Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 37e45

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Research paper

Educating digitally competent teachers: A study of integration of

professional digital competence in teacher education
Elen J. Instefjord a, *, Elaine Munthe b
a
Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, P.O Box 7030, 5020 Bergen, Norway
b
Faculty of Arts and Education, University of Stavanger, Norway

h i g h l i g h t s

Teacher educators' efficacy correlates positively with digital competence.

35% of teacher educators believe they are good role models for use of technology.

Pre-service teachers are critical of the HEI's emphasis on digital competence.

The influence of management on technology integration should be explored further.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The present study focuses on the integration of professional digital competence in initial teacher edu-
Received 26 August 2016 cation programmes. Data analysed are from three national questionnaire surveys conducted among
Received in revised form teacher educators, mentor teachers and pre-service teachers in Norway. The study shows that there are
9 May 2017
weak positive correlations between positive management, management's development support, and
Accepted 26 May 2017
Available online 7 June 2017
teacher educators' digital competence, but stronger positive correlations between teacher educators'
self-reported efficacy and digital competence. Results are discussed in relation to teacher education's role
in qualifying for professional work in digital classrooms.
Keywords:
Teacher education
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Technology
Digital competence
Pre-service teachers
Efficacy

1. Introduction and positive attitudes towards technology (Ertmer, 1999; Ertmer,

As society has become more and more digitized, the demand for
digitally competent teachers has evolved, imposing the need for
new approaches when it comes to integration of technology in
education. Teacher education is regarded as a natural place to start
this integration (Kay, 2006), but recent research indicates that there
is a mismatch between the digital demands that newly qualified
teachers meet in their profession and the training in use of
instructional technology provided during teacher education
(Gudmundsdottir, Loftagarden, & Ottestad, 2014). Research in-
dicates that in order for technology integration to take place,
teachers need access to relevant equipment, workplace support
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: elen.instefjord@hvl.no (E.J. Instefjord), Elaine.munthe@uis.no
(E. Munthe).
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, & Sendurur, 2012; Kopcha,
2012).
Being able to integrate and use technology for educational
purposes involves having a set of generic skills suitable for all sit-
uations, both personal and professional, as well as specific
teaching-profession skills. This is what is referred to as professional
digital competence for teachers (Lund, Furberg, Bakken, & Engelien,
2014). Teacher educators have a dual responsibility in this regard;
not only should they be able to use technology for their own
teaching, they should also contribute to developing pre-service
teachers’ professional digital competence. In a complex education
like teacher education, where preparation of teachers takes place
both on campus and in field practice schools, the question of how
technology is integrated on each of these arenas becomes partic-
ularly important.
This study is therefore concerned with the following question:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.016
0742-051X/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
38 E.J. Instefjord, E. Munthe / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 37e45
How is professional digital competence integrated in initial teacher
education? To investigate this question we will analyse results from
three national questionnaire surveys conducted among pre-service
teachers, teacher educators, and mentor teachers in Norway. Pro-
fessional digital competence is studied from an organizational
perspective and an individual perspective. The main contribution of
this study is the design that includes respondents from three
stakeholder groups, allowing the possibility to compare results
from all three groups, and to discuss integration of professional
digital competence in a more holistic way.
2. Theoretical and empirical background
There is an increasing demand for new kinds of teaching that
support students’ capacity building which includes the capacity to
exploit technology to develop critical thinking, problem solving
and communication skills (see e.g., Saavedra & Opfer, 2012). Many
schools have good access to computers and necessary technology
infrastructure, but despite access to such tools, the pedagogical use
of instructional technology varies (European Commission, 2013).
Results from the IEA International Computer and Information Lit-
eracy Study (ICILS), which examines the outcomes of student
computer and information literacy, show that Norwegian students
score well above the international average on computer and in-
formation literacy (Ottestad, Throndsen, Hatlevik, & Rohatgi, 2014).
However, while 75% of the students report using a computer at
home daily, only 8% report using computers at school on a daily
basis. Thus, despite the considerable effort and expenditure by the
Norwegian government to promote the use of instructional tech-
nology in education, there still appears to be a gap between the
amount of technology available in classrooms and use of technol-
ogy for educational purposes. Corresponding results are found by
researchers worldwide, for instance in Switzerland (Petko, 2012),
USA (Gray, Thomas, & Lewis, 2010; Kopcha, 2012; Zhao, Pugh,
Sheldon, & Byers, 2002) and in the Netherlands (ten
Brummelhuis & Kuiper, 2008).
The experience with use of technology that pre-service teachers
acquire during teacher education, both through their own use and
by observing teacher educators' use, is a crucial factor for their
development of professional digital competence, and as
Christensen and Knezek (2008) found, for their attitudes. The
extent to which teacher educators choose to use technology in their
teaching practice may thus directly influence their students’ atti-
tudes and dispositions towards integrating technology in their
future classrooms. However, there is reason to believe that tech-
nology is less frequently used in teacher education than in primary
education (Wilhelmsen, Ørnes, Kristiansen, & Breivik, 2009).
Moreover, analyses of curriculum documents for teacher education
in Norway confirm that digital competence and use of technology is
not effectively integrated into the curriculum neither at a subject
specific level nor at an overall programme level (Instefjord &
Munthe, 2016).
Successful integration of technology in education has been an
area of interest to researchers and educators for nearly as long as
technology has been available for educational purposes, but most of
the research has focused on primary and secondary education, not
tertiary. This research has arrived at several explanations for why
technology is still not integrated better in curriculum activities
(Zhao et al., 2002) which can be relevant for tertiary education as
well, and we will therefore briefly address some of these results.
First off, Harris, Mishra, and Koehler (2009) explain the lack of
technology integration with the nature of how the use of technol-
ogy has been conceptualized and supported. They argue that cur-
rent methods for integration of technology are technocentric,
focusing too strongly on technology skills and ignoring the complex
relationship between technology, content, pedagogy and changing
contextual realities. Others, like Ertmer (1999), suggest that lack of
technology integration can be explained by barriers that have an
impact on teachers' use of technology in the classroom. Ertmer
distinguishes between first and second order barriers to change.
First order barriers are defined as external to the teacher, embracing
areas such as access to resources, training, and support, while
second order barriers are internal to the teacher, including teachers'
confidence, beliefs, and perceived value of technology (Ertmer
et al., 2012). A similar labelling is found in Drent and Meeliisen's
(2008) work where they distinguish between non-manipulative
and manipulative school and teacher factors. Non-manipulative
factors are factors that cannot be manipulated directly by the
school, such as teachers' age, teaching experience or computer
experience, or governmental policy and the availability of external
support for schools. Manipulative factors on the other hand, are, for
instance, teachers' attitudes towards technology, their skills in us-
ing instructional technology, or availability of technological support
and commitment in relation to implementation of technology in
school (Drent & Meelissen, 2008, p. 189). Similarly, Kopcha (2012)
summarizes that five barriers to technology integration are
commonly found in research literature; lack of access to technology,
teachers' vision for technology, teachers' beliefs about usefulness of
technology, required time and lack of professional development in
relation to the use of technology in the classroom (Kopcha, 2012, p.
1109).
Likewise, the will, skill, tool (WST) model of technology inte-
gration (Christensen & Knezek, 2008), was developed specifically to
explain the reality of technology integration in educational con-
texts. The model identifies three key elements for a high level of
technology integration; teachers' will to use technology in the
classroom (technology attitudes), his or her skills in using tech-
nology (digital competence) and having satisfactory access to
technology as a tool (access to technology) (Christensen & Knezek,
2008). On the basis of previous research using the WST model,
Knezek and Christensen (2008) maintain that 90% of the variance in
level of technology integration in the classroom can be explained
by these variables. The model also includes student achievement,
assuming that teachers' computer attitudes, technology skills, and
access to technology have an impact on technology integration,
which in turn affects student achievement. Christensen and Knezek
(2008) argue that a positive attitude towards computers can be
associated with greater computer use. Factors associated with the
concept of will are thus related to teachers' attitudes towards
technology (Morales, 2006, p. 20) and to what Ertmer et al. (2012)
refers to as beliefs or internal barriers. Pajares (1992) suggested that
attitudes are formed by clusters of beliefs around a particular object
or situation, which in turn guide a person's behaviour (Ajzen,
2001):
When clusters of beliefs are organized around an object or sit-
uation and predisposed to action, this holistic organization be-
comes an attitude. Beliefs may also become values, which house
the evaluative, comparative, and judgmental functions of beliefs
and replace predisposition with an imperative to action. Beliefs,
attitudes, and values form an individual's belief system (Pajares,
1992, p. 314, p. 314)
In this way, attitude can be seen as the sum of beliefs. A teacher
can have many beliefs about using technology, about their self-
efficacy as teacher educators, and about their students, both posi-
tive and negative. Ultimately, his or her attitude towards inte-
grating technology in the classroom will be based on the overall
evaluation of these beliefs. In an extensive review performed by
Mumtaz (2000), attitude and self-efficacy were identified in several
 E.J. Instefjord, E. Munthe / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 37e45
studies as important predictors of teachers' use of technology.
Teacher self-efficacy has been defined as “their belief in their ability
to have a positive effect on student learning” (Ashton, 1985, p. 142).
Teachers' attitudes towards technology can also be seen in relation
to their perceived usefulness of technology. Studies have found that
teachers who are unconvinced about the potential of technology on
instructional productivity are less likely to use technology (Agyei &
Voogt, 2011; Kim, Kim, Lee, Spector, & DeMeester, 2013; Mumtaz,
2000). Likewise, teachers' perceived advantages of using com-
puters, their willingness to use technology for information
dissemination, and their professional enhancement in the use of
computers are assumed to be central indicators of teachers’ atti-
tudes towards technology (Petko, 2012). However, as noted by
Belland (2009), having positive attitudes towards technology does
not necessarily lead to change in behaviour in terms of more or
better integration of technology in the classroom. Seen from this
perspective, teachers can very well have positive attitudes towards
technology, but still choose not to use it in the classroom. This
emphasizes that attitude may also be related to a number of other
variables that need to be considered.
A number of studies have focused on the significance of mentor
teachers as role models for the use of technology in teaching and
learning. For instance, Haydn and Barton (2007) found that
observing a mentor teacher use technology proved to be an
important motivator for trainee teachers own use of technology. In
a study of student teachers' perceptions of factors that promoted or
hindered their use of instructional technology during field place-
ments periods, Sime and Priestley (2005) found that observing
teachers' use of technology contributed to making students more
positive towards the role of instructional technology in teaching.
Similarly, trainee teachers in Barton and Haydns study mentioned
that modelling of instructional technology by a mentor teacher was
vital for their use of technology (Barton & Haydn, 2006). According
to Bandura's self-efficacy theory, vicarious experience, or modelling,
is one of the four main sources (mastery experience, physiological
and emotional states, vicarious experiences, and social persuasion)
that “alter efficacy beliefs through transmission of competencies
and comparison with the attainment of others” (Bandura, 1997, p.
79). Within a context of teacher efficacy, a vicarious experience
refers to an individual observing another individual teach, for
instance a pre-service teacher observing a teacher educator or
mentor teacher use technology for teaching. The closer the
observer identifies with the model, the more likely is it that it will
have impact on efficacy. However, vicarious experiences can go
both ways e observing a teacher succeed can lead pre-service
teachers to believe that they can have the capability to be a suc-
cessful teacher under similar circumstances, while observing an
experienced teachers' failure can lead them to believe that the task
is unmanageable (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998).
Likewise, the idea of vicarious experiences can also be linked to
teacher educators. Modelling by teacher educators is found to be an
important means of changing the views and practices of future
teachers (Lunenberg, Korthagen, & Swennen, 2007). While quite a
few studies explore the idea of mentor teachers as role models for
the use of instructional technology, little is known about the
exemplary role of teacher educators and how they perceive their
own role in relation to this issue. Searches in Eric and Science Direct
for available literature on the role of teacher educators related to
technology, using different combinations of the search words
teacher educator, modelling, instructional technology, and ICT
returned very few relevant results, suggesting that literature
dealing with this is quite limited. There is therefore a need to study
further how modelling by teacher educators contribute to the
development of digital competence for pre-service teachers.
Access to technology or tool, representing the external barriers
39
to technology integration (Ertmer et al., 2012), is defined as “the
self-reported access and extent of use of technology in educational
settings and at home” (Morales, 2006, p. 20). In a study, performed
by Goktas, Gedik, and Baydas (2013), comparing the status of
technology integration in 2005 and 2011, it was found that the
prominent barriers encountered in the integration in 2011 were
still related to access to technology. Lack of technology and limi-
tations of both hardware and software were found to be the most
significant barriers to integration of technology (Goktas et al.,
2013).
However, these findings from Goktas, Gedik, and Baydas should
be seen in relation to contrasting studies claiming that lack of ac-
cess to computers no longer seems to be a relevant issue in many
developed countries (Agyei & Voogt, 2011; Mueller, Wooda,
Willoughby, Ross, & Specht, 2008). According to Mueller, Wooda,
Willoughby, Ross, and Specht (Mueller et al., 2008), the majority of
teachers now have access to technology and use computers on a
regular basis making technical difficulties and lack of access less
problematic. This is certainly the case also for Norway where
computer density in school is high in all levels of education. In
higher education, figures from a national survey on the use of
instructional technology suggest that 86% of students report that
they have their own computer (Ørnes, Wilhelmsen, & Solstad,
2011). In a similar study from 2008 covering all teacher education
institutions in Norway it was found that all institutions used
learning management systems to some extent, and all but one
offered helpdesk function for students (Hetland & Solum, 2008).
These figures indicate that access to technology is sufficient for pre-
service teachers, and a study from 2013 by NIFU (Tømte, Kårstein, &
Olsen, 2013) confirms that also teacher educators have satisfactory
access to technology. However, they found that some teacher ed-
ucation institutions still report to have a need for more interactive
whiteboards and training in how to use these in an educational
context. Similar results were found in a case-study of two teacher
education institutions in Norway, where both teacher educators
and pre-service teachers who participated in the study expressed
concerns about their own lack of competence and access to inter-
active whiteboards (Instefjord & Munthe, 2016).
On the other hand, access can be more than simply the average
number of computers or interactive whiteboards available. It is not
satisfactory to have one computer per student if the available
technology does not work properly or if teachers and students do
not have access to relevant learning resources. Moreover, ease of
use as well as ease and flexibility of computer access in the school
can make a big difference as to whether teachers choose to inte-
grate technology or not (Petko, 2012). In other words, if teachers on
a regular basis experience that the computers in lecture rooms do
not function properly due to, for instance, missing cables or lack of
necessary software this may cause teachers to be more reluctant to
use technology despite their positive attitudes.
Lack of on-site support for teachers is also found to be a factor
that prevents teachers from using technology (Mumtaz, 2000).
According to self-efficacy theory, leadership is also strongly related
to teacher efficacy (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). In a study of
factors impacting instructional use of laptops, Inan and Lowther
(2010) found that in addition to teacher beliefs, professional
development, and technical and administrative support played an
influential role in whether teachers felt prepared to use computers
in the classroom. When teachers felt that support was lacking or
insufficient they were less likely to use laptops for instruction.
Leadership in terms of administrative support is a central factor for
school development at lower levels, and for organizational learning
in all other kinds of organizations, yet administrative support as a
factor in understanding the development of professional digital
competence among teacher educators is not widely researched.
40 E.J. Instefjord, E. Munthe / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 37e45
One study from Norway was conducted by The Nordic Institute for
Studies in Innovation, Research and Education (NIFU) (Tømte et al.,
2013). This was a large qualitative study involving leaders from all
19 institutions that provide initial teacher education programmes
for the compulsory school years, and they questioned conditions
and operating parameters for the development of professional
digital competence in teacher education. A main conclusion was
that such development was weakly rooted at the management
level. According to Tømte et al. (2013), leaders of most of the Initial
Teacher Education (ITE) programmes were not involved in ongoing
efforts to make teacher educators use instructional technology
more actively for educational purposes, and there appeared to be
little involvement and support from the leaders in relation to
increasing teacher educators' professional digital competence.
Moreover, they found that development of digital competence was
to a great extent dependent on individual teacher educators’ ef-
forts, and that few examples of integration of professional digital
competence could be found in the local curriculum documents
(Tømte et al., 2013).
3. Research questions
As seen above, common barriers to the integration of technology
in education have been clearly identified and recognized in existing
literature (Drent & Meelissen, 2008; Ertmer, 1999; Goktas et al.,
2013; Mumtaz, 2000). Nevertheless, despite this knowledge,
recent studies continue to report that use of technology and
development of professional digital competence in teacher educa-
tion is still inadequate compared to what novice teachers report
that they need. There are few studies that have investigated teacher
educators' digital competence (not to mention mentor teachers’
digital competence), and even fewer that have related this to
workplace support.
The guiding question of the study is: How is professional digital
competence integrated in initial teacher education? In order to
answer this question we will address the following research
questions:
(1) How do teacher educators perceive their own digital
competence, and how is this related to workplace support
and their pedagogical efficacy?
(2) How do mentor teachers perceive their own competence,
what they emphasize for students, and how do they perceive
the emphasis of digital competence in teacher education?
(3) How do pre-service teachers perceive the emphasis on dig-
ital competence in teacher education?
4. Research design and methods
Three questionnaire surveys were sent out digitally to pre-
service teachers in 4- year concurrent Initial Teacher Education
(ITE) (response time frame: 23 April - 6 June, 2014), to teacher
educators at all 17 Higher Education Institutions (HEI) in Norway
that provided four year initial teacher education programmes to
qualify for teaching in the compulsory school years (grades one
through ten) (response time frame: 12 August e 4 November,
2014), and to participating partner schools and mentor teachers
responsible for supervising pre-service teachers during their field
practice (response time frame: 12 August e 4 November, 2014). The
total national number of fourth year students, teacher educators,
and partner schools made up the population, and participation was
based on self-selection.
Pre-service teachers who participated were all fourth year stu-
dents, completing their final year, or who had opted for a five-year
MA and were taking the fourth year as a first year of a 2-year MA
programme. The total population of possible respondents was 1436
(The Panel for the teacher education reform, 2015), and the number
of participants was 654, a response rate of 45.5%. Pre-service
teachers from all 17 HEIs took part, but the response rate from
each HEI varied from 17.6% to 88.5%. The composition of the group
of pre-service teachers’ respondents is comparative with the total
population concerning gender, and is believed to be comparative on
age as well. However, the distribution across age levels is not
known for the total population at their fourth year due to the
number of early leavers that may have changed the age profile of
the group since they started in 2010. Slightly less than 70% of the
students in the current study were below 26, while slightly more
than 30% were above 26 years of age.
Teacher educators on campus were reached via a contact person
at each HEI who received a link to the online survey and forwarded
the link to all teacher educators who were involved in ITE during
spring 2014. Based on reports from all but one HEI, the total pop-
ulation of teacher educators was estimated to 810. 387 teacher
educators responded, giving us a response rate of 47.8%. The
response rate varied greatly from institution to institution, from
only 2.2% at the HEI with the lowest rate to 93.8% at the HEI with
the highest.
Obtaining a population number for the number of mentor
teachers per HEI turned out to be an impossible task. ITE pro-
grammes initiate contracts with partner schools, and the principal
of each school is responsible for making sure that there are quali-
fied mentor teachers for each group of student teachers that has
field practice at that school. What we have secured, from all but two
HEIs, is the number of partner contracts per ITE programme. Based
on this, the number of possible participating schools in this survey
is estimated to be 554. The number of schools that actually took
part is 288, a response rate of about 62%. The response rate per HEI
varies from 37.5% to 100%. The survey went out to all teachers at the
participating schools, but all teachers were only requested to
answer about 1/3 of the survey. After about 1/3, only those who had
actually been mentor teachers the past semester were asked to
continue. About 1000 teachers answered the first part of the survey,
and 340 teachers continued and completed the questionnaire. The
questions we are concerned with here, were only answered by
teachers who had been mentor teachers the past semester.
4.1. Variables included in this study
As shown in the review above, research indicates that in order
for technology integration to take place, teachers need access to
relevant equipment, workplace support, and should have positive
attitudes towards technology. This is also reflected in the study by
Inan and Lowther (2010) who found that teacher beliefs, profes-
sional development, and technical and administrative support
played a role for integration of instructional technology. These
areas are reflected in the scales developed to measure “Teacher
educators' digital competence” (1 sum score variable, see Table 2),
“Workplace support” (2 sum score variables, see Table 1), and
“Teacher educators’ general pedagogical efficacy” (1 sum score
variable, see Table 1).
4.1.1. Teacher educators’ digital competence
Table 2 (below) shows the frequency distribution, mean scores,
and standard deviation for each of the items that make up the sum
score variable “teacher educators' digital competence” (6 items,
a ¼ 0.87). The items are chosen from a universe of possible items
(Hagtvet, 1997; Shavelson & Webb, 1991) and selected as indicators
of relevant areas identified in the research review above. Items
reflect both technical and pedagogical competence in use of digital
 E.J. Instefjord, E. Munthe / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 37e45 41

Table 1
Overview of items and Cronbach's alpha for Positive management, Management's development support, and Teacher educators' general pedagogical efficacy.

Cronbach's alpha

Positive management 0.93

The leaders have given good support in the development of new plans for teacher education
Decisions are made at the level with best insight for those particular decisions.
When decisions are made, the right people are involved.
We have good information channels at this institution so that people who make decisions have the necessary information.
The management has worked hard to create good implementation systems for the reform.

Management's development support 0.80

My closest leader shows great interest in my teaching.

We have good possibilities for support to develop our teaching.

Teacher educators' general pedagogical efficacy 0.91

How much can you do to enhance students' learning?

How much can you do to motivate students when they are working on difficult tasks?
How much can you do to enhance students' memory and enable them to use what they have previously learned?
How much can you do to motivate students for increased effort?
How much can you do to promote collaboration among students?
How much can you influence students to work on the curriculum?
How much can you influence students' behaviour in class?
How much can you influence students' engagement in class?
How much can you influence students' engagement when working in collaborative groups?

Table 2
Teacher educators’ digital competence. Frequencies in percentage, mean values and st.d. (n ¼ 295e307).

1 2 3 4 5 6 M s.d,

In my teaching I emphasize educating students in the use of digital tools 6.6 19.9 21.9 21.5 20.5 9.6 3.58 1.43
I am a good role model for my students when it comes to the use of digital tools for teaching 2.3 10.8 25.6 27.2 24.6 9.5 3.90 1.23
I have a good understanding of the use of digital tools to promote pupils' learning 2.0 11.1 21.2 35.3 21.2 9.2 3.90 1.19
I have good competence in the use of interactive whiteboards (e.g. SmartBoard). 16.9 30.6 17.9 16.0 12.7 5.9 2.94 1.48
I can support students in their learning about digital tools for assessment of pupils 13.1 21.2 25.3 18.2 13.8 8.4 3.24 1.48
I emphasize ethical issues related to the schools' and pupils' use of social media 8.5 14.4 20.9 19.6 24.2 12.4 3.74 1.49

tools, as well as ethical questions. One item was chosen to indicate
availability and competence in use of hardware, and that is the use
of interactive white boards (IWB). This choice was based on pre-
vious studies that have identified concerns about knowledge and
skills using IWBs (Instefjord & Munthe, 2016) and the prevalence of
hardware in teacher education institutions (The Panel for the
teacher education reform, 2013). The measure of teacher educa-
tors’ digital competence could have been developed as a second
order latent model with e.g. three first order latent variables, but for
this study we have chosen to use one integrated variable. This will
be discussed further in the final section (see limitations).
directly related to support concerning teaching, both through
showing interest in the actual teaching going on, and making it
possible to develop teaching further.
4.1.3. Teacher educators’ pedagogical efficacy
The belief variable included in this study is “Teacher educators’
general pedagogical efficacy.” It consists of 9 items (see Table 1). It is
based on the Bandura efficacy scale (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998)
and is as such a fairly common measure of teacher efficacy.

4.1.2. Workplace support variables

Workplace support can be regarded as relational and as orga-
nizational (i.e., that the organization takes action in creating sys-
temic support). You may have positive relations and feel supported
personally, but it is not certain that this is shown in action, e.g., by
providing support to develop your instruction and competence. We
have therefore chosen to have two constructs under this variable;
“Positive management” (see Table 1), and “Management's devel-
opment support” (Table 1). The main difference between these two
variables is that “Positive management” is a more general and
relational variable, where respondents report on their perceptions
of positive support from management, while the variable “Man-
agement's development support” is directly related to actions taken
that can support the development of content and instruction.
The “Positive Management” scale is based on work by
Starnaman and Miller (1992) and has been used in studies since
then (e.g., Midthassel, Bru, & Idsøe, 2000). “Management's devel-
opment support” was developed for the present survey and is
4.1.4. Variables included for pre-service teachers and mentor
teachers
We have chosen to use single items when we investigate pre-
service teachers' perceptions of their teacher education and
mentor teachers' reports on what they emphasize and how they
perceive the ITE programmes’ emphasis on digital competence
related to what is needed in schools. Results reported will also be at
a descriptive level. (See Limitations and future research, below.)
Pre-service teachers have answered questions about experi-
ences with instructional technology on campus and in field practice
as well as questions about their own competence in instructional
technology (9 questions in total, see Table 4). Mentor teachers have
responded to questions about what instructional technology they
emphasize during field practice and their own competence (5
questions in total, see Table 5). Both pre-service teachers and
mentor teachers are asked whether field practice or campus
teachers emphasize the use of instructional technology more.
42 E.J. Instefjord, E. Munthe / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 37e45

Table 3
Pearson's r correlation coefficients for relationships between positive management, management's development support, efficacy and teacher educators' digital competence
(n ¼ 295e307).

Positive management Management's development support Efficacy

Management's development support 0.768**

Efficacy 0.260** 0.160**
Digital competence 0.196** 0.156** 0.252**

**p < .001.

Table 4
Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of digital emphasis in ITE and their digital competence. Frequencies in percentage, mean values and standard deviations. (n ¼ 527e532).

1 2 3 4 5 6 M s.d,

Teachers at my university/college have taught me how to use digital tools 14.5 27.8 23.5 18.2 9.0 7.0 3.00 1.43
Teachers at my university/college are good role-models for the use of digital tools for teaching 20.0 30.6 21.6 16.8 7.4 3.6 2.72 1.35
I have a good understanding of how to use digital tools to promote pupils' learning 6.3 12.1 20.6 23.3 23.7 14.0 3.88 1.43
I have had good training in the use of interactive whiteboards (e.g. SmartBoard) on campus 54.0 21.5 10.9 6.8 4.0 2.8 1.94 1.32
I have had good training in the use of interactive whiteboards (e.g. SmartBoard) during field practice 17.8 16.7 16.9 17.2 17.2 14.2 3.42 1.69
Field practice schools expect more of my digital competence than what is emphasized in the teacher education programme 12.3 15.7 17.8 18.6 17.4 18.2 3.68 1.65
I can use digital tools to assess pupils' work 12.5 15.2 21.4 22.2 16.5 12.1 3.54 1.54
I have developed a good understanding of the use of digital tools for administrative work in school 24.3 24.3 20.3 19.2 6.6 5.3 2.75 1.45
The education programme has given me an understanding of ethical issues related to the schools' and pupils' use of social media 8.1 12.5 19.4 23.0 22.3 17.7 3.83 1.49

Table 5
Mentor teachers’ perceptions (n ¼ 340e343).

1 2 3 4 5 6 M s.d,

I have a good understanding of how to use digital tools to promote pupils' learning 0.6 2.9 12.3 29.5 32.2 22.5 4.57 1.09
Student teachers receive good training in the use of interactive whiteboards (e.g. SmartBoard) during field practice 16.6 9.0 5.2 14.0 28.6 26.5 4.08 1.81
I expect more from the student teachers' digital competence than what is emphasized in the teacher education programme 9.7 16.2 17.9 25.3 20.6 10.3 3.62 1.48
I discuss ethical issues related to the schools' and pupils' use of social media with the student teachers 2.3 5.8 14.3 26.3 34.5 16.7 4.35 1.22
I use digital tools to assess pupils' work 2.9 8.5 10.5 18.4 26.5 33.2 4.57 1.41

4.2. Analyses
In an ideal study, the response rate per higher education insti-
tution would have been higher, allowing for multilevel analyses
and comparisons across HEIs. However, previous research such as
reported by Tømte et al. (2013) has found that development of
digital competence was, to a great extent, dependent on individual
teacher educators’ efforts (see above). We have also investigated
frequency distributions within HEIs for items included in the study,
and have not identified any patterns that may indicate that there
are systematic differences in perceptions among respondents ac-
cording to which HEI they are affiliated with. Our conclusion is
therefore to analyse at the individual level for all respondent
groups.
Analyses conducted for this study include descriptive analyses
such as frequencies as well as explanatory analyses such as
regression analyses. All analyses have been carried out using IBM
SPSS Software.
5. Results
Survey items were rated using a six point scale ranging from not
at all (1) to a very high degree (6) or from (1) strongly disagree to (6)
strongly agree. Mean scores between 1 and 2.9 are interpreted as
low, while scores between 3 and 4.9 are considered average and
mean scores over 4.9 are considered high.
5.1. Teacher educators’ digital competence
Teacher educators' digital competence was measured by a 6-
item sum score variable (see Table 2). The mean score for the
sum score variable “Teacher educators’ digital competence” is 3.54
with a standard deviation of 1.07. Each item frequency in percent-
ages as well as the mean value and standard deviation are reported
below. The response scale is from 1 to 6 where 1 ¼ strongly
disagree and 6 ¼ strongly agree.
About 30% of the respondents report that they emphasize
educating their students in the use of digital tools to a high degree
(values 5 and 6), about 35% report that they model their use to a
high degree, and that they have a good understanding of how to use
digital tools to promote learning in schools (about 30% use values 5
and 6). As mentioned above, when checking for patterns across
HEIs, similar results were found for all HEIs, indicating that there
were no systematic differences between the individual institutions
in relation to teacher educators’ digital competence.
Only 18.6% use values 5 and 6 to indicate their own proficiency
in the use of interactive smart boards. The item “I am a good role
model for my students when it comes to the use of digital tools for
teaching” received a slightly higher mean rating (M ¼ 3.90), with
77.4% of the respondents using values 3 (25.6%), 4 (27.2%) and 5
(24.6%). So, although about 35% report (values 5 and 6) that they are
good role models concerning the use of digital tools for teaching,
15% fewer respondents strongly agree (values 5 and 6) that they can
use a quite common tool in most schools. For this item, 47.5% have
chosen to use the two lowest ratings. A similar mean rating is found
for the item “I have good understanding for the use of digital tools
to promote pupils’ learning. For this item, 77.7% of the teachers
have used values 3, 4, and 5 to indicate their agreement.
How teacher educators view the support they get from their
leaders concerning development of teaching and interest for how
and what they teach, varies within HEIs. One HEI, with only 3 re-
spondents, has teacher educators who have chosen values 2, 3, and
 E.J. Instefjord, E. Munthe / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 37e45
5 to indicate interest from leader about their teaching (scale from 1
to 6 where 6 is the most positive). Another HEI, with 66 re-
spondents, has teacher educators who have used values 1 (4 re-
spondents), 2 (18 resp), 3 (7 resp), 4 (14), 5 (13 resp), and 6 (10
resp). Perception of support concerning teaching/instruction ap-
pears to vary within HEIs and appears to be more of an individual
perception than an organizational. This might be an indicator of the
continued individuality at the HEI level, and perhaps also an indi-
cation that workplace support of this kind may be less developed.
The sum score variable for “Management's development support”
(2 items) has a mean value of 3.60 (scale from 1 to 6) and standard
deviation of 1.32.
The question of HEI workplace support has also been addressed
in the questionnaire using a total of five items that comprise the
sum score variable “Positive management” (scale from 1 to 6 where
6 is the most positive). The mean score for this variable is 3.67 with
a standard deviation of 1.07.
As shown above, teachers’ beliefs have been a predictor of their
behaviours, e.g., that student-centred beliefs are related to student-
centred practices (Ertmer et al., 2012). For this study, we have not
included technology beliefs, but have instead included a general
pedagogical efficacy (see Table 1, above). Teacher educators in this
sample report a mean value for this sum score variable of 4.61
(scale from 1 to 6 where 6 is the most positive) and a standard
deviation of 0.74. This is the variable where teacher educators
respond most favourably, and where variance is least.
Our next question is whether these variables matter for teacher
educators’ perceptions of their own digital competence. We have
argued that general efficacy may be of interest, and could also
represent a factor in understanding why some teachers are more
oriented towards trying new things and daring to explore. As
shown in Table 3, efficacy is the variable that correlates the highest
with digital competence (r ¼ 0.252**), but although there are
positive correlations that are estimated to be statistically significant
at the p < 0.001 level, the coefficients are moderate in strength.
Perceptions of one's own efficacy explain variance in perception
of digital competence to a greater extent than the workplace sup-
port variables. All combined, a linear regression analysis estimates
that R ¼ 0.278** and R2 ¼ 0.077, indicating that only about 8% of the
variance in perceived digital competence is explained by the
workplace support variables and efficacy.
5.2. Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the emphasis on digital
competence in teacher education
The teacher educators reported an average score of 3.54 on their
own digital competence, and we have also seen that teachers who
report higher degrees of efficacy, tend to report higher scores on
digital competence. When we look at how pre-service teachers in
their final year of their four-year programme perceive the educa-
tion programme's emphasis on digital competence and their own
teachers' use of technology, it appears that they are fairly critical of
the education, but favourable towards their own competence.
Survey items in the student survey were rated using a six point
scale ranging from not at all (1) to a very high degree (6). Results are
reported in Table 4.
The item “I have had good training in the use of interactive
whiteboards (i.e., SmartBoard) on campus” received the lowest
mean score (M ¼ 1.94). 54% of the students used value 1 (not at all),
while 21.5% used value 2 and 10.9% scored value 3, adding up to a
total of 86.4% for the lower half of the scale. The item related to
teacher educators as role models was the second lowest rated item,
with a mean score of 2.72. Adding up, 70.2% of the students used
values 1, 2 or 3 for this item. A slightly higher mean score was
computed for the items “I have good understanding for the use of
43
digital tools for administrative work in school” (M ¼ 2.75). For the
item related to use of digital tools for administrative work, 68.9% of
the students used values 1 (24.3%), 2 (24.3%), and 3 (20.3%).
The remaining six items received mean scores ranging from 3.0
to 3.88. The item “I have good understanding for the use of digital
tools to promote pupils’ learning” had the highest mean score on
the survey (3.88). 61% of the pre-service teachers rated this item
from 4 to 6.
As previously presented, there appears to be great variation in
teacher educators’ perceptions within each institution, suggesting
that perceptions are more individual than organizational. The same
is found in the student survey. For instance, at one institution with
28 respondents, students have used all values from 1 to 6 for the
item “Teachers at my university/college are good role-models for
the use of digital tools for teaching” (1 ¼ 4 resp, 2 ¼ 3 resp, 3 ¼ 5
resp, 4 ¼ 5 resp, 5 ¼ 8 resp, and 6 ¼ 3 resp). A similar distribution is
found across the entire survey, indicating that differences in per-
ceptions are individual rather than institutional.
5.3. Mentor teachers’ perceptions of their own competence, what
they emphasize for students, and how they perceive digital
competence emphasis in the teacher education programmes
Mentor teachers who work with pre-service teachers during
their field placement periods (a total of 100 days over four years)
were also asked some questions related to professional digital
competence (see Table 5). As seen in Table 5, all mean scores are
higher than 3, ranging from 3.62 to 4.57.
The item “I expect more from the students' digital competence
than what is emphasized in the teacher education programme” has
the lowest mean score (M ¼ 3.62). The items “I have good under-
standing for the use of digital tools to promote pupils’ learning” and
“I use digital tools for assessment of pupils” have the highest mean
scores (M ¼ 4.57). For both of these items, a majority (84.2% and
78.1%) of the scores were rated from 4 to 6. Among the remaining
items, the item “The students receive good training in the use of
interactive whiteboards (i.e., SmartBoard) during field practice”
received the lowest mean score (M ¼ 4.08). This item has the
highest standard deviation (1.81).
6. Discussion
We started by raising the question: How is professional digital
competence integrated in initial teacher education? In order to
discuss this overarching question we addressed sub-questions
related to teacher educators' perceptions of their own digital
competence, workplace support and pedagogical efficacy, as well as
mentor teachers and pre-service teachers’ views on the emphasis
on digital competence in teacher education.
Our analyses showed that, at the mean level, teacher educators
perceive their own digital competence at about the mid range on a
6-point scale, with M ¼ 3.54. However, the standard deviation is
1.07, indicating a fair degree of variation in responses. As reviewed
earlier, a number of studies report that both access to and attitudes
towards technology, along with teachers' digital competence in-
fluence whether or not they decide to integrate technology in their
teaching practice (Agyei & Voogt, 2011; Christensen & Knezek,
2008; Drent & Meelissen, 2008; Ertmer et al., 2012; Kopcha,
2012; Mumtaz, 2000). In our study, the item “I have good under-
standing for the use of digital tools to promote pupils’ learning”
received among the highest mean score values for both teacher
educators (M ¼ 3.90), pre-service teachers (M ¼ 3.88), and mentor
teachers (M ¼ 4.57). It is interesting that teacher educators and pre-
service teachers score their own competence at about the same
level, but that mentor teachers in schools report higher values. It is
44 E.J. Instefjord, E. Munthe / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 37e45
highly likely that mentor teachers also do have better knowledge
and skills concerning how to use digital tools to enhance learning in
schools. As such, this can be an indication of one area where
collaboration between teacher educators on campus and mentor
teachers in schools would be highly relevant. Teacher educators on
campus could also learn from 1 to 10 teachers and might be able to
transfer knowledge from schools into initial teacher education
programmes.
On the other hand, there still appears to be one area of digital
competence where competence and training is lacking for all
groups, namely competence in the use of interactive whiteboards.
This is similar to what Instefjord and Munthe (2016) found in her
interviews with teacher educators and pre-service teachers, and to
the results Tømte et al. (2013) reported after having interviewed
leaders at 19 ITE programmes in the beginning of 2013, and may
thus be a reflection of the continued lack of certain tools. The item
related to interactive whiteboards received the lowest mean rating
in the survey from both teacher educators (M ¼ 2.94) and pre-
service teachers (M ¼ 1.94/3.42) and the second lowest rating
from mentor teachers (M ¼ 4.08). While teacher educators are
asked about their own competence in use of IWB, pre-service
teachers are asked about the IWB training they have received on
campus and in field practice schools, and mentor teachers are asked
if they believed pre-service teachers received good training in the
use of IWB during field practice. The low competence in use of IWB
among teacher educators may explain the low mean score for IWB
training received on campus by pre-service teachers. Hence, we
may argue that lack of competence among teacher educators may
serve as a barrier for development of certain areas of pre-service
teachers’ professional digital competence.
As noted by Bandura, modelling another individual is an effec-
tive tool for enhancing self-efficacy of an individual (Bandura, 1977,
1997). Within the context of teacher education this occurs when
the pre-service teacher observes a teacher educator or mentor
teacher teach. During the vicarious experience the teacher educator
or mentor teacher has potential to influence the teaching efficacy of
the pre-service teacher (Wagler, 2011). In our study we were
interested in finding out to what degree the teacher educator
believed he or she had the potential to influence students’ learning.
Our results show that while teacher educators who completed the
survey report their influence as good role models in relation to the
use of technology at mean score of 3.90, pre-service teachers rated
their teachers considerably lower, with a mean score of 2.72. This
can indicate that pre-service teachers are less positive about their
teachers as role models than the teacher educators themselves are.
Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) argue that the closer the observer
identifies with the model, the stronger the impact on efficacy will
be: “When a model with whom the observer identifies performs
well, the efficacy of the observer is enhanced. When the model
performs poorly, the efficacy expectations of the observer
decrease.” (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998, p. 212). If pre-service
teachers do not recognize their teacher educators as role models
for the use of technology for educational purposes or identify with
the teacher educator as role model, the impact on their efficacy can
be less evident and the less they may use technology themselves.
Another interpretation of this difference can be that the two
groups emphasize different aspects when reporting on being role
models. Further research on what kinds of digital competence
teacher educators’ model both on campus and in practice schools
would be of interest, as well as studies that investigate their
respective and relative importance for student teachers. There
might be reason to believe that mentor teachers play an even
greater role as role models since they model the kind of work in
schools that students will be carrying out as teachers. In our study,
mentor teachers were asked if they saw themselves as good role
models for pre-service teachers, but this question was related to
their general understanding, and not specifically related to
instructional technology. Further studies should therefore address
the vicarious efficacy impacts of mentor teachers on pre-service
teachers in relation to instructional technology.
Based on our analyses, it may still be the case that when it comes
to teacher educators' digital competence and digital use, we are still
moving along on an individual basis, not at the organizational level.
Previous research has indicated that teachers' decisions to integrate
technology rely on the level of support they receive from the
management (Inan & Lowther, 2010; Kopcha, 2012). Our results
indicate weak positive correlations between positive management,
management's development support, and teacher educators' digital
competence. Thus, the results do support the relevance of work-
place support, but it may be that support from the management in
HEI is still fairly weak, or that management's support is still based
on allowing those who are most favourable to develop their
competence further. Teacher educators' self-reported efficacy cor-
relates positively with digital competence. A likely reason for this is
that teachers with a higher sense of efficacy are more open to new
ideas. Another reason could be that teachers who experience
coping with new technology and have the necessary support to
develop their skills and knowledge within this area also see
themselves as more able to have positive effects on their students'
learning. Our results show that the question of what influences
teachers' digital competence is highly complex. HEI workplace
support and teacher educators' efficacy (as measured in this study)
only explain about 8% of the variation in results.
Mentor teachers who participated in the survey were consis-
tently positive with a relatively high mean score for all items in the
survey. It is interesting that the item with the lowest mean score is
“I expect more from the students’ digital competence than what is
emphasized in the teacher education programme” (M ¼ 3.62). This
was somewhat surprising considering that previous research has
indicated there is a mismatch between the digital challenges that
newly qualified teachers meet in their profession and the instruc-
tional technology training provided in teacher education
(Gudmundsdottir et al., 2014). However, about 25% of the mentor
teachers used values 1 and 2 to indicate their agreement with this
statement (1 ¼ disagree completely). This could also be a reflection
of variance in use of technology in the schools, and a reflection of
how mentor teachers are not necessarily expected to contribute to
the development of digital competence for pre-service teachers.
We have previously looked into how digital competence is
addressed in written plans for teacher education programmes in
Norway, and have concluded there is still little evidence of tech-
nology integration in curriculum documents (Instefjord & Munthe,
2016). The results show that the use of instructional technology is
primarily mentioned in the curriculum documents in relation to
structure and working methods for pre-service teachers and only
infrequently found as part of the intended learning outcomes. This
indicates that digital competence does not have a prominent po-
sition in the general programme descriptions or in subject specific
descriptions, nor is it found to be specifically mentioned as an ex-
pected learning outcome from field placement periods. Thus, there
still appears to be a need for more focus on what professional
digital competence means in teacher education and how this
competence can be better integrated in teacher education pro-
grammes and field placement periods. Focus should therefore be
directed towards the interrelation between what pre-service
teachers learn within teacher education and during field place-
ments periods in order for the two arenas for teacher training to
better collaborate and support each other in the development of
professional digital competence in initial teacher education (ITE)
programmes.
 E.J. Instefjord, E. Munthe / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 37e45
7. Conclusions, limitations and further research
This study has some clear limitations, especially in the variation
in responses from HEIs. A study with a more balanced response
design could also conduct other analyses, including multi-level
analyses to investigate workplace support variables’ influence on
use of instructional technology. Future studies could also develop
second order latent measures to address the multidimensionality of
the concept of “professional digital competence”.
Despite clear limitations, we propose that this study has pro-
vided insight into the interrelated nature of development of pre-
service teachers’ professional digital competence in a Norwegian
context. The results presented in Table 3 reflect expected re-
lationships among the variables, which is an indication of construct
validity. However, there is a need to look more closely at how HEI
workplace support can influence integration of digital competence
among teacher educators, and that there is a need to look more
closely at how and where digital competence for pre-service
teachers is developed. What role does modelling play in teacher
education and where will pre-service teachers gain access to
necessary role models? These questions can be addressed in
different research designs, not least in more experimentally ori-
ented designs and longitudinal designs that can provide more in-
formation on factors that can promote professional digital
competence for teacher educators and pre-service teachers in
initial teacher education programmes.
References
Agyei, D. D., & Voogt, J. M. (2011). Exploring the potential of the will, skill, tool
model in Ghana: Predicting prospective and practicing teachers' use of tech-
nology. Computers & Education, 56(1), 91e100.
Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52,
27e58.
Ashton, P. (1985). Motivation and the teacher's sense of efficacy. In C. Ames, &
R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Vol. 2. The classroom milieu
(pp. 141e174). Orlando, Florida: Academic Press.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191e215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Barton, R., & Haydn, T. (2006). Trainee teachers' views on what helps them to use
information and communication technology effectively in their subject teach-
ing. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(4), 257e272.
Belland, B. (2009). Using the theory of habitus to movebeyond the study of barriers
to technology integration. Computers & Education, 52(2), 353e364.
ten Brummelhuis, A., & Kuiper, E. (2008). Driving forces for ICT in learning. In
J. Voogt, & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in
primary and secondary education (pp. 97e114). New York: Springer.
Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2008). Self-report measures and findings for infor-
mation technology attitudes and competencies. In J. Voogt, & G. Knezek (Eds.),
International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary ed-
ucation (pp. 349e365). New York: Springer ScienceþBusiness Media.
Drent, M., & Meelissen, M. (2008). Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher
educators to use ICT innovatively? Computers & Education, 51(1), 187e199.
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Stra-
tegies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Devel-
opment, 47(4), 47e61.
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012).
Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship.
Computers & Education, 59(2), 423e435.
European Commission. (2013). Survey of schools: ICT in education. Benchmarking
access, use and attitudes to technology in Europe's schools (Final Study Report).
Goktas, Y., Gedik, N., & Baydas, O. (2013). Enablers and barriers to the use of ICT in
primary schools in Turkey: A comparatice study of 2005-2011. Computers &
Education, 68(2013), 211e222.
Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers' use of educational technology in U.S.
Public schools: 2009. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). US
Department of Education.
Gudmundsdottir, G. B., Loftagarden, M., & Ottestad, G. (2014). Newly qualified
teachers. Professional digital competence and experiences with ICT in teacher ed-
ucation. Oslo: The Norwegian Centre for ICT in Education.
Hagtvet, K. (1997). The function of indicators and errors in construct Measures: An
application of generalizability theory. Journal of Vocational Education Research,
22(4), 247e266.
Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers' technological pedagogical
content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology
45
integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4),
393e516.
Haydn, T. A., & Barton, R. (2007). Common needs and different agendas: How
trainee teachers make progress in their ability to use ICT in subject teaching.
Some lessons from the UK. Computers and Education, 49(4), 1018e1036.
Hetland, P., & Solum, N. H. (2008). Digital kompetanse i norsk lærerutdanning [Digital
competence in Norwegian teacher education]. Oslo: NIFU Nordic Institute for
Studies in Innovation, Research and Education.
Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Laptops in the K-12 classroom: Exploring factors
impacting instructional use. Computers and Education, 55(3), 937e944.
Instefjord, E., & Munthe, E. (2016). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate
technology: an analysis of the emphasis on digital competence in teacher ed-
ucation curricula. European Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1), 77e93.
Kay, R. H. (2006). Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into pre-
service education: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology
in Education, 38(4), 383e408.
Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and
technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29(2013), 76e85.
Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2008). The importance of information technology
attitudes and competencies in primary and secondary education. In J. Voogt, &
K. Gerald (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and
secondary education (pp. 321e331). New York: Springer.
Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers' perceptions of the barriers to technology integration
and practices with technology under situated professional development.
Computers & Education, 59(4), 1109e1121.
Lund, A., Furberg, A., Bakken, J., & Engelien, K. L. (2014). What does professional
digital competence mean in teacher education? Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy,
9(4), 281e299.
Lunenberg, M., Korthagen, F., & Swennen, A. (2007). The teacher educator as a role
model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5), 586e601.
Midthassel, U. V., Bru, E., & Idsøe, T. (2000). The principal's role in promoting school
development activity in Norwegian compulsory schools. School Leadership and
Management, 20(2), 247e260.
Morales, C. (2006). Cross-cultural Validation of the will, skill, tool Model of technology
integration. Doctoral dissertation. USA: University of North Texas. Retrieved
November 01, 2012, from http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc5256/
m2/1/high_res_d/dissertation.pdf.
Mueller, J., Wooda, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying
discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and
teachers with limited integration. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1523e1537.
Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers' use of information and communi-
cation technology: A review of the literature. Technology, Pedagogy and Educa-
tion, 9(3), 319e342.
Ørnes, H., Wilhelmsen, J. B., & Solstad, K. J. (2011). Digital tilstand i høyere utdanning
2011. Norgesuniversitetets monitor [Digital challenges in higher education 2011.
NOU's ICT Monitor]. Tromsø: Norway Opening Universities.
Ottestad, G., Throndsen, I., Hatlevik, O., & Rohatgi, A. (2014). Digitale ferdigheter for
alle? Norske resultater fra ICILS 2013 [Digital literacy for all? Norwegian results
from ICILS 2013]. Oslo: Senter for IKT i utdanningen [The Norwegian Centre for
ICT in Education].
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational Research: Cleaning up a
messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307e332.
Petko, D. (2012). Teachers' pedagogical beliefs and their use of digital media in
classrooms: Sharpening the focus of the ‘will, skill, tool’ model and integrating
teachers' constructivist orientations. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1351e1359.
Saavedra, A. R., & Opfer, V. D. (2012). Learning 21st-century skills requires 21st-
century teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 8e13.
Shavelson, R. J., & Webb, N. M. (1991). Generalizability theory. London: Sage.
Sime, D., & Priestley, M. (2005). Student teachers' first reflections on information
and communications technology and classroom learning: Implications for
initial teacher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 130e142.
Starnaman, S., & Miller, K. I. (1992). A test of a causal model of communication and
burnout in the teaching profession. Communication Education, 41(1), 40e53.
The Panel for the teacher education reform. (2013). Drivkraft i utviklinga av lær-
arprofesjonen. Framsteg og utfordringar for grunnskulelærarutdanningane [Motive
power in the development of the teacher profession. Progress and challenges for
initial teacher education]. Stavanger: University of Stavanger.
The Panel for the teacher education reform. (2015). Grunnskulelærarutdanningane
etter fem år. Status, utfordringar og vegar vidare [Initial teacher education. Status,
challenges and the way forward]. Stavanger: University of Stavanger.
Tømte, C., Kårstein, A., & Olsen, D. S. (2013). IKT i lærerutdanningene e På vei mot
profesjonsfaglig digital kompetanse? [ICT in Teacher Education - Towards a pro-
fessional digital competence?] Oslo: Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation,
Research and Education (NIFU).
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher Efficacy: Its
meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202e248.
Wagler, R. (2011). The impact of vicarious experiences and field experience class-
room characteristics on preservice elementary science teaching efficacy. Elec-
tronic Journal of Science Education, 15(2), 1e28.
Wilhelmsen, J., Ørnes, H., Kristiansen, T., & Breivik, J. (2009). Digitale utfordringer i
høyere utdanning. Norgesuniversitetets IKT-monitor [Digital challenges in higher
education. NOU's ICT Monitor]. Tromsø: Norway Opening Universities.
Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom tech-
nology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482e515.