Oppgrader til nyeste versjon av Internet eksplorer for best mulig visning av siden. Klikk her for for å skjule denne meldingen
Ikke pålogget
{{session.user.firstName}} {{session.user.lastName}}
Du har tilgang til Idunn gjennom , & {{sessionPartyGroup.name}}

Development of Student Teachers’ Digital Competence in Teacher Education - A Literature Review

PhD candidate, Programme for Teacher Education, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

fredrik.rokenes@plu.ntnu.no

Professor, Department of Education and Psychology, University of Bergen, Norway

rune.krumsvik@psych.uib.no

Abstract

This article is a literature review of online peer-reviewed empirical studies from 2000 to 2013 regarding the development of digital competence of student teachers in teacher education qualified to teach in the secondary school grade level. The purpose of the review is to showcase and establish knowledge about empirical research on ICT-training in teacher education, and contribute with an overview of approaches for researchers, teacher educators, and policymakers on how teacher education develop student teachers’ digital competence for the secondary school grade level. A total of 42 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Based on a thematic analysis of the studies, including coding and categorization strategies, eight approaches were identified: collaboration, metacognition, blending, modeling, authentic learning, student-active learning, assessment, and bridging theory/practice gap. The approaches consider ways that teacher education programs promote student teachers’ digital competence, and educate them in professionally using ICT for their future use in school and classroom teaching in secondary education.

Keywords: Digital competence, digital literacy, computer literacy, media literacy, student teacher, teacher education, review, ICT, technology

Introduction

In the last decade there has been a significant increase in the number of empirical studies that focus on technology training of student teachers in teacher education, and investigate their preparedness to use and teach with Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in today’s technology rich schools (Barton & Haydn, 2006; Dexter & Riedel, 2003; Tømte, 2013). Previous literature reviews by Kay (2006), Enochsson & Rizza (2009), and Tondeur et al. (2012) have assessed different strategies used by teacher education institutions to train student teachers in the use of ICT for their future teaching profession. In his influential review of sixty-eight studies of student teachers’ technology training in teacher education, Kay (2006) found ten key strategies commonly used where the two most common program strategies were either a fully integrated approach or a single technology course. His review revealed that the vast majority of studies suffered from methodological flaws, and concluded that “more rigorous and comprehensive research is needed to fully understand and evaluate the effect of key technology strategies in preservice teacher education” (Kay, 2006, p. 383). Tondeur et al. (2012) carried out a similar literature review focusing on synthesising the qualitative evidence in nineteen empirical studies of technology training of student teachers in teacher education. Their synthesis generated twelve key themes for “content and delivery methods that prepare pre-service teachers to integrate technology into their future classrooms” (Tondeur et al., 2012, p. 138). Some of the most reoccurring themes identified in the review were scaffolding, aligning theoretical and practical knowledge through the use of ICT, and the use of modeling by teacher educators. However, the authors observed an overlap between the themes, and they seemed to be “linked together in a way that made it difficult to address them separately” (Tondeur et al., 2012, p. 141). As a consequence, they argued that “in order to successfully train pre-service teachers to use technology, teacher education programmes need to address all these key variables thoughtfully” (Tondeur et al., 2012, p. 141).

Although previous reviews have provided some well-defined overviews of strategies, approaches, and themes regarding student teachers’ ICT-training in teacher education, none of them clearly differentiate between the student teachers’ qualified school grade teaching level and the teaching competence they receive during their teacher education. In fact, there have been no reviews focusing exclusively on ICT-training in teacher education of student teachers that are qualified to teach in secondary schools (i.e., lower-secondary to upper-secondary school, 8th to 13th grade, or from Middle school to High school). Kay (2006) points to the lack of studies within this field, and recommends future studies to “expand the focus to pre-service teachers of older students” (Kay, 2006, p. 386). Past reviews and studies have focused more on a macro- and meso-level analysis of how teacher educations usually organize their student teachers’ ICT-training with an emphasis on program technological infrastructure, policy, and barriers and enablers rather than on a micro- or interactional levels focusing on showcasing daily teaching practices and activities with ICT (e.g., Kay, 2006; Y.-M. Wang & Chen, 2006; Wild, 1995). Rasmussen and Ludvigsen (2008) call for an interactional orientation and note that a problem with too much focus on a “top-down approach is that it conceals changes that happen on the microlevel” (Rasmussen & Ludvigsen, 2008, p. 83). In response to the issues described by Kay (2006) and Rasmussen and Ludvigsen (2008), this study is a literature review (Hart, 1998; Jesson, Matheson, & Lacey, 2011) of online peer-reviewed empirical studies within the research field of student teachers’ digital competence development in teacher education published in online journals from 2000 to 2013. The purpose of this study is to establish knowledge about empirical research on ICT-training in teacher education, and contribute with an overview of approaches for researchers, teacher educators, and policymakers on how teacher education institutions can develop student teachers’ digital competence in secondary education.

The concept of digital competence is central in this review, and can be broadly defined as “skills, knowledge, creativity, and attitudes that everybody needs in order to use digital media for learning and functioning in the knowledge society,” a definition found in Scandinavian studies on ICT in education (Erstad, Kløvstad, Kristiansen, & Søby, 2005, p. 8, my translation). Here, digital competence is largely understood as more than just the ability to use software or operate digital devices, and involves “a large variety of complex skills – cognitive, motoric, sociological, and emotional – users need to have in order to use digital environments effectively” (Eshet-Alkali & Amichai-Hamburger, 2004, p. 421). The review also recognizes that there are several different terms and definitions concerning digital competence (Ala-Mutka, 2011; Ferrari, 2012) as well as knowledge, skills, and attitudes about technology and media use such as digital literacy (Buckingham, 2006; Lankshear & Knobel, 2006), computer literacy (Nawaz & Kundi, 2010), and media literacy (Hobbs & Jensen, 2009; Potter, 2014), and that these concepts have different meanings in different academic, cultural, historical, social, and educational contexts. Moreover, based on the vast number of studies on teachers’ use of ICT in the classroom (e.g, Almås & Krumsvik, 2007; Blikstad-Balas, 2012; Cox et al., 2004; Karaseva, Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt, & Siibak, 2013), this article also emphasizes that teachers’ professional use of digital technologies and digital competence is different than that of other professions. This point is underscored in Krumsvik’s (2011b) definition of digital competence, which focuses first and foremost on teachers, where he defines digital competence as “the teacher’s…proficiency in using ICT in a professional context with good pedagogic-didactic judgment and his or her awareness of its implications for learning strategies and the digital Bildung of pupils and students” (Krumsvik, 2011b, pp. 44–45). Furthermore, this review is informed by and draws on knowledge produced by previous reviews on student teachers’ technology training in teacher education. The research question addressed in this study is: What approaches for ICT-training do teacher education programs use to develop digital competence in student teachers educated to teach in the secondary school grade level?

Background

The success of the uptake, use, value, role, and effect of digital technologies in school and education has been heavily debated over the past decade (Cuban, 2001; Hennessy, Ruthven, & Brindley, 2005; Livingstone, 2012; Olofsson, Ola Lindberg, Fransson, & Hauge, 2011). Prior debates have mainly been concerned with whether or not the integration of ICT has an effect on student learning, achievement scores, and whether it can stimulate deeper subject knowledge, learning, and understanding (Condie, Munro, Seagraves, & Kenesson, 2007; Kirkwood & Price, 2005; Lei & Zhao, 2007; Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2010; Russell, Bebell, O'Dwyer, & O'Connor, 2003; Tamim, Bernard, Borokhovski, Abrami, & Schmid, 2011). Recently, studies exploring the use of digital technologies in education have shifted their focus to the increased role of ICT in the knowledge-based society, its role in learners’ personal lives, and its role in the development of appropriate knowledge, skills, competencies, and attitudes for lifelong learning (Bennett, Maton, & Kervin, 2008; Erstad, 2010b; Janssen et al., 2013; Lankshear & Knobel, 2006; Ng, 2012; Voogt, Erstad, Dede, & Mishra, 2013). The effectiveness of implementing ICT in schools may partly rely on the students’ digital competence, or their abilities and skills to use technology and digital environments effectively (Hatlevik & Christophersen, 2013). However, this also depends on how well teachers and future teachers are able to implement and use ICT in an effective and appropriate manner for teaching and learning (Gudmundsdottir, Loftsgaarden, & Ottestad, 2014; Hatlevik, Egeberg, Gudmundsdottir, Loftsgaarden, & Loi, 2013; Krumsvik, 2007).

Several studies (Kirschner & Davis, 2003; Krumsvik, 2011b, 2014; Polly, Mims, Shepherd, & Inan, 2010; Valcke, Rots, Verbeke, & van Braak, 2007) emphasize that teacher education programs must properly educate student teachers in the use of ICT in order to develop their digital competence. However, research on teacher education still depicts an overall lack of knowledge among student teachers and teacher educators on how to utilize ICT in a pedagogical and didactical manner (Haugerud, 2011; Hetland & Solum, 2008; Tømte, 2013; Ørnes, Wilhelmsen, Breivik, & Solstad, 2011). This digital competence or digital literacy has the potential to promote student subject learning, and equip students with the necessary digital skills and attitudes to function in the twenty-first century knowledge society. Due to the rapid development of digital technologies in the emerging information society, today’s workforce requires individuals to be able to employ a variety of cognitive skills in order to solve problems in digital environments (Alviram & Eshet-Alkalai, 2006). As a consequence, the digital revolution and the increasing digitalization of school life over the past decades have created a need for digitally competent teachers who can implement ICT in an adequate manner (Krumsvik, 2011b; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Thus, it has been argued that both students and teachers must acquire a certain level of computer-literacy to keep up with the growing digital societies (Nawaz & Kundi, 2010).

The increasing focus on skills, attitudes, and competencies such as digital competence is also reflected in educational reforms, policies, and frameworks (European Commission, 2007; Ferrari, 2012, 2013). For example, in the latest Norwegian educational reform, the “Knowledge Promotion” (Ministry of Education and Research, 2006), digital competence has become the fifth basic skill together with reading, writing, arithmetic and oral skills. However, the research literature suggests that among in-service teachers, teacher educators, and student teachers there “seems to be a gap between technical knowledge and knowledge on how to employ technology in a learning context” (Haugerud, 2011, p. 227). Krumsvik (2007, 2008, 2011a, 2014) and Erstad (2010a), underline the positive effect this competence has for students’ subject matter knowledge, and computer skills, abilities, and understanding. For example, a recent study conducted by Krumsvik et al., (2013) involving 17529 students and 2524 teachers in Norwegian secondary schools, found strong correlations between teachers’ digital competence and students’ subject learning outcome. The study underlines the importance of the teacher as a digitally competent role-model for students’ subject learning and use of ICT, and indicates that this competence development needs to start with student teachers during their teacher education. Assuming that digitally competent teachers have an positive effect on students’ subject learning and use of ICT in schools, teacher education programs and student teachers are a “natural place to start with respect to integrating technology into education” (Kay, 2006, p. 384), and need to critically reflect on how they structure and facilitate their approaches and strategies for this integration.

Methodology

This review follows a literature review method (Hart, 1998; Jesson et al., 2011), and covers online peer-reviewed studies of student teachers’ ICT-training through teacher education published between 2000 and 2013. The studies for the review were collected, analyzed, and synthesized according to Creswell’s (2012) five step procedure where he recommends to: “1) identify key terms to use in your search; 2) locate literature about a topic by consulting several types of material and databases; 3) critically evaluate and select the literature; 4) organize the literature; and 5) write a literature review” (Creswell, 2012, p. 81). The design of this review was guided by Boote and Beile’s (2005) and Maxwell’s (2006) analytical and conceptual framework for analyzing literature reviews in doctoral dissertations.

Data Collection

Four search terms were identified by consulting key literature in the field of technology use in teacher education and through recommendations from expert researchers (Janssen et al., 2013). The following keywords were used in the process: “digital competence + teacher”, “digital literacy + teacher”, “computer literacy + teacher”, and “media literacy + teacher”. Two important databases within the area of education, technology, and social science research, ERIC and ISI Web of Science, were used for the search, while others databases such as PubMed and PsychInfo were excluded because of overlapping results or lack of hits. A manual search or “hand-searching” (Chapman, Morgan, & Gartlehner, 2010, p. 23) was conducted in three previous reviews by Kay (2006), Enochsson and Rizza (2009), and Tondeur et al. (2012) in order to locate relevant studies missing in the database searches.

Studies identified through the database and manual searches needed to meet a set of relevant inclusion criteria (Table 1) to be included in the review. For example, the studies had to be peer-reviewed, empirical studies of student teachers and ICT-training in teacher education published in online journals, and written in English, Norwegian, Swedish, or Danish. Thus, “grey literature” (Savin-Baden & Major, 2013, p. 118) including book chapters, dissertations, short papers, magazine articles, government- and research reports, and conference proceedings were excluded. Moreover, the search was limited to student teachers, pre-service teachers, prospective teachers, and teacher trainees qualifying to teach in secondary school as recommended by Kay (2006). Therefore, the included studies in this review focused on student teachers qualified to teach from lower-secondary school (from 8th to 10th grade, Middle school) up to upper-secondary school (from 11th to 13th grade, High school). Hence, studies with a main focus on ICT-training in teacher education with student teachers qualifying to teach other grades such as primary, elementary, kindergarten, preschool, and special education were excluded as well as studies with a main focus on ICT training with pupils, general university and college students, faculty, teacher educators, mentors or in-service teachers. Studies which only surveyed student teachers’ perceived ICT skills, competencies, and self-efficacy without being empirically related to ICT-training in teacher education were excluded, because they did not properly describe the technology training in the research context. In addition, studies and short papers lacking fundamental information on methodological framework, study design, and empirical material (e.g. not reporting sample size) as well as articles with irrelevant focus, such as descriptive texts of programs, models, and software were also excluded from the review. Studies that did not provide details about the level that the student teachers were qualified to teach were also excluded from the review. However, studies with samples that had mixed qualifying teaching levels of student teachers (primary and secondary), and mixed sample populations (primary and-, secondary student teachers-, and in-service teachers) were included, because a significant number of the studies had such mixed sample populations.

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

 

Included

Excluded

Databases

ERIC, ISI Web of Science

PubMed, PsychInfo

Time frame

2000–2013

Articles published before 2000 and after 2013

Publication type

Online peer-reviewed articles

Books and book chapters, conference proceedings, short papers, grey literature (e.g., reports), editorials

Focus

Empirical studies with primary focus on developing digital competence, digital literacy, computer literacy, and media literacy in teacher education

Articles focusing on other aspects (e.g., frameworks, information literacy; sole focus on attitudes, beliefs, confidence, perception, judgments, ICT knowledge and skills)

Types of teaching activities/strategies

E-learning, web-based and multimodal teaching methods, teaching in classrooms, courses, auditoriums, workshops, electronic portfolios

Teaching in schools and school classrooms

Language

English, Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish

Other languages

Target population

Articles focusing on student teachers, pre-service teachers, training teachers or prospecting teachers, mixed in-service and student teachers

Articles focusing on pupils, in-service teachers or other populations (e.g., nurses, seniors, special needs, teacher educators, faculty, adults)

Target teaching level

Lower- and Upper-Secondary School, 8th to 13th grade, Middle School, High School, University

Elementary School, Primary School, Kindergarten, Pre-School, Special Education, Adult Education/Adults Professional Development

The database searches resulted in 2951 hits, while manual searches resulted in 153 hits, adding up to a total of 3104 hits (Table 2). After manually screening the abstracts, 304 articles were identified based on inclusion and exclusion criteria illustrated in Table 1, all focusing on student teachers and ICT-training in teacher education. Of these, 65 were reoccurring articles. Thus, 239 articles were inspected through a full-text mapping. Of the remaining 239 screened articles, 42 articles focused on student teachers’ digital competence for lower- and upper-secondary school, thus meeting all of the inclusion criteria for the review.

Table 2. Search results

ERIC

Search term:

Results:

Potentially relevant:

Reoccurring articles:

Included in review:

Digital competence+ teacher

22

8

0

5

Digital literacy + teacher

228

33

4

4

Computer literacy+ teacher

770

149

17

15

Media literacy+ teacher

342

29

14

0

ISI

Search term:

Results:

Potentially relevant:

Reoccurring articles:

Included in review:

Digital competence+ teacher

292

6

1

1

Digital literacy + teacher

380

18

7

0

Computer literacy+ teacher

462

15

5

1

Media literacy+ teacher

455

13

11

1

MANUAL SEARCH

Reviews searched:

Results:

Potentially relevant:

Reoccurring articles:

Included in review:

Kay (2006)

68

9

0

3

Enochsson et al. (2009)

66

15

1

8

Tondeur et al. (2012)

19

9

5

4

TOTAL

3104

304

65

42

The table column to the left display the different search engines and reviews manually searched, and the terminology used in the different searches. The Results-column indicates the number of articles that were found, and the Potentially relevant-column illustrates how many of these articles were about student teachers and ICT. The Reoccurring articles-column indicates relevant articles that had either occurred earlier in the same search or in one of the other searches. Finally, the Included in review-column shows articles that met the inclusion criteria and that had not occurred in earlier searches.

Data Analysis

The 42 included studies were analyzed and classified through an abductive coding and categorization approach inspired by Grounded Theory (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Reichertz, 2007), and through a deductive and inductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). After several full-text readings, prominent patterns or themes were sorted into a coding scheme through a process of open coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). For example, studies that mentioned ICT-training of student teachers using teacher educators, mentor teachers or peers as models were given codes such as “role-model”, “technology demonstration”, and “cognitive apprenticeship”. When no new codes emerged due to data saturation, existing codes were collapsed and formed into categories. For instance, the above-mentioned codes were collapsed into the category labeled modeling. During this process, studies were also assessed according to method, organization of the technology training, strategies, and approaches used by the teacher education institutions. Boote and Beile’s (2005) and Maxwell’s (2006) frameworks were used as a theoretical lens for assessing the content and quality of the reviewed studies. Eight categories in the form of approaches were developed and identified through the analysis (Table 3): collaboration, metacognition, blending, authentic learning, modeling, student-active learning, assessment, and bridging theory and practice gap. The included Appendix provides a more detailed overview of information regarding each of the studies.

Table 3. Study approaches

#

Study

Approaches

 

 

Collaboration

Metacognition

Blending

Authentic Learning

Modeling

Student-Active Learning

Assessment

Bridging Theory/Practice Gap

1

Ajayi, L.

x

x

 

x

 

x

 

x

2

Barton, R.

x

 

x

x

x

x

x

 

3

Beilke, J. R.

x

x

 

x

 

x

 

x

4

Bencze, L.

 

x

x

 

x

 

x

x

5

Bravo, V. J.

x

x

 

x

 

x

x

 

6

Brodahl, C.

x

x

 

x

x

x

x

 

7

Brown, N. R.

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

8

Carlson, D. L.

x

x

x

x

 

x

 

 

9

Clift, R. T.

 

x

 

 

x

x

x

 

10

DelliCarpini, M.

x

x

 

x

x

 

x

 

11

Develotte, C.

x

x

x

x

x

x

 

x

12

Dexter, S.

 

x

 

 

x

x

x

 

13

Doering, A.

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

 

14

Ebsworth, M. E.

x

x

x

 

x

x

x

 

15

Foulger, T. S.

x

x

 

 

x

x

x

 

16

Fuchs, C.

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

 

17

Haydn, T.

x

 

 

x

x

 

x

 

18

Heo, M.

 

 

x

x

x

x

 

 

19

Hutchison, A.

 

x

x

x

x

x

x

 

20

Jang, S. J. (a)

x

x

x

 

x

x

x

x

21

Jang, S. J. (b)

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

22

Judge, S.

x

x

 

x

x

 

 

 

23

Kay, R. H.

x

x

x

 

x

x

x

 

24

Krumsvik, R. J.

 

x

x

x

x

 

 

x

25

Lee, J. K.

 

x

x

x

 

x

x

 

26

Lipscomb, G. B.

 

 

x

x

x

x

x

 

27

Masats, D.

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

28

Milman, N.

 

x

x

x

x

x

x

 

29

Niess, M. L.

x

x

 

x

 

x

x

 

30

O’Reilly, D.

 

x

 

 

 

x

x

x

31

Ozgün-Koca, S. A.

 

x

 

x

 

x

x

x

32

Oztürk, I. H.

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

 

33

Sardone. N. B.

x

x

x

x

 

x

 

 

34

Shoffner, M.

 

x

x

x

x

x

 

 

35

Skerrett, A.

x

x

x

x

 

x

x

x

36

Strudler, N.

x

x

 

 

x

x

x

 

37

Taylor, L.

 

x

 

 

x

 

x

x

38

Tearle, P.

 

 

 

x

x

x

 

x

39

Truxaw, M.

x

x

 

x

x

 

x

 

40

Vural, Ö. F.

 

x

 

x

x

x

 

41

Wang, T. H.

x

x

x

 

x

x

 

42

Wright, V.

x

 

 

x

x

x

x

Results

The studies included in this review were conducted in ten different countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Norway, Spain, Taiwan, Turkey, the UK, and the United States. The majority of the studies were conducted in the United States (n = 23), the UK (n = 5), Canada (n = 3), and Taiwan (n = 3), while two studies (n = 2) were conducted in Scandinavia. The methodology used in the reviewed studies varied between being qualitative (n = 24), quantitative (n = 7) or mixed methods (n = 11). Also, the reported size of the sample population in the included studies ranged from only a few student teachers (lowest n = 4) to somewhat larger samples (highest n = 318). Less than half of the studies (n = 17) explicitly mention the use of an epistemological theoretical framework or learning theories to guide the research. Some studies (n = 7) dealt with ICT-training with student teachers qualifying to teach in science, chemistry, biology, and mathematics, while other studies (n = 9) were concerned with literacy, literature, and foreign language teaching. Notably, only a few studies (n = 6) were concerned with ICT-training of student teachers in other subjects such as social studies, geography, history, and physical education. The majority of studies (n = 20) were situated within multiple teaching subjects or in courses in general education and educational technology. Remarkably, no studies reported on student teachers’ ICT-training in aesthetic teaching subjects such as arts, drama, and theater or vocational teaching subjects.

Discussion

This section reports on and discusses the different approaches (Table 3) used to facilitate the development of student teachers’ digital competence in teacher education through ICT-training. The different approaches are illustrated through synthesis and quotes from single studies. Similar to Tondeur et al. (2012), most of the studies involved multiple approaches, which were overlapping or “linked together in a way that made it difficult to address them separately” (Tondeur et al., 2012, p. 141), and focused on student teachers getting experience with digital technologies relevant for their future profession during their teacher education.

Collaboration

Collaboration approaches and co-operative learning, here used interchangeably as done by Johnson and Johnson (2008), refer to technology training situations where two or more student teachers “work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning” (Goodyear, Jones, & Thompson, 2014, p. 440). 25 out of 42 studies focused on developing student teachers’ digital competence afforded through synchronous and asynchronous collaborative knowledge-building technologies including online forums, discussion boards, and learning networks (e.g., Ajayi, 2009; Doering & Beach, 2002; Jang, 2008a, 2008b; Kay & Knaack, 2005; Masats & Dooly, 2011), social networking sites and other interactive Web 2.0 applications (e.g., Carlson & Archambault, 2013; Skerrett, 2010), weblogs or blogs (e.g., Hutchison & Wang, 2012), computer-mediated communications software and virtual environments (e.g., Develotte, Mangenot, & Zourou, 2005; Fuchs, 2006; Sardone & Devlin-Scherer, 2008), and collaborative software (e.g., Bravo & Young, 2011; Brodahl, Hadjerrouit, & Hansen, 2011; Foulger, Williams, & Wetzel, 2008; Öztürk, 2012). In their exploratory case study with 201 student teachers, for instance, Brodahl et al. (2011) used Google Docs and EtherPad to assess whether the technologies could support collaborative writing and how effective the tools were in a group work setting. Through a collaborative writing task where the student teachers had to write a reflective essay, they “got acquainted with collaborative tools, and develop[ed] skills and competencies in implementation in educational tasks” (Brodahl et al., 2011, p. 90). Moreover, in their teacher education programs, student teachers were assigned to collaborate through technology-rich learning experiences with peers (Ajayi, 2009; Brodahl et al., 2011; DelliCarpini, 2012; Ebsworth, Kim, & Klein, 2010; Foulger et al., 2008; Jang, 2008a, 2008b; Kay & Knaack, 2005; Masats & Dooly, 2011; Sardone & Devlin-Scherer, 2008; Skerrett, 2010; Truxaw & Olson, 2010), students or student teachers from other higher educational institutions (e.g., Develotte et al., 2005; Fuchs, 2006), with pupils in school (Doering & Beach, 2002), university supervisors, in-service teachers, and mentor teachers during field experiences (e.g., Haydn & Barton, 2007; Judge & O'Bannon, 2007; Niess, 2005; Strudler, Archambault, Bendixen, Anderson, & Weiss, 2003), actors from other local (Beilke, Stuve, & Williams-Hawkins, 2008) and online communities (Bravo & Young, 2011; Öztürk, 2012). Foulger et al. (2008) designed a collaborative innovative technology project with 126 student teachers where the participants were assigned to explore different evolving technologies. The instructors composed small groups of novice and expert technology users and assumed that the “pre-service teachers could rely on each other to research and freely explore new technology, become expert users, and devise valuable ways to allow technology to enhance student learning” (Foulger et al., 2008, pp. 30–31). They found that the student teachers “took ownership of their own learning” and “produced a situation in which the knowledge gained by one group was also owned by others”, while observing that the “students were able to practice collaborative professional development mirroring effective in-service teachers” (Foulger et al., 2008, pp. 36–37).

Metacognition

Metacognition approaches or reflective practice usually revolve around what Schön (1983) refers to as reflection-on-action, where student teachers analyze and document their thoughts, reactions, and/or consequences of their actions surrounding a situation involving ICT. In 36 studies student teachers were assigned to critically reflect and discuss how different technologies could be integrated into their classroom teaching. A recurring theme was the use of online bulletin-boards, forums, blogs, or discussion groups (e.g., Doering & Beach, 2002; Shoffner, 2009; Tearle & Golder, 2008), and multimedia artefacts and video cases (e.g., Bencze et al., 2003; Krumsvik & Smith, 2009; Masats & Dooly, 2011) to stimulate the student teachers’ reflection and learning as well as have them critically assess classroom uses afforded by websites and software appropriate for the secondary school grade level. For instance, in one of the education course activities, in a case study by Clift et al. (2001), one of the student teachers, “Chris”, was asked to critically assess software that would be appropriate for use in a secondary classroom involving “previewing and critiquing of multimedia software” (Clift et al., 2001, p. 43). Through this activity, he and the other student teachers were preparing themselves for teaching with technology in their imagined future classrooms. Similarly, Ajayi (2009) had student teachers in a literacy methods course reflect on literacy teaching in school using asynchronous discussion boards which allowed the 33 study participants to “generate questions and responses to questions, read other students’ responses, work collaboratively and independently, and provided links to different websites and sourced information” (Ajayi, 2009, p. 92).

Blending

Blended learning or a multimedia instruction approach regards ICT-training of student teachers through the use and combination of both face-to-face and online teaching, and the combination of different modes to create meaning through electronic mediums such as with video, animations, diagrams, photos, illustrations, written and spoken text (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004; Mayer, 2014). 24 studies fit in this approach and involved developing student teachers’ digital competence through technology rich experiences in their teacher education using blended learning or multimodal teaching (e.g., Jang, 2008a, 2008b; Krumsvik & Smith, 2009), having student teachers interact with and create digital artefacts (e.g., Brown, 2009; Heo, 2011), video cases (e.g., Bencze et al., 2003; Vural, 2013), and engage in various multimedia activities (e.g., Beilke et al., 2008; Develotte et al., 2005). For instance, Jang (2008a) used online teaching materials containing videos, slides, online references, and course content in an asynchronous learning network to see if there was a difference between traditional face-to-face teaching and experimental blended learning approach with 134 student teachers. Although there were no significant differences between the control and the experimental group, the student teachers in the experimental group expressed more satisfaction with the curriculum and reported that the online learning “combined the effects of both traditional classroom and online teaching” (Jang, 2008a, p. 859). Kay and Knaack (2005) used a number of multimodal approaches to foster student teacher competence in technology integration throughout their teacher education program. They pointed out that even though ICT was thoroughly integrated in all of the program’s courses and that the student teachers’ overall computer skills increased, they discovered that the student teachers used technology “significantly more in their formal studies than in the field” although they “engaged in similar activities in both settings” (Kay & Knaack, 2005, p. 405). The authors also noted that while, in their field placements, even though student teachers “used their laptops consistently in lesson planning and groupwork…integration of technology into classroom activities and lessons was minimal” (Kay & Knaack, 2005, p. 405). In conclusion, they stated that the implementation of additional approaches might be necessary to encourage the student teachers’ further use of ICT during their field placements (Kay & Knaack, 2005).

Modeling

Modeling involves teacher educators, in-service teachers, mentors, and peers promoting particular practices and views of learning through “intentionally displaying certain teaching behaviour”, which could play an important role in shaping “student teachers’ professional learning” (Lunenberg, Korthagen, & Swennen, 2007, p. 589). A modeling approach was used in 31 studies for training student teachers in the use of technology, and involved explicit demonstrations of particular hardware and software, scaffolding, and technical support. In Niess’ (2005) study, there was a focus throughout all of the courses in the teacher education program on “modeling instructional strategies that incorporated technology” (Niess, 2005, p. 521), while teacher educators modeling the use of blogs to facilitate literature discussion and purposeful integration of technology was a central theme in Hutchison and Wang’s (2012) study. Barton and Haydn (2006) had tutors model technology integration and meaningful learning activities with ICT for two cohorts of student teachers in history and science during their field experience. In the interviews, the student teachers identified modeling as one of many “key moments…being particularly influential in their progress” (Barton & Haydn, 2006, p. 262). This involved demonstrating how to use PowerPoint, the Internet, creating a webpage using html code, and the use of data logging tools. However, it becomes clear through the studies that modeling needs to involve student teachers getting hands-on experience with the technologies that they will be using in their future classrooms. Although modeling was used by teacher educators as an approach to expose and demonstrate ICT for use in school in Tearle and Golder’s (2008) study, the use was not made explicit and student teachers still felt that they needed “[m]ore hands-on experience” (Tearle & Golder, 2008, p. 63).

Authentic Learning

Authentic learning refers to a “pedagogical approach that situates learning tasks in the context of real-world situations” or “the context of future use” (Herrington, Reeves, & Oliver, 2014, p. 401). This approach was present in 30 studies and involved in studies where student teachers developed their digital competence, while being assigned to explore, create, and assess digital technologies for use in their future classrooms (e. g., Sardone & Devlin-Scherer, 2008; Truxaw & Olson, 2010). This approach has also been used in teacher education programs using field experience (e.g., Haydn & Barton, 2007; Taylor, 2004; Wright & Wilson, 2006), where teacher educators and in-service mentor teachers could actively support student teachers’ lessons with technology during their teaching practicum in an attempt to “transfer...technological skills and processes learned during the methods classes…into the student teaching experience, and later…” (Wright & Wilson, 2006, p. 50). In a study by Develotte et al., (2005), French student teachers were assigned to collaborate in creating multimedia activities for Australian students in their first university year in order to stimulate the Australian students’ language learning in French, and to provide the French student teachers with an authentic teaching experience. Meanwhile, in Sardone and Devlin-Scherer’s (2008) study, 18 student teachers taking an educational assessment course participated in the exploration of the “River City Project, a virtual simulation game designed to teach science concepts through a historical and social lens to middle-school age groups” (Sardone & Devlin-Scherer, 2008, p. 44). Through “deep immersion in game tasks” and “in discussing the game with their peers” (Sardone & Devlin-Scherer, 2008, p. 46), the student teachers gained an authentic learning experience with how they could potentially use virtual simulation games in their own teaching. However, they also remarked that even though “engagement is an attractive feature of games in classrooms” a question arises regarding “how to determine the game’s value as an educational tool” (Sardone & Devlin-Scherer, 2008, p. 47).

Student-Active Learning

A student-active learning approach or learning by doing involves a shift of pedagogical control from the teacher to the individual where learners are supported, actively engaged, and involved in meaning making and the learning process (Iiyoshi, Hannafin, & Wang, 2005; Niemi, 2002). In 36 studies, student teachers learned to integrate technology for their future teaching by actively engaging in learning and meaning-making processes through experiencing, interacting with, and creating classroom-related digital resources (e. g., Heo, 2011; Kay & Knaack, 2005; Lipscomb & Doppen, 2004). In a study of a teacher education technology project by DelliCarpini (2012), student teachers were assigned class time in English as a Second Language (ESL) methods courses to “evaluate, use and develop technology based lesson/unit plans” where they worked in collaborative teams to “develop technology-based learning activities for ELLs [English Language Learners]” (DelliCarpini, 2012, p. 17). She discovered that the structure of the courses had a positive effect on the student teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, and argued that student teachers must be provided with “contextualized, hands-on practice with computer technology during pedagogy courses” in order to “build technology into teaching and actual practice” (DelliCarpini, 2012, p. 20). Another example is seen in a study by Ebsworth et al. (2010) where 90 student teachers and in-service teachers participated in a Technology-Enhanced Language Learning (TELL) course, where they “developed resource files containing TELL tools appropriate for their target student populations” and conducted an “in-depth analysis of a website or software package, concentrating on the educational value of the website/software package for their language learners” (Ebsworth et al., 2010, p. 352). The researchers concluded that the participants’ expectations and interests with educational technology shifted from gaining “personal skills to teaching skills as they gained professional experience” (Ebsworth et al., 2010, p. 364).

Assessment

Broadly speaking, assessment as a general education term refers to “all those activities undertaken by teachers, and by their students in assessing themselves that provide information to be used as feedback to modify teaching and learning activities” (Black & Wiliam, 1998, p. 140). Examples of different forms of assessment includes summative and formative assessment or “assessment for learning” (Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, & William, 2003; Wiliam, 2011), and the use of different forms of feedback (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). An assessment approach was used in 33 studies with ICT-training of student teachers through the use of various types of technology-based forms of assessment. This includes course designs and learning environments (e. g., Vural, 2013; T.-H. Wang, Wang, & Huang, 2008), but also more program specific assessment forms and requirements such as electronic portfolios and ICT related assignments (e. g., Clift et al., 2001; Taylor, 2004; Öztürk, 2012). While Milman (2005) explored 9 student teachers’ experiences and reasons for creating electronic portfolios, O’Reilly (2003) used portfolio assessment with 18 mathematics student teachers where they were assigned to document, comment, and evaluate their use of ICT during their teacher education courses and their field experience. The student teachers claimed that the electronic portfolios were useful, motivating, and gave them “ideas for future uses of ICT in teaching” (O'Reilly, 2003, p. 436). Also, in relation to performance-based licensure, the student teachers thought that electronic portfolios were “more authentic assessments than the typical, standardized tests often used in teacher education” (Milman, 2005, p. 391). Furthermore, the study concluded that the “ICT portfolio did have an effect on student teachers’ use of ICT during their school placements, with most of them going beyond the minimum requirements” (O'Reilly, 2003, p. 441). In addition, Strudler et al. (2003), and Dexter and Riedel (2003) discovered that setting explicit expectations for “designing and delivering instructions using technology was effective” for getting student teachers to use ICT during their school-based field experience (Dexter & Riedel, 2003, p. 334).

Bridging Theory/Practice Gap

The gap between theory and practice refers to the enduring tension and disconnect student teachers experience between the content taught in teacher education campus-based courses, and the realities of teaching facing them during their field experience and future teaching profession (Korthagen & Kessels, 1999; Zeichner, 2010). 15 studies involved the use of technology in an attempt to bridge this gap and align theoretical and practical knowledge, while at the same time exposing student teachers to ways of integrating technology in their teaching (e. g., Özgün-Koca, Meagher, & Edwards, 2010). For example, Jang (2008b) found that student teachers learned how to integrate technologies with appropriate pedagogy into their classroom teaching through an online learning environment and related Internet websites, and that the use of a technology team-teaching model (TTT) “led the preservice teachers to a better understanding of the theories and stimulated their thinking for technology teaching” (Jang, 2008b, p. 656). In Krumsvik and Smith’s (2009) small pilot case study, 6 student teachers in a postgraduate certification education course chose to use a video-based technology known as videopapers instead of their traditionally prescribed curriculum texts. They argued that the videopapers helped the student teachers “understand theoretical concepts they felt that otherwise they would have problems understanding” and that it “brought the practice field to the university campus in a better way than traditional monomodal text papers did” (Krumsvik & Smith, 2009, pp. 274–275). Moreover, the videopapers prepared the student teachers for teaching in the digital school and a “multimodal reality in the practice field where ICT is, perhaps, more integrated” by developing their digital competence (Krumsvik & Smith, 2009, p. 275). Finally, Bencze et al. (2003) had 168 science-specialist student teachers in a science methods course interact with multi-media cases of an expert science teacher, “Mr. Hamilton”, conducting a technological design project. The multi-media cases were aimed at demonstrating the use of authentic learning in science classrooms and promoting “knowledge-building opportunities for students in realistic contexts in schools” (Bencze et al., 2003, p. 167). Here, the student teachers were afforded a “virtual window into particular school-based teaching and learning practices to which they may not, otherwise, be exposed during their practice teaching in schools” (Bencze et al., 2003, p. 164). In turn, the use of multimedia cases helped legitimize the use of authentic learning in science classrooms promoted at the teacher education program, and exposed the student teachers to authentic ways of technology in their future science classrooms.

Study Limitations

The purpose of this review is to examine approaches of how teacher education develops secondary student teachers’ digital competence. Due to the strict inclusion and exclusion criteria applied for scrutinizing the literature, the review has a number of limitations.

First, this review is not exhaustive because it has only focused on teacher education and student teachers qualified to teach in the secondary school grade level. Studies that focused on elementary, primary, or pre-school education and studies that did not report the educational level of their teacher education or their student teachers were excluded. In addition, the review focuses on student teachers, not teacher educators, in-service practice mentors, pupils, in-service teachers or school leaders. However, because of the significant growth of research over the last decade on ICT-training of student teachers and technology integration in teacher education, the point of this study was not to be exhaustive and attempt to cover the whole field to include student teachers qualified to teach in kindergarten and those qualified to teach in secondary school. Instead, the target population investigated in this review were student teachers qualified to teach in the secondary school grade level as recommended by Kay (2006), since there had been no reviews specifically focusing on this group.

Second, the key terms used for searching the databases could potentially have overlooked important studies, and the database searches might not have resulted in uncovering all relevant studies for the review. Other search terms such as “didactics”, “pedagogy”, “technology literacy”, “Internet literacy”, “information literacy”, and “ICT literacy” could also have been included, but would have yielded a significantly larger and possibly unmanageable number of database hits for the study. Yet, the key words used in this review represent terms that are commonly used in the research literature on technology training in teacher education.

Third, by focusing only on online sources, studies in books, reports, and dissertations might have been overlooked. However, this is also an important strategy for limiting the study’s focus. Additionally, the use of manual or hand searches in the list of references in the reviews by Kay (2006), Enochsson and Rizza (2009), and Tondeur et al. (2012) can be considered time consuming, inefficient, and a unsystematic search technique, which offers little transparency (Chapman et al., 2010).

Finally, the approaches generated in this review for educating student teachers in teacher education in technology use in their future classrooms are merely descriptions of phenomena developed and labeled as categories through the data analysis, which Hacking (1999) refers to as socially constructed. Hence, the categorization process will necessarily reduce the complexity of the phenomena as a kind of compromise, which in this case regards the reviewed studies (Rosch & Lloyd, 1978). This is because an comprehensive analysis cannot possibly “deal with phenomena in all of their complexity” since they are more “concerned with certain kinds of phenomena only insofar as their behavior is determined by, or characteristic of, a small number of parameters abstracted from those phenomena” (Suppe, 1989, p. 65). Thus, the categories in this review are considered universal, and they do not differentiate between the various studies’ cultures, regions or countries. Nevertheless, exploring such differences in-depth could be an interesting topic for future research as discussed in the next section.

Concluding Remarks and Further Research

There has been an increase in the number of studies in the field of ICT-training in teacher education over the past decade, and thus there is a need to frequently review the literature and to narrow the scope of the research. This study has reviewed 42 online peer-reviewed empirical studies by focusing on the development of digital competence in student teachers qualified to teach in the secondary school grade level through preparing them in their teacher education program to use ICT in their future teaching. Eight approaches were identified and presented through the analysis: collaborative, metacognitive, multimodal, modeling, authentic learning, student-active learning, assessment, and bridging the theory and practice gap. These approaches highlight, at a micro- or interactional level, what teacher education programs can focus on for facilitating ICT-training and development of student teachers’ digital competence.

Although there are similarities between the approaches used and found in this review and that of previous reviews (e. g., Kay, 2006; Tondeur et al., 2012), there are also several differences to point out. The main contribution of this review is the explicit and specific focus on the digital competence development of student teachers in teacher education qualifying to teach in secondary school grade level. Where previous reviews have tended to ignore whether student teachers were qualifying to teach in kindergarten, primary, or secondary schools, this review has had an explicit focus on studies regarding secondary education. Moreover, where other reviews have tended to leave out study details regarding learning perspectives, theoretical framework, or contextual details regarding teaching subject, this study has attempted to include and describe these details in the reviewed articles through a comprehensive overview (see Appendix). These findings provide a more nuanced picture of the research literature, and can help further inform the design of future reviews and empirical studies.

A central finding in this review concerns the use of different approaches for ICT-training in teacher education. The most commonly used approach found in this review was metacognition, or the use of reflection when using ICT for teaching and promoting student content learning. Student teachers should be asked to discuss and reflect on the pedagogical and didactical value added to a lesson when integrating ICT in their teaching and to reflect in a similar manner when exploring new hardware, software, methods, and models. Furthermore, these discussions and reflections should be conducted through various forms and arenas both offline and online such as through blending. While recent research findings might criticize the “slow uptake of ICT” (Tømte, 2013, p. 75) in teacher education where the focus has mainly been on developing student teachers’ tool knowledge in ICT instead of learning how to use it in a learning context (in Norway, see Haugerud, 2011; Hetland & Solum, 2008; Tømte, 2013; Ørnes et al., 2011), the approaches found in this review seem to hold an optimistic outlook for new generations of teachers who are required to purposefully integrate digital technologies in today’s technology-rich schools. Yet, the systematic implementation of these approaches rely on the will and skill of several key contributors such as policymakers, school leaders, teacher educators, in-service mentor teachers, and the student teachers (Tondeur et al., 2012).

Research continues to show that improving access to technology and increasing confidence is not always enough to improve pedagogical use of ICT in schools. For example, surprisingly few studies in this review were from Scandinavian countries, where higher education institutions, schools, teachers, and pupils are considered to be digitally well-equipped, well-supported, and confident in their digital skills (Wastiau et al., 2013). The lack of studies from Scandinavian countries might be because of the study’s filtering strategies, strict inclusion/exclusion criteria, fewer published studies in online journals, or a lack of research in the field. However, in this sense, the review has found a potential gap in the research literature on the use of ICT in secondary education and university-based teacher education among the Nordic countries. Moreover, the lack of studies found concerning ICT-training of student teachers in vocational studies and other teaching subjects such as arts, drama, and theater also reveal gaps in the literature, which needs to be addressed with more empirical research.

Further research should focus on comparing ICT-training in elementary and secondary teacher education to see if there are differences in the ways student teachers are being trained to use ICT in their classroom teaching. With regards to ICT-training, the needs of student teachers teaching in the secondary school grade level are not necessarily similar to student teachers training to teach in kindergarten, elementary, and primary school. There is an acute absence of studies on preparing student teachers in using interactive whiteboards for the secondary school grade level. In addition, with an increased interest into research on teacher education, more studies should clarify what they mean by teacher education with regards to educational level, program description, and course requirements. Therefore, further studies need to specify the teaching level, which their student teachers are qualifying towards and provide detailed descriptions about the teacher education programs and courses involved in the studies (also noted by Kay, 2006). Simply writing about a cohort or population of student teachers or pre-service teachers is not an adequate description of a study sample. Moreover, due to anonymity issues, it is difficult to locate and verify course descriptions and study information from teacher education websites. Ontological and epistemological views concerning learning perspective and theories of learning should also be included and clarified in future studies. There is a need for further research concerning ICT-training of teacher educators and in-service mentor teachers who are responsible for promoting technology training to student teachers through their teacher education and field experience. Also, it would be interesting to see how the approaches generated in this review align with theories and frameworks (e. g., Mishra & Koehler, 2006) used in relation to technology use in present-day classrooms.

Appendix

APPENDIX 1. Overview of included articles

Author(s)

Year

Country

Title

Relevance

Learning Perspective

Context & Data

Content

             

Level

Method

Size

Subject

Topic

Ajayi, L.

2009

USA

An Exploration of Pre-Service Teachers' Perceptions of Learning to Teach while Using Asynchronous Discussion Board

***

Sociocultural, distributed knowledge

Technology integrated, 2 reading literacy courses, 16 weeks, interviews, written reflections, discussion board postings

Mixed

Qualitative

33

Literacy

Asynchronous discussion board

Barton, R.Haydn, T.

2006

UK

Trainee Teachers’ Views on What Helps them to use Information and Communication Technology Effectively in their Subject Teaching

**

Not specified

Technology integrated, science and history methods course, 36 weeks, interviews, focus group discussions, questionnaires, skills test

Sec.

Qualitative

71

ScienceHistoryMultiple

Subject-based technology integration

Beilke, J. R.Stuve, M. J.Williams-Hawkins, M. A.

2008

USA

“Clubcasting”: Educational uses of podcasting in multicultural settings

*

Not specified

Technology integrated and stand-alone course, case study, multicultural education course and educational technology course, collaborative project work, student written assignment, student artifacts

Sec.

Qualitative

8

Ed. Tech.

Podcasting

Bencze, L.Hewitt, J.Pedretti, E.Yoon, S.Perris, R.van Oostveen, R.

2003

Canada

Science-specialist Student-teachers Consider Promoting Technological Design Projects: Contributions of Multi-media Case Methods

**

Constructivist

Technology integrated, technological design study, science methods course, written survey, student written assignment, field notes, audio- and video recordings, interviews

Sec.

Qualitative

168

Science

Multimedia cases

Bravo, V. J.

2011

Canada

The Impact of a Collaborative Wikipedia Assignment on Teaching, Learning, and Student Perceptions in a Teacher Education Program

**

Not specified

Technology integrated, technology and literacy course, assignments, pre- and post-survey, e-mail correspondence, written reflections

Mixed

Mixed Meth.

16

LiteracyEd. Tech.

Collaborative writing

Brodahl, C.Hadjerrouit, S.Hansen, N. K.

2011

Norway

Collaborative Writing with Web 2.0 Technologies: Educational Students’ Perceptions

***

Social constructivist perspective, community of practice

Technology integrated, exploratory case study, electronic survey

Mixed

Quantitative

201

Gen. Ed.

Collaborative writing

Brown, N. R.

2009

Australia

What can you Learn in Three Minutes? Critical Reflection on an Assessment Task that Embeds Technology

*

Not specified

Technology integrated, case study, action research, science methods course, two semesters, student reflection essay, questionnaire

Sec.

Mixed Meth.

40

Science

Video production

Carlson, D. L.Archambault, L.

2013

USA

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Teaching Poetry: Preparing Preservice Teachers to Integrate Content with VoiceThread Technology

**

Not specified

Technology integrated, English methods course, 3-week unit, self-report survey, digital artifacts

Sec.

Mixed Meth.

21

English

VoiceThread

Clift, R. T.Mullen, L.Levin, J.Larson, A.

2001

USA

Technologies in Contexts: Implications for Teacher Education

*

Not specified

Stand-alone and technology integrated courses, case study, teacher education program, 4 year project, surveys, e-mail analysis, interviews

Mixed

Qualitative

4

Gen. Ed.

Subject-based technology integration

DelliCarpini, M.

2012

USA

Building Computer Technology Skills in TESOL Teacher Education

*

Not specified

Technology integrated, action research, 3 ESL courses, two years, pre- and post-survey

Mixed

Quantitative

53

English

Computer skills assessment and development

Develotte, C.Mangenot, F.Zourou, K.

2005

France

Situated Creation of Multimedia Activities for Distance Learners: Motivational and Cultural Issues

***

Situated learning, cognitive apprenticeship

Technology integrated, language methods course, one semester, field notes, interviews, questionnaires, students’ multimedia artifacts

Sec.

Qualitative

16

French

Collaborative learning

Dexter, S.Riedel, E.

2003

USA

Why Improving Preservice Teacher Education Technology Preparation Must Go Beyond the College’s Walls

**

Constructivist

Technology integrated, content specific method courses, one year, surveys

Sec.

Quantitative

201

Ed. Tech.Multiple

Subject-based technology integration

Doering, A.Beach, R.

2002

USA

Preservice English Teachers Acquiring Literacy Practices Through Technology Tools

***

Sociocultural, activity theory

Technology integrated and stand-alone course, composition-methods course, instructional technology course, one semester

Sec.

Qualitative

27

EnglishEd. Tech.

Asynchronous discussion board

Ebsworth, M. E.Kim, A. J.Klein, T. J.

2010

USA

Projections: From a Graduate TELL Class to the Practical World of L2 Teachers

*

Not specified

Technology integrated, action research, technology enhanced language learning course,1–3 years, pre- and post-questionnaire, interviews

Mixed

Mixed Meth.

90

EnglishForeign Language Teaching

Computer skills assessment and development

Foulger, T. S.Williams, M. K.Wetzel, K.

2008

USA

We Innovate: The Role of Collaboration in Exploring New Technologies

***

Constructivism, connectivism

Stand-alone course, educational technology course, one semester, questionnaire, focus groups, student assignments,

Mixed

Qualitative

126

Ed. Tech.

Collaborative learning

Fuchs, C.

2006

Germany

Exploring German Preservice Teachers’ Electronic and Professional Literacy Skills

**

Not specified

Technology integrated, explorative case study, literacy methods course, one semester, field notes, student assignments, logs, pre-course questionnaire, post-course self-assessment, e-mail correspondence, chat transcripts

Sec.

Qualitative

34

English

Computer-mediated communication

Haydn, T.Barton, R.

2007

UK

Common Needs and Different Agendas: How Trainee Teachers Make Progress in Their Ability to Use ICT in Subject Teaching. Some Lessons from the UK

**

Not specified

Technology integrated field experiences, teacher education program, one year, questionnaires, focus groups, interviews

Mixed

Qualitative

133

ScienceHistoryMultiple

Subject-based technology integration

Heo, M.

2011

USA

Improving Technology Competency and Disposition of Beginning Pre-Service Teachers with Digital Storytelling

***

Constructivist

Stand-alone course, quasi-experimental intervention study, educational technology course, 2 semesters, 1 week intervention, pre- and post-intervention online surveys

Mixed

Quantitative

76

Multiple

Digital Storytelling

Hutchison, A.

2012

USA

Blogging within a Social Networking Site as a Form of Literature Response in a Teacher Education Course

**

Not specified

Technology integrated, literature methods course, one semester, student blogs, site correspondence, interviews

Mixed

Qualitative

15

Literature

Learning through social networking

Jang, S. J.

2008a

Taiwan

The Effects of Integrating Technology, Observation and Writing into a Teacher Education Method Course

***

Constructivism

Technology integrated, experimental design, education instruction course, 2 semesters, questionnaires, observation reports, online postings

Mixed

Mixed Meth.

134

Gen. Ed.

Asynchronous network learning

Jang, S. J.

2008b

Taiwan

Innovations in Science Teacher Education: Effects of Integrating Technology and Team-Teaching Strategies

***

Constructivism, community of practice

Technology integrated, experimental design, 2 science methods courses, 2 semesters, questionnaire, online postings, student online submissions, online feedback, online communication, interviews

Sec.

Mixed Meth.

42

Gen. Ed.Science

Collaborative learning

Judge, S.O’Bannon, B.

2007

USA

Integrating Technology into Field-Based Experiences: A Model that Fosters Change

*

Not specified

Stand-alone course/workshop, field experiences, 1 year, focus group interviews, pre-, post- and exit-survey

Mixed

Mixed Meth.

49

Ed. Tech.

Subject-based technology integration

Kay, R. H.Knaack, L.

2005

Canada

A Case of Ubiquitous, Integrated Computing in Teacher Education

**

Constructivism

Technology integrated, method courses (computer science, mathematics and science), one year, pre- and post-survey

Sec.

Quantitative

52

Multiple

Laptop integration

Krumsvik, R. J.Smith, K.

2009

Norway

Videopapers – An Attempt to Narrow the Notorious Gap Between Theory and Practice in Teacher Education

***

Not specified

Technology integrated, case study, educational seminar group, one year, interviews

Sec.

Qualitative

6

Gen. Ed.

Learning with videos

Lee, J. K.

2006

USA

Pre-Service Social Studies Teachers Using Digital Civics Resources

*

Not specified

Technology integrated, social studies methods course, one semester, student assignments, interviews, student selected websites

Sec.

Qualitative

26

Social Studies

Blogs

Lipscomb, G. B.Doppen, F. H.

2004

USA

Climbing the STAIRS: Pre-Service Social Studies Teachers’ Perceptions of Technology Integration

*

Not specified

Technology integrated, case study, social studies methods course, one semester, student assignments, student reflections, online postings, field notes, instructor’s journal, interviews

Sec.

Qualitative

15

Social Studies

Learning with multiple digital technologies

Masats, D.Dooly, M.

2011

Spain

Rethinking the Use of Video in Teacher Education: A Holistic Approach

**

Socio-constructivism

Technology integrated, multiple case studies, 2 teacher education programs, 3 years, post-course observations, survey, focus group interviews

Mixed

Qualitative

72

Foreign Language Teaching

Learning with videos

Milman, N. B.

2005

USA

Web-Based Digital Teaching Portfolios: Fostering Reflection and Technology Competence in Preservice Teacher Education Students

**

Constructivism

Stand-alone course, electronic teaching portfolio course, one semester, observations, interviews, student journals, student portfolios, questionnaire

Mixed

Qualitative

9

Ed. Tech.

Electronic portfolios

Niess, M. L.

2005

USA

Preparing Teachers to Teach Science and Mathematics with Technology: Developing a Technology Pedagogical Content Knowledge

***

Not specified

Technology integrated, case studies, teacher education program, science and mathematics, 1 year, observations, student assignments, reports, interviews

Sec.

Qualitative

22

ScienceMath

Subject-based technology integration

O’Reilly, D.

2003

UK

Making Information and Communications Technology Work

**

Not specified

Technology integrated, teacher education program, mathematics, 1 year, student portfolios, periodical audits, student written reflections, student written evaluations and comments, questionnaires

Sec.

Qualitative

18

Math

Electronic portfolios

Özgün-Koca, S. A.Meagher, M.Edwards, M. T.

2010

USA

Preservice Teachers’ Emerging TPACK in a Technology-Rich Methods Class

*

Not specified

Technology integrated, mathematics methods course, one semester, pre- and post-course surveys, additional surveys, student assignments, student field experience reports

Sec.

Mixed Meth.

20

Math

Inquiry-based learning with digital technologies

Oztürk, I. H.

2012

Turkey

Wikipedia as a Teaching Tool for Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) Development in Pre-service History Teacher Education

**

Not specified

Technology integrated, action research approach, history methods course, one semester, shorter workshop, student works, response forms, interviews

Sec.

Qualitative

27

History

Collaborative learning

Sardone, N. B.Devlin-Scherer, R.

2008

USA

Teacher Candidates’ Views of a Multi-User Virtual Environment (MUVE)

***

Constructivism

Technology integrated, assessment methods course, short workshop, questionnaires, field notes, interviews, focus group

Sec.

Qualitative

18

Gen. Ed.

Game-based learning

Shoffner, M.

2009

USA

Personal Attitudes and Technology: Implications for Preservice Teacher Reflective Practice

*

Not specified

Technology integrated, workshop/information session, 8 months, blog entries, focus groups, interviews

Sec.

Qualitative

9

Multiple

Blogs

Skerret, A.

2010

USA

Lolita, Facebook, and the Third Space of Literacy Teacher Education

*

Third space, multiliteracies

Technology integrated, self-study, literacy methods course, one semester, course syllabus, student assignments, reflective journals, e-mail correspondence, online postings, teaching journal

Sec.

Qualitative

16

Literacy

Social media

Strudler, N.Archambault, L.Bendixen, L.Anderson, D.Weiss, R.

2003

USA

Project THREAD: Technology Helping Restructure Educational Access and Delivery

**

Not specified

Technology integrated, teacher education program project, one year, questionnaires, observations, interviews, exit surveys, document analysis

Mixed

Mixed Meth.

153

Multiple

Subject-based technology integration

Taylor, L.

2004

UK

How Student Teachers Develop Their Understanding of Teaching Using ICT

***

Not specified

Technology integrated, methods course, one year, student assignments, questionnaires, interviews

Sec.

Qualitative

44

Geography

Subject-based technology integration

Tearle, P.Golder, G.

2008

UK

The use of ICT in the Teaching and Learning of Physical Education in Compulsory Education: How do we Prepare the Workforce for the Future?

***

Not specified

Technology integrated, case study design, one year, interviews, observations, questionnaires, group discussions

Sec.

Mixed Meth.

46

Physical education

Subject-based technology integration

Truxaw, M.Olson, M.

2010

USA

Preservice Mathematics and Science Teachers’ Inquiry into New Literacy Practices of the Internet

*

New literacies

Technology integrated, mathematics and science methods course, school practicum, one semester, student assignments

Sec.

Qualitative

24

ScienceMath

Inquiry-based learning with digital technologies

Vural, Ö. F.

2013

Turkey

The Impact of a Question-Embedded Video-Based Learning Tool on E-Learning

***

Constructivism, cognitive information processing theory

Stand-alone,, quasi-experimental design, computer literacy course, one semester, two treatment groups, pre- and post- computer knowledge evaluation form, recordings of online platform interaction, quizzes

Mixed

Quantitative

318

Ed. Tech

Learning with videos

Wang, T. H.

2008

Taiwan

Designing a Web-Based Assessment Environment for Improving Pre-Service Teacher Assessment Literacy

**

Not specified

Technology integrated, biology methods course, one semester, two treatment groups, pre-, mid- and post-tests

Sec.

Quantitative

60

Biology

Web-based assessment

Wright, V. H.

2006

USA

From Preservice to Inservice Teaching: A Study of Technology Integration

**

Not specified

Technology integrated, case studies, methods courses, one year, pre- and post-survey, queries, students’ electronic portfolios, assignments, artifacts, observations, interviews

Sec.

Mixed Meth.

22

Social studies

Electronic portfolios

The first four table columns from left to right display the different studies included in the review by the first author, year of publication, the country where the studies were conducted and title of the studies. The Relevance-column indicates the studies’ match to Boote and Beile’s (2005) and Maxwell’s (2006) quality frameworks, and match to the review’s research question using * (somewhat relevant), ** (relevant) and *** (very relevant). These indicators function as an assessment of the studies’ focus, theoretical framework, methodology, sample population, data sources, and results. Moreover, the next seven columns describe the different studies’ learning perspective or theoretical framework, context and data sources, sample population, study methodology, sample size, teaching subject, and general topic.

References

Ajayi, L. (2009). An Exploration of Pre-Service Teachers' Perceptions of Learning to Teach while Using Asynchronous Discussion Board. Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 86–100.

Ala-Mutka, K. (2011). Mapping digital competence: towards a conceptual understanding (pp. 62). Luxembourg: European Commission – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.

Almås, A. G., & Krumsvik, R. J. (2007). Digitally literate teachers in leading edge schools in Norway. Professional Development in Education, 33(4), 479–498.

Alviram, A., & Eshet–Alkalai, Y. (2006). Towards a theory of digital literacy: Three scenarios for the next steps. European Journal of Open Distance E-Learning. http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/Aharon_Aviram.htm

Barton, R., & Haydn, T. A. (2006). Trainee Teachers' Views on What Helps Them to Use Information and Communication Technology Effectively in Their Subject Teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(4), 257–272.

Beilke, J. R., Stuve, M. J., & Williams-Hawkins, M. A. (2008). "Clubcasting": educational uses of podcasting in multicultural settings. Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, 2(2), 107–117. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17504970810883379

Bencze, L., Hewitt, J., Pedretti, E., Yoon, S., Perris, K., & van Oostveen, R. (2003). Science-specialist student-teachers consider promoting technological design projects: Contributions of multi-media case methods. Research in Science Education, 33(2), 163–187. doi: 10.1023/a:1025044626451

Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x

Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & William, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: putting it into practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–144.

Blikstad-Balas, M. (2012). Digital Literacy in Upper Secondary School – What Do Students Use Their Laptops for During Teacher Instruction? Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 7(2), 81–96.

Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars Before Researchers: On the Centrality of the Dissertation Literature Review in Research Preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3–15. doi: 10.3102/0013189x034006003

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Bravo, V. J., & Young, M. F. (2011). The Impact of a Collaborative Wiki Assignment on Teaching and Learning in a Teacher Education Program (Vol. 37).

Brodahl, C., Hadjerrouit, S., & Hansen, N. K. (2011). Collaborative Writing with Web 2.0 Technologies: Education Students' Perceptions. Journal of Information Technology Education, 10, 73–103.

Brown, N. R. (2009). What can you learn in three minutes? Campus – Wide Information Systems, 26(5), 345–354. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10650740911004778

Buckingham, D. (2006). Defining digital literacy – What do young people need to know about digital media? Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy(4), 263–276.

Carlson, D. L., & Archambault, L. (2013). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Teaching Poetry: Preparing Preservice Teachers to Integrate Content with VoiceThread Technology. Teacher Education and Practice, 26(1), 117–142.

Chapman, A. L., Morgan, L. C., & Gartlehner, G. (2010). Semi-automating the manual literature search for systematic reviews increases efficiency. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 27(1), 22–27. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00865.x

Clift, R. T., Mullen, L., Levin, J., & Larson, A. (2001). Technologies in Contexts: Implications for Teacher Education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 33–50.

Condie, R., Munro, B., Seagraves, L., & Kenesson, S. (2007). Impact of ICT in schools: A landscape review (pp. 93). Conventry: BECTA Research.

Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Cox, M., Webb, M., Abbott, C., Blakeley, B., Beauchamp, T., & Rhodes, V. (2004). An investigation of the research evidence relating to ICT pedagogy (pp. 123). London: Department for Education and Skills (DfES).

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston, Mass.: Pearson.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused : computers in the classroom. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

DelliCarpini, M. (2012). Building Computer Technology Skills in TESOL Teacher Education. Language Learning & Technology, 16(2), 14–23.

Develotte, C., Mangenot, F., & Zourou, K. (2005). Situated Creation of Multimedia Activities for Distance Learners: Motivational and Cultural Issues. Recall, 17(2), 229–244.

Dexter, S., & Riedel, E. (2003). Why Improving Preservice Teacher Educational Technology Preparation Must go beyond the College's Walls. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 334–346. doi: 10.1177/0022487103255319

Doering, A., & Beach, R. (2002). Preservice English Teachers Acquiring Literacy Practices through Technology Tools. Language Learning & Technology, 6(3), 127–146.

Ebsworth, M. E., Kim, A. J., & Klein, T. J. (2010). Projections: From a Graduate TELL Class to the Practical World of L2 Teachers. CALICO Journal, 27(2), 349–375.

Enochsson, A.-B., & Rizza, C. (2009). ICT in Initial Teacher Training: Research Review. (38). OECD Education Working Paper: OECD Publishing.

Erstad, O. (2010a). Digital kompetanse i skolen (2 ed.). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Erstad, O. (2010b). Educating the Digital Generation. Exploring Media Literacy for the 21st Century. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 5(1), 56–71.

Erstad, O., Kløvstad, V., Kristiansen, T., & Søby, M. (2005). Digital skole hver dag – om helhetlig utvikling av digital kompetanse i grunnopplæringen (pp. 51). Oslo: Forsknings- og kompetansenettverk for IT i utdanning [ITU].

Eshet-Alkali, Y., & Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2004). Experiements in digital literacy. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 7, 421–429.

European Commission. (2007). Key competences for lifelong learning. European reference framwork. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital Competence in Practice: An Analysis of Frameworks JRC Scientific and Policy Reports (pp. 95). Seville: European Commission Joint Research Centre. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.

Ferrari, A. (2013). DIGCOMP: A Framework for Developing and Understanding Digital Competence in Europe. In Y. Punie & B. N. Breco (Eds.), JRC Scientific and Policy Reports (pp. 50). Seville: European Commission Joint Research Centre. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.

Foulger, T. S., Williams, M. K., & Wetzel, K. (2008). We Innovate: The Role of Collaboration in Exploring New Technologies. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 28–38.

Fuchs, C. (2006). Exploring German Preservice Teachers' Electronic and Professional Literacy Skills. Recall, 18(2), 174–192.

Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001

Goodyear, P., Jones, C., & Thompson, K. (2014). Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: Instructional Approaches, Group Processes and Educational Designs. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 439–451). New York: Springer New York.

Gudmundsdottir, G. B., Loftsgaarden, M., & Ottestad, G. (2014). Nyutdannede lærere: Pofesjonsfaglige digitale kompetanse og erfaringer med IKT i lærerutdanningen (pp. 42). Oslo: Senter for IKT i utdanningen.

Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review : releasing the social science research imagination. London: Sage Publications.

Hatlevik, O. E., & Christophersen, K.-A. (2013). Digital competence at the beginning of upper secondary school: Identifying factors explaining digital inclusion. Computers & Education, 63, 240–247. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.015

Hatlevik, O. E., Egeberg, G., Gudmundsdottir, G. B., Loftsgaarden, M., & Loi, M. (2013). Monitor skole 2013: Om digital kompetanse og erfaringer med bruk av IKT i skolen (pp. 166). Oslo: Senter for IKT i Utdanningen.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. doi: 10.3102/003465430298487

Haugerud, T. (2011). Student Teachers Learning to Teach: The Mastery and Appropriation of Digital Technology. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 6(4), 226–239.

Haydn, T. A., & Barton, R. (2007). Common needs and different agendas: How trainee teachers make progress in their ability to use ICT in subject teaching. Some lessons from the UK. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1018–1036. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.12.006

Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. U. E. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject teaching: commitment, constraints, caution, and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(2), 155–192. doi: 10.1080/0022027032000276961

Heo, M. (2011). Improving Technology Competency and Disposition of Beginning Pre-Service Teachers with Digital Storytelling. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 20(1), 61–81.

Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2014). Authentic Learning Environments. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 401–412). New York: Springer New York.

Hetland, P., & Solum, N. H. (2008). NIFU STEP. Digital kompetanse i norsk lærerutdanning (pp. 80). Oslo: NIFU.

Hobbs, R., & Jensen, A. (2009). The past, present and future of media literacy education. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 1(1), 1–11.

Hutchison, A., & Wang, W. (2012). Blogging within a social networking site as a form of literature response in a teacher education course. Educational Media International, 49(4), 263–275. doi: 10.1080/09523987.2012.741197

Iiyoshi, T., Hannafin, M. J., & Wang, F. (2005). Cognitive tools and student‐centred learning: rethinking tools, functions and applications. Educational Media International, 42(4), 281–296. doi: 10.1080/09523980500161346

Jang, S. J. (2008a). The Effects of Integrating Technology, Observation and Writing into a Teacher Education Method Course. Computers & Education, 50(3), 853–865.

Jang, S. J. (2008b). Innovations in Science Teacher Education: Effects of Integrating Technology and Team-Teaching Strategies. Computers & Education, 51(2), 646–659.

Janssen, J., Stoyanov, S., Ferrari, A., Punie, Y., Pannekeet, K., & Sloep, P. (2013). Experts' views on digital competence: Commonalities and differences. Computers and Education, 68, 473–481.

Jesson, J. K., Matheson, L., & Lacey, F. M. (2011). Doing your literature review : traditional and systematic techniques. London: Sage.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Cooperation and the use of technology. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merriënboer & M. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (3 ed., pp. 1017–1044). New York: Taylor & Francis.

Judge, S., & O'Bannon, B. (2007). Integrating technology into field-based experiences: a model that fosters change. Computers in human behavior, 23(1), 286–302. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.013

Karaseva, A., Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt, P., & Siibak, A. (2013). Comparison of different subject cultures and pedagogical use of icts in estonian schools. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 8(3), 157–170.

Kay, R. H. (2006). Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into pre-service education: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education and Information Technologies, 38(4), 383–408.

Kay, R. H., & Knaack, L. (2005). A Case for Ubiquitous, Integrated Computing in Teacher Education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 14(3), 391–412.

Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2005). Learners and learning in the twenty‐first century: what do we know about students’ attitudes towards and experiences of information and communication technologies that will help us design courses? Studies in Higher Education, 30(3), 257–274. doi: 10.1080/03075070500095689

Kirschner, P., & Davis, N. (2003). Pedagogic benchmarks for information and communications technology in teacher education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 12(1), 125–147. doi: 10.1080/14759390300200149

Korthagen, F. A. J., & Kessels, J. P. A. M. (1999). Linking Theory and Practice: Changing the Pedagogy of Teacher Education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4–17. doi: 10.3102/0013189x028004004

Krumsvik, R. J. (2007). Skulen og den digitale læringsrevolusjonen [The School and the Digital Learning Revolution]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Krumsvik, R. J. (2008). Situated learning and teachers’ digital competence. Education and Information Technologies, 13(4), 279–290. doi: 10.1007/s10639-008-9069-5

Krumsvik, R. J. (2011a). Den digitale lærar: digital kompetanse i praksis. Oslo: Pedlex norsk skoleinformasjon.

Krumsvik, R. J. (2011b). Digital competence in Norwegian teacher education and schools. Högre utbildning, 1(1), 39–51.

Krumsvik, R. J. (2014). Teacher educators' digital competence. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58(3), 269–280.

Krumsvik, R. J., Egelandsdal, K., Sarastuen, N. K., Jones, L. Ø., & Eikeland, O. J. (2013). Sammenhengen mellom IKT-bruk og læringsutbytte (SMIL) i videregående opplæring (F. D. Læringsfelleskap, Trans.). Bergen: Universitetet i Bergen.

Krumsvik, R. J., & Smith, K. (2009). Videopapers – an attempt to narrow the notorious gap between theory and practice in teacher education. Technology Pedagogy and Education, 18(3), 269–279.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2006). Digital Literacy and Digital Literacies: – Policy, Pedagogy and Research Considerations for Education. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy(1), 12–23.

Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2007). Technology Uses and Student Achievement: A Longitudinal Study. Computers & Education, 49(2), 284–296.

Lipscomb, G. B., & Doppen, F. H. (2004). Climbing the Stairs: Pre-Service Social Studies Teachers' Perceptions of Technology Integration. International Journal of Social Education, 19(2), 70–82.

Livingstone, S. (2012). Critical reflections on the benefits of ICT in education. Oxford Review of Education, 38(1), 9–24. doi: 10.1080/03054985.2011.577938

Lunenberg, M., Korthagen, F. A. J., & Swennen, A. (2007). The teacher educator as a role model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5), 586–601. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.001

Masats, D., & Dooly, M. (2011). Rethinking the use of video in teacher education: A holistic approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(7), 1151–1162. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2011.04.004

Maxwell, J. A. (2006). Literature Reviews of, and for, Educational Research: A Commentary on Boote and Beile’s “Scholars Before Researchers”. Educational Researcher, 35(9), 28–31. doi: 10.3102/0013189x035009028

Mayer, R. E. (2014). Multimedia Instruction. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 385–399). New York: Springer New York.

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies (pp. 94). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.

Milman, N. B. (2005). Web-Based Digital Teaching Portfolios: Fostering Reflection and Technolog Teacher Education Students. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 373–396.

Ministry of Education and Research. (2006). Knowledge Promotion [The national curriculum for the 13-year elementary school]. Oslo: Government Administration Services.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

Nawaz, A., & Kundi, G. M. (2010). Digital literacy: An analysis of the contemporary paradigms. International Journal of Science and Technology Education Research, 1(2), 19–29.

Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3), 1065–1078. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.016

Niemi, H. (2002). Active learning—a cultural change needed in teacher education and schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(7), 763–780. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00042-2

Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing Teachers to Teach Science and Mathematics with Technology: Developing a Technology Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509–523.

O'Reilly, D. (2003). Making Information and Communications Technology Work. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 12(3), 417–446. doi: 10.1080/14759390300200167

Olofsson, A. D., Ola Lindberg, J., Fransson, G., & Hauge, T. E. (2011). Uptake and Use of Digital Technologies in Primary and Secondary Schools – a Thematic Review of Research. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 6(04).

Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C. E., & 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. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.024

Potter, W. J. (2014). Media literacy. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE.

Rasmussen, I., & Ludvigsen, S. (2008). The Hedgehog and the Fox: A Discussion of the Approaches to the Analysis of ICT Reforms in Teacher Education of Larry Cuban and Yrjö Engeström. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 16(1), 83–104. doi: 10.1080/10749030802477390

Reichertz, J. (2007). Abduction: The Logic of Discovery of Grounded Theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 214–228). Los Angeles, Calif.: Sage.

Rosch, E., & Lloyd, B. B. (1978). Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Russell, M., Bebell, D., O'Dwyer, L., & O'Connor, K. (2003). Examining Teacher Technology Use: Implications for Preservice and Inservice Teacher Preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297–310. doi: 10.1177/0022487103255985

Sardone, N. B., & Devlin-Scherer, R. (2008). Teacher Candidates' Views of a Multi-User Virtual Environment (MUVE). Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17(1), 41–51.

Savin-Baden, M., & Major, C. H. (2013). Qualitative research: the essential guide to theory and practice. London: Routledge.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner : how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Shoffner, M. (2009). Personal Attitudes and Technology: Implications for Preservice Teacher Reflective Practice. Teacher Education Quarterly, 36(2), 143–161.

Skerrett, A. (2010). Lolita, Facebook, and the Third Space of Literacy Teacher Education. Educational Studies, 46(1), 67–84. doi: 10.1080/00131940903480233

Strudler, N., Archambault, L., Bendixen, L., Anderson, D., & Weiss, R. (2003). Project THREAD: Technology helping restructure educational access and delivery. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 41–56. doi: 10.1007/bf02504517

Suppe, F. (1989). The semantic conception of theories and scientific realism. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Søby, M. (2003). Digital Competence – from ICT-skills to digital “bildung”. Oslo: ITU.

Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What Forty Years of Research Says About the Impact of Technology on Learning: A Second-Order Meta-Analysis and Validation Study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4–28. doi: 10.3102/0034654310393361

Taylor, L. (2004). How Student Teachers Develop Their Understanding of Teaching Using ICT. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 30(1), 43–56.

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. doi: 10.1080/02619760701845016

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. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.009

Truxaw, M., & Olson, M. (2010). Preservice Mathematics and Science Teachers' Inquiry into New Literacy Practices of the Internet. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(3), 489–508.

Tømte, C. (2013). Educating Teachers for the New Millennium? Teacher training, ICT and digital competence. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 8(01–02), 74–88.

Valcke, M., Rots, I., Verbeke, M., & van Braak, J. (2007). ICT Teacher Training: Evaluation of the Curriculum and Training Approach in Flanders. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 23(6), 795–808.

Voogt, J., Erstad, O., Dede, C., & Mishra, P. (2013). Challenges to learning and schooling in the digital networked world of the 21st century. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(5), 403–413.

Vural, Ö. F. (2013). The Impact of a Question-Embedded Video-based Learning Tool on E-learning. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(2), 1315–1323.

Wang, T.-H., Wang, K.-H., & Huang, S.-C. (2008). Designing a Web-Based Assessment Environment for Improving Pre-Service Teacher Assessment Literacy. Computers & Education, 51(1), 448–462.

Wang, Y.-M., & Chen, V. D.-T. (2006). Untangling the Confounding Perceptions Regarding the Stand Alone IT Course. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35(2), 133–150.

Wastiau, P., Blamire, R., Kearney, C., Quittre, V., Van de Gaer, E., & Monseur, C. (2013). The Use of ICT in Education: a survey of schools in Europe. European Journal of Education, 48(1), 11–27. doi: 10.1111/ejed.12020

Wild, M. (1995). Pre‐service Teacher Education Programmes for Information Technology: an effective education? Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 4(1), 7–20. doi: 10.1080/0962029950040102

Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3–14. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001

Wright, V. H., & Wilson, E. K. (2006). From Preservice to Inservice Teaching: A Study of Technology Integration. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 22(2), 49–55.

Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the Connections Between Campus Courses and Field Experiences in College- and University-Based Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 89–99. doi: 10.1177/0022487109347671

Ørnes, H., Wilhelmsen, J., Breivik, J., & Solstad, K. J. (2011). Digital tilstand i høyere utdanning 2011: Norgesuniversitetets monitor Norgesuniversitetets skriftserie (Vol. 1, pp. 291). Tromsø: Norgesuniversitetet.

Özgün-Koca, S. A., Meagher, M., & Edwards, M. T. (2010). Preservice Teachers' Emerging TPACK in a Technology-Rich Methods Class. Mathematics Educator, 19(2), 10–20.

Öztürk, I. H. (2012). Wikipedia as a Teaching Tool for Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) Development in Pre-Service History Teacher Education. Educational Research and Reviews, 7(7), 182–191.

Idunn bruker informasjonskapsler (cookies). Ved å fortsette å bruke nettsiden godtar du dette. Klikk her for mer informasjon