In their Ideal Future, Are Preservice Teachers Willing to Integrate Technology in Their Teaching and why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The distribution of intention levels for technology integration is: 74% high, 22% moderate, and 4% low. Within the high-level intention group, 25% explicitly stated technology’s integral role in education, a notable increase from the 5% reported by Korucu-Kis and Ozmen (2019). The absence of external barriers, coupled with participants’ knowledge and skills, likely contributes to this heightened intention. Additionally, optimized competence beliefs positively correlate with intention levels, as evidenced in studies by Joo et al. (2018) and Parkman et al. (2018). Even in an ideal scenario, 22% of participants had a moderate intention level, and 4% had a low intention level. This aligns with Ertmer (2005) and Vongkulluksn et al. (2018), emphasizing that removing external barriers isn’t enough for successful technology integration; beliefs significantly influence preservice teachers’ intentions. Two recent studies also indicate that when external barriers could not be adequately addressed during the pandemic, teachers’ intrinsic beliefs were a powerful motivation in fostering greater resilience (Crompton et al., 2023; Xu & Stefaniak, 2023). These findings highlight the critical role of preservice and in-service teachers’ intrinsic beliefs in their technology integration intention levels, indicating that if they hold positive beliefs, they will strive to integrate technology even when facing external challenges; however, if they hold negative beliefs, they will not integrate technology even with ample resources and sufficient knowledge and skills.

In terms of pedagogical beliefs, among the 51 participants, 49% held student-centered beliefs, 37% held teacher-centered beliefs, and 14% held balanced perspectives. Turning to value beliefs, among the 169 coding references, 84% were positive, 9% addressed concerns, and 7% related to negative beliefs, with positive values constituting the majority. The detailed exploration of interest and usefulness, particularly identifying eight specific technology roles under usefulness, offers valuable insights into preservice teachers’ perspectives, enhancing our understanding of their positive beliefs in technology integration. While concerns and negative values constitute a smaller portion of the coding references, they remain crucial for practitioners and researchers. These insights can aid in developing effective strategies to address concerns and negative beliefs. Consequently, this contributes to identifying appropriate strategies for overcoming internal barriers.

The overall structure of the findings in value and pedagogical beliefs aligns seamlessly with existing literature (as summarized in our conceptual framework) although barriers to creativity were not addressed (Cheng et al., 2022; Korucu-Kis & Ozmen, 2019). The list of emerging concerns we identified prompts further contemplation about technology integration concerning its extent, effectiveness, learner equity, and safety and may lead to expanding the framework for use in future studies. Notably, in their idealized situation, no participant viewed technology as merely a device. However, the contrasting beliefs regarding technology’s role in creativity were particularly intriguing and warrant additional research. Exploring why some preservice teachers in this study envisioned technology as a promoter of their own and their students’ creativity in their ideal future teaching, while literature indciates that teachers often perceive technology as a barrier in the path of creativity (Korucu-Kis & Ozmen, 2019), could provide valuable insights into these divergent perspectives.

Drawing on prior literature, positive beliefs have been found to be positively correlated with technology integration, while negative values are inversely related (Cheng et al., 2020; Sánchez-Prieto et al., 2019; Shittu et al., 2017). Consequently, it is unsurprising that within our study, positive beliefs showed a positive correlation with high intention levels, while negative beliefs were associated with low intention levels. Concerning the relationship between pedagogical beliefs and intention levels of technology integration, participants with student-centered beliefs were more likely to align with a high level of technology integration, in line with existing literature that suggests student-centered beliefs predict technology integration intention (Teo et al., 2018). However, the findings also suggest that teacher-centered beliefs are strongly associated with high-level technology integration, contrary to the literature which typically suggests that teachers with teacher-centered beliefs tend to align with a low level of technology integration (Donnelly et al., 2011; Lim & Chan, 2007). This finding, however, is consistent with Cheng et al.’s (2022) study, indicating that when preservice teachers hold high competence beliefs, pedagogical beliefs do not act as internal barriers to technology integration. In other words, regardless of whether participants’ pedagogical beliefs are student-centered or teacher-centered, their intentions to integrate technology remain unaffected. Furthermore, our study’s findings support the notion that when participants’ competence beliefs are optimized, both student-centered and teacher-centered beliefs are associated with high-level technology integrations.

In terms of the relationship between pedagogical and value beliefs, both student-centered and teacher-centered beliefs correlated with positive beliefs, whereas teacher-centered beliefs were also associated with negative beliefs. Combined with the findings that both participants in the low level of technology integration held teacher-centered beliefs, this indicates that the correlation among teacher-centered beliefs, low technology integration, and negative beliefs may persist even when pre-service teachers are asked to respond about an idealized scenario. However, it’s crucial to note that this relationship is based on a small sample size of only two participants. Further research with a larger sample size is warranted to thoroughly investigate this connection.