Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought to the forefront the necessity of preparing preservice teachers for effective technology integration in their future classrooms (Flores & Swennen, 2020). Among the myriad factors influencing preservice teachers’ technology integration, their beliefs are particularly significant (Farjon et al., 2019). These beliefs profoundly influence how preservice teachers incorporate technology into their teaching practices. Ertmer (1999) categorizes these beliefs into intrinsic factors, which can foster resistance to change, and tangible extrinsic factors, such as technology skills, accessibility of technology tools, and experiences in professional development. Therefore, understanding preservice teachers’ intentions and beliefs regarding technology integration is crucial for advancing their technological proficiency. However, identifying specific beliefs in real-world educational settings presents challenges due to their complex interplay with extrinsic barriers (Ertmer, 1999). Although prior research has categorized beliefs into competence, value, and pedagogical domains (Cheng et al., 2020), there remains a gap in the literature concerning the identification of specific beliefs. This study addresses this gap by exploring preservice teachers’ technology integration intentions and beliefs through their essays on their ideal future teaching scenarios, assuming the absence of extrinsic barriers.

Literature Review

Barriers to Technology Integration

Ertmer (1999) categorizes barriers to technology integration into two distinct types: extrinsic and intrinsic. Extrinsic barriers encompass external factors such as technology accessibility, technical support, time constraints, institutional policies, professional development opportunities, and school funding (Bingimlas, 2009; Emre, 2019). Conversely, intrinsic barriers involve personal and internal factors that impede teachers’ adoption of technology, with teacher beliefs playing a significant role (Cheng et al., 2020). While addressing extrinsic barriers may involve relatively straightforward solutions, navigating intrinsic barriers can be more complex. Nevertheless, addressing these intrinsic barriers is crucial as they greatly influence the intentions of both preservice and in-service teachers to incorporate technology into their teaching practices (Ertmer, 1999). Moreover, research suggests that eliminating extrinsic barriers alone is insufficient for successful technology integration (Ertmer, 2005). Teachers’ intrinsic beliefs emerge as a critical factor influencing the frequency and breadth of technology integration in the classroom (Vongkulluksn et al., 2018).

Once extrinsic barriers are addressed, attention should be directed toward understanding teachers’ knowledge, skills, attitudes, beliefs, and intentions regarding integration to ensure successful technology adoption (Tosuntaş et al., 2019). Preservice teachers’ beliefs are strong predictors of their future technology integration practices (Bai & Ertmer, 2008; Nelson & Hawk, 2020). Consequently, teacher education programs need to gain insights into their students’ beliefs regarding technology integration to equip them to incorporate technology into their future teaching effectively.

Best Possible Self (BPS)

The Best Possible Self (BPS) is a writing activity that prompts participants to contemplate and articulate their ideal selves, envisioning a future where they have already acquired the essential knowledge and skills for optimal development (King, 2001). The original guidance for the BPS writing activity is presented below:

Think about your life in the future. Imagine that everything has gone as well as it possibly could. You have worked hard and succeeded at accomplishing all of your life goals. Think of this as the realization of all of your life dreams. Now, write about what you imagined (King, 2001, p. 801).

Dr. King (2001) applied BPS in a therapeutic setting, and discovered that it was more effective in enhancing participants’ overall well-being than writing about their trauma. A year before Dr. King’s publication, Dr. Seligman and Dr. Csikszentmihalyi initiated the positive psychology movement (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), drawing an increasing number of researchers into the field. Over time, BPS has evolved into one of the most widely employed positive psychology interventions, demonstrating its efficacy in improving participants’ well-being, optimism, positive attitudes, and expectations for a positive future (Carrillo et al., 2019; Heekerens & Eid, 2021; Loveday et al., 2016; Schueller et al., 2014).

The Best Possible Self (BPS) writing activity involves two key steps: 1) Reflecting on their best possible selves for 1-5 minutes, and 2) Engaging in continuous writing for 10-15 minutes (Carrillo et al., 2019). This structured process leads participants through an envisioning exercise, immersing them in an ideal scenario where external barriers are removed, allowing internal passion and beliefs to take center stage. In this context, BPS serves as a forward-looking writing activity that focuses on a desired future self, making it an effective practice for enhancing preservice teachers’ identity (Erdem, 2020). This holds particularly true when preservice teachers are guided to reflect on their BPS related to technology integration in their future teaching. Such reflections can potentially positively influence preservice teachers’ attitudes toward technology integration (Duan et al., 2022; Chan, 2006). Therefore, participants’ essays are valuable, providing insights into their internal beliefs and attitudes, especially concerning themes like preservice teachers’ envisioned technology integration in their ideal future teaching.

Framework

The conceptual framework used in this study combines the belief classifications proposed by Cheng et al. (2022) the roles of technology delineated by Korucu-Kis and Ozmen (2019). Beliefs regarding technology integration are categorized into three main domains: competence beliefs, value beliefs, and pedagogical beliefs, all of which significantly influence teachers’ intentions to integrate technology (Cheng et al., 2022).

Competence Beliefs

Competence beliefs pertain to teachers’ perceptions of their ability to integrate technology into their teaching effectively, encompassing concepts such as ability, expectancy, self-confidence, and self-efficacy in technology integration (Cheng et al., 2020; Cheng et al., 2022; Hsu, 2010; Kale, 2018; Lee & Lee, 2014). Research consistently indicates a positive correlation between teachers’ competence beliefs and their intention to incorporate technology into classroom practices (Cheng et al., 2020; Uslu & Usluel, 2019; Vongkulluksn et al., 2018). Moreover, studies suggest that preservice teachers’ intention to integrate technology is positively predicted by their competence beliefs, which extend beyond their technological pedagogical content knowledge (Joo et al., 2018; Parkman et al., 2018).

In this study, participants are prompted to envision their best possible selves, assuming mastery of all required knowledge and skills. Consequently, their competence beliefs are presumed to be maximized. Therefore, we will not focus on identifying their competence beliefs in this study.

Value Beliefs

Value beliefs encompass whether and to what extent teachers appreciate the use of technology in their teaching, encompassing both positive and negative values (Cheng et al., 2022). Positive value beliefs can be divided into two main categories: interest and usefulness. Interest reflects teachers’ subjective beliefs that integrating technology in classrooms is enjoyable. Usefulness signifies teachers’ subjective beliefs that using technology in classrooms can effectively fulfill their instructional goals. Conversely, negative value beliefs revolve around teachers’ perceptions of the time and effort required to incorporate technology in classrooms. Current research consistently demonstrates a positive correlation between positive value beliefs and technology integration, while negative values are inversely related (Cheng et al., 2020; Sánchez-Prieto et al., 2019; Shittu et al., 2017).

Pedagogical Beliefs

Pedagogical beliefs, categorized into teacher-centered and student-centered beliefs, shape teachers’ views on effective teaching and learning (Cheng et al., 2022; Ertmer, 2005; Tondeur et al., 2017). Strong teacher-centered beliefs position educators as knowledge transmitters with minimal student interaction, while robust student-centered beliefs advocate for learners as knowledge builders, with educators as facilitators. Considering technology as a potential disruptor to traditional instruction, it is hypothesized that teacher-centered beliefs negatively correlate with technology integration. In contrast, student-centered beliefs positively correlate with teachers’ technology use (Ertmer, 1999). Research supports these hypotheses. For example, Teo et al. (2018) found that student-centered beliefs predict a higher intention to integrate technology among English teachers in China (Teo et al., 2018). Other studies found that teachers with teacher-centered beliefs tend to reject technology, perceiving traditional practices as sufficient for their needs and classrooms (Donnelly et al., 2011; Lim & Chan, 2007).

Roles of Technology in Teaching

Korucu-Kis and Ozmen (2019) identified ten categories of technology’s role in teaching: “(a) barrier in the path of creativity, (b) device, (c) facilitator, (d) helper, (e) quality enhancer, (f) resource provider, (g) exhilarator, (h) motivator (i) time saver and (j) part of education” (p. 8). All ten roles were identified and coded within preservice teachers’ responses to the open-ended question regarding the roles of technology in education. Given that the first role views technology as a barrier to creativity, this study will categorize it as a negative belief. The remaining nine roles will be classified under usefulness in positive beliefs since they articulate technology’s contributions to their teaching practices.

Korucu-Kis and Ozmen (2019) found that, among 3rd and 4th-year preservice teachers in English language teaching programs surveyed in 18 teacher preparation programs in Turkey, most (72% of 814) consider technology supplementary, and only 5% regard it as an integral part of their teaching (Korucu-Kis & Ozmen, 2019). Their study drew conclusions based on the participants’ current views, which were impacted by their concerns about the future teaching context (e.g., lack of access to technology). This study investigates what preservice teachers early in their program feel about technology integration when they are not concerned about such barriers by asking them to envision their “best possible” future.

Research Questions

This study aims to identify preservice teachers’ intentions and beliefs (value beliefs and pedagogical beliefs) in technology integration by analyzing their writing essays, focusing on technology integration in their ideal future teaching scenarios. Research questions are shown below:

  1. 1.

    To what extent are preservice teachers willing to integrate technology into their ideal future teaching?

  2. 2.

    What are the value beliefs preservice teachers hold for technology integration?

  3. 3.

    What are the pedagogical beliefs and applications regarding technology integration in their ideal future teaching?

  4. 4.

    What relationships exist among technology integration levels and value beliefs, technology integration levels and pedagogical beliefs, and value and pedagogical beliefs?

Methods

This qualitative study utilized thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2012), guided by the conceptual framework outlined in the literature review (Cheng et al., 2022; Korucu-Kis & Ozmen, 2019), employing both deductive and inductive approaches to allow for the emergence of new codes. NVivo was used as as the primary tool to analyze 51 essays totaling 16,133 words. Furthermore, crosstab analysis was performed using the Matrix Coding Query function within NVivo to explore the relationships among different dimensions.

Context

The study utilized data from an experimental inquiry assessing the impact of BPS on well-being (Duan et al., 2021) and attitudes toward technology integration (Duan et al., 2022). Conducted in a required introductory technology course at a Midwestern university, the three-credit, 16-week course targeted first or second-year preservice teachers. Weekly sessions included a 50-minute lecture on Monday and a 110-minute lab on Wednesday. Data collection occurred during Spring semester 2020 labs. Further details, including related information and data from the experimental study, can be accessed through the link https://osf.io/sg4e6/ (Duan et al., 2021). For the present study, only data from the treatment group and essays from the third writing activity were utilized.

Participants

Fifty-five preservice teachers were allocated to the treatment group, with 51 out of 55 completing the BPS-in-technology-integration writing activity. Among these, 22 (43%) were first-year students, 24 (47%) were sophomores, and five (10%) were juniors. The participants had a mean age of 19, ranging from 18 to 22. Of the group, 31 (61%) were females, and 20 (39%) were males. The majority of the participants specialized in elementary education and social studies education. Participants’ major distribution is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Participants’ Majors
Full size table

Data Collection and Analysis

Participants wrote three BPS essays as course assignments, with the third essay assigned in week 4. In that round, they were prompted to envision themselves as future teachers using technology in their classrooms and record their thoughts for 15 minutes, aiming for detail. Guidance for the activity is depicted in Fig. 1, comprising two steps: 1) envision technology integration in their ideal teaching for one minute; 2) write continuously for 15 minutes (Duan et al., 2021).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Instruction of the 3rd Writing Activity

Full size image

When participants envisioned their best selves integrating technology into their ideal future teaching, their competence beliefs assumed mastery of all necessary knowledge, skills, and resources. This study focused on value beliefs (positive and negative) and pedagogical beliefs (student-centered and teacher-centered) as our framework (Cheng et al., 2022). Specifically, for value beliefs, we utilized ten roles derived from Korucu-Kis and Ozmen (2019) as initial guidance, exploring nine roles for positive beliefs and one for negative beliefs. Table 2 presents the initial codebook for data analysis based on the preliminary framework.

Table 2 Initial Codebook
Full size table

The data analysis was conducted collaboratively by the first and second authors. To address the first research question, we used conventional content analysis to determine participants’ intention levels of technology integration in their classrooms. Following Hsieh and Shannon’s (2005) methodology, we read through all the essays, immersed ourselves in the data to understand the participants’ technology integration levels, and then categorized them into three levels (High, Moderate, Low) based on their descriptions. For the second and third research questions, we initially applied deductive analysis at the sentence level, based on the framework outlined in the initial codebook. Subsequently, we employed inductive analysis to accommodate any emerging codes. New categories were integrated into the evolving codebook. Following the first author’s initial coding, the second author reviewed the codes, and both coders iteratively revised them until reaching a 99% agreement, following Miles and Huberman’s (1994) approach. To investigate the fourth research question, we conducted a crosstab analysis using the Matrix Coding Query function within Nvivo to examine relationships among all three categories.

Results

RQ1: Intention Levels to Integrate Technology

In their envisioned ideal future teaching, as shown in Fig. 2, 38 out of 51 participants (74%) expressed a solid inclination to leverage technology extensively, placing them in the High intention level of technology integration. Meanwhile, 11 out of 51 participants (22%) indicated an intention to incorporate technology but expressed reservations about its use, classifying them into the Moderate intention level. A smaller proportion of 2 out of 51 participants (4%) stated their intention to minimize technology usage in their teaching endeavors, aligning them with the Low intention level. Table 3 provides illustrative quotes from participants at each level.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Piechart of Three Levels

Full size image
Table 3 Intention Levels to Integrate Technology
Full size table

RQ2: Value Beliefs

We conducted a thematic analysis of all 51 participants’ essays, following the initial codebook in Table 2. Findings reveal variations in several aspects:

  1. 1.

    Concerns within value beliefs expanded beyond Positive and Negative, encompassing four sub-codes: Too much, Effectiveness, Equity, and Safety.

  2. 2.

    Despite mentions of the Device under positive beliefs, none described technology solely as a device, so it doesn’t appear in the findings.

  3. 3.

    Facilitators and Quality enhancers under positive beliefs spawned several sub-codes, reflecting technology’s teaching facilitation and enhancement.

  4. 4.

    While the codebook included one sub-code under Negative beliefs (barrier to creativity), no participant described technology as such. Instead, 11 participants saw it as a Creativity Enhancer, under Quality Enhancer. Negative beliefs included Distraction, Useless, Hinder, and Invader sub-codes.

Table 4 summarizes all findings, including emerging sub-codes within each category, along with participant numbers, references, and example quotes. Most participants (n = 49) expressed positive value beliefs, with some (n = 10) expressing concerns and several (n = 6) exhibiting negative beliefs. Figures 3 and 4 depicts participant and coding reference numbers for Positive beliefs, Concerns, and Negative beliefs categories. Further details on specific themes within each category are provided below.

Table 4 Value Beliefs
Full size table
Fig. 3
figure 3

Numbers of Participants and Coding References

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Piechart of Three Pedagogical Beliefs

Full size image

Positive Beliefs

Following the initial codebook in Table 2, positive beliefs were categorized into Interest and Usefulness. Under Interest, participants noted technology’s potential to enhance teaching enjoyment, interest, and engagement. Usefulness encompasses all identified technology roles except Device, with descriptions provided below:

  1. 1.

    Facilitator: This role garnered significant attention, with nearly half of the participants discussing how technology could facilitate students’ learning in various ways. These sub-codes emerge inductively, including Interactive learning, Collaborative learning, Personalized learning, Problem-solving, Independent learning, and Critical thinking. Rich information on their thoughts, along with example quotes for each aspect, is provided in Table 4.

  2. 2.

    Quality Enhancer: Nearly half of the participants contributed reflections that fell into this category. Among the eight aspects identified, the most noteworthy is Creativity enhancer. Eleven participants described how technology integration in their future teaching could enhance the creativity of both teachers and students. Many believed that utilizing technology in a creative manner would inspire their students’ creativity for their use of technology. As one participant expressed, “I want to be creative with my use of technology in the classroom. This will expand my students’ perspective and give them an open mind to the world” [8].

  3. 3.

    Resource Provider: Several participants highlighted the potential of technology integration to offer additional resources to students. Examples included utilizing YouTube videos for tutorials, accessing blogs with historical documents for history learning, exploring websites for engineering education, utilizing internet search engines for research-based projects, and incorporating other electronic resources and apps relevant to their teaching subjects.

  4. 4.

    Integral part of education: For this code, we specifically coded instances where participants conveyed that technology integration is inevitable due to its omnipresence, emphasizing teachers’ responsibility to incorporate technology to assist students in kee** up with the times. The sentiment expressed is that refraining from using technology in contemporary teaching is considered impractical. Thirteen participants expressed similar sentiments regarding technology integration. Their descriptions included statements such as “Technology is becoming a crucial aspect in everyday life” [4], “Using technology in the classroom is an important part of education in today’s modern world” [42], and “I will help my students become technology literate because they will need to be technology literate to be successful in today’s society” [24].

  5. 5.

    Helper: This role is straightforward. Multiple participants believed that the use of technology could assist them and their students in becoming more organized, effective in finding resources, efficient in collaborating, and better equipped to meet students’ special needs.

  6. 6.

    Motivator: Multiple participants believed that using technology would enhance the ease and interest of learning, particularly by incorporating online games for young students, such as Kahoot or Quizlet. One participant articulated, “Using stuff like kahoot or quizlet to get students warmed up or working together for the day would be ideal” [23].

  7. 7.

    Exhilarator: Some participants expressed that incorporating technology, especially emerging technologies such as virtual reality (VR), holds the potential to captivate their students and elevated their overall learning experience. In contrast to motivator, the concept of an exhilarator emphasizes how technology use can invigorate their cognitive processes and deliver an utterly innovative learning experience.

  8. 8.

    Time saver: A couple of participants conveyed that using online tests/quizzes could expedite their grading process, allowing them to save time and allocate more focus to teaching.

Concerns

This emerging category addresses concerns expressed by participants open to integrating technology but with reservations regarding its extent, effectiveness, equity, and safety. Details for each code are as follows:

  1. 1.

    Too Much: Some participants expressed concerns about excessive use of technology, recording sentiments such as “They get enough of that at home” [1]. They aimed to strike a balance, intending to moderate technology use in their classrooms, ensuring it was not the sole focus. One participant articulated this concern, saying, “I think technology is a great tool and very helpful, but I don’t want it to become something that we solely rely on for teaching” [50].

  2. 2.

    Effectiveness: Some participants stressed technology integration should prioritize effectiveness alongside fun and interest. Drawing from personal learning experiences, they noted instances where technology integration could have been more consistently effective. One participant expressed that they aim to “make sure that the technology use in my classroom is meaningful” [15].

  3. 3.

    Equity: A few participants expressed concern about their students’ equal access to required technology. To address this, they expressed intentions such as “finding ways to bring personal laptops or iPads for my students so that everyone has equal access to the technology I want to use, and no one has to take turns or share materials” [20].

  4. 4.

    Safety: Some participants emphasized the importance of ensuring students’ safe use of technology. They planned to incorporate activities teaching safe technology use; for example, “I think that I would begin each year with a couple of activities teaching internet safety and how to use technology correctly” [2]. Another participant intended to educate students on how an over-reliance on technology might inhibit critical thinking: “I will also teach them about the dangers of these tools and how if they are used as a crutch, it will inhibit the way that they think” [3].

Negative Beliefs

Four distinct negative beliefs (outlined below) emerged during coding, primarily from the two participants classified at the Low level of technology integration.

  1. 1.

    Distraction: Several participants noted technology, including hardware like iPads and software like games, as a significant source of distraction. They expressed concerns about students using technology more for entertainment than education and believed excessive reliance on it could divert attention from core learning experiences, as one participant stated, “It is often a distraction to the ideas and problems at hand and gives both students and teachers a crutch to lean on without having to actually know the material” [1].

  2. 2.

    Useless: Two participants questioned technology’s effectiveness in enhancing learning, citing experiences where tools like Quizlet Live left them disengaged and offered little value for vocabulary learning in their English class. As illustrated in the quote in Table 4, one participant argued for traditional methods in art education, stating that technology has no place in creating art.

  3. 3.

    Hinders: Some participants voiced concerns about technology potentially hindering social development and deep learning. For example, one participant noted that online summaries or videos may offer a lower depth of understanding compared to reading and discussing a book. Another participant emphasized the risk of hindering student learning through improper technology implementation, stating, “I don’t want to accidentally hinder my students with the wrongful implementation of technology” [39].

  4. 4.

    Invader: One participant viewed technology as invasive in teaching, as illustrated in the quoted example in Table 4. They emphasized the pivotal role of teachers in education, stating, “Technology doesn’t teach; teachers do” [1].

RQ3: Pedagogical Beliefs

Guided by the initial codebook and literature review definitions of student-centered and teacher-centered beliefs, we systematically analyzed all 51 essays to discern prevailing attitudes toward technology in education. Results showed a distinct inclination towards student-centered beliefs. Among the 51 essays, 25 (49%) articulated a student-centered viewpoint, emphasizing engagement, interactivity, and diverse learning styles through various technological tools. In contrast, 19 (37%) essays adopted a teacher-centered perspective, prioritizing control and administrative efficiency while expressing reservations about technology’s distractions. Seven (14%) essays struck a balance, advocating for a blend of both approaches, considering technology’s benefits and limitations. This breakdown highlights diverse perspectives on technology integration, from student-centered to teacher-centered beliefs, with some advocating for a balanced approach. Further details for each category are provided below.

Student-Centered Beliefs

Student-centered responses emphasize leveraging technology for active student engagement and individualized learning styles. Participants indicated that enthusiasm for interactive elements like blogs, websites, and PowerPoint presentations fosters creativity and exploration, empowering students to think critically and express themselves. Many participants explicitly expressed a desire for student-centered teaching, as one stated, “In my ideal classroom, I will have a student-centered classroom that is project and presentation-based” [6]. Alternatively, some participant responses exhibited strong characteristics of student-centered beliefs, as demonstrated by the following statement:

I imagine myself giving all students the ability to pursue the learning style that best suits them while still maintaining a sense of control and aid whenever there is an obstacle. I picture the best use of technology to be a classroom where students are given the opportunities and abilities to essentially go about learning with minimal interference from a teacher [5].

Teacher-Centered Beliefs

Teacher-centered perspectives prioritize classroom structure and control, using technology mainly for administrative tasks. While most participants were open to integrating technology, they stressed maintaining control over students’ technology use to prevent distractions or off-task behavior. One participant exemplified this sentiment:

My best possible self could take almost any non digital classroom activity and make it digital, and engaging… Ideally, I would be able to have every student doing the activity and not doing something not related to the activity or assignment. I would have to have the room set up so I could see the screen of every student in the room at any given time to make sure this is the case. Then after some time, I could see which students are trustworthy and I would not have to babysit their screens. [10]

Other participants advocated for selective technology use, focusing on traditional methods like lectures, whiteboards, and PowerPoint presentations tailored to the class’s needs. One participant exemplified this approach, stating, “I would use a whiteboard and PowerPoint to give my lectures…The one place I want to use the most technology is in group projects” [39]. Finally, two participants preferred minimal technology use, aligning with the Low level of technology integration category.

Balanced Perspectives

Participants in the balanced category showed awareness of the benefits and limitations of student-centered and teacher-centered teaching styles and technology use. They advocated for a nuanced approach, integrating technology for specific purposes, such as “visuals to make their work stand out” [3] or “create through digital tools such as websites which can be a great medium for creating projects” [3] while maintaining a balance between traditional teacher-centered and new technology-based student-centered methods. One participant succinctly captured this sentiment, stating, “Having a nice mix and balance is the way to go” [44].

RQ4: Relationships among all Three Aspects

This section delves into the relationships among intention levels to integrate technology, value beliefs, and pedagogical beliefs, involving an analysis of the number of participants and the coding references. The Matrix Coding Query function within Nvivo was employed to calculate the intersecting coding numbers among the three.

Intention Levels and Value Beliefs

Table 5 displays coding reference numbers and their percentage of total coding references, revealing relationships between intention levels for technology integration and participants’ value beliefs. High intention level participants exhibited mostly positive beliefs (68%) and minimal concerns (2%). Moderate intention level participants showed 16% positive, 6% concerns, and 3% negative beliefs. Low intention level participants expressed minor concerns (1%) and a higher proportion of negative beliefs. Most participants with positive beliefs were in high (68%) and moderate (16%) intention levels, none in the low level. Concerns were primarily in the moderate level (6%), followed by the high level (2%), and least in the low level (1%). Negative beliefs were distributed between low (4%) and moderate (3%) levels but not in the high level. In summary, high intention correlated positively with positive beliefs, low intention strongly associated with negative beliefs, and moderate intention showed correlations with all three, ranging from higher positive to lower negative beliefs.

Table 5 Intention Levels and Value Beliefs
Full size table

Intention Levels and Pedagogical Beliefs

Table 6 shows participant numbers and percentages in each cell, revealing relationships between intention levels for technology integration and participants’ pedagogical beliefs. High intention participants largely hold student-centered beliefs (41%), while in the moderate level, a balanced perspective is most common (10%). All low intention participants had teacher-centered beliefs. Notably, a significant portion of those with student-centered beliefs preferred high technology integration (21 out of 25), as did many with teacher-centered beliefs (15 out of 19). However, the balanced category mostly aligned with moderate technology integration, and participants with low integration levels strongly adhered to teacher-centered beliefs.

Table 6 Intention Levels and Pedagogical Beliefs
Full size table

Pedagogical and Value Beliefs

Table 7 shows the numbers and percentages of coding references, revealing relationships between pedagogical and value beliefs. Participants with student-centered beliefs primarily expressed positive beliefs (47%), with fewer concerns (3%) and minimal negative beliefs (1%). Those with teacher-centered beliefs also had a majority of positive beliefs (25%) and the least concerns (3%). Balanced perspectives exhibited the highest percentage of positive beliefs (12%), fewer concerns (9%), and negative beliefs (7%). Positive beliefs were most prevalent in student-centered beliefs, followed by teacher-centered and least in balanced perspectives. Concerns were evenly distributed, while negative beliefs were most prominent in teacher-centered beliefs. In summary, positive beliefs strongly correlated with student-centered beliefs, and negative beliefs aligned closely with teacher-centered beliefs. Teacher-centered beliefs also exhibited a significant association with positive beliefs.

Table 7 Pedagogical and Value Beliefs
Full size table

Discussion

In this study, participants used BPS writing activities to articulate their ideal future teaching scenarios, envisioning contexts where competence beliefs were optimized with mastery of required knowledge, skills, and resources. A detailed analysis of 51 essays, totaling 16,133 words, focused on participants’ perspectives on technology integration within these scenarios. The analysis aimed to reveal insights into intentions, value beliefs, and pedagogical beliefs, with subsequent sections discussing these facets in depth, drawing from the literature review.

Intention Levels to Integrate Technology

The distribution of intention levels for technology integration is: 74% high, 22% moderate, and 4% low. Within the high-level intention group, 25% explicitly stated technology’s integral role in education, a notable increase from the 5% reported by Korucu-Kis and Ozmen (2019). The absence of external barriers, coupled with participants’ knowledge and skills, likely contributes to this heightened intention. Additionally, optimized competence beliefs positively correlate with intention levels, as evidenced in studies by Joo et al. (2018) and Parkman et al. (2018). Even in an ideal scenario, 22% of participants had a moderate intention level, and 4% had a low intention level. This aligns with Ertmer (2005) and Vongkulluksn et al. (2022; Korucu-Kis & Ozmen, 2019). The list of emerging concerns we identified prompts further contemplation about technology integration concerning its extent, effectiveness, learner equity, and safety and may lead to expanding the framework for use in future studies. Notably, in their idealized situation, no participant viewed technology as merely a device. However, the contrasting beliefs regarding technology’s role in creativity were particularly intriguing and warrant additional research. Exploring why some preservice teachers in this study envisioned technology as a promoter of their own and their students’ creativity in their ideal future teaching, while literature indciates that teachers often perceive technology as a barrier in the path of creativity (Korucu-Kis & Ozmen, 2019), could provide valuable insights into these divergent perspectives.

Relationships among all Three Aspects

Drawing on prior literature, positive beliefs have been found to be positively correlated with technology integration, while negative values are inversely related (Cheng et al.,

References

  • Bai, H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2008). Teacher educators' beliefs and technology uses as predictors of preservice teachers' beliefs and technology attitudes. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education2, 16(1), 93–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bingimlas, K. A. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: A review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(3), 235–245. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carrillo, A., Rubio-Aparicio, M., Molinari, G., Enrique, Á., Sánchez-Meca, J., & Baños, R. M. (2019). Effects of the best possible self intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One, 14(9). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222386

  • Chan, Y. M. (2006). Examining teacher hoped-for selves among pre-service, new, and experienced teachers ().

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, S. L., Chang, J. C., & Romero, K. (2022). Are pedagogical beliefs an internal barrier for technology integration? The interdependent nature of teacher beliefs. Education and Information Technologies, 27(4), 5215–5232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, S. L., Lu, L., **e, K., & Vongkulluksn, V. W. (2020). Understanding teacher technology integration from expectancy-value perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 91103062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103062

  • Crompton, H., Chigona, A., & Burke, D. (2023). Teacher resilience during COVID-19: Comparing teachers’ shift to online learning in South Africa and the United States. TechTrends, 1–14.

  • Donnelly, D., McGarr, O., & O’Reilly, J. (2011). A framework for teachers’ integration of ICT into their classroom practice. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1469–1483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duan, S., Exter, M., Newby, T., & Fa, B. (2021). No impact? Long-term effects of applying the best possible self intervention in a real-world undergraduate classroom setting. International Journal of Community Well-Being, 4(4), 581–601.

  • Duan, S., Exter, M., & Newby, T. (2022). Effect of best possible self writing activities on preservice teachers' attitudes towards technology integration. TechTrends, 66(4), 654–665.

  • Emre, D. (2019). Prospective teachers’ perceptions of barriers to technology integration in education. Contemporary Educational Technology, 10(4), 381–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdem, C. (2020). Exploring the relationships between possible selves and early teacher identity of Turkish pre-service teachers. FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education, 6(3), 94–115. https://doi.org/10.32865/fire202063225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farjon, D., Smits, A., & Voogt, J. (2019). Technology integration of pre-service teachers explained by attitudes and beliefs, competency, access, and experience. Computers & Education, 130, 81–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flores, M. A., & Swennen, A. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 453–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heekerens, J. B., & Eid, M. (2021). Inducing positive affect and positive future expectations using the best-possible-self intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 16(3), 322–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, S. (2010). The relationship between teacher’s technology integration ability and usage. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(3), 309–325. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.43.3.c

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joo, Y. J., Park, S., & Lim, E. (2018, July). Factors influencing preservice teachers’ intention to use technology. Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 48–59. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26458506

  • Kale, U. (2018). Technology valued? Observation and review activities to enhance future teachers’ utility value toward technology integration. Computers & Education, 117, 160–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.10.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, L. A. (2001). The health benefits of writing about life goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(7), 798–807. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201277003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korucu-Kis, S., & Ozmen, K. S. (2019). Exherent and inherent value beliefs about technology: Missing pieces in the puzzle of technology integration? International Journal of Educational Technology, 6(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y., & Lee, J. (2014). Enhancing pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration through lesson planning practice. Computers & Education, 73, 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, C. P., & Chan, B. C. (2007). microLESSONS in teacher education: Examining pre-service teachers’ pedagogical beliefs. Computers & Education, 48(3), 474–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.03.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loveday, P. M., Lovell, G. P., & Jones, C. M. (2016). The best possible selves intervention: A review of the literature to evaluate efficacy and guide future research. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19(2), 607–628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9824-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, M. J., & Hawk, N. A. (2020). The impact of field experiences on prospective preservice teachers’ technology integration beliefs and intentions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 89, 103006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkman, S., Litz, D., & Gromik, N. (2018). Examining pre-service teachers’ acceptance of technology-rich learning environments: A UAE case study. Education and Information Technologies, 23(3), 1253–1275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9665-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez-Prieto, J. C., Hernández-García, Á., García-Peñalvo, F. J., Chaparro-Peláez, J., & Olmos-Migueláñez, S. (2019). Break the walls! Second-order barriers and the acceptance of mLearning by first-year preservice teachers. Computers in Human Behavior, 95, 158–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schueller, S., Kashdan, T., & Parks, A. (2014). Synthesizing positive psychological interventions: Suggestions for conducting and interpreting meta-analyses. International Journal of Wellbeing, 4(1), 91–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shittu, A. T., Kareem, B. W., Obielodan, O. O., & Fakomogbon, M. A. (2017). Investigating predictors of pre-service science teachers’ behavioral intention toward e-resources for teaching. Contemporary. Educational Technology, 8(2), 142–157. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teo, T., Huang, F., & Hoi, C. K. W. (2018). Explicating the influences that explain intention to use technology among English teachers in China. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(4), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2017.1341940

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tosuntaş, Ş. B., Çubukçu, Z., & Tuğba, İ. N. C. İ. (2019). A holistic view to barriers to technology integration in education. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 10(4), 439–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uslu, N. A., & Usluel, Y. K. (2019). Predicting technology integration based on a conceptual framework for ICT use in education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 28(5), 517–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2019.1668293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vongkulluksn, V. W., **e, K., & Bowman, M. A. (2018). The role of value on teachers’ internalization of external barriers and externalization of personal beliefs for classroom technology integration. Computers & Education, 118, 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, M., & Stefaniak, J. (2023). Pre-service teachers’ instructional design decision-making for technology integration. TechTrends, 1–15.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Learning Technologies, Design and School Library Media, College of Education at Towson University, Towson, USA

    Suzhen Duan & Qing Li

  2. Curriculum and Instruction in the College of Education at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA

    Marisa Exter

Authors
  1. Suzhen Duan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marisa Exter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Qing Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Suzhen Duan.

Ethics declarations

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Duan, S., Exter, M. & Li, Q. In their Ideal Future, Are Preservice Teachers Willing to Integrate Technology in Their Teaching and why?. TechTrends (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-024-00978-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-024-00978-7

Keywords