Existing YouTube research, focused on engagement metrics and content features, cannot address this because it does not examine teaching as an epistemic and pedagogical practice within the platform. To address this gap, we extend engagement theory by reinterpreting production not merely as uploading a video, but as pedagogical design under platform conditions. Building on Shao’s (2009) consumption–participation–production framework, we conceptualise the transition from YouTube consumer to YouTube producer as a shift in pedagogical positioning: from selecting existing explanations to designing explanations that must function within YouTube’s visual, temporal, and algorithmic constraints. This conceptual move allows us to treat YouTube as a platform-based pedagogical regime—a socio-technical environment that structures what counts as effective explanation, pacing, and representation. By situating preservice mathematics teachers within this regime through a production task, we examine how their understanding of teaching mathematics is reconfigured when designing for an unseen, self-directed, digitally mediated audience. Against this theoretical backdrop, our study asks: How does the transition from YouTube consumer to YouTube producer reconfigure preservice mathematics teachers’ understanding of teaching mathematics? By analysing preservice teachers’ written reflections on producing YouTube-based mathematics lessons, the study offers a theoretically grounded account of how platform participation reshapes pedagogical reasoning. It bridges research on YouTube engagement, platform-based education and mathematics teacher education. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study was designed as a qualitative, experience-based investigation of how preservice mathematics teachers make sense of teaching when they move from consuming to producing instructional content on YouTube. It was embedded within a third-year undergraduate course on media literacy for mathematics education in a Turkish teacher education program. The course aimed to develop critical and pedagogical awareness of digital media by engaging preservice teachers not only as users of online content but also as designers of instructional media. As part of the course, preservice teachers were introduced to different forms of mathematics teaching on YouTube and analysed Turkish-language mathematics channels in terms of pedagogical, representational, and communicative features. They then produced their own YouTube-style instructional videos (15–20 minutes) for public sharing. Each participant selected a mathematical topic, identified a target audience, developed a lesson plan, and created a complete instructional video designed to function within the norms and expectations of the platform. The goal was not technical proficiency but pedagogical engagement with the constraints and affordances of platform-based teaching. After completing the production task, participants responded in writing to a structured reflection form comprising twelve open-ended questions. These prompts explored their experiences of video production, challenges encountered, pedagogical insights gained, and shifts in how they viewed YouTube as a teaching and learning environment. In total, 77 preservice teachers submitted complete written reflections. For this paper, analysis focused on three prompts: (Q2) the most challenging aspects of producing a YouTube teaching video, (Q4) the contribution of this experience to their understanding of teaching, and (Q11) their evaluation of YouTube as a platform for mathematics instruction. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2019), which conceptualises themes as interpretive constructions developed through sustained engagement with participants’ meaning-making rather than fixed categories to be identified. Analysis proceeded in iterative stages. First, responses were read repeatedly to build familiarity and identify initial meaning units. Second, segments were coded inductively, attending to how participants described teaching, learning, and platform-related constraints. Third, codes were clustered into higher-order patterns capturing tensions in platform-based teaching (Q2), reconfigured understandings of pedagogy (Q4), and re-positioned evaluations of YouTube as a learning environment (Q11). Throughout the process, analytic memos supported reflexive interpretation and ensured coherence across the three question sets. This strategy enabled us to trace how producing YouTube mathematics instruction shaped preservice teachers’ conceptualisations of teaching and the role of digital platforms in mathematics education. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This study shows that engaging preservice mathematics teachers in YouTube production does not simply extend technical or digital skills; instead, it exposes them to a pedagogical regime that reconfigures how they understand teaching. Analysing reflections across three prompts—production challenges, contributions to their understanding of teaching, and evaluations of YouTube as a learning environment—reveals platform-driven pedagogical transformation. First, accounts of production difficulties highlight structural tensions in YouTube-based instruction. These include pressures to compress mathematical depth into short, attention-optimised formats, the absence of real-time student feedback, expectations of error-free performance, and the challenge of translating embodied classroom practices into visually mediated representations. Together, these tensions indicate that teaching for YouTube is not merely teaching “with technology,” but teaching under conditions shaped by algorithmic visibility, visuality, and performance norms. Second, these pressures reconfigured what teaching came to mean. Participants described moving away from interaction-based instruction toward a view of teaching as anticipatory design, content curation, multimodal orchestration, and empathic projection for an unseen learner. Teaching mathematics was no longer about responding to students in the moment, but about designing explanations that can function without immediate interaction or repair. Third, participants projected these understandings back onto YouTube itself. After producing videos, they no longer viewed YouTube only as a convenient resource. Instead, they positioned it as a space for self-paced rehearsal and visualisation of abstract concepts, while also describing it as dialogically weak and epistemically risky, where quality, feedback, and conceptual depth are unevenly supported. Overall, the transition from YouTube consumer to YouTube producer constitutes a pedagogical boundary crossing in teacher education. Experiencing the platform from the inside supported a more nuanced understanding of digital teaching and the limits of platform-based mathematics instruction. These findings underscore the value of production-based engagement with digital platforms in preparing future teachers for contemporary, platform-mediated learning. References Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health, 11(4), 589-597. Broxton, T. J., & Khroustaleva, O. (2012). Supporting an ecosystem: from the biting baby to the old spice man. In Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Interactive TV and Video. 7-8.https://doi.org/10.1145/3359321 Burgess, J., Green, J., & Rebane, G. (2020). Agency and controversy in the YouTube community. Handbuch soziale praktiken und digitale alltagswelten, 105-116.https://doä.org/10.1007/978-3-658-08357-1_10 Cardoso, V. C., Kato, L. A., & de Oliveira, S. R. (2014). Where to learn math? A study of access to an educational channel on YouTube. Revista Internacional de Pesquisa em Educação Matemática, 4(3), 45-62. Chun, B. J. (2008). Content creation and flow: Why they clik or create UCCs. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 8(12), 222-235.https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2008.8.12.222 Hoiles, W., Aprem, A., & Krishnamurthy, V. (2017). Engagement and popularity dynamics of YouTube videos and sensitivity to meta-data. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 29(7), 1426-1437.https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2017.2682858 Hollebeek, L. (2011). Exploring customer brand engagement: definition and themes. Journal of strategic Marketing, 19(7), 555-573. Khan, M. L. (2017). Social media engagement: What motivates user participation and consumption on YouTube?. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 236-247.https://doä.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.024 Klinger, M., & Walter, D. (2022). How users review frequently used apps and videos containing mathematics. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education 29(1), 25-35.https://dx.doä.org/10.1564/tme_v29.1.03 Maynard, A. D. (2021). How to succeed as an academic on YouTube. Frontiers in Communication, 5, 572181.https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.572181 Nurmalasari, N., & Masitoh, I. (2020). Manajemen Strategik Pemasaran Pendidikan Berbasis Media Sosial Di Madrasah Aliyah Yayasan Pondok Pesantren Babakan Jamanis Parigi Pangandaran. re-JIEM (Research Journal of Islamic Education Management), 3(2), 120-128.https://doi.org/10.19105/re- jiem.v3i2.3908 Ranga, J. S. (2017). Customized videos on a YouTube channel: A beyond the classroom teaching and learning platform for general chemistry courses. Journal of Chemical Education, 94(7), 867-872.https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00774 Seo, C. W., Cho, A. R., Park, J. C., Cho, H. Y., & Kim, S. (2018). Dental students’ learning attitudes and perceptions of YouTube as a lecture video hosting platform in a flipped classroom in Korea. Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions, 15(24), 24.https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2018.15.24 Shao, G. (2009). Understanding the appeal of user‐generated media: a uses and gratification perspective. Internet Research, 19(1), 7-25.https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240910927795 Tadbier, A. W., & Shoufan, A. (2021). Ranking educational channels on YouTube: Aspects and issues. Education and Information Technologies, 26,3077-3096.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10414-x | ||