From Intention to Action: How Preservice Teachers Use Technology-Enabled Learning During Student Teaching

Abstract

This qualitative, embedded single case study provides a rich description exploring the evolution of preservice teachers’ intention to use and actual use of technology-enabled learning (TEL) during student teaching. The study followed four middle-level education majors at a mid-size public teaching university in the southeastern United States during their student teaching experience (spring 2021). Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) guided this qualitative inquiry. Interviews, observations, and analysis of teaching artifacts (e.g., lesson plans, lesson reflections, and TEL artifacts) were conducted to support data triangulation. In addition to applying theory-based qualitative codes to the data, open coding was conducted to identify themes across the body of evidence. Findings extended previous TPB research regarding preservice teachers’ intention to use TEL in application use cases and yield practical implications for teacher educators seeking to increase TEL intention and use in preservice teacher populations.

Keywords

preservice teachers technology-enabled learning student teaching field experiences

Technology-enabled learning (TEL) is the student-centered use of technology as a cognitive tool to communicate, collaborate, develop critical thinking skills, and solve authentic problems (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013; Herring Watson & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2021; Jonassen, 1994, 2005; Nelson & Hawk, 2020). This construct focuses on how technology supports active, student-centered learning in the classroom, rather than on what specific technology tools are used for learning. TEL describes the interconnection between technology and social constructivist pedagogies and centers the learning and agency of students while the teacher facilitates, rather than directs, the learning process (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013; Hsu, 2016).

TEL is not new; scholars have advocated for and established the positive impact of TEL over the last two decades (Barak, 2017; Bower et al., 2013; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013; Jonassen, 1994, 2005), and professional and accrediting organizations, such as the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE, 2017) and the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP, 2022), have highlighted the need to prepare educators and students to be active, engaged, constructive technology users. However, the field of education remains slow to adopt student-centered practices in general and particularly technology to facilitate student-centered, social constructivist pedagogies (Barak, 2017; Herring Watson & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2021; Nelson & Hawk, 2020; Tondeur et al., 2016).

TEL is an effective approach to teaching and learning with technology that promotes student-centered pedagogies, and some teachers are adept at using TEL and working as change agents to support TEL (Admiraal et al., 2017). However, TEL has not been widely adopted into common pedagogical practices (Scherer & Teo, 2019). Preservice teachers’ intention to use and use of TEL are of particular interest because they represent the future of the profession. Colleges of education play a significant role in facilitating TEL adoption because they shape preservice teachers’ attitudes and behaviors regarding technology use, which preservice teachers take into the field as inservice teachers.

The COVID-19 pandemic offered an opportunity for educational transformation due to the ubiquity of devices in educational settings and the need for a massive shift to online learning. However, rather than embrace TEL approaches, teachers generally favor more traditional, behaviorist pedagogies alongside their technology use, particularly when working with students from marginalized backgrounds, leading to the use of technology to police student behavior and a focus on lower-level “skill and drill” learning, rather than higher-order critical thinking (Heath et al., 2022; Heath & Segal, 2021; Puckett & Rafalow, 2020). Thus, preparing preservice teachers to use TEL is a matter of digital equity and an essential step toward bridging the digital divide at the pedagogical level (Cheah et al., 2023).

Some teacher preparation programs and colleges of education have sought to facilitate a shift in beliefs about teaching and learning with technology by adopting program-deep and program-wide approaches to teaching about and modeling TEL (Buss et al., 2015; Tondeur et al., 2012; Voithofer & Nelson, 2021). However, even in programs that center TEL and student-centered pedagogies, preservice teachers’ intention to use TEL in their future classrooms decreases as they move through their programs of study and is lowest during their final student-teaching experience (Herring Watson & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2021). While many studies investigate preservice teachers’ perceptions of, attitudes toward, and intentions to use technology (e.g., Farjon et al., 2019; Joo et al., 2018; Nelson & Hawk, 2020; Sanchez-Prieto et al., 2019), few examine TEL specifically or focus on the transition period of student teaching (Han et al., 2017; Nelson & Hawk, 2020). Therefore, the evolution of preservice teachers’ attitudes, intentions, and actual use of TEL during student teaching is not well understood. Framed with Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), this study addresses how preservice teachers’ descriptions of, intentions to use, and actual uses of TEL evolve throughout their experiences as student teachers, providing a better understanding of TEL as this group perceives it.

Literature Review

Theory of Planned Behavior

The TPB comprises three constructs that contribute to the development of an intention to perform a specific behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Ajzen’s (1985) TPB extended Fishbein and Ajzen’s Theory of Reasoned Action. The Theory of Reasoned Action includes two main factors: attitude (what a person believes about a behavior) and subjective norm (what a person believes others think about a behavior). The TPB integrates the addition of a third construct, perceived behavioral control (PBC), to describe how much control a person feels they have over their choice to engage in the behavior (Ajzen, 1985; Gretter & Yadav, 2018; Li et al., 2016). Ajzen (1991) theorized that salient antecedent beliefs inform each construct. According to the TPB, attitudinal beliefs inform attitudes, normative beliefs inform subjective norms, and control beliefs inform PBC. The connections among the constructs in the TPB are shown in Supplementary Figure 1 (available in the online version).

Technology Beliefs and Attitudes of Preservice Teachers

While beliefs and attitudes are distinct constructs within the TPB, the terms are often used interchangeably when describing technology adoption among preservice teachers (Nelson, 2020). However, here, the construct of pedagogical beliefs is considered a salient antecedent belief for attitude toward TEL because the construct of TEL includes both technology use and social constructivist pedagogies. Thus, it is valuable to consider the literature related to both preservice teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their attitudes toward technology. For example, Gurer and Akkaya (2021) surveyed 714 preservice mathematics teachers and found that positive attitudes toward technology were the strongest predictor of intention to use technology. Participants who expressed constructivist-oriented pedagogical beliefs were likelier to express positive attitudes toward technology and an intention to use it in teaching.

Similarly, Teo et al. (2021) reviewed the literature related to preservice teachers’ training to use technology to promote the development of 21st-century skills (e.g., collaboration, critical thinking, creativity, problem-solving, and lifelong learning). Constructivist pedagogies were consistently evident across the empirical literature in studies focused on cultivating positive beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding technology use among preservice teachers. Essentially, preservice teachers who hold student-centered, constructivist pedagogical beliefs and positive attitudes toward technology are likelier to hold positive beliefs about the use of technology as a “knowledge-building” tool (Teo et al., 2021, p. 14), which aligns with the operational definition of TEL.

Belief systems can influence preservice teachers’ attitudes toward constructivist pedagogies and TEL (Tondeur et al., 2016). However, pedagogical beliefs should not be viewed as binary (e.g., either student-centered/constructivist or teacher-centered/behaviorist), as cautioned by Tondeur et al. (2016). Specifically, teachers’ beliefs about the nature of knowledge impact how they believe knowledge should be shared with others, thus informing pedagogical beliefs and ideas about the role technology plays during instruction (Chai et al., 2017; Tondeur et al., 2016). For example, positive attitudes toward technology contribute to more constructivist uses, just as technology-rich environments positively impact teacher beliefs and attitudes (Tondeur et al., 2016). This nuanced view of evolving beliefs about pedagogy and technology is critical when considering preservice teachers, given that their pedagogical beliefs and attitudes toward technology are more “recently formed, are more dynamic and thus, are more open to change” (Tondeur et al., 2016, p. 557) as they gain knowledge and skills in their teacher preparation programs (Chai et al., 2017).

Interestingly, many studies related to preservice teachers’ beliefs about and attitudes toward technology considered samples of preservice teachers who were in their first year of teacher preparation (Farjon et al., 2019; Nelson & Hawk, 2020; Sanchez-Prieto et al., 2019; Valtonen et al., 2015). However, Sadaf et al. (2012) noted that preservice teachers’ ideas about technology use in their future classrooms likely evolve with time and experience, making it valuable to consider changes in their pedagogical and technological beliefs and attitudes over time. Herring Watson and Rockinson-Szapkiw’s (2021) findings supported this idea when they included classification (i.e., undergraduate first-year, sophomore, junior, or senior) as a predictive variable in their study of preservice teachers’ intention to use TEL and found that intention to use TEL was highest among first-year preservice teachers and lowest among senior preservice teachers. While Farjon et al. (2019) collected data primarily from first-year preservice teachers, they did collect data across time and found that 3 months into their teacher preparation program, participants reported no change in their will to use technology for teaching. However, participants’ will, which is largely informed by attitudes, decreased at 6 months, even when participants reported that they perceived an increase in their skill with technology for teaching (Farjon et al., 2019). Herring Watson and Rockinson-Szapkiw (2021) further noted that these shifts in attitude over time could be informed by the participants’ increasing understanding of the complexities of teaching. Preservice teachers may perceive the idea of TEL as highly engaging and appealing but come to realize that actually using TEL may be daunting, considering the constraints of the physical school environment, curricular mandates, and classroom management.

Even considering decreases in positive attitudes toward technology as preservice teachers move through their programs of study, these quantitative studies demonstrate that positive attitudes toward technology are still the most common significant predictor of preservice teachers’ intention to use technology in their future classrooms (Farjon et al., 2019; Gurer & Akkaya, 2021; Herring Watson & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2021; Pozas & Letzel, 2021; Sadaf et al., 2012). However, quantitative studies do not demonstrate why and how preservice teachers’ positive attitudes toward TEL inform their intention to use and actual use of TEL, particularly during clinical experiences, such as student teaching.

Preservice Teachers’ Intentions to Use Technology and Actual Use

Much of the TPB literature regarding technology adoption focuses on intention. Clinical experiences, particularly student-teaching internships at the end of preservice teachers’ programs of study, provide an authentic context to practice using TEL. Practice is an essential factor in increasing the actual use of technology once preservice teachers enter the field of K-12 education (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2018; Tondeur et al., 2017). Student teaching is where intention to use TEL can translate into action, but few studies have examined the effect of clinical experiences on intention to use and actual use of TEL. Nelson and Hawk (2020), who explored the impact of early field experience observations on preservice teachers’ attitudes toward technology, noted the need to examine the role of field experiences in developing preservice teachers’ beliefs about technology integration and intention to use TEL, which can ultimately translate to use as preservice teachers move through their final student-teaching experiences.

Preservice teachers’ intention and ability to use TEL should not be assumed. While research from the early 2000s expressed a hopefulness that new teachers would be more “digitally able” (Starkey, 2010, p. 1430) given their greater access to technology hardware and software than previous generations of preservice teachers (Lei, 2009), they face barriers beyond access in their ability to use TEL. While today’s preservice teachers may use technology daily to conduct personal business and consume information (Rideout & Robb, 2019), they do not have an innate ability to transfer basic daily technology skills to the use of technology for academic purposes (Thompson, 2013, 2015) or for planning and designing instruction for students (Chai et al., 2017; Koehler et al., 2019). Indeed, scholars argued that teacher preparation programs must explicitly teach and model the skills and strategies necessary for successful TEL use across the teacher education curriculum (Borthwick et al., 2020; Foulger et al., 2019) and provide low-risk opportunities for preservice teachers to put learning about TEL into practice (Borthwick et al., 2020; Herring Watson & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2021).

The TPB literature demonstrates that preservice teachers’ attitudinal, normative, and control beliefs precede and inform the TPB constructs (attitudes, subjective norm, and PBC), which ultimately inform intention to use technology and actual use of it. For preservice teachers, positive attitudes, high self-efficacy, and perceived control over their teaching actions and environment predict and correlate with intention (Gurer & Akkaya, 2021; Joo et al., 2018; Nelson & Hawk, 2020; Pozas & Letzel, 2021), and preservice teachers often express strong intention to use technology to support student learning in their K-12 classrooms (Herring Watson & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2021; Farjon et al., 2019). However, there is a lack of research regarding how, if at all, those strong, positive TEL intentions translate into preservice teachers’ teaching actions upon entering the classroom and how, if at all, their experiences as preservice student teachers influence their TEL intention and actual use.

Scholars have used a variety of methodological approaches to understand teachers’ intention to use TEL; however, they have noted the value of qualitative studies to illustrate the complexities of how and why intentions to use TEL are formed during preservice teachers’ programs of study and how those intentions translate into actual use of TEL by preservice and first-year teachers (Herring Watson & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2021; Joo et al., 2018). While attitudes and intentions, and the beliefs that inform them, can be quantified, preservice and novice teachers’ salient antecedent beliefs about pedagogy (e.g., teacher-centered/behaviorist or student-centered/constructivist) and technology are complicated (Tondeur et al., 2017; Tondeur et al., 2016; Tsai & Tsai, 2019) and closely linked to how they see technology modeled during instruction, both by mentor teachers (Nelson & Hawk, 2020) and by college of education faculty (Chai et al., 2017; Tondeur et al., 2017). Qualitative approaches provide valuable insight into how and why preservice teachers’ attitudes and intentions are established during their programs of study and whether they lead to actual use of TEL among preservice teachers as they enter the K-12 space as student teachers. Exploring this phenomenon in more depth allows teacher education scholars to develop interventions for fostering constructivist beliefs, positive attitudes toward TEL, and, ultimately, intention to use TEL. In addition, there is a need to investigate the role of student-teaching experiences in cultivating intention to use and actual use of TEL, as this is a setting that has only been explored in a limited number of previous studies (Elstad & Christophersen, 2017; Nelson, 2020).

Materials and Methods

This qualitative, embedded single case study examined the evolution of preservice teachers’ intention to use and use of TEL during student teaching. This study focused on preservice teachers who completed a TEL-rich program of teacher preparation and were entering the field to test their TEL intentions. This study was rooted in social constructionism (Savin-Baden & Major, 2013; Yin, 2018). Ajzen’s (1985) TPB guided the development of interview protocols and a priori codes to focus on significant data elements.

This study focused on two primary research questions to explore the “complex set of factors surrounding the central phenomenon [TEL] and present the broad, varied perspectives or meanings that participants hold” (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p. 133).

Research Question 1 (RQ1): How do preservice teachers describe their TEL experiences?

Research Question 2 (RQ2): How do preservice teachers perceive that these experiences influenced their TEL intentions and behaviors during student teaching?

Preservice teachers were defined as students admitted to a college of education with the intent of pursuing a degree and initial licensure in the field of education (Goulette & Swanson, 2018). Student teaching was defined as a semester of embedded field experience in which a preservice teacher, in their final semester of study, worked alongside a mentor teacher in a K-12 classroom setting (Clark & Newberry, 2019).

Data Collection

Data were collected from a variety of sources, which represent the “full variety of evidence” (Yin, 2018, p. 12). After obtaining Institutional Review Board approval and informed consent from participants, interviews were conducted and recorded at the beginning and end of student teaching. The interview protocol is available online in the Appendix. Direct observations were conducted, during which the researcher observed individual participants teaching lessons in their student-teaching placements in which the participants felt they were using TEL strategies. Lesson plans and TEL artifacts associated with the direct observations were examined for evidence of TEL use. Table 1 provides an overview of the alignment between research questions, data collection methods, and instrumentation used.

Table 1.

Research Questions, Method Alignment, and Corresponding Instrumentation.

Research questions	Method alignment	Corresponding instrumentation
RQ1: How do preservice teachers describe their technology-enabled learning experiences?	One-on-one interviews	Interview protocols 2, 3, 3a, 4, 5, 5a, 7
RQ2: How do preservice teachers perceive these experiences influenced their technology-enabled learning intentions and behaviors during student teaching?	One-on-one interviews, observations, documents/artifacts	Interview protocols 1, 6, 8, 9a-9e, field notes, artifact notes

Participants

In alignment with the qualitative approach, this study delimited the sample to preservice teachers who were middle-level education majors obtaining teaching licensure for grades 4-8 in the state where the study was conducted (DESE, n.d.). The case or “bounded system” was defined as a shared cohort that participated in and was scheduled to graduate from the same program of study in a college of education at a mid-size public teaching university in the southeastern United States. Demographic information for each of the participants is provided in Table 2.

Table 2.

Participant Demographics.

Participantpseudonym^a	Student-teaching placement	Self-reported gender	Self-reported race	Age	Licensure area(s)
Hazel	Fifth-grade math	Woman	White	22	Math/social studies
Brooke	Fifth-/sixth-grade science	Woman	White	21	Science/math
Don	Sixth-grade math	Man	Black	22	Science/math
Rae	Fifth-grade science	Woman	Black	27	Science/social studies

Participants’ self-selected pseudonyms for this study.

All study participants engaged in their student-teaching semester in the same suburban school district during the spring 2021 semester. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, this school district initiated a 1:1 Chromebook program for all middle school students. Don and Brooke were placed at the same middle school serving a diverse population of fifth- to seventh-grade students. Hazel and Rae were the only preservice teachers placed at their respective middle schools, which also served students in grades 5 to 7. Information about student-teaching placements was collected from the state department of education data center (ADE Data Center, n.d.) (Table 3).

Table 3.

Student-Teaching Placements.

Participant pseudonym	Schoolpseudonym	Student pop.^a	Grade levels served	% SPED^b	% low-income students	% students of color	Avg. class size	Community type	1:1 status and device
Hazel	MS 1	568	5-7	14%	48%	38.0%	17	Suburban	1:1; Chromebook
Brooke	MS 2	534	5-7	12%	68%	56.1%	15	Suburban	1:1; Chromebook
Don	MS 2	534	5-7	12%	68%	56.1%	15	Suburban	1:1; Chromebook
Rae	MS 3	744	5-7	11%	54%	49.6%	17	Suburban	1:1; Chromebook

Student population is reported for the 2020 to 2021 academic year.

SPED are students receiving special education services.

Data Analysis

The study used two analytic strategies. In the first cycle of analysis, theoretical propositions guided the coding process. Because this case study used Ajzen’s (1985) TPB as a theoretical lens, the theory constructs (attitude, subjective norm, PBC, intention, and actual use) were established as a priori codes (Saldana, 2014) to focus on the significant data elements. One proposition from the TPB was that positive attitudes toward TEL would lead to positive expressions of intention to use TEL from the participants. In addition, Herring Watson and Rockinson-Szapkiw (2021) found that attitudes and PBC made significant individual contributions to preservice teachers’ intention to use TEL. Therefore, words and short phrases expressing positive attitudes, descriptions of self-efficacy and perceived controllability, and intention were identified in the data and placed in the analytic matrix to generate themes. In the second cycle of analysis, open and inductive coding was used to explore whether the established theory might be extended, given the experiences and perceptions of the study participants, especially where phrases and words did not fit within the a priori codes (Yin, 2018).

Findings

The Case

The bounded case included four participants pursuing the same program of study. The interview protocol was used to collect information from each participant about their perceptions and experiences regarding their preparation to use TEL in K-12 classrooms. Each of the participants referenced their program of study and noted the significance of the program in influencing their ideas about, intention to use TEL, and actual use of TEL. All participants shared that the first time they learned about or used TEL as a student and experienced student-centered TEL practices was in the program curriculum.

Key faculty were influential in participants’ perceptions of TEL. In both of his interviews, Don cited several courses and instructors throughout the program of study who he perceived as prominent users of TEL and influenced his ideas about and uses of TEL during student teaching. Brooke, Rae, and Hazel cited many of the same faculty members as influencing their ideas about, intention to use, and actual use of TEL. For example, Brooke stated that she felt encouraged and inspired by middle-level program faculty “actively using it [TEL] and encouraging us to also use it.” Hazel noted, “Technology-enabled learning became more important the further along I went through the Middle Level program. So as a student, the more exposure I had to technology in education, the more important it became to me.”

In the last semester of their shared program of study, each participant was placed in a local public middle school to complete their student teaching.

Hazel’s Student-Teaching Context

Hazel completed her student teaching in a fifth-grade math classroom at MS 1 and had a supportive mentor teacher, per her analysis: “My mentor is amazing. She’s really sweet and helpful. I did, like, a virtual escape room with the kids one time, and she got so excited.” While Hazel shared examples of her use of TEL during student teaching, Hazel’s mentor teacher preferred more traditional, direct instruction approaches, often neglecting technology. Hazel noted: “When they come into class, they sit down, and they get out the workbooks, and they just work problems with the teacher the whole time.” Thus, Hazel said she and her mentor teacher were on “different wavelengths” pedagogically. Hazel also was not able to collaborate with other teachers in the building to design and facilitate TEL:

There’s not a lot of teachers, at least in my part of the hallway, um, who use a lot of technology. And so, I didn’t have a whole lot of opportunity for collaboration. It was just, like, whatever I come up with.

Her teacher’s approach to technology appeared to reflect the school’s culture and approach to technology use, given Hazel’s inability to identify any teachers she had observed or talked to in the building who were using TEL. The school did not value TEL, as evidenced by Hazel’s experience with her mentor when planning lessons for the students in her placement:

Because my mentor is not as involved with using technology to teach, I don’t think she fully appreciated how meaningful it can be. She was never disrespectful or anything and unsupportive, but it was less of, “Oh, that’s such an engaging tool” or “That really, you know, encourages critical thinking.” It was more, “Oh, that is so cute. I think the kids would really like it.” [. . .] I was like, “Oh, this would really aid in their learning,” but I just got, “Oh, that’s cute.”

Thus, Hazel often felt condescended to by her mentor teacher when she brought up the use of TEL and felt inhibited in her use of TEL in this school placement.

Brooke’s Student-Teaching Context

Brooke completed her student teaching at MS 2 in a fifth- and sixth-grade science classroom. During interviews, Brooke described her perceptions of her student-teaching placement in detail. At the beginning of the spring 2021 semester, Brooke stated that she loved her student-teaching placement school. However, after just a few weeks, her ideas about classroom technology use had shifted because “everything is on the computer” due to the COVID-19 pandemic. During the spring 2021 semester, this school had students learning in-person and virtually; however, in-person instruction had to remain socially distant, and paper handouts and shared supplies were discouraged. Therefore, many teachers primarily used the students’ Chromebooks to provide resources and instructional materials.

Almost a year into the COVID-19 pandemic, despite the need to use more computer-mediated instruction, teachers at MS 2 were unfamiliar with tools that could be used to support TEL. According to Brooke, they were relying on passive consumption of videos and digital worksheet completion. Brooke had a negative view of this use of technology. She said,

Walking into [MS 2] my first week, literally the classes were silent . . .So, I was really discouraged my first week . . . If you would’ve asked me that first week when they [students] were just staring at their computers, I would have said, “No, get the computers away. No more technology.”

Essentially, Brooke did not perceive passive technology uses in her student-teaching placement as examples of TEL. In her April 2021 interview, she stated: “They are still using it [technology] to just push out busy work that would have been just paper and pencil . . .no teacher/student interaction, no student-to-student interaction.”

Despite this, Brooke perceived her mentor teacher as positive, open-minded, and complimentary toward her use of TEL in the lessons she created and facilitated. Brooke posited that the teachers in the building had not been exposed to the same technology resources and possibilities that she had learned about in her program of study. In her final interview, she stated, “I think that they’ve never seen how technology-enabled learning should actually be done in an engaging way that is actually pushing the students to create their learning and extend their learning.” Similarly, the students were often unfamiliar with the tools she used to facilitate TEL (e.g., Nearpod), which required her to teach them “how to use the platform that you’re using.” However, she stated, “It’s so exciting for them [students] to be able to use it, and they enjoy using it.” While her student-teaching placement and the faculty there were not prohibitive to her use of TEL, Brooke did not feel that they actively promoted or modeled its use.

Don’s Student-Teaching Context

Don completed his student teaching at MS 2 in a sixth-grade math classroom. In his initial interview in February 2021, he described his mentor teacher as “definitely amazing.” Don and his mentor teacher were significantly younger than most of the teachers in the building, and Don stated that they tried to provide students with a “new generation-type education,” which he aligned with TEL. Don’s mentor teacher was already using technology to support instruction, and Don stated that this aligned well with his ideas about how teaching and learning should look. When asked whether he felt there was an exchange of ideas between him and his mentor teacher, Don replied, “Yes, most definitely,” and provided examples of how they shared ideas about using technology in their lessons.

However, his mentor teacher’s classroom and support for TEL were a “different atmosphere” from the rest of the school, which he described as a “‘Here’s the work, do it’ type of situation.” Like Brooke, Don noted that most of the technology use he observed during required teaching observations in other classrooms at MS 2 was teacher-directed and passive in nature, and he did not align this kind of technology use with TEL. Don stated, “It’s just not engaging, and it’s not, um, active, or I don’t think it’s active learning.” Like Brooke and Hazel, Don seemed to suggest that while no one at his student-teaching placement discouraged his use of TEL, they (except for his mentor teacher) did not actively promote student-centered TEL practices. Don also highlighted the presence of infrastructure-related barriers to TEL, noting that Wi-Fi was sometimes unreliable when facilitating TEL. However, he insisted that this was a barrier worth overcoming, especially given how positively his students responded to TEL: “They’re great. They stay on top of, on topic . . . They’re engaged. They’re listening. They’re participating. It’s great!”

Rae’s Student-Teaching Context

Rae completed her student teaching at MS 3 in a fifth-grade science classroom. Rae provided insight into the school environment during her February and April 2021 interviews. Like Don, Rae noted that Wi-Fi, “slower than dial-up,” presented a barrier to the use of TEL. However, like Don, she also felt it was a barrier worth overcoming. Rae noted that at the start of the semester, “none of the science teachers in the school knew technology.” Like the other participants, when she first arrived at MS 3, Rae saw most of the technology used by students as passive and consumptive: “So when I first came, they watched a lot of videos and just answered assessments. Questions, videos, questions, videos, questions.” However, her experience differed from the other participants in that the teachers she worked with during student teaching were highly supportive of and open to her use of TEL. They welcomed her as a full member of their science content-area team: “All the science teachers in the school have, like, they support each other . . . anything that I’ve brought that’s been new with technology, they share it with each other, and they’re always like, ‘Wow! That’s cool!’”

While I largely did not interact with school personnel at any of the student-teaching placements during this study, I did interact with Rae’s mentor teacher during my virtual observation of her teaching. Before the lesson, Rae’s mentor teacher told me what a wonderful job Rae was doing in her student teaching. I asked Rae about her mentor teacher’s enthusiasm, and she emphasized that her mentor teacher was highly supportive and open-minded, even though her mentor teacher’s use of TEL was limited. Rae’s mentor teacher created significant space for her to grow by encouraging Rae to experiment with a variety of TEL strategies throughout student teaching. While the MS 3 faculty at large did not use TEL regularly, Rae was given freedom to use TEL.

Themes

The following themes were identified from the combined data (interviews, observation field notes, and teaching artifacts).

Significant Experiences Influence TEL Intention and Use

In their interviews, each participant named significant educational experiences that influenced their TEL intention and use. These experiences included the stand-alone educational technology course in their program of study, a final block of courses they took online due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and student teaching. These experiences were influenced by individuals they held in high esteem (e.g., faculty), aligning this theme with subjective norm. However, their experiences also increased their self-efficacy and sense of control over their ability to use TEL. Thus, this theme also aligns with PBC and demonstrates how both self-efficacy and perceived controllability contribute to PBC (Ajzen, 1985, 2002).

All participants described the significance of taking a stand-alone educational technology course in the first semester of their program of study. Hazel described “seeing, first, that the technology class is not the scariest thing in the world, and that normal people, like myself, can find ways to use technology that is beneficial to the students.” Brooke stated, “The technology class that we took . . . was really kind of the first time I learned about technology in a way that I could actually apply to my future classroom.” Similarly, Hazel described how the technology course impacted her ideas about teaching and learning:

For me, that was a big eye-opening experience because I didn’t really have the tool belt, right? Knowing all the different things that I could do with technology in the classroom . . .

And I’ve used what I learned in that class in all the lessons I’ve written since.

Rae expressed a similar sentiment about this course “opening doors to more technology” that she uses now. The participants named the dual focus on pedagogy and technology in the course as helpful in developing their ideas about and confidence using TEL. Don also cited the course as a pivotal experience that allowed him to build his knowledge of various technology resources that made TEL possible. In addition, he described the value of the physical environment in which the course was taught (mobile learning classroom with modular furniture, multiple Apple TVs, and display screens) to envision learning in a new way: “Seeing the, all the different ways we can use technology to create a learning environment, it really opened my eyes up.”

Furthermore, the alignment of TEL with the College of Education vision and mission impacted the participants: “It being such a priority in the college of ed has really encouraged me and given me motivation to use it [TEL] to the best of my ability.” In addition, all participants stated that positive TEL experiences across College of Education courses influenced their intention to use TEL:

. . . my experiences in the middle level program, they were . . . very positive experiences with technology. And, so, I think that showed me that if that was helpful for us as college students, then it was definitely going to be a practice that would be helpful for, you know, middle schoolers and junior high kids. I think those positive experiences really just encouraged me to want to put forth that extra work to do the technology so that the students could, um, see the benefits of that.

Notably, participants felt that the shift to online learning necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic did not affect their intention to use and use of TEL. Brooke stated,

[TEL] didn’t happen in college until I got into the education program . . . even before COVID, our classes were intentional about at least sprinkling a little bit of technology-enabled learning and, like, resources we could use in our future classrooms . . . My experience was learning about a new tool and then learning how to use it and how it would actually be beneficial to me in my classroom.

This indicates that the program of study provides a robust program-deep and program-wide use of TEL.

However, the participants were required to take their final block of courses (prior to student teaching) online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. While they all expressed that they developed an intention to use TEL even prior to this shift to online learning, they also all described this instructional shift as a significant experience that influenced their use of TEL. Hazel, Brooke, and Rae all stated that learning online and seeing their instructors teach online showed them what was possible with TEL:

I guess it was a semester—that we were fully online, showed me, um, different tools. . . that fall, I think it was, when we were . . . It wasn’t survival. It was, “Okay. Well, we’ve had some time to figure things out. How can we make this work?” Um, was really beneficial . . . And I honestly, I probably could have Googled, but would I have known what to Google had that not happened?

Don stated, “Having that experience with where we were forced to go online and on Zoom and learning through those different avenues really shaped my ideas of a technology-based classroom.” Rae expressed being “thankful” for the experience of learning online during the pandemic because “certain things that we’ve learned just in the past two semesters of being in college during the pandemic . . . these teachers don’t know about because they just don’t have, have never needed to have that experience.” The participants all felt that this unique learning experience shaped the value they assigned TEL and the ways they used it in their teaching. This shared experience encouraged participants that all teachers could successfully use TEL. As Hazel stated, “They [program faculty] all can figure out how to do it, so I can figure it out, too . . . This [TEL] is something that’s accessible to all of us.”

Finally, all participants identified student teaching as a significant experience that influenced their intention to use and use of TEL, primarily because they were teaching in a hybrid environment where students attended in-person and virtually simultaneously. For each participant, the challenge of providing meaningful learning for all students, regardless of where they were learning, was an issue of equity:

During [student teaching] when we were at the schools, um, just finding ways to enhance the learning for not only the students that were in the classroom, but also the, the virtual students, um, technology-enabled learning really helped that because you were always focused on how can I engage both, both sets of students, um, but still allow them to get the same content?

Navigating this challenge pushed the participants to use TEL:

If anything, they [TEL beliefs] grew stronger. Because I was pushed to go, in a way, away from the traditional school teaching methods of whiteboard and marker . . . And I was able to go and venture out and try different things.

In addition, most participants had highly supportive mentor teachers who encouraged their use of TEL during student teaching. Rae recounted how open her mentor was to new ways of teaching, like TEL, which caused Rae to greatly value what she had learned about TEL: “My mentor teacher always says, ‘We’re always learning.’ And if I could teach a seasoned teacher something, then I’m like, ‘That’s valuable. What I learned [in my program of study] was valuable.’” Alternatively, Hazel did not have a mentor teacher who expressed interest in TEL, but this did not seem to inhibit her use of TEL during student teaching. Instead, it seemed to motivate Hazel to demonstrate the effectiveness of TEL as a pedagogical approach, and she sought support in her practice from the other cohort members and college of education faculty.

Actual Uses of TEL During Student Teaching

The participants provided numerous descriptions of lessons they taught as student teachers that incorporated TEL, and the participants’ lesson descriptions and the observations of participants’ teaching were coded for qualities that they aligned with TEL. The codes were collapsed into three sub-themes: (a) TEL use is flexible, differentiated, and personalized; (b) TEL use is relevant and authentic; and (c) TEL use is collaborative. Notably, the participants were never provided an operational definition of TEL during this study; they were simply asked to describe TEL. Although the participants were not given the operational definition of TEL, the definitions and descriptions they provided in their interviews aligned with the operational definition (Table 4). Likewise, direct observations of their uses of TEL aligned with their descriptions of TEL and the operational definition of the construct.

Table 4.

Alignment of TEL Descriptions, Actual Uses, and Theoretical Attributes.

Participant descriptions and researcher observations of actual TEL use	Theoretical alignment
TEL use is flexible, differentiated, and personalized. TEL use is relevant and authentic .TEL use is collaborative.	TEL is the student-centered use of technology as a cognitive tool to communicate, collaborate, develop critical thinking skills, and solve authentic problems (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013; Jonassen, 1994, 2005; Nelson & Hawk, 2020)
TEL use is relevant and authentic. TEL use is collaborative.	TEL is used to communicate, collaborate, develop critical thinking skills, and solve authentic problems (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013; Jonassen, 1994, 2005; Nelson & Hawk, 2020)
TEL use is flexible, differentiated, and personalized. TEL use is relevant and authentic.	TEL is student-centered (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013; Jonassen, 1994, 2005)

TEL Use is Flexible, Differentiated, and Personalized

All participants described ways that TEL made differentiation more subtle, particularly for students with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) and 504 accommodations. Don described the value of student-paced instruction:

[Students] can go through [the lesson] at their own speed. If they have questions about something, they can come to me about it . . . I can be in more of a facilitator role. I can move around the classroom and help those IEP kids, help the 504 kids. And just challenge the ones that’s already got it, help the ones that don’t, that need a little pushing.

Personalized pacing was used and discussed by multiple participants. Rae, Brooke, and Don all described facilitating engagement with interactive virtual labs in their science classrooms. Hazel emphasized how collaborative, small-group TEL allowed her to differentiate the pace of instruction. Students could move at their own pace and receive guidance from the technology and her, as the facilitator moving around the room. For example, during an observation, she used a student-paced Pear Deck activity to facilitate a math lesson about multiplying fractions by whole numbers. This allowed students to move through the content and practice at their own pace, with a partner to support critical thinking.

Uses and descriptions of TEL also demonstrated that TEL is flexible, differentiated, and personalized in that students have multiple ways to demonstrate what they have learned through varied formative and summative assessments. Rae gave students options for creating infographics that matched their comfort level with technology. Don also provided multiple ways for students to respond to interactive elements of his lessons (e.g., audio, video, text-based response). He stated that “having that differentiation of the way they can answer the questions, that’s more student-centered to me.” Brooke, too, valued multiple means of student expression because it “gives them the, um, the autonomy to be able to explore and, um, interact with [the content] kind of at their own pace.” All of the strategies the participants used and described were designed to prioritize the learning needs of their students. Thus, this sub-theme aligns with the idea of TEL as a student-centered strategy (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013; Jonassen, 1994, 2005).

TEL Use is Relevant and Authentic

All participants used TEL in ways that provided students with a relevant and authentic context for content-area instruction. They felt that high student engagement in the learning process was an essential element of TEL. Lesson artifacts (e.g., lesson plans and activity materials) and observed lessons engaged students as “scientists,” “engineers,” and “detectives,” solving problems collaboratively as a way to explore new content or apply recently learned skills. Rae, Brooke, and Hazel liked to employ “digital escape rooms” and “digital scavenger hunts” as forms of guided inquiry and content exploration. For example, Rae taught a vocabulary lesson where students “started off as engineers. The first slide was a vocabulary investigation. It’s up to you to solve all the clues and uh, save Earth . . . It was sort of a scavenger hunt.” Brooke facilitated a virtual “escape room” in which students solved problems to unlock clues by exploring resources embedded in a Google Site. Students used the information they gathered to creatively design a visual in which they compared the parts of a cell with the parts of a middle school. Don’s use of TEL was rooted in his desire to create a sense of belonging in his students: “Finding content that’s relevant . . . We have a lot of Black students at [MS 2]. How can I make them feel included within the class as well?”

These uses of TEL were rooted in providing students with a relevant and authentic context that motivated them to actively engage in learning—something that each participant stated they valued. For example, Don’s use of TEL was rooted in providing an “authentic educational experience.” Hazel stated that technology helps students “think critically to solve problems, effectively communicate through different mediums, and utilize creativity to achieve goals” while also helping them “construct their learning through authentically experiencing the issues at hand.” Brooke described her “belief in the power of technology to enhance education” by facilitating “authentic and meaningful connections between [students’] education and the world around them.”

TEL Use is Collaborative

Collaboration was deemed an essential attribute of authentic technology use by the participants, aligning directly with the operational definition of TEL. As shown by field observations and artifacts, students worked with partners or small groups while the participant facilitated lesson activities. Not only did students collaborate in small groups, but they also collaborated virtually by contributing their ideas to discussion boards in real-time using various tools. For example, Rae used Jamboard to facilitate an inquiry about star brightness. Students inferred the meaning of content-related terms and worked with a partner to identify actual definitions. Their answers were curated onto a collaborative discussion board in real-time. Hazel stated that collaboration was a “big thing” because she had in-person and virtual students. All participants discussed the importance of creating “the same learning experience” for all students, regardless of where they were learning. For example, Hazel used student-paced Nearpods and Pear Decks to partner an in-person student with a virtual student, allowing them to collaborate even when not in the same physical space, stating that technology provides “a way to create community, even though we’re not all together.”

Discussion

In this study, participants’ descriptions and uses of technology largely aligned with the operational definition of TEL—the student-centered use of technology as a cognitive tool to communicate, collaborate, develop critical thinking skills, and solve authentic problems (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013; Jonassen, 1994, 2005; Nelson & Hawk, 2020). While this definition was not provided to participants, they cited many of the same attributes of TEL when asked to describe it. For example, three participants consistently stated that TEL is a student-centered practice. Participants stated that collaboration, critical thinking, communication among learners, and particularly the facilitation of learning with a relevant and authentic context were critical elements of TEL. In addition, their technology use aligned with this definition of TEL, demonstrating a strong alignment between the participants’ beliefs and behaviors.

Ajzen’s (1985, 1991) TPB was an appropriate lens through which to examine the body of evidence. The results cohere with previous TPB research that found attitude to be a significant predictor of intention to integrate educational technology among preservice and inservice teachers (Herring Watson & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2021; Li et al., 2016; Sadaf et al., 2012; Teo & van Schaik, 2012). In addition, Ajzen (2002) aligned PBC with self-efficacy and perceived controllability. The present results confirm that both internal factors contributing to self-efficacy and external factors contributing to perceived controllability influenced the participants’ intention to use and actual use of TEL.

This study extends previous findings from Herring Watson and Rockinson-Szapkiw (2021), in which TEL intention was lowest during preservice teachers’ student-teaching semester, by providing robust descriptions of issues that preservice teachers face. One major factor that could impact intention to use and use of TEL is the mentor teacher’s support (or lack thereof). Previous research established the impact of mentor teachers on preservice teachers’ conceptions of teaching and technology integration (Nelson & Hawk, 2020; Orland-Barak & Wang, 2021). Here, the presence of a highly supportive, growth-minded mentor teacher supported TEL intention and use, but some preservice teachers’ positive attitudes toward TEL and high TEL self-efficacy (e.g., Hazel) may allow them to persist in their use of TEL, regardless of the mentor teacher’s level of support. Hazel’s experience also highlights the importance of a robust TEL presence across the program of study and continued support of the university throughout the student-teaching semester.

Many scholars (Buss et al., 2015; Foulger et al., 2019; Herring Watson & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2021; Tondeur et al., 2012; Voithofer & Nelson, 2021) have advocated for a program-deep and program-wide approach to teaching and modeling TEL in teacher preparation programs, and the study findings support this. All participants felt strongly that their shared program of study played a pivotal role in shaping their descriptions of how TEL looks during instruction, their high TEL self-efficacy and strong positive attitudes toward TEL, and their actual uses of TEL. This messaging was consistent across interviews and member-checking focus groups. Therefore, teacher preparation programs seeking to develop preservice teachers’ intention to use and actual use of technology could consider a TEL audit that analyzes curriculum and identifies opportunities to learn about and practice using TEL across pedagogy-related coursework.

In addition, all participants named their educational technology course as a primary factor in sparking their interest in TEL. While many institutions have discontinued stand-alone educational technology courses in favor of a technology infusion approach (Buss et al., 2015; Foulger et al., 2019), existing courses may be situated too early in the program of study, when students do not have the pedagogical beliefs to pair with the technology they learn about in these courses. Teacher preparation programs should consider when, if at all, educational technology courses are offered and situate them near courses that teach and use student-centered pedagogies. These findings support a program-deep, program-wide technology-infusion approach combined with a technology integration course to solidify preservice teachers’ intention to use and actual use of TEL.

Future research should investigate the role of subjective norm in influencing TEL intention and use. These participants saw others’ negative attitudes toward TEL as a challenge to overcome and did not necessarily default to more traditional pedagogies. This finding diverged from the theoretical understanding subjective norm. Qualitative methods could be used to replicate this study and determine whether this finding was unique to this context.

While this study provides unique insight on the topic of TEL and student teachers, it has limitations. The generalizability of the findings is limited, given the specific context of the study and small sample size. However, the study offers transferability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), the “application of similar findings elsewhere” (Savin-Baden & Major, 2013, p. 475), particularly to teacher educators seeking to examine their own program practices regarding TEL. In addition, while multiple data sources were used for triangulation, interviews are a form of self-report, and participants may have provided what they perceived as desirable responses (Savin-Baden & Major, 2013). Finally, participants selected dates for direct observations when they knew they would use TEL. Randomly scheduled direct observations could have yielded different results. Finally, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all qualitative data were collected virtually. While there is precedent for this (Archibald et al., 2019), there were likely data that were not observed.

Conclusion

This embedded single case study allowed for an in-depth exploration and rich description of middle-level education majors’ intention to use and actual use of TEL during student teaching. While the TPB has been used as a theoretical framework for research into preservice teachers’ intentions to use technology (Sadaf et al., 2012; Valtonen et al., 2015) and to adopt specific curricula or teaching strategies (Gretter & Yadav, 2018; Voet & De Wever, 2020), a criticism of the TPB is that intention is not action. This study addressed this criticism because it investigated what factors influenced intention and whether intention to use TEL led to actual use. Theoretically, the results validated use of the TPB to describe preservice teachers’ intention to use and actual use of TEL.

The study also produced practical implications for colleges of education by providing insight into what learning experiences the participants deemed most impactful on their intention to use and actual use of TEL, potentially informing program development to advance the use of TEL among preservice teachers. If the transformative potential of technology is to be fully realized in education, then educators must thoughtfully examine their uses of technology and the pedagogies they use to support learners. Colleges of education can engage in this work, bridge the digital divide, and advance educational equity by adopting a program-deep and program-wide approach to increasing intention to use and actual use of TEL among preservice teachers.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jte-10.1177_00224871241268577 – Supplemental material for From Intention to Action: How Preservice Teachers Use Technology-Enabled Learning During Student Teaching

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jte-10.1177_00224871241268577 for From Intention to Action: How Preservice Teachers Use Technology-Enabled Learning During Student Teaching by Jessica Herring Watson in Journal of Teacher Education

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Jessica Herring Watson

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biography

Jessica Herring Watson is an Assistant Professor in the College of Education at the University of Central Arkansas. With over a decade of teaching experience in K-12 and higher education, her work focuses on cultivating meaningful relationships between technology-enabled learning and engaging pedagogy. Her research investigates preservice and inservice teachers’ development and persistent use of technology-enabled learning to cultivate more inclusive, creative, and engaging learning environments and to transform educational cultures.

References

ADE Data Center. (n.d.). My School Info. https://myschoolinfo.arkansas.gov/

Admiraal

Louws

Lockhorst

Paas

Buynsters

Cviko

Janssen

de Jonge

Nouwens

Post

van der Ven

Kester

(2017). Teachers in school-based technology innovations: A typology of their beliefs on teaching and technology. Computers & Education, 114, 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.013

Ajzen

(1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Kuhl

Beckmann

(Eds.), Action control (pp. 11–39). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Ajzen

(2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(4), 665–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x

Archibald

M. M.

Ambagtsheer

R. C.

Casey

M. G.

Lawless

(2019). Using zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: Perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919874596

Barak

(2017). Science teacher education in the twenty-first century: A pedagogical framework for technology-integrated social constructivism. Research in Science Education, 47(2), 283–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9501-y

Borthwick

A. C.

Foulger

T. S.

Graziano

K. J.

(2020). Championing technology infusion in teacher preparation: A framework for supporting future educators. International Society for Technology in Education.

Bower

Highfield

Furney

Mowbray

(2013). Supporting preservice teachers’ technology-enabled learning design thinking through whole of programme transformation. Educational Media International, 50(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2013.777183

10.

Buss

R. R.

Foulger

T. S.

(2021, April 8–12). Assessing influences of contextual, knowledge on technology integration: Intention to teach with technology (IT2) survey [Paper presentation]. American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Virtual.

11.

Buss

R. R.

Wetzel

Foulger

T. S.

Lindsey

(2015). Preparing teachers to integrate technology into K-12 instruction: Comparing a stand-alone technology course with a technology-infused approach. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 31(4), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2015.1055012

12.

Chai

C. S.

Tan

Deng

Koh

J. H. L.

(2017). Examining pre-service teachers’ design capacities for web-based 21st century new culture of learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(2), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3013

13.

Cheah

Y. H.

Oliveri

A. R.

Hughes

J. E.

(2023). Unpacking K-12 teachers’ technology-supported, equitable practices: A mixed-methods systematic review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 125, 103984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103984

14.

Clark

Newberry

(2019). Are we building preservice teacher self-efficacy? A large-scale study examining teacher education practices. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 47(1), 32–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866x.2018.1497772

15.

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2022). 2022 CAEP standards. https://caepnet.org/standards/2022-itp/introduction

16.

Creswell

J. W.

Creswell

J. D.

(2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.

17.

Department of Elementary and Secondary Education [DESE]. (n.d.). Educator Licensure. https://dese.ade.arkansas.gov/Offices/educator-effectiveness/educator-licensure

18.

Elstad

Christophersen

(2017). Perceptions of digital competency among student teachers: Contributing to the development of student teachers’ instructional self-efficacy in technology-rich classrooms. Education Sciences, 7(1), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci7010027

19.

Ertmer

P. A.

Ottenbreit-Leftwich

(2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required by Jonassen’s vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers & Education, 64, 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.008

20.

Farjon

Smits

Voogt

(2019). Technology integration of preservice teachers explained by attitudes and beliefs, competency, access, and experience. Computers & Education, 130, 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.11.010

21.

Foulger

T. S.

Wetzel

Buss

R. R.

(2019). Moving toward a technology infusion approach: Considerations for teacher preparation programs. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(2), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2019.1568325

22.

Goulette

Swanson

(2018). Video considerations for the world language edTPA. In Khosrow-Pour

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of information science and technology (4th ed., pp. 7682–7691). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-2255-3

23.

Gretter

Yadav

(2018). What do preservice teachers think about teaching media literacy? An exploratory study using the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 10(1), 104–123. https://doi.org/10.23860/jmle-2018-10-1-6

24.

Gurer

M. D.

Akkaya

(2021). The influence of pedagogical beliefs on technology acceptance: A structural equation modeling study of pre-service mathematics teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 25, 479–495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-021-09504-5

25.

Han

Shin

W. S.

(2017). The effect of student teaching experience and teacher beliefs on pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy and intention to use technology in teaching. Teachers and Teaching, 23(7), 829–842. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2017.1322057

26.

Heath

Asim

Milman

Henderson

(2022). Confronting the tools of the oppressor: Framing just technology integration in educational technology and teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 22(4), 754–777. https://citejournal.org/volume-22/issue-4-22/current-practice/confronting-tools-of-the-oppressor-framing-just-technology-integration-in-educational-technology-and-teacher-education/

27.

Heath

M. K.

Segal

(2021). What pre-service teacher technology integration conceals and reveals: “Colorblind” technology in schools. Computers & Education, 170, 104225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104225

28.

Herring Watson

Rockinson-Szapkiw

(2021). Predicting preservice teachers’ intention to use technology-enabled learning. Computers & Education, 168, 104207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104207

29.

Hsu

(2016). Examining current beliefs, practices, and barriers about technology integration: A case study. TechTrends, 60(1), 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-015-0014-3

30.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2017). ISTE standards for educators. https://www.iste.org/standards/for-educators

31.

Jonassen

D. H.

(1994). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology, 34(4), 34–37.

32.

Jonassen

D. H.

(2005). Technology as cognitive tools: Learners as designers. ITForum Paper, 1, 67–80.

33.

Joo

Y. J.

Park

Lim

(2018). Factors influencing preservice teachers’ intention to use technology: TPACK, teacher self-efficacy, and technology acceptance model. Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 48–59.

34.

Koehler

A. A.

Ertmer

P. A.

Newby

T. J.

(2019). Developing preservice teachers’ instructional design skills through case-based instruction: Examining the impact of discussion format. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(4), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118755701

35.

Lei

(2009). Digital natives as preservice teachers: What technology preparation is needed? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(3), 87–97.

36.

Franklin

(2016). Preservice teachers’ intention to adopt technology in their future classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(7), 946–966. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116641694

37.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.

38.

Nelson

M. J.

(2020). The effects of classroom and field experiences with technology on preservice teachers’ beliefs and teaching practices [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

39.

Nelson

M. J.

Hawk

N. A.

(2020). The impact of field experiences on prospective preservice teachers’ technology integration beliefs and intentions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 89, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.103006

40.

Orland-Barak

Wang

(2021). Teacher mentoring in service of preservice teachers’ learning to teach: Conceptual bases, characteristics, and challenges for teacher education reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 72(1), 86–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487119894230

41.

Ottenbreit-Leftwich

Liao

J. Y.

Sadik

Ertmer

(2018). Evolution of teachers’ technology integration knowledge, beliefs, and practices: How can we support beginning teachers use of technology? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 50(4), 282–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2018.1487350

42.

Pozas

Letzel

(2021). “Do you think you have what it takes?” Exploring predictors of pre-service teachers’ prospective ICT use. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 28, 823–841. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09551-0

43.

Puckett

Rafalow

M. H.

(2020). COVID-19, technology, and implications for educational equity. American Sociological Association Footnotes, 48(3), 34–35.

44.

Rideout

Robb

M. B.

(2019). The Common Sense census: Media use by tweens and teens, 2019. Common Sense Media.

45.

Sadaf

Newby

T. J.

Ertmer

P. A.

(2012). Exploring factors that predict preservice teachers’ intentions to use web 2.0 technologies using decomposed theory of planned behavior. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(2), 171–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2012.10782602

46.

Saldana

(2014). Coding and analysis strategies. In Leavy

(Ed.), The Oxford guidebook of qualitative strategies (pp. 581–605). Oxford Handbooks. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199811755.013.001

47.

Sanchez-Prieto

J. C.

Hernandez-Garcia

Garcia-Penalvo

F. J.

Chaparro-Pelaez

Olmos-Miguelanez

(2019). Break the walls! Second-order barriers and the acceptance of mLearning by first-year pre-service teachers. Computers in Human Behavior, 95, 158–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.019

48.

Savin-Baden

Major

C. H.

(2013). Qualitative research: The essential guide to theory and practice. Routledge.

49.

Scherer

Teo

(2019). Unpacking teachers’ intentions to integrate technology: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 27, 90–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.03.001

50.

Starkey

(2010). Supporting the digitally able beginning teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(7), 1429–1438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.05.002

51.

Teo

Unwin

Scherer

Gardiner

(2021). Initial teacher training for twenty-first century skills in the Fourth Industrial Revolution (IR 4.0): A scoping review. Computers & Education, 170, 104223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104223

52.

Teo

van Schaik

(2012). Understanding the intention to use technology by preservice teachers: An empirical test of competing theoretical models. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 28, 178–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2011.581892

53.

Thompson

(2013). The digital natives as learners: Technology use patterns and approaches to learning. Computers & Education, 65, 12–33. https://doi.org/10.106/j.compedu.2012.12.022

54.

Thompson

(2015). How digital native learners describe themselves. Education and Information Technologies, 20(3), 467–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-013-9295-3

55.

Tondeur

Roblin

N. P.

van Braak

Voogt

Prestridge

(2017). Preparing beginning teachers for technology integration in education: Ready for take-off? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(2), 157–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939x.2016.1193556

56.

Tondeur

van Braak

Ertmer

P. A.

Ottenbreit-Leftwich

(2016). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 555–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2

57.

Tondeur

van Braak

Sang

Voogt

Fisser

Ottenbreit-Leftwich

(2012). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers & Education, 59(1), 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.009

58.

Tsai

(2019). Preservice teachers’ conceptions of teaching using mobile devices and the quality of technology integration in lesson plans. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2), 614–625. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12613

59.

Valtonen

Kukkonen

Kontkanen

Dillon

Sointu

(2015). The impact of authentic learning experiences with ICT on preservice teachers’ intentions to use ICT for teaching and learning. Computers & Education, 81, 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.09.008

60.

Voet

De Wever

(2020). How do teachers prioritize instructional goals? Using the theory of planned behavior to explain goal coverage. Teaching and Teacher Education, 89, 103005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.103005

61.

Voithofer

Nelson

M. J.

(2021). Teacher educator technology integration preparation practices around TPACK in the United States. Journal of Teacher Education, 72(3), 314–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487120949842

62.

Yin

R. K.

(2018). Case study research: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.11 MB