PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS SENSE OF SELF-EFFICACY IN THE INTEGRATION OF

TECHNOLOGY IN THEIR PROSPECTIVE CLASSROOMS: AN EXPLANATORY

SEQUENTIAL MIXED METHODS INQUIRY

A Dissertation
by
YAZMIN MUÑIZ DE LA GARZA

BS, University of Texas at Brownsville, 2007

M.Ed, University of Texas at Brownsville, 2013

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
in
CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION

Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi

Corpus Christi, Texas

August 2021
© Yazmin Muñiz De la Garza

All Rights Reserved

August 2021
PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS SENSE OF SELF-EFFICACY IN THE INTEGRATION OF
TECHNOLOGY IN THEIR PROSPECTIVE CLASSROOMS: AN EXPLANATORY
SEQUENTIAL MIXED METHODS INQUIRY

A Dissertation

by

YAZMIN MUÑIZ DE LA GARZA

This dissertation meets the standards for scope and quality of

Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi and is hereby approved.

Faye Bruun, EdD Susan Elwood, EdD

Chair Committee Member

Lynn Hemmer, PhD David Gurney, PhD

Committee Member Graduate Faculty Representative

August 2021
 ABSTRACT

Once teachers begin their professional journey it is expected that they know how to

integrate technology effectively. Therefore, exploring the experiences that influence their self-

efficacy become an important aspect in which to inquire. The purpose of the study was to

examine the self-efficacy of pre-service teachers related to the integration of technology in their

prospective classrooms. The study utilized a two-phase explanatory sequential mixed methods

inquiry. The quantitative phase aimed to identify the level of perceived self-efficacy of teacher

candidates and clinical teachers in a South Texas public university enrolled in a clinical

experience. The Computer Technology Integration Survey or CTIS (Wang, Ertmer, & Newby,

2004) allowed responding to the first research question: What is the perceived level of self-

efficacy of pre-service teachers in the integration of technology? The results obtained in the

CTIS indicated that the 18 pre-service teachers who participated have a medium to high self-

efficacy with an overall mean of 3.90. The statement with the highest self-efficacy was item 19: I

feel confident that, as time goes by, my ability to address my students' technology needs will

continue to improve.

The qualitative phase aimed to identify the experiences that influence the levels of self-

efficacy reported in the CTIS. There were four individuals who agreed to participate in the

second phase of the study, which consisted of a two-part semi-structured open-ended interview.

The first part of the interview aimed to identify the experiences that have influenced the pre-

service teacher level of self-efficacy using Bandura’s four sources of self-efficacy as a

framework for the interview questions (Bandura, 1997). The second part of the interview

consisted of discussing a project or activity that the pre-service teachers designed that included a

technology component. The TPACK model was used as the focus for this part of the interview

iv
(Mishra & Koehler, 2006). The purpose of this inquiry was to collect additional data to gain an

in-depth exploration of an experience during the elaboration of the project with respect to the

TPACK components. In this phase of the study, the second research question was addressed:

What are the experiences that influence pre-service teachers’ level of self-efficacy? The data

collected in the qualitative phase of the study led to the development of three major themes,

which explained the experiences that have influenced pre-service teachers’ level of self-efficacy:

a) technology beliefs, b) external influences, and c) instructional design.

Based on the interpretation of the results of the quantitative phase and the qualitative

phase of the study, the third research question was answered: How do the experiences in

technology integration explain the reported levels of self-efficacy of pre-service teachers?

The pre-service teachers with higher scores in the CTIS indicated multiple experiences related to

Bandura’s sources of efficacy and were willing to take more risks related to TPACK components

in several ways: a) by integrating multiple digital applications (technology knowledge), b) by

using a variety of approaches to teach a concept (pedagogy knowledge), and c) exploring the

content area in depth (content knowledge) to teach for understanding. The findings from the

study may help teacher preparation programs identify opportunities for refinement. The

recommendations for future research include using a longitudinal study, which may provide

additional insight related to the self-efficacy of pre-service teachers at the beginning and end of

the teacher preparation program.

v
 DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my husband Federico Saqui for being caring and

supportive in our journey together. Thank you for always believing in me, even in moments

where I could no longer believe in myself. I am grateful for the opportunity to live this life by

your side. I love you more than words can ever describe.

I also dedicate my research study to my mother Martha for raising me in a loving home,

for always being the best example of persistence and instilling values in me that I will carry on

throughout the rest of my life. My work is also dedicated to the memory of my grandmother

Hortencia, who taught me the value of diligence and hard work.

To my siblings, Martha and Victor, for always encouraging me to follow my dreams and

for paving the way by being great role models to me. Also for being great examples of dedication

and professionalism. To my nieces and nephews, Maylin, Marian, Manuel, Mia, Victor, and Ian,

for being the driving force in our family. I hope that I could be a positive influence for you, just

like your parents were to me. To my aunts Mine and Nena for your assertiveness and strength

and for always giving me unconditional love.

I also dedicate this dissertation to my colleagues, for showing me new perspectives to

face challenges. I also dedicate this research study to my students. I became an educator to make

a difference and to contribute to students’ academic and personal growth. The reality is that my

students made a difference in my life by showing resilience and aptitude every day. I will be

forever grateful.

vi
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My sincerest gratitude is extended to my doctoral committee chair, Dr. Faye Bruun for

her guidance and support since my first day in the doctoral program. During my first semester in

the program, I was honored to serve as your teacher assistant. This time allowed me to witness

your greatness, not just your expertise on the subject, but also your kindness towards everybody.

I am grateful for your guidance throughout my entire journey in the doctoral program.

To Dr. Susan Elwood, I want to offer you my deepest gratitude for your guidance. Your

insight made my research so much richer. To Dr. Lynn Hemmer, I am extremely grateful for

your thorough feedback. Your feedback and expectations helped me to improve the quality of

my dissertation. Dr. David Gurney, I appreciate your positivity and willingness to collaborate,

which speaks volumes of how much you care.

I also would like to acknowledge Dr. Kouzekanani, thank you for investing time in

reading my dissertation and offering your perspective. To Dr. Corinne Valadez and Dr. Bethany

Pletcher, thank you for always guiding me as a student and to challenge me to think critically. A

special acknowledgement to Texas A&M -Corpus Christi for allowing me to complete my

doctoral program at this institution. I also would like to thank my cohort, because you have

provided me with encouragement and insight along the way.

I want to acknowledge the participants of the study, who were an integral part of my

research study. I am confident you will do great things in the field of education. Remember that

you are about to embark in a career that will change your life. Last but not least, I want to thank

God for his life blessings. I am forever grateful for the lessons learned in this journey!

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS PAGE

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... iv

DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................... vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. viii

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... xii

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... xiii

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1

Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................................ 3

Purpose of Study ......................................................................................................................... 4

Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................................... 5

Self-Efficacy Theory ............................................................................................................... 5

TPACK Model ......................................................................................................................... 6

Definition of Terms ..................................................................................................................... 8

Significance of the Study ............................................................................................................ 9

Chapter Summary........................................................................................................................ 9

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................... 11

Content, Pedagogy, and Technology......................................................................................... 13

Teacher Preparation Programs .................................................................................................. 16

Pre-Service Teacher Beliefs ...................................................................................................... 19

viii
 Effects of Technology Integration............................................................................................. 22

Chapter Summary...................................................................................................................... 26

CHAPTER III: METHODS .......................................................................................................... 28

Research Design ........................................................................................................................ 28

Quantitative Research Design ................................................................................................... 31

Quantitative Data Sources ..................................................................................................... 32

Quantitative Instrumentation ................................................................................................. 33

Quantitative Data Collection ................................................................................................. 34

Quantitative Data Analysis .................................................................................................... 34

Qualitative Research Design ..................................................................................................... 35

Qualitative Data Sources ....................................................................................................... 36

Qualitative Instrumentation ................................................................................................... 37

Qualitative Data Collection ................................................................................................... 41

Qualitative Data Analysis ...................................................................................................... 42

Trustworthiness ......................................................................................................................... 45

Credibility .............................................................................................................................. 45

Confirmability ....................................................................................................................... 45

Dependability......................................................................................................................... 46

Transferability ....................................................................................................................... 46

Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods Model........................................................................ 46

ix
 Data Management ..................................................................................................................... 47

Delimitations and Limitations ................................................................................................... 48

Chapter Summary...................................................................................................................... 48

CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS .......................................................................................................... 49

Quantitative Results .................................................................................................................. 50

A Profile of Respondents ....................................................................................................... 50

Computer Technology Integration Survey Results ............................................................... 51

Qualitative Results .................................................................................................................... 54

Participant Descriptions ......................................................................................................... 55

Presentation of Qualitative Findings ......................................................................................... 60

Theme 1: Technology Perspectives ....................................................................................... 61

Theme 2: External Influences ................................................................................................ 64

Theme 3: Instructional Design .............................................................................................. 67

Summary of the Qualitative Findings ....................................................................................... 73

Quantitative and Qualitative Data Synthesis ............................................................................. 73

CHAPTER V: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND DISCUSSION ........................................ 79

Summary of the Results ............................................................................................................ 81

Quantitative Results ............................................................................................................... 81

Qualitative Results ................................................................................................................. 82

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 84

x
 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 86

Implications for Practice ........................................................................................................... 89

Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................................... 91

Final Remarks ........................................................................................................................... 92

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 94

LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 106

xi
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURES PAGE

Figure 1. Pedagogical Technological Content Knowledge Model ................................................. 8

Figure 2. Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods Model ............................................................ 29

Figure 3. Timeline of the data collection and analysis ................................................................. 31

Figure 4. Themes and subthemes derived from the individual interviews. .................................. 61

xii
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLES PAGE

Table 1. Interview protocol, as it relates to the Self-Efficacy Theory framework ....................... 38

Table 2. Interview protocol for artifact discussion, as it relates to the TPACK model ................ 40

Table 3. Sample of the In-Vivo Codes.......................................................................................... 43

Table 4. A Profile of Pre-Service Teachers, Categorical Variables ............................................. 50

Table 5. Ranking of Perceived Self-Efficacy of Pre-Service Teachers ........................................ 53

Table 6. A Profile of the Participants............................................................................................ 55

Table 7. Joint Display by Participant ............................................................................................ 74

xiii
 CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

The advent of digital technology has dramatically changed routines and practices in most

arenas of human work (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Technology is clearly changing and

transforming the world (Kul & Çelik, 2018). As information communication technology has

developed, technology-integrated learning has also evolved, and the demand for technology in

education has increased (Joo, Park, & Lim, 2018). In fact, integrating technology in the

classroom has become an important component of teaching and learning. The term technology

integration refers to the use of technology in a teacher’s regular teaching and curricular plans

(Cullen & Greene, 2011). The current educational system is driven by high stakes accountability.

Therefore, schools are continually searching for effective solutions that will eliminate

educational barriers and lead all students to success (Kuyatt, Holland, & Jones, 2015). Attaining

student progress and developing content proficiency requires teachers to integrate a variety of

methods to engage students in their learning.

Teacher attitudes and proficiency in technology integration play an important role to

attain student engagement, progress, and success. Curtis (2017) noted that a teacher’s beliefs and

attitudes about teaching have strong influences on students’ achievement. According to Bandura

(1997), the availability of digital tools to deliver traditional instruction, has shifted the emphasis

in teacher's pedagogical efficacy from rote instruction to training in how to think creatively and

use available knowledge productively. Napal, Mendióroz-Lacambra, and Peñalva (2020)

indicated that the advent of digitalization is urging teachers to become designers of learning in

technology-rich environments, and to consider and manage an ongoing increasing number of

tools and resources. However, acquiring an understanding on how affordances and constraints of

1
specific technologies influence what teachers do in their classrooms is not straightforward, as

they have to constantly shift and evolve their understanding (Koehler, Mishra, & Cain (2013).

In an era of highly valued technological knowledge, it is important that educator

preparation programs combine pedagogy, content, and technology to accommodate the needs of

pre-service teachers (Joo, Park, & Lim, 2018). A pre-service teacher is a teacher education

candidate participating in an educator preparation program (Koh, Woo, & Lim, 2013). There are

multiple studies that indicate that additional courses on Information and Communication

Technology (ICT) have to be added to the preparation programs in order to equip pre-service

teachers effectively (Simsek & Yazar, 2019; Tay, Lim, & Lim, 2015). According to Napal,

Mendióroz-Lacambra, and Peñalva (2020), the next step is to move the focus from the mere

presence of ICT courses and ensure their impact on pre-service teacher knowledge. In addition,

understanding and exploring the factors that influence preservice teachers’ technology

integration choices can provide the basis to improve teacher preparation programs (Banas &

York, 2014).

According to Bandura (1997), educational systems are relying increasingly on

electronically mediated instruction. These new realities call for special types of teacher efficacy.

Technologies change rapidly, requiring continual upgrading of knowledge and skills. Teachers'

beliefs in their efficacy affect their receptivity to, and adoption of educational technologies

(Bandura, 1997). Because self-efficacy represents a critical factor in pre-service teachers’

intention to integrate technology, it is important to develop not only technology integration skills

and knowledge during teacher education programs, but also to alleviate pre-service teachers’

concerns to develop their feelings of self-efficacy (Ottenbreit-Leftwich, et al., 2018). Therefore,

exploring teacher attitudes, beliefs and concerns are important in order to understand how

2
preparation programs can best prepare and build pre-service teacher motivation and confidence.

According to Cullen and Greene (2011), motivation is comprised of internal and external

components of human life that encourage or discourage behaviors. Identifying the perceptions of

pre-service teachers regarding technology integration can be beneficial and directive in terms of

refining and improving teacher education programs (Kul & Çelik, 2018).

Bandura (1997) stated that “the rapid pace of social and technological change requires

people to learn new competencies or to adapt preexisting ones to changing conditions to keep

their skills from becoming outmoded” (p. 213). Therefore, in response to the digitalization in

educational settings, teachers, as experts, must both address the challenges of teaching with

technology and maintain a good grasp of subject-matter content (Joo, Park, & Lim, 2018). By

using the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) as a framework, the

relationships between technology and teaching can transform the conceptualization and the

practice of teacher education, teacher training, and teachers’ professional development (Mishra

& Koehler, 2006). In addition, the Self-Efficacy Theory can also provide the basis to explore

pre-service teachers’ personal perceptions on technology integration. This study will examine the

self-efficacy of pre-service teachers related to the integration of technology in their prospective

classrooms. The knowledge obtained from this study will allow higher education institutions

with teacher preparation programs an opportunity to evaluate current practices in order to

accommodate the needs of future educators and their students.

Statement of the Problem

There are expectations that exist around new graduate teachers’ capabilities in being able

to meaningfully teach and integrate digital technologies and instruction (Lemon, Lemon, &

Garvis, 2016). According to Foulger, et al. (2017), teacher preparation programs have often

3
fallen short in their efforts to plan, model, and implement the right combination of technology

experiences across the entire scope of the programs. Mishra and Koehler (2006) noted that part

of the problem has been a tendency to only look at technology tools and software and not how

they are used and applied in real contexts. Consequently, it is recommended that pre-service

teachers execute their ideas in real contexts to fully grasp an understanding on how to integrate

technology, content, and pedagogy meaningfully and effectively.

According to Aldosemani (2019), one of the most effective strategies in teachers’

development programs is to involve pre-service teachers in learning activities that are similar to

the ones they will use with their students. Bandura (1997) indicated that “the task of creating

learning environments conducive to development of cognitive competencies rests heavily on the

talents and self-efficacy of teachers” (p.240). Therefore, the role of preparation programs is

crucial not only in the development of pre-service teacher content proficiency, but in their ability

to integrate technology in their future classrooms.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of the study is to examine the self-efficacy of pre-service teachers related to

the integration of technology in their prospective classrooms. The following research questions

will guide the study:

1. What is the perceived level of self-efficacy of pre-service teachers in the

integration of technology?

2. What are the experiences that influence pre-service teachers’ level of self-efficacy?

3. How do the experiences in technology integration explain the reported levels of self-

efficacy of pre-service teachers?

4
 Theoretical Framework

The Self- Efficacy Theory and the TPACK model will be used to examine the self-

efficacy of pre-service teachers related to the integration of technology in their prospective

classrooms.

Self-Efficacy Theory

Self-efficacy is a prominent concept in technology integration in education (Dursun,

2019). Bandura (1997) indicated that the electronic access in instruction has created extensive

learning opportunities that transcend time and place. In order to integrate technology to

instruction, teachers are required to attain proficiency not only in content and pedagogy but also

in technology. A high level of self-efficacy enables teachers to acquire new skills that would

improve the quality of classroom practice (Dursun, 2019). According to Bandura (1997),

perceived self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses

of action required to produce given attainments. Self-efficacy, attitude, and self-esteem are

intertwined internal motivators that can influence the effectiveness of one’s teaching practice.

Since the concepts of self-efficacy, attitude, and self-esteem are closely associated with

teaching, they have been frequently investigated in the field. Negative thoughts and fears about

self-capabilities are reactions that can lower self-efficacy beliefs about success in performing a

task (Ngidi & Ngidi, 2019). Even though the concept of self- efficacy refers to an individual’s

self-perceptions, it also refers to one’s self confidence to accomplish a task (Dursun). Therefore,

unless people believe they can accomplish a goal, they have little incentive to act. In education,

teachers’ attitudes towards instruction affect their performance (Dursun, 2019). A teacher who

knows the relationship between teaching and learning will inquire about their own beliefs, which

is important in terms of increasing the efficacy of teaching (Kul & Çelik, 2018). Therefore, pre-

5
service teachers that reflect upon their knowledge and practice are more likely to identify

improvement opportunities.

According to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy beliefs are constructed from four sources of

information: enactive mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and

physiological and affective states.

Enactive mastery experiences serve as indicators of capability; vicarious experiences alter

efficacy beliefs through transmission of competencies and comparison with the

attainment of others; verbal persuasion are the social influences that one possesses certain

capabilities; and physiological and affective states from which people judge their

capableness, strength, and vulnerability to dysfunction. (p.79).

TPACK Model

Shulman (1986) distinguished among three categories of content knowledge: subject

matter content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and curricular knowledge. According

to Shulman (1986), the person who presumes to teach subject matter to children must

demonstrate knowledge of the subject matter as a prerequisite to teaching. Koh, Woo, and Lim

(2013) defined Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) as the knowledge of teaching methods. The

Content Knowledge (CK) was described as the knowledge of subject matter. The Curricular

Knowledge is defined as the full range of programs designed for the teaching of subjects and

topics at a given grade level and the variety of instructional materials available in relation to

those programs (Shulman, 1986). As technology became more available, Pierson (2001)

proposed a theoretical model of technology integration using Shulman’s framework called

“Technological-Pedagogical-Content Knowledge.” Later on, Margerum-Leys and Marx (2002)

suggested that in order to use instructional technology in classrooms, teachers were required to

6
have comprehensive knowledge. This originated “Pedagogical Content Knowledge of

Technology”, a new component to Shulman’s framework. Niess (2005) drew the attention to

preservice teachers and preparation programs and what entails to teach with technology.

Mishra and Koehler (2006) developed the idea into a visual conceptual framework that

depicted necessary teacher knowledge and technological knowledge (TK) was added to

Shulman’s conception. In this framework a technological pedagogical content knowledge is used

to represent teachers’ technology integration expertise. Therefore, the TPACK framework

emphasizes teachers making connections between their pedagogical and content knowledge

when integrating technology. This framework represents an extension of Shulman’s (1986)

characterization of the knowledge needed to teach specific content by characterizing the

knowledge needed to teach specific content with technology (Rosenberg & Koehler, 2015).

The TPACK represents a comprehensive technology integration process while

emphasizing teachers’ knowledge, skills, and competencies, which makes it a pedagogy-centered

model of technology integration (Isil, 2018). The TPACK framework, shown in figure 1,

emphasizes the connections and interactions among content (C), pedagogy (P), and technology

(T). However, rather than treating these as separate bodies of knowledge, this model additionally

emphasizes the complex interplay of these three bodies of knowledge (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

In Figure 1, the TPACK is represented by three circles: Content, Pedagogy, and Technology

which are overlapped to create four additional types of interconnected knowledge. Koh, Woo,

and Lim (2013) described the interrelatedness of these four knowledges as follows:

The Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) is the knowledge of using technology

to implement teaching methods. The Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) is the

knowledge of subject matter representation with technology. The Pedagogical Content

7
 Knowledge (PCK) is the knowledge of teaching methods with respect to subject matter

content. The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) is the knowledge

of using technology to implement constructivist teaching methods for different types of

subject matter content. (p. 324).

Figure 1

Pedagogical Technological Content Knowledge Model (TPACK), as depicted in Mishra and

Koehler (2006). Retrieved from http://matt-koehler.com/tpack2/using-the-tpack-image/

Definition of Terms

The following meanings will provide a clearer understanding of the terms used

throughout the study:

Content: The actual subject matter that is to be learned and taught (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

Curriculum: The full range of programs designed for the teaching of particular subjects and

topics at a given level, and the variety of instructional materials available in relation to those

programs (Shulman, 1986).

Pedagogy: The methods of teaching and learning (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

Pre-Service Teacher: Initial teacher education candidates (Koh, Woo, & Lim, 2013).

8
Self-Efficacy: Beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required

to produce given attainments (Bandura, 1997, p. 3).

Technology Integration: The use of technology in a teacher’s regular teaching and curricular

plans (Cullen & Greene, 2011).

TPACK: Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

Significance of the Study

Developing theory for educational technology is complex because it requires a detailed

understanding of complex relationships that are contextually bound (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

The context in which this study will take place focuses on pre-service teachers enrolled in a

South Texas university. Teaching with technology can be intricate, multi-faceted, which requires

a developmental process that must be addressed repeatedly throughout the teacher preparation

programs (Foulger, et al., 2017). The findings of this study aim to contribute to scholarship in the

following ways: a) highlighting the experiences of pre-service teachers with various levels of

self-efficacy in technology integration and b) presenting opportunities for educator program

refinement. Once teachers begin their professional journey it is expected that they know how to

integrate technology effectively. Therefore, exploring the experiences that influence their self-

efficacy becomes an important aspect in which to inquire.

Chapter Summary

Integrating technology in the classroom is an important component of teaching and

learning. Engaging students and achieving their success requires educators to use a variety of

methods to address their needs. Therefore, developing pre-service teacher proficiency to

integrate content, pedagogy, and technology effectively become crucial components for

preparation programs. Exploring pre-service teacher experiences with technology integration will

9
provide insight as to how preparation programs can best prepare future educators. The Self-

Efficacy Theory (SET) and the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) model

were used as frameworks to guide the research study.

10
 CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
The access of information through technology has impacted society in the 21st century.

According to Kul and Çelik (2018), technology is clearly transforming the world, and the change

is visible in the learning process, the teaching material, and the way the educational content is

presented. Technology is an influential component in the learning process. It is therefore

important that teachers are competent and confident to engage and implement learning

experiences that promote learning through technology and a variety of digital tools (Lemon,

Lemon, & Garvis, 2016). The term technology integration refers to the use of technology in a

teacher’s regular teaching and curricular plans (Cullen & Greene, 2011). Technological

knowledge refers to the teacher’s ability to use a variety of hardware, software, and systems,

such as tablet computers, mobile devices, interactive whiteboards, presentation software, and

social media sites (Isil, 2018). Integrating technology in the classroom refers to the activities that

are being supported, enhanced and replaced by digital tools, which are often categorized as

hardware (laptops and mobiles), software (Microsoft Office and Google Drive learning

management systems (Blackboard), social media platforms (Twitter and Facebook), and other

digital communications (e-mails/webpages) (Ali, Murphy, & Nadkarni, 2014).

Although technology is a crucial component in different professional fields, several

studies indicate that not all teachers have reached proficiency at integrating technology in the

classroom yet (Elmas & Geban, 2012). According to Kul and Çelik (2018), it appears that recent

graduates have not received the necessary professional development to be able to use

technological tools effectively in teaching. Different studies found that pre-service teachers who

have recently graduated stated they did not feel ready to use technologies into their teaching (Lei,

2009; Kul & Çelik, 2018). Therefore, teacher education programs play critical roles in preparing

tomorrow’s teachers for effective technology integration in the classrooms (Foulger, et al.,

11
2017). Considering that teachers are the ones assigned to integrate technology in the classroom,

pre-service teachers will eventually play an important role in the success or failure of technology

inclusion (Thomas & O'Bannon, 2013).

In addition, instructors of pre-service educators and credentialing institutions need to

understand the need for change and continue to re-evaluate their position about what it means to

prepare teacher candidates to integrate technology in PK-12 classrooms (Foulger et al., 2013).

According to the Texas House Bill (Texas H.B. 1244, 2011) it is required that institutions of

higher education use research-based practices as a foundation for developmental education

courses, which must include the integration of technology (Martirosyan et al., 2017). It is

strongly recommended that teachers of pre-service educators be proficient in this regard to

effectively connect technology, pedagogy and content in relationship to specific teaching goals

for specific groups of prospective teachers (Uerz, Volman, & Kral, 2018). It is in the preparation

programs where teacher educators should act as role models and provide scaffolds to discuss and

reflect upon the successful uses of technology (Tondeur et al., 2019). Martirosyan et al. (2017)

stated that developmental education instructors across the nation are encouraged and, in many

institutions, required to integrate technology into their instructional practices to effectively model

the integration to the curriculum.

According to Aldosemani (2019), selecting the best technology tool can be challenging

and teachers face difficulties when attempting to effectively integrate technology into their

classrooms hence the critical role of preparation programs for pre-service teachers. Today’s

schools require teachers to maintain an environment conducive to learning, at the same time they

are expected to be proficient in all technological resources to engage students academically

(Kuyatt, Holland, & Jones, 2015). For many novice and experienced teachers this means

12
working outside of the comfort zone in order to integrate technology at an expected level

(McGinnis, 2019). Mishra and Koehler (2006) developed a model of technology integration in

teaching and learning. The model is based on the notion that developing good content requires a

thoughtful interweaving of three key sources of knowledge: technology, pedagogy, and content.

In order to attain an acceptable level of proficiency, it is important that prospective teachers

acquire effective technology integration qualifications before entering the teaching profession

full-time (Simsek & Yazar, 2019). This literature review examines the pre-service teachers’

beliefs on technology integration, the role of preparation programs, and an overview of a

theoretical framework used to assess teacher level of preparedness to effectively integrate three

components: technology, pedagogy, and content.

Technology, Pedagogy, and Content

Technology has become an important skill that teachers need to acquire to deepen

students’ learning (Aldosemani, 2019). Yet many believe that newer technologies often disrupt

the status quo, requiring teachers to reconfigure not just their understanding of technology but all

the components related to its integration to curriculum and pedagogy (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

Being proficient with technology does not automatically mean that the integration in the

classroom will be effective. There are specific elements that must be combined to successfully

integrate technology to the content area. Shulman (1986) referred to curricular knowledge as

another type of teacher’s knowledge which includes knowing the programs and topics, the

resources available, and being able to determine their appropriateness in each situation (Porras-

Hernández & Salinas-Amescua, 2013). Different frameworks have been used to measure the

level of proficiency and preparedness to integrate technology in the classroom. The

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework is based on the model

13
developed by Shulman in 1986. This model was further improved by Koehler and Mishra in

2008, in which seven components were defined: technological knowledge, content knowledge,

pedagogical knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, technological content knowledge,

technological pedagogical knowledge, and technological pedagogical content knowledge

(Rosenberg & Koehler, 2015). The TPACK framework highlights knowledge on how to use

specific tools, software, and hardware; knowledge on how to manage, instruct, and guide

students; and content knowledge about the discipline or subject matter (Rosenberg & Koehler,

2015). The TPACK was initially given the acronym of TPCK which was later changed to

TPACK for ease of pronunciation and for a clearer emphasis on the integrated use of technology,

pedagogy and content knowledge for effective technology integration (Thompson & Mishra,

2007). There is a notion that the TPACK addresses a theoretical aspect in the field of

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in education because it articulates the

different types of knowledge needed by teachers for technology integration (Mishra & Koehler,

2006).

According to Shulman (1986), teachers’ understanding of the teaching practice is

formulated from the integration of their content knowledge with their pedagogical knowledge.

Thus, though Shulman’s approach still holds true, what has changed since the 1980s is that

technologies have come to the forefront of educational discourse primarily because of the

availability of a range of new technologies for teaching (Koh & Divaharan, 2011). The TPACK

serves as a useful conceptual framework for analyzing and evaluating what teachers must know

to integrate technology into teaching, but ultimately it must be understood as a framework for

ways in which teachers might best develop this integrated knowledge (Baran, Chuang, &

Thompson, 2011; Wang, Schmidt-Crawford, & Jin, 2018). The TPACK model is framed by the

14
type of knowledge teachers must acquire and develop in order to design a powerful and balanced

technology-enhanced learning environment (Rosenberg & Koehler, 2015). According to several

studies (Kabakci Yurdakul et al. 2012; Kabakci Yurdakul & Coklar, 2014; Isil, 2018), the

TPACK framework is also integrated by a deep scale with a four-factor structure:

These factors are: design, exertion, ethics, and proficiency. The design factor covers

designing and developing ICT supported teaching and learning processes to improve

learning. The exertion factor covers the ability to select and use appropriate technologies

in various teaching tasks, ranging from planning to evaluation. The ethics factor refers to

the demonstration of legal and ethical behavior regarding the use of ICT in the teaching

and learning processes. The proficiency factor covers leadership skills in the process of

integration of technological resources into the teaching.

The four-factor structure ensures a comprehensive assessment of the teacher proficiency

to integrate technology and curriculum. In the TPACK model, knowledge about content,

pedagogy, and technology are central for developing good teaching. However, rather than

treating these as separate bodies of knowledge, this model additionally emphasizes the complex

interplay of content, pedagogy, and technology (Porras-Hernández & Salinas-Amescua, 2013).

The TPACK is one of the most frequently referenced frameworks in the literature to drive

professional development and measure the levels of technology integration in schools by

teachers (Aldosemani, 2019). In addition, the TPACK provides a useful context for

understanding teachers’ knowledge of the integration of information and communication

technologies into their practice. According to different studies, the TPACK provides good

guidance for teacher training and the framework can be enriched by considering the contextual

element such as content area and grade level (Porras-Hernández & Salinas-Amescua, 2013).

15
 Teacher Preparation Programs

Learning how to integrate technology in the classroom can be daunting for recent

graduate teachers. Providing an adequate training and developing technology competency in the

preparation programs can alleviate the concerns of new teachers. When it comes to technology

integration, one commonly identified gap is between what pre-service teachers learn about

technology in teacher education programs and how they are expected to use technology in their

own classrooms when they become teachers (Pope, Hare, & Howard, 2002; Kalota & Hung,

2012; Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2012; Ottenbreit-Leftwich, et al., 2018). Pre-service teachers

must learn not only which technology to integrate and how to integrate it but also the value of

using technology in practice. Therefore, observing teachers’ practices, it is crucial for pre-service

teachers to learn how others might benefit from using technology to learn specific content (Lai &

Lin, 2018). Teacher familiarity and confidence with the use of technology can be developed

through exposure and opportunities for hands-on exploration. A supportive learning community

is also important and encouraging to collaborate and learn from experienced peers is beneficial

as well (Siefert, et al., 2019). One of the most effective strategies in teachers’ development

programs is to involve teachers in learning activities that are similar to the ones they will use in

the future with their own students. Teaching practice courses could be remodeled in a way that

encourages the utilization of digital skills and technological pedagogical knowledge within

authentic learning environments (Isil, 2018).

Niess (2005) recommended that teacher preparation programs develop a

multidimensional approach, which concentrates on pre-service teachers’ development in teaching

a specific subject area with technology each semester. More and more educators agree that

technology can no longer be treated as a separate body of knowledge that is isolated from the

16
pedagogical and content knowledge that teachers require (Wang, Schmidt-Crawford, & Jin,

2018). Several studies (Polly, et al., 2010; Ottenbreit-Leftwich, et al., 2018), found mixed results

as to whether technology coursework in teacher education programs improved pre-service

teachers’ technology skills or encouraged technology use in the classroom. Therefore, the

amount of technology included in teacher education varies among universities (Nordlöf, Hallströ,

& Höst, 2019).

Approaches for helping educators gain competency in technology integration were

initially technology-focused, yet in recent years, there has been a tendency towards pedagogy-

focused approaches (Kabakci Yurdakul & Coklar, 2014). The TPACK framework allows to

make sense of the complex web of relationships that exist when teachers attempt to apply

technology to the teaching of subject matter. The TPACK model helps identify important

components of teacher knowledge that are relevant to the thoughtful integration of technology in

education (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). This framework emphasizes the need to help teachers make

connections between technological knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and content knowledge

because these connections define the ICT integration expertise (Koh, Chai, & Tsai, 2013).

Although teacher education programs recognize the importance of technology integration, these

same programs have struggled to find effective program-level and instructional-level strategies

that adequately prepare pre-service teachers to integrate technology in their future classrooms

(Polly, et al., 2010; Wang, Schmidt-Crawford, & Jin, 2018).

Findings by Wang, Schmidt-Crawford, and Jin (2018), suggest that teacher preparation

institutions still need to address how pre-service teachers are being prepared to use and integrate

technology into their programs, and that teacher preparation programs must work to further

develop and incorporate methods that better infuse technology throughout the entire teacher

17
education program and across content areas. In particular, it argues against teaching technology

skills in isolation and supports integrated and design-based approaches as being appropriate

techniques for teaching teachers to use technology (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

Foulger et al., (2017), highlights that technology in education can be complex, multi-faceted, and

a developmental process, it must be addressed and integrated throughout the entire teacher

preparation programs in a specific context related to the content area (Foulger, et al., 2017).

Because of initiatives by policy makers, teacher educators, and technology enthusiasts, a range of

workshops and teacher education courses about general software tools applicable to content and

pedagogical contexts are held (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

However, merely having pre-service teachers complete one or two courses may not be

enough for the knowledge transfer and application of technology integration to occur in their

future classrooms (Wang, Schmidt-Crawford, & Jin, 2018). Teacher candidates should have

equitable, high-quality technology experiences throughout their teacher preparation programs

(Foulger, et al., 2017). To train pre-service teachers, the teacher educators need to help them

bridge the gap between technology, pedagogy and content knowledge (Koehler & Mishra, 2009;

Tondeur, et al., 2019). Effective use of technology is not an optional add-on or a skill that we

simply can expect teachers to pick up once they get into the classroom. Teachers need to know

how to use technology and understand the state learning standards from day one (Foulger, et al.,

2017). A content-neutral emphasis on generic software tools assumes that knowing a technology

automatically leads to good teaching with technology which can be misleading (Mishra &

Koehler, 2006). Teachers need to leave their teacher preparation programs with a solid

understanding of how to use technology to support learning and the TPACK framework can be

utilized to improve and re-design preparation programs to benefit future educators.

18
 Pre-Service Teacher Beliefs

Research has identified that pre-service teachers have concerns about technology

integration which include fear that their future school would lack the resources or that they

would not have the skills required (Cullen & Greene, 2011; Ottenbreit-Leftwich, et al., 2018).

Evidence suggests that pre-service teachers do not feel adequately prepared to effectively use

technology in their classrooms (Polly et al., 2010; Tondeur et al., 2013; Wang, Schmidt-

Crawford, & Jin, 2018). It has been found that these attitudes and beliefs towards the use of

technology are impacted by factors such as training and education, social economic status, and

age (Vaughan & Beers, 2017). Sang et al. (2010) found attitude to be the strongest predictor,

self-efficacy concerning teaching and computer skills was a major contributor to pre-service

teachers’ intention to use technology, as well as, the ability to overcome common barriers to

integration such as lack of resources (Cullen & Greene, 2011). Teachers’ beliefs affect their

perceptions, judgements and behaviors in the classroom. Because self-efficacy represents a

critical factor in pre-service teachers’ intention to integrate technology, it is important to develop

not only technology integration skills during preparation programs, but also to address the pre-

service teachers’ concerns to strengthen their feelings of self-efficacy (Ottenbreit-Leftwich, et

al., 2018).

Self-efficacy theory is constructed within Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1986), based

on several assumptions that concern the reciprocal nature of influence among personal,

behavioral and environmental factors, and the relationship of learning to motivation. Self-

efficacy refers to ‘beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action

required to produce given attainments’ (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy is an indicator on whether

a teacher will use technology in the classroom. Even if teachers have knowledge of how to

19
integrate technology, if they lack the belief that they can integrate technology, they will not be

able to use it (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). This suggests that if pre-service teachers

have low self-efficacy for technology use, they will be less likely to integrate technology into

their teaching practices, even if they have the necessary skills (Ottenbreit-Leftwich, et al., 2018).

On the other hand, teachers with high self-efficacy or who place a higher value on technology

appear to use technology in the classroom in more challenging ways (Lai & Lin, 2018).

Metacognitive competencies, such as the aptitude to swiftly adopt emerging technologies

or being knowledgeable about the impact of technology in general, are considered to be at least

equally important (Uerz, Volman, & Kral, 2018). Mishra and Koehler (2006) found that not all

teachers have embraced new technologies for a range of reasons:

These reasons include a fear of change and lack of time and support. They found that

with the rapid rate of evolution of these new digital technologies teachers will have to do

more than simply learn to use currently available tools; they also will have to learn new

techniques and skills as current technologies become obsolete. This is a very different

context from earlier conceptualizations of teacher knowledge, in which technologies were

standardized and relatively stable.

Traditional barriers to technology integration also include fear of change, lack of training,

modeling, lack of personal use, motivation, and a negative school environment (Bitner & Bitner,

2002). Technology integration in education is a complex process involving many other factors

such as technology competency, lack of time, technical support, and technological and

administrative support (Kabakci Yurdakul & Coklar, 2014). Schrum (1999) stated that

technology adoption is more difficult than other new teaching practices because technology

20
changes rapidly and thus takes longer to learn. It is therefore necessary to explore teacher’s

experiences and struggles (Tondeur, et al., 2019).

Teachers are not necessarily aware of their own beliefs, dispositions, and perceptions;

therefore, self-knowledge also becomes an important element in the knowledge construction

process (Porras-Hernández & Salinas-Amescua, 2013). In order to strengthen teachers’ value

beliefs concerning technology, it is suggested that teacher educators in preparation programs

focus on sharing successful examples of specific uses of technology and reflection (Lai & Lin,

2018). Because pre-service teachers should also be able to interpret these examples in a specific

educational context, teacher educators in these programs should provide scaffolds to discuss and

reflect upon the successful uses of technology (Tondeur, et al., 2019).

According to a systematic review conducted by Tondeur et al. (2012), a Synthetized

Qualitative Data (SQD) model was created to depict the key themes that emerged from the

analysis. The key themes related to the preparation of pre-service teachers include: using teacher

educators as role models, reflecting on their own attitudes about the role of technology, learning

technology by design, collaborating with peers, scaffolding authentic technology experiences,

and continuous feedback. Tondeur et al. (2019), indicated that observing teacher educators using

both specific content and pedagogical approach was helpful but not sufficient and that a

combination of demonstration and practical work had to be conducted. According to Mishra and

Koehler (2006), design-based activities provide a rich context for learning and help develop a

deep understanding needed to apply knowledge in the complex domains of real-world practice.

By working on authentic technology experiences, learners explore and solve real problems (Koh,

2019). Based on Wang, Schmidt-Crawford & Jin (2018) study, ongoing feedback provided by

peers and teacher educators plays an influential role when using technology. In the same manner,

21
reflecting practices such as the use of reflective journals can help identify teaching problems and

solutions. According to Koh (2019), collaborating with peers supports social construction of

knowledge. Based on multiple studies, there is a variety of approaches that can be taken to

scaffold and support pre-service teacher training to integrate technology and instruction.

Effects of Technology Integration

Technological developments are changing what is required of teachers in several ways.

Firstly, it is increasingly expected that teachers use technology to support new ways of teaching

and learning (Drent & Meelissen, 2008). According to the International Society for Technology

in Education (ISTE), teachers are required to develop their students' technological literacy in

order to prepare them for working and learning in the twenty-first-century society. The ISTE

developed standards which exist to support students, educators and leaders with clear guidelines

for the skills, knowledge and approaches they need to succeed in the digital age. These standards

have been adopted, adapted, and referenced by more than fifty percent of states and territories in

the United States and are used to support K-12 technology integration and assessment (Hamilton,

Rosenberg, & Akcaoglu, 2016). According to ISTE (2020), twelve states in the United States

have adopted and nine states have adapted the standards. Adopting the ISTE standards entails the

State Department of Education formally adopting the standards as part of the curriculum

framework. Adapting the ISTE standards occurs when the State Department of Education

modifies the standards to the curriculum framework. An additional twelve states have used the

ISTE standards as reference for their technology plans.

As technology became more available, teachers and researchers started to realize the

importance of technology use in the educational field and its impact on content and pedagogy,

respectively (Wang, Schmidt-Crawford, & Jin, 2018). The digital age continues to expand the

22
ways teachers engage students in content-area learning. The use of digital tools and technology

provides multiple and varied opportunities for teachers to foster authentic and engaged learning

experiences (Siefert, et al., 2019). Technology and content exist in a continually evolving

relationship, sometimes driven by newer content-related ideas that emerge and at other times by

newer technologies that allow for different kinds of representations and access (Mishra &

Koehler, 2006). Employing technology purposefully and for learner-centered activities requires

that teachers reflect upon and question their core epistemological and pedagogical beliefs;

otherwise, technology will be utilized in procedural and meaningless ways according to

prevailing teaching practices (Orlando, 2009; Zhang, 2010; Porras-Hernández & Salinas-

Amescua, 2013). Using technology to transform lessons into meaningful learning experiences

means focusing on learning goals rather than only the technology tool (McGinnis, 2019). Pre-

service teachers have shared their concerns on their future students related to achievement and

engagement. The effective use of technology and pedagogy can result in a greater student

engagement. Some of the strategies with technology allow students to work at their own pace,

which establishes a sense of ownership and accountability.

As students become responsible for their own learning, they engage as active participants

in the learning process (Siegle, 2014). In most education processes, the main actors are the

students and the teachers. Each actor brings unique characteristics that influence the interactions

and the learning process. In order to effectively integrate technology both students and teachers

should be taken into consideration and become objects of knowledge with their unique inner and

external contexts (Porras-Hernández & Salinas-Amescua, 2013). Technology can be used across

all subject areas for a variety of instructional purposes including collaboration, research,

language development, differentiation, and greater connections between home and school

23
(Siefert, et al., 2019). There is no single technological solution that applies for every teacher,

every course, or every view of teaching (Mishra and Koehler, 2006). Direct instruction has its

place and should not be discounted as an appropriate and valuable method of content or

instructional delivery. An engaging teacher can inspire and motivate students through powerful

oral delivery (Unruh, Peters, & Willis, 2016).

One of the reasons for the divide in technology use is somewhat complex. Some

educators believe that the classroom should serve as a place for children to be unplugged

(Vaughan & Beers, 2017). In fact, one could argue that today's pre-service teachers are the

students whose teachers believed that used of their electronic devices to disrupted class. Many

pre-service teachers are also the former students who identified the ban on electronic devices as

the number one barrier to the integration of technology in the classroom (Thomas & O'Bannon,

2013). Therefore, it is important to shift paradigms by preparing pre-service teachers in ways that

technology is used to enhance and transform how learning takes place.

Quality teaching requires developing a nuanced understanding of the complex

relationships between technology, content, and pedagogy, and using this understanding to

develop appropriate, context-specific strategies and representations. Technological proficiency is

no guarantee of pedagogical proficiency in educational technology (Uerz, Volman, & Kral,

2018). Effective technology integration in teaching needs to consider all three issues not in

isolation, but rather within the complex relationships in the system defined by the three key

elements (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). At the heart of the TPACK model is the manner in which

subject matter is transformed for teaching which is influenced by pedagogy knowledge. This

occurs when the teacher interprets the subject matter and finds different ways to represent it and

make it accessible to learners (Koh & Divaharan, 2011). Many aspects surrounding the use of

24
technology by PK- 12 students are creating a force for change in teaching and learning (Foulger,

et al., 2013). Preparing future educators and equipping them with the knowledge and skills to

combine effective pedagogy with technology is crucial. Building the confidence of recent teacher

graduates is possible if they believe in themselves. One approach to achieve this is by creating

opportunities where they experience technology integration in authentic contexts.

Research shows that both, teaching and student learning are affected by the attitudes of

the teacher (Nordlöf, Hallströ, & Höst, 2019). According to Tondeur et al. (2018), attitudes

towards ICT have a significant impact on pre-service teachers' competencies to develop pupils'

ICT use. Therefore, it is important to continue to improve the strategies to integrate technology

in education using the TPACK and the self-efficacy of prospective teachers (Simsek & Yazar,

2019). In terms of TPACK, pre-service teachers’ knowledge of technology in a teacher

education program is positively related to the use of technology in the classroom (Habibi, Yusop,

& Razak, 2020). Technology needs to be infused as a systemic and systematic process

throughout the teacher preparation program and activities or lesson development should be

conducted in collaboration with peers to mitigate feelings of insecurity (Tondeur, et al. 2017).

In order to assess and identify pre-service teachers’ concerns and beliefs with respect to

technology integration, it is important to obtain firsthand input. Cullen and Greene (2011) argued

that technology integration depends on the beliefs that teachers hold. Knowledge and beliefs are

intertwined, and beliefs are developed through one’s interpretation of information, personal

experiences and knowledge (Lai & Lin, 2018). Teacher testimonials are the primary input in

research guided by the systematization approach, but it is not always easy for teachers to write

and narrate their experiences in authentic form (Porras-Hernández & Salinas-Amescua, 2013).

25
Teacher preparation programs must create spaces where pre-service teachers provide input and

share their beliefs on technology integration.

The TPACK model has provided an explanation for the long-standing observation that

ICT courses instructing pre-service teachers about technological skills alone are not adequately

preparing them to integrate ICT into their lesson activities (Koh, Woo, & Lim, 2013). According

to Wang, Schmidt-Crawford, & Jin (2018), technology can no longer be treated as a separate

body of knowledge isolated from the pedagogical and content knowledge that teachers require.

Amhag, Hellström, and Stigmar (2019) highlighted the importance of lifelong learning around

ICT, real context projects, collegial networks, motivation, attitudes, beliefs, and reserved time.

Multiple studies support the notion that learning is an ongoing process and that a single

technology-based course is not sufficient to equip future educators. It is indeed a challenge for

preparation programs to identify how ICT courses can be better designed to foster TPACK and

pre-service teacher skills (Koh & Divaharan, 2011). In a different study, Valtonen, et al. (2018)

stated that attitudes seem to have the strongest effect on pre‐service teachers' behavioral

intentions to use ICT in education. In a similar manner, Tondeur et al. (2017) noted that in order

to understand pre-service teachers’ TPACK there is a need to study several individually and

perception-based characteristics of their ICT profile, which consists in exploring their readiness

in technology integration.

Chapter Summary

This chapter presented a literature review which helped examine the self-efficacy of pre-

service teachers related to the integration of technology in their prospective classrooms. In order

to attain an acceptable level of proficiency as an educator, three sources of knowledge must be

developed: content knowledge, pedagogy knowledge, and technology knowledge. Therefore, the

26
role of preparation programs becomes crucial in providing an adequate training to develop

educator competency in all three aspects. An overview of the TPACK as a theoretical framework

was presented in this chapter, which was used to assess teacher level of preparedness to

effectively integrate technology, curriculum, and pedagogy. This review also presented the

importance of technology integration in the 21st century classrooms.

27
 CHAPTER III: METHODS
The purpose of the study was to examine the self-efficacy of pre-service teachers related

to the integration of technology in their prospective classrooms. This two-phase explanatory

mixed methods study obtained statistical quantitative results from a sample and then followed up

with four individuals to probe those results in more depth. The quantitative phase aimed to

identify the level of perceived self-efficacy of teacher candidates and clinical teachers in a South

Texas public university. In the second phase, a two-part semi-structured interview was conducted

to explore aspects of self-efficacy with four individuals with various levels of self-efficacy from

the quantitative phase as determined by a self-efficacy survey. The following research questions

guided the study: 1) What is the perceived level of self-efficacy of pre-service teachers in the

integration of technology? 2) What are the experiences that influence pre-service teachers’ level

of self-efficacy? 3) How do the experiences in technology integration explain the reported levels

of self-efficacy of pre-service teachers? This chapter describes the methods used to conduct the

study. The sections in this chapter include research design, data sources, instrumentation, data

collection, data analysis, delimitations and limitations of the study, and chapter summary.

Research Design

The study utilized a two-phase explanatory sequential mixed methods inquiry (Creswell

& Plano Clark, 2018) to gain a better understanding of the perceived level of self-efficacy of pre-

service teachers in the integration of technology. In order to answer the research questions, it was

determined that both a quantitative and a qualitative approach were needed. Collecting data

solely through a quantitative approach would have not allowed for the study to explore the

perceptions, values, and behaviors of the participants (Roberts, 2010). Therefore, by including a

qualitative approach, the participants were able to provide personal perspectives that resulted in a

richer understanding of their experiences. According to Creswell (2015), using a mixed methods

28
approach the investigator gathers both quantitative and qualitative data, integrates the two, and

then draws interpretations based on the combined strengths of both sets of data to understand

research problems. The explanatory sequential mixed methods model is shown in Figure 2. In

this model, the first phase consisted in using quantitative methods and in the second phase

qualitative methods were used to help explain the quantitative results in detail (Creswell, 2015).

The study used both deductive and inductive approaches to analyze data. According to

Saldaña (2011), deduction is generally drawn from established facts and evidence. The current

study is grounded in Bandura’s self-efficacy theory. This theory states that there are four sources

that influence an individual’s self-efficacy: enactive mastery, vicarious experiences, verbal

persuasion, and physiological and affective states (Bandura, 1997). However, an inductive

approach was also used to allow additional themes to emerge from the data collected during the

individual interviews. Induction is derived from exploration and examination of the evidence

(Saldaña, 2011). In each phase, the data was analyzed sequentially and the findings from each

phase were merged and synthetized as the final step. A joint display of the relationship between

phases is presented in chapter four. According to Creswell and Plano Clark (2018), a joint

display is an approach to show the integrated relationship between the quantitative and

qualitative phases.

Figure 2

Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods Model

Quantitative Data Qualitative Data

Collection and Collection and Interpretation
Analysis Analysis

29
 During the development of the current research study, health concerns were originated

world-wide which limited and continue to restrict the ability to meet in person with the

respondents and the dissertation committee. On March 19, 2020, the Commissioner of the

Department of State Health Services (DSHS) declared a public health disaster in Texas due to

the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Guidelines include limiting as much as

possible close contact with other people and avoiding gatherings of social groups of more than

ten individuals (DSHS, 2020). According to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board

(THECB) (2020), institutions may adopt additional protocols consistent with their specific needs

and circumstances to help protect the health and safety of all students, faculty, staff, and campus

visitors. The current study adhered to local and state guidelines regarding student contact and in-

person interviews.

The data collection for the research study began in the Fall 2020 semester. It was

determined by the dissertation committee to allow pre-service teachers to be introduced to the

concept of TPACK. Therefore, the initial contact of participants took place in October 2020 via

e-mail. Upon agreement of the pre-service teachers to participate in the study, they proceeded to

complete the screening survey and the Computer Technology Integration Survey (CTIS) as the

first data collection method. The analysis of the CTIS was completed the first week of

November. The participants who agreed to participate in the qualitative phase of the study were

contacted to arrange the interviews. The individual interviews began the second week of

November and were completed the last week of November. The transcription and member

checking were conducted from November to December 2020. The analysis of the qualitative data

was completed at the end of December. A summary of the quantitative and qualitative results

30
was conducted from January to February of 2021. A timeline for data collection and analysis is

shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3

Timeline of the data collection and analysis

Quantitative Qualitative
Initial contact Quantitave
phase: Phase:
to participants phase:
via e-mail Data Sample
Data Analysis
Collection Selection
November
October 2020 Nov 2020 2020
October 2020

Qualitative Interview Qualitative Quan-Qual

Phase: Data Transcription Data Analysis Data Analysis
Collection / Member and Synthesis
Checking
December
November Nov-Dec
2020 2020 Jan-Feb 2021
2020

Quantitative Research Design

The quantitative component of the study used descriptive research design. Creswell

(1994) noted that a descriptive method of research is conducted to gather information about an

existing condition. According to Dulock (1993), descriptive research describes systematically

and accurately the facts and characteristics of a given population, and is concerned with what

rather than how or why something has happened. Therefore, observation and survey tools are

often used to gather data in this type of scientific inquiry (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007). In this case,

a Likert scale survey was used to collect data.

According to Creswell (2015), using a quantitative approach allowed the collection and

analysis of the data to answer questions. The research question that guided the quantitative

component of the study was: What is the perceived level of self-efficacy of pre-service teachers
31
in the integration of technology? The Computer Technology Integration Survey (CTIS) was used

to collect the numerical data. Creswell (2015) indicated that quantitative data are numeric in

nature and can be obtained when participants check a set of responses on a survey. Due to the

non-experimental nature of the study, no causal inferences were drawn (Creswell, 1994).

Quantitative Data Sources

The research study was conducted with pre-service teachers, who were also referred as

teacher candidates or clinical teachers, attending a public university in south Texas, hereafter

referred to as the University. The participants spent a full first semester at a local school, two

days per week, followed by the second semester where they are categorized as clinical teachers,

which consisted of five days a week of teaching. Clinical experiences were a requirement for

students pursuing a bachelor’s degree with an initial teaching certification under the supervision

of a cooperating teacher, a professor, and a program supervisor. At the time of conducting the

study, the University’s student population was approximately 12,000, dominated by Whites and

Hispanics. The percentage of African American, Asian, and international students was low.

Upon approval by the University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), students pursuing a

bachelor’s degree in the College of Education and Human Development, who were enrolled in a

clinical experience program, were informed of the study. By focusing on teacher candidates and

clinical teachers as the subjects for the study, the researcher aimed to obtain insight from those

that have had at least basic experience in lesson design and elaboration of projects that required

the integration of content, pedagogy, and technology. Based on the enrollment in the program,

108 pre-service teachers were considered as potential participants. The original plan was to invite

pre-service teachers to participate during the clinical experience orientation, which had been

scheduled for August of 2020. However, due to COVID-19 restrictions and guidelines, teacher

32
candidates and clinical teachers were invited to participate via an e-mail). The e-mail addresses

were obtained from the University’s Department of Curriculum, Instruction, and Learning

Sciences. An information sheet explaining the research study was included, along with a

screening survey to identify the participants that met the inclusion criteria. Those who met the

criteria and voluntarily agreed to participate in the study completed the CTIS electronically,

using the link that had been previously distributed via an e-mail. The recruitment of the

participants utilized criterion sampling which consists of selecting those who met the

predetermined criteria (Erlandson, et al., 1993). The study’s inclusion criteria were (1) being at

least 18 years old, (2) pursuing a bachelor’s degree with an initial teaching certification, (3)

being enrolled in a clinical experience program at the time of the study, and (4) having been

enrolled or currently enrolled in a technology-based course at the university.

Quantitative Instrumentation

In the quantitative phase, which utilized the Computer Technology Integration Survey

(CTIS), a 5-point Likert-type scaling (1= strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor

disagree, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree) was used to measure the perceived level of self-

efficacy of the pre-service teachers based on responses to 21 attitudinal statements, which were

consistently worded with the initial stem of “I feel confident that…” According to Creswell

(2015), Likert scales are suitable for assessing degree of agreement with or support for a belief,

policy, or practice. The survey was administered in October of 2020, after pre-service teachers

had been introduced to the concept of technology integration in the classroom. The raw scores

were divided into three (3) categories: (1) 22 to 72 = low to medium, (2) 73 to 89 = medium to

high, and (3) 90 to 105 = very high technology self-efficacy (EL-Daou, 2016). The psychometric

properties of the CTIS are published (Wang, Ertmer, & Newby, 2004). Specifically, the content

33
validity was approved by a panel of experts. Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha attested to the

reliability/internal consistency of the instrument, which was 0.94 and 0.96 for pre-service and

post-service, respectively. The construct validity was confirmed by factor analysis.

Quantitative Data Collection

Upon Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, pre-service teachers participating in a

clinical experience program were invited to participate via an e-mail. Once the participants

agreed to participate, they were screened, using a brief survey to ensure they met the

requirements The CTIS was administered via Qualtrics, an online platform.

Quantitative Data Analysis

The raw data were exported into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).

According to Creswell and Plano Clark (2018), exploring the data in a quantitative phase

requires descriptive statistics. The first section of the survey (Appendix A) was designed to

obtain data on age, gender, ethnicity, academic ranking, certification that were used to describe

the demographic characteristics of the participants. An open-ended question, based on the

TPACK model, was also included to obtain additional feedback on whether or not the

respondents were familiar with the concept. The second part included the 21 statements that

measured the level of perceived self-efficacy in the integration of technology in the classroom to

answer the study’s quantitative research question. The results obtained from the Computer

Technology Integrated Survey were analyzed deductively based on Bandura’s four sources of

self-efficacy by the established notion that pre-service teachers who demonstrate higher levels of

self-efficacy are expected to have had positive enactive mastery experiences, vicarious

experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological and affective states. In the survey, respondents

34
indicated if they were willing to participate in the qualitative component of the study, which

allowed the researcher to explore the numerical results in detail.

Qualitative Research Design

In this explanatory sequential mixed methods study, the quantitative phase informs the

qualitative phase. Therefore, a subset of individuals who responded to the Computer Technology

Integrated Survey were contacted to further analyze the numerical data using a qualitative

approach. According to Creswell (2007), data collection in a qualitative study may include

documents, archival records, interviews, direct observations, participant observations, and

physical artifacts. Roberts (2010) indicated that a qualitative approach allows the researcher to

tell a story from the viewpoint of the participants which can provide a rich descriptive detail. By

using an interview study as a research design, the researcher aimed to capture the essence of the

experiences related to technology integration of the participants. An interview is a process in

which a researcher asks questions and the participants respond with thoughts, perspectives, and

narratives usually based on their technology integration experiences (DeMarrais & Tisdale,

2002). Glesne (2015) indicated that interviews are valuable in data gathering. Therefore, the

current study conducted semi-structured open-ended interviews with the participants who

fulfilled the criteria established. Each interview was conducted in a single session which ranged

from 40 to 70 minutes using an interview protocol (Appendix B).

The first six questions of the interview aimed to identify the experiences that have

influenced the pre-service teacher level of self-efficacy using Bandura’s four sources of self-

efficacy as a framework for the interview questions. According to Bandura (1997), the four

sources of self-efficacy are enactive mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal

persuasion, and physiological and affective states. Beginning with question seven of the

35
interview protocol, the focus was on the participants’ artifact, which consisted of a project or

activity that the pre-service teachers designed that included a technology component. The

TPACK model was used to design the interview protocol for this section, to facilitate the artifact

inquiry. The interview questions probed on the TPACK components: content knowledge,

pedagogy knowledge, and technology knowledge. The purpose of the artifact-based part of the

interview was to collect additional data to gain an in-depth exploration of an experience during

the elaboration of the project with respect to the TPACK components. The qualitative phase of

the study addressed the following research question: “what are the experiences that influence

pre-service teachers’ level of self-efficacy?” This research question helped explain the numerical

results obtained in the Computer Technology Integration Survey used in the quantitative phase.

Qualitative Data Sources

According to Saldaña (2011), a group of three to six people provides a broad spectrum of

qualitative data for analysis. The survey used in the quantitative phase included a question on

whether the respondents were willing to volunteer to participate in the individual interviews. If

they agreed, they were prompted to provide their contact information. In addition, the

participants were asked whether they had a project or lesson with a technology component. Upon

analysis of the 18 respondents who participated in the quantitative phase, six of them agreed to

participate in the individual interviews. From the six participants, four fulfilled the criteria set of

having a project with a technology component that they could discuss about during the

interviews. Selecting the respondents for the qualitative phase was based on criterion sampling as

well: 1) Participant agreement to volunteer in the individual interview that may last from 70 to

90 minutes, 2) Participant possession of an artifact (project or lesson with a technology

component) that the participant can discuss about during the interview. The participants who

36
fulfilled the criteria to participate in the interviews had various levels of self-efficacy reported in

the Computer Technology Integration Survey: Two participants obtained very high technology

self-efficacy, ranging from 90 to 105. One participant obtained medium to-high technology self-

efficacy, ranging from 73 to 89, and another participant obtained low-to-medium technology

self-efficacy, ranging from 22 to 72.

Qualitative Instrumentation

The researcher is considered within the field of qualitative inquiry to be the primary

instrument of the endeavor. There are no such things as “neutral,” “bias free,” or “objective”

lenses for qualitative researchers (Saldaña, 2011, p. 22). However, by following the guidelines

and procedures to enhance the trustworthiness of the study, the researcher placed personal bias

and beliefs aside to maintain objectivity, a clear focus, and an open mind throughout the study.

The trustworthiness refers to the authenticity and credibility of the data and the dependability of

the analysis and interpretation of the data (Beaudry & Miller, 2016). According to Lincoln and

Guba (1985), trustworthiness can be established by using techniques related to credibility,

transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Beaudry and Miller (2016) stated that in a

qualitative inquiry, trustworthiness techniques support truth value, applicability, consistency, and

neutrality of the study. Based on Tufford and Newman (2010), bracketing is a method used by

researchers to mitigate the potential effects of unacknowledged preconceptions related to the

research. A method of bracketing is using a reflexive journal even prior to defining the research

questions (Ahern, 1999). A reflexive journal resembles a diary used to record information about

logistics, insights, and methodological decisions, which also serves as part of the audit trail for

the study (Beaudry and Miller, 2016). A reflexive journal was used by the researcher to record

changes made to the interview protocol, suggestions and recommendations made by the

37
dissertation committee, and to record observations during and after each individual interview.

The reflexive journal was helpful while analyzing the data obtained in the quantitative and

qualitative phases. The journal helped maintaining the records organized and allowed the

researcher upholding objectivity throughout the study.

In order to prepare for the first part of the interview meeting, an interview protocol was

prepared (Table 1). An interview protocol consists in developing a set of questions and prompts

before an interview (Saldaña, 2011). The research question: “what are the experiences that

influence pre-service teachers’ level of self-efficacy?” was used to design the interview protocol.

In addition, the four sources of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) were also used as guides to phrase

the questions. In table 1, the interview questions are shown along with the source of self-efficacy

that is being addressed: Enactive mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion,

and physiological and affective states. Bandura (1997) described the four sources of self-efficacy

in the following manner:

Enactive mastery experiences serve as indicators of capability; vicarious experiences alter

efficacy beliefs through transmission of competencies and comparison with the

attainment of others; verbal persuasion are the social influences that one possesses certain

capabilities; and physiological and affective states from which people judge their

capableness, strength, and vulnerability to dysfunction. (p.79).

Table 1
Interview protocol, as it relates to the Self-Efficacy Theory framework

Item Interview Protocol Source of Self-Efficacy

1. Tell me about your background in technology Opening question that may relate
usage and integration. to any of the four sources of self-
efficacy.

38
 Table 1 (cont.)

Item Interview Protocol Source of Self-Efficacy

2. What experiences influence your decision- Mastery Experiences

making on your choice of tools, applications,
and devices to integrate when using
technology to teach?
3. How have your peers’ successes or struggles Vicarious Experiences
shaped your beliefs in technology integration?
4. How have other people encouraged you to Verbal Persuasion
integrate technology?
5. How do you feel when you integrate Physiological and Affective States
technology in your teaching?
6. What challenges or barriers, if any, you are Question that may relate to any of
most likely to find when integrating the four sources of self-efficacy
technology?

The focus on the next set of questions in the interview protocol was based on an artifact

that participants were displaying and describing. According to Goetz and LeCompte (1984),

artifacts are things that people make and do. Erlandson, et al. (1993) stated that artifacts are

considered stable nonhuman sources that can provide a context for assessing the data obtained

from human sources. Examples of artifacts that may help illuminate research questions include

textbooks, instructional materials, computer software, memos, e-mail messages, notebooks, and

even journals or diaries (Savenye & Robinson, 2005). Based on the study purpose, a project or

lesson with a technology component was the artifact that served as the topic of discussion for this

part of the interview. Participants were reminded about the artifact-based portion of the

interview, to allow the retrieval of their project or lesson beforehand.

The interview protocol for this part of the study was also created using the research

question: What are the experiences that influence pre-service teachers’ level of self-efficacy?

The TPACK model was used as a guide to phrase the questions (Table 2). An artifact is infused

39
with meaning, so that when participants speak about it, they evoke experiences from their

personal lives, their teaching, and the learning (Paige, et al., 2019). According to Erlandson, et

al., (1993), an interview allows the researcher to move back and forth in time to probe and ask

questions appropriate to the participant’s knowledge. Evaluating the composition of the artifact

is not the focus of the study, neither measuring the components of the TPACK. However, in

order to understand the experiences that shape pre-service teachers’ level of perceived self-

efficacy, it was important to inquire about their projects or lessons to gain a better understanding

on how content knowledge, pedagogy knowledge, and technological knowledge influence their

choices when integrating technology into instruction. The interview protocol for this part of the

interview is displayed in table 2, as it relates to the TPACK model. The first question is labeled

as 7, as this a continuation of the interview protocol, which took place in the same session. The

purpose of dividing the interview into two parts was to organize the interview according to the

theoretical framework being addressed.

Table 2
Interview protocol for artifact discussion, as it relates to the TPACK model

Item Interview Question TPACK Component

7. Describe your activity, lesson, or project in which Question that inquires on any
you used technology. of the TPACK components
8. How do you describe your experience designing Pedagogy Knowledge and
this project? Technology Knowledge
9. What was the context in which the activity was Content Knowledge and
developed (targeted content area, grade level)? Pedagogy Knowledge

10. How did you go about planning the project? Content, Pedagogy, and
Technology Knowledge
11. What was the intended goal of this project? Content Knowledge and
Technology Knowledge

40
 Peer debriefings with the committee were conducted to obtain professional feedback to

refine the interview protocol. According to the committee feedback, the interview protocol was

slightly modified to achieve a targeted response. At the end of each interview, a member check

was scheduled. Member checks consist in allowing the participants to verify both data and

interpretations and it is a way to establish credibility between the researcher and participants

(Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Member checking were conducted after the completion of each

transcript. Once the transcripts were reviewed and approved by each participant, the coding

process took place.

Qualitative Data Collection

The guidelines established by Department of State Health Services (DSHS)

recommended limiting close contact with other people due to COVID-19. Therefore, it was

determined to conduct the individual interviews via Cisco WebEx, an online platform for web

conferencing. The data collection was obtained through these interviews which were scheduled

according to participant availability. In the survey from the quantitative phase of the study,

participants indicated whether they were willing to volunteer for an individual interview and

whether they were in possession of an artifact (project or lesson) that they can discuss about

during the interview session. Participants who met the criteria entered their contact information,

which was used by the researcher to make arrangements for a virtual meeting using WebEx. The

interview consisted of a single session ranging from 40 to 70 minutes. The interview was

organized in a specific sequence based on the theoretical framework that was being addressed. In

the first part of the interview, the Self-Efficacy Theory was used to frame the questions. In the

second part of the interview, the questions were in relation to the artifact and the TPACK model.

The interview protocol was used to ensure that the focus was maintained not only in the

41
theoretical framework but in the research question: What are the experiences that influence pre-

service teachers’ level of self-efficacy?

Qualitative Data Analysis

Saldana (2011) indicated that “categorizing is organizing the vast array of interview

transcripts, field notes, and other forms of data, there is this instinctive need to bring order to the

collection, not just re-organize it, but to look for and construct patterns out of it” (p. 91). Data

analysis involves organizing what one has seen, heard, and read so one can figure out what has

been learned to make sense of the experience (Glesne, 2015). In order to analyze the interviews,

first they were transcribed by reviewing the video recording. Upon completion of the transcripts,

they were submitted to the respondents for a member checking. Member checks consist in

allowing the participants to verify both data and interpretations and it is a way to establish

credibility between the researcher and participants (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Once the transcripts

were verified, the next step was to code the data. Coding began with a precise transcription of the

verbal exchange between the speakers. According to Saldaña (2016), a code in a qualitative

study is a word or short phrase that symbolically assigns a summative essence capturing an

evocative attribute for a portion of language-based or visual data. In-Vivo coding was used to

honor the essence of what the participants say (Saldaña, 2016). Based on Strauss (1987), the root

meaning of “In-Vivo” is “in that which is alive” and refers to a code that is based on the actual

language used by the participants.

The transcripts were carefully read to break them down into short fragments. Each

fragment was printed on index cards using the “4in by 6in size layout” on Microsoft Word. Each

index card contained a short fragment obtained from the transcripts; it also included the label to

indicate who it belonged to: Participant 1, Participant 2, Participant 3, or Participant 4. The index

42
cards also contained the page number in which the fragment was found in the original transcript.

The In-Vivo codes were hand-written on each card; some of these codes are presented in table 3

along with the score that the participant obtained on the Computer Technology Integration

Survey (CTIS) for context. The index cards facilitated the process of coding and categorizing the

data. Categorization is organizing and ordering the vast array of data from a study because it is

from these meaning-rich units that particular features can be grasped (Saldaña, 2011). According

to Saldaña (2016), forming categories consists in combining different codes that share

characteristics to form a new whole.

Table 3
Sample of the In-Vivo Codes

Participant In-Vivo Codes

Participant 1 • Technology evolves

CTIS score: 100 points • All that you can do
Very High level of self-efficacy. • Peers struggle
• He encouraged me
• My Professor was an influencer
• Peers struggle
• My Family supported me
• I am not a master
• I must have patience
• Adaptable to all grade levels
• Cater to my students

Participant 2 • Experimenting more

CTIS score: 93 points • So much to do
Very High level of self-efficacy • My decision making
• If technology fails have a plan
• Think of the grade level
• My son encourages me
• Observing and listening to others
• Make it work for everyone
• Become a mini expert
• Appropriate content
• Transfer everything to virtual

43
Table 3 (cont.)
Participant In-Vivo Codes

Participant 3 • Technology is exciting

CTIS score: 83 points • Not a genius, but learn quickly
Medium to High level of self-efficacy • I spent hours figuring it out
• I used computers a lot
• I feel the financial pressure
• People have a mental block
• Too intimidating for them
• Consider your students
• Reflect and learn
• Spending time
• The purpose is important

Participant 4 • Everything used to be paper and pencil

CTIS score: 71 points • Haven’t done much of technology
Low to Medium level of self-efficacy • Don’t know what’s going on
• Not very good at it
• Struggle communicating
• Whole new experience
• Not everyone has Internet
• Underprivileged students
• Student-friendly language
• Professors pushing to learn more
• Never taken a technology course before
• Don’t talk about technology that much

The codes were categorized generating three themes: technology perspectives, external

influences, and instructional design. A thematic analysis aimed to uncover recurrent themes

(Beaudry & Miller, 2016). Saldaña (2016) indicated that theming the data is applicable to

interviews and participant-generated documents and artifacts. The analytic goal was to develop

an overarching theme from the data corpus, into a coherent narrative (Saldaña, 2016). The

researcher generated the themes inductively, based on the examination of the data. According to

Glesne (2015), qualitative researchers code to discern themes, patterns, and processes; to make

comparisons; and to build theoretical explanations.

44
 Trustworthiness

According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), the aim of trustworthiness in a qualitative inquiry

is to support the argument that the inquiry’s findings are “worth paying attention to.” The

specific criteria used to attain trustworthiness in a qualitative research include credibility,

confirmability, dependability, and transferability. This section describes the techniques that were

used to achieve trustworthiness for the qualitative phase of the study.

Credibility

Polit and Beck (2014) indicated that credibility is the degree of confidence in data,

interpretation, and methods used to ensure the quality of a study. In order to ensure an accurate

depiction of the data collection and analysis, respondents were encouraged to do member

checking after each interview. Also, the researcher was in constant communication with the

dissertation committee for peer debriefings. Triangulation was attained by crosschecking the

different sources for data collection: Likert scale survey (CTIS), individual interviews, member

checking, peer debriefings, and reflexive journaling. By using triangulation, the researcher

looked for several different types of sources that can provide insights about the same events or

relationships (Erlandson, et al., 1993, p.115). These different forms of data were compared

against one another to validate the analyses and findings.

Confirmability

Confirmability refers to the objectivity of the research study and that the findings are

shaped by the respondents and not researcher bias, motivation, or interest (Lincoln & Guba,

1985). The technique used to attain confirmability includes an audit trail which consisted in

maintaining records in a detailed and organized manner. The records ensure objectivity and that

45
the findings are molded by the participants, raw data collected during the individual interviews,

member checking, and reflexive journaling.

Dependability

According to Polit and Beck (2014), dependability refers to the stability of the data over

time and over the conditions of the study. Lincoln and Guba (1985), indicated that dependability

consists in showing that the findings are consistent and could be repeated. The technique used to

ensure dependability was through a reflexive journal to maintain a detailed and clear narrative of

the steps taken for participant selection, data collection, data analysis, and findings. However, if

the current study is to be replicated, the outcome may be different due to external causes. The

current study was conducted in the midst of a global pandemic caused by COVID-19, which may

have altered the mindsets and life styles of individuals.

Transferability

According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), transferability refers to the capability of a study

to apply its findings to different situations or contexts. Thick description consists of providing a

detailed description of the study, the methods, the context, and the participants’ characteristics to

allow the reader obtain a thorough understanding and decide whether the study is applicable to a

specific situation or context. The study provides a thorough description of the participants, the

methods, and the context in which the study took place. The study was delimited to teacher

candidates and clinical teachers seeking an initial teaching certification in one public university

who have taken or are currently taking at least one technology-based course.

Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods Model

In a sequential explanatory model, the qualitative phase of the study helps to explain the

quantitative data to answer a mixed methods question (Plano & Clark, 2018). Therefore, upon

collecting and analyzing the quantitative data, the perceived levels of self-efficacy of pre-service

46
teachers that participated in the study was identified and quantified. Based on these results, a

subset of individuals from the quantitative phase were contacted to participate in individual

interviews, which further explained the numerical results. After collecting and analyzing the data

obtained through individual interviews, a thematic analysis was conducted to establish a

qualitative conclusion.

The final stage in the explanatory sequential model was to depict the different levels of

self-efficacy from the survey (low-to-medium technology self-efficacy, medium to-high

technology self-efficacy, and very high technology self-efficacy) in connection with the

qualitative results, and describe how the qualitative results enrich and explain the quantitative

results. According to Creswell and Plano Clark (2018), the intent of the integration of data in an

explanatory sequential design is to connect the quantitative and qualitative results to answer a

mixed methods question. The mixed methods question in the current research study is: How do

the experiences in technology integration explain the reported levels of self-efficacy of pre-

service teachers? In Chapter four, a joint display with the relationship between the quantitative

and qualitative phases is depicted along with an interpretation of the results from each phase.

Data Management

There are moral and legal codes in place regarding the ethical treatment and care of

people involved with research studies. According to Saldaña (2011), the class principle, “But

first, do no harm,” is the primary objective when working with human participants (p. 24). In

order to protect the confidentially of the participants, the surveys, audio/video recordings, and

interview transcripts were kept in a personal laptop, which was password protected at all times.

The physical copies of the transcripts, reflexive journal, and any other documents related to the

study were also protected and stored in a locked cabinet at the researcher’s home office.

47
 Delimitations and Limitations

The study was delimited to teacher candidates and clinical teachers seeking an initial

teaching certification in one public university. The study was also delimited to participants that

have taken or are currently taking at least one technology-based course. The limitations of the

study are subject to what the participants decide to report and disclose. Due to COVID-19, when

trying to find participants for the survey, all classes were virtual. In person meetings were

restricted and the interviews were conducted through an online platform for web conferencing.

The use of one researcher for data collection and data analysis was a limitation due to a single

perception.

Chapter Summary

This chapter describes the methods that were used to conduct an explanatory sequential

mixed methods inquiry to examine the self-efficacy of pre-service teachers related to the

integration of technology in their prospective classrooms. In order to answer the research

questions, it was determined that both, a quantitative and a qualitative approach were needed.

For the quantitative phase a Likert-style survey called the Computer Technology Integrated

Survey was used to measure the participants’ perceived level of self-efficacy with respect to

technology integration. Four respondents who participated in the qualitative phase, were

contacted to participate in individual interviews to obtain an in-depth examination of the reported

qualitative data. In accordance to the sequential explanatory model, the quantitative and

qualitative results were synthetized to draw conclusions.

48
 CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS
The purpose of this two-phase explanatory mixed methods inquiry was to examine the

self-efficacy of pre-service teachers related to the integration of technology in their prospective

classrooms. The study was conducted with teacher candidates and clinical teachers at a South

Texas public university. Teacher candidates spend a full first semester at a local school two days

per week. In the second semester, they begin teaching five days a week and are referred to as

clinical teachers. Clinical experiences are a requirement for students pursuing a bachelor’s

degree with an initial teaching certification. Both teacher candidates and clinical teachers teach

under the supervision of a cooperating teacher, a university faculty member, and a program

supervisor.

Both a quantitative and qualitative approach were needed to answer the research

questions 1) What is the perceived level of self-efficacy of pre-service teachers in the integration

of technology? 2) What are the experiences that influence pre-service teachers’ level of self-

efficacy? 3) How do the experiences in technology integration explain the reported levels of self-

efficacy of pre-service teachers? In this explanatory sequential mixed methods study, the

quantitative phase informed the qualitative phase. As a result, four individuals who participated

in the quantitative phase were contacted to further analyze the numerical data using a qualitative

approach.

The first phase of the study consisted of using a quantitative approach to gather numerical

data through the Computer Technology Integrated Survey (CTIS). The University’s Department

of Curriculum, Instruction, and Learning Sciences Office facilitated the university e-mails of

students enrolled in a clinical experience program during the Fall 2020 semester. A screening

survey, demographics survey, and the CTIS were self-administered via e-mail through a

Qualtrics link. The results were exported and analyzed using the Statistical Package for the

49
Social Sciences (SPSS). The respondents who agreed to participate in a follow-up interview were

subsequently contacted if they fulfilled the criteria for the qualitative phase. The interviews were

conducted using Cisco WebEx, where they were video recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by

the researcher.

Quantitative Results

The research question addressed in the qualitative phase was: What is the perceived level

of self-efficacy of pre-service teachers in the integration of technology? The online version of the

Computer Technology Integration Survey (CTIS) was used for the purpose of data collection.

A Profile of Respondents

A total of 108 pre-service teachers were invited to take part in the study, of which, 18

agreed to participate. The majority of the participants were female (94.44%), in the 18 to 24 age-

group (66.67%), and Hispanic or Latino (66.67%). The overwhelming majority of the

participants (83.33%) were pursuing the CORE Subjects EC-6 certification and the rest (16.67%)

were enrolled in the EC-12 Special Education program. Nearly 50.00% of the participants were

familiar with the TPACK model and indicated having knowledge of the subject. The

demographics of the participants are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4
A Profile of Pre-Service Teachers, Categorical Variables (n=18)

Variable F %
Age
18-24 12 66.67
25-29 2 11.11
35-39 2 11.11
40-44 1 5.56
5.56
50-54 1

50
 Table 4 (cont.)
Variable F %

Gender
Male 1 5.56
Female 17 94.44

Ethnicity
Asian 1 5.56
Black or African American 1 5.56
White 4 22.22
Hispanic or Latino 12 66.67

Teaching Certification
CORE Subjects EC-6 15 83.33
EC-12 Special Education 3 16.67

Computer Technology Integration Survey Results

The CTIS included 21 items to measure the participants' self-efficacy on technology

integration, using a 5-point Likert-type scaling: 1= strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither

agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree (Wang, Ertmer, & Newby, 2004). The total

self-efficacy scores were divided into three (3) categories: (1) low to medium (22 to 72), (2)

medium to high (73 to 89), and (3) very high (90 to 105) (EL-Daou, 2016). The overall mean

score was 82.00, indicating a medium to high self-efficacy for a typical study participant.

The mean of the respondents’ responses to the 21 items was used to rank them from the

highest to the lowest. Each one of the 21 items was related to the components in the TPACK

model based on the wording of the statement (Appendix C). Item 19: I feel confident that, as

time goes by, my ability to address my students' technology needs will continue to improve had

the highest mean of 4.33. This is item relates to the technology component in the TPACK model.

In order for teachers to assist and address students’ needs in technology, the teachers expect that

51
as time progresses and they have more opportunities to learn, their knowledge and confidence in

technology integration will improve as a result. Items 9, 10, and 11, which are related to

mentoring students in the appropriate use of technology, providing feedback to students when

they use technology, and teaching in effective ways using technology had a mean score of 4.11.

There were two items, 2 and 17, with a mean of 4.06, which are related to teacher

computer skills and feeling comfortable while using technology during instruction. Items 3, 12,

and 15 had a mean score of 4.00; all are related to the integration of content subject area and

technology, incorporating technology when appropriate, and selecting appropriate methods

related to the curricular goals and standards. Items 6, 13, and 18 had a mean of 3.94. Item 6

relates to assisting students when they are having difficulties while using technology. Item 13

consists of selecting appropriate technology for instruction based on curricular standards. Item

18 relates to being receptive to students’ needs during computer use.

The lowest mean belonged to item 20 with 3.39: I feel confident that I can develop

creative ways to cope with system constraints (such as budget cuts on technology facilities) and

continue to teach effectively with technology. This item probes on the educator’s ability to craft

alternatives despite the limitations. This statement relies on the teacher’s proficiency to all

components in the TPACK model: technology, pedagogy, and content. Events tied to budget are

beyond the teachers’ control, which explain why the item obtained the lowest mean. It was

evident that the respondents visualized a budget constraint as a situation that would affect their

ability to design successful and effective lessons. Therefore, educators must possess an extensive

knowledge of the four components of the TPACK model to identify alternate methods to

successfully teach despite the lack of resources. A summary of the results for the CTIS is

presented in Table 5.

52
Table 5
Ranking of Perceived Self-Efficacy of Pre-Service Teachers, (n=18)

Item Statement Mean

19 I feel confident that, as time goes by, my ability to address my
4.33
students' technology needs will continue to improve.
9 I feel confident I can mentor students in appropriate uses of
4.11
technology.
10 I feel confident I can consistently use educational technology in
4.11
effective ways.
11 I feel confident I can provide individual feedback to students
4.11
during technology use.
2 I feel confident that I have the skills necessary to use the computer
4.06
for instruction.
17 I feel confident that I will be comfortable using technology in my
4.06
teaching.
3 I feel confident that I can successfully teach relevant subject
4.00
content with appropriate use of technology.
12 I feel confident I can regularly incorporate technology into my
4.00
lessons, when appropriate to student learning.
15 I feel confident about keeping curricular goals and technology uses
4.00
in mind when selecting an ideal way to assess student learning.
6 I feel confident I can help students when they have difficulty with
3.94
the computer.
13 I feel confident about selecting appropriate technology for
3.94
instruction based on curriculum standards.
18 I feel confident I can be responsive to students' needs during
3.94
computer use.
7 I feel confident I can effectively monitor students' computer use for
3.89
project development in my classroom.
8 I feel confident that I can motivate my students to participate in
3.89
technology-based projects.
14 I feel confident about assigning and grading technology-based
3.83
projects.
21 I feel confident that I can carry out technology-based projects even
3.83
when I am opposed by skeptical colleagues.
1 I feel confident that I understand computer capabilities well enough
3.67
to maximize them in my classroom.
5 I feel confident that I can use correct computer terminology when
3.67
directing students' computer use.

53
Table 5 (cont.)

Item Statement Mean

16 I feel confident about using technology resources (such as
spreadsheets, electronic portfolios, etc.) to collect and analyze data 3.61
from: student tests and products to improve instructional practices.
4 I feel confident in my ability to evaluate software for teaching and
3.50
learning.
20 I feel confident that I can develop creative ways to cope with
system constraints (such as budget cuts on technology facilities) 3.39
and continue to teach effectively with technology.
Note. 1= strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, and 5 =

strongly agree. The overall mean for perceived self-efficacy is 3.90.

Qualitative Results

The qualitative phase of the study aimed to respond to the research question: What are

the experiences that influence pre-service teachers’ level of self-efficacy? This research question

explores numerical results obtained in the Computer Technology Integration Survey from the

quantitative phase. A subset of individuals that participated in the first phase of the study were

invited based on the following requirements: 1) Participant agreement to volunteer in the

individual interview and 2) Possession of an artifact (project or lesson with a technology

component) that the participant can talk about during the interview. There were six respondents

who agreed to participate in the individual interview, however four participants met the criteria

set. Open-ended semi-structured interviews were conducted to obtain data related to the

experiences of the pre-service teachers in relation to technology integration.

The first part of the interview protocol was prepared based on Bandura’s four sources of

self-efficacy: enactive mastery experience, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and

physiological and affective states. The second part of the interview protocol focused on inquiring

on the elaboration and design of a project with a technology component. The TPACK model

54
depicted by Mishra and Koehler (2006), was used to guide the second part of the interview. Both

parts of the interview aimed to explain the quantitative results and to explore the experiences that

influence the reported self-efficacy in Computer Technology Integrated Survey. The interview

transcripts were analyzed and categorized using In-Vivo coding and a thematic analysis was used

to identify themes and subthemes.

Participant Descriptions

There were six respondents who agreed to participate in individual interviews when they

responded to the Computer Technology Integrated Survey. Out of the six volunteers, four had a

project with a technology component that they discussed during the interviews. According to

Saldaña (2011), a group of three to six people provides a broad spectrum of qualitative data for

analysis. A general profile of the four participants is provided on table 6.

Table 6
A Profile of the Participants

Participant Age Ethnicity Program of Study Category Score Level

Bracket
Participant 1 18-24 Hispanic SPED Clinical Teacher 100 3
Participant 2 35-39 Hispanic Core Subjects EC-6 Clinical Teacher 93 3
Participant 3 35-39 White Core Subjects EC-6 Teacher Candidate 83 2
Participant 4 18-24 White Core Subjects EC-6 Teacher Candidate 71 1

Note. Self-Efficacy Survey Point Values: Level 3: Very High (90-105 points), Level 2: Medium

to-high (73-89 points), Level 1: low-to-medium (22-72 points) (EL-Daou, 2016).

In the next section, the four participants are described in more detail using the data

obtained from the quantitative and qualitative phases. They are identified as Participant 1,

Participant 2, Participant 3, and Participant 4. The participants were required to showcase and

describe a lesson or project with a technology component during the individual interviews.

55
Highlights of their experiences related to technology integration in the classroom, along with a

description of the projects that the participants shared are presented in the next section. The

participants are introduced according to their score in the Computer Technology Integration

Survey (CTIS), from highest to lowest self-efficacy score, being Participant 1 the one with the

highest score (100 points), Participant 2 the second highest score (92 points), Participant 3 the

third highest score (82 points), and Participant 4 the lowest self-efficacy score (71 points).

Participant 1

Participant 1 is a clinical teacher on the verge of graduation, pursuing an EC-12 Special

Education degree. Among the four participants, she tallied 100 out of the 105 possible points in

the CTIS. Participant 1 ranks in the Level 3, very high technology self-efficacy in the CTIS.

According to Participant 1, her professors have been a “strong influence in her technology

proficiency”. Participant 1 explained how the different projects that she has created help her see

that “technology is constantly evolving”. The clinical teacher highlighted that many of her peers

“struggle” with designing technology-based projects. Therefore, the participant assumed the role

of being a “motivator” for her peers. During the interview, Participant 1 also indicated that her

family has “supported” her throughout her educational journey, providing her with one of the

latest electronic devices on the market. Due to COVID-19, Participant 1 had to go back home

which allowed her to assist her younger brother with schoolwork. This opportunity was an “eye-

opener” for her as she realized the importance of designing an effective lesson.

The project showcased by Participant 1 consisted of using the Star Chart app which

shows the stars, planets, the location of the moon and the sun in real time: “The app shows real

live footage of the sky basically.” Participant 1 had the students make a recording of themselves

using the Flip Grid App to describe their location with respect to a specific star or a planet. Flip

56
Grid app is used to record video responses, which are regulated by the teacher. Participant 1

quoted one of her students saying, “I'm in this building, on this floor, looking west and I found

Pluto.” Even though Participant 1 ranked in the highest level of self-efficacy, she does not

consider herself a “master” in technology integration. She rather identifies herself as someone

who is in the search of “learning something new every day.”

Participant 2

Participant 2 is a clinical teacher, pursuing a Core Subjects EC-6 degree. This participant

obtained 93 points in the CTIS, ranking her also in the Level 3 with very high technology self-

efficacy. Participant 2 has had mixed feelings related to technology in the past, however she now

indicated “I've gone from having to not wanting to use it to experimenting with more technology.

Now I feel like I don't do a lesson without some kind of technology.” The clinical teacher enjoys

using Nearpod, a platform to create interactive activities, to present a lesson for the first time or

to review. Participant 2 also incorporates game-based activities using Kahoot! During the design

process of her assignments, Participant 2 is thoughtful about the grade level and content area that

she will teach. Engaging her students is her “biggest motivator” and she strives for creativeness.

Due to the COVID-19, Participant 2 has become an asset to her cooperating teacher, as she is the

one converting all the lessons from worksheet format to “live” documents which are needed to

deliver and present the content virtually. Participant 2 enjoys designing lessons and “testing”

them with her son, before implementation with students. Participant 2 is usually the one person

that helps and encourages her peers as she “does not want them to fail the class.”

The project that Participant 2 shared during the interview consisted of creating a timeline

of “a person that has done something for the better of the world” using Google Slides and

multiple sources such as books and websites. The project required students to work in small

57
groups where each of them had a role: typist, researcher, and image finder. Participant 2 invested

ample time into thinking how to share the slides to allow the student groups to work at the same

time. Participant 2 also differentiated the instruction by providing a template ready to use for

struggling students. The assignment was used for 5th graders in English Language Arts and

Reading to address the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) related to biographies and

timelines. The challenge that Participant 2 found during the elaboration of the project was the

lack of Internet access for some students. Participant 2 strives to engage students; however, she

is aware that the limited resources in certain households and school districts “hinders the ability

to fully integrate technology” for every project.

Participant 3

Participant 3 is a teacher candidate, pursuing a Core Subjects EC-6 degree. Participant 3

obtained 83 points in the CTIS, ranking her in the Level 2, with a medium to high self-efficacy in

technology integration. This participant indicated that she is “always looking for something that

will be cost-effective for the school” because she is “hoping to work at a Title I school.”

Participant 3 indicated that her focus is on “Early Childhood STEM” and that she “learned a

good deal of things this semester about TPACK and STEM.” Regarding her peers, Participant 3

said that “they struggle a lot”, she indicated “there is this assumption that because they are from

an age where technology is everywhere, that people think that pre-service teachers are

automatically going to know how to use a lot of this technology and then put it in the

classroom.” Participant 3 has multiple relatives who are educators; therefore, technology and

instruction are common topics of discussion that they enjoy talking about.

For her project, Participant 3 used Assemblr app, QR Codes, and YouTube videos. The

project was designed to teach organisms and environments to 4th graders in a science class.

58
Participant 3 thinks that “the purpose of the lesson is the most important thing” and she feels that

“sometimes when technology is integrated, the objective can get lost.” Her project required

students to create a 3D augmented reality model of a food web using Assemblr app. Students

then will get a screen shot of the model and include a typed description. Participant 3 used QR

codes and YouTube videos to provide instructions and support. The teacher candidate

emphasized that “people have this mental block about technology and so there was a lot of

hesitation where there could have been potential success.” Despite ranking in the level 2 of the

CTIS, Participant 3 emphasized that she enjoys and feels confident about integrating technology.

Participant 4

Participant 4 is a teacher candidate, pursuing a Core Subjects EC-6 degree. She obtained

71 points in the CTIS, ranking in the low to medium self-efficacy, level 1. Participant 4 indicated

to have “mixed feelings” related to “distance learning.” She indicated that due to the current

situation with COVID-19, communicating with her professors has been difficult. Participant 4

said that the “lack of interaction” has “affected” her ability to do certain projects. Even when

technology is available for Participant 4, she would rather use paper and pencil for many of her

assignments. Participant 4 indicated that many of her peers “feel the same way.” Despite the

“struggles of the current school year”, Participant 4 is “grateful” that due to COVID-19, her

professors were “encouraging everyone to use more technology.” Participant 4 considers

learning how to integrate technology in the classroom an important aspect of what she will do as

an educator. Participant 4 indicated that outside of school, technology is “not a topic of

conversation” with either friends nor family.

The project shared by Participant 4 consisted of a YouTube video describing how to use

Google Slides for students of any grade level, in any content area. The teacher candidate

59
emphasized that the most crucial component of her project was using “student-friendly

vocabulary and clear directions.” The biggest challenge of her project was “fitting the script into

the required time frame” set by the professor. Even though Participant 4 ranked in the third and

lowest level of the CTIS, she is hopeful that as time goes by, she will improve her ability to

successfully integrate technology in the classroom.

Presentation of Qualitative Findings

After conducting each interview, a transcript was created and verified by the respondents

by doing a member check. Member checking consisted of allowing the participants to verify both

data and interpretations (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The transcripts were coded using In-Vivo

coding. According to Saldaña (2016), In-Vivo coding is used to honor the essence of what the

participants say. A thematic analysis of the data collected in the qualitative phase of the study

was done to uncover recurrent themes (Beaudry & Miller, 2016). This analysis led to the

development of three major themes: 1) Technology perspectives, 2) External influences, and 3)

Instructional design. These themes were generated by common categories derived from the

interviews. In this section, each theme is presented as a descriptive trait with its own set of

subthemes and commonalities. Every subtheme is explained with the statements shared by the

participants during the individual interviews. The subthemes are mainly described using the

participants’ own words.

60
Figure 4

Themes and subthemes derived from the individual interviews.

Theme 1: Technology Perspectives

The four participants shared their perspectives related to technology integration.

Participants’ perspectives have been shaped by their experiences with technology integration in

their jobs, coursework, and personal life. The pre-service teachers also explained how they

approach a technology-based assignment in terms of attitude; how they feel when they are

learning about new tools and when they apply them with students. Perspectives have also been

influenced by the current school year, which has been impacted by COVID-19.

The theme Technology Perspectives addresses Bandura’s source of efficacy Enactive

Mastery Experience, which is related to success and failure and their general experiences related

to a situation. According to Bandura (1997), failures can undermine personal self-efficacy.

However, once people become convinced that they have what it takes to succeed, they will

persevere in the face of adversity. Another source of self-efficacy that is addressed in this section

is Physiological and Affective States. Bandura (1997) also indicated that mood states affect

61
people’s judgements of their personal self-efficacy. The subthemes generated include a)

technology experiences, b) technology attitudes, and c) COVID-19 and the school year.

Technology Experiences. During the individual interviews, the participants were asked

to share their background related to technology integration. The pre-service teachers shared

experiences related to technology integration in participants’ personal, professional, and

academic life. The participants indicated spending time exploring the Internet and computer

applications during leisure time. They also stated that former jobs required a degree of

knowledge in technology. The coursework made an impact into acquiring higher proficiency

using specific technology-based tools. Participant 1, who scored the highest in CTIS, shared that

the different projects that she worked on have helped her grow. Participant 2 is currently working

with her cooperating teacher making the transition of every worksheet to a virtual and interactive

format. Participant 3 shared that she has gained experience working in classrooms with Adaptive

Education settings, however due to COVID-19, she has not had the opportunity to be in one

during the current semester as a teacher candidate. The places where Participant 3 has worked,

have never had all the resources needed to teach with technology. Therefore, she acquired strong

skills “to figure out” how to make “things work” even with a limited budget. Participant 4, who

is ranked in the lowest echelon of the CTIS, shared that her experience with technology and

instruction is limited. She indicated that she is still learning how to properly do lesson design.

Participant 4 also indicated that “it will be challenging to motivate students to use technology”

partially because according to her, she “does not know all of the technologies” and that she “still

learning them.”

Technology Attitudes. The way participants approach digital-based assignments is influenced by

their attitudes on technology integration. Participants’ attitude is shaped by how confident they

62
feel about integrating technology. The confidence is acquired by acquiring proficiency. During

the interviews, participants were asked about the way they feel about integrating technology.

Each participant shared the way they approached the technology-based projects that they have to

do. Participant 1, who is ranked in the highest level of self-efficacy in the CTIS, indicated that

“everyone is not at the same technology level and that's okay, that's how we learn and that's how

we grow,” denoting an extremely positive attitude towards technology integration. Participant 1

also mentioned that even when she feels confident about integrating technology “there is

something coming out every single day” and that makes it impossible to be a “master” at it.

Participant 1 indicated that regardless of what she is doing or teaching, she will “somehow

integrate technology because it is engaging.” Participant 2, who obtained the second highest

score in the CTIS, indicated that she “relies heavily on technology” for instructional purposes.

The clinical teacher usually invests ample time exploring digital applications and planning in an

engaging way. Participant 2 said that the first time that she used technology was stressful,

however “as time has gone by” now she “feels really comfortable about it” and she has learned

that “even if the technology fails during the lesson, you just have to move along, and come up

with plan B, C, or D.” This attitude indicates how Participant 3 is not afraid of trying new

methods and understands that struggling during the learning process is normal. Participant 3,

who ranked in the medium to high level of self-efficacy with 83 points, indicated that she is

extremely thoughtful when integrating technology for instructional purposes and stated that she

finds the entire process exciting. Participant 4, who obtained 71 points in the CTIS, said that she

uses technology on a daily basis, however using it to design her instructional projects requires

more guidance and support from her professors. Even when her attitude is positive about

learning, she has “mixed feelings” about the current school year and distance learning.

63
COVID-19 and the School Year. Despite that none of the questions in the interview referred to

COVID-19, the global pandemic has altered people’s lives in different ways. There was a need to

learn and apply technology knowledge into the new technological demands for the current school

year. Specifically, the participants of the current research study, shared how COVID-19

disrupted the “typical” course of the school year of 2020 and how that influenced the way they

perceive technology in the classroom. Participant 1 indicated that due to COVID-19, she had to

return home and was able to assist her brother with his schoolwork. The participant said that by

obtaining feedback from her brother she now feels more thoughtful about the way she designs a

lesson. The brother definitely “encourages” her to make it easier for students. Participant 2

considers herself as somebody that is truly helping her cooperating teacher transition from paper

and pencil to virtual lessons. Participant 3 mentioned that she has not been in the classroom this

semester and that she is “missing out.” The teacher candidate also indicated that “the state of

things right now is different and there is a lot of things that feel unfamiliar”. Participant 4

stressed that “with the current situation all of the professors have been pushing into learning how

to integrate technology into the lessons, now more than ever.” The four participants shared

thoughts related to COVID-19 even when none of the questions in the interview protocol

inquired about the pandemic.

Theme 2: External Influences

The participants highlighted the relevance of external influence such as peers, professors,

and relatives. The pre-service teachers highlighted the importance of helping their peers be

successful in their class work. According to Bandura (1998), people’s self-efficacy is influenced

by modeled attainments or Vicarious Experiences. In other words, people appraise their

capabilities in relation to the attainments of others. Another source of self-efficacy is Verbal

64
Persuasion. People who are persuaded verbally are more likely to provide effort and sustain it

(Bandura, 1998). Two of the participants stressed the importance of communicating with

professors during virtual learning due to COVID-19. The other two participants indicated that the

professors have been a positive influence during their program of study. In addition, the three of

the four participants emphasized how at least one relative has encouraged them to continue in

their journey to learn more about technology and instruction. The subthemes generated include a)

peers’ struggle, b) professors’ role, and c) family encouragement.

Peers’ Struggles. The participants were asked about how they feel when their peers

struggle during technology integration. The pre-service teachers noted the importance of helping

their peers. Three of the four participants indicated feeling capable of assisting struggling peers.

Participant 1 indicated “seeing my peers struggle was definitely an eye opener” and it that show

her that she must be patient with her students because “not everybody is at the same level.”

Participant 2 specified that “sharing ideas with peers was important,” and that just thinking about

“what works, what does not work for us” help her reflect on her own practice. This participant

also reflected on her peers’ success, she said “I don’t want them to fail, so I try to help as much

as I can.” Participant 3 witnessed her peers struggling to integrate technology into the content.

Participant 3 highlighted that she observed a lot of “hesitation” from her peers to explore new

digital tools. Participant 4 said that many of her peers’ struggle communicating with her

professors “because of COVID-19 we don’t really get to see them face to face, so this situation

reinforces the importance of communication.” Participant 4 said that she “translated” that

situation into her own practice, if she was the teacher, she “would definitely be finding different

ways to help and reach out to students.”

65
 Professors’ Role. Even when none of the questions in the interview protocol referred

specifically to the role of professors in preparation programs, there was a question that inquire on

influences made by people in the participants’ journey with technology integration. The

requirements of the projects assigned, the directions given, and the guidance provided by the

professors played an influential role in the participants’ self-efficacy. Three of the four

participants mentioned anecdotes related to their professors. Participant 1, who is ranked with the

highest level in the CTIS, shared a few examples of experiences in her teacher preparation

program where the professors acted as a strong influence for her to integrate technology.

However, she mentioned that designing her project was challenging because she had “full range”

on the “things” that she could include in the assignment. Participant 2 only mentioned the

professors in the context of the project assignment “the professor assigned a project.” Participant

3 emphasized that she learned a lot of new things this semester from her professors. She also

indicated that “there was no limit” as to what to include for the project. Participant 4 thinks that

professors are also “learning a whole bunch of new things” and as a result she will learn “a lot

more from them.” In different stances, the four participants mentioned how the directions

provided by the professors influence the way their lessons are designed.

Family Encouragement. Three of the four participants indicated the importance of

having family encouragement and discourse related to technology. The pre-service teachers

mentioned how their families have encouraged them to become more proficient with technology

integration. Some of the participants indicated that their relatives have been a strong influence

when designing a lesson with technology components. Participant 1, who score a very high level

of self-efficacy or level 3, emphasized that her family, especially her younger brother was

encouraging with her efforts to integrate technology in the classroom. Her family is aware of her

66
interest in technology, and they gave her a laptop as a Birthday gift. Participant 2, who also

ranked in the level 3 in the self-efficacy survey, indicated that her son plays an important role as

she can identify what he likes and what he is capable of doing: “I kind of take some ideas from

him.” Participant 3, who obtained a medium to high level of self-efficacy, indicated that multiple

relatives are educators, including her mother. Therefore, discussions related to teaching are fairly

common. Participant 3 emphasized that her family encourages to continue learning and evolving

in the area of instructional technology. Participant 4, who obtained a low self-efficacy score,

mentioned that outside of school, “technology is not really talked about that often.” Even when

the mother of Participant 4 values education, there is not a discourse related to education in her

household.

Theme 3: Instructional Design

In order to participate in the individual interviews, respondents were required to describe

and showcase a technology-based project. The four participants displayed unique projects that

required extensive planning. Every project addressed a different standard and a different grade

level. The participants mentioned how the students’ experiences with technology were an

influence in the design of their projects. The four participants also described some of the barriers

that they have experienced when integrating technology and instruction. The Instructional

Design theme focuses on the TPACK components: technology, pedagogy, and content. The

subthemes generated include a) intended goals and planning, b) lesson and standards, c)

student’s role, and d) challenges with technology integration.

Intended Goals and Planning. This subtheme addresses three components of the

TPACK: technology, pedagogy, and content. Each of the projects presented had a goal set which

was easily identified based on the grade level and subject area. Regardless of the complexity of

67
the project, each pre-service teacher invested ample time investigating different approaches. The

four participants were asked about the planning process when elaborating the project shared

during the interview. The projects that were showcased and described during the interviews

where different from one another. All four of the participants had the goals specified in their

lesson plans. Participant 1 said that the only requirement for her project was to use two or more

digital applications. She indicated that “planning was a little hard at first, because we have full

range and we didn't have any limits to what this project was going to be.” Participant 1, who

ranked in the highest level in the CTIS with 100 points, used Star Chart, Flip Grid, and Survey

Monkey. The clinical teacher had to think about the different questions that she would ask. The

intended goal was to have her students take screenshots of the moon phases using the Star Chart

app and recording themselves explaining their findings using Flip Grid. To get students engaged,

the first set of questions required only to locate certain planets in the Star Chart App. Participant

1 spent a few days thinking of which applications to use, how to engage the students, and what

questions to ask. At the end of the activity, she provided a link to Survey Monkey to obtain

feedback on whether the students enjoyed the activity.

The project that Participant 2 displayed was on timelines and biographies using Google

Slides. The participant indicated that Google Slides allows for different people to work at the

same time on the same document. Participant 2, who obtained 93 points in the CTIS, indicated

that “there was a lot of decision making in this project, especially because we wanted different

kids working at the same time and I did think about that hard, how to make sure that everyone

works and that it’s not confusing.” The participant wanted to have small groups of students

working on the specific project, therefore she decided that Google Slides was the perfect app for

the activity. Participant 2 spent long hours thinking how to make it work for every student. She

68
also considered how to make it attainable for struggling students, therefore she created a

template with all the components of the assignment ready for them to “fill in the blanks.” The

groups had to use multiple sources, such as books and the Internet and they were also required to

incorporate images. The goal was to create a biography in the form of a timeline of a person that

has done something for the better of the world.

Participant 3, who ranked in the Level 2 of the CTIS with 83 points, wanted her students

to learn about the producers, consumers, and food webs. The participant also wanted students to

describe how the energy flows through food webs, beginning with the Sun and predicting

changes in ecosystems. Once she had the content goal in mind, Participant 3 decided to use

multiple apps and digital tools: Assemblr, Blogger, digital search engines, QR codes, and Canva.

The teacher candidate used Assemblr and made her own 3-dimensional food web, which was

projected into her yard, and then she screen-recorded it and uploaded it into a YouTube video for

students to watch as an example. Blogger was an app used by the students where they could post

their Assemblr 3D models. Blogger allowed for students to interact and comment on each other’s

food web models. Participant 3 used QR codes to provide directions for students and anchor

charts created using Canva, to explain how food webs work. The teacher candidate also created a

list of resource links for students to access extra information if they needed it. Participant 3 also

created dual language learner sentence stems for English Language Learners. Participant 3

indicated that this project “took some investigation,” because she wanted to start with the

objective “I don't want to start with the technology and say this looks cool, how do I make this

work in my classroom? I want to start with the objective and say, how can integrate technology

to achieve this objective, to reach this objective.”

69
 Participant 4, who obtained 71 points in the CTIS, decided to create a YouTube video to

explain how to use Google Slides. The only constraint imposed by the professor on video-based

project was to avoid exceeding the 3-minute mark. Participant 4 explained the basics of Google

slides for students. The participant indicated that she was perfectly comfortable explaining how

to use Google Slides, however writing the script to make it fit into a 3-minute video was the most

challenging part. The teacher candidate tried making the recording different times, using

different vocabulary, as she was striving for this to be a student friendly video. Overall, her

experience with this project was positive and she now feels more confident about recording

herself for the purpose of providing directions to her students.

Lesson and Standards. This subtheme addresses two components of the TPACK:

pedagogy and content. Every project was unique and addressed a different grade level and

standards. Each participant shared the different standards that were addressed in the lesson.

Three of the four participants specified the skills that they wanted to address with their project.

Participant 1, who scored the highest in the CTIS with 100 points, indicated that her lesson was

on Science and that it could be adapted to any grade level. The project consisted of locating the

planets and analyzing the moon phases over time. Participant 2, who earned 92 points in the

CTIS, decided to focus her project for an ELAR lesson on biographies and timelines for 5th grade

students. Participant 3, who scored 82 points in the CTIS, decided to create a Science lesson on

organisms and environments for 4th grade students. Participant 4, who scored 71 points in the

CTIS, designed a video with directions on how to use Google Slides for elementary students of

any grade level and to any content area, as her intended goal was solely to teach students how to

create a Google Slides presentation.

70
 Students’ Role. This subtheme addresses two components of the TPACK: technology

and pedagogy. The participants indicated how the audience, in this case the students, were

always the focus of attention. They indicated the importance of creating a project attainable for

all students, regardless of their proficiency level with technology. The four pre-service teachers

mentioned how their students are always in their mind when designing an activity. The

participants were also concerned about making the lesson attainable for all students. Most of the

participants highlighted the importance of students’ previous knowledge and how to differentiate

to reach to all learners. Some of the participants also emphasized how the lack of technology can

affect the intended outcome of the lesson. Participant 1 said, “I really want to make technology

work, so I must cater to my students. Especially if they're still at home virtual. I know a lot of

kids don't even care to go outside anymore. So my project is a reason to go outside.” Participant

1 repeatedly stated that she is always thinking of ways to “make it easier for students and

parents” because she does not want “parents to stress about technology.” Therefore, she said, “I

just needed to find what works for my students, not what works best for me, but what works for

them.”

Participant 2 always reflects on the question “What is the students’ capability? If they're

going to create something specific with the technology, how often have they used it in the past?”

Therefore, she is always searching for content and technology that is accessible for the students.

Participant 3 said that her main experience is working in Title I schools; therefore, she always

considers the access or lack of access that students may have. Participant always considers what

“students may be able to do if they lack the technology,” such as electronic devices or an Internet

connection. Participant 3 also mentioned the importance on the student reaction about the

activities that she presents, and how that will affect the level of engagement. Participant 4

71
indicated that she always strives to use a “student friendly vocabulary” and tries to provide clear

directions to prevent students from struggling understanding what they are being asked to do.

Challenges with Technology Integration. This subtheme addresses one component of

the TPACK: technology. The challenges described by the participants are presented in this

section. The pre-service teachers described different barriers that they have encountered when

integrating technology. None of the participants stated a personal challenge, however their main

concern was related to student access to a reliable Internet connection and electronic devices.

The challenges faced when integrating technology include student access to Internet and

electronic devices. Participant 1 indicated that “definitely the challenges are the computers and

their availability for students,” she also indicated that “a lot of barriers are related to schools not

having the funds to actually integrate technology, many of our students are also sharing the

computer with a sibling.” Participant 1 also indicated that she currently has only 30 minutes per

block, therefore integrating certain projects can be difficult. Participant 2 said that she worries

more about students’ access to a digital device. This participant has witnessed that not all school

districts have been able to provide a digital device to all students. Participant 3 indicated that in

many cases school districts use a specific device like an iPad, and once they become old, they

decide to get rid of them and acquire a new type of device like a Chromebook. Participant 3

thinks that “the districts should become aware that there are things that you can do on iPads that

you can’t do in a Chromebook and vice-versa.” Another barrier that Participant 3 shared relates

to the “financial insecurity for schools.” Participant 4 stressed that “they are losing funding and

they are pulling programs like tech programs and science labs, because students can't participate

in them the same way. And there's not as much funding because some students are absent.”

Participant 4 also said that her attitude could definitely affect her students, “if I, myself am not

72
super excited and motivated, it's going to be hard to get my students motivated.” Participant 4

added “there's lots of under-privileged students that only get Internet access on their phone,

making it difficult to get the full experience of a lesson.”

Summary of the Qualitative Findings

In conclusion, the four participants shared their experiences related to technology

integration in the classroom, which has a correlation to their self-efficacy level. The data

collected in the qualitative phase of the study led to the development of three major themes: a)

technology beliefs, b) external influences, and c) instructional design. Each of the three themes

included subthemes that were described in this chapter. Every theme and subtheme provided an

insight on how the level of self-efficacy on technology integration in the classroom is shaped by

the participants’ experiences. The research question addressed in the qualitative phase of the

study is what are the experiences that influence pre-service teachers’ level of self-efficacy? The

themes generated from the individual interviews represent the perspectives of the sample of pre-

service teachers participating in the study.

Quantitative and Qualitative Data Synthesis

The mixed methods question in the current research study is: How do the experiences in

technology integration explain the reported levels of self-efficacy of pre-service teachers? A

joint display with the connection between the quantitative and qualitative phases is depicted

along with an interpretation of some of the results from each phase in Table 7. According to

Creswell and Plano Clark (2018), a joint display represents the connection between the initial

quantitative results and the follow-up qualitative results. Participant 1 who reported a very high

level of self-efficacy has shown examples of experiences where the four sources of self-efficacy

have been addressed. Participant 1 did not consider herself a “master” in technology integration

73
in the classroom, however that is exactly what drives her to learn more and educate herself in the

different components of the TPACK: Technology, pedagogy and content knowledge. Participant

2 reported a very high level of self-efficacy, level 3. Based on the perspectives that she shared

during the interview, it was clear the four sources of self-efficacy have been covered. Participant

2 has had multiple opportunities to practice and apply her knowledge, her peers and family play

an important role in motivating her, and she feels confident and joyful when integrating

technology. Even when Participant 3 reported a medium to high level of self-efficacy, the four

sources of self-efficacy have been fulfilled in different situations: The participant has had

different opportunities to learn and apply what she knows, she has repeatedly discussed

technology and instruction with her mother and other relatives, and she is excited about

designing and planning projects. Even though Participant 4 feels comfortable using technology,

there are still aspects that are at the developing stage. This participant reported a low self-

efficacy in the CTIS. A source of self-efficacy that is missing for Participant 4 is an outside

influence such as family and friends that could potentially motivate her to learn more.

Table 7
Joint Display by Participant

Participant 1 Level 3 –Very High level of self-efficacy (100 points)

Sources of Mastery Experiences:

Self-Efficacy “I have taken 2 courses with Dr. X at the university, in high school I was
kind of involved with the technology aspect of it”
“I was also in a computer science class, even though I didn't check that as a
career, we all had to take it. So, that was pretty interesting. But when I was
like in 5th or 6th grade I was introduced to a smart board, and I was like,
wow that's cool”
Vicarious Experiences:
“my peers’ struggles really did influence me to kind of take a step back to
realize everyone is not on the same level and that really stood with me”
Verbal Persuasion:
“for me to hear that feedback from my brother kind of pushed me and
encouraged me to make it easier for my students”

74
 Physiological and Affective States:
“a part of me feels a sense of relief when the students are finally putting the
connections together”

TPACK Technology Knowledge:

“I did AR/VR (Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality) and I used Star
Chart app and Flip Grid”
Pedagogy Knowledge:
“I have to cater to my students, the students are the audience, and you have
to deliver things in a different way so they make the connections”
Content Knowledge:
“I'm not a master at it and I'm not going to pretend like I am, I am still
learning”

Participant 2 Level 3 –Very High level of self-efficacy (93 points)

Sources of Mastery Experiences:

Self-Efficacy “I do think I'm technology savvy as far as creating. I do like, um, create
stuff.” “I just explore until I become a mini expert”
Vicarious Experiences:
“sharing ideas in general with peers, what works for us, what doesn't work
for us, that really helps”
Verbal Persuasion:
“I think my son plays a role in where I can see what he likes”
Physiological and Affective States:
“I was stressed the very first lesson I made, but as time has gone by, I
actually feel really comfortable”

TPACK Technology Knowledge:

“There's still some apps out there to use that I probably haven't explored
or worked with yet, but I will”
Pedagogy Knowledge:
“I made sure that I provided instructions so I have the second slide of the
presentation with the instructions”
Content Knowledge:
“I've mastered a lot but I can learn more”

Participant 3 Level 2 –Medium to High level of self-efficacy (83 points)

Sources of Mastery Experiences:

Self-Efficacy “I do have experience working in classrooms where there was some
adaptive technology, I also ran some STEM programs at a childcare
center”
Vicarious Experiences:

75
 “I think some of my peers have this mental block about technology and
so I saw a lot of hesitation where there could have been potential
success”
Verbal Persuasion:
“We talk a great deal about teaching, regularly, that's just what we like so
that is what we talk about me and my family”
Physiological and Affective States:
“I'm excited to see how I can use technology in the classroom”
“I've always really loved technology. I'm not, I'm not like a technology
genius, but I'm handy with technology. I learn it pretty quickly”

TPACK Technology Knowledge:

“I used multiple applications, but I made sure to have the objective in
mind”
Pedagogy Knowledge:
“I really wanted to kind of incorporate a lot of things that maybe weren't
the main focus, but I didn't want to just have students cut and paste from
the web and be bored and not really retain the information”
Content Knowledge:
“I want to start with the objective and say, how can I integrate
technology to reach this objective”

Participant 4 Level 1 –Low to Medium level of self-efficacy (71 points)

Sources of Mastery Experiences:

Self-Efficacy “I haven't really done much technology integration”
“I'm taking this technology course, but before that, I really have never
taken a technology course”
Vicarious Experiences:
“I have seen a lot of different technology that my peers are using. Like,
a lot of my classmates have kids and so they talk about the technology
that their kids are using right now and that is helpful for me, because I
don't have kids”
Verbal Persuasion:
“Outside of school, technology isn't really talked about that much with,
like, my friends and my family”
Physiological and Affective States:
“It makes me feel accomplished that I can incorporate these other things
that I didn't necessarily grow up with”
“I think it will be challenging to motivate students to use technology
partially because I don't know all of the technologies”

TPACK Technology Knowledge:

“The actual designing of the project was pretty simple. I'm very familiar
with Google slides. I use it in lots of presentations”

76
 Pedagogy Knowledge:
“I had to make sure that the language was student-friendly”
Content Knowledge:
“My target was elementary students, there wasn't necessarily a specific
content or subject”

Based on the synthesis depicted in table 7, it was noticeable that the pre-service teachers

with higher scores in the CTIS were willing to take more risks related to TPACK components in

several ways: a) By integrating multiple digital applications (technology knowledge), b) By

using a variety of approaches to teach a concept (pedagogy knowledge), c) By exploring the

content area in depth (content knowledge) to teach for understanding.

The pre-service teachers that integrated a variety of digital applications (technology

knowledge), described a personal, professional, and educational background that required the use

of technology. They described different enactive mastery experiences related to attempts to

become proficient until reaching a point where they perceived themselves as successful.

According to Bandura (1997), successes build a robust belief in one’s personal efficacy, which in

this case increased the eagerness of the participants to learn more about different digital

applications. The physiological and affective states are related to the mood states which affect

the people’s judgement of their personal efficacy (Bandura, 1997). The participants with higher

levels of self-efficacy indicated joyful feelings about exploring, using, and applying technology.

Participants with higher levels of self-efficacy were willing to try new digital tools and

applications. They ventured into researching in their own time to identify innovative technology-

based activities and applications. The participants also made sure that the activities and projects

were accessible to their students.

77
 The pre-service teachers that used a variety of approaches to teach a concept (pedagogy

knowledge) described vicarious experiences related to their peers’ performance in the

coursework. The participants who assisted their peers had the notion that they were more

proficient. The verbal persuasion by relatives and professors allowed the participant to continue

to strengthen the belief of capability (Bandura, 1997). The discourse with family on technology

integration in the classroom, allowed the participants to obtain different perspectives on

technology and instruction. The participants with higher levels of self-efficacy integrated diverse

strategies to differentiate instruction, by providing an open-ended assignment for advanced

students vs providing a template for struggling students. They incorporated individual work and

small group work to promote collaboration and support among their students. The pre-service

teachers also provided instructions in a variety of ways to make the assignment attainable for all

students: pictures, videos, and digital poster boards.

The pre-service teachers that explored the content area in depth (content knowledge) to

teach for understanding also indicated experiences where siblings, parents, and professors use

verbal persuasion as a way to encourage them. According to Bandura (1997), people who are

persuaded verbally about possessing the capabilities are likely to sustain greater effort to achieve

a goal. The participants with higher levels of self-efficacy invested time examining the Texas

Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) to ensure that the objectives of the lesson were

adequately addressed. Their starting point was the objective of the lesson. Once they had a clear

objective in mind, they looked for different resources to teach the concept.

78
 CHAPTER V: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND DISCUSSION
Introduction

Self-efficacy represents an important factor in new teachers’ intentions to integrate

technology. Therefore, identifying the experiences that influence how individuals feel about their

abilities to integrate technology may assist teacher preparation programs in refining their

approach to adequately equip future educators. Bandura (1997) indicated that self-efficacy

beliefs are constructed based on four sources of information: enactive mastery experiences,

vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological and affective states. Enactive

mastery experiences are related to individuals’ past failures and successes and how these events

influence personal perception about achieving specific goals. Vicarious experiences consist in

assessing individual success in relation to peers’ success. Verbal persuasion entails positive

reinforcement and encouragement obtained by external sources such as family, professors or

friends. Physiological and affective states relate to emotions and feelings associated to success

and accomplishment.

Some of the expectations around new teacher graduates include their ability to integrate

technology in the classroom effectively. According to Foulger, et al. (2017), integrating

technology and instruction can be complex and it requires an evolving process that must be

addressed repeatedly throughout the teacher preparation program. Based on Mishra and Koehler

(2006), the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) describes the different

types of knowledge needed by teachers for technology integration. Therefore, integrating

coursework that requires the elaboration of projects addresses the sources of self-efficacy

(enactive mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, physiological and

affective states) and brings together the components of the TPACK (technology knowledge,

79
pedagogy knowledge, content knowledge) requiring a strategic plan by teacher preparation

programs.

The purpose of the study was to examine the self-efficacy of pre-service teachers related

to the integration of technology in their prospective classrooms. The following research

questions guided the study:

1. What is the perceived level of self-efficacy of pre-service teachers in the integration of

technology?

2. What are the experiences that influence pre-service teachers’ level of self-efficacy?

3. How do the experiences in technology integration explain the reported levels of self-

efficacy of pre-service teachers?

This two-phase explanatory mixed methods study obtained statistical quantitative results

from a sample and then followed up with four individuals to probe those results in detail. The

quantitative phase aimed to identify the level of perceived self-efficacy of teacher candidates and

clinical teachers in a South Texas public university using a Likert scale survey called the

Computer Technology Integrated Survey (CTIS). In the qualitative phase, a two-part semi-

structured open-ended interview was conducted to explore aspects of self-efficacy with four pre-

service teachers who reported different levels of self-efficacy from the quantitative phase as

determined by the CTIS. This chapter describes the significant findings from the CTIS and the

individual interviews.

The study was conducted during the Fall semester of 2020 with pre-service teachers, who

are referred to as teacher candidates and clinical teachers who have taken or were currently

taking a technology-based course at the time of the study. Teacher candidates spend a full first

semester at a local school, two days per week, followed by the second semester where they are

80
categorized as clinical teachers, which consists of five days a week of teaching. Clinical

experiences are a requirement for students pursuing a bachelor’s degree with an initial teaching

certification under the supervision of a cooperating teacher, a university faculty member, and a

program supervisor.

The inclusion criteria for the study included (1) being at least 18 years old, (2) pursuing a

bachelor’s degree with an initial teaching certification, (3) being enrolled in a clinical experience

program at the time of the study, and (4) having been enrolled or currently enrolled in a

technology-based course at the university. There were 108 pre-service teachers who were

enrolled in a clinical experience program in the Fall semester of 2020 which were contacted in

October 2020 via e-mail. The 18 pre-service teachers who agreed to participate in the study,

completed the Computer Technology Integration Survey (CTIS), which served as the first data

collection method. The CTIS was analyzed with descriptive statistics using the Statistical

Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). There were six participants who agreed to participate in

the individual interviews, however four of them met the required criteria to participate in the

qualitative phase of the study because they possessed a project or lesson with a technology

component. The CTIS was self-administered using a Qualtrics link via e-mail and the individual

interviews were conducted via WebEx to adhere to COVID-19 guidelines, which restricted in-

person meetings.

Summary of the Results

Quantitative Results

The quantitative phase of the study addressed the first research question: “What is the

perceived level of self-efficacy of pre-service teachers in the integration of technology?” The

Computer Technology Integrated Survey (CTIS) identified the level of self-efficacy of the 18

81
pre-service teachers who agreed to participate in the study. The CTIS included 21 items to

measure the participants' self-efficacy on technology integration, using a 5-point Likert-type

scaling: 1= strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, and 5 =

strongly agree (Wang, Ertmer, & Newby, 2004). The self-efficacy scores were divided into three

(3) categories: (1) low to medium (22 to 72), (2) medium to high (73 to 89), and (3) very high

(90 to 105) (EL-Daou, 2016). The overall mean score of the participants was 82.00, which

indicated a medium to high self-efficacy. The statement with the highest self-efficacy was item

19: I feel confident that, as time goes by, my ability to address my students' technology needs will

continue to improve with a mean of 4.33. This item indicates that pre-service teachers are aware

that learning takes time, however they are hopeful that as time progresses, they will improve as

educators. The statement with the lowest self-efficacy was item 20: I feel confident that I can

develop creative ways to cope with system constraints (such as budget cuts on technology

facilities) and continue to teach effectively with technology with a mean of 3.39. This item relates

to factors that are beyond a person’s control, which explains the reason for a low self-efficacy in

this area.

Qualitative Results

The qualitative phase of the study addressed the second research question: “What are the

experiences that influence pre-service teachers’ level of self-efficacy?” The first portion of the

interview protocol was prepared using Bandura’s four sources of self-efficacy (enactive mastery

experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological and affective states) and

the second portion was based on the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

model as frameworks to guide the inquiry. The transcripts derived from the individual interviews

allowed the researcher responding to the research questions by identifying the experiences that

82
have influenced the participants’ level of self-efficacy with respect to technology in the

classroom. The participants shared their background, professional experience, perspectives, and

overall beliefs on technology, which are considered enactive mastery experiences, physiological

and affective states. The results revealed that the participants that used technology as a hobby, as

a requirement to perform a job, or as elective coursework in high school indicated higher levels

of self-efficacy, which reassures the notion that enactive mastery experiences influence such

high levels. The results also revealed that the pre-service teachers felt excitement and curiosity

about integrating technology in their projects and learning more about digital tools. Positive

attitudes on technology usage, such as the ones described by the participants, are related to the

physiological and affective states, which positively affects self-efficacy.

The participants also shared experiences related to external influences which include their

relationship with peers, professors, and family members. According to Bandura (1997), vicarious

experiences are the self-perceptions that are based on the comparison with peers’ attainments.

The results revealed that the participants have a strong willingness to assist their peers in

technology-based projects, which is an indicator of how the pre-service teachers perceive their

own capability with respect to their peers. Therefore, being confident about helping peers

represents a strong self-efficacy. Verbal persuasion are the social influences that affect an

individuals’ capabilities based on the encouragement provided. The results also revealed that the

participants who held conversations and received encouragement by their families, reported the

highest levels of self-efficacy. The participants who shared examples on how their professors

guided them to achieve goals, which ultimately influence their self-efficacy as well.

In the second portion of the interview, the participants were asked to showcase and

describe a project or lesson that had a technology component. In this part of the interview the

83
components in the TPACK model addressed were: technology, pedagogy, and content

knowledge. The results of the study indicated that the project showcased by the participants was

based on previous experiences with technology. The participants indicated investing time in

researching on how to integrate digital tools and how to address a specific instructional goal

based on content objectives and grade level standards. The results also revealed that pre-service

teachers always consider their audience, which means that the students are always the focus of

the project or lesson.

The third research question was: “How do the experiences in technology integration

explain the reported levels of self-efficacy of pre-service teachers?” According to Bandura

(1997), the stronger people’s belief in their efficacy, the more career options they consider

possible, the greater the interest they show in them, and the better they prepare themselves

educationally. The results obtained in the research study indicated that the pre-service teachers

who displayed positive experiences related to the four sources of self-efficacy: enactive mastery

experience, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological and affective states,

demonstrated higher levels of self-efficacy in the Computer Technology Integration Survey. It

was noted that the pre-service teachers with higher scores in the CTIS were willing to take more

risks related to TPACK components in several ways: a) by integrating multiple digital

applications (technology knowledge), b) by using a variety of approaches to teach a concept

(pedagogy knowledge), and c) exploring the content area in depth (content knowledge) to teach

for understanding.

Conclusions

According to the results of the Computer Technology Integrated Survey, the 18 pre-

service teachers who participated in the quantitative phase of the study possess a medium to high

84
self-efficacy. These participants indicated a high level sense of self-efficacy about the future and

that they are hopeful that as time progresses, they will acquire the proficiency needed to be

successful educators. These pre-service teachers also indicated a strong self-efficacy when

mentoring students in appropriate ways to use technology and when providing individual

feedback during technology use, as reported in item 9 “I feel confident I can mentor students in

appropriate uses of technology” and item 11 “I feel confident I can provide individual feedback

to students during technology use.” Based on the CTIS results, there were items ranked with low

self-efficacy, which are related to budget cuts on technology resources and the individual ability

to evaluate software for teaching and learning. According to the CTIS results, it can be

concluded that the items in the survey related to school decisions are ranked the lowest, which is

reasonable as these decisions may be beyond the control of the individuals. Items related to

personal attainment, such as teaching relevant subject content with appropriate use of technology

were ranked with medium to high level of self-efficacy.

The four pre-service teachers who participated in the second phase of the study ranked

with various levels of self-efficacy: one teacher candidate obtained low to medium self-efficacy,

one teacher candidate obtained medium to high self-efficacy, and two clinical teachers obtained

with very high self-efficacy. The pre-service teachers shared how their background and personal

experiences influenced their perception related to technology integration. The more enactive

experiences they shared, the more confidence they displayed in their descriptions to integrate

technology. Based on both, the quantitative and the qualitative results, it was concluded that

relatives, peers, and professors play an important role in how pre-service teachers perceive their

self-efficacy with respect to technology and instruction. The participants with the highest levels

of self-efficacy shared examples of how the discourse and interactions with their relatives, peers,

85
and professors have played an influential role in their ability to learn and apply technology in the

classroom. The participant with the lowest level of self-efficacy shared that even when her

family encourages in her educational journey, technology has never been a topic of discussion.

The four participants also indicated that the restrictions due to COVID-19, allowed them to

witness the challenges that students and families are experiencing, which in turn has developed a

higher degree of awareness of their students’ needs.

The teacher preparation program, cooperating teachers, faculty members, and clinical

program supervisors may use the results of the current study to identify the different experiences,

which have helped teacher candidates and clinical teachers acquire higher levels of self-efficacy

related to technology integration in the classroom. The experiences that impacted the most,

included interactions with peers and relatives which allowed the pre-service teacher obtain

feedback and support during the elaboration of technology-based projects. Additionally,

incorporating opportunities to create and present a project to peers and their actual students in the

clinical program were also influential elements that have had a positive effect in the participants’

self-efficacy. An aspect that was found to be overwhelming for students was related to the open-

ended nature of the projects. Despite the fact, that participants had a high degree of freedom to

design their projects, participants found this to be intimidating at times.

Discussion

According to Lemon, Lemon, and Garvis (2016), there are expectations that exist around

new graduate teachers’ abilities related to the integration of technology and instruction.

Therefore, identifying pre-service teachers’ perceived level of self-efficacy and the experiences

that have shaped those perceptions was important. In the quantitative phase, the overall mean

score of 82.00 indicated a medium to high self-efficacy. In the qualitative phase those results

86
were explored in depth through individual interviews. Participants with higher levels of self-

efficacy, as indicated in the Computer Technology Integrated Survey, shared a variety of

experiences where the four sources of self-efficacy were described. Bandura (1997) indicated

that the enactive mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and

physiological and affective states influence a person’s ability to attain goals.

The qualitative phase of the study led to the development of three major themes: a)

technology beliefs, b) external influences, and c) instructional design. For the theme technology

beliefs, participants who described having multiple opportunities to explore technology appeared

to have higher levels of self-efficacy and more willingness to continue learning about technology

integration. Based on the results, the technology beliefs are influenced and shaped by those

opportunities of exploration. The participants shared how previous jobs, where technology use

was required also helped them get acquainted with digital tools. The coursework required in

preparation programs also played an influential role in technology beliefs. The restrictions

imposed as a result of COVID-19 also allowed teacher candidates and clinical teachers to

understand students’ and families’ perspectives about remote learning. Pre-service teachers in a

preparation program are still developing and shaping their craft, learning from professors;

therefore, they appeared to have a clear connection with their own students in the clinical

program. The participants displayed compassion about the challenges that students in elementary

school are facing as a result of not attending school in person.

The external influences theme was generated as a result of participants mentioning their

relatives, professors, and peers. The study indicated that the participants with high levels of self-

efficacy have relatives in which conversations related to technology take place on a regular basis.

From the four participants, three shared different experiences related to family support: a brother

87
acted as a mentee for the participant, a parent acted as a role model, and a son played the role of

a student. Every relative provided a different perspective to the pre-service teacher. The family

members acted as motivators and also as source of feedback to improve. The encouragement and

guidance provided by professors in the preparation programs were also factors in self-efficacy.

The participants mentioned how they feel responsibility to help peers when they struggle, which

serve as an indicator that they feel capable to assist others. This as a consequence, intensifies

their self-efficacy.

The instructional design theme was originated as pre-service teachers described how the

standards, grade level, and goals were important components when planning for a project or

lesson. However, one of the participant’s concerns was in relation to students’ previous

experience with technology. The teacher candidates and clinical teachers indicated a high sense

of awareness about the fact that not everyone is on the same level when it comes to technology.

In addition, it was emphasized that student access to computers was always an element that was

assessed during instructional design. Student access to technology has been one of the main

challenges during their clinical experience, which has been affected by the challenges and

restrictions due to COVID-19. Another concern shared was related to how infrastructure can

both limit and boost the teachers’ self-efficacy, which ultimately can impede the ability to teach

effectively.

According to Nordlöf, Hallströ, & Höst (2019), self-efficacy mainly comes from

experience, education, and interest. During the current study, the participants mentioned having a

high degree of freedom as to what to include in the projects. For participants with low self-

efficacy levels this “freedom” may be intimidating. Therefore, providing clear guidelines and

even peer support could make a difference to improve self-efficacy with technology integration.

88
 Implications for Practice

The study aimed to identify the experiences that influence the self-efficacy of pre-service

teachers. The four sources of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) were the framework to guide the

study. Using the TPACK as the framework to inquire on the artifact portion of the interview also

helped identify the elements that pre-service teachers consider when designing a project or

activity with a technology component. This portion of the interview that addressed the project or

lesson with a technology component, highlighted the importance of requiring pre-service

teachers to design instructional activities that can be used in their prospective classrooms.

According to Mishra and Koehler (2006) it is recommended to apply technology tools in

real contexts. Therefore, it is important for teacher preparation programs to include coursework

where future educators experiment and explore a variety of digital tools. An approach that may

be useful for preparation programs is to provide teacher candidates and clinical teachers with

specific guidelines and a checklist based on the TPACK model. The checklist may serve as a

guide to design a lesson that integrates components related to technology, pedagogy, and content.

Another recommendation for professors of teacher preparation programs is to have pre-

service teachers complete the Computer Technology Integrated Survey (CTIS) at the beginning

of the semester. The results obtained in the survey will inform the professors the level of self-

efficacy and the type of assistance that will be required by the pre-service teachers. Using the

CTIS prior the elaboration of the projects will allow the professors to accommodate according to

the needs of their students. For example, for a pre-service teacher that is categorized as level 1

(low to medium self-efficacy), the professor may provide specific guidelines, a checklist, and

peer collaboration. A pre-service teacher categorized as level 2 (medium-to high self-efficacy)

may be provided with a checklist and peer collaboration only. Pre-service teachers categorized as

89
level 3 (very high self-efficacy) may serve as in-class tutors to provide assistance and

recommendations to their peers.

Once the digital tools are explored and the instructional activities are adequately

designed, obtaining feedback from peers and professors could assist the refining of the project.

Providing additional directions and guidance may be beneficial for pre-service teachers with

limited experience in technology integration. Peer collaboration is likely to play an important

role in attaining higher levels of self-efficacy as suggested by the results. Including

investigations that involve discussions with relatives related to technology may also be a factor

that promotes self-efficacy.

Another aspect to consider is providing continued development in educational

technological framework such as Design Thinking. According to Henriksen, Gretter, and

Richardson (2020), Design Thinking offers a framework for teachers to engage with problems of

practice. This framework explains the role of teachers as designers and problem solvers. These

characteristics can be attained with proper training in their respective preparation programs.

Despite the fact that there were no specific questions related to COVID-19, every participant

shared how the global pandemic shaped their perspectives on technology and instruction. The

pre-service teachers had to learn new strategies and tools “on the go.” Therefore, it is important

to address how to handle unexpected situations in education. The challenges of the current

school year faced by future and current educators required them to be persistent, flexible, and

creative. DeLuca, Coombs, and LaPointe-McEwan (2019) indicated that a growth mindset

involves believing that ability, intelligence, and talent can be developed through effort,

persistence, and teaching. Therefore, an aspect to consider by teacher preparation programs is to

90
provide opportunities where future educators assess the importance of a growth mindset and how

this attribute may contribute to a positive outcome when trying new endeavors.

The population for the study was small due to limitations that may have to do with the

restrictions and struggles associated with COVID-19. The results obtained in the study indicated

that pre-service teachers benefit from participating in technology-based projects which enhance

their self-efficacy. The interactions with peers were also a factor that positively contributed to

self-efficacy. Maintaining an open communication with professors was another element that

influenced self-efficacy. Through practical and frequent professional development opportunities

related to technology beginning at the preservice level, educators may begin to change their

beliefs about technology and move toward cultivating equitable learning opportunities for

students (Siefert, et al., 2019). Based on the results of the study, it was determined that teacher

preparation programs may include multiple opportunities for pre-service teachers to design

lessons and activities that have technology, pedagogy, and content intertwined, with clear

guidelines to ensure that the TPACK components are being addressed.

Recommendations for Future Research

The limitations and delimitations of the study offer opportunities for further research. The

current study was delimited to teacher candidates and clinical teachers seeking an initial teaching

certification in a public university of South Texas. The study was also delimited to participants

that have taken or are currently taking at least one technology-based course. The study may be

replicated using a longitudinal study, which may provide additional insight related to the self-

efficacy of pre-service teachers at the beginning and end of the clinical experience. The study

may also be replicated using different demographics to obtain conclusions related to specific age

groups and different universities to obtain a different perspective of their teacher preparation

91
programs. The participants of the current study were not able to participate in their clinical

experience by physically attending to their assignment in the school buildings. It would be

beneficial to follow up on the same generation of educators that will be graduating in 2021 to

obtain the perspective of new graduates. This will be useful in understanding the specific needs

of a new generation of teachers, who are facing the challenges of an imminent new virtual and

hybrid model of education.

The current study was conducted during a school year subjected to multiple restrictions

due to COVID-19. These restrictions included teaching remotely, converting paper-based

materials to virtual materials, creating resources to support learning, such as videos and online

visuals. The tools that are needed such as document cameras, multiple computer screens, and

headsets may now be a part of the new normal in instruction. Learning about how to properly set

up a teacher station to teach virtually will now be an aspect to consider by teacher preparation

programs. Therefore, it would be relevant to explore how COVID-19 has changed the approach

of preparation programs. Two school years have been affected by the global pandemic: 2019-

2020 and 2020-2021. Many educators were required to learn, for the first time, strategies to teach

remotely and hence the importance of identifying how COVID-19 shaped teachers’ perspectives

in technology integration. Looking at the upcoming school year: 2021-2022 where it is likely

that COVID-19 restrictions will be lifted, it will be pertinent to identify the new practices that

will be adopted in the classroom.

Final Remarks

There are multiple expectations around first year teachers, therefore it was important to

identify experiences that influence the self-efficacy of pre-service teachers that are on the verge

of graduation. The results of the study showed that there is a connection between positive

92
technology experiences with higher levels of self-efficacy. Therefore, teacher preparation

programs must create multiple opportunities to integrate technology in different contexts. The

qualitative results allowed to explain the quantitative results in detail, which showed that there

are opportunities for program refinement. Peer collaboration, family encouragement, and

professor guidance were important factors to improve levels of self-efficacy. Opportunities to

design and showcase technology-based projects allowed to identify the elements incorporated by

pre-service teachers. This information may be used by professors to help future teachers

enhancing their projects.

The need to integrate technology in the classroom was evident. Now more than ever, new

teachers will be expected to use technology effectively. This will require a conscious effort by

teacher preparation programs to equip future educators to be proficient. The pre-service teachers

who participated in the study navigated their clinical experience program with unique challenges

due to COVID-19. The teacher candidates and clinical teachers did not have the opportunity to

interact face to face with their students, yet they demonstrated resiliency in overcoming the

challenges of the current school year. Despite the fact that none of the participants considered

themselves experts in their field, they indicated determination and commitment to continue

learning.

93
 REFERENCES
Ahern, K. J. (1999) Pearls, pith, and provocation: Ten tips for reflexive bracketing.

Qualitative Health Research 9(3): 407–11.

Aldosemani, T. (2019). Inservice teachers' perceptions of a professional development plan based

on SAMR model: A case study. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational

Technology, 18(3).

Ali, A., Murphy, H. C., & Nadkarni, S. (2014). Hospitality students’ perceptions of digital tools

for learning and sustainable development. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport &

Tourism Education, 15, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2014.02.001

Banas, J., & York, C. (2014). Authentic learning exercises as a means to influence preservice

teachers’ technology integration self-efficacy and intentions to integrate technology.

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(6). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.362

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman and Company.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Prentice Hall.

Baran, E., Chuang, H. & Thompson, A. (2011). TPACK: An emerging research and

development tool for teacher educators. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of

Educational Technology, 10(4).

Beaudry, J. S. & Miller, L. (2016). Research literacy: A primer for understanding and using

research. New York : The Guilford Press.

Birisci, S., & Kul, E. (2019). Predictors of technology integration self-efficacy beliefs of

preservice teachers. Contemporary Educational Technology, 10(1), 75.

https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.512537

Bitner, N., & Bitner, J. (2002). Integrating technology into the classroom: Eight keys to success.

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10, 95 –100

94
Creswell, J.W. (2015). A Concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Creswell, J.W. & Plano Clark, V. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cullen, T., & Greene, B. (2011). Pre-service teachers’ beliefs, attitudes, and motivation about

technology integration. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(1).

https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.45.1.b

Curtis, G. (2017). The impact of teacher efficacy and beliefs on writing instruction. Delta Kappa

Gamma Bulletin, 84(1), 17-24.

DeLuca, C., Coombs, A., & LaPointe-McEwan, D. (2019). Assessment mindset: Exploring the

relationship between teacher mindset and approaches to classroom assessment. Studies in

Educational Evaluation, 61, 159-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.03.012

DeMarrais, K. (2003). Foundations for Research: Methods of Inquiry in Education and the

Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609373

Drent, M., & Meelissen, M. (2008). Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use

ICT innovatively? Computers & Education, 51, 187–199.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.001

Dulock, H. L. (1993). Research Design: Descriptive Research. Journal of Pediatric Oncology

Nursing, 10(4), 154–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/104345429301000406

Dursun, O. O. (2019). Pre-service information technology teachers’ self-efficacy, self-esteem

and attitudes towards teaching: A four-year longitudinal study. Contemporary

Educational Technology, 10(2), 137. https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.554478

EL-Daou, B. M. N. (2016). The effect of using computer skills on teachers’ perceived self-

95
 efficacy beliefs towards technology integration, attitudes and performance. World

Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues. 8(2), 106-118

Elmas, R., & Geban, Ö. (2012). Web 2.0 tools for 21st century teachers. International Online

Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(1), 243-254.

Erlandson, D.A., Harris, E.L., Skipper, B.L., and Allen, S.D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry:

A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How

knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology

in Education, 42(3), 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551

Foulger, T. S., Burke, D., Kim Williams, M., Waker, M. L., Hansen, R., & Slykhuis, D. A.

(2013). Innovators in teacher education: Diffusing mobile technologies in teacher

preparation curriculum. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 30(1), 21-29.

https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2013.10784722

Foulger, T. S., Graziano, K. J., Schmidt-Crawford, D. A., & Slykhuis, D. A. (2017). Teacher

educator technology competencies. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 25(4),

413. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2018.1498040

Gall, M.D., Gall, J.P., & Borg, W.R. (2007). Educational research: An introduction. Boston:

Pearson.

Glesne, C. (2015). Becoming a qualitative researcher. Boston: Pearson.

Habibi, A., Yusop, F. D., & Razak, R. A. (2020). The role of TPACK in affecting pre-service

language teachers’ ICT integration during teaching practices: Indonesian

context. Education and Information Technologies, 25(3), 1929-1949.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10040-2

96
Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The substitution augmentation

modification redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use.

TechTrends, 60(5), 433-441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y

Henriksen, D., Gretter, S., & Richardson, C. (2020). Design thinking and the practicing teacher:

Addressing problems of practice in teacher education. Teaching Education, 31(2), 209-

229. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2018.1531841

Isil, K. Y. (2018). Modeling the relationship between pre-service teachers’ TPACK and digital

nativity. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 66(2), 267-281.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9546-x

International Society for Technology in Education (2020)

https://id.iste.org/connected/standards/standards/iste-standards#0

Joo, Y. J., Park, S., & Lim, E. (2018). Factors influencing preservice teachers’ intention to use

technology: TPACK, teacher self-efficacy, and technology acceptance model. Journal of

Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 48-59.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26458506

Kabakci Yurdakul, I., & Coklar, A. N. (2014). Modeling pre-service teachers’ TPACK

competencies based on ICT usage. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(4), 363-

376. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12049

Kabakci Yurdakul, I., Odabasi, H. F., Kilicer, K., Coklar, A. N., Birinci, G., & Kurt, A. A.

(2012). The development, validity and reliability of TPACK-deep: A Technological

Pedagogical Content Knowledge scale. Computers & Education, 58(3), 964–977.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.012

Kalota, F., & Hung, W. C. (2012). Instructional effects of a performance support system

97
 designed to guide pre-service teachers in developing technology integration strategies.

British Journal of Educational Technology. Advance online publication.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01318.x

Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content

knowledge (TPACK)? The Journal of Education, 193(3), 13-19.

https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741319300303

Koh, J.H.L. (2019). TPACK design scaffolds for supporting teacher pedagogical

change. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67, 577–595.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9627-5

Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. (2013). Examining practicing teachers’ perceptions of

technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) pathways: A structural equation

modeling approach. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-

012-9249-y

Koh, J., & Divaharan, S. (2011). Developing pre-service teachers’ technology integration

expertise through the TPACK-developing instructional model. Journal of Educational

Computing Research, 44(1). https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.44.1.c

Koh, J. H. L., Woo, H., & Lim, W. (2013). Understanding the relationship between Singapore

Pre-service teachers’ ICT course experiences and technological pedagogical content

knowledge (TPACK) through ICT course evaluation. Educational Assessment,

Evaluation and Accountability, 25(4), 321-339. https://doi.og/10.1007/s11092-013-9165-

Kul, Ü., & Çelik, S. (2018). Investigating changes in mathematics teachers’ intentions regarding

web 2.0 technology integration. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 11(2), 89-104.

https://doi.org/10.24193/adn.11.2.8
98
Kuyatt, A., Holland, G., & Jones, D. (2015). An analysis of teacher effectiveness related to

technology implementation in Texas secondary schools. Littleton: The Clute Institute. 8,

63-70. https://doi.org/10.19030/cier.v8i1.9091

Lai, T., & Lin, H. (2018). An investigation of the relationship of beliefs, values and

technological pedagogical content knowledge among teachers. Technology, Pedagogy

and Education, 27(4), 445-458. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2018.1496137

Lei, J. (2009). Digital natives as pre-service teachers: what technology preparation is needed?

Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(3), 87–97.

Lemon, N., Lemon, N., & Garvis, S. (2016). Pre-service teacher self-efficacy in digital

technology. Teachers and Teaching, 22(3), 387-408.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1058594

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Margerum-Leys, J., & Marx, R. W. (2002). Teacher knowledge of educational technology: A

study of student teacher/mentor teacher pairs. Journal of Educational Computing

Research, 26(4), 427–462.

Martirosyan, N.C., Kennon, J.L., Saxon, D.P., Edmonson, S.L., & Skidmore S.T. (2017).

Instructional technology practices in developmental education in Texas. Journal of

College Reading and Learning, 47(1), 3-25

https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2016.1218806

McGinnis, P. (2019). Moving up the SAMR model. Science Scope, 43(4), 1-1.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework

for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record. 108(6), 1017-1054.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

99
Mustafina, A. (2015). The role of teachers’ attitudes toward technology integration in school.

The Eurasia Proceedings of Educational & Social Sciences (EPESS), 3, 129-138.

Ngidi, D. P., & Ngidi, S. A. (2019). Determination of factors influencing pre-service teachers'

sense of self-efficacy. South African Journal of Higher Education, 33(5).

https://doi.org/10.20853/33-5-3598

Napal, M., Mendióroz-Lacambra, A. M., & Peñalva, A. (2020). Sustainability teaching tools in

the digital age. Sustainability, 12(8), 3366. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12083366

Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology:

Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher

Education 21(2005) 509-523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.006

Nordlöf, C., Hallström, J. & Höst, G.E. (2019). Self-efficacy or context dependency? Exploring

teachers’ perceptions of and attitudes towards technology education. International

Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(1), 123-141.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9431-2

Orlando, J. (2009). Understanding changes in teachers’ ICT practices: A longitudinal

perspective. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18(1), 33-44.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390802704030

Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Brush, T. A., Strycker, J., Gronseth, S., Roman, T., Abaci, S.,

VanLeusen, P., Shin, S., Easterling, W., & Plucker, J. (2012). Preparation versus practice:

How do teacher education programs and practicing teachers align in their use of

technology to support teaching and learning? Computers & Education, 59(2), 399–411.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.014

Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Brush, T. A., Aslan, S., & Zachmeier, A. (2018).

100
 Addressing technology integration concerns: Asynchronous video mentoring between

Pre-service teachers and exemplary technology-using in-service teachers. Australasian

Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3246

Paige, K., O'Keeffe, L., Geer, R., MacGregor, D., & Panizzon, D. (2019). Using artefacts to

articulate teachers' perceptions of STEM. Teaching Science, 65(1), 48-54.

Pierson, M. E. (2001). Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical

expertise. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 413-430.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.2001.10782325

Polit, D.F. & Beck, C.T. (2014). Essentials of nursing research: Appraising evidence for nursing

practice. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C. E., & Inan, F. (2010). Evidence of impact: Transforming

teacher education with preparing tomorrow's teachers to teach with technology (PT3)

grants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 863–870.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.024

Pope, M., Hare, D., & Howard, E. (2002). Technology integration: Closing the gap between

what pre-service teachers are taught to do and what they can do. Journal of Technology

and Teacher Education, 10(2), 191– 203.

Porras-Hernández, L. H., & Salinas-Amescua, B. (2013). Strengthening TPACK: A broader

notion of context and the use of teacher's narratives to reveal knowledge

construction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(2), 223-244.

https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.48.2.f

Roberts, C. M. (2010). The dissertation journey: A practical and comprehensive guide to

planning, writing, and defending your dissertation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

101
Rosenberg, J. M., & Koehler, M. J. (2015). Context and technological pedagogical content

knowledge (TPACK): A systematic review. Journal of Research on Technology in

Education, 47(3), 186-210. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2015.1052663

Saldaña, J. (2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research: Understanding qualitative research.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sang, G., Valcke, M., Van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student teachers’ thinking processes

and ICT integration: Predictors of prospective teaching behaviors and educational

technology. Computers and Education, 54(1), 103-11.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.07.010

Savenye, W. C., & Robinson, R. S. (2005). Using qualitative research methods in higher

education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 65-95.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02961475

Schrum, L. (1999). Technology professional development for teachers. Educational Technology

Research and Development, 47, 83.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. American

Educational Research Association. 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.2307/1175860

Siefert, B., Kelly, K., Yearta, L., & Oliveira, T. (2019). Teacher perceptions and use of

technology across content areas with linguistically diverse middle school students.

Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(2), 107-121.

https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2019.1568327

Siegle, D. (2014). Technology: Differentiating instruction by flipping the classroom. GiftedChild

Today,37(1),51–55.

102
Simsek, O., & Yazar, T. (2019). Examining the self-efficacy of prospective teachers in

technology integration according to their subject areas: The case of Turkey.

Contemporary Educational Technology, 10(3), 289. https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.590105

Tay, L. Y., Lim, C. P., & Lim, S. K. (2015). Differences in ICT usage across subject areas: A

case of an elementary school in Singapore. Journal of Educational Computing

Research, 53(1), 75-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115585930

Texas Department of State Health Services. (2020, June 17). Texas Executive Orders & Public

Health Disaster Declaration. https://dshs.state.tx.us/coronavirus/execorders.aspx

Texas H.B. 1244, 83nd Legislature, (2011) (enacted).

https://tlc.texas.gov/docs/sessions/82soe.pdf

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2020). Reopening of Campus Operations.

http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/misc/coronavirus-update-for-higher-education/reopening-of-

campus-operations/#collapseFifteen15

Thomas, K., & O'Bannon, B. (2013). Cell phones in the classroom: Pre-service teachers'

perceptions. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 30(1), 11-20.

https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2013.10784721

Thompson, A. D., & Mishra, P. (2007). Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK! Journal of

Computing in Teacher Education, 24, 38 –64.

Tondeur, J., Aesaert, K., Prestridge, S., & Consuegra, E. (2018). A multilevel analysis of what

matters in the training of pre-service teacher's ICT competencies. Computers &

Education, 122, 32-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.002

Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Baran, E., Siddiq, F., Valtonen, T., & Sointu, E. (2019). Teacher

103
 educators as gatekeepers: Preparing the next generation of teachers for technology

integration in education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1189-1209.

https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12748

Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Baran, E. (2017). A comprehensive investigation of

TPACK within pre-service teachers’ ICT profiles: Mind the gap. Australasian Journal of

Educational Technology, 33(3). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3504

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.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.009

Tufford, L., & Newman, P. (2012). Bracketing in qualitative research. Qualitative Social

Work, 11(1), 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325010368316

Unruh, T., Peters, M. L., & Willis, J. (2016). Flip this classroom: A comparative study

Computers in the Schools, 33(1), 38-58.

https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2016.1139988

Uerz, D., Volman, M., & Kral, M. (2018). Teacher educators' competences in fostering student

teachers’ proficiency in teaching and learning with technology: An overview of relevant

research literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 12-23.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.005

Valtonen, T., Kukkonen, J., Kontkanen, S., Mäkitalo‐Siegl, K., & Sointu, E. (2018).

Differences

in pre‐service teachers' knowledge and readiness to use ICT in education. Journal of

Computer Assisted Learning, 34(2), 174-182. https:/doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12225

104
Vaughan, M., & Beers, C. (2017). Using an exploratory professional development initiative to

introduce iPads in the early childhood education classroom. Early Childhood Education

Journal, 45(3), 321-331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-016-0772-3

Vogt, W. P., Gardner, D. C., & Haeffele, L. M. (2012) When to use what research design. New

York: Guilford.

Wang, L., Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2004). Increasing preservice teachers' self-efficacy

beliefs for technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in

Education, 36(3), 231-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2004.10782414

Wang, W., Schmidt-Crawford, D., & Jin, Y. (2018). Pre-service teachers' TPACK development:

A review of literature. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 34(4), 234-258.

https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2018.1498039

Zhang, J. (2010). Technology-supported learning innovation. Educational Technology Research

and Development, 58, 229-243. https://doi.org/10-1007/s11423-009-9137-6

105
 LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDICES PAGE

Appendix A. Survey.................................................................................................................... 107

Appendix B. Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 112

Appendix C. Computer Technology Integration Survey as it relates to the TPACK model ...... 113

106
 Appendix A
Survey
PART 1 Demographic Information
Directions: Please read and answer each question.

1. Age
o 18-24
o 25-29
o 30-34
o 35-39
o 40-44
o 45-49
o 50-54
o 55 or older

2. Gender
o Male
o Female
o Prefer not to answer

3. Ethnicity
o Asian
o Black/African
o White
o Hispanic
o Native American
o Pacific Islander
o Mixed Race
o Prefer not to answer

107
4. Certification
o Core Subjects EC-6
o Special Education EC-12
5. Have you taken or are you currently taking any computer-related or technology-related
course?

o Yes
o No
o Not Sure

6. If “Yes,” please provide details such as the name of the course and any general
description that you would like to share.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

7. What do you know about the TPACK? Please elaborate as needed.

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

8. Will you be willing to participate in an individual interview with the researcher?

o Yes
o No

9. Do you possess a project or a lesson with a technology component that you would like to
discuss about during the interview?
o Yes
o No
10. If you are willing to participate in the individual interview, please provide your contact
information:

Name: ________________________________________________
E-mail: ________________________________________________
Phone Number: ____________________________________________

108
Part II: Computer Technology Integrated Survey

Directions: The purpose of this survey is to determine how you feel about integrating
technology into classroom teaching. For each statement below, indicate the strength of your
agreement or disagreement by circling one of the five scales.

Below is a definition of technology integration with accompanying examples.

Technology integration:
Using computers to support students as they construct their own knowledge through the
completion of authentic, meaningful tasks.

Examples:
• Students working on research projects, obtaining information from the Internet.
• Students constructing Web pages to show their projects to others.
• Students using application software to create student products.

Using the above as a baseline, please circle one response for each of the statements in the
table:

Statement SD: D: NA/ND: A: SA:

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree Agree
nor
Disagree
1 I feel confident that I understand SD D NA/ND A SA
computer capabilities well enough to
maximize them in my classroom.
2 I feel confident that I have the skills SD D NA/ND A SA
necessary to use the computer for
instruction.
3 I feel confident that I can successfully SD D NA/ND A SA
teach relevant subject content with
appropriate use of technology.
4 I feel confident in my ability to SD D NA/ND A SA
evaluate software for teaching and
learning.

109
5 I feel confident that I can use correct SD D NA/ND A SA
computer terminology when directing
students' computer use.
6 I feel confident I can help students SD D NA/ND A SA
when they have difficulty with the
computer.
7 I feel confident I can effectively SD D NA/ND A SA
monitor students' computer use for
project development in my classroom.
8 I feel confident that I can motivate SD D NA/ND A SA
my students to participate in
technology-based projects.
9 I feel confident I can mentor students SD D NA/ND A SA
in appropriate uses of technology.
10 I feel confident I can consistently use SD D NA/ND A SA
educational technology in effective
ways.
11 I feel confident I can provide SD D NA/ND A SA
individual feedback to students during
technology use.
12 I feel confident I can regularly SD D NA/ND A SA
incorporate technology into my
lessons, when appropriate to student
learning.
13 I feel confident about selecting SD D NA/ND A SA
appropriate technology for instruction
based on curriculum standards.
14 I feel confident about assigning and SD D NA/ND A SA
grading technology-based projects.
15 I feel confident about keeping SD D NA/ND A SA
curricular goals and technology uses
in mind when selecting an ideal way
to assess student learning.
16 I feel confident about using SD D NA/ND A SA
technology resources (such as
spreadsheets, electronic portfolios,
etc.) to collect and analyze data from:
student tests and products to improve
instructional practices.
17 I feel confident that I will be SD D NA/ND A SA
comfortable using technology in my
teaching.
18 I feel confident I can be responsive to SD D NA/ND A SA
students' needs during computer use.

110
19 I feel confident that, as time goes by, SD D NA/ND A SA
my ability to address my students'
technology needs will continue to
improve.
20 I feel confident that I can develop SD D NA/ND A SA
creative ways to cope with system
constraints (such as budget cuts on
technology facilities) and continue to
teach effectively with technology.
21 I feel confident that I can carry out SD D NA/ND A SA
technology-based projects even when
I am opposed by skeptical colleagues.

111
 Appendix B

Interview Protocol

Part I: Interview Protocol that addresses the Self-Efficacy Theory

Item Interview Protocol Source Of Self-Efficacy

1. Tell me about your background in technology Opening question that may relate
usage and integration. to any of the four sources of self-
efficacy.
2. What experiences influence your decision-making Mastery Experiences
on your choice of tools, applications, and devices
to integrate when using technology to teach?
3. How have your peers’ successes or struggles Vicarious Experiences
shaped your beliefs in technology integration?
4. How have other people encouraged you to Verbal Persuasion
integrate technology?
5. How do you feel when you integrate technology in Physiological and Affective
your teaching? States
6. What challenges or barriers, if any, you are most Question that may relate to any of
likely to find when integrating technology? the four sources of self-efficacy

Part II: Interview Protocol that addresses the TPACK model

Item Interview Question TPACK Component

7. Describe your activity, lesson, or project in which Question that inquires on any
you used technology. of the TPACK components
8. How do you describe your experience designing Pedagogy Knowledge and
this project? Technology Knowledge
9. What was the context in which the activity was Content Knowledge and
developed (targeted content area, grade level)? Pedagogy Knowledge

112
 Appendix C

Computer Technology Integration Survey as it relates to the TPACK model

Using the above as a baseline, please circle one response for each of the statements in the table:

Statement TPACK Description

component

1 I feel confident that I understand computer T Technology

capabilities well enough to maximize them
in my classroom.
2 I feel confident that I have the skills TPK Technological Pedagogical
necessary to use the computer for Knowledge
instruction.
3 I feel confident that I can successfully TPACK Technological Pedagogical
teach relevant subject content with Content Knowledge
appropriate use of technology.
4 I feel confident in my ability to evaluate TPACK Technological Pedagogical
software for teaching and learning. Content Knowledge
5 I feel confident that I can use correct T Technology
computer terminology when directing
students' computer use.
6 I feel confident I can help students when T Technology
they have difficulty with the computer.
7 I feel confident I can effectively monitor TPK Technological Pedagogical
students' computer use for project Knowledge
development in my classroom.
8 I feel confident that I can motivate my TPK Technological Pedagogical
students to participate in technology-based Knowledge
projects.
9 I feel confident I can mentor students in T Technology
appropriate uses of technology.
10 I feel confident I can consistently use TPACK Technological Pedagogical
educational technology in effective ways. Content Knowledge
11 I feel confident I can provide individual TCK Technological Content
feedback to students during technology Knowledge
use.

113
12 I feel confident I can regularly incorporate TCK Technological Content
technology into my lessons, when Knowledge
appropriate to student learning.
13 I feel confident about selecting appropriate TPACK Technological Pedagogical
technology for instruction based on Content Knowledge
curriculum standards.
14 I feel confident about assigning and TCK Technological Content
grading technology-based projects. Knowledge
15 I feel confident about keeping curricular TCK Technological Content
goals and technology uses in mind when Knowledge
selecting an ideal way to assess student
learning.
16 I feel confident about using technology TPACK Technological Pedagogical
resources (such as spreadsheets, electronic Content Knowledge
portfolios, etc.) to collect and analyze data
from: student tests and products to improve
instructional practices.
17 I feel confident that I will be comfortable TPK Technological Pedagogical
using technology in my teaching. Knowledge
18 I feel confident I can be responsive to T Technology
students' needs during computer use.
19 I feel confident that, as time goes by, my T Technology
ability to address my students' technology
needs will continue to improve.
20 I feel confident that I can develop creative PCK Technological Pedagogical
ways to cope with system constraints (such Content Knowledge
as budget cuts on technology facilities) and
continue to teach effectively with
technology.
21 I feel confident that I can carry out T Technology
technology-based projects even when I am
opposed by skeptical colleagues.

114
 ProQuest Number: 28644370

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality and completeness of this reproduction is dependent on the quality
and completeness of the copy made available to ProQuest.

Distributed by ProQuest LLC ( 2021 ).

Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author unless otherwise noted.

This work may be used in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons license
or other rights statement, as indicated in the copyright statement or in the metadata
associated with this work. Unless otherwise specified in the copyright statement
or the metadata, all rights are reserved by the copyright holder.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17,

United States Code and other applicable copyright laws.

Microform Edition where available © ProQuest LLC. No reproduction or digitization

of the Microform Edition is authorized without permission of ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 USA