The use of hardware (e.g., tablets) and software (e.g., weblogs) can positively impact students’ academic development, e.g., their performance, engagement, skills to reflect their learning processes, and self-regulated learning (Li et al. 2020; Sung et al. 2016). For such results to be achieved, teachers are encouraged to implement technology in class in a way that is appropriate to their class goals. It is undisputed that teachers need the knowledge, skills, and motivational beliefs to integrate technology effectively into their teaching practices (Knezek and Christensen 2016). Among other aspects, motivational beliefs refer to goal orientation, competence beliefs, and subjective task values (Muenks et al. 2018). Teacher motivational beliefs regarding perceived competence for technology use are distinguished into basic and pedagogical ICT competence beliefs (Krumsvik 2011; Rubach and Lazarides 2023). Several dimensions were identified for basic ICT competence beliefs (Rubach and Lazarides 2023; Schauffel et al. 2021; Ulfert-Blank and Schmidt 2022). Unclear is whether (student) teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs are linked to operating technology and in which competence dimensions they must feel competent to utilize particular hardware and software. The present study thus investigated whether general or specific basic ICT competence beliefs are associated with using hardware and software, focusing on tablets, forums, wikis, weblogs, and learning management systems (LMS). The uniqueness of this study lies in investigating links for student teachers and teachers. Although only cross-sectional associations could be analyzed in this study, such results are essential for teacher education to know the link between competence beliefs and hardware and software use as it can help identify the key areas where motivation is needed to operate technology. A deep understanding of these links can impact education reforms and help select content for teacher education programs and, thus, help appropriately prepare future teachers for their profession.

1 Theoretical and empirical background

1.1 Basic ICT competence beliefs

Teachers’ competence beliefs are one aspect of motivational orientation and drive how teachers behave in their profession (Tschannen-Moran and Hoy 2001). Competence beliefs refer to skills and knowledge that one attributes to him/her/themselves in a particular activity, in a domain, or in comparison to other domains and people (Muenks et al. 2018). Competence beliefs in information communication technology (ICT) are generally distinguished into basic and professional ICT competence beliefs (Krumsvik 2011; Rubach and Lazarides 2023). Basic ICT competence beliefs refer to perceived skills and knowledge to apply technology in daily use, independent of professional affiliations (Rubach and Lazarides 2023). In comparison, professional ICT competence beliefs refer to perceived own skills and knowledge in professions and thus to skills and knowledge needed to fulfill professional tasks. The assumption remains that teachers benefit from competence in areas like preparing teaching using technology and teaching with and about technology (Quast et al. 2023; Redecker 2017; Scheiter 2021). However, basic ICT competence beliefs are the foundation for their professional ICT competence beliefs. Basic competence beliefs need to be developed before operating and adapting technology in professional settings as they help to understand the potential and risks of technology in a professional context (Krumsvik 2011; Mishra and Koehler 2006; Rubach and Lazarides 2023). Matching this argument, studies have indicated that teachers who do not follow and understand current technology development do not see technology’s potential for their profession, thus having limited ideas on integrating technology in class (Minshew and Anderson 2015).

Basic ICT competence beliefs are distinguished into multiple competence dimensions across frameworks: operating hardware and software; information and data literacy; communication and collaboration; digital content creation; safety and security and problem solving; and lastly, analyzing and reflecting (Law et al. 2018; Rubach and Lazarides 2021, 2023; Vuorikari et al. 2016). We describe these basic competence dimensions in further detail in the following. Operating hardware and software applies to knowledge, motivational beliefs and skills to know, identify, and operate the functions and features of various hardware and software (Law et al. 2018). Information and data literacy refers to knowledge and skills to search for, access, filter, and manage data, content, and information, and also evaluate the credibility and reliability of sources providing data, content, and information (Vuorikari et al. 2016; Law et al. 2018). Communication and collaboration contain knowledge, motivational beliefs and skills to use technology to asynchronously and synchronously communicate and collaborate with others, hereby consider netiquette and ethical principles, and participate and engage in society within digital environments (Law et al. 2018; Siddiq et al. 2016; Vuorikari et al. 2016). Problem solving ranges from knowledge, motivational beliefs and skills to identify and solve technical challenges, identify needs and find appropriate technical answers, identify one’s competence lacks and improve ICT competence, and possess knowledge and skills in computational thinking (Law et al. 2018; Siddiq et al. 2016; Vuorikari et al. 2016). Safety and security refer to knowledge, motivational beliefs and skills to protect devices, privacy, and health and apply environmentally sound strategies to control and reduce the negative impact (Law et al. 2018; Vuorikari et al. 2016). Digital content creation ranges from knowledge, motivational beliefs and skills to develop content, integrate and re-elaborate data and content in digital environments, apply strategies for copyright and licenses, and have knowledge about and skills to program (Law et al. 2018; Vuorikari et al. 2016). Finally, analyzing and reflecting contain knowledge, motivational beliefs and skills to analyze and reflect on the distribution and risk of data, content, and information, focusing on business activities (Rubach and Lazarides 2021).

Teachers need basic ICT competence beliefs in these dimensions to teach with and about technology and use technology as a learning resource, thus learning from and with technology (Guggemos and Seufert 2021; Krumsvik 2014). To apply these activities using the variety of technology available, several assumptions exist on which competence dimensions might be relevant. Guided by the TPCK model (Mishra and Koehler 2006), no particular competence dimensions but general competence beliefs across all competence dimensions matter to use technology. From a statistical perspective, such an assumption would be tested with models using one-factor models, higher-order factor models, or bifactor models (e.g., Scherer et al. 2017). Another perspective lies in the assumption that particular behavior needs particular competence beliefs, i.e., teaching about fake news makes it mandatory for teachers to feel competent in the competence dimensions of information and data literacy and analyzing and reflecting (Rubach and Lazarides 2021). Here, the question on the construct validity, e.g., the dimensionality of the content to be measured, becomes apparent, as well as the significance of predictive validity, i.e., the variable to be explained with basic ICT competence beliefs (cf. Taber 2018). From a statistical perspective, such assumptions would be modeled by separate interrelated latent factors using, for example, CFA models (e.g., Rubach and Lazarides 2021). Multiple studies already supported the district nature of basic ICT competence beliefs in several competence dimensions across countries and groups (see Korukluoğlu et al. 2023; Rubach and Lazarides 2021, 2023; Schauffel et al. 2021). Two areas for improvement in the existing literature on modeling basic ICT competence beliefs become apparent. First, to our knowledge, no study investigated whether general basic ICT competence beliefs or competence beliefs in specific competence dimensions are linked to technology use. Second, previous studies have faced the challenge of shared variance across items, thus cross-loading across multiple factors. One strategy is excluding items, which also means excluding theoretically described parts of basic ICT competence (see Rubach and Lazarides 2021). One solution is to use exploratory structural equation models and thus allow cross-loading across theoretically defined factors (Morin et al. 2020). This approach has been applied by Schauffel et al. (2021) for investigating basic ICT competence beliefs, but not for teachers or student teachers. The current study aims to fill this lack.

1.2 Different stages, different associations? A look at student teachers and teachers

The educational systems for teachers differ worldwide (Craig 2016) and even within countries. The German system, i.e., teacher education, complements three phases, i.e., university studies (phase 1), practical training (phase 2), and on-the-job training in schools (phase 3) (Bernholt et al. 2023; Gröschner and de Zordo 2022). The heterogeneity of the system is evident in, for example, the length, the structure and the degrees to earn across the federal states in Germany (Bauer et al. 2012). These circumstances hamper the comparability of experiences across phases and individuals (Bauer 2012). However, an understanding of the experiences or circumstances of teachers in various phases helps empirical educational research and the teacher education system to get an evidence-based understanding of needs.

Alongside these differences in the teacher training system, there are also commonalities at different levels. At the level of individual development, one commonality lies in some psychological processes. One example is that beliefs about one’s knowledge and skills determine how the person behaves (Eccles and Wigfield 2020). For basic ICT competence beliefs, links with various hardware and software were demonstrated for teachers and student teachers (Rubach and Lazarides 2019, 2021; Johnson and Koβmann 2022; Pozas and Letzel 2021). Student teachers and teachers have often been studied separately, and to our best knowledge, the investigations in both samples vary in the instruments used. In the following, we will elaborate on existing findings on student teachers’ and teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs and their link to technology use. Previous studies have come to contradictory conclusions on student teachers’ and teachers’ competence beliefs in using ICT. On the one hand, student teachers reported less effort using technology and thus higher basic ICT competence beliefs compared to teachers (Saltan and Arslan 2017; Teo 2015; Turgut 2017). One the other hand, scholars also have found no difference in basic ICT competence beliefs in various competence dimensions between student teachers and teachers (Aygun and Ilhan 2020; Yang et al. 2022). Focusing on the order from the highest to the lowest perceived competence dimensions, both groups reported their highest competence beliefs in communication and collaboration, digital content creation, and information and data literacy (Rubach and Lazarides 2019, 2021). Differences in rank orders between student teachers and teachers, however, have not been proven statistically. Generating such knowledge might help teacher education identify teachers’ needs in all phases of their professional development in the context of digitization.

Another question is how student teachers and teachers use technologies in different phases. When it comes to technology use, different approaches exist that capture the technology use of student teachers and teachers: Some scholars have investigated the (frequent) use of hardware and software, whereas others have focused on the activities executed by using technologies (Rubach and Lazarides 2019, 2021; Backfisch et al. 2021; Drossel et al. 2019; Lohr et al. 2021; Martin et al. 2020; Quast et al. 2021; Troxler and Schiefner-Rohs 2023). All these approaches had their significance in answering particular research questions, for example, on the technology used in class, the frequent use of technology, or the didactic potentials of technology use. In this study, we are interested in the extent to which student teachers and teachers use hardware and software, thus, we focus on something other than particular activities. In the study, we ask what (student) teachers need in order to use certain hardware and software in their everyday work ot studies. Our approach has advantages for the intended study: First, we aimed to understand what technology is used in different stages of teachers’ professional development and second, we examined various hardware and software to understand the link to general and specific basic ICT competence beliefs with hardware and software use. As discussed above, we need to consider that student teachers and teachers are in somewhat different settings and roles, which can impact the compulsory use of technology. However, previous studies have indicated similarities, i.e., that teachers use technology relatively rarely in international comparison (Drossel et al. 2019) and that many universities lack a compulsory teaching unit about digital media in their curricula (Bernholt et al. 2023). There is a research gap investigating the use of technology in different stages of teachers’ professional development, which will be addressed in the current paper.

Lastly, the link between basic ICT competence beliefs and technology use will be investigated in different stages of teachers’ professional development. Theoretically assumpted are the associations between general basic ICT competence beliefs and specific competence dimensions and various technology use and behavior (Knezek and Christensen 2016; Davis 1989; Mishra and Koehler 2006; Sailer et al. 2021; Venkatesh et al. 2003). Schauffel et al. (2021), for example, found that general basic ICT competence beliefs are related to the use of the internet, spreadsheets and text programs, e‑mails, and video tools. These scholars also indicated that competence beliefs in specific competence dimensions are linked to particular technology use. These results do not focus on (student) teachers. For teachers, we have hints of diverse correlation patterns between basic ICT competence beliefs and technology use. For example, prior studies found that teachers’ general basic ICT competence beliefs were related to computer use in class (Chiu and Wang 2008) and various teaching strategies which require different technology (Lomos et al. 2023). For student teachers, general basic ICT competence beliefs were related to device use for private and study purposes (Johnson and Koβmann 2022; Pozas and Letzel 2021). Also, for student teachers, Rubach and Lazarides (2019) indicated that hardware use for study purposes was related to basic ICT competence beliefs in communication and collaboration, information and data literacy, and analyzing and reflecting. In contrast, using software was related to basic ICT competence beliefs in digital content creation. However, it is unclear how the combination of basic ICT competence beliefs operates in using different hardware and software in different phases of teacher education.

In summary, mixed results exist on how competent student teachers and teachers feel in using technology and if particular hardware and software is used in different stages of teachers’ professional development. Furthermore, as student teachers and teachers are in somewhat different situations using technology, basic ICT competence beliefs might be differently linked to hardware and software operations.

1.3 Hardware and software use and its relation to basic ICT competence beliefs: An overview of empirical evidence

This study focused on links between basic ICT competence beliefs, hardware use (tablets), and software use (weblogs, forums, wikis, LMS). These software are Web 2.0 tools designed to improve opportunities to communicate, share knowledge, and collaboratively work on content (Kale 2014) and thus are opportunities for educational purposes (Solomon and Schrum 2007). Investigated hardware and software enables, for example, to organize, structure and apply student-centered teaching approaches and, thus, higher self-regulated learning phases (e.g., Rubach and Bonanati 2022). The use of hardware and software also can have other advantages for teaching, for example, to structure and present content and material, make material more easily accessible, create more activating and creative tasks, have new ways to communicate with student, and analyze and monitor students’ progress and provide feedback to them, e.g., using audio (e.g., Rubach and Bonanati 2022; Scheiter 2021). Lastly, the use of hardware and software provides the opportunity to foster students’ digital competence. As described below, these hardware and software have various functions that might be related to basic ICT competence beliefs and specific competence dimensions. In the following, we will describe each investigated hardware and software to draw hypotheses on links with general and specific basic ICT competence beliefs.

Tablets

Tablets are one opportunity to enable mobile learning in class (Aufenanger 2017). The advantages of integrating tablets in class are increased mobility and that tablets serve multiple functions, e.g., access to numerous educational and multimedia apps, cameras, internet, microphones, and speakers (Ifenthaler and Schweinbenz 2013; Kim et al. 2019; Tillmann and Antony 2018). Teachers thus can use tablets to find, create and adapt learning environments and resources based on their learning objectives and needs, as well as save, share, and present information and materials, but also provide technology training to their students (Blackwell 2013; Chen and Sager 2011; Ifenthaler and Schweinbenz 2013). Besides various teaching opportunities, teachers have reported challenges restricting their intention to use tablets, i.e., the unreliability of technology, technical difficulty and glitches, and updating devices (Blackwell 2013; Ifenthaler and Schweinbenz 2013). Dealing with the complexity of the functions of tablets and the challenges of using tablets might require a whole set of basic ICT competence beliefs.

Forums

Forums offer one-to-many communication by posting content and also responding to others’ messages (Kiyici 2010). The architecture of forums is divided into subjects or themes, sub-forums, and topics (threads), which are sorted to the entrance of posts by date and time from the oldest to the newest (Biriyai and Emmah 2014; Kiyici 2010). In educational settings, forums can be used to initiate discussions and thus start collaborations by quickly seeking, obtaining, and providing information (Biriyai and Emmah 2014; Naqvi 2012). For class, teacher thus can enable discussion and provide different perspectives on content taught to their students and also help students to understand digital architecture and how communication on topics can happen. Biriyai and Thomas (2014) pointed to the opportunity to use forums to receive feedback on messages and thus cognitively engage in topics. Thus, forums use might require competence beliefs in communication and collaboration and information and data literacy.

Weblogs

A weblog (abbreviation: blog) is a website supporting one-to-many communication processes (Kiyici 2010; Wagner 2004). A weblog functions as a diary publishing text, pictures, audio and video files, or hyperlink content, with the addition that the writer can allow others to comment on blog posts (Rubio et al. 2010). Blog posts are ordered from the newest to the oldest, and can be further categorized into themes. In educational settings, weblogs can quickly publish and share opinions and emotions, thus supporting self-expression and social interaction (Deng and Yuen 2011; Kahraman 2021; Petko et al. 2017; Yang and Chang 2012). In class, teacher can use weblogs to help students to write and publish text and reflect on their knowledge and as with forums and tablets, to support students’ digital competence, i.e., their competence in communicating and collaborating online. Tsai and Tsai (2003) summarized that weblog use involves searching and filtering information. Furthermore, weblog posting is linked to reflective thinking and basic ICT competence in operating the hosting website (Cirak Kurt and Yildirim 2021). Thus, applying weblogs might require teachers’ general basic ICT competence beliefs but particular competence beliefs in communication and collaborating, digital content creation, and information and data literacy.

Wikis

A wiki was designed to share knowledge collaboratively by writing, editing, adding, restructuring, and deleting new or published content (West and West 2009). Also, wikis are used as an information source (Drossel et al. 2019). Thus, wikis support many-to-many communication and are often associated with the feature of an encyclopedia (Wagner 2004). Every user has access to wikis and therefore can edit the content. In educational settings, wikis can be used for website creation, data collection, collaborative writing, peer-reviewing, presenting and sharing knowledge, and conducting discussions (Parker and Chao 2007; Ollesch et al. 2021). Scholars have summarized that wiki use requires multiple skills and competence beliefs, e.g., to administer websites, collaboratively create and edit texts, share knowledge and hyperlink sources, filter knowledge, and also evaluate the quality of content and information sources (Biasutti and EL-Deghaidy 2012; Wagner 2004). Also, competence beliefs in problem solving might be important as Jones (2010) argued that technical problems are a source of frustration for students using wikis which need to be solved by teachers. However, this result by Jones (2010) might also apply to other hardware and software use in class.

Learning management systems

LMS are mostly used to create, manage, and deliver material (Turnbull et al. 2021). In educational settings, LMS can be used to provide material and tasks for in-person and distant learning, allow to create and customize the system, make announcements and communicate with students, collect and manage data, enable participating and collaborative processes, and share data, files, and information (Avgeriou et al. 2003; Rubach and Bonanati 2022). Thus, teachers need multiple skills and thus competence beliefs in digital content creation, communication and collaboration, problem solving, and information and data literacy (Avgeriou et al. 2003; Prior et al. 2016). As LMS provides many educational features, it can be assumed that teachers need general basic ICT competence beliefs.

In summary, hardware and software have a multitude of functions. This variety of functions must be considered when examining the correlations with basic ICT competence beliefs. For tablets, for example, it can be assumed that, due to the diversity of functionality shown, this correlates with general basic ICT competence beliefs, while forum use could correlate with basic ICT competence beliefs in communication and collaboration. Schauffel et al. (2021) indicated diverse links between general and specific basic ICT competence beliefs and hardware and software operations. These associations have not been investigated for teachers. Knowledge about these associations might help teacher education to provide teachers and student teachers with appropriate support to operate technology in their profession.

2 The present study

Multiple aims are addressed in the current study. First, we investigated basic ICT competence beliefs and technology use for student teachers and teachers. Second, associations between basic ICT competence beliefs and hardware and software use were investigated for student teachers and teachers. We focused on hardware use (tablets) and software use (forums, weblogs, wikis, LMS). In line with existing empirical results, we focused on the following competence dimensions: information and data literacy, communication and collaboration, digital content creation, safety and security, problem solving, and analyzing and reflecting (Rubach and Lazarides 2021; Schauffel et al. 2021).

The following research questions were investigated:

  1. 1.

    How do student teachers and teachers evaluate their basic ICT competence in different competence dimensions?

  2. 2.

    How do student teachers and teachers using tablets, LMS, wikis, forums, and weblogs?

  3. 3.

    What are the links between basic ICT competence belief dimensions and the use of technology among student teachers and teachers?

3 Methods

3.1 Sample

Two German samples from the DigiKompEL-Studie (Rubach & Lazarides 2017–2019) were utilized. For both samples, we only included cases in the study that had complete data on measured constructs.

First, data from 338 teachers (52.4% female) were used that we gathered in January and February 2019 (see for further explanation in Rubach and Lazarides 2021). On average, teachers were 44.23 years old (SD = 10.26), on average 13.77 years in their profession (SD = 9.72) and 29.6% worked as part-time teachers. Teachers worked in the primary school track (10.1%), special education track (3.7%), as well as in secondary school track (86.2%). The most frequently taught subjects in the sample were math (35.8%), computer science (31.7%), German language (29%), and English as a foreign language (22.2%).

Second, data from 349 student teachers (64.8% female) were analyzed. We combined data drawn in October 2017 and April and May 2018. In October 2017, data were gathered at one university in Potsdam, Germany, whereas, in April and May, we collected data all over Germany (see for further explanation in Rubach and Lazarides 2019). Student teachers were average 24.63 years old (SD = 5.43). Students were either in the bachelor track (57.9%) or master track (33.1%) and were enrolled in the primary school track (10.3%), special education track (1.4%), as well as secondary school track (87.7%; 0.6% missing). The most frequently studied subjects were German language (37.5%), English as a foreign language (23.2%), math (21.8%), and history (17.8%).

3.2 Instruments

Basic ICT competence beliefs

Basic ICT competence beliefs were assessed using survey instruments developed and validated by Rubach and Lazarides (2019, 2021). Participants were asked to evaluate their competence in six competence dimensions: information and data literacy (DataLit), communication and collaboration (Comm), digital content creation (Create), safety and security (Safety), problem solving (Solve), and analyzing and reflecting (Analyze). The rating scale ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. In both samples, the number of items differed due to the further development of the instruments from the student teacher sample (data assessment 2017/2018) to the teacher sample (data assessment 2019). Twenty items were used for student teachers and 32 for teachers. All items, factor loading, and reliability are provided in Tables A1 to A3 in the Supplemental Material. We modeled bifactor exploratory structural equation models (ESEM) and thus computed a general factor (G-Factor) and six specific factors (S-Factors). The reliability ranged from 0.69 ≤ ω ≤ 0.93 for student teachers to 0.80 ≤ ω ≤ 0.97 for teachers.

Technology use

Participants were asked if they use hardware (tablets) and software (forums, wikis, weblogs, LMS). Teachers were asked to what extent they use the listed technology in class from 0 = not at all to 4 = daily. Students were asked if they use technology in their teacher education program with a binary coding from 0 = no use to 1 = use. To relate the results in both samples, the scales in the teacher sample were adjusted to the student sample. Thus, items in the teacher sample were recorded from 0 = no use [previously 0 = not at all] to 1 = use [previously 1 = multiple times within a year to 4 = daily].

3.3 Statistical analysis

SPSS version 29 and Mplus 8.1 (Muthén and Muthén 1998–2016) were used for data analysis.

For research question one, we tested (a) mean-level differences for the general factor (G-Factor) and specific factors (S-Factors) using t-test. We calculated the means for the G‑Factor and each S‑Factor separately in both samples. We then combined the data of both samples into one dataset using the before-calculated means for the manifest factor. We did not combine the data on the item level as item expressions differed slightly in the two samples (see Appendix Table A1). Thus, the analyses were conducted on the construct level. For research question 2, we elaborated on the technologies student teachers and teachers used.

For research question 3, we conducted two bifactor (ESEM) for student teachers and teachers. A cluster variable on the sample group was used for student teachers as we combined two samples into one dataset. Analyses and model approaches were guided by Morin et al. (2020). Bifactor ESEM models (a) consider cross-loadings of items across S‑Factors and thus provide research opportunities for not losing theoretical described content (ESEM approach) and (b) make it possible to investigate the extent to how a G-Factor or S‑Factors relate to outcomes of interest (bifactor approach). Especially in self-concept research, the bifactor ESEM model is a helpful approach to modeling construct-relevant multidimensionality (Arens and Morin 2016). It thus allows us to investigate the unique links of G‑Factor and S‑Factors with outcomes of interest. In our case, we first modeled a bifactor ESEM model for student teachers and teachers, including items previously excluded due to cross-loadings (see Rubach and Lazarides 2019). With this approach, we could examine whether items retain significant value for S‑Factors over and above the content already captured in the G‑Factor (see Arens and Morin 2016). In the second step, we added outcomes to the model, which were binary-coded. Thus, we used the weighted least squares–mean estimator (WLSM) and reported average marginal effects (AME) to interpret results better.

The goodness of model fit was evaluated with the robust χ2 test statistic, comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker and Lewis index (TLI), root mean square of approximation (RMSEA), Akaike information criterion (AIC), and Bayesian information criterion (BIC). Guided by Brown (2015) and Hu and Bentler (1999), TLI and CFI values greater than 0.90 and RMSEA values lower than 0.08 were accepted as indicators of an acceptable model fit.

4 Results

4.1 Basic ICT competence beliefs and technology use among student teachers and teachers

As seen in Table 1, teachers reported, on average higher competence beliefs than student teachers in the G‑Factor, information and data literacy, communication and collaboration, safety and security, and problem solving. Student teachers had higher competence beliefs than teachers in analyzing and reflecting.

Table 1 Mean Level Differences Between Student Teachers and Teachers’ Basic ICT Competence Beliefs using t-tests
Full size table

As seen in Table 2, most teachers used wikis, tablets, and LMS. Also, forums and weblogs were used by approximately one-third of surveyed teachers. For student teachers, most of them reported using LMS followed by wikis and tablets. Approximately one-fifth of surveyed student teachers reported using forums and weblogs.

Table 2 Technology Use in Absolute Frequencies for Student Teachers and Teachers
Full size table

4.2 Association between basic ICT competence and technology use

Using a bifactor ESEM, the models fit the data best compared to CFA, bifactor CFA and ESEM models (see Table A4 in the Supplemental Material). Factor loading of items for the G‑Factor and S‑Factors are provided in Table A2 and A3 in the Supplemental Material. In the following, we first described results for student teachers, followed by a description of results from the teacher sample.

Student teachers

Results for student teachers are presented in Table 3 and visualized in Fig. 1. The model fitted the data well (χ2 (136) = 198.36, p < 0.05, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.04, 90% CI [0.03; 0.05]). The results indicated that the G‑Factor of basic ICT competence beliefs is positively linked to the use of forums and wikis. The AMEs of 0.09 and 0.07 indicated that the probability of using forums and wiki increases by seven to nine percentage points when student teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs increase by one standard deviation. The S‑Factor of communication and collaboration was negatively linked with tablet use. The AME of −0.09 indicated that the probability of using a tablet decreased by nine percentage points when student teachers’ competence beliefs in communication and collaboration increased by one standard deviation. The S‑Factor of analyzing and reflecting was positively linked with weblog use. The AME of 0.06 indicated that the probability of using a tablet increases by six percentage points when student teachers’ competence beliefs in analyzing and reflecting increased by one standard deviation. Lastly, the competence beliefs in digital content creation, safety and security, and problem solving were positively linked to LMS use. The AMEs of 0.16, 0.12, and 0.08 indicated that the probability of using LMS increasesd by eight to 16 percentage points when student teachers’ competence beliefs in these particular competence dimensions increased by one standard deviation.

Table 3 Results of Standardized Associations Between Basic ICT Competence Beliefs and Technology Use from the Bifactor ESEM for Student Teachers
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Final results of the bifactor ESEM for teachers. DataLit information and data literacy, Comm communication and collaboration, Create digital content creation, Safety safety and security Solve problem solving, Analyze analyzing and reflecting

Full size image

Teachers

Results for teachers are presented in Table 4 and visualized in Fig. 2. The model fitted the data well (χ2 (416) = 860.13, p < 0.05, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.06, 90% CI [0.05; 0.06]). The results have shown that the G‑Factor of basic ICT competence beliefs is positively linked to using forums, weblogs, wikis, and LMS. The AMEs of 0.072 (forums), 0.059 (weblogs), 0.061 (wikis) and 0.081 (LMS) indicated that the probability of using this software increased by six to eight percentage points when teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs increased by one standard deviation. The S‑Factor of information and data literacy was independent of the use of technology. The S‑Factor of communication and collaboration was positively linked with tablet and weblog use. The AMEs of 0.12 and 0.14 indicated that the probability of using a tablet and weblog decreased by twelve to 14 percentage points when teachers’ competence beliefs in communication and collaboration increased by one standard deviation. The competence beliefs in digital content creation were negatively linked to the use of wikis and LMS. The AMEs of −0.10 and −0.07 indicated that the probability of using wikis and LMS decreased by seven to ten percentage points when teachers’ competence beliefs in digital content creation increased by one standard deviation. The competence beliefs in safety and security were positively linked to the use of weblogs, wikis, and LMS. The AMEs of 0.09 (weblogs), 0.08 (wikis), and 0.08 (LMS) indicated that the probability of using these software increased by eight to nine percentage points when teachers’ competence beliefs in safety and security increased by one standard deviation. The competence beliefs in problem solving were positively linked to the use of all investigated hardware and software. The AMEs of 0.15 (tablets), 0.09 (forums), 0.14 (weblogs), 0.06 (wikis), and 0.14 (LMS) indicated that the probability of using these hardware and software increased by six to 14 percentage points when teachers’ competence beliefs in problem solving increased by one standard deviation. Lastly, the S‑Factor of analyzing and reflecting was negatively linked with LMS use. The AME of −0.09 indicated that the probability of using a tablet decreases by nine percentage points when teachers’ competence beliefs in analyzing and reflecting increased by one standard deviation.

Table 4 Results of Standardized Associations Between Basic ICT Competence Beliefs and Technology Use from the Bifactor ESEM for Teachers
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Final results of the bifactor ESEM for student teachers. DataLit information and data literacy, Comm communication and collaboration, Create digital content creation, Safety safety and security, Solve problem solving, Analyze analyzing and reflecting

Full size image

5 Discussion

The goal of our study was to examine links between basic ICT competence beliefs and hardware and software use. The links between technology use and ICT competence beliefs were investigated for student teachers and teachers to provide results on different phases in teachers’ professional development. The bifactor ESEM model allowed us to investigate the extent to which general and specific basic ICT competence beliefs were related to the use of technology. In summary, the results from our study suggest that basic ICT competence beliefs across all dimensions are linked to technology use. In the following section, we will discuss the results in more detail.

5.1 Student teachers and teachers: Differences in competence beliefs and technology use

In this study, we use of a comprehensive instrument that captures the diversity of competence dimensions. The results highlighted that teachers on average reported higher competence beliefs than student teachers in information and data literacy, communication and collaboration, safety and security, and problem solving. These results somewhat differ from previous studies that indicated higher competence beliefs for student teachers (Aygun and Ilhan 2020; Yang et al. 2022). As we found in most dimensions higher reported skills for teachers compared to student teachers, a possible explanation would be that teachers use technology for professional purposes, thus using it with another intention. Preparing classes where technology is used might need another cognitive level of understanding technology than using technology for learning purposes. It could also be assumed that teachers have more experience of success and are more likely to receive continuous feedback regarding their media use compared to student teachers. According to Bandura (1982), such factors are key to develop competence beliefs. Finally, another interpretation would be the Dunning-Kruger effect, so that people with higher knowledge and skills tend to underestimate themselves and people with lower knowledge and skills tend to overestimate themselves. This interpretations shows the need to compare teachers and student teachers in terms of competence beliefs and knowledge and or skills, i.e., using objective tests, to determine the reasons behind psychological processes in detail.

Another goal was to investigate the use of technology in different phases of teachers’ professional development. Our results on technology use have shown that teachers most often used Wikis, tablets, and LMS in class. Student teachers reported using LMS, WIKI and tablets most often in their studies. As for differences in student teachers’ and teachers’ situations, we refrain from comparing both groups but use the results of this study to describe the different situations. One aspect to bear in mind is that our study is based on data collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. The post-pandemic situation might be different as the need to prepare teachers using technology and being ICT competent was highlighted in Germany in 2020 and 2021 (e.g., Dreer and Kracke 2021), leading to various initiatives such as the financial support of competence centers to support teachers in their professional development using technology. It is noticeable that the operationalization of technology use in this study is somewhat broad. For future studies, it would be interesting to investigate which specific activities or functions of different hardware and software are used in the classroom and in teacher training.

5.2 The appropriateness of bifactor ESEM models for basic ICT competence beliefs

The suitability of the bifactor ESEM approach for modeling basic ICT competence beliefs should be emphasized. As demonstrated in this paper, the bifactor ESEM is a robust approach for modeling basic ICT competence beliefs because it (a) includes items with cross-loadings, thereby assessing all meaningful skills and competencies theoretically described (cf. Runge et al. 2023) and (b) helps to investigate the extent to which general or specific competence dimensions relate to teachers’ and student teachers’ technology use. Thus, our study supported the findings by Arens and Morin (2016) that highlight the methodological appropriateness of the bifactor ESEM for competence beliefs, specifically self-concept instruments.

5.3 Links between basic ICT competence and technology use

This study highlights associations between basic ICT competence beliefs and hardware and software use among student teachers and teachers. Our study, thus, provided proof for theoretical models that describe basic ICT competence beliefs as one condition using technology (Knezek and Christensen 2016; Mishra and Koehler 2006; Redecker 2017).

In the following discussion, we focus on the similar associations in both groups. As expected, the results indicated that even with varying technology use intentions, all competence dimensions of basic ICT competence beliefs were related to technology use with varying patterns. First, in line with previous descriptions of mandatory skills for forum and wiki use (Biasutti and EL-Deghaidy 2012; Wagner 2004), we found a link between general basic ICT competence beliefs and forum and wiki use. Also, basic ICT competence beliefs in safety and security and problem solving were linked to LMS use in both samples. Activities we can imagine to be relevant in problem solving are, for example, that teachers adjust the LMS to class goals, upload materials, and organize LMS courses similarly to how they plan the class setup. Student teachers might manage their LMS based on the courses they are enrolled in, structure their LMS, and adjust settings based on their needs (e.g., reminders and announcements). An interesting question is why we found a link between LMS use and competence beliefs in safety and security. Rubach and Bonanati (2022) highlighted that teachers see LMS as an opportunity for an environmentally sound material provision. Thus, teachers might have a sense of environmentally sound use of LMS (see Rubach and Bonanati 2022), which is one aspect of the competence dimension of safety and security. It might also be possible that student teachers and teachers who strongly believe in safety and security may be more likely to use the LMS to protect student data and maintain privacy regulations. Further research could investigate this link in more detail.

Surprisingly, we found no link between general basic ICT competence beliefs and tablet use in both groups. We assumed that tablet use is related to general basic ICT competence beliefs because of the complexity of tablets’ functions. However, the missing link might be explained by the fact that tablets are highly individualized devices with a diverse set of installed and used apps for each user. This individualized setup makes it challenging to find general associations, as the use of different apps require different competence beliefs. Thus, tablet use might only be related to specific competence beliefs and not general competence beliefs. Further research would benefit from investigating how tablets were used and the extent to which these activities are linked to basic ICT competence dimensions (cf. Lohr et al. 2021).

Only for teachers, results suggested that their basic ICT competence beliefs in problem solving was linked to all hardware and software use. This might be a mandatory competence dimension for teachers as basic ICT competence beliefs in this dimension contain skills to know a variety of software, knowledge about the functioning and basic principles of digital systems, identify and solve technical challenges and computational thinking. Knowledge lacks in these areas are defined as barriers using technology by teachers (Ertmer et al. 2012; Kim et al. 2019; Rubach and Bonanati 2022). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that basic ICT competence beliefs in problem solving are linked to all investigated hardware and software use among teachers.

Only for student teachers, we found a link between weblog use and basic ICT competence beliefs in analyzing and reflecting. Weblogs are likely seen as a tool for reflection and critical analysis (see Petko et al. 2017), which aligns with the competence belief in analyzing and reflecting in digital environments. It also might be that weblog use may help develop and enhance these competence beliefs in student teachers, which would explain why we only found the link in the context of teacher education.

In summary, this study is exploratory in nature. We could explain up to 36% of the variance of technology use across groups. Nonetheless, our findings highlight the link between basic ICT competence beliefs regarding technology use for both student teachers and teachers. Replication studies are necessary, and longitudinal designs can provide insights into the directionality of the relationships between the constructs investigated in this study. We did not include covariates to reduce statistical bias due to limited samples. A possible next step is to investigate interindividual link differences based on gender, age, or professional experiences.

5.4 Limitations and future steps

Several limitations exist for our study. First, the age of our data needs to be mentioned. Data were collected before the COVID-19 pandemic, when technology played a somewhat minor role in German classrooms and teacher education compared to other countries (Fraillon et al. 2020). Also, both samples were drawn in different years. This situation might challenge the comparability of both samples.

Secondly, the operationalization of using technology with binary-coded variables was used (see also Lohr et al. 2021). However, by doing so, no indication of the activities using different hardware and software can be given. A great deal of scholars has investigated learning activities using digital media (see Martin et al. 2020). Often, either the frequency of digital media use is investigated (Backfisch et al. 2021), the use of digital media for teaching quality strategies (Quast et al. 2021), or learning activities using digital media (Lohr et al. 2021). In our study, we focused on hardware and software use as we were not focused on learning activities or teaching quality but on the significance of basic ICT competence beliefs using hardware and software. To get a deeper understanding of the importance of basic ICT competence beliefs for student teachers and teachers, one could focus on whether they use hardware and software and how they use hardware and software. Thus, the focus is not on the hardware or the software but on the practice and the logic of the use of the agent (Troxler and Schiefner-Rohs 2023). Such an approach would also help to understand the interindividual use of hardware and software.

Thirdly, the links that we explored are based on cross-sectional data and give first evidence that competence beliefs and the use of technology are somehow related. Future studies should explore the interrelatedness by applying a longitudinal design. This would allow us to answer questions about the causal relationship. Furthermore, it might be important to investigate the link between basic ICT competence beliefs and technology using different model approaches, thus comparing the variance to be explained using CFA, bifactor CFA, ESEM, and bifactor ESEM.

5.5 Theoretical and practical implications for teacher education

The findings confirm that basic ICT competence beliefs are related to technology use among student teachers and teachers. Therefore, in different phases of teacher education, professional ICT competence beliefs and basic ICT competence beliefs can be focused on to support teachers in the digital transformation of the educational system. As digital development progresses, basic ICT competence beliefs are, next to knowledge and skills, essential for teachers to keep up with technological advancements, especially for teaching and using technology effectively. The study provides one rationale for integrating basic ICT competence beliefs into teacher education curricula to enhance support for teachers in utilizing technology. Moving forward, it is crucial to replicate the findings, investigate longitudinal links and consider various activities using technology in professional matters.