Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 919–943 | Cite as

Pre-service teachers’ experiences of ICT in daily life and in educational contexts and their proto-technological pedagogical knowledge

  • Sini KontkanenEmail author
  • Patrick Dillon
  • Teemu Valtonen
  • Sami Renkola
  • Mikko Vesisenaho
  • Pertti Väisänen


Many pre-service teachers are members of the net generation and are expected to be familiar with different ICTs, yet several studies have indicated that they are not necessarily able to use them for teaching and learning. The notion of teachers’ technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) is central to this concern. In this study we use the responses of 146 pre-service teachers to open-ended questions about the experiences and knowledge of ICT and pedagogy they brought with them when they entered university teacher training. The data were analysed qualitatively with content analysis based on an integrative framework generated from a number of theoretical perspectives. Derived categories and subcategories were used to construct a framework for ‘proto-TPK’ as a basis for establishing a starting point for the coordinated development of TPK with students in their university training and early careers.


Teaching Pedagogical issues TPACK Student teacher Pre-service teacher 


  1. Abbitt, J. T. (2011). Measuring technological pedagogical content knowledge in preservice teacher education: A review of current methods and instruments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(4), 281–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical data analysis (2nd ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2005). Preservice elementary teachers as information and communication technology designers: An instructional systems design model based on an expanded view of pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(4), 292–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Archambaulta, L., & Barnetta, J. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers and Education, 55(4), 1656–1662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The digital natives debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). An attainable version of high literacy: Approaches to teaching high-order skills in reading and writing. Curriculum Inquiry, 17(1), 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brantley-Dias, L., & Ertmer, P. (2013). Goldilocks and TPACK: Is the construct “Just Right?”. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(2), 103–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chan, T., Roschelle, J., Hsi, S., Kinshuk, W., Sharples, M., Brown, T., Patton, C., Cherniavsky, J., Pea, R., Norris, C., Soloway, E., Balacheff, N., Scardamalia, M., Dillenbourg, P., Looi, C., Milrad, M., & Hoppe, U. (2006). One-to-one technology-enhanced learning: An opportunity for global research collaboration. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1), 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., Tsai, C.-C., & Tan, L. L. W. (2011). Modeling primary school pre-service teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for meaningful learning with information and communication technology (ICT). Computers and Education, 57(1), 1184–1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chai, C., Teo, T., & Lee, B. (2010). Modelling the relationships among beliefs about learning, knowledge, and teaching of pre-service teachers in Singapore. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19(1), 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cicero-learning (2008). Tieto- ja viestintäteknologian hyödyntäminen opetuksessa ja opiskelussa. Cicero-learning selvitysraportti. [Information and communications technology in teaching and studying. Cicero-learning report] Retrieved from:
  12. Elo, S., & Kyngäs, S. H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Commission, E. (2013). Survey of Schools: ICT in Education (Benchmarking Access, Use and Attitudes to Technology in Europe’s Schools). Content & Technology: A study prepared for the European Commission DG Communications Networks.Google Scholar
  14. Ferdig, R. E. (2006). Assessing technologies for teaching and learning: Understanding the importance of technological pedagogical content knowledge. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(5), 749–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Finger, G., Jamieson-Proctor, R. & Albion, P. (2012). Beyond Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The Importance of TPACK for Informing Preservice Teacher Education in Australia. Paper present at the Australian Computers in Education Conference (ACEC): Digital diversity. Melbourne April 6–9. Retrieved from: Scholar
  16. Finnish National Board of Education (2004). National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2004. Retrieved from:
  17. Gao, P., Chee, T. S., Wang, L., Wong, A., & Choy, D. (2011). Self reflection and pre-service teachers’ technological pedagogical knowledge: Promoting earlier adoption of student-centred pedagogies. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(6), 997–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibbs, G. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  19. Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers and Education, 57(3), 1953–1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hofer, M., & Harris, J. (2010). Differentiating TPACK development: Using learning activity types with inservice and preservice teachers. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3857–3864). Chesapeake: AACE.Google Scholar
  21. ITL Research. (2011). Innovative teaching and learning research. 2011 Findings and Implications. ITL Research. Retrieved from:
  22. Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation or digital natives: Is there a distinct new generation entering university? Computers and Education, 54(3), 722–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kankaanranta M. & Puhakka E. (2008). Kohti innovatiivista tietotekniikan opetuskäyttöä. Kansainvälisen SITES 2006 –tutkimuksen tuloksia [Toward innovative ways to use ICT in teaching – Results from international SITES 2006 research]. Finnish Institute for Educational Research. University of JyväskyläGoogle Scholar
  24. Kennedy, G. E., Judd, T. S., Churchward, A., Gray, K., & Krause, K.-L. (2008). First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 108–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koehler, M. (2011). What is TPACK? Retrieved from:
  26. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.Google Scholar
  29. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13–19.Google Scholar
  30. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., & Graham, C. R. (2014). The technological pedagogical content knowledge framework. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 101–111). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Koschmann, T. (1996). Paradigm shifts and instructional technology. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 1–23). Mahwah: Lawrence, Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Kukkonen, J. E., Kärkkäinen, S., Dillon, P., & Keinonen, T. (2013) The effects of scaffolded simulation-based inquiry learning on fifth-graders' representations of the greenhouse effect. International Journal of Science Education, 10.1080/09500693.2013.782452.
  33. Lee, E., Brown, M. N., Luft, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2007). Assessing beginning secondary science teachers’ PCK: Pilot year results. School Science and Mathematics, 107(2), 52–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lei, J. (2009). Digital natives as pre-service teachers: What technology preparation is needed? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(3), 87–97.Google Scholar
  35. Meagher, M., Özgün-Koca, S. A., & Edwards, M. T. (2011). Preservice teachers’ experiences with advanced technologies: The interplay between technology in a preservice classroom and in field placements. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 11(3), 243–270.Google Scholar
  36. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (Eds.). (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). UK: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  37. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Özgün-Koca, S. A., Meagher, M., & Edwards, M. T. (2009). Preservice Teachers’ Emerging TPACK in a Technology-Rich Methods Class. The Mathematics Educator, 19(2), 10–20.Google Scholar
  40. Pamuk, S. (2011). Understanding pre-service teachers’ technology use through TPACK framework. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(5), 425–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants — A New Way To Look At Ourselves and Our Kids. On the Horizon, 9 (5), 1–6. Retrieved from:,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf
  43. Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part II: Do They REALLY Think Differently? — Neuroscience Says Yes. On the Horizon, 9 (6), 1–6. Retrieved from:,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part2.pdf
  44. Rogers, M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  45. Sahlberg, P. (2010). Rethinking accountability in a knowledge society. Journal of Educational Change, 11(1), 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Savenye, W. C., & Robinson, R. S. (2005). Using qualitative research methods in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 65–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Scardamalia, M. (2001). Getting real about 21st century education. The Journal of Educational Change, 2, 171–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. So, H.-J., Choi, H., Lim, W. Y., & Xiong, Y. (2012). Little experience with ICT: Are they really the Net generation student-teachers? Computers and Education, 59(4), 1234–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown Up digital: How the Net generation is changing your world. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  51. Valtonen, T. (2011). An insight into collaborative learning with ICT: Teachers’ and student’s perspectives. Publications of the University of Eastern Finland. Dissertations in Education, Humanities, and Theology, no 12. Retrieved 22.3. 2013 from: (2011).
  52. Valtonen, T., Dillon, P., Hacklin, S., & Väisänen, P. (2010). Net generation at social software: Challenging assumptions, clarifying relationships and raising implications for learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 49(6), 210–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Valtonen, T., Pöntinen, S., Kukkonen, J., Dillon, P., Väisänen, P., & Hacklin, S. (2011). Confronting the technological pedagogical knowledge of Finnish Net generation student teachers. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20(1), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vesisenaho, M., & Dillon, P. (2013). Localizing and contextualizing information and communication technology in education: A cultural ecological framework. Culture and Society: Pedagogy. 21 (2).Google Scholar
  55. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & Braakt, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge – a review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wastiau, P., Blamire, R., Kearney, C., Quittre, V., Gaer, E., & Monseur, C. (2013). The use of ICT in education: a survey of schools in Europe. European Journal of Education, 48(1), 11–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sini Kontkanen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Patrick Dillon
    • 1
  • Teemu Valtonen
    • 1
  • Sami Renkola
    • 1
  • Mikko Vesisenaho
    • 2
  • Pertti Väisänen
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of PhilosophyUniversity of Eastern FinlandJoensuuFinland
  2. 2.Agora Center, University of JyväskyläJyväskylän yliopistoFinland

Personalised recommendations