Technology Experiences in Initial Teacher Education: A Systematic Review

1.1 Teacher Education

In the realm of teacher education, significant changes are occurring both in the training of educators and within the school environments where they practice their profession. These transformations encompass a wide spectrum, such as (i) The integration of new tools into the classroom, such as digital whiteboards, tablets, and smartphones, among others (e.g., Bower, DeWitt, & Lai, 2020; Cruz & Quadros-Flores, 2021); (ii) Revisions to the physical infrastructure, involving the creation of innovative educational spaces and classrooms of the future, as well as the development of maker spaces, and similar innovative environments (e.g., Baeta & Pedro, 2018; Fletcher & Everatt, 2021; Kurti, Kurti, & Fleming, 2014; Pedro, 2017; Whyte, 2019); (iii) The evolution of teaching methodologies, including active learning strategies, the flipped classroom model, problem-based learning, project-based learning, case-based learning, and other innovative approaches (e.g., Aidoo, 2023; Göçen & Bulut, 2024; Graziano, 2017; Tempera & Tinoca, 2023); and (iv) The adaptation of teacher education programs to a distance learning format, encompassing both continuous professional development and initial teacher training. These multifaceted changes reflect the dynamic nature of education in response to evolving societal demands, technology advancements, and the recent challenges posed by the global pandemic (Assunção Flores & Gago, 2020; Prata-Linhares et al., 2020).

1.2 Extant Systematic Reviews

Over the past few years, researchers have delved into how teacher education programs are addressing the use of technology in higher education. In a literature review, Tondeur et al. (2011) noted that despite the quality and quantity of preservice teachers’ technology experiences influence the way they will use technology in the classroom, research findings indicate that technology is underutilized during their initial teacher education programs. A decade later, Santos et al. (2022) conducted another literature review, revealing that digital competencies among higher education professors are still in an early stage of development. Moreover, various literature reviews have been conducted on preservice teachers and the use of technology. Moreover, various literature reviews have been conducted on preservice teachers and the use of technology (e.g., García-Lázaro, Conde-Jiménez, & Colás-Bravo, 2022; Iredale et al., 2020; Pulham, Graham, & Short, 2018; Wang, Schmidt-Crawford, & Jin, 2018). However, the focus of the first and the third reviews is on specific contexts: blended learning and social media, respectively. Wang et al. (2018) concentrated on a specific theoretical framework: Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK).

While previous systematic reviews revolve around technology integration in teacher education, they differ from one another and from the one presented here in their specific focuses, methodologies, and key findings, contributing to a broader understanding of this critical aspect of teacher preparation. Unlike previous reviews, our systematic review aims to uncover a landscape of technological experiences in initial teacher education programs. We are not confined to specific contexts or theoretical frameworks, instead intending to provide an overarching view of the technological practices within these programs. García-Lázaro et al. (2022), conducted a comprehensive systematic review that specifically examined the incorporation of technologies into the practicum experiences of preservice teachers. In addition to the bibliometric results, this investigation presented a thematic analysis based on three main areas: “consideration of technologies before practicum, the use of technologies at the schools, and the study of preservice teacher’s personal variables.” As a result of this investigation, we found that “little is still known about how universities address pedagogical strategies that technologies provide to confront curriculum issues as well as the personalization of the education.” (García-Lázaro et al., 2022, p. 13) Therefore, we also propose a mapping of the different course models, theories, and methodologies offered by universities to future teachers. By delving into the courses designed and examined by universities and researchers, our review seeks to understand the diverse ways technology is integrated into initial teacher education. We believe that a nuanced exploration of these experiences can shed light on how preservice teachers acquire the necessary skills for incorporating technology in their future classrooms.

1.3 Purpose

In this study, we contend that if preservice teachers can acquire technology skills through observing and being inspired by their university professors in teacher education programs, it may facilitate the seamless integration of technological tools into their future school practices. Furthermore, these technologically equipped teachers could play a crucial role in bridging the existing gap between technology use in classrooms and the growing demand for such experiences from schools and society at large. Our systematic review is positioned to contribute insights by addressing the gaps left by previous reviews and offering a comprehensive and qualitative understanding of the technological landscape in initial teacher education. Three central research questions were defined to guide our investigation:

1. What technological experiences do preservice teachers encounter during their teacher education programs?

2. At what stage in teacher education do these technological experiences occur?

Are there any discernible connections between the use of technology in the classroom and, for instance, during practicum?

To address these research questions, we have articulated three primary objectives:

1. Identify studies that document technological experiences in initial teacher training programs through to the early years of teaching.

2. Categorize these studies based on the theoretical frameworks and approaches employed, the tools and methodologies utilized, and the format of the technological experiences.

3. Identify noteworthy theoretical and methodological approaches.

Within the scope of our research, we endeavored to gain insights into how and when preservice teachers engage with technological advancements throughout their teacher education journey.

2.1 Search

During our study, we accessed the EBSCOhost research database, a platform that encompasses various educational resources, including Education Source, Educational Resource Information Center, PsycINFO, Psychology & Behavioral Sciences Collection, PsycARTICLES, Academic Search Complete, library, information science & technology abstracts, eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), and OpenDissertations. This search took place on March 16, 2023, with the aim of identifying relevant published papers. Our search was confined to the period spanning from 2013 to 2023. We employed Boolean search techniques, using the keywords “technology” AND (“preservice teachers” or “teacher candidates” or “preservice teachers” or “student teachers”).

2.1.1 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Our initial search returned a total of 162 papers. To streamline our selection process, we excluded two duplicates and 15 papers that lacked a Scopus index. This left us with 145 studies. These studies were cataloged, with details including the title, author, source, year of publication, publication type, abstract, link, and database source. Each co-author of this article has diligently examined the procedures undertaken by the primary author and discussed the inclusion and exclusion criteria in Table 1.

Table 1

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion	Exclusion
Peer reviewed journal articles	Non-empirical studies
Journal articles published between 2013 and 2023	Not related to technology nor preservice teachers
Journal articles written in English	Conference proceedings
Scopus indexed journal articles	Related to the preservice teachers’ perceptions, attitudes, or beliefs

Refining the study’s parameters through the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria led to the exclusion of 122 articles. Consequently, 40 articles met the criteria and were retained for inclusion in this investigation, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram of the systematic review process. Note. Adapted from Page et al. (2021).

Subsequently, a careful reading of the abstracts and, when necessary, a review of the methodological processes was undertaken to identify research articles that fulfilled our first criterion: investigations with empirical experiences pertaining to the use of technology in preservice teacher education programs. Our review found 10 articles that were not based on empirical data and 32 publications that did not directly address technology in teacher education. During this phase, we also noticed that several studies focused on preservice teachers’ perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes. As a result, we introduced a second exclusion criterion for this phase: articles not centered on practical experiences, activities, or courses. The rationale behind this decision stems from our overarching objective to concentrate on tangible experiences, activities, and courses related to the integration of technology in teacher training, rather than delving into the subjective aspects of individuals’ beliefs. As a result, 26 studies pertaining to preservice teachers’ perceptions, beliefs, or attitudes were excluded from the initial pool of 103 studies, aligning with our research emphasis on the practical dimensions of technology integration.

Upon implementing these criteria, we proceeded to examine the methodological processes to confirm the relevance of preservice teachers’ technological experiences, particularly concerning early childhood education, as our third criterion. Applying this criterion resulted in the exclusion of 37 studies: 2 publications that focused on teacher educators rather than preservice teachers and 35 studies that pertained to secondary or adult education.

2.2 Data Extraction and Synthesis

Following an application of the specified eligibility criteria, we have curated a final selection of 40 studies, establishing the empirical cornerstone for this systematic review. Through an exhaustive analysis of these chosen articles, it was ascertained that each one unequivocally satisfied our inclusion criteria. These selected studies were sourced from a diverse range of 18 academic journals (Table 2).

To address our research inquiries comprehensively, we conducted an extensive literature review by procuring scholarly papers directly from the respective journal websites. These papers were organized and categorized based on a variety of key criteria, including the source journals, Scopus quartile rankings of the journals, the geographical origins of the experiences, the methodologies employed and the publication years. In the initial phase, we employed Excel software to structure and organize essential elements such as titles, dates, countries, and abstracts. Subsequently, we seamlessly transferred the comprehensive texts into NVivo, leveraging its capabilities for coding categories. This process played a pivotal role in facilitating the systematic analysis required to address our research questions effectively.

When examining the geographical distribution of these scholarly contributions, as vividly illustrated in Figure 2, we observed a notable concentration of papers emanating from the United States of America, totaling 16 papers. This was closely followed by Australia, contributing 5 papers, while Turkey offered 4 papers. China and Spain were both significant contributors with 3 papers each. Furthermore, our analysis encompassed 2 papers from Chile and New Zealand and a single paper each from Canada, Finland, Hong Kong, The Netherlands, and the United Arab Emirates.

Figure 2

Number of papers per country. Note. Data from the research.

Furthermore, as illustrated in Figure 3 below, it becomes apparent that a substantial portion of the papers, accounting for 42% (n = 19), adopted a mixed-method research approach. Following this predominant trend, we identified instances of qualitative and quantitative approaches, with a descending order of prevalence.

Figure 3

Papers per methodologies. Note. Data from the research.

In the table provided (Table 2), we have thoughtfully denoted the Scopus evaluations assigned to each of the journals in our selection. These evaluations categorize the journals into the first, second, or third quartiles according to Scopus rankings. It is worth highlighting that we did not come across any articles meeting our eligibility criteria in the fourth quartile.

Among the journals included in our analysis, Technology, Pedagogy & Education emerged as the most frequently published source, closely followed by the British Journal of Educational Technology. Both journals hold esteemed positions in the first quartile of Scopus.

In the subsequent stage of our study, we read and categorized all complete papers into more specific classifications, including course methodologies, participant demographics, subject areas, theoretical frameworks or approaches, technological tools, and outcomes. During the review of the complete papers, if any questions or uncertainties arose pertaining to the theoretical and methodological approaches, the course and participant details, or the technological tools employed, we organized these texts into the respective pre-established categories mentioned earlier.

2.3 Limitation

The systematic review focuses on the period from 2013 to 2023, limiting the examination of technological experiences in preservice teacher education to this specific timeframe. Consequently, any developments or trends outside this range may not be captured. The study relies solely on the EBSCOHost database for retrieving relevant literature. By employing a single, well-regarded database, the review maintains a focused and systematic approach, streamlining the search process and minimizing the risk of overlooking relevant literature. However, while EBSCOHost is a widely used and reputable database, we know that the exclusive reliance on this source might omit relevant studies available in other databases. Another limitation of this work is the decision to exclusively examine research published in English. These limitations underscore the need for future research to extend the temporal scope, consider studies in multiple languages, and explore diverse databases to provide a more comprehensive and inclusive understanding of technological integration in preservice teacher education.

3.1 Theoretical Frameworks

The theoretical frameworks were systematically extracted from the cited articles to create categorized classifications. However, as previously noted in the Hew, Lan, Tang, Jia, and Lo (2019) review, a significant portion (35%) of the works falls into the category of “a-theoretical,” lacking any associated theoretical framework. Examining the prevalence of theoretical frameworks in the reviewed studies, we find that the absence of a theoretical foundation is a notable concern in educational technology research.

3.2 Tools

The primary tools that emerged within the technological experiences of preservice teachers included, as previously mentioned, online environments (specifically, Canvas, Moodle, Nearpod, Google Hangouts, and Trazo WBT), followed closely by Web 2.0 tools in general (encompassing Wikis, Evernote, Google Docs, Wikispaces, Lino, MindMup, Trello, Digg, YouTube, Pinterest, Voki, and more). Additionally, Extended Reality apps (such as Second Life, Open Simulator, Cospaces VR, and 3BVR software), podcasts (utilizing software like Audacity, Wimba Voice, and GarageBand), and social media platforms (primarily Twitter and Facebook) featured significantly in the studies.

It is important to note that the tools cited were categorized by the authors of each paper. For instance, the podcast group refers to software used for podcast production rather than consumption, whereas the Web 2.0 category sometimes includes social media and OL environments. The specific online environments were delineated individually, with examples like Moodle (n = 2), Google Hangouts (n = 1), and Canvas (n = 1) being specifically cited.

3.3 Technological Experiences Contexts in Preservice Teacher Education

We have identified a diverse array of university courses offered to preservice teachers in the field of technology. These courses span a spectrum, ranging from improving preservice teachers’ technological literacy (e.g., Eutsler, 2022; Heap & France, 2013; Hutchison & Colwell, 2016) to exploring the application of Extended Reality (e.g., Bower et al., 2020; Chen, 2022; Nguyen & Bower, 2018; Quintana et al., 2017) in teacher education practices. Upon scrutinizing the papers, we have organized the course context data into ten distinct groups (Table 4). These courses exhibit the diverse landscape of technological education within preservice teacher programs, catering to a wide array of skill sets and educational contexts.

5.1 Implications for Policy, Practice, and Research

It is essential for educators and researchers in teacher education to comprehend the methodological and theoretical perspectives employed in these teacher education programs and to appreciate the significance of technology tools and their intended applications in early childhood teacher education. As a final note, we emphasize the enduring relevance of the TPACK framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) throughout the studies in this review. It stands out as a widespread, consistent, and effective framework for addressing technology integration in the classroom. Additionally, the diversity of technological tools, methodological approaches, and theoretical frameworks uncovered in this review underscores the ongoing challenge for educational institutions, educators, and teacher education programs to continually enhance technical and theoretical knowledge to meet the ever-evolving demands of society (Castells, 2005; Hoadley & Kali, 2019; Monteiro, Moreira, & Lencastre, 2015).