Educational technologies play an important role in teaching and learning in the 21^st century (Redecker, 2017). To foster learning related to educational technologies, teachers need not only knowledge about the content they will be teaching but also pedagogical and technological knowledge, in short TPACK (Koehler & Mishra, 2014). Yet, knowledge about technology is not the main factor in deciding what and how educational technologies are used in the classroom. There are studies that found pre-service teachers’ beliefs regarding the usefulness of a digital tool for students’ learning to be the best predictor of their intentions to use software, not their self-reported knowledge about the tool (Anderson et al., 2011). Yet, integrating technologies in teaching is a complex task (Nelson et al., 2019; Tondeur et al., 2019) that requires teachers to identify the right way of integrating educational technologies for the lesson objectives and for students’ learning needs (Djoub, 2019). This ability is referred to as technological pedagogical reasoning based on Shulman’s (1986) concept of pedagogical reasoning. When preparing their lessons, teachers need to integrate the three knowledge bases of TPACK to identify the possibilities of integrating educational technologies in their classroom and to be able to justify their decisions regarding technology integration (Niess & Gillow-Wiles, 2017; Voogt et al., 2016). In the past ten years, there has been an increasing number of empirical studies on teacher education and educational technologies. Røkenes and Krumsvik (2014) classified pedagogical approaches to pre-service teacher training with ICT in their review but neither the format and content of the trainings nor the measurement of success were looked at more closely. In Starkey’s (2020) review, under the term of professional digital competence, three types of pre-service teachers’ competencies in the digital age were classified: Generic digital competence, digital teaching competence, and professional digital competence. In addition to teachers’ generic digital competence, digital teaching competence is necessary to integrate digital technology into teaching. The present review focusses on pre- and in-service teacher trainings for digital teaching competence.

Our aim is to find out how (pre-service) teachers can be prepared for integrating educational technologies in their teaching and how learning for technology integration can be measured. In the present systematic review we therefore investigate the following research questions:

1)      How is (pre-service) teachers’ integration of educational technologies into teaching fostered in intervention studies?

2)      How is (pre-service) teacher’s integration of educational technologies into teaching measured in intervention studies?

This review follows a systematic approach to investigate how (pre-service) teachers’ integration of educational technologies into teaching is fostered and measured in intervention studies. Articles were searched using an explicit and replicable search strategy. Inclusion and exclusion of articles was decided based on pre-determined criteria and following the PRISMA guidelines (Shamseer et al., 2015). The systematic review was pre-registered on Open Science Framework Registries (https://osf.io/tcdn4/). Two data bases (Web of Science, ERIC) were searched using the search string ("technolog*" OR "ICT" OR "computer" OR "digital" OR "TPACK") AND ("initial teach*" OR "pre-service teach*" OR "in-service teach*" OR "student teach*" OR "teacher") AND ("program" OR "education" OR "training") AND ("intervention"). The search has been narrowed down to peer reviewed articles dating from 01/2012 to 04/2022. The initial search was undertaken in May 2022 resulting in 1698 articles from the databases. After screening title and abstract in a team of four reviewers, 1089 articles were excluded based on the following inclusion and exclusion criteria: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods intervention studies were included. Articles were excluded if the participants were neither pre- nor in-service teachers, if the study was not an intervention study and if integration of educational technology into teaching was not fostered or measured. The four reviewers reached a substantial agreement on inclusions and exclusions in the abstract screening (Fleiss’ Kappa: 0.76). Of the remaining articles, 99 full texts were retrieved via the institution’s resources. 29 of these articles were excluded in the full text screening as they did not meet the inclusion criteria. This resulted in 70 articles included in the systematic review. There was an almost perfect agreement between raters in the full text screening (Fleiss’ Kappa: 0.93). The articles were then assessed for quality using a coding system based on the appraisal tool for reporting quality in systematic reviews “Quality assessment with diverse studies” (QuADS) by Harrison et al. (2021). To extract the data from the remaining articles a coding system was developed based on the guidelines presented by Büchter et al. (2020) which includes categories on participants, intervention methods and treatment as well as outcomes of the studies. Because the data extracted from the included studies was heterogenous, a narrative synthesis of the qualitative and quantitative data was undertaken.

The synthesis will be completed by April 2023. First results show a research focus on the integration of specific tools in educational practice as well as (pre-service) teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and self-efficacy. Most studies have a mixed methods design with a slight preference for quantitative results. Surveys with questionnaires (self-report items) were used most often followed by interviews. Technologies used in the treatment included traditional options like interactive whiteboards and MS Office as well as trending technologies like social media, machine learning and augmented reality. The prevalent theoretical and conceptual backgrounds of the treatments are TPACK, blended learning, community of practice, and project-based learning. Most interventions aimed at integrating educational technologies in lesson planning. Integration of educational technologies into actual teaching practice was less common. Reflective practice regarding the integration of educational technologies into teaching is seldomly addressed. The results can be discussed in terms of the status quo regarding teacher education in the context of educational technologies. Furthermore, the implications for the practice of teacher education are interesting, especially the question, what skills teachers need to integrate technologies into teaching.

Anderson, S. E., Groulx, J. G., & Maninger, R. M. (2011). Relationships among preservice teachers’ technology-related abilities, beliefs, and intentions to use technology in their future classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(3). Büchter, R. B., Weise, A., & Pieper, D. (2020). Development, testing and use of data extraction forms in systematic reviews: A review of methodological guidance. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 20(1), 259. Djoub, Z. (2019). Teachers’ attitudes towards technology integration: Implications for pre-service teachers. In Information Resources Management Association (Ed.), TPACK. Breakthroughs in research and practice (pp. 32–65). Harrison, R., Jones, B., Gardner, P., & Lawton, R. (2021). Quality assessment with diverse studies (QuADS): An appraisal tool for methodological and reporting quality in systematic reviews of mixed- or multi-method studies. BMC Health Services Research, 21(1), 144. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2014). Introducing TPCK. In M. Herring, P. Mishra, & M. Koehler (Ed.), Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators (pp. 3–31). Nelson, M. J., Voithofer, R., & Cheng, S.-L. (2019). Mediating factors that influence the technology integration practices of teacher educators. Computers & Education, 128, 330–344. Niess, M. L., & Gillow-Wiles, H. (2017). Expanding teachers’ technological pedagogical reasoning with a systems pedagogical approach. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3). Redecker, C. (2017). European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators. JRC Science for Policy Report, 93. Røkenes, F. M., & Krumsvik, R. J. (2014). Development of student teachers’ digital competence in teacher education—A literature review. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 9(04), 250–280. Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L. A., & the PRISMA-P Group. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P): Elaboration and explanation. BMJ, 349. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand. Educational Researcher, 15(2). Starkey, L. (2020). A review of research exploring teacher preparation for the digital age. Cambridge Journal of Education, 50(1), 37–56. Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Baran, E., Siddiq, F., Valtonen, T., & Sointu, E. (2019). Teacher educators as gatekeepers: Preparing the next generation of teachers for technology integration in education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1189–1209. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2016). Using theoretical perspectives in developing an understanding of TPACK. In M. C. Herring, M. J. Koehler, & P. Mishra (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for educators (pp. 33–53).