Reconsidering teachers’ pedagogical reasoning and decision making for technology integration as an agenda for policy, practice and research

Abstract

This article focuses on preservice and in-service teachers’ pedagogical reasoning, decision making and action concerning technology integration for learning. We examine this topic in light of three contemporary barriers in policy, practice and research, namely: the lack of an integrative model that considers how teachers come to shape their reasoning and decisions on technology integration, the lack of practical-authentic experience for preservice teachers for technological pedagogical reasoning and decision-making, and the influence of software that automates classroom decisions and may reshape teacher reasoning. We offer three resulting opportunities: the introduction of an integrated epistemic and developmental model that explains how teachers’ pedagogical reasoning and action (PR&A) for technology integration are shaped , teaching approximations of core practices for technology integration, and promoting PR&A and decision-making for simple adaptive Digital Formative Assessment Tools as an overall agenda to enhance policy, practice and research relating to teachers pedagogical reasoning, decision making and action in technology rich contexts. We conclude in proposing implications for policy, practice and research.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Albion, P., & Tondeur, J. (2018). Information and Communication Technology and Education: Meaningful Change Through Teacher Agency. In, J. Voogt, G. Knezek, R. Christensen, & K.W., Lai (Eds), Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education (pp. 381-396). Cham: Switzerland: Springer.

  2. Angeli, C. (2005). Transforming a teacher education method course through technology: Effects on preservice teachers’ technology competency. Computers and Education, 45(4), 383–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Beerwinkle, A. L. (2020). The use of learning analytics and the potential risk of harm for K-12 students participating in digital learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 0123456789, 10–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09854-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Borthwick, A. C., & Hansen, R. (2017). Digital Literacy in Teacher Education: Are Teacher Educators Competent? Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 33(2), 46–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Buchanan, R., & McPherson, A. (2019). Teachers and learners in a time of big data. Journal of Philosophy in Schools, 6(1), 26–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Buss, R., Foulger, T. S., Wetzel, K. A., & Lindsey, L. (2018). Preparing teachers to integrate technology into K-12 instruction II: Examining the effects of technology-infused methods courses and student teaching. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 34(3), 134–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2018.1437852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Carrillo, C., & Flores, M. A. (2020). COVID-19 and teacher education: a literature review of online teaching and learning practices. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 466–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Claro, M., Nussbaum, M., López, X., & Contardo, V. (2017). Differences in views of school principals and teachers regarding technology integration. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(3), 42–53.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cox, M., & Laferrière, T. (2019). The Action Agendas of EDUsummIT2019. https://edusummit2019.fse.ulaval.ca/sites/edusummit2019.fse.ulaval.ca/files/edusummit2019_actionagenda s.pdf

  12. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 166–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dennen, V. P., Burner, K. J., & Cates, M. L. (2018). Information and Communication Technologies, and Learning Theories: Putting Pedagogy into Practice. In J. Voogt, G. Knezek, R. Christensen, & K. W. Lai (Eds.), Second handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 143–160). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dexter, S., & Richardson, J. W. (2020). What does technology integration research tell us about the leadership of technology? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(1), 17–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Doering, A., & Veletsianos, G. (2009). Teaching with Instructional Software. In M. D. Roblyer & A. Doering (Eds.), Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching (pp. 73–108). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Draper, D. C. (2013). The Instructional Effects of Knowledge-Based Community of Practice Learning Environment on Student Achievement and Knowledge Convergence. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 25(4), 67–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Faber, J. M., Luyten, H., & Visscher, A. J. (2017). The effects of a digital formative assessment tool on mathematics achievement and student motivation: Results of a randomized experiment. Computers & Education, 106, 83–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Faber, J. M., & Visscher, A. J. (2016). De effecten van Snappet. Enschede. https://www.kennisnet.nl/artikel/leerlingen-presteren-beter-dankzij-slimme-tablet/

  19. Faber, J. M., & Visscher, A. J. (2018). The effects of a digital formative assessment tool on spelling achievement: Results of a randomized experiment. Computers and Education, 122, 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fenstermacher, G. D. (1986). Philosophy on research on teaching: Three aspects. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 37–49). New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Fisser, P. & Phillips, M. (Eds.) (2020). Learners and learning contexts: New alignments for the digital age. Report of EDUsummIT 2019 (ebook). https://edusummit2019.fse.ulaval.ca/files/edusummit2019_ebook.pdf

  22. Forkosh-Baruch, A. (2018). Preparing pre-service teachers to transform education with Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). In J. Voogt, G. Knezek, R. Christensen, & K.W., Lai (Eds), Second handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 415-432). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

  23. Forzani, F. M. (2014). Understanding “Core Practices” and “Practice-Based” Teacher Education: Learning from the Past. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 357–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gao, P., Wong, A. F. L., Choy, D., & Wu, J. (2011). Beginning teachers’ understanding performances of technology integration. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 31(2), 211–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Mass: Harvard University Press.

  26. Grossman, P. (2018). Teaching core practices in teacher education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., & Williamson, P. (2009). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2055–2100.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Guven, I., & Gulbahar, Y. (2019). Building digital learning culture into pre-service teacher education. In, Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 261-269). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Las Vegas, NV, United States.

  29. Hatch, T., Shuttleworth, J., Jaffee, A. T., & Marri, A. (2016). Videos, pairs, and peers: What connects theory and practice in teacher education? Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 274–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Heitink, M. C., Van der Kleij, F. M., Veldkamp, B. P., Schildkamp, K., & Kippers, W. B. (2016). A systematic review of prerequisites for implementing assessment for learning in classroom practice. Educational Research Review, 17, 50–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Heitink, M., Voogt, J., Verplanken, L., Van Braak, J., & Fisser, P. (2016). Teachers’ professional reasoning about their pedagogical use of technology. Computers & Education, 101, 70–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Holmberg, J., Fransson, G., & Fors, U. (2018). Teachers’ pedagogical reasoning and reframing of practice in digital contexts. The international journal of information and learning technology, 35(2), 130–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Horn, I. S., & Campbell, S. S. (2015). Developing pedagogical judgment in novice teachers: Mediated field experience as a pedagogy for teacher education. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 10(2), 149–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hughes, J. E., Cheah, Y. H., Shi, Y., & Hsiao, K. H. (2020). Preservice and inservice teachers' pedagogical reasoning underlying their most‐valued technology‐supported instructional activities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.

  36. Hunter, M. (1979). Teaching Is Decision Making. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 62–67.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kennisnet. (2017). Vier in balans-monitor 2017. Zoetermeer: Kennisnet.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kloser, M. (2014). Identifying a core set of science teaching practices: A delphi expert panel approach. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(9), 1185–1217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Knezek G., & Christensen R. (2018). The Evolving Role of Attitudes and Competencies in Information and Communication Technology in Education. In, J., Voogt, G., Knezek, R., Christensen, & K.W., Lai. (Eds.), Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education (pp. 239-253). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

  41. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Kolb, L. (2017). Learning first, technology second: The educator's guide to designing authentic lessons. ISTE.

  43. Kop, R., Fournier, H., and Durand, G. (2017). A Critical Perspective on Learning Analytics and Educational Data Mining. In C. Lang, G. Siemens, A. F. Wise, and D. Gasevic, (Eds.), The Handbook of Learning Analytics. Society for Learning Analytics Research (SoLAR) (pp. 319–326). https://www.solaresearch.org/https://doi.org/10.18608/hla17

  44. Korkmaz, G., & Toraman, Ç. (2020). Are we ready for the post-COVID-19 educational practice? An investigation into what educators think as to online learning. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science (IJTES), 4(4), 293–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kuiper, E., & Pater-Sneep, M. D. (2014). Student perceptions of drill-and-practice mathematics software in primary education. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26(2), 215–236.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kulik, J. A., & Fletcher, J. D. (2016). Effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 42–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lillejord, S., Børte, K., Nesje, K., & Ruud, E. (2018). Learning and teaching with technology in higher education-a systematic review. Oslo: Knowledge Center for Education.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Lloyd, C. A. (2019). Exploring the real-world decision-making of novice and experienced teachers. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(2), 166–182.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Loughran, J. (2019). Pedagogical reasoning: the foundation of the professional knowledge of teaching. Teachers and Teaching, 25(5), 523–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Lucas, M., Bem-Haja, P., Siddiq, F., Moreira, A., & Redecker, C. (2021). The relation between in-service teachers’ digital competence and personal and contextual factors: What matters most? Computers and Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Mayfield, E., Madaio, M., Prabhumoye, S., Gerritsen, D., McLaughlin, B., Dixon-Román, E., & Black, A. W. (2019). Equity beyond bias in language technologies for education. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications (pp. 444-460).

  52. McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., & Kavanagh, S. S. (2013). Core practices and pedagogies of teacher education: A call for a common language and collective activity. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), 378–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. McKenney, S., Boschman, F., Pieters, J., & Voogt, J. (2016). Collaborative design of technology-enhanced learning: What can we learn from teacher talk? TechTrends, 60(4), 385–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Nelson, M. J., Voithofer, R., & Cheng, S. L. (2019). Mediating factors that influence the technology integration practices of teacher educators. Computers & Education, 128, 330–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 509–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Niess, M. L., & Gillow-Wiles, H. (2017). Expanding teachers’ technological pedagogical reasoning with a systems pedagogical approach. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3), 77–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Nilsson, P. (2009). From lesson plan to new comprehension: Exploring student teachers’ pedagogical reasoning in learning about teaching. European Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 239–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. OECD. (2015). Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection, PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  59. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Kopcha, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2018). Information and Communication Technology Dispositional Factors and Relationship to Information and Communication Technology Practices. In J. Voogt, G. Knezek, R. Christensen, & K. W. Lai (Eds.), Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education (pp. 309–333). Switzerland: Springer Cham.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Phillips, M., Kovanović, V., Mitchell, I., & Gašević, D. (2019). The influence of discipline on teachers' knowledge and decision making. In, B. Egan, M. Misfeldt, & A. Siebert-Evenstone (Eds.), Proceedings of Advances in Quantitative Ethnography: First International Conference, ICQE 2019, Madison, WI, USA, October 20-22, 2019 (1st ed., pp. 177-188). (Communications in Computer and Information Science; Vol. 1112). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

  61. Prestridge, S., & Main, K. (2018). Teachers as Drivers of Their Professional Learning Through Design Teams, Communities, and Networks. In J. Voogt, G. Knezek, R. Christensen, & K. W. Lai (Eds.), Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education (pp. 433–447). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Prestridge, S., Tondeur, J., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2019). Insights from ICT-expert teachers about the design of educational practice: The learning opportunities of social media. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 28(2), 157–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Regan, P. M., & Jesse, J. (2019). Ethical challenges of edtech, big data and personalized learning: twenty-first century student sorting and tracking. Ethics and Information Technology, 21(3), 167–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Regan, P. M., & Steeves, V. (2019). Education, privacy, and big data algorithms: Taking the persons out of personalized learning. First Monday, 24(11).

  65. Roberts-Mahoney, H., Means, A. J., & Garrison, M. J. (2016). Netflixing human capital development: Personalized learning technology and the corporatization of K-12 education. Journal of Education Policy, 31(4), 405–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Schneider Kavanagh, S., Metz, M., Hauser, M., Fogo, B., Taylor, M. W., & Carlson, J. (2020). Practicing responsiveness: Using approximations of teaching to develop teachers’ responsiveness to students’ ideas. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(1), 94–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Segal, P., & Heath, M. (2020). The “wicked problem” of technology and teacher education: Examining teacher educator technology competencies in a field-based literacy methods course. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 36(3), 185–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Shaffer, D. W. (2006). How Computer Games Help Children Learn. Palgrave Macmillan.

  69. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Shute, V. J., & Rahimi, S. (2017). Review of computer-based assessment for learning in elementary and secondary education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Smart, V., Finger, G., & Sim, C. (2016). Developing TPACK: Envisioning technological pedagogical reasoning. In M. C. Herring, M. J. Koehler, & P. Mishra (Eds.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for educators (2nd ed., pp. 53–62). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Smits, A., Voogt, J.M., & van Velze, E.M. (2018). The development of technology integration in a graduate course for practicing teachers. In M.L. Nies, C. Angeli and H. Gillow-Wiles (Eds.), Developing Teachers' Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) in the Digital Age (pp. 92-112). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-7001-1.ch005

  73. Thompson, A. D., Schmidt, D. A., & Davis, N. E. (2003). Technology collaboratives for simultaneous renewal in teacher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 124–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Tondeur, J., Braak, J. Van., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 555–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Tondeur, J., Braak, J. Van., Siddiq, F., & Scherer, R. (2016). Computers & Education Time for a new approach to prepare future teachers for educational technology use: Its meaning and measurement. Computers & Education, 94, 134–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Tondeur, J., Hermans, R., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). Exploring the link between teachers’ educational belief profiles and different types of computer use in the classroom. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2541–2553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Tondeur, J., Pareja Roblin, N., van Braak, J., Voogt, J., & Prestridge, S. (2017). Preparing beginning teachers for technology integration in education: Ready for take-off? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(2), 157–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Baran, E., Siddiq, F., Valtonen, T., & Sointu, E. (2019). Teacher educators as gatekeepers: Preparing the next generation of teachers for technology integration in education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1189–1209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. 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 and Education, 59(1), 134–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Van der Kleij, F. S & Adie, L. (2018). Formative assessment and feedback using information technology. In, J. Voogt, G. Knezek, R. Christensen, & K.W., Lai (Eds), Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education (pp. 601-615). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

  81. Van Deursen, A., Aniche, M., Aué, J., Slag, R., De Jong, M., Nederlof, A., & Bouwers, E. (2017). A collaborative approach to teaching software architecture. In, Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 591- 596). Seattle, Washington USA.

  82. Vincent-Lancrin, S., & Van der Vlies, R. (2020). Trustworthy artificial intelligence (AI) in education: Promises and challenges. https://doi.org/10.1787/a6c90fa9-en

  83. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2012). Technological pedagogical content knowledge - A review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Vrasidas, C. (2015). The rhetoric of reform and teachers’ use of ICT. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(2), 370–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Willegems, V., Consuegra, E., Struyven, K., & Engels, N. (2018). Pre-service teachers as members of a collaborative teacher research team: A steady track to extended professionalism? Teaching and Teacher Education, 76, 126–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Willis, J. E., Slade, S., & Prinsloo, P. (2016). Ethical oversight of student data in learning analytics: a typology derived from a cross-continental, cross-institutional perspective. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(5), 881–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Wilson, J., & Czik, A. (2016). Automated essay evaluation software in English Language Arts classrooms: Effects on teacher feedback, student motivation, and writing quality. Computers and Education, 100, 94–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge all members of Thematic Working Group (TWG8) - Pedagogical reasoning and reflective practice: a framework for teaching in a digital age: Christine Bescherer (University of Education Ludwigsburg, Germany); Yousra Chtouki (Alakhawayn University, Ifrane, Morocco); Sergey Grigoriev (Moscow City University, Russia); Vadim Grinshkun (Moscow City University, Russia); Christine Hamel (Laval University, Quebec, Canada); Joan Hughes (University of Texas at Austin, USA); Takahisa Furuta (University of Gunma, Japan); Denys Lamontagne (Cursus, Quebec, Canada).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alona Forkosh-Baruch.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Forkosh-Baruch, A., Phillips, M. & Smits, A. Reconsidering teachers’ pedagogical reasoning and decision making for technology integration as an agenda for policy, practice and research. Education Tech Research Dev (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09966-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Pedagogical reasoning and action (PR&A)
  • Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)
  • Teacher decision-making
  • Teacher education
  • Information and communication technologies (ICT)
  • Teacher cognition