Content uploaded by Peggy A. Ertmer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Peggy A. Ertmer on Oct 03, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Understanding the relationship between teachers’
pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education:
a systematic review of qualitative evidence
Jo Tondeur
1,2,3
•Johan van Braak
1
•Peggy A. Ertmer
2,3
•
Anne Ottenbreit-Leftwich
4
Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2016
Abstract This review was designed to further our understanding of the link between
teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their educational uses of technology. The synthesis of
qualitative findings integrates the available evidence about this relationship with the ulti-
mate goal being to facilitate the integration of technology in education. A meta-aggregative
approach was utilized to analyze the results of the 14 selected studies. The findings are
reported in terms of five synthesis statements, describing (1) the bi-directional relationship
between pedagogical beliefs and technology use, (2) teachers’ beliefs as perceived barriers,
(3) the association between specific beliefs with types of technology use, (4) the role of
beliefs in professional development, and (5) the importance of the school context. By
interpreting the results of the review, recommendations are provided for practitioners,
policy makers, and researchers focusing on pre- and in-service teacher technology training.
Keywords Pedagogical beliefs Technology use Systematic review Qualitative
evidence Meta-aggregation
Introduction
Current evidence indicates that although the use of technology during the teaching and
learning process is steadily increasing (e.g., Berrett et al. 2012; Inan and Lowther 2010),
achieving ‘technology integration’ is still a complex process of educational change. This is
&Jo Tondeur
Jo.Tondeur@UGent.be
1
Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, B9000 Ghent, Belgium
2
Interfaculty Department for Teacher Education, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
3
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education, Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN, USA
4
Instructional Systems Technology, School of Education, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN,
USA
123
Education Tech Research Dev
DOI 10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2
apparent as the use of technology in schools is still extremely varied and, in many instances,
limited (e.g., Spector 2010). Achieving the goal of meaningful technology integration (i.e.,
using technology to support 21st century teaching and learning) does not depend solely on
technology-related factors (Arntzen and Krug 2011; Ertmer 2005; Kimmons et al. 2015;
Tondeur et al. 2008a). Ultimately, teachers’ personal pedagogical beliefs play a key role in
their pedagogical decisions regarding whether and how to integrate technology within their
classroom practices (Deng et al. 2014; Inan and Lowther 2010).
Researchers have argued that teachers’ classroom practices are highly influenced by
their pedagogical beliefs (Fives and Gill 2015; Kagan 1992; Pajares 1992; Richardson
1996). Based on the results of previous research (Ertmer et al. 2015; Hermans et al. 2008;
Lin et al. 2012; Zhao and Frank 2003), teachers select applications of technology that align
with their selections of other curricular variables and methods (e.g., teaching strategies)
and that also align with their existing beliefs about ‘good’ education. Technological
devices such as computers, tablets, or interactive whiteboards do not dictate one’s peda-
gogical approach (Lawless and Pellegrino 2007); rather, each device enables the imple-
mentation of a range of approaches to teaching and learning (Tondeur et al. 2008b). In
other words, the role technology plays in teachers’ classrooms relates to their conceptions
of the nature of teaching and learning.
In this respect, research on educational innovations suggests that technology integration
can only be fully understood when teachers’ pedagogical beliefs are taken into account
(Ertmer 2005; Lim and Chan 2007; Liu 2011; Sang et al. 2010a). As noted by Chen (2008),
‘‘in a classroom, the teacher perceives and defines a teaching situation, makes judgments
and decisions, and then takes related actions’’ (p. 66). More specifically, on the basis of
their beliefs, teachers choose specific instructional strategies and tools, including tech-
nology, to incorporate into their classroom practices (Lim et al. 2014; Prestridge 2012;
Zhao and Cziko 2001). Although we recognize that technology decisions are not the only
decisions influenced by teachers’ beliefs, this is the primary focus of this article.
With the call for increased technology integration (e.g., U. S. Department of Education,
Office of Educational Technology 2010), it is important to examine the link between
teachers’ beliefs and teachers’ practices. In the last decade, the relationship between
teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their uses of technology has been examined extensively
(e.g., Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich 2010; Prestridge 2012; Sang et al. 2010b), but still
this relationship remains unclear (Mueller et al. 2008). Given the centrality and importance
of teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and the lack of a clear understanding about the relationship
between beliefs and classroom technology use, the purpose of this qualitative review is to
further clarify this relationship. A meta-aggregative approach was used to locate, critically
appraise, and synthesize the qualitative evidence base (see Hannes and Lockwood 2011).
Before describing this methodology in more detail, we first examine how pedagogical
beliefs have been defined in recent educational research.
Background
Defining pedagogical beliefs
It is difficult to describe teacher beliefs in unequivocal terms considering the myriad of
ways they have been defined in the literature (e.g. Ertmer 2005; Hermans et al. 2008; Lim
et al. 2013). According to Richardson (2003), beliefs are defined as psychological
understandings, premises, or propositions felt to be true; whereas, knowledge is referred to
J. Tondeur et al.
123
as ‘‘factual propositions and understandings’’ (Calderhead 1996, p. 715). The totality of
one’s beliefs about the physical and social world, as well as beliefs about oneself, is posited
to exist within a comprehensive belief system (Rokeach 1968). In general, beliefs serve as
personal guides that help individuals define and understand the world and themselves
(Pajares 1992).
Although we hold beliefs about almost everything, pedagogical beliefs refer specifically
to the understandings, premises, or propositions about teaching and learning that we hold
to be true (Denessen 2000). As described by Pajares (1992), ‘‘All teachers hold beliefs
about their work, their students, their subject matter, and their roles and responsibilities’’
(p. 314). In this review, we focus specifically on teachers’ beliefs about teaching and
learning and refer to these as pedagogical beliefs. A teacher’s pedagogical belief system
comprises a complex and multifaceted structure of related beliefs on teaching and learning
(Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich 2010; Hermans et al. 2008). Core beliefs are the most
stable and therefore the most difficult to change as they have multiple connections to other
beliefs (Richardson 1996). According to Ertmer (2005), core beliefs about the nature of
teaching also are resistant to change because they have been formed over many years of
experience and have been supported by strong authority and broad consensus. In contrast,
beliefs that are more peripheral and more recently formed are more dynamic and thus,
more open to change (Fives and Gill 2015).
In the field of educational technology, teachers’ beliefs have been commonly classified
into one of two categories: teacher-centered beliefs and student-centered beliefs (Deng
et al. 2014; Ravitz et al. 2000). Teacher-centered beliefs are typically associated with
behaviorism (Deng et al. 2014) and tend to emphasize discipline, subject matter, and moral
standards (Mayer 2003). The teacher acts as an authority, supervising the process of
learning acquisition and serving as the expert in a highly structured learning environment.
In contrast, teachers with student-centered beliefs tend to emphasize individual student
needs and interests (Kerlinger and Kaya 1959; Mayer 2003), and typically adopt classroom
practices associated with constructivism and/or social constructivism (Deng et al. 2014).
For example, based on a key tenet of the constructivist theory (i.e., knowledge emerges in
contexts in which it is relevant) (Bednar et al. 1991), student-centered approaches tend to
revolve around students’ active participation in authentic disciplinary problems, using real
tools of the discipline (Ertmer and Glazewski 2015). As many as 50 years ago, Kerlinger
and Kaya (1959) criticized this bi-polar distinction. Their study provided support for the
hypothesis that teachers may hold both teacher-centered and student-centered pedagogical
beliefs. Given this, researchers today are encouraged to consider a multi-dimensional
approach to exploring teachers’ belief systems (Tondeur and Hermans et al. 2008).
Relationship between pedagogical beliefs and technology use
Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs act as a filter through which new knowledge and experiences
are screened for meaning and relevance (Kagan 1992). This also applies to teachers’
experiences with technology. Researchers have proposed that, in conjunction with the use
of technology over time, teachers often change their classroom practices and, ultimately,
adopt more student-centered beliefs (e.g., Matzen and Edmunds 2007). However, this is
not true of all teachers. This may be because teachers’ individual experiences, beliefs,
emotions, knowledge, self-efficacy, skills, and motivations can be influenced by their
teaching contexts (Stoll 1999). Moreover, teachers’ perceptions about, and actions towards
changing and developing their teaching methods, including their uses of technology, are
Understanding the relationship between teachers’…
123
influenced by what they believe represents good teaching and effective learning (Borko
and Putnam 1995; Ertmer et al. 2015; Fullan 2001).
Evidence suggests that teachers who hold constructivist beliefs tend to be highly active
technology users (Ertmer et al. 2015; Judson 2006). According to Becker (2000), not only
do these teachers tend to use technology more frequently than teachers with teacher-
centered beliefs, but they also tend to use them in more student-centered ways (i.e.,
allowing students to select and direct their own uses of available technology tools). More
specifically, teachers with constructivist beliefs have been observed to use technology as an
information tool (e.g., to retrieve and select information; see Tondeur et al. 2008) and as a
means to help students develop higher-order thinking and problem-solving skills (Berg
et al. 1998). According to Ananiadou and Claro (2009), teachers with constructivist beliefs
use technology to support students’ capacity to ‘‘apply knowledge and skills in key subject
areas and to analyze, reason, and communicate effectively as they raise, solve, and
interpret problems in a variety of situations’’ (p. 7).
Purpose of the study
Based on findings from Inan and Lowther (2010) and Miranda and Russell (2012),
teachers’ pedagogical beliefs are observed to be strong predictors of their uses of tech-
nology. However, findings are not as clear-cut as initially thought. As noted earlier, there is
still the general perception that teacher beliefs and practices are uni-dimensional (teacher-
centered or student-centered), as opposed to multi-dimensional (Kerlinger and Kaya 1959).
A multi-dimensional view suggests that teachers hold varying degrees of both kinds of
beliefs (Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich 2010).
Another complexity in this research area relates to inconsistencies between beliefs and
practices. As noted by Pajares (1992) and others (e.g., Chen 2008), pedagogical beliefs
may compete with other beliefs or external factors and as such, be altered in practice. The
specific context in which pedagogical beliefs are applied influences, sometimes to a great
extent, the manner in which those beliefs manifest (Ertmer 2005). Frequently, these
inconsistencies are attributed to intervening factors that can have both direct and indirect
effects on teachers’ abilities to translate their pedagogical beliefs into practice, including
teacher-related (e.g., competence, motivation, confidence, self-efficacy), school-related
(e.g., leadership, policies), and cultural and societal-related (e.g., parental expectations,
standardized testing requirements) (e.g., Ertmer et al. 2015; Windschitl and Sahl 2002).
The goal of this review is to synthesize the available evidence on the relationship between
teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their uses of technology.
Research method
Meta-aggregation of qualitative studies
In this study, we applied a systematic review method to locate, critically evaluate, and
synthesize studies about the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their
classroom uses of technology. Petticrew and Roberts (2008) defined a systematic literature
review as an interpretation of a selection of documents on a specific topic that optimally
involves summarization, analysis, evaluation, and synthesis of the documents. The
advantage of such a systematic review is that it produces a map of the ‘bigger picture.’
J. Tondeur et al.
123
Systematic reviews can facilitate understanding of a topic, identify common threads across
studies, and/or aid in the development of theory (Hammersley 2001; Tondeur et al. 2012).
The researchers used a meta-aggregative approach, developed in 2001 by the Joanna
Briggs Institute (http://joannabriggs.org), which comprises a systematic process of
extracting and synthesizing qualitative data. The outcome was an aggregative approach
that (1) emphasized the complexity of interpretive and critical understandings of phe-
nomena; (2) recognized the need to ensure that the approach to synthesis is transparent; and
(3) ensured that the synthesized statements would be practical and usable (Hannes and
Lockwood 2011). According to these authors, qualitative approaches can provide insights
into how and why specific pedagogical beliefs and technology uses are linked, or the
perceived reasons for the success or failure of interventions or programs in this field.
The increase in volume of available qualitative research in the field of pedagogical
beliefs and technology use enables the aggregation of findings, allowing us to synthesize
the knowledge gathered from individual studies. The main steps of meta-aggregation, as
used in this study, are outlined in our analysis section. Additional examples of the meta-
aggregative approach can be found in the Joanna Briggs Library of systematic reviews
(http://joannabriggslibrary.org).
Search strategy and inclusion criteria
Initially, identified articles were subject to two criteria for inclusion in the synthesis. First,
the research needed to focus on teachers’ pedagogical beliefs, and second, the article needed
to include some discussion of, or investigation into, how these beliefs related to classroom
technology use. The studies included in this synthesis were located through an extensive
search of the Web of Science. Opinion pieces, letters, and editorials were excluded. Key
words used in the literature search included ‘‘ICT,’’ ‘‘technology,’’ as well as ‘‘pedagogical
beliefs’’ or ‘‘educational beliefs’’ in combination with search filters identifying only qual-
itative empirical studies. Although the definition of technology can cover a broad range of
ideas, when searching within the Web of Science databases, the words ‘‘technology,’’ ‘‘IT,’’
or ‘‘ICT’’ were used. Furthermore, we restricted our search to include only empirical studies
published in English within the 10-year period of 2002–2012. Based on these searches, 77
potentially relevant journal articles were identified by the review team. The review team
consisted of the four authors, all experienced in research on the relationship between
pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education. The authors duly note their own biases
toward student-centered practices, which may be apparent throughout this paper. Ertmer
et al. (2015) conducted a review and found that constructivist beliefs lead to uses of
technology that support the development of 21st century skills.
In a first screening, the titles and abstracts of the studies were examined by two team
members. Exclusions were made if studies did not use qualitative methods or were
insufficiently focused on the topic. The insufficiently focused articles tended to concentrate
more heavily on generally beliefs about ICT as opposed to educational beliefs. Based on
this screening, only 14 studies remained (see Table 1). In some cases, full papers had to be
scanned due to poorly structured abstracts.
Analysis
As mentioned earlier, a meta-aggregative approach was used to review the qualitative
evidence. More specifically, this approach followed a three-step process, as described by
Hannes et al. (2010):
Understanding the relationship between teachers’…
123
(1) Extraction of findings: Based on the 14 selected studies, we aggregated the original
findings on the relationship between pedagogical beliefs and educational technology
use. The actual descriptions presented in the results and discussion sections of the
selected articles were used to maintain a true representation of the primary studies.
This process required repeatedly returning to the original data to verify, contradict,
and/or enrich interpretations.
(2) Categorization of findings: We developed a set of categories to represent findings
that cut across the studies and had similarity in meaning. The categories included
some of the following: ‘‘beliefs as perceived barriers of technology use,’’ ‘‘linking
specific beliefs to types of technology use,’’ or ‘‘changing teacher beliefs and
technology use.’’
(3) Synthesizing the categories: We carefully reviewed the set of categories to produce
a set of synthesized findings. As a result of this process, we created five statements
to emphasize the main effective practices based on the literature that should be
addressed by practitioners, policy makers, and/or researchers, including recommen-
dations for a particular direction for the achievement of successful technology
integration in education.
Table 1 Overview of selected studies
First author Year Country Primary data sources Respondents
1. Chen 2011 Taiwan Interviews 24 EFL teachers
2. Cviko 2012 Netherlands Observations, interviews 4 teachers in kindergarten, 73
pupils
3. Ertmer 2012 US Document analysis, interviews 12 K-12 teachers
4. Donnelly 2011 Ireland Observations, (follow-up)
interviews
7 science teachers and 6
educational stakeholders
5. Lim 2007 Singapore Analysis of artifact, interviews 19 pre-service teachers
6. Lim 2008 Singapore Observations, interviews 6 teachers from 2 primary
schools
7. Lin 2012 Taiwan Observations, interviews 3 language art teachers
8. Martin 2008 Singapore (post-task-) interviews, video and
screen recording
16 pre-service teachers
9. Ottenbreit-
Leftwich
2010 US Portfolio review, interviews,
observations
8 award-winning teachers
10.
Vanderlinde
2010 Belgium (Follow-up) interviews, document
analysis, field notes
School leaders and ICT-
coordinators from 3 schools
11. Pedersen 2003 US (Follow-up) interviews,
observations, field notes, focus
groups
15 middle school science
teachers
12. Hennessy 2005 UK Focus group interviews Members of the project teams
from 6 schools
13. Levin 2005 Israel Open questionnaires, observations,
interviews
6 teachers, 164 students
14.
Windschitl
2002 US Ethnographic approach 3 teachers
J. Tondeur et al.
123
The extracted findings were aggregated and synthesized independently by two
researchers. All disagreements between the researchers were resolved through discussion
among the four authors. In the next section each category and synthesized statement is
described and examples are provided.
Results
As noted earlier, 14 studies were included in the review. The studies were conducted in
eight different countries: four were from the United States, three from Singapore, two from
Taiwan, one from Belgium and the Netherlands, one from Israel, one from the United
Kingdom, and one from Ireland. An overview of each of the selected studies, including first
author, year, country, and primary data sources, is provided in Table 1.
Based on our analysis, 13 categories were identified; these are presented in the second
column of Tables 2,3,4,5and 6. Finally, the 13 categories (C) are combined into six
synthesized statements explicitly related to the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical
beliefs and their uses of technology in education (see Column 3 of Tables 2,3,4,5and 6).
Synthesis 1
The relationship between pedagogical beliefs and technology use should be considered to
be bi-directional (See Table 2).
Our first two categories illustrate how pedagogical beliefs are related to teachers’
technology use and suggest that technology use can lead to the creation of new, recon-
structed, or reaffirmed beliefs. More specifically, in nine of 14 studies (S), the qualitative
evidence indicated that teachers’ experiences with technology were perceived to be an
enabler for supporting pedagogical belief change (C1). For example, according to Chen
(2011), ‘‘advanced computer technologies allow the teachers to practice becoming an
innovative teacher as well as a constructivist teacher’’ (S1, p. 383). The Ertmer et al. (2015)
case study also illustrated how 12 technology motivated teachers from the United States
experimented, implemented, and refined new approaches to teaching and learning:
‘‘ technology gradually reshaped the way I teach’’ (S3, p. 431). The findings from these
nine studies highlight how some teachers see technology as an opportunity to (1) engage
students in learning and to give them more ownership (S4, S5); (2) introduce problem-
based learning (S5, S8); (3) experiment with simulations (S12); (4) access authentic digital
information (S14); (5) communicate and collaborate with peers, teachers, and parents (S13,
S14); (6) provide scaffolds for self-regulated learners (S8, S13); and/or (7) accommodate
individual learning (S14). The comments in Category 1 suggest that when teachers spent
time in technology-rich learning environments, their pedagogical beliefs shifted from a
paradigm that emphasized a teacher-centered approach towards one that emphasized more
open-ended, student oriented or constructivist approaches.
In contrast, five studies mentioned that teachers’ pedagogical beliefs could be perceived
as enablers for technology integration (C2). In one study, Cviko et al. (2012) found that
kindergarten teachers who had developmental or constructivist beliefs perceived tech-
nology as a tool for supporting learning and had positive expectations for the integration of
technology. The qualitative evidence confirmed how the affordances of technology sup-
ported teachers’ existing constructivist beliefs about teaching and learning including the
perceived need to 1) allow students to work in small groups (S3), and 2) encourage
students to explore and research new ideas (S6).
Understanding the relationship between teachers’…
123
Based on the evidence in both categories, Synthesis 1 highlights the importance of
viewing the relationship between pedagogical beliefs and technology use as being bi-
directional. Technology-rich learning experiences have the potential to change teachers’
beliefs towards more student-centered, constructivist beliefs, while at the same time,
teachers with constructivist beliefs are more likely to adopt technology in student-centered
ways within the context of teaching and learning.
Synthesis 2
Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs may hinder or prevent technology integration (See Table 3).
In three studies, teachers’ pedagogical beliefs were perceived to be an impactful barrier
to their educational uses of technology (C3). For instance, the evidence in the Donnelly
et al. (2011) study suggested that the open nature of ICT-based resources (e.g., a virtual
Chemistry Laboratory) did not match the pedagogical beliefs of a group of science
teachers. In this study, teachers with ‘‘contented traditionalist beliefs’’ saw no real need to
use technology when ‘‘traditional practices continue to work’’ (S4, p. 1478). This was also
illustrated by the study of Lim and Chan (2007), which suggested that because most
teachers’ personal learning experiences were predominately through direct instruction,
they believed that technology was not essential to teaching and learning and that a
whiteboard served their educational purposes equally well (S5).
Table 2 Findings contributing to synthesis 1
Examples of qualitative evidence Categories Synthesis
(…) For these three teachers, technology
was a tool that allowed them to
experiment, implement, and refine these
new approaches to teaching and
learning. [S3]
She viewed the laptop as a means for her
students to accommodate their
individual learning needs and for her to
orchestrate classroom learning
experiences that had been impossible
before the laptops [S14]
Technology as perceived
enabler for change (in
teaching approaches and
beliefs)
The relationship between
pedagogical b eliefs and
technology use should be
considered to be bi -directional
Higher education EFL teachers who are
constructivist-oriented tend to use ICT
more. [S1]
With respect to the perceptions of the
affordances of computers, the five
teachers articulated that computers
supported their beliefs of teaching and
learning. Aik Ling and Ben stated that
computers promoted dialogues in the
classroom and encouraged ‘students to
explore and research new ideas and
understand the ideas for themselves’
[S6]
Teacher beliefs as perceived
enabler for technology
integration
J. Tondeur et al.
123
In nine studies, the authors described perceived barriers related to teacher beliefs and
technology use (C4). A recurrent theme in this category was the lack of time. For instance,
a teacher in the Lim and Chan (2007) study commented that in Singapore a rigid scheme of
work and tight block scheduling discouraged her from integrating ICT-based constructivist
practices. She explained: ‘‘…all these will take up most of the curriculum time so I’ve no
choice but to follow this structured manner of instruction. It’s sad because the students
don’t get the opportunity to be more active in their learning’’ (p. 822).
Time pressures were often expressed in terms of the demands of required standards-
based testing. In four of the selected studies, participants explicitly stressed that teacher-
centered approaches to technology use (e.g., drill-and-practice software) better prepared
their students for examinations (S4, S6, S8, S12). Interestingly, based on the comments of a
few teachers, not all students were perceived to be ready to learn from a technology-
Table 3 Findings contributing to synthesis 2
Examples of qualitative evidence Categories Synthesis
Some teachers see no real need to use
computers when “traditional practices
continue to work” and hence see “no
clearly recognised need to change” [S4]
(…) Like most of the pre-service
teachers, her experiences as a student
had been predominately direct
instruction, with an emphasis on facts,
and ‘‘right or wrong answers’’. Anna
felt that technology was not essential to
teaching and learning and believed that a
whiteboard would serve the purpose
equally well. [S5]
Beliefs as perceived barrier
of technology use
The relationship between
pedagogical b eliefs and
technology use should be
considered to be bi -directional
Although they were willing to learn
about technology and try it out with their
students, they found it hard to fit ICT
integrated activities into an already too
tight teaching schedule because ICT
activities tend to consume more class
time than traditional styles of
instruction. [S7]
In addition to her perception that laptops
generated classroom chaos, Julia
experienced uncertainty about when to
use the laptops and what to use them for.
She had little time to learn more about
technology. Julia's planning time was
consumed with preparations for four
different classes, and she gradually
acquiesced to the demands of her
workload, becoming less concerned with
learning how to use the laptop. [S14]
Perceived barriers related to
beliefs and technology use
Understanding the relationship between teachers’…
123
integrated constructivist approach as they were generally not self-directed and were more
used to being ‘‘spoon-fed’’ (S4, S5).
Another barrier that hindered teachers’ adoption of student-centered technology use was
the perceived lack of control. For example, a teacher in the Windschitl and Sahl (2002)
study arranged the classroom desks into six groups of three to facilitate the desired group
interactions, but rearranged the desks back into rows in order to assert her authority. In
addition to her perception that ‘‘laptops generated classroom chaos, Julia [the teacher]
experienced uncertainty about when to use the laptops and what to use them for’’ (S14,
p. 187, see also S5).
Categories 3 and 4 both address the theme of how teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and
related barriers hindered classroom uses of technology. Our Synthesis 2 statement suggests
that in order to understand how to achieve meaningful technology integration in our
schools, a better understanding is needed of the interrelated factors that potentially impact
the desired outcome.
Synthesis 3
A multi-dimensional approach is necessary to address the relationship between pedagog-
ical beliefs and technology use (See Table 4).
Based on the collected evidence (in seven of the selected studies), teachers’ pedagogical
beliefs were observed to align with their educational practices (C5). For instance, teachers
in Pederson’s and Liu study (Pedersen and Liu 2003) were more likely to use programs that
were consistent with their student-centered beliefs. In another example of close alignment
between beliefs and practices, Hillman, a fourth grade teacher from the United States,
described her beliefs as student-centered, using technology to support real world, authentic
applications: ‘‘I try to give [my students] hands-on things, things that have real-life
application, and I think that technology just fits in with that’’ (S3, p. 431).
Closely related to Category 5, Category 6 highlights that specific pedagogical beliefs are
associated with specific types of technology use (observed in six studies). Teachers whose
pedagogy was characterized by teacher-centered beliefs frequently used technology in
ways that emphasized skills acquisition (e.g., Martin and Vallance 2008), whereas those
with constructivist orientations also tended to use technology for the attainment of more
open ended (higher-order) learning objectives (e.g., S8). In the study by Lim and Chan
(2007), teachers with constructivist orientations used technology as a problem-solving tool.
For instance, Penny explained that students could search the Internet for information, enter
and analyze data mediated by a spreadsheet application, and represent the relationships and
ideas symbolically or visually. These findings support the theme that teachers’ beliefs
about teaching and learning are related to the way they use technology in their classrooms
(e.g., S2).
In contrast to the evidence that supports Category 6, evidence in Category 7 suggests
that teachers’ pedagogical beliefs, as described in five of the qualitative studies, can not
always be classified into one single category (e.g., S6, S8, S12). That is, teacher profiles
included multiple beliefs and approaches towards technology. In the study by Levin and
Wadmany (2005), for instance, most teachers were observed to change educational lenses
depending on the context, thus demonstrating multiple views rather than uni-dimensional
beliefs. As such, different types of technological applications, in combination with dif-
ferent belief profiles, can lead to quite different outcomes (S13).
In the studies mentioned above, the authors criticized the bi-polar distinction often made
between teacher-centered beliefs and more student-centered educational beliefs and have
J. Tondeur et al.
123
turned their attention, instead, toward a multi-dimensional description of the belief system
(Synthesis 3, Table 4). The qualitative evidence analyzed for this review supports the idea
that the technology integration process is an individual process, unique to each teacher.
Synthesis 4
A better understanding of the role of pedagogical beliefs is needed for teachers to benefit
from professional development aimed at increasing educational technology use (see
Table 5).
Professional development was a main theme in the majority of studies reviewed. In
eight of the 14 studies, the findings indicated that changes occurred in the beliefs and
educational practices of the participating teachers after participating in professional
development (Category 8). Generally, the qualitative findings showed that at the beginning
Table 4 Findings contributing to synthesis 3
Examples of qualitative evidence Categories Synthesis
Hillman, a fourth grade teacher,
described her beliefs as student-centered,
using technology to support real world,
authentic applications: “I try to give [my
students] hands-on things, things that
have real-life application, and I think
that technology just fits in with that.”
[S3]
Alignment between beliefs
and practice
A multi -dimensional approach is
necessary to address the
relationship between pedagogical
beliefs and technology use
Their choices about how to use
technology in their classrooms emerged
from different personal histories, unique
ways in which they reconciled perceived
institutional expectations for teaching
with their own beliefs about students and
learning, and varying access to settings
in which one could learn about
technology [S14].
Linking specific
beliefs
to types of technology use
Although a varied pattern of educational
beliefs was found, almost all teachers
expressed more than one category of
belief regarding at least one concept. For
example, even after three years of
exposure to a technology-rich
environment, Zipi still saw learning as a
process of knowledge acquisition.
However, she also saw the student as an
active learner. This indicates both a
behaviourist ideology and a weak
constructivist (cognitive constructivist)
ideology [S13]
Teacher profiles with
different beliefs
Understanding the relationship between teachers’…
123
of interventions most teachers expressed teacher-centered beliefs compared to more varied
beliefs after the interventions (e.g., S13). For example, in the Levin and Wadmany (2005)
study, the respondents focused more on facilitating student understanding at the end of the
program as opposed to simply covering content in a technology rich environment, as noted
at the beginning of the study. Also in the Lim and Chan (2007) study, there was a change in
teachers’ roles, ‘‘from a knowledge receiver to knowledge constructor, and technology’s
role from tools to assist students in receiving knowledge to tools that facilitated knowledge
construction’’ (p. 483). An examination of the artifacts developed in this study suggested a
change from a more teacher-centered set of pedagogical beliefs to more student-centered
beliefs. However, the authors questioned if the change was due to the need to meet the
expectations and fulfill the assignment requirements rather than to a real change in ped-
agogical beliefs.
Generally speaking, pedagogical beliefs are relatively stable and typically long-term
professional development is needed in order to change teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and
practices. For example, the Levin and Wadmany (2005) study showed that after a three-
year period of teaching and learning in a technology-based environment, changes occurred
in the beliefs and practices of the six participating teachers.
Another issue emerging in four of the 14 studies related to teachers’ resistance to
changing beliefs and practices with new technologies (Category 9). Despite their
engagement in professional development geared toward using technology in constructivist
ways, some teachers continued to regard teaching as a process of knowledge transmission
Table 5 Findings contributing to synthesis 4
Examples of qualitative evidence Categories Synthesis
Comparing the technology-mediated
lesson plans and the microLESSONS,
there was a change in teachers role from
a knowledge dispenser to a facilitator,
students role from knowledge receiver to
knowledge constructor, and
technology’s role from tools to assist
students in receiving knowledge to tools
that facilitated knowledge construction.
[S5]
Changing te acher beliefs
and technology use
A better understanding of the
role of pedagogical beliefs is
needed for teachers to benefit
from professional development
aimed at increasing educational
technology use
Although teacher A learned how to find
useful resources fro m the Web
and use them to create multimedia
materials to suit her instructional
purposes, her teaching style remained
teacher-centric.
(…) With this activity, teacher A did not
show significant advance in either the
pedagogy or technology
dimension; therefore, her ICT
integration status remains the same [S7]
Resistance to changing
beliefs and practices with
new technologies
J. Tondeur et al.
123
(see S13, S14). For example, a teacher in the study by Windschitl and Sahl (2002) cited her
busy schedule as a reason for maintaining her teacher-directed instructional strategies (see
Category 4). According to a middle school teacher in the United States, ‘‘standardizing the
curriculum included homogenizing the learning experiences’’ (p. 195).
Categories eight and nine both address issues related to strategies for supporting
changes in teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology-supported practices (Table 5).
Clearly, as noted by the results of several studies, not all teachers will benefit from a
professional development intervention (Synthesis 4). This leads to the next theme, which
addresses the role of context in teachers’ adoption and implementation of technology in
their classrooms.
Synthesis 5: a consideration of the school context is needed to address
the complex relationship between teacher pedagogical beliefs and technology
use (see Table 6)
The influence of context on pedagogical beliefs and technology use was a key theme in
eight of the 14 studies (Category 10). More specifically, school characteristics such as
policy planning, technology support, or peer support seem to play an important role. With
respect to peer support, several studies showed that pedagogical beliefs can be reinforced
Table 6 Findings contributing to synthesis 5
Examples of qualitative evidence Categories Synthesis
In the lower grades, the school promoted
the use of ICT within a teacher-centred
vision on education, especially in
mathematics and languages classes. For
the higher grades, the school promoted
the use of ICTwithin a student-centred
vision on education (e.g. ICTas a
presentation and communication tool).
[S10]
During my last twelve years, we have
tried so many things: group learning,
problem-based learning, discovery
learning, ... but they all didn’t work in
the school system [S6].
Influence of (school) context
on ICT use and teacher
beliefs
A consideration of the school
context is needed to a ddress the
complex relationship between
teacher pedagogical beliefs and
technology use
The findings highlight how some
teachers see ICT as an opportunity for
them to do something new and
interesting with their students in terms of
how the students learn while other
teachers feel it is beyond their control to
do anything about the types of ICT
resources they have within their
classroom [S4]
Different teacher beliefs
profiles within a school
Understanding the relationship between teachers’…
123
by colleagues and that sharing ideas about technology use can stimulate student-centered
teaching with technology (e.g. S14). However, some researchers noted that teachers report
having few conversations about the role of technology in their classrooms and mention the
school culture as a barrier (e.g., C3). Interestingly, the findings also demonstrate how
students’ negative attitudes and poor ICT skills can hinder student-centered technology
integration (S12). This can also be related to the variable of grade level: ‘‘In the lower
grades, the school promoted the use of ICT within a teacher-centred vision on education,
especially in mathematics and languages classes. For the higher grades, the school pro-
moted the use of ICT within a student-centred vision on education’’ (Vanderlinde et al.
2010).
Additionally, the qualitative findings highlight the importance of school policies.
According to Hennessy (Hannes et al. 2013), a conscious effort is needed at the institu-
tional level to create opportunities, particularly with a cross-curricular subject like ICT,
and to clarify departmental responsibilities. The departments in this study tended to operate
independently in many cases and opportunities for sharing knowledge about what pupils
were doing in different subjects seemed to be limited (S12). In the study by Vanderlinde
et al. (2010), the role of technology was grounded in a shared vision of ‘good’ education in
all three schools that were examined, although the definition of ‘‘good’’ varied from school
to school. For instance, while stakeholders of school A stressed that class-based instruc-
tional needs must precede pupil’s individual technology use, school B stakeholders
emphasized that students should use technology for independent and creative work. In this
way, technology use was more teacher-centered in school A and more student-centered in
school B (S10).
Our analysis also revealed that teachers working in the same school did not necessarily
share the same pedagogical beliefs (Category 11). For example, some teachers in the study
by Cviko et al. (2012) had strong transmission beliefs, some had strong constructivist
beliefs, and others acknowledged possessing both orientations (see also S10). In this
respect, stakeholders in one school in the Vanderlinde et al. (2010) study ‘‘acknowledged
the importance of both orientations and did not favor one specific educational orientation’’
(p. 10) in terms of its vision for educational technology use. This aligns with the results of
the study by Levin and Wadmany (2005) indicating that educational change involving
information technology is an individual process, unique to each teacher, even when
working with groups in a supportive and dynamic learning community (S14). In summary,
the main synthesis of the qualitative data for Categories 10 and 11 includes the desirability
of building a coherent and supportive school community of practice, which embraces a
vision of a ‘‘good’ education, that is, one that integrates meaningful technology use
(Synthesis 5).
Discussion
In this systematic review we aggregated available qualitative evidence on the relationship
between pedagogical beliefs and educational technology use, resulting in five synthesized
statements. The first synthesis suggests that the relationship between pedagogical beliefs
and technology use comprises a bi-directional relationship. Based on the selected studies,
the integration of technology within classroom educational processes has the potential to
change teachers’ beliefs towards more student-centered, constructivist beliefs. Technology
is viewed as a way to motivate teachers to experiment, implement, and refine new
J. Tondeur et al.
123
approaches to teaching and learning (Donnelly et al. 2011). This is in line with the review
by Ertmer et al. (2015), who suggested that constructivist beliefs lead to uses of technology
that support the development of 21st century skills. Based on this synthesis, it is important
to note that learning to teach with technology is an iterative process: beliefs lead to actions,
which, in turn, lead to the development of reconstructed or reaffirmed beliefs (Haney et al.
2002).
Apart from an illustration of a beliefs-practice relationship, the current study highlights
the potential for teachers’ pedagogical beliefs to act as a barrier to technology integration
(Synthesis 2). The evidence suggests that teachers with more teacher-centered beliefs do
not perceive technology as being essential to the teaching and learning process (e.g., Lim
and Chan 2007). Synthesis 2 also suggests that a better understanding is needed of the
interrelated factors that potentially impact teacher beliefs and technology use. Recurrent
barriers include the lack of time, a rigid schedule of classes, and examination requirements
(e.g., Windschitl and Sahl 2002). These findings confirm that time pressures and an
examination-oriented society tend to lead to teacher-centered approaches to technology use
(Lin et al. 2012). Although several educational authorities (for an overview, see Voogt and
Roblin 2012) have suggested more student-centered uses of technology (such as those
targeting 21st century skills), many of the identified obstacles are still subject to the
implicit and explicit rules of our educational systems. Surprisingly, even some students in
the selected studies were perceived not to be ready to learn from a technology-integrated
constructivist approach (e.g., Lim and Chan 2007.
However, technology can also be beneficial to teachers with teacher-centered peda-
gogical beliefs (Tondeur and Hermans et al. 2008). Several authors reported that teachers
find value in using technology when it aligns with their current pedagogical approaches
(Lim and Chan 2007; Tondeur et al. 2013). Therefore, regardless of teachers’ pedagogical
approaches, technology should be introduced in ways that align with teachers’ current
approaches, thus appealing to their values and increasing the likelihood that teachers will
integrate and use technology. In this respect, the collected evidence emphasizes the
importance of a multi-dimensional approach to addressing the relationship between ped-
agogical beliefs and technology use (Synthesis 3): many of the teacher profiles described in
the 14 studies included multiple beliefs and approaches towards technology use. Levin and
Wadmany (2005), for example, suggested that most teachers could not be classified as
holding one pedagogical orientation, but rather seemed to change educational lenses
depending on the context. Nevertheless, our findings also suggest that specific pedagogical
beliefs are associated with specific types of technology use (Martin and Vallance 2008). In
other words, there generally seems to be a close alignment between pedagogical beliefs
and practice (Pedersen and Liu 2003).
Another key issue relates to professional development (PD) for technology integration,
as highlighted by Synthesis 4. The synthesis statements address issues related to how to
facilitate alignment among teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology-supported prac-
tices (Martin and Vallance 2008). Based on the available evidence, not all participants
benefited from professional development interventions. This is in line with the findings that
teachers’ pedagogical belief systems comprise a complex and multifaceted structure of
related beliefs (Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich 2010) that are difficult to change
(Richardson 1996). If the goal of the PD effort is to change teachers’ beliefs, evidence
suggests that long-term professional development is more likely to promote such a change
(Levin and Wadmany 2005).
For example, a long-term professional development program, which builds on (pre-
service) teachers’ existing beliefs and practices and is reinforced through on-going inquiry,
Understanding the relationship between teachers’…
123
may offer a promising approach (Sang et al. 2012). This approach is in line with recom-
mendations from other researchers who stress the importance of professional development
as an iterative process, aimed at extending and updating the professional knowledge and
beliefs of teachers in the context of their work (e.g., Kopcha 2010; Tondeur et al. 2016). To
illustrate, Kopcha (2010) suggested using a systems approach to student-centered tech-
nology integration, incorporating mentoring and communities of practice. The model
begins with individualized mentoring and culminates with the creation of a teacher-led
community of practice using school specific resources to sustain continued development
toward student-centered technology uses. Similarly, several authors have suggested
involving teachers in collaborative design as an effective strategy to develop digital
resources in line with teachers’ pedagogical beliefs (Voogt and Roblin 2012). According to
Voogt et al. design teams also provide opportunities for teachers to reflect on each
member’s personal competence and beliefs regarding the reform. These types of initiatives
also have the potential to bolster teachers’ self-efficacy, which in turn has been found to
influence teachers’ beliefs (Holden and Rada 2011).
This leads to the role of the school context in supporting teachers’ efforts to integrate
technology. Synthesis 5 includes the desirability of a supportive school environment,
which includes school policies that are based on the development of a vision of a ‘‘good’
education that incorporates the meaningful integration of technology (e.g., Vanderlinde
et al. 2010). Apart from adopting a school vision focused on student-centered education,
Hannes et al. (2013) argues for a conscious effort at the institutional level to implement
such a vision (for instance create opportunities, clarify departmental responsibilities, etc.).
As one example, Watson et al. (2012) described the importance of enacting a district-wide
effort in order to implement student-centered technology uses. Furthermore, they recom-
mended that a shared vision be created among all stakeholders (e.g., board members,
parents, teachers, administration) in order to create sustainable and successful educational
reforms that integrate technology.
Limitations of the study and suggestions for future research
This review study used a meta-aggregation approach to explore the relationship between
teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use. Despite using recommended procedures
(Hannes and Lockwood 2011), methodological choices lead to inevitable limitations in the
process (Hannes et al. 2013). For instance, we excluded studies about teachers’ beliefs
about the role of technology in education. Moreover, the search strategy was hindered by
the existing conceptual confusion in the field regarding pedagogical beliefs (Hermans et al.
2008). Such issues may have influenced our synthesis findings.
Nevertheless, this type of review provides a richer account than can be obtained by one
single qualitative study (Hammersley 2001). For instance, the findings provide a clear
overview about how contextual characteristics (school culture, grade level, student pop-
ulation) influence the adoption of pedagogical beliefs and technology use in practice. In
this respect, the results also demonstrate that the findings in this area cannot simply be
generalized. For example, some findings are specific to the context of secondary education
(e.g., Hannes et al. 2010). Yet, in higher education, teachers’ belief profiles and technology
uses might be different (e.g., Lin et al. 2012). Simplifying the complex relationship
between pedagogical beliefs and educational technology use was a difficult process that
reduced the importance of the contextually of the results. Clearly, we have to assume that
pedagogical beliefs and technology uses in classrooms are different in different parts of the
world. Future research should consider the relational use of technology in view of teachers’
J. Tondeur et al.
123
pedagogical beliefs and school cultures (Krug and Arntzen 2010), national and local
curricular organizations, and the societal characteristics of educational systems.
By including other forms of evidence from different types of research, mixed-methods
reviews are also important to address, as they can maximize the findings (Joanna Briggs
Institute 2014) in the field of pedagogical beliefs and technology integration in education.
To illustrate, the mixed-methods model enables us to integrate quantitative estimates about
the impact of pedagogical beliefs on professional development for ICT integration, aug-
mented by a qualitative understanding about how pedagogical beliefs can be related to
teachers’ professional development. Also, longitudinal studies investigating changes in
pedagogical beliefs in relationship to how technology is used in classrooms could lead to
new insights. The relationship between teacher beliefs and educational innovations, such as
technology integration, is complex and therefore any outcomes from an identified change
are likely to be produced through an involved chain of events.
Conclusions
A meta-aggregative approach was used to locate, critically appraise, and synthesize the
qualitative evidence base on the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and
their uses of technology. By aggregating findings from multiple studies we provide
compelling evidence that is not observable when viewing results from a single study. As
such, the results can be described as patterns in the literature, which have the potential to
move both our theory and practice forward. More specifically, the results presented in this
review study fuel the development of theory concerning the complex relationship between
teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and educational innovations, with a special focus on tech-
nology. Past programs aimed at increasing technology integration in education have often
failed due to a mismatch between the educational change and the meanings attached to that
change by those involved in the instructional process. Consequently, the process of
effective technology integration should not be facilitated as a stand-alone event, focusing
solely on technical skills. Based on the results of this study, teachers’ beliefs about ‘‘good’’
education should be a critical dimension in professional development programs that sup-
port teachers learning about the meaningful use of technology in education.
References
Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium learners in
OECD countries. OECD Education Working Papers. No. 41. Paris OECD
Arntzen, J., & Krug, D. (2011). ICT ecologies of learning: Active socially engaged learning, resiliency and
leadership. In S. D’Agustino (Ed.), Adaptation, resistance and access to instructional technologies:
assessing future trends in education (pp. 332–354). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Becker, H. J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 8, 51.
Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1991). Theory into practice: How do we link?
In G. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future. Libraries Unlimited:
Englewood, CO.
Berg, S., Benz, C. R., Lasley, T. J., II, & Raisch, C. D. (1998). Exemplary technology use in elementary
classrooms. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31, 111–122.
Berrett, B., Murphy, J., & Sullivan, J. (2012). Administrator insights and reflections: Technology integration
in schools. The Qualitative Report, 17(1), 200–221.
Understanding the relationship between teachers’…
123
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1995). Expanding a teacher’s knowledge base: A cognitive psychological
perspective on professional development. In T. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional devel-
opment in education: New paradigms and practices (pp. 35–65). New York: Teachers College Press.
Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook
of educational psychology (pp. 709–725). New York: Macmillan.
Chen, C.-H. (2008). Why do teachers not practice what they believe regarding technology integration? The
Journal of Educational Research, 102(1), 65–75.
Chen, Y. L. (2011). Fostering Taiwanese EFL teachers’ constructivist instructional beliefs through teaching
goals and ICT use. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 20, 373–386.
Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2012). Teachers enacting a technology-rich curriculum for emergent
literacy. Educational Technology Research & Development, 60(1), 31–54.
Denessen, E. (2000). Opvattingen over onderwijs (Beliefs about education). Apeldoorn: Garant.
Deng, F., Chai, C. S., Tsai, C. C., & Lee, M. H. (2014). The relationships among Chinese practicing
teachers’ epistemic beliefs, pedagogical beliefs and their beliefs about the use of ICT. Journal of
Educational Technology & Society, 17(2), 245–256.
Donnelly, D., McGarr, O., & O’Reilly, J. (2011). A framework for teachers’ integration of ICT into their
classroom practice. Computers and Education, 57, 1469–1483.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration?
Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.
Ertmer, P. A., & Glazewski, K. D. (2015). Essentials of PBL implementation: Fostering collaboration,
transforming roles, and scaffolding learning. In A. Walker, H. Leary, C. Hmelo-Silver, & P. A. Ertmer
(Eds.), Essential readings in problem-based learning (pp. 89–106). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue
University Press.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confi-
dence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42, 255–284.
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & Tondeur, J. (2015). Teacher beliefs and uses of technology to
support 21st century teaching and learning. In H. R. Fives & M. Gill (Eds.), International handbook of
research on teacher beliefs (pp. 403–418). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
Fives, H., & Gill, M. G. (Eds.). (2015). International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs. New York:
Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hammersley, M. (2001). On ‘systematic’ reviews of research literatures: A ‘narrative’ response to Evans &
Benefield. British Educational Research Journal, 27, 543–554.
Haney, J. J., Lumpe, A. T., Czerniak, C. M., & Egan, V. (2002). From beliefs to actions: the beliefs and
actions of teachers implementing change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 171–187.
Hannes, K., & Lockwood, C. (2011). Pragmatism as the philosophical underpinning of the Joanna Briggs
meta-aggregative approach to qualitative evidence synthesis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 67,
1632–1642.
Hannes, K., Lockwood, C., & Pearson, A. (2010). A comparative analysis of three online appraisal
instruments’ ability to assess validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 20,
1736–1743.
Hannes, K., Raes, E., Vangenechten, K., Heyvaert, M., & Dochy, F. (2013). Experiences from employees
with team learning in a vocational learning or work setting: A systematic review of qualitative evi-
dence. Educational Research Review, 10, 116–132.
Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). The impact of primary school teachers’
educational beliefs on the classroom use of computers. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1499–1509.
Holden, H., & Rada, R. (2011). Understanding the influence of perceived usability and technology self-
efficacy on teachers’ technology acceptance. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(4),
343–367.
Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: a path
model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137–154.
Joanna Briggs Institute. (2014). Joanna Briggs institute reviewers’ manual: methodology for JBI umbrella
reviews. Adelaide: The Joanna Briggs Institute.
Judson, E. (2006). How teachers integrate technology and their beliefs about learning: Is there a connection?
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14, 581–597.
Kagan, D. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational
Research, 62, 129–169.
Kerlinger, F. N., & Kaya, E. (1959). The construction and factor analytic validation of scales to measure
attitudes toward education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 19, 13–29.
J. Tondeur et al.
123
Kimmons, R., Miller, B. G., Amador, J., Desjardins, C. D., & Hall, C. (2015). Technology integration
coursework and finding meaning in pre-service teachers’ reflective practice. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 63(6), 809–829.
Kopcha, T. (2010). A systems-based approach to technology integration using mentoring and communities
of practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 175–190.
Krug, D., & Arntzen, J. (2010). Ecologies of learning: Efficacious learning and ICT pedagogical and
technological adaptability. In S. Mukerji & P. Tripathi (Eds.), Cases on interactive technology envi-
ronments and transnational collaboration: concerns and perspectives (pp. 74–93). Hershey, PA:
Information Science Reference.
Lawless, K., & Pellegrino, J. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and
learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational
Research, 77, 575–614.
Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2005). Changes in educational beliefs and classroom practices of teachers and
students in rich technology-based classrooms. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 14, 281–307.
Lim, C. P., & Chan, B. C. (2007). MicroLESSONS in teacher education: Examining pre-service teachers’
pedagogical beliefs. Computers & Education, 48, 474–494.
Lim, C. P., Tondeur, J., Nastiti, H., & Pagram, J. (2014). Educational innovations and pedagogical beliefs:
The case of a professional development program for Indonesian teachers. Journal of Applied Research
in Education, 18, 1–14.
Lim, C. P., Zhao, Y., Tondeur, J., Chai, S. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Bridging the Gap: Technology Trends
and Use of Technology in Schools. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 59–69.
Lin, J. M. C., Wang, P. Y., & Lin, I. (2012). Pedagogy * technology: A two-dimensional model for teachers’
ICT integration. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), 97–108.
Liu, S. H. (2011). Factors related to pedagogical beliefs of teachers and technology integration. Computers
& Education, 56(4), 1012–1022.
Martin, S., & Vallance, M. (2008). The impact of synchronous inter-networked teacher training in Infor-
mation and Communication Technology integration. Computers & Education, 51, 34–53.
Matzen, N., & Edmunds, J. (2007). Technology as a catalyst for change: The role of professional devel-
opment. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39, 417–430.
Mayer, R. E. (2003). Theories of learning and their application to technology. In H. F. O’Neil Jr. & R.
S. Perez (Eds.), Technology applications in education: A learning view (pp. 127–157). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Miranda, H., & Russell, M. (2012). Understanding factors associated with teacher-directed student use of
technology in elementary classrooms: A structural equation modeling approach. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 43, 652–666.
Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying discriminating variables
between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited integration. Computers &
Education, 51, 1523–1537.
Pajares, M. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of
Educational Research, 62, 307–332.
Pedersen, S., & Liu, M. (2003). Teachers’ beliefs about issues in the implementation of a student-centered
learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(2), 57–76.
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden,
MA: Wiley.
Prestridge, S. (2012). The beliefs behind the teacher that influences their ICT practices. Computers &
Education, 58(1), 449–458.
Ravitz, J., Becker, H. J., & Wong, Y. T. (2000). Constructivist-compatible beliefs and practices among U. S.
teachers. Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations. Retrieved from http://
www.crito.uci.edu/TLC/FINDINGS/REPORT4/REPORT4.PDF.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teacher education (pp. 102–119). New York: Simon & Schuster/Macmillan.
Richardson, V. (2003). Preservice teachers’ beliefs. In J. Rath & A. C. McAninch (Eds.), Advances in
Teacher Education series, 6 (pp. 1–22). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Pub.
Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010a). Student teachers’ thinking processes and ICT
integration: Predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational technology. Computers &
Education, 54(1), 103–112.
Sang, G. Y., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010b). Investigating teachers educational beliefs in
Chinese primary schools: socio-economical and geographical perspectives. Asia-pacific Journal of
Teacher Education, 37(4), 363–377.
Understanding the relationship between teachers’…
123
Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., Tondeur, J., Zhu, Ch., & Yu, K. (2012). Challenging science teachers’
beliefs and practices through a video-case-based intervention in China’s primary schools. Asia-Pacific
Journal of Teacher Education, 40(4), 363–378.
Spector, J. M. (2010). An overview of progress and problems in educational technology. Interactive Edu-
cational Multimedia, 1, 27–37.
Stoll, L. (1999). Realizing our potential: Understanding and developing capacity for lasting improvement.
School effectiveness and school improvement, 10, 503–532.
Tondeur, J., Hermans, R., Valcke, M., & van Braak, J. (2008a). 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.
Tondeur, J., Kershaw, L., Vanderlinde, R., & van Braak, J. (2013). Getting inside the black box of tech-
nology integration in education: Teachers stimulated recall of classroom observations. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, 29(3), 434–449.
Tondeur, J., Valcke, M., & van Braak, J. (2008b). A multidimensional approach to determinants of computer
use in primary education: Teacher and school characteristics. Journal of Computer Assisted learning,
24(6), 494–506.
Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Preparing pre-
service teachers to integrate technology in education: a synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers &
Education, 59(1), 134–144.
Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Siddiq, F., & Scherer, R. (2016). Time for a new approach to prepare future
teachers for educational technology use: Its meaning and measurement. Computers & Education, 94,
134–150.
U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2010). Transforming American Edu-
cation: Learning powered by technology. National Educational Technology Plan, 2010. Retrieved
October 29, 2011, from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010.
Vanderlinde, R., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Using an online tool to support school-based ICT
policy planning in primary education. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 26(5), 296–306.
Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century
competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3),
299–321.
Watson, W., Watson, S., & Reigeluth, C. (2012). A systemic integration of technology for new-paradigm
education. Educational Technology, 52(5), 25–29.
Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: The
interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American educational research
journal, 39(1), 165–205.
Zhao, Y., & Cziko, G. A. (2001). Teacher adoption of technology: A perceptual control theory perspective.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9, 5–30.
Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective.
American Educational Research Journal, 40, 807–840.
Jo Tondeur is an Associate Professor at Vrije Universiteit Brussel and he is also affiliated as researcher of
the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) at Ghent University, Belgium. His research is situated within the
field of educational innovations. Specifically, his research focuses on the integrated use of ICT in pre-service
teacher training and compulsory education.
Johan van Braak has been teaching at the Department of Educational Studies of Ghent University since
2003. His teaching and research interests include topics related to educational research and educational
psychology. He coordinates different research projects within the broad field of ICT in formal education, e.g.
the use of ICT to support self-regulated learning, the integration of ICT in schools, developing ICT
indicators for education, and the assessment of ICT competencies of learners and teachers.
Peggy A. Ertmer is Professor of Learning Design and Technology at Purdue University. Her research
interests relate to technology integration, teacher beliefs, and helping students become expert instructional
designers, specifically through the use of case and problem-based learning methods. She is the Founding
Editor of the Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning and teaches courses to pre-service STEM
teachers, using a PBL approach.
J. Tondeur et al.
123
Anne Ottenbreit-Leftwich is an Associate Professor of Instructional Systems Technology at Indiana
University – Bloomington. Dr. Ottenbreit-Leftwich’s expertise lies in the areas of the design of digital
curriculum resources, the use of technology to support pre-service teacher training, and development/
implementation of professional development for teachers and teacher educators.
Understanding the relationship between teachers’…
123
