Change display time — Currently: Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) (Event time)

Examining How Preservice Educators Develop Educational Technology Competence

Pennsylvania Convention Center, 121BC, Table 1

Roundtable presentation
Listen and learn: Research paper
Save to My Favorites


Coodinator, EDvolution Center
Southeast Missouri State University
Dr. Jana Gerard is Coordinator of The EDvolution Center at Southeast Missouri State University. Jana ensures that teacher candidates at Southeast Missouri State are prepared to effectively and appropriately implement educational technology in their future classrooms. This is accomplished through providing instruction on digital literacy, digital competency, and digital citizenship through the lens of the ISTE Standards for Educators. Jana also provides students, faculty, and staff professional development on design thinking, coding, 3D printing, and virtual and augmented reality. Jana is a Google Certified Educator, Google Certified Trainer, Apple Learning Coach, Apple Teacher, Microsoft Certified Educator, and Microsoft Innovative Educator.
Valle Catholic Schools
Dr. Trudy Giasi is currently a principal at Valle Catholic Schools in Ste. Genevieve, MO. She has served in various roles, including classroom teacher, district science/STEM coordinator, professional development provider, and university professor focused on STEM education and technology. She collaborates with school districts and state-level education departments to develop cohesive and integrated STEM programming. Dr. Giasi is a passionate educator and STEM advocate that works with stakeholders to promote STEM Education awareness and increase the opportunity for all to engage in high-quality, authentic STEM experiences.

Session description

This qualitative case study examined an educational technology foundations course to explore how students acquire educational technology skills for future teaching. Discussion will include the programmatic and curricular approaches used in the course and subsequent coursework as well as integration of best practices in teaching, learning and assessing with technology.


Constructivism and Educational Technology
-Build tangible artifacts that help model understanding of the world; students can simply and easily use educational technologies to accomplish this(Boytchev, 2015)
-The development of digital technologies includes mobile devices and social learning networks which means that teaching and learning happens beyond the four walls of the classroom (Kong & Song, 2013)

Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK)
Educational technology integration in EPPs is crucial for preservice educators to be able to use technology in transformative ways in teaching and learning (Schmidt-Crawford et al., 2018)
Technology should be integrated in creative ways in EPPs (Koehler & Mishra, 2009)
Preservice educators learn technology integration throughout all TPACK domains (Buss et al., 2015)
TPACK helps to combine technology integration with critical thinking and problem-solving (Parra et al., 2019)

More [+]


Qualitative case study
-Case study supported by research of Parra et al. (2019) and Lee and Kim (2017)
Research Site
-A regional midwestern university
-38 preservice educators enrolled in two sections of Instructional and Assistive Technology in Universally Designed Learning Environments taught by the same instructor
Research questions
-How do students in a technology class in an elementary, early childhood, and exceptional child educator preparation program acquire educational technology skills to be used for future teaching?
-How do opinions of students in a technology class in an elementary, early childhood, and exceptional child educator preparation program regarding teaching with technology change during an educational technology class?
-How do prior technology skills affect the opinions of students in a technology class in an elementary, early childhood, and exceptional child educator preparation program learning educational technology to be used for future teaching?
Data collection sources
-Interviews with eight preservice educators
-Modified STEBI-B
-Instructor created application journal prompts and student responses
-Instructor created pre- and post-surveys and student responses
-Instructor created Philosophy of Technology Integration Statements prompts and student responses
Data Collection
-Modified STEBI-B given weeks 1 and 2 as well as weeks 15 and 16
-Measured opinion changes, effect on opinions
-Observations conducted weeks 5 and 11 in all course sections
-Eight total observations
-Measured skill acquisition, application journal perception, opinion changes, effect on opinions
-Interviews conducted weeks 11-15
-Eight students, eight interview questions
-Measured skill acquisition, application journal perception, opinion changes, effect on opinions
-Philosophy of Educational Technology Integration Statements collected week 16
-Measured opinion changes
-Pre- and post-surveys, pre-survey given week 1 and post-survey given week 16, collected week 16
-Measured effect on opinion changes
Data Analysis
-Creswell and Poth’s (2018) Data Analysis Spiral
-Manage and organize data
-Read and memo ideas
-Describe and classify codes into themes
-Develop and assess data interpretations
-Represent and visualize data

More [+]


34 of 38 students demonstrated growth in all 19 educational technology skills as measured by the pre- and post-surveys
-Pre- and post surveys measured self-perceived growth
-Four students did not complete the post-survey so their data could not be used to measure growth
Q1 Theme One: Hybrid instructional design of the class impacted students’ acquisition of educational technology skills
-AB format: one day of in-person instruction, one day of asynchronous online learning
-Intentional design of the course in the LMS
-Consistent flow of the class
Q1 Theme Two: Application learning was pivotal in acquiring educational technology skills for future teaching
-Consistent process for teaching skills/tools in every class
-Instructor demonstration, guided practice, asynchronous online application assignment
Q1 Theme Three: The educational technology competence of the instructor of the course impacted the educational technology learning of the students
-Used Palacios Hidalgo et al.’s (2020) definition of digital competence
-Instructor demonstrated digital competence in multiple ways
-Demonstrated competence in the use of a variety of digital skills and tools
-Demonstrated multiple ways to use a variety of digital skills and tools in teaching and learning
-Demonstrated the ability to troubleshoot technology issues
-Able to answer questions posed by students regarding digital tools and skills
Q1 Theme Four: Class culture affected how students acquired educational technology skills
-Instructor encouraged a positive relationship between instructor and students
-Called students by name
-Asked students how they were doing and feeling
-Encouraged students to ask questions, even if questions were not directly related to class content
-Always ended class with discussion and reflection
-As the semester progressed, more students participated in discussion and reflection and discussion became more positive
Q2 Theme One: Students’ opinions about teaching with technology became more positive as students’ abilities to teach with technology grew
-As students became more positive in their educational technology skills, class discussion and reflection became more positive
-Modified STEBI-B average score in weeks 1-2 was 5.66, while the score for weeks 15-16 was 9.26, a difference of +3.6
-Modified STEBI-B linked self-efficacy with technology to opinions about technology
Q2 Theme Two: Growth in perspective, mindset, and/or abilities
-33 of 34 students reported in the post-survey that they had experienced a positive shift in their perspective, mindset, and/or abilities with regards to teaching with technology during the class
-Of the 18 students that reported the most growth with using technology, 17 students reported a positive shift in perspective, mindset or abilities
-The student with the most growth points, 48, stated that they were now very confident in their ability to incorporate UDL principles into their teaching
Q3 Theme One: Prior technology skills impacted opinions of students who showed growth
-7 of 8 interviewed students demonstrated growth in technology skills
-1 interviewed student did not complete the post-survey so growth could not be measured
-3 of 8 interviewed students stated that their opinions regarding teaching with technology had changed in a positive manner during the class
-3 of 8 interviewed students stated that they always believed that teaching with technology was important
-1 student stated that their opinion had not changed, but that student did demonstrate growth with technology skills
Additional Results: Application of educational technology skills to real-world situations
-Students commented on their ability to apply learning from this class to other classes and field/clinical experiences
-Students reported feeling more confident in their ability to apply learning from this class in field/clinical experiences
-Student’s responses suggest that students see a connection between the digital fluency skills they learned in class to teaching and learning in future classes and their future classrooms
Additional Results: Students believe they have learned more educational technology skills than those explicitly listed in the curriculum
-Student answers to interview questions one and seven as well as the open-ended post-survey questions indicated that students had implicitly learned educational technology tools and skills not explicitly listed as topics in the course syllabus
-Students gave examples in their Philosophy of Technology Integration Statements of technology integration skills not explicitly listed in the course syllabus
-Students gave examples of an understanding of the need for continuing professional development with technology skills
-Students gave examples of how they would use technology to teach effectively and in innovative ways
-Students were not specific as to how the skills were learned

More [+]


-EPPs need to provide authentic learning experiences for preservice educators to effectively learn educational technology skills so preservice educators can fully integrate technology appropriately and effectively in teaching and learning (Tearle & Golder, 2008)
-Preservice educators must interact with technology in ways that foster multiple opportunities to apply technology in teaching and learning (Parra et al. 2019) and preservice educators must be digitally competent to effectively and appropriately integrate technology into teaching and learning (Dincer, 2018)

More [+]


Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888-918.

Ananiadou, K. & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries. OECD Education Working Paper, No. 41.

Angrosino, M. V. (2007). Doing ethnographic and observational research. Sage.

Archambault, L., Borup, J., & Chaomuangkhong, T. (2021, March). Supporting Preservice Teachers During a Pandemic: Preparing Future Educators to Teach at a Distance. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1827-1830). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Atkinson, R. D., & Castro, D. (2008). Digital quality of life: Understanding the personal and social benefits of the information technology revolution. SSRN Electronic Journal.

Atkinson, P. A. (2015). For ethnography. Sage.

Bai, H., & Ertmer, P. (2008). Teacher educators’ beliefs and technology uses as predictors of preservice teachers’ beliefs and technology attitudes. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(1), 93-112.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.

Baran, E., Canbazoglu Bilici, S., Albayrak Sari, A., & Tondeur, J. (2019). Investigating the impact of teacher education strategies on preservice teachers' TPACK. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 357-370.

Bazeley, P. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: Practical strategies. Sage.

Blackwell, C. K., Lauricella, A. R., & Wartella, E. (2016). The influence of TPACK contextual factors on early childhood educators’ tablet computer use. Computers & Education, 98, 57–69.

Bleicher, R. E. (2004). Revisiting the STEBI-B: Measuring self-efficacy in preservice elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 104(8), 383.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Allyn & Bacon.

Borthwick, A. C., & Hansen, R. (2017). Digital literacy in teacher education: Are teacher educators competent?. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 33(2), 46-48.

Boytchev, P. (2015). Constructionism and deconstructionism. Constructivist Foundations, 10(3), 355-363.

Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2015). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). Sage.

Buss, R. R., Wetzel, K., Foulger, T. S., & Lindsey, L. (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.

Carroll, J. B., & Morrell, P. D. (2006). A comparison of teacher education faculty and preservice teacher technology competence. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 23(1), 5-10.

Chan, B. S. K., Churchill, D., & Chiu, T. K. F. (2017). Digital literacy learning in higher education through digital storytelling approach. Journal of International Education Research, 13(1), 1–16.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.

Coker, H. (2020). Why does digital learning matter? Digital competencies, social justice, and critical pedagogy in initial teacher education. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 14(1), 133-141.

Coklar, A. N. (2008). Determination of pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy regarding educational technology standards. [Doctoral dissertation, Anadolu University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Eskisehir]. Academia Online.

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2019, February). 2013 CAEP initial-level standards.

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2020a). Standard 1: Content and pedagogical knowledge.

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2020b). Standard 3: Candidate recruitment, progression, and support.

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2020c.) CAEP Standards.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2011). Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) model core teaching standards: A resource for state dialogue. Council of Chief State School Officers.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.

Daiute, C. (2014). Narrative inquiry: A dynamic approach. Sage.

Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.

Deaton, S. (2015). Social learning theory in the age of social media: Implications for educational practitioners. Journal of Educational Technology, 12(1), 1-6.

Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. In J. Bellanca & R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills (p. 51-76). Solution Tree Press.

De Felice, D., & Janesick, V. J. (2015). Understanding the marriage of technology and phenomenological research: From design to analysis. The Qualitative Report, 20(10), 1576-1593.

Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and Education. Collier Books.

Dinçer, S. (2018). Are preservice teachers really literate enough to integrate technology in their classroom practice? Determining the technology literacy level of preservice teachers. Education and information technologies, 23(6), 2699-2718.

Elliott, S. N., Kratochwill, T. R., Littlefield Cook, J., & Travers, J. (2000). Educational psychology: Effective teaching, effective learning (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill College.

Elwood, K., & Savenye, W. (2015). Current tensions: A review of technology integration models utilized by pre-service teacher educator programs. In D. Slykhuis & G. Marks (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2295-2300). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Enochs, L. G., & Riggs, I. M. (1990). Further development of an elementary science teaching efficacy belief instrument: A preservice elementary scale. School Science and Mathematics, 90(8), 694–706.

Enochs, L., Smith, P., & Huniker, D. (2000). Establishing factorial validity of the Mathematics Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Instrument. School Science and Mathematics, 100(4), 194–202.

Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration?. Educational technology research and development, 53(4), 25-39.

Even, R. (2012). Education of Teacher Educators. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning. Springer.

Federal Trade Commission. (2020, July). Complying with COPPA: Frequently asked questions.

Foulger, T. S., Graziano, K. J., Schmidt-Crawford, D., & Slykhuis, D. A. (2017). Teacher educator technology competencies. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 25(4), 413-448.

General Teaching Council for Scotland. (2012). General Teaching Council for Scotland Teaching Standards.

Gonzales, R., & Donert, K. (Eds.). (2014). Innovative learning geography in Europe: New challenges for the 21st Century. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Goulette, E., & Swanson, P. (2019). Video considerations for the world language edTPA. In Advanced Methodologies and Technologies in Modern Education Delivery (pp. 948-959). IGI Global.

Grbich, C. (2013). Qualitative Data Analysis: An introduction (2nd ed.). Sage.

Gunuc, S. (2017). Theoretical foundations of technology integration in education. Ani Publishing.

Halfpenny, P., & Procter, R. (2015). Innovations in digital research methods. Sage.

Hammond, M. (2020). What is an ecological approach and how can it assist in understanding ICT take-up?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(3), 853-866.

Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(1), 393-416.

Harvey, B. (2015). Construction and deconstruction. Constructivist Foundations, 10(3), 365-366.

Ideland, M. (2021). Google and the end of the teacher? How a figuration of the teacher is produced through an ed-tech discourse. Learning, Media, and Technology, 46(1), 33-46.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).

International Society for Technology in Education. (2021). ISTE standards for educators.

Isman, A. (2002). Sakarya Province teachers’ competencies in educational technologies. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET, 1(10), 72–91.

James, N., & Busher, H. (2009). Online interviewing. Sage.

Judson, E., & Sawada, D. (2002). Tracking transfer of reform methodology from science and math college courses to the teaching style of beginning teachers of grades 5-12. Journal of Mathematics and Science: Collaborative Explorations, 5(1), 189-207.

Kabakci Yurdakul, I., Odabasi, H. F., Kilicer, K., Coklar, A. N., Birinci, G., & Kurt, A. A. (2012). The development, validity and reliability of TPACK-deep: A technological pedagogical content knowledge scale. Computers & Education, 58(3), 964–977.

Kahveci, N. G. (2015). Pre-service teachers’ conceptions on use of social media in social studies education. International Journal of Progressive Education, 11(1), 82-100.

Kan, U. K. & Murat, A. (2020). Examining the self-efficacy of teacher candidates’ lifelong learning key competences and educational technology standards. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 707-724.

Karakoyun, F., & Lindberg, O. J. (2020). Preservice teachers’ views about the twenty-first century skills: A qualitative survey study in Turkey and Sweden. Education and Information Technologies, 25(4), 2353-2369.

Kaufman, K. (2015). Information communication technology: Challenges & some prospects from pre-service education to the classroom. Mid-Atlantic Education Review, 2(1), 1–11.

Kennette, L. N., & Wilson, N. A. (2019). Universal design for learning (UDL): Student and faculty perceptions. Journal of Effective Teaching in Higher Education, 2(1), 1-26.

Kim, K., Jain, S., Westhoff, G., & Rezabek, L. (2008). A quantitative exploration of preservice teachers’ intent to use computer-based technology. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35(3), 275-287.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge?. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.

Kolomitz, K., & Cabellon, E. T. (2016). A strategic necessity: Building senior leadership’s fluency in digital technology. New Directions for Student Services, 2016(155), 47–57.

Komisyonu, A. (2005). Proposal for a recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning. Adresinden Alinmistir 21 Mar 2013 Tarihinde.

Kong, S. E., & Song, Y. (2013). A principle-based pedagogical design framework for developing constructivist learning in a seamless environment: A teacher development model for learning and teaching in digital classrooms. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(6), 209-212.

Landrum, B., & Garza, G. (2015). Mending fences: Defining the domains and approaches of quantitative and qualitative research. Qualitative psychology, 2(2), 199.

Lavonen, J., Lattu, M., Juuti, K., & Meisalo, V. (2006). Strategy-based development of teacher educators’ ICT competence through a cooperative staff development project. European Journal of Teacher Education, 29(2), 241–265.

Lee, C-J., & Kim, C. (2017). A technological pedagogical content knowledge based instructional design model: A third version implementation study in a technology integration course. Technology Research & Development, 65(6), 1627-1654.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1995). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observations and analysis (3rd ed.). Wadsworth.

Luppicini, R. (2005). A systems definition of educational technology in society. Educational Technology & Society, 8(3), 103-109. 

Machado-Casas, M., Alanis, I., & Ruiz, E. (2017). Innovative technologies as social pedagogy: Transforming informal educational practices in the United States. Journal of Research in Social Pedagogy, 29, 55-66.

Mack, A., & Rock, I. (1998). Inattentional blindness. The MIT Press.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2015). Designing qualitative research (6th ed.). Sage.

Massimini, M., & Peterson, M. (2009). Information and communication technology: Affects in U.S. college students. Cyberpsychology, 3(1), 1-12.

McCombs, B. L., & Whisler, J. S. (1997). Learner-centered classroom and school: Strategies for increasing student motivation and achievement. Jossey-Bass.

McLeod, S. A. (2016, February 05). Bandura - social learning theory. Simply Psychology.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A source-book of new methods (3rd ed.). Sage.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Missouri Department of Elementary & Secondary Education. (n.d.a). Educator preparation programs.

Missouri Department of Elementary & Secondary Education. (n.d.b). Show-Me Standards Placemat.

Missouri Department of Elementary & Secondary Education. (n.d.c). Teacher standards.

Muller, R. D. (2020). Building capacity for technology infusion through systemic change in colleges and schools of education. In A. C. Borthwick, T. S. Foulger, & K. J. Graziano (Eds.), Championing technology infusion in teacher preparation: A framework for supporting future educators (pp. 29-48). International Society for Technology in Education.

Narayan, R., Rodriguez, C., Araujo, J., Shaqlaih, A., & Moss, G. (2013). Constructivism—Constructivist learning theory. In B. J. Irby, G. Brown, R. Lara-Alecio, & S. Jackson (Eds.), The handbook of educational theories (pp. 169–183). IAP Information Age Publishing.

National Education Association. (2008). 21st century skills, education &

competitiveness: A resource and policy guide.

Nellis, M. D. (2017). Transitions in U.S. higher education: Implications for geography learning. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 41(2), 155-165.

Nicholas, D. B., Lach, L., King, G., Scott, M., Boydell, K., Sawatzky, B., Reisman, J., Schippel, E., & Young, N. L. (2010). Contrasting Internet and face-to-face focus groups for children with chronic health conditions: Outcomes and participant experiences. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 9(1), 105-121.

Office of Educational Technology. (2016). Future ready learning: Reimagining the role of technology in education. 2016 national education technology plan (NETP).

Office of Educational Technology. (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017 national education technology plan (NETP) update.

Olejnik, S., & Algina, J. (2000). Measures of effect size for comparative studies: Applications, interpretations, and limitations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(3), 241-286.

P21 Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (n.d.). Framework for 21st Century Learning.

Palacios Hidalgo, F. J., Gómez Parra, M. E., & Huertas Abril, C. A. (2020). Digital and media competences: Key competences for EFL teachers. Teaching English with Technology, 20(1), 43–59.

Papert, S., & Harel, I. (Eds.). (1991). Constructionism. Ablex Publishing.

Parra, J., Raynor, C., Osanloo, A., & Guillame, R. O. (2019). (Re)imagining an undergraduate integrating teaching with technology course. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 63(1), 68-78.

Pavlik, J. V. (2015). Fueling a third paradigm education: The pedagogical implications of digital, social, and mobile media. Contemporary Educational Technology, 26(2), 113-125.

Pelton, L., & Pelton, T. W. (1996). Building attitudes: How a technology course affects preservice teachers’ attitudes about technology. In B. Robin, J. Price, J. Willis, & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 1996 Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 199-204). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C., & Inan, F. (2010). Evidence of impact: Transforming teacher education with preparing tomorrow’s teachers to teach with technology (PT3) grants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 863–870.

Pynoo, B., Devolder, P., Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Duyck, W., & Duyck, P. (2011). Predicting secondary school teachers’ acceptance and use of a digital learning environment: A cross-sectional study. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 568–575.

Regional State University. (2019a, July 1). Provost search brochure.

Regional State University. (2019b, November 7). Academic programs.

Regional State University. (2020, December 16). Undergraduate Bulletin 2020-2021.

Regional State University. (2021a). XXXX Course syllabus.

Regional State University. (2021b, September 28). Institutional research fast facts 2021.

Regional State University. (2021c). Annual reporting measures.

Reyes, V. C., Reading, C., Doyle, H., & Gregory, S. (2017). Integrating ICT into teacher education programs from a TPACK perspective: Exploring perceptions of university lecturers. Computers & Education, 115, 1–19.

Reynolds, R. (2016). Defining, designing for, and measuring ‘‘social constructivist digital literacy’’ development in learners: A proposed framework. Educational Technology Research & Development, 64(4), 735-762.

Reynolds, R., & Caperton, I. H. (2009, April). Development of high school and community college students’ contemporary learning abilities in Globaloria-West Virginia in the first pilot year. [Paper presentation]. American Education Research Association Annual Conference, San Diego, CA, United States.

Richardson, V. (2003). Preservice teachers’ beliefs. In J. Raths & A. McAninch (Eds.), Teacher Beliefs and Classroom Performance: The Impact of Teacher Education (pp. 1-22). IAP Information Age Publishing.

Riggs, I. M., & Enochs, L. G. (1989, March 30-April 1). Toward the development of an elementary teacher’s science teaching efficacy belief instrument. [Paper presentation]. National Association for Research in Science Teaching 62nd Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, United States

Ritter, J., Boone, W., & Rubba, P. (2001). Development of an instrument to assess prospective elementary teacher self-efficacy beliefs about equitable science teaching and learning (SEBDST). Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(3), 175–198.

Robinson, B. (2019). Policies and People: A Review of Neoliberalism and Educational Technologies in P-12 Education Research. Berkeley Review of Education, 9(1).

Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. Glencoe Free Press.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.

Rogers, E. M. (2004). A prospective and retrospective look at the diffusion model. Journal of Health Communications, 9(S1), 13-19.

Rubeck, M., & Enochs, L. (1991, April). A path analytic model of variables that influence science and chemistry teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in middle school science teachers. [Paper presentation]. National Association of Research in Science Teaching 64th Annual Meeting, Lake Geneva, WI, United States.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). Sage.

Ryan, B., & Gross, N. C. (1943). The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities. Rural Sociology, 8(1), 15-24.

Şahin, M., Akbaşlı, S., & Yanpar Yelken, T. (2010). Key competences for lifelong learning: The case of prospective teachers. Educational Research and Review, 5(10), 545–556.

Schaller, R. R. (1997). Moore’s Law: Past, present, and future. IEEE Spectrum, 34(6), 52-59.

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.

Schmidt-Crawford, D. A., Lindstrom, D., & Thompson, A. D. (2018). Addressing the “why” for integrating technology in teacher preparation. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 34(3), 132-133.

The Scottish Government. (2016). Enhancing learning and teaching through the use of digital technology: A digital learning and teaching strategy for Scotland.

Selwyn, N. (2014). Distrusting educational technology: Critical questions for changing times. Routledge.

Selwyn, N., Hillman, T., Eynon, R., Ferreira, G., Knox, J., Macgilchrist, F., & Sancho-Gil, J. M. (2020). What’s next for ed-tech? Critical hopes and concerns for the 2020s. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(1), 1-6.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(4), 4-14.

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-23.

Şimşek, A., Özdamar, N., Uysal, Ö., Kobak, K., Berk, C., & Kılıçer, T. (2009). Observed trends in educational technology research in Turkey in the 2000s. Educational Sciences in Theory and Practice, 9(2), 941-966.

Šorgo, A., Bartol, T., Dolnicar, D., & Boh Podgornik, B. (2017). Attributes of digital natives as predictors of information literacy in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(3), 749–767.

Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.

Stokes-Beverly, C., & Simoy, I. (2016). Advancing educational technology in teacher preparation: Policy brief. Office of Educational Technology, US Department of Education, 9-17.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage.

Sutton, K. K., & DeSantis, J. (2017). Beyond change blindness: embracing the technology revolution in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(3), 223-228.

Tearle, P., & Golder, G. (2008). The use of ICT in the teaching and learning of physical education in compulsory education: How do we prepare the workforce of the future?. European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(1), 55–72.

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.

Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Baran, E. (2017). A comprehensive investigation of TPACK within pre-service teachers’ ICT profiles: Mind the gap!. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3), 46–60.

Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Baran, E. (2020). Enhancing pre-service teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A mixed-methods study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 319-343.

Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., San, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Otterbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers & Education, 59(1), 134-144.

United States Department of Education. (2021, August 25). Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

Voithofer, R., Nelson, M. J., Han, G., & Caines, A. (2019). Factors that influence TPACK adoption by teacher educators in the U.S. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(6), 1427-1453.

Warren, C. A., & Xavia Karner, T. (2015). Discovering qualitative methods: Ethnography, interviews, documents, and images (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Watulek, S. L. (2018). Making space for preservice teacher agency through connected learning in preservice educational technology courses. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 34(3), 166-178.

Williamson, B. (2019). New power networks in educational technology. Learning, Media and Technology, 44(4), 395-398.

Yilmaz, A. (2021). The effect of technology integration in education on prospective teachers' critical and creative thinking, multidimensional 21st century skills and academic achievements. Participatory Educational Research, 8(2), 163-199.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and method (5th ed.). Sage.

More [+]

Session specifications

Teacher education
Grade level:
Community college/university
Teacher education/higher ed faculty
Attendee devices:
Devices useful
Attendee device specification:
Smartphone: Windows, Android, iOS
Laptop: Chromebook, Mac, PC
Tablet: Android, iOS, Windows
Participant accounts, software and other materials:
Participants may want to take notes on a device or on paper.
Subject area:
Higher education, Preservice teacher education
ISTE Standards:
For Educators:
  • Collaborate and co-learn with students to discover and use new digital resources and diagnose and troubleshoot technology issues.
  • Dedicate planning time to collaborate with colleagues to create authentic learning experiences that leverage technology.
  • Use technology to create, adapt and personalize learning experiences that foster independent learning and accommodate learner differences and needs.