Teacher educators’ and pre-service teachers’ confidence toward the use of ICT in education

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Teacher educators’ and pre-service teachers’ confidence toward the use of ICT in education © 2024 Mikko Vesisenaho, Mari Kyllönen, Jari Kukkonen , Teemu Valtonen, Päivi Häkkinen Published version Vesisenaho, Mikko; Kyllönen, Mari; Kukkonen, Jari; Valtonen, Teemu; Häkkinen, Päivi Vesisenaho, M., Kyllönen, M., Kukkonen, J., Valtonen, T., & Häkkinen, P. (2024). Teacher educators’ and pre-service teachers’ confidence toward the use of ICT in education. Seminar.net, 20(1), Article 4687. https://doi.org/10.7577/seminar.4687 2024 ISSN: 1504-4831 Vol 20, No 1 (2024) https://doi.org/10.7577/seminar.4687 ©2024 (the authors). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license. Teacher educators’ and pre-service teachers’ confidence toward the use of ICT in education Mikko Vesisenaho University of Jyväskylä & North-West University [email protected] Mari Kyllönen University of Jyväskylä [email protected] Jari Kukkonen University of Eastern Finland [email protected] Teemu Valtonen University of Eastern Finland [email protected] Päivi Häkkinen University of Jyväskylä [email protected] Abstract Todays’ teacher education needs to provide pre-service teachers with readiness to integrate ICT in education. Teacher educators are expected to serve as role models for pre-service teachers, providing them with examples and meaningful experiences of learning with ICT. The aim of this study is to provide an insight into teacher educators’ and pre-service teachers’ confidence toward Teacher educators’ and pre-service teachers’ confidence in ICT use 2 using ICT in education. In this study, both groups assessed their Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK). The aim was to study the possible differences between teacher educators’ and pre-service teachers’ TPK assessments, and based on their assessments, to provide insights into teacher educators’ readiness to act as role models for pre-service teachers. The participants of the study were 123 pre-service teachers and 83 teacher educators. The results indicate that the assessments of teacher educators were higher than pre-service teachers’ assessments at the sample level. The results also indicate that pre-service teachers and teacher educators can both be divided into two aligning sub-groups, with higher and lower assessments. However, the comparison of these sub-groups showed that the assessments of the pre-service teachers in the higher sub-group were higher than with the assessments of the teacher educators in the lower (modest) sub-group. This study provides evidence for variation among teacher educators and preservice teachers in terms of their TPK. This implies a need for more tailored ways to develop TPK in teacher education. Keywords: teacher education, technology enhanced education, teacher educator, pre-service teachers, ICT, TPACK Teacher educators’ and pre-service teachers’ confidence in ICT use 3 Introduction Preparing students for digital citizenship is one of the core tasks of today’s schooling. Students are expected to gain so called 21st century skills that emphasize the abilities for collaborative working and problem solving, creative and critical thinking and the use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) (Binkley et al., 2012; Voogt & Pareja Roblin, 2012; Lindfors, Pettersson, & Olofsson, 2021). Similar goals can also be seen in the Finnish curriculum that emphasizes collaborative learning practices, students’ active role in learning and especially the role of ICT. ICT is seen as a tool and target for learning, students need to be provided with skills to use ICT as a tool for learning and working (FNBoE, 2014). These needs pose expectations for schools, teachers, and teacher educators. ICT in education is a challenging area because of its rapidly developing nature (Freeman, Adams Becker, Cummins, Davis, & Hall Giesinger, 2017; Weller, 2020). New applications and pedagogical practices are constantly developed, providing different possibilities for supporting learning but also needs for familiarizing oneself with the technologies. Currently technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Learning Analytics (LA) challenge teachers and teacher educators to consider their role and potential in education (Vartiainen, Tedre & Jormanainen, 2023; López-Pernas et al., 2022). In-service teachers (teachers working in the field), as well as pre-service teachers (teacher students) and teacher educators have a key role in taking advantage of these new possibilities and in building pedagogically meaningful practices of using ICT in education. In order to meet these needs, pre-service teachers need to be provided with examples and authentic learning experiences of teaching and learning with ICT (Tondeur et al., 2012). Still, previous research has indicated that pre-service teachers face challenges in using ICT for supporting students’ learning (Gudmundsdottir & Hatlevik, 2018; Tondeur et al., 2013). Despite the expectations related to today’s pre-service teachers being an ICT-ready generation (Lei, 2009), we know that building pre-service teachers’ competencies to use ICT in education is a challenging task demanding different strategies (Tondeur et al., 2012). Despite the common learning pathways during teacher training, there are differences between pre-service teachers in their ability to use educational technology (Schmid et al., 2021; Valtonen et al, 2019). Aligning with Tondeur et al. (2019), this poses demands for teacher educators since they have a gatekeepers’ role when developing pre-service teacher preparedness to integrate ICT in education. According to Tondeur et al. (2012), teacher educators are supposed to be the role models for pre-service teachers, i.e. to model the use of ICT in education and to reflect positive attitudes toward the use of ICT. Still, this can be challenging also for teacher educators who may not be trained for using ICT in education. The integration of ICT for learning has been studied using various theoretical frameworks. One actively used framework is the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) by Mishra and Koehler (2006). TPACK framework focuses on ICT integration from the perspectives of technology, pedagogy and content taught. Since its introduction, the TPACK framework has been used actively worldwide for studying ICT integration. Altogether, the ICT integration has received considerable research attention when considering pre-service teachers, but when it comes to teacher educators, the research efforts are scarce. Especially the studies focusing on differences and similarities of pre-service teachers and teacher educators are scarce. The aim of this study was Teacher educators’ and pre-service teachers’ confidence in ICT use 4 to investigate both teacher educators’ and pre-service teachers’ confidence toward the use of ICT in (five) Finnish teacher education departments by utilizing the modified elements of the TPACK framework. Theoretical background ICT integration in the educational context has been studied from variety of perspectives with several theoretical models deriving from different disciplines. Studies have been conducted focusing on the usefulness and ease of ICT use (Davis, 1989; Marangunić & Granić, 2015), pedagogical beliefs (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich & Tondeur, 2014), facilitating conditions and acceptance factors for using ICT (Kyllönen, 2020; Venkatesh et al., 2016). In addition, attitudes, self-efficacy and expectations of others affect the educational use of technology (Kyllönen, 2020; Teo, 2015; Venkatesh et al. 2016). Altogether, it is somewhat agreed that teachers’ ICT use is a complex entity exposed to various factors. TPACK framework was developed solely for the educational context to target the specific combination of pedagogical knowledge (PK), content knowledge (CK) and technological knowledge (TK). TPACK was built on the Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework by Shulman (1986) indicating vast research within educational context. TPACK model considers the ICT integration from the three knowledge areas TK, PK and CK covering the areas relevant for the ICT integration in educational settings (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). As these core knowledge areas intersect, four combining areas: Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), Technological content knowledge (TCK), Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and Technological-pedagogical-content knowledge (TPACK) are composed. In the TPACK context, the TPK is the area that focuses on combining pedagogy and technology without specific reference towards certain subject matter (Chai, Koh & Tsai, 2013). TPK refers to knowledge of existing technologies and pedagogical practices as well as the abilities to combine the suitable ICT tools for certain pedagogical purposes, targeting pedagogically meaningful learning with ICT (Chai, Koh & Tsai, 2013; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). TPK also refers to understanding about how technology may change the teaching and learning process (Schmidt, et al., 2009). This study focuses on TPK since the target groups of this research include pre-service teachers and teacher educators from different disciplines, i.e. TPK without reference to any specific subject matter, is well suited for the study. The primary school teachers in Finland have a major in educational sciences but are obligated to study multidisciplinary subject studies consisting of subject didactics and pedagogy of these all together 60 ects (Malinen, Väisänen & Savolainen, 2012). From the perspective of pedagogy, TPK has typically been measured with very general level statements (Valtonen et al., 2023). In this article, TPK will be focused with finegrained items in terms of pedagogical aspects. The aim is to better highlight the role of pedagogy affecting the use of ICT (see. Tondeur et al. 2017). Several studies have focused on pre-service teachers’ TPACK areas conducted with selfassessment instruments. Results on how pre-service teachers assess their confidence and unconfidence in TPACK areas are contradictory. The study by Schmidt, Brianza and Petko (2021) indicated that the most confident areas among pre-service teachers were CK and PCK. TCK and TK were assessed lower. In study by Valtonen et al. (2018), pedagogy-related TPACK-areas were assessed highest by pre-service teachers, whereas technology-related areas, especially TCK were assessed lowest. Again, in the study by Koh, Chai and Tsai (2010), the PK was assessed as the highest area and the CK as the lowest. In the study by Deng, Chai, So, Qian and Chen (2017), CK Teacher educators’ and pre-service teachers’ confidence in ICT use 5 was assessed as the area of lowest confidence. It seems that in these studies the confident areas are typically pedagogy-related areas, whereas the areas related to TK or TCK are seen as more unconfident. A common feature with the TPACK studies is that the differences between TPACK areas are small. Still, based on study by Valtonen et al. (2019), when considering the development of separate TPACK areas, the differences between TPACK areas were bigger, and the development was faster in the areas related to pedagogical knowledge (PK and PCK) compared to the areas related to technology (TK and TCK). Although teacher educators have not always been trained for using ICT in education, their role is highly important for supporting pre-service teachers’ readiness to use ICT in education (Ertmer, 2005; Tondeur et al., 2012). In the study by Tondeur et al. (2019), teacher educators’ attitudes towards ICT in education and self-efficacy to design an ICT-rich learning environment were investigated. The results indicate that teacher educators had a positive attitude and rather positive self-efficacy towards using ICT. In addition, Tondeur et al. (2019) outlined two teacher educator profiles, one with low assessment and one with high assessments, indicating variation among teacher educators. As the results indicate strong correlation between teacher educators’ competencies to use ICT in education and the way they provide support for their students to use ICT in education, it is important to reveal teacher educators’ skills to use ICT in education (Tondeur et al., 2019). According to Kirschner et al. (2018), teacher education programs should stimulate the pedagogical use of ICT to improve the existing teaching practice with ICT in schools. Teacher educators’ deficiency of digital competence may lead to the situation in which they cannot act as competent mentors for the pre-service teachers (Judge & O’Bannon, 2008). Based on previous studies, teacher educators are supposed to serve as role models for pre-service teachers (Ertmer, 2005; Kirschner et al., 2018; Tondeur et al., 2012; Uerz, Volman, & Kral, 2018) to provide meaningful learning experiences with ICT (Valtonen et al., 2023). What is missing are the studies comparing the pre-service teachers’ and teacher educators’ confidence for using ICT in education. This research responds to this need by comparing the confidence toward the use ICT in education among the sub-groups of teacher educators and pre-service teachers. Aims and methods Aim and research questions The aim of this study is to provide insights into teacher educators’ and pre-service teachers’ confidence toward their readiness to use ICT in education, especially in terms of TPK readiness subfactors and levels of teacher educators’ and pre-service teachers’ confidence in these subfactors. The research questions are: 1. How teacher educators and pre-service teachers assess their confidence toward using ICT in education? 2. Are there differences between teacher educators’ and pre-service teachers’ TPK selfassessments? Teacher educators’ and pre-service teachers’ confidence in ICT use 6 3. What types of clusters can we identify within the teacher educators and within pre-service teachers? Context of the study, research data and analysis This research scrutinizes perceived technological pedagogical knowledge among the participants of a nationwide project carried out in teacher education departments in five Finnish universities. Project was a joint learning and teaching project of pre- and in-service teachers and teacher educators to enhance the use of ICT in pedagogically meaningful ways in different school levels. The project aimed to enhance communication between teacher education departments and schools to put research-based teaching and learning activities into practice. The target group (N=201) of this research contains pre-service teachers (n=118, 59%), and teacher educators (n=83, 41%). The data collection was conducted in 2018 as part of a teacher education development project they all participated. Over 90% of the students were pre-service primary teachers. One fourth of the students were the first year, one half of the students were studying for the second year, and the rest were third to fifth year students. Permission for data collection was received from participants and participation was voluntary. Participants were well informed about the aims and methods of the research. Data was collected from teacher educators as a part of the staff meetings using online questionnaire. The pre-service teachers’ data and teacher educators’ data were collected as a part of their reflective assignments during the planning of teaching activities. One half of the teacher educators had worked as teacher educators less than 10 years. The questionnaire used in this study focused on TPK with 15 items using scale of 1 to 7 (1=totally disagree and 7=totally agree). The questionnaire was built using items from previously validated instruments: Survey of Preservice Teachers’ Knowledge of Teaching and Technology (SPTKTT), by Schmidt et al. (2009) and the TPACK21 questionnaire by Valtonen et al. (2015). Combining the SPTKTT and TPACK21 instruments for the TPK, the instrument covered statements such as where ICT is used according to the curriculum. At the other end, there were statements focusing on certain pedagogical practices such as where ICT is used for problem solving and inquiry. In addition, there were statements focusing on the use of ICT for assessments such as where ICT is used for peer assessment. This combination of SPTKTT and TPACK21 of instruments, targeting the TPK was well suited for the purposes of this study. TPK targets only the combination of pedagogy and technology, providing us with a more general level perspective, instead of content specific focus. Also, the extension of SPTKTT with TPACK21 instrument provided a more profound perspective of different pedagogical purposes of using educational technology. The instrument is shortly demonstrated in Table 1. The analysis was conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The first step of the analysis was evaluating the validity of the TPK instrument used to outline different TPK subareas. This phase consolidated the 15 separate items for subscales to outline the connections between different variables (Afifi & Clark, 1996). This was done by using principal component analysis. Since the 15 items dealt with different TPK features, the oblimin rotation was selected. Teacher educators’ and pre-service teachers’ confidence in ICT use 7 TPK is seen as a one entity (Mishra & Koehler, 2006), i.e. the measured TPK areas are assumed to correlate, making the oblimin rotation as a well justified solution (Afifi & Clark,1996; Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). Furthermore, the inquiry factor and 21Skills share the element of inquiry, and therefore the also the same item, which was considered appropriate (see Byrne, 2010, p.125). The correlation matrix was found to be suitable (KMO =.966; Bartlett’s test p<0.001) for the analysis. The total variance explained by the four-component solution was high (85.5%). The indicated four TPK subscales were: 21Skills, Assessment, Instruction and Inquiry (Table 1). Cronbach alpha (α) was used to define the internal consistency of the measured subscales, and the adequate reliability of a scale was 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978). Table 1 TPK subscales TPK Subscales Example items Alpha (Number of items) 21Skills I know how to plan and execute learning situations ...where ICT used for problem solving and inquiry …where ICT is used in self-directed working. …where ICT is used for brainstorming and planning of the working. …where student work in small groups or pairs utilizing ICT …where ICT is used to enhance action-based learning .96 (5) Assessment I know how to plan and execute learning situations …where ICT is used for peer assessment. …where ICT is used for learner self-assessment. …where ICT is utilized to support learners’ individual needs. .93 (3) Instruction I know how to… …find use technologies supporting my work …use ICT to support my teaching …use ICT for illustration of difficult to learn topics. …use ICT according to the curriculum. .94 (4) Inquiry I know how to plan and execute learning situations …where ICT is used for problem solving and inquiry. .90 (3) Teacher educators’ and pre-service teachers’ confidence in ICT use 8 In the second phase, the descriptive statistics (M, SD) were used for outlining the TPK areas from the teacher educators’ and pre-service teachers’ perspectives. The differences between teacher educators and pre-service teachers were studied using independent sample t–test. The third phase of the analysis was k-means cluster analysis to outline the differences first among teacher educators’ group and also among pre-service teachers’ group. The aim of the cluster analysis is to indicate different sub-groups, so that the differences among members of a specific subgroup are small and the differences between the clusters are big (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010; Jain, 2010). Cluster analysis was conducted using the four TPK factors, ending at two subgroups with teacher educators and pre-service teachers. Results All the participants showed rather modest assessments on their TPK areas, namely none of the measured mean values of the items (n=15) reached the value given for the strong confidence i.e. assessments over five (scale from one to 7). The differences were the biggest in subscale related to 21st century skills (21Skills, difference M= 0.99). The results indicate that both groups assessed the Inquiry as their strongest area (teacher educators M = 4.74, pre-service teachers M = 3.91). In addition, both groups assessed the Assessment as the weakest area (teacher educators M = 4.34, pre-service teachers M = 3.39). Altogether, the differences between the four TPK areas were small, within both groups. The results of the further analysis suggest that compared to pre-service teachers, teacher educators are altogether more confident in their TPK areas. Differences between the groups in all measured areas were statistically significant. The biggest difference among groups were in 21Skills, the lowest in Inquiry. Altogether, the difference between TPK elements was not very big, varying from 0.68 to 0.97. However, the effect sizes vary from medium (d=0.66) to large (d=0.82). TPK Subscales Example items Alpha (Number of items) …where ICT is used for documenting the activities …where ICT (mobile devices, smartphone, for instance tablet, laptop) is used for learning outside the school premises Teacher educators’ and pre-service teachers’ confidence in ICT use 15 Lei, J. (2009). Digital natives as preservice teachers: What technology preparation is needed? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(3), 87–97. López-Pernas, S., Saqr, M., Gordillo, A., & Barra, E. (2022). A learning analytics perspective on educational escape rooms. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(10), 6509–6525. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2041045 Malinen, O. P., Väisänen, P., & Savolainen, H. (2012). Teacher education in Finland: a review of a national effort for preparing teachers for the future. Curriculum Journal, 23(4): 567–584. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2012.731011 Marangunić, N. & Granić, A. (2015). Technology acceptance model: a literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society, International Journal, 14(1), 1–15. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) the development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782544 Schmid, M., Brianza, E., & Petko, D. (2021). Self-reported technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) of pre-service teachers in relation to digital technology use in lesson plans. Computers in Human Behavior, 115, 106586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106586 Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 4–14. Teo, T. (2015). Comparing pre-service and in-service teachers' acceptance of technology: Assessment of measurement invariance and latent mean differences. Computers & Education, 83, 22–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.015 Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational technology research and development, 65, 555–575. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2 Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers & Education, 59(1), 134–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.009 Teacher educators’ and pre-service teachers’ confidence in ICT use 16 Tondeur, J., Roblin, N. P., van Braak, J., Fisser, P., & Voogt, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge in teacher education: In search of a new curriculum. Educational studies, 39(2), 239–243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2012.713548 Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Baran, E., Siddiq, F., Valtonen, T. & Sointu, E. (2019). Teacher educators as gatekeepers: Preparing the next generation of teachers for technology integration in education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1189–1209 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12748 Uerz, D., Volman, M., & Kral, M. (2018). Teacher educators' competences in fostering student teachers’ proficiency in teaching and learning with technology: An overview of relevant research literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 12–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.005 Valtonen, T., Eriksson, M., Kärkkäinen, S., Tahvanainen, V., Turunen, A., Vartiainen, H., ... & Sointu, E. (2023). Emerging imbalance in the development of TPACK-A challenge for teacher training. Education and Information Technologies, 28(5), 5363–5383. Valtonen, T., Kukkonen, J., Kontkanen, S., Mäkitalo‐Siegl, K., & Sointu, E. (2018). Differences in preservice teachers' knowledge and readiness to use ICT in education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(2), 174-182. Valtonen, T., Kukkonen, K., Kontkanen, S., Sormunen, K., Dillon, P., & Sointu, E. (2015). The impact of authentic learning experiences with ICT on pre-service teachers’ intentions to use ICT for teaching and learning. Computers & Education, 81, 49–58. Valtonen, T., Sointu, E., Kukkonen, J., Mäkitalo, K., Hoang, N., Häkkinen, P., Järvelä, S., Näykki, P., Virtanen, A., Pöntinen, S., Kostiainen, E., & Tondeur, J. (2019). Examining pre‐service teachers' Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge as evolving knowledge domains: A longitudinal approach. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(4), 491–502. Vartiainen, H., Tedre, M., & Jormanainen, I. (2023). Co-creating digital art with generative AI in K-9 education: Socio-material insights. International Journal of education through art, 19(3), 405–423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1386/eta_00143_1 Venkatesh, V. (2016). Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: A synthesis and the road ahead. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(5), 328–376. Voogt, J., & Pareja Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44, 299–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.668938 Weller, M. (2020). 25 years of ed tech. Athabasca University Press.