1 Introduction

The question of how technology is implemented in practice has been the subject of much research across a wide range of fields and disciplines (e.g., Byrd, 2017; Ertmer, 1999; Harris et al., 2015; Otterborn et al., 2020; de Veer et al., 2011) to gain more knowledge about practitioners’ needs and beliefs (see for instance Byrd, 2017; Lane, 1983; Otterborn et al. 2020; Peters et al., 2013; Plumb & Kautz, 2015; Proctor et al., 2011; Tondeur et al., 2017; Wu, 2014). The implementation process is usually described as a series of phases involving an inventory of needs and demands, and in addition to support and leadership, its success depends on the existence of a shared vision of implementation that is rooted in core values (Fixsen et al., 2011; Harris et al., 2015; Rogers, 2003; Wu, 2014). However, numerous studies indicate that the complexity of the technology makes it difficult for practitioners to do their work, which means that their real needs are not being met (see for instance, Blackwell et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2013; Lane, 1983; Lindahl & Folkesson, 2012; Mertala, 2019; Peters et al., 2013; Plumb & Kautz, 2015; Tondeur et al., 2017). While implementation models are often assumed to be linear and robust, they are sensitive to context and the results often differ from what was originally expected (Lane, 1983; Pressman & Wildavsky, 1984). Previous research on the integration of technology in education has shown that teachers’ attitudes, beliefs and previous experiences have a significant impact on how they learn to use new technologies, and that their learning can benefit from a person-centred approach (Tondeur et al., 2017, 2021). In other words, the introduction of new technologies always takes place within the established context of practitioners’ professional, needs, beliefs and experiences, which influence how these technologies are implemented. Thus, it is important to study the introduction phase to better understand the broader processes of implementation and how it is entangled with notions of professionalism, quality and education.

The present article reports on a research project that explores the introduction of a software application (app) to support, organise and develop internal quality work in four Swedish preschools. More specifically, it focuses on preschool practitioners’ beliefs about and experiences of education, socialisation and care when a software application is introduced. The study addresses the following questions:

  • How do practitioners’ established beliefs and experiences frame the introduction of a software application?

  • How are education, socialisation and care enacted and framed by a software application provided by an EdTech company?

1.1 Technology and quality work in Swedish education

As this article focuses specifically on the introduction of a software application for quality work in Swedish preschools, we first of all elaborate on the notion of quality in relation to education and technology.

Quality work is not a new activity in Swedish preschools, but has developed and evolved over a thirty year period in response to changes in policy and curricula (SKR 1996/97:112, 1997). The notion of quality has been used in connection with measures for assessing structures, processes and outcomes in order to develop education and children’s learning (Donabedian, 1980; The Ministry of Education and Science in Sweden, 1998, 2018; Sheridan, 2007; Ministry of Education, 2010, 800; Sheridan et al., 2013). Although quality work in early childhood settings has been an ongoing subject of research for many years, it continues to be a matter of concern that quality is affected by changes in context and society. Sheridan (2001) argues that perceptions of quality in preschools are closely tied to context and vary in terms of value needs. While technology tends to be associated with values of efficiency and perhaps ease in assessing the quality of structures (Elfström Pettersson, 2019; Garvis et al., 2021), structures as such are not a guarantee of quality. Rather, quality depends largely on the competence of preschool teachers, and its assessment tends to be subjective (Sheridan, 2001). Quality work in early childhood education can thus be seen as a sociocultural activity (Säljö, 2011) that takes place within the established context of professional teachers’ beliefs and experiences, where practitioners use different techniques to collect, document, communicate and analyse the ongoing educational practices (Holmlund, 2004).

The notion of quality in the Swedish preschool context is considered essential for the development of what is believed to be at the very core of practice – education, socialisation and care (Mertala, 2019). Here, education is understood as the process in which children construct knowledge and skills (Broström, 2006), socialisation as the cultural values, habits and norms that are to be transferred to the children (Biesta et al., 2015) and care as meeting the children’s physical needs (Einarsdottir, 2003). The concept of Educare questions the separation of education and care and instead regards them as intertwined and of equal value in early childhood education (Caldwell, 1991; Smith, 1996).

In other words, the introduction of a quality software application does not take place in a vacuum but is embedded in a context with explicit and implicit beliefs about and experiences of what are considered the core practices of preschools - education, socialisation and care (Mertala, 2019). Consequently, by studying the introduction of a new software application by an EdTech company, we can gain knowledge about preschool teachers’ professional beliefs about quality work in relation to education, technology, socialisation and care, and how these beliefs frame and are framed by it.

2 Literature review

This section reports on previous research on teachers’ beliefs, on education, socialisation and care in the context of the professional commitment of preschool teachers and the implementation of new technology. For instance, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) has been well-established in international research for explaining technology acceptance or resistance (see e.g., Granić & Marangunić, 2019). TAM is based on two psychological theories: the theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) and the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1985). Davis (1986), who is considered to be the developer of TAM, states that two key beliefs motivate users to adopt new technology: perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. Perceived ease of use relates closely to enhanced learning (see for instance, Davis, 1989), whereas perceived usefulness refers to users’ beliefs that technology could improve their work performance and usefulness (Davis, 1986, 1989). Literature reviews on TAM (e.g., Marangunić & Granić, 2015) suggest that more research is needed on environmental factors and cultural differences. The introduction of technology is highlighted as an upgrade of speed in education and requires extensive learning resources involving change management, models, values and professional training (Wu, 2014). Research on the successful introduction of technology shows that it requires internal and external support, negotiation and collaboration, an analysis of how it fits the context, leadership, long-term plans for ongoing resources of support for professional training and technical assistance and continuous evaluation on improving barriers and enablers (Meyers et al., 2012; Harris et al., 2015; de Veer et al., 2011). Other researchers, such as Mertala (2019), state that technology integration research in early childhood education has highlighted contradictions in terms of protection from and preparing children for the use of technology, albeit with narrow and restricted perspectives on social values situated in culture factors (Emilson & Eek-Karlsson, 2022) and traditional preschool beliefs about education, socialisation and care. It is therefore necessary to include studies reporting that teachers’ beliefs play a key role in their teaching activities and decisions (see, for instance, Biesta, 2015; Davis, 1986, 1989; Ertmer, 1999; Ertmer et al., 2012; Kim et al., 2013; Mansour, 2008; Mertala, 2019) when investigating the research questions posed in this article (Blackwell et al., 2013; Broström, 2006; Einarsdottir et al., 2015; Elfström–Pettersson, 2019; Mertala, 2019; Nasipoulou, 2019; Nasipoulou, 2020; Sheridan et al., 2011; Sigurdardottir & Einarsdottir, 2016). Some studies report that teachers’ beliefs influence the integration of a new curriculum or instructional strategies (Biesta et al., 2015). Previous reviews show that teachers’ beliefs are as important when technology has been implemented and used in practice. Ertmer (2005) shows that teachers’ beliefs relate to how technology is considered to support their needs, Kim et al. (2013) report that the use of technology relates to teachers’ well-established beliefs in the contexts of knowledge, learning and ways of working. Tondeur et al. (2017) show that teachers’ beliefs can be barriers to the implementation of technology and that they need to be introduced to it in terms of their existing ways of working. In an interview study, Ertmer et al. (2012) found that there was a connection between teachers’ beliefs and their willingness to use technology (see also Miranda & Russell, 2012). Other reviews show that teachers’ beliefs can either function as barriers to or enablers for the integration of technology (Ertmer et al., 2012; Tondeur et al., 2017). According to Mertala (2019), two shortcomings can be identified in the research on technology-related teachers’ beliefs. Firstly, technology implementation research has a narrower perspective on beliefs than teachers’ beliefs research in general (Biesta et al., 2015; Deng et al., 2014; Hermans et al., 2008; Kim et al., 2013). Secondly, even though context is considered to have an extensive impact on teachers’ beliefs, technology implementation research tends to downplay it (Gates et al., 2006; Mansour, 2008). This is exemplified by research on teachers’ opinions on technology implementation in early childhood education, which has been criticised for relying on results from other educational contexts (Blackwell et al., 2013; Plumb & Kautz, 2015). Thus, the present study of how preschool practitioners experience the implementation of a software application contributes to the wider research field of technology implementation in the preschool context. However, this study only focuses on the introduction of a software application, which seems to be a rarely studied perspective of technology implementation.

Another strand of research for this study is that which discusses education, socialisation and care as commitments of the preschool practice. In the introduction, education is defined as the process in which children construct knowledge and skills, socialisation as the transmission of cultural values, habits and norms, and care as meeting children’s physical needs. Literature reviews have shown that the concepts of education, socialisation and care relate to each other, but are under debate, sometimes as separate concepts and sometimes aggregated into the notion of Educare (Mertala, 2019; Sheridan et al., 2011). For instance, Sheridan et al. (2011) address professional development in preschool education, practitioners’ experienced limitations in their work with educational goals, essential values and children’s influence on preschool education. According to them, practitioners refer their confidence in education to their knowledge of ethics, play, language and social development and their limitations in the areas of maths, science, technology and ICT. It is demonstrated that the emphasis is on teaching essential values while fostering children’s involvement and impact. Practitioners further emphasise that in order to enhance children’s development they need to increase their professional competency in documenting and analysing. Nonetheless, peer reflection is favoured in education as a means of helping practitioners to gain a deeper understanding of their own pedagogy and children’s development. Practitioners’ observations of children in their teaching are primarily used to identify circumstances, conditions and possibilities for improvements in the quality of preschool education through reflections on education and socialisation.

Education and care are considered inseparable concepts and that any attempts to separate them are not meaningful – especially at the level of everyday pedagogical practices (Einarsdottir, 2003; Einarsdottir et al., 2015; Sigurdardottir & Einarsdottir, 2016). Other scholars also highlight this inseparability (Van Laere, & Vandenbroeck, 2018), while others claim that they can still be useful in an analytical framework exploring the different tasks and dimensions of early childhood education (Broström, 2006). According to recent research, preschools function well in terms of internal interactions, social values and education based on children’s interests, socialisation and care (Nasiopoulou, 2019; Williams et al., 2018). By linking quality in education to teachers’ professionalisation and prior knowledge, Nasiopoulou et al. (2017) highlight the importance of quality in education. Teachers need support in the shape of diverse content to adapt to local demands and changes in the profession (Nasiopoulou, 2020). Although few studies have included technology for quality work, this study has demonstrated that the preschool profession faces difficulties when it comes to the concept of quality.

Research has shown that several challenges appear when a software application is introduced into a well-established practice, and especially so when software for quality work tries to ‘break into’ it (Lindahl & Folkesson, 2012; Timotheou et al., 2022). In particular, the literature on technology implementation and digitalisation demonstrates a large research field on these issues (see for instance Adelsberger et al., 2008; Güldüren, 2020; Spector et al., 2014; Keengwe, 2015; Keengwe & Onchwari, 2019;). Further, numerous studies have demonstrated a focus on the implementation of technology in teaching and learning practices (Bourbour, 2023; Kjällander, 2016; Kjällander et al., 2016; Marklund, 2015, 2020). This line of research highlights that a decision to digitalise an educational practice does not simply relate to the purchase of technology or software applications. Rather, the implementation of technology initiates processes of development and challenges, which can lead to stress appearing in different parts and levels of the practice. Therefore, how an educational practice conceptualises a software application can affect several parts of the practice, such as the budget, professional development and the organisation itself (Hernwall, 2016; Timotheou et al., 2022; Postholm, 2018). In addition, when a software application is used in the organisation for informal (e.g. daily collegial discussions) and formal learning (e.g. a planned activity) it is important that the implementation and use are successful. The concepts of informal and formal learning have been used to explain how learning takes place in-between the established organisational culture and the adaptation of something new (Biesta, 1999; Byrd, 2017; Fullan, 1993; Marklund, 2015). Other studies of the digitalisation of education show that teachers often remain connected to the beliefs they hold (Ertmer, 1999; Mertala, 2019). These beliefs are sometimes linked to the tripartite mission they understand as the school’s central commitments, namely to educate, socialise and care (Sheridan et al., 2011). Previous implementation research has shown several technology studies of digitalisation in use, but that studies on the introduction of the technology appear to be more or less non-existent, especially in the preschool context.

The third strand of research is the huge field of research on the implementation and digitalisation of technology. However, only a few studies have been conducted on the introduction of digital technology in the context of preschool practice. For instance, when Mertala (2019) conducted a research review on teachers’ beliefs about technology implementation in early childhood education he found comparably few peer-reviewed research articles in scientific journals. Based on a meta-ethnographical synthesis, Mertala concluded that teachers’ beliefs for or against integrating technology into early childhood education were to a large extent shaped by micro- and macro-contextual factors, including national policies and personal experiences. Mertala’s review of research focuses on the implementation of technology and is therefore of relevance for this study. However, our study takes a step back to instead focus on the introduction of a technology; in this case the introduction of a software application designed to help practitioners in their work with educational quality. There are several reasons for this, especially as most of the reviewed research on preschools and digital technologies focuses on preschool practitioners’ use of digital technologies together with the children (see for instance Undheim, 2021), or already implemented digital technologies (Masoumi, 2015; Otterborn et al., 2020; Otych et al., 2021; Stensaker et al., 2008;). Thus, this study contributes knowledge about a less acknowledged field of research. As introductions are rarely included in implementation studies, a gap has emerged in the field. Thus, by directly addressing introductions to gain knowledge, this study fills a research gap.

3 Method

In the following sections we outline the study’s design and the methodology for gathering data. We also outline the study’s methodology, participants and the preschool contexts in question. Subsequently, the software application is introduced to enhance understanding of the study’s significance. On this basis, we also explain the data analysis process and how the study’s validity and reliability can be determined. This study is the first in a series of forthcoming studies in a PhD project with a focus on preschools’ quality work with the support of software applications.

3.1 Design of the study and data collection

This study is designed as a qualitative single case to report on similarities between conditions (Denzin & Lincoln, 2017; Simons, 2009; Stake, 2006) and events in the introduction of a software application in four Swedish preschools. The empirical material covers two types of data. First, observation data was collected from the EdTech company’s introduction of the software application. Field notes and audio recordings of observations from all four preschools are included as data. The recordings totalled three hours and twenty-five minutes (Denzin & Lincoln, 2017; Emerson et al., 2011). Second, retrospective semi-structured interviews were held with participants three to five weeks after the introduction and consisted of a total audio-recorded time of eight hours and fifty-one minutes (Denzin & Lincoln, 2017; Edwards & Holland, 2013). Data from the software relating to the efforts of practitioners to gather, register, share and evaluate continuing education practices was also collected.

3.2 Selection of preschools

The selected preschools and participating practitioners were chosen because they were about to introduce the same software application for quality work. These preschools were located in two larger cities in Sweden and were selected by convenience sampling (Denzin & Lincoln, 2017). The four preschools were situated in different municipalities. Three of the preschools organised themselves into teams working with the children, with three staff members in a team having different roles as preschool teachers or teacher assistants. The fourth preschool was organised in block teams consisting of two different teams with three or four staff members cooperating closely. Two of the preschools were administered directly by the municipalities, while the other two were private preschools with considerable freedom, although still directed by the national curriculum and evaluated and financed by the municipality (for a brief introduction to how Swedish preschools are organised and managed see, for instance, Curriculum for the preschool, Lpfö 2018; The Education Act 2010:800, 2010; The National Agency for Education, 2015).

Hence, the participants included representatives from the EdTech company that developed and promoted the software application and preschool teachers, teacher assistants, principals and development staff from the four selected preschools. An agreement had previously been made to study the four different preschools’ introductions to and initial use of the software application. Based on the agreement, the principals were contacted about the possibility of participating during the introduction of the software and in subsequent interviews. This resulted in participation of 17 people: two principals, one development educator, five preschool teachers and nine teacher assistants. The participants had working experiences in preschools covering six months to 35 years and had different working backgrounds and education. These various experiences are not in any way new but are common amongst the staff in Swedish preschools (Coelho et al., 2020; Kuisma & Sandberg, 2008). In order to protect participants’ identities, they were assigned pseudonyms, and all the communications and validations of transcripts were sent through encrypted word files (The Swedish Research Council, 2017). The research project was approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (Dnr: 2021–02922).

3.3 Presenting the software application

The software application consists of two different interfaces: an application interface and a web interface. The application interface is used by practitioners to register the data and shows their teaching activities. However, there are limits in the registration of data relating to the teaching activities in the application interface. This registration occurs in two steps. In the first, the preschool teacher defines and registers up to a maximum of three learning aims for a planned activity. Normally, these relate to the goals set by the curriculum. The second step is documenting what happened during the activity. The web interface is mostly used by preschool leaders and other administrative staff to study the compiled, visualised and shared data of teaching activities.

The software functions in such a way that once the practitioners have indicated that a teaching session has been completed, they are unable to change the content. If users wish, they can share the planned teaching and the documentation with other users of the software, independently if they work at the same preschool or in the same municipality. In that way, the software expands collaboration and increase possibilities for peer learning. When published, the posts can also be followed by principals and administrative staff. In the software the principal is able to comment on the posted activities.

In relation to the app interface, the web interface is designed somewhat differently. For instance, it is designed for larger screens (tablets or computers) and to summarise the results. The web interface is thus mostly designed for principals and the administrative staff, although this does not exclude the preschool teachers. The main aim of the web interface is to enable a continuous follow-up at the preschool and how quality can be assured in relation to the goals and aims expressed in the curriculum. The interface is directed at a more overall level, for example by showing summarised results on the number of completed teaching situations inserted into the system, which are then automatically systemised and grouped into subject-thematic blocks.

3.4 Data analysis

The empirical material was analysed using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun et al., 2019). Reflexive thematic analysis is understood as a process of reflexive, recursive and open coding. Working with reflexive and open coding should be considered as an ongoing process based on an open and critical mind, where the content of the data is interpreted by researchers in order to find a deeper meaning or what is ‘hidden between the lines’. In this study, this was done in the following way. First, the data was transcribed and anonymised. Second, minor adjustments were made to the transcripts based on the participants’ response validations. Third, all the transcripts were read through several times in order to become familiar with the material. Notes were taken during the readings to record future concepts for codes and themes. Fourth, the material was then imported into the software Nvivo, where it was sorted in an inductive process into related themes (cf. Braun et al., 2019; Emerson et al., 2011). Fifth, all the material under each theme was processed and evaluated for overlaps and to test the preliminary construction of the different themes. Sixth, depending on the overlaps to closely related themes, or where new themes was found, adjustments to the various themes were made. In the final phase of the analysis, the themes were once again evaluated to check whether the content in each theme was coherent and understandable.

3.5 Reliability and validity

Strategies in interrater reliability have been conducted by developing and following a semi- structured interview guide with the same questions to all participants (Denzin & Lincoln, 2017; Simons, 2009). The transcripts were sent to all the participants to verify their accuracy. Minor adjustments were made according to two participants’ responses. To maintain data safety, the transcripts were sent as encrypted word files to all the participants with a password access and self-deletion time limit of seven days. All the interviews and observations were conducted by one author. The same author transcribed the recordings at the end of the data collection. Interpretations of the raw material, citations, codes and themes were processed and discussed by all the authors. Further validation work on the study’s content was processed and discussed with colleagues, for example by presenting the manuscript to system representatives and in scholarly seminars (Denzin & Lincoln, 2017; Simons, 2009).

4 Results

The results are based on two overarching themes: experiences of disruptions and experiences of challenges. The former mainly deals with the introduction and the experiences of the participants in relation to this event. This theme is based on the practitioners’ initial experiences of the software application for quality work as something ‘new’ and that disrupted the regular way of working with quality and questioned some of the practitioners’ beliefs. The second theme, experiences of challenges, related to when the practitioners started to use the software. This theme is based on the experiences of the practitioners that the software challenged their beliefs and practices. In both these themes, issues of stability, challenges, adaption, resistance and experienced possibilities and obstacles came to the fore, both explicitly and implicitly.

4.1 Experiences of disruptions

The notion of experiences of disruptions refer to when the software application was first introduced to the practitioners. Here it can be noted that the conditions for the four introductions varied in the empirical data. However, the outer framing of the introductions was similar: a representative from the EdTech company gave a guided introduction of the software application to the principals, preschool teachers and teacher assistants in the four preschools (see Table 1). From the beginning, the intention was that the introductions should be carried out on site with all participants in the same room to enable discussions, try-and-error exercises and time for questions. This was changed by the COVID-19 pandemic and the restrictions that followed. This meant that an introduction was conducted at one of the preschools with the EdTech representative and all the participants from that school in the same place, two introductions were held as a hybrid meetings in which the representative introduced the tool via the web-based video application Zoom to the preschool staff situated in the same room, and the fourth introduction was carried out completely via Zoom. The variability of the introductions was not only seen as a matter of geographic location, which to some extent was later used as an explanation for the experienced obstacles when using the software, but also as time spent, which varied from 45 to 60 min. Such variations in time may seem rather insignificant, but according to our analysis it resulted in different conditions and possibilities for peer discussions and the number of questions that could be asked. In this way, less time spent on the introduction was seen as an obstacle for achieving the right expertise to enable the proper use of the software. Table 1 illustrates these differences:

Table 1 Overview of differences
Full size table

Table 1 report on heterogeneity of the different introductions of the software. ‘Breaking into’ teachers’ established beliefs and experiences is a challenging process, and in this the EdTech representative only had about 45–60 min to hand. During the introductions the EdTech representative presented the software and focused on the quality work tasks and documentation. This was done methodically by going through the software’s interface in a step-by-step way. At three of the preschools the practitioners were given opportunities to test the application, discuss and share their understandings of the different functions, ranging from how to log in to how to navigate in the software. During the introduction, the EdTech representative highlighted a specific approach towards quality work. This was done by using the well-established quality concepts that are normally used in the preschool context (see for instance the Curriculum for the preschool, Lpfö 2018). This can be shown by the following quote:

What we are trying to support with the software is the [quality work] process of planning, documenting and evaluating. But then also compiling the data [into aspects of quality] so that the users don’t have to do everything manually themselves. […] Being able to discuss all this in the work team is something that needs to be practised. But it won’t happen automatically just because it’s digital. Dialogue will also continue to be important in the systematic quality work. (EdTech representative)

The above quotation also indicates how the EdTech company attempts to ‘break into’ the preschool teachers’ established beliefs and experiences of quality work. This is also clarified in the following quotation: “The idea is of course that an app is a tool in your systematic quality work, that it should be able to jack into the process that you work with today” (EdTech representative). A second attempt can be demonstrated by the templates in the software application, which are designed from prewritten ‘learning areas’ that are decided and developed by the EdTech company and that come from outside the everyday local learning practices experienced by the preschool teachers. Breaking into the dominant preschool teachers’ beliefs and experienced practices also means that confidence needs to be established between the EdTech company and its customers (i.e. the preschools). One argument that is used is that the templates and the learning areas are produced in collaboration with a non-specified ‘researcher’. The templates serve as the interface where the practitioners will spend most of their time planning and documenting. Naturally, a large part of the introduction focuses on these templates and why they are suitable for working with quality issues. One way of ‘breaking into’ the established beliefs and practices was that during the introduction it was stated that the learning areas were designed to align with the curriculum goals, and in that way could be interpreted by the practitioners as how to do things to achieve quality.

In the presentation, the software was described in terms of change, support and an enabler for professional development. The combination of change, support and professional development thus became a triad of notions specifically directed towards the practitioners’ beliefs and experiences:

Before demonstrating the software, I always say that it is a tool in the users’ systematic quality work and can be used to strengthen the process that is already underway. Introducing a digital tool doesn’t automatically lead to systematic quality work. The important thing is, for example, the educational dialogue between the users. A software can never replace that, so to speak, but the hope is that it can support that process. (EdTech representative)

The above quotation shows how the EdTech representative, as an outsider, comments on what is important in the preschool and how the software application could support that process. Another contribution was ideas about the experienced needs of practitioners: “The idea of the app is in two parts, it is competence development primarily as a form of inspiration in everyday work, connected to how different educators work with curriculum aims. But then also, hopefully, a simple way to plan, document and analyse your teaching” (EdTech representatives). However, as this was an outsider’s view of the opportunities connected with the software application, it was viewed by the practitioners as something that disrupted, challenged well-established internal beliefs and put the practitioners’ experiences in a different light. This is elaborated on further in the next section.

4.2 Experiences of challenges

The second theme, entitled experiences of challenges, reflected the interviews with the participants some weeks after the introduction. During the introduction, one challenge concerned the amount of information that needed to be absorbed, processed and made sense of. Here, several of the participants verbalised the group discussions as being very helpful for sharing thoughts and trying to understand the possibilities, but also for detecting the problems. This is illustrated in the following quotation:

But as I said, there was a lot to take in. It is difficult to /…/ yes, it is difficult. It would have been better to be in smaller groups and go through and really test, look at it and go into it in some depth. We were unable to reflect together, we just listened, and I think we would have learned a lot from talking about things and not just taking in information. So, I think that this would have meant a lot. We could have shared ideas with each other instead of just listening to what the idea was. So, I think that would have helped. (Preschool teacher)

In contrast, another participant with an opportunity for dialogue in small groups expressed the following:

It was nice that there were so few people involved at the same time, and it made it easy to stop if you wondered about something or enabled you to talk about what you thought. That was an advantage. (Preschool teacher)

The above quotations show what the practitioners regarded as important and as shortcomings. First, the practitioners considered collegial collaboration important for understanding all the functions and possibilities of the software. The sharing of ideas with others indicated alternative perspectives on how the software could be used and set the software in relation to their experiences of working with quality and documentation. The quotation also demonstrates a contrast in terms of the EdTech representative communicating “what the idea was” and the preschool teachers wish to “share ideas with each other”. A further quotation confirmed the importance of having reflective dialogues with peers during the learning process: “we learn a lot from each other and not just from instructions like that. We learn by talking. /…/ That’s how we work here, and I think it’s quite important to get something started to talk about the matter. Because if you’re just starting and you haven’t had time to talk about it. Then it becomes quite confusing for everyone even though we know what it is about, but we must learn the app together” (preschool teachers).

Further, the practitioners emphasised the need for time for reflection and exploring how the software could be used in their own practices:

We need to find our own way of using it [the software] and for that we need talk a lot about it. How to make plans and how to imagine that there will be some kind of ‘sameness’ when we compare with someone else’s planning, for example. Unfortunately, up to now we have not had any time for reflection in our work team at all. But we must try to find our own way for working with the software and then be able to evaluate it. (Teacher assistant)

The quote also demonstrates the challenge of learning to work with the application and the wider question of how the preschools’ quality work is organised and accomplished. In several ways, it recognises the collective beliefs about and experiences of processing new things or novelties in the preschool practice. This could be interpreted as both an obstacle and an enabler. For example, it is an obstacle if the novelty is interpreted as something that goes against the teachers’ well-established beliefs and experiences, although it can also function as an enabler if the collective beliefs and experiences are used in the right way to bring about change. Another concern relates to practitioner’s experiences of software applications being replaced after learning how to use them: “You have been through a lot of different things, but what is a bit of a shame is that when you feel you were getting into something, it becomes something new” (teacher assistant).

Several new questions and concerns arose during the initial use of the software, thereby indicating further challenges. These questions and concerns often related to the software being time-consuming and the problem of finding time to use it. This is interesting considering the EdTech representative’s communications about the software’s potential to save time. Although it was possible for the software application to save time, the practitioners argued that starting something new must be considered as a process and that implementation would take time. In that way, the practitioners felt that an introduction was not enough for a successful implementation. Therefore, several of them expressed the need for follow-ups with the EdTech representative to ask questions about the software. This was, for instance, expressed in terms of:

As a first introduction it’s hard to think about what is missing, although I found it (the introduction) informative and good as it gave a first insight into how to use it. But it’s difficult to know what’s missing. It’s easier to come up with things like that once you’ve started to use it, I think. (Development educator)

Based on this, one observation is that the practitioners did not seem to know what they lacked knowledge about before starting to use the software. What is expressed here is that it is difficult to inform and receive information about a software application if it is not simultaneously connected to well-established teachers’ beliefs and the ongoing practices and experiences of those using it. The practitioners thus seemed to process the software based on the introduction and learning from their peers. However, after some initial use of the software new questions and reflections arose. Another important issue arising from the data was that the practitioners seemed somewhat ambiguous about how much time they were willing to invest in learning all the software’s possibilities. One reason for this was that the practitioners were not sure whether the software would be a permanent or temporary feature.

5 Discussion, conclusion and implications

The aim of the study has been to explore what happened when a software application intended for quality work is introduced in four different Swedish preschools. Our analysis shows two main themes: how it contributes to disruptions and challenges the teachers’ beliefs and experiences.

Our study demonstrates that a software application cannot solve all the issues of quality and professional development or replace the use of dialogue. It is rather considered as part of the quest for quality and professional development. However, when introducing a software application to improve quality and achieve professional development, our study empirically highlights three key elements: (1) the necessity of a thorough introduction where questions can be asked, (2) enough time for testing where small groups of peers are given the opportunity to test the tool and ask questions and (3) opportunities for reflection after some initial use.

Thus, based on our study we can conclude that the implementation of a software in a preschool context depends on the conditions of the introduction and the already well-established beliefs, experiences, practices and values amongst the practitioners. Attitudes that refer to technology are seen as a barrier and are based on the idea that technology is irrelevant, untrustworthy, unsupportive and incapable of replacing human interactions. These attitudes consequently impact the processes of change and development (see for instance Argyris, 1999; Fullan, 1993; Hernwall, 2016). According to our study, peer support, time for questions, conditions and prerequisites during the introduction, beliefs and experiences are important to consider when anything new is introduced in formal or informal ways (cf. Harris et al., 2015; Marklund, 2015; Meyers et al., 2012). Thus, it takes more than just purchasing technology to advance professionally or develop better quality, since individuals must be able and willing to embrace change. According to earlier research findings, complex tactics are needed, such as changing the culture through education, which is seen as a crucial component for laying the groundwork for change (Ertmer, 1999; Marklund, 2015; Mertala, 2019; Tondeur et al., 2017).

The study reflects previous research, in that the collective beliefs and experiences of quality are strongly embedded in the four participating preschools. In accordance with Mertala’s meta-study (2019), our study shows that during the introduction of the software, practitioners initially recognised several benefits. However, after a few weeks of testing, using and discussing the software with their peers, they started to recognise several limitations and asked questions about the shared beliefs and experiences of what is interpreted as the preschools’ core commitments. According to our empirical results, an issue that contributes to such tension is that teachers’ relational knowledge is gained by observations of children’s experiences and that learning is intertwined with education (by for instance the EdTech company representative and policymakers), which for preschool teachers is a well-established belief at the very core of practice (cf. Einarsdottir, 2003; Einarsdottir et al., 2015; Sigurdardottir & Einarsdottir, 2016; Emilson & Eek-Karlsson, 2022).

Our study highlights that time spent on the introduction of a software can affect how practitioners embrace it and relate it to their own beliefs and experiences. At the outset, time did not appear to be especially important for the practitioners, although it later became one of the key factors when they reflected on their use of the software. According to our findings, this was because the practitioners experienced that during introduction they had to cope with and process a lot of information. One explanation for this is that professional development is usually related to well-established beliefs, experiences and knowledge (see for instance Ertmer, 2005; Ertmer et al., 2012; Mansour, 2008) that can be changed and developed. Our study also relates to the scientific literature stating that professional development needs long-term plans for support, recurring opportunities and initial questions in order to develop deeper knowledge that goes beyond the acquisition of technical skills and software handling (cf. Kim et al., 2013; Mertala, 2019). Here, our results support previous research findings that using new software needs collective reflection and time for testing and navigating, as well as an alignment to well-established internal needs, beliefs and experiences (see for instance Ertmer, 1999, 2005, 2012; Tondeur et al., 2017). In that way, our study points to the importance of giving practitioners time to reflect on and have peer discussions during and after the introduction to reach a common understanding.

Based on these empirical observations, it can be concluded that teachers’ beliefs and experiences are necessary for a successful introduction and implementation of the software. The introduction of a software thus needs to be properly prepared in terms of how it is designed and staged. Another perspective is that the use of technology is perceived as a possible enabler of change in teachers’ beliefs over time (cf. Tondeur et al., 2017). According to our empirical findings, it is essential to create both space and time for peer interactions and reflections for learning by testing the software among peers in a step-by-step and trial and error way.

However, the introduction of software alters perceptions of the conditions for quality by introducing technology into the concept of quality, which places it in a new light when it comes to understanding the conditions for high-quality work in preschool education (Nasiopoulou, 2019; Sheridan et al., 2011: 2013; Williams et al., 2018). To help practitioners understand how introductions are organised and how the technology can best be introduced, this study contributes knowledge about introduction-related experiences and conditions. The results offer additional insights into the support provided by peer learning during the introduction and the importance of professional training.

The implications for our study can be summarised in terms of preschool teachers perceived the software as disruptive to their established beliefs and practices, despite efforts to align it with preschool curriculum goals. It also highlights the challenges practitioners faced in understanding and implementing the software, thus highlighting the importance of peer discussion and time for reflection. Our study has implications for how to perform the introduction of new technology in preschool settings based on the importance of a thorough introduction, peer support and opportunities for reflection. It also stresses the need to align software implementation with practitioners’ beliefs and experiences to facilitate successful adoption. This has implications for how developers of technology need to integrate practitioners’ beliefs and experiences in order to meet their demands. In addition, the study highlights the role of ongoing professional development in managing technological change in early childhood education, which has implications for how to act as a principal or school administrator in the introduction of new technology.