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

Modeling Technology Use for Candidates: Design Principles for Technology-Infused Preparation Programs

Pennsylvania Convention Center, 121BC

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

Research papers are a pairing of two 18 minute presentations followed by 18 minutes of Discussion led by a Discussant, with remaining time for Q & A.
This is presentation 2 of 2, scroll down to see more details.

Other presentations in this group:


Eastern Michigan University
ISTE Certified Educator
Michael McVey is a professor of educational technology at Eastern Michigan University and also serves on the ISTE Board of Directors as Treasurer. McVey began as a k-12 teacher and has taught in Canada, Tucson, Arizona, and Japan. He has a chapter in "Championing Technology Infusion in Teacher Prep" (ISTE, 2020).
Ball State University
Jon M. Clausen is an Associate Professor of educational technology and secondary education at Ball State University Teachers College. He has served as chair of the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education’s (AACTE) Committee on Innovation and Technology, teaches educational technology courses, and is coordinator for the educational technology programs. Dr. Clausen’s areas of research have focused on technology integration and infusion within teacher education. This includes developing instructional contexts that support faculty, PK12 educators, and candidate technology use.
Associate Professor
National Louis University
Dr. Angela Elkordy is an Associate Professor at the National College of Education, National Louis University, Chicago, IL. She is the Founding Director of the Learning Sciences graduate program and served as the Director of Learning Technologies for many years. Dr. Elkordy loves her work teaching in-service teachers and school leaders about cognition and learning, teaching as a design science, instructional technologies, leadership, and research methods. She is the lead author of Design Ed: Connecting Learning Sciences Research to Practice, an ISTE publication (2019) that makes impactful findings of the learning sciences accessible for educators to use in their practice.
Co-author: Dr. Yi Jin

Session description

This session shares the findings from our integrative literature review on how teacher educators model technology use for teacher candidates. Our team thoroughly screened and analyzed relevant literature published in the last decade. We will share our key findings, directions for future research and implications for practice with our audiences.


Foulger (2020) defined technology infusion as “A program-deep and program-wide approach within a teacher preparation program to help teacher candidates learn how to leverage technology in their future teaching (i.e., in PK-12 classrooms)” (p. 6). Building capacity for technology infusion requires consideration of many organizational factors including the design of coursework and instructional practices of faculty (Clausen, 2020). A technology-infused teacher preparation program (TPP) embeds technology use throughout all aspects of a teacher candidate's experiences while in their program. This includes providing models of practice in their participation in university coursework, methods courses, practicum, and student teaching experiences. Key stakeholders throughout the process of learning to teach with technology are teacher educators.

More [+]


This study utilized an integrative literature review methodology (Russel, 2005; Torraco, 2005). Data collection and analysis followed the six-step procedures of integrative review: 1) formulate purpose and/or review question, 2) search and select literature, 3) quality appraisal, 4) analysis and synthesis, 5) discussion and conclusion, and 6) dissemination of findings (Toronto & Remington, 2020). The authors first decided on the research purpose and established search and inclusion criteria. The authors initially screened 668 papers. A secondary review using inclusion criteria narrowed the search to 64 selected articles for analysis. These articles were published between 2012 to 2022 and examine how teacher educators model technology use. During the analysis and synthesis phase, the 64 included studies were analyzed and classified using the thematic synthesis process for literature review. More specifically, both deductive and inductive thematic analyses were used (Braun & Clark, 2006). For each study, a researcher read the full text and coded the study, using predetermined codes created during the initial literature review. Then, the researchers 1) abstracted the findings into common themes, 2) explored how the themes relate to each other, 3) integrated themes into a coherent whole, and 4) refined and refocused (Cronin & George, 2020).

More [+]


Our results showed that ample empirical evidence demonstrated modeling’s positive impacts. Nevertheless, modeling alone is insufficient to support teacher candidates in designing and teaching content-specific and technology-integrated instructions. Furthermore, there exist disparities in the quantity and quality of faculty’s and cooperating teachers’ modeling practices. Overall, these results underscore a more holistic approach to designing learning experiences that model technology integration. Thus, we summarized four design principles and 25 implementation strategies used by faculty and cooperating teachers, and the competencies teacher educators should exemplify as role models. We will share these design principles and implementation strategies, as well as directions for future research and implications for practice, with our audiences.

More [+]


Utilizing both the program-wide and program-deep aspects of the technology infusion approach asks every teacher education stakeholder to design learning experiences that model effective technology integration in developmentally appropriate ways. To achieve the goal of technology infusion, colleges and schools of education should continuously support all teacher educators’ development in technology integration competencies, provide targeted professional learning opportunities to all teacher educators on how to design learning experiences that model effective and content-specific technology integration, connect teacher candidate preparation with inservice teacher professional development for synergistic impacts, and establish ongoing and mutually beneficial partnerships with PK-12 schools. Our session will share how to design the learning experiences that model effective technology use that will contribute to building and developing technology-infused teacher preparation programs.

More [+]


Admiraal, W., van Vugt, F., Kranenburg, F., Koster, B., Smit, B., Weijers, S., & Lockhorst, D. (2017). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology into K–12 instruction: evaluation of a technology-infused approach. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(1), 105–120.
Aydin, B. (2017). Three birds with a stone: Technology integration in language education with reverse mentoring model. Journal of Teacher Education and Educators, 6(2), 177–190.
Baert, H., & Stuart. (2014). The effects of role modeling on technology integration within physical education teacher education. JTRM in Kinesiology.
Baran, E., Canbazoglu Bilici, S., Albayrak Sari, A., & Tondeur, J. (2019). Investigating the impact of teacher education strategies on preservice teachers’ TPACK: The impact of teacher education strategies on TPACK. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 357–370.
Bell, R. L., Maeng, J. L., & Binns, I. C. (2013). Learning in context: Technology integration in a teacher preparation program informed by situated learning theory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 348–379.
Brenner, A. M., & Brill, J. M. (2016). Investigating practices in teacher education that promote and inhibit technology integration transfer in early career teachers. TechTrends, 60(2), 136–144.
Borthwick, A., Foulger, T., & Graziano, K. (2020, August 27). Technology Integration vs. Technology Infusion: What’s the difference? American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education EdPrep Matters Blog.
Bueno, R., Niess, M. L., Aldemir Engin, R., Vallejo, C. C., & Lieban, D. (In print). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Exploring new perspectives. Australia Journal of Educational Technology.
Chai, C. S., Hwee Ling Koh, J., & Teo, Y. H. (2019). Enhancing and modeling teachers’ design beliefs and efficacy of technological pedagogical content knowledge for 21st century quality learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(2), 360–384.
Chang, C.-Y., Chien, Y.-T., Chang, Y.-H., & Lin, C.-Y. (2012). MAGDAIRE: A model to foster pre-service teachers’ ability in integrating ICT and teaching in Taiwan. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(6).
Charbonneau-Gowdy, P. (2015). It takes a community to develop a teacher: Testing a new teacher education model for promoting ICT in classroom teaching practices in Chile. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 13(4), 237–249.
Cheng, P.-H., Molina, J., Lin, M.-C., Liu, H.-H., & Chang, C.-Y. (2022). A new TPACK training model for tackling the ongoing challenges of COVID-19. Applied System Innovation, 5(2), 32.

Chien, Y.-T., Chang, C.-Y., Yeh, T.-K., & Chang, K.-E. (2012). Engaging pre-service science teachers to act as active designers of technology integration: A MAGDAIRE framework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(4), 578–588.
Clausen, J. M., Borthwick, A. C., Rutledge, D. (2021). Teacher educator perspectives on technology infusion: A closer look using Q methodology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 29(1), 5–43.
Clausen, J. M. (2020). Leadership for technology infusion: Guiding change and sustaining progress in teacher preparation. In A. C. Borthwick, T. S. Foulger, & K. J. Graziano (Eds.) Championing technology infusion in teacher preparation: A Framework for supporting future educators. (pp. 171-189). Portland, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
Conn V. S., Valentine J. C., Cooper H. M. & Rantz, M. J. (2003). Grey literature in meta-analyses. Nursing Research, 52, 256–261.
Cooper, H. (1998). Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cronin, M. A., & George, E. (2020). The why and how of the integrative review. Organizational Research Methods, 1–25.
Cuhadar, C. (2018). Investigation of pre-service teachers’ levels of readiness to technology integration in education. Contemporary Educational Technology, 9(1), 61–75.
Cydis, S. (2015). Authentic instruction and technology literacy. Journal of Learning Design,
8(1), 68–78.
Dorner, H., & Kumar, S. (2016). Online collaborative mentoring for technology integration in pre-service teacher education. TechTrends, 60(1), 48–55.
Dyches, J., & Boyd, A. (2017). Foregrounding equity in teacher education: Toward a model of social justice pedagogical and content knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(5), 476–490.
Eutsler, L. (2022). TPACK’s pedagogy and the gradual release of responsibility model coalesce: integrating technology into literacy teacher preparation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(3), 327–344.
Foulger, T. S. (2020). Design considerations for technology-infused teacher preparation programs. In A. C. Borthwick, T. S. Foulger, & K. J. Graziano (eds.) Championing technology infusion in teacher preparation: A Framework for supporting future educators, (pp. 3–28). ISTE.
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.
Foulger, T. S., Wetzel, K., & 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.
Gawrisch, D. P., Richards, K. A. R., & Killian, C. M. (2020). Integrating technology in physical education teacher education: A socialization perspective. Quest, 72(3), 260–277.
Gill, L., Dalgarno, B., & Carlson, L. (2015). How does pre-service teacher preparedness to use ICTs for learning and teaching develop through their degree program? Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(1).
Goldstein, O., & Tessler, B. (2017). The impact of the national program to integrate ICT in teaching in pre-service teacher training. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Skills and Lifelong Learning, 13, 151–166.
Han, I., Shin, W. S., & Ko, Y. (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.
Henderson, M., Bellis, N., Cerovac, M., & Lancaster, G. (2013). Collaborative inquiry: building pre-service teachers’ capacity for ICT pedagogical integration. Australian Educational Computing, 27(3), 69–75.
Hsu, Y.-Y., & Lin, C.-H. (2020). Evaluating the effectiveness of a preservice teacher technology training module incorporating SQD strategies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 31.
Hughes, J. E., Liu, S., & Lim, M. (2016). Technological modeling: Faculty use of technologies in preservice teacher education from 2004 to 2012. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 16(2), 184–207.
Jones, M. M., & McLean, K. J. (2012). Personalising learning in teacher education through the use of technology. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1).
Kale, U. (2018). Technology valued? Observation and review activities to enhance future teachers’ utility value toward technology integration. Computers & Education, 117, 160–174.
Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G., & Durak, H. (2018). Examining pre-service teachers’ opinions about digital story design. Education and Information Technologies, 23(3), 1277–1295.
Krause, J. M., & Lynch, B. M. (2018). Faculty and student perspectives of and experiences with TPACK in PETE. Curriculum Studies in Health and Physical Education, 9(1), 58–75.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
Lindfors, M., Pettersson, F., & Olofsson, A. D. (2021). Conditions for professional digital competence: the teacher educators’ view. Education Inquiry, 12(4), 390–409.

Lu, L., & Lei, J. (2012). Using live dual modeling to help preservice teachers develop TPACK. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 29(1), 14–22.
Lunenberg, M., Korthagen, F., & Swennen, A. (2007). The teacher educator as a role model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5), 586–601.
Martinovic, D., & Zhang, Z. (2012). Situating ICT in the teacher education program: Overcoming challenges, fulfilling expectations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(3), 461–469.
Menon, D., Chandrasekhar, M., Kosztin, D., & Steinhoff, D. (2017). Examining preservice elementary teachers’ technology self-efficacy: Impact of mobile technology-based physics curriculum. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 17(3), 336–359.
Miller, N. E., & Dollard, J. (1941). Social learning and imitation. Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Routledge.
Mishra, P. (2019). Considering contextual knowledge: The TPACK diagram gets an upgrade. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(2), 76–78.
Montgomery, A. P., Hayward, D. V., Dunn, W., Carbonaro, M., & Amrhein, C. G. (2015). Blending for student engagement: Lessons learned for MOOCs and beyond. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(6).
Moore, E. J., & Bell, S. M. (2019). Is instructor (faculty) modeling an effective practice for teacher education? Insights and supports for new research. Action in Teacher Education, 41(4), 325–343.
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, 103006.
Neumann, K. L., Alvarado-Albertorio, F., & Ramírez-Salgado, A. (2021). Aligning with practice: Examining the effects of a practice-based educational technology course on preservice teachers’ potential to teach with technology. TechTrends,
65(6), 1027–1041.
Niess, M. L., Ronau, R. N., Shafer, K. G., Driskell, S. O., Harper, S. R., Johnston, C., Browning, C., Ozgun-Koka, S. A., & Kersaint, G. (2009). Mathematics teacher TPACK standards and development model. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 4–24.
Novak, E., & Wisdom, S. (2018). Effects of 3D printing project-based learning on preservice elementary teachers’ science attitudes, science content knowledge, and anxiety About teaching science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(5), 412–432.
Özüdoğru, G., & Çakir, H. (2020). Teacher educators as role models for technology: Preservice teachers’ perception. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 1–20.
Park, S., & Gentry, V. (2017). Promoting pre-service teachers’ multimedia design skills through Collaborative Multimedia Service-Learning (CMSL). Journal of Service-Learning in Higher Education, 6.
Peng, L.-W. (2020). Practice-Based technology teaching assistantship program: Preparing teacher educators to support teacher candidates’ integration of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge. Excellence in Education Journal, 9(1), 85–103.
Polly, D., Byker, E. J., Putman, S. M., & Handler, L. K. (2020). Preparing elementary education teacher candidates to teach with technology: The role of modeling. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 36(4), 250–265.
Røkenes, F. M., & Krumsvik, R. J. (2014). Development of student teachers’ digital competence in teacher education - A literature review. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 9(4), 250–280.
Roulston, S., Cowan, P., Brown, M., Austin, R., & O’Hara, J. (2019). All aboard or still at check-in? Teacher educators’ use of digital technologies: Lessons from a small island. Education and Information Technologies, 24(6), 3785–3802.
Rowston, K., Bower, M., & Woodcock, S. (2021). The impact of prior occupations and initial teacher education on post-graduate pre-service teachers’ conceptualization and realization of technology integration. International Journal of Technology and Design Education.
Russell, C. L. (2005). An overview of the integrative research review. Progress in transplantation, 15(1), 8–13.
Ryu, M., Mentzer, N., & Knobloch, N. (2019). Preservice teachers’ experiences of STEM integration: challenges and implications for integrated STEM teacher preparation. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(3), 493–512.
Sardone, N. B. (2019). Developing engaging learning experiences in preservice education. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 92(6), 235–245.
Scrabis-Fletcher, K., Juniu, S., & Zullo, E. (2016). Preservice Physical Education Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. The Physical Educator, 73(4), 704–718.
Semiz, K., & Ince, M. L. (2012). Pre-service physical education teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge, technology integration self-efficacy and instructional technology outcome expectations. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(7).
Setiawan, I., Hamra, A., Jabu, B., & Susilo, S. (2018). Exploring a teacher educator’s experiences in modeling TPACK to create English language multimedia in technology courses. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(5), 1041.
Skinner, B. F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard
Educational Review, 24, 86–97.
Starčič, A., & Lebeničnik, M. (2020). Investigation of university students’ perceptions of their educators as role models and designers of digitalized curricula. Human Technology, 16(1), 55–91.
Starkey, L. (2020). A review of research exploring teacher preparation for the digital age. Cambridge Journal of Education, 50(1), 37–56.
Subramony, D. P. (2017). Revisiting instructional technologists’ inattention to issues of cultural diversity among stakeholders. In A. D. Benson, R. Joseph, J. L. Moore, (Eds.) Culture, Learning, and Technology. Routledge.
Tiba, C., & Condy, J. L. (2021). Identifying factors influencing pre-service teacher readiness to use technology during professional practice. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 17(2), 149–161.
Tondeur, J., Aesaert, K., Prestridge, S., & Consuegra, E. (2018). A multilevel analysis of what matters in the training of pre-service teacher’s ICT competencies. Computers & Education, 122, 32–42.
Tondeur, J., Howard, S. K., & Yang, J. (2021). One-size does not fit all: Towards an adaptive model to develop preservice teachers’ digital competencies. Computers in Human Behavior, 116, 106659.
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., 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.
Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Siddiq, F., & Scherer, R. (2016). Time for a new approach to prepare future teachers for educational technology use: Its meaning and measurement. Computers & Education, 94, 134–150.
Toronto, C. E., & Remington, R. (Eds.). (2020). A step-by-step guide to conducting an integrative review. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.
Trainin, G., Friedrich, L., & Deng, Q. (2018). The impact of a teacher education program redesign on technology integration in elementary preservice teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology in Teacher Education, 18(4), 692–721.
Truesdell, E., & Birch, R. (2013). Integrating instructional technology into a teacher education program: A three-tiered approach. AILACTE Journal, 10(1), 55–77.
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.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2016). Advancing Educational Technology in Teacher Preparation: Policy Brief, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2022). Educator preparation programs for digital equity and transformation. Retrieved from
Vasinda, S., Ryter, D. A., Hathcock, S., & Wang, Q. (2017). Access is not enough: A collaborative autoethnographic study of affordances and challenges of teacher educators’ iPad integration in elementary education methods courses. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 17(3), 411–431.
Vaughan, M. (2014). Flipping the learning: An investigation into the use of the flipped classroom model in an introductory teaching course. Education Research and Perspectives: An International Journal, 41, 25–41.
Voithofer, R., & Nelson, M. J. (2021). Teacher educator technology integration preparation practices around TPACK in the United States. Journal of Teacher Education, 72(3), 314–328.
Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: updated methodology. Journal of advanced nursing, 52(5), 546–553.
Wetzel, K., Buss, R., Foulger, T. S., & Lindsey, L. (2014). Infusing Educational Technology in Teaching Methods Courses: Successes and Dilemmas. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 30(3), 89–103.
Zipke, M., Ingle, J. C., & Moorehead, T. (2019). The Effects of Modeling the Use of Technology with Pre-Service Teachers. Computers in the Schools, 36(3), 205–221.

More [+]

Session specifications

Teacher education
Grade level:
Community college/university
Principals/head teachers, Professional developers, Teacher education/higher ed faculty
Attendee devices:
Devices useful
Attendee device specification:
Smartphone: iOS
Laptop: Mac
Tablet: iOS
Subject area:
Inservice teacher education, Preservice teacher education
ISTE Standards:
For Educators:
  • Set professional learning goals to explore and apply pedagogical approaches made possible by technology and reflect on their effectiveness.
  • Stay current with research that supports improved student learning outcomes, including findings from the learning sciences.
  • Design authentic learning activities that align with content area standards and use digital tools and resources to maximize active, deep learning.