Learning and Instruction: A B B A B B A B

Learning and Instruction 66 (2020) 101300
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Learning and Instruction

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/learninstruc
Professional knowledge or motivation? Investigating the role of teachers’ T

expertise on the quality of technology-enhanced lesson plans
Iris Backfischa,b,∗, Andreas Lachnerb,a, Christoff Hischeb, Frank Looseb, Katharina Scheitera,b
a
Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien, Tübingen, Germany
b
University of Tübingen, Germany
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT
Keywords: In an expertise study with 94 mathematics teachers varying in their relative teacher expertise (i.e., student
Educational technology teachers, trainee teachers, in-service teachers), we examined effects of teachers' professional knowledge and
Expertise research motivational beliefs on their ability to integrate technology within a lesson plan scenario. Therefore, we assessed
Professional knowledge teachers' professional knowledge (i.e., content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, technological
Expectancy-value theory
knowledge), and their motivational beliefs (i.e., self-efficacy, utility-value). Furthermore, teachers were asked to
Mathematics teaching
develop a lesson plan for introducing the Pythagorean theorem to secondary students. Lesson plans by advanced
teachers (i.e., trainee teachers, in-service teachers) comprised higher levels of instructional quality and tech-
nology exploitation than the ones of novice teachers (i.e., pre-service teachers). The effect of expertise was
mediated by teachers' perceived utility-value of educational technology, but not by their professional knowledge.
These findings suggest that teachers’ motivational beliefs play a crucial role for effectively applying technology
in mathematics instruction.
1. Introduction (i.e., professional competence), and their effects on the quality of in-
tegrating technology, however, is surprising (see also Kunter et al.,
“Technology can amplify great teaching, but great technology 2013, for related discussions on general teaching quality).
cannot replace poor teaching” (OECD, 2015, p. 4). This quotation Building off previous research on teaching quality (e.g., Baumert
succinctly illustrates that educational technology, which commonly et al., 2010; Kunter et al., 2013) and research on relative teacher ex-
refers to distinct hard-, but more importantly software, can contribute pertise (e.g., Berliner, 2001; Cortina, Miller, McKenzie, & Epstein, 2015;
to students' achievement, when it is adequately orchestrated in the Herppich, Wittwer, Nückles, & Renkl, 2014; Lachner, Jarodzka, &
classroom (e.g., Chauhan, 2017; Mayer, 2019; Puentedura, 2006; Zhu & Nückles, 2016; Wolff, Jarodzka, van den Bogert, & Boshuizen, 2016), in
Urhahne, 2018). At the same time, this quotation suggests that teachers this article, we investigated effects of professional knowledge and
require professional competencies to adequately use educational tech- motivational beliefs (as constituents of professional competence) on
nology to support students' learning. Against this background, research instructional quality and technology exploitation. Therefore, we con-
provided important empirical evidence, for instance, a) regarding the ducted an expertise study with mathematics teachers (N = 94) who
role of educational technology for initiating students-teacher interac- differed in their relative teacher expertise (i.e., years of teaching ex-
tions (e.g., Ligorio, Cesareni, & Schwartz, 2008; Narciss & Koerndle, perience, level of teacher education qualification). More specifically,
2008; Näykki & Järvelä, 2008; Valanides & Angeli, 2008), b) regarding we applied a scenario-based approach (for related approaches see
teachers' professional knowledge for integrating technology (e.g., Harris & Hofer, 2011; Kopcha, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Jung, & Baser,
Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Scherer, Siddiq, & Tondeur, 2019; Tondeur, 2014; Kramarski & Michalsky, 2010), in which we asked the partici-
Aesaert, Prestridge, & Consuegra, 2018), or c) regarding teachers’ mo- pating teachers to provide a lesson plan in which they described the
tivational beliefs for using educational technology (c.f., technology- potential use of technology for scaffolding students' learning. This ap-
acceptance model, see Scherer et al., 2019; Teo, 2011). However, this proach allowed us to heighten the internal validity of our findings (e.g.,
research mostly analyzed the different dimensions in an isolated similar teaching context, same learning objectives), and at the same
manner. The paucity of integrated research which directly investigates time, capture teachers’ reasoning for technology integration in a si-
distinct relations between these motivational and cognitive conditions tuational and controlled manner.
∗
Corresponding author. Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien, Tübingen, Schleichstraße 6, D-72076, Tübingen, Germany.
E-mail address: [email protected] (I. Backfisch).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101300
Received 7 March 2019; Received in revised form 16 December 2019; Accepted 19 December 2019
0959-4752/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
I. Backfisch, et al. Learning and Instruction 66 (2020) 101300
1.1. Teachers’ professional competence to use technology in the classroom With repeated experience novice teachers’ isolated and basic knowl-
edge structures become gradually integrated and organized (e.g.,
Previous research documented that in many educational systems Berliner, 2004; Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser, 1981; Grossman & McDonald,
teachers rarely use technology during teaching (e.g., Drossel, 2008; Lachner & Nückles, 2016; McIntyre, Mainhard, & Klassen, 2017;
Eickelmann, & Gerick, 2017). Fraillon, Ainley, Schulz, Friedman, and Pauli & Reusser, 2003; Schmidt & Rikers, 2007). This knowledge re-
Gebhardt (2014) examined teachers' implementation of educational organization enables expert teachers to realize high-quality instruction
technologies across 21 educational systems. The authors found that (Kunter et al., 2013; Malmberg, Hagger, Burn, Mutton, & Colls, 2010;
there were large discrepancies regarding the use of technology across Meschede, Fiebranz, Möller, & Steffensky, 2017).
the different educational systems. For example, only one third of the However, to-date there is only limited empirical evidence on the
participating German teachers reported to regularly use technology factorial structure of these technology-related knowledge components
during teaching – in contrast to 80% of the teachers from other coun- and how these components are related to each other. Lin, Tsai, Chai,
tries like Australia. Additional analyses by Drossel et al. (2017) de- and Lee (2013) investigated the relationships among the different
monstrated that teachers' use of technology was only slightly predicted TPACK components (i.e., CK, PK, PCK, TK, TPCK, TPK, TPACK) and
by the availability of technology (e.g., in Germany: β = 0.09). There- their connectedness within Singaporean teachers (N = 222) by using
fore, the question remains what other factors besides the mere avail- self-reports. In line with Mishra and Koehler (2006), the authors ob-
ability of technology account for teachers’ technology integration. tained a seven-factor structure reflecting the different TPACK compo-
Commonly, it is assumed that teaching behavior is strongly affected nents. However, this factorial structure could rarely be demonstrated by
by the particular level of teachers' professional competence. other studies (see Archambault & Barnett, 2010; Koh, Woo, & Lim,
Professional competence is generally defined as the professional 2013; Scherer et al., 2018). The mixed findings regarding the factorial
knowledge and motivational beliefs that provide the basis for mastering structure of TPACK could be attributed to the use of self-report mea-
specific professional situations (see Epstein & Hundert, 2002; Kane, sures for assessing teachers' professional knowledge. Whereas for spe-
1992; Kunter et al., 2013; Lauermann & König, 2016). The availability cific knowledge components, such as technological knowledge (TK),
of both professional knowledge and adequate motivational pre- self-reports have been demonstrated to be valid indicators of teacher
requisites seems also important for teachers’ technology integration knowledge, for complex and integrated knowledge structures (e.g.,
(e.g., Farjon, Smits, & Voogt, 2019; Knezek & Christensen, 2016; Petko, technological pedagogical knowledge), self-assessments become more
2012). error-prone, resulting in biased estimates of teacher knowledge (Akyuz,
2018; Hargittai, 2005; Kopcha et al., 2014; Scherer et al., 2018). In-
1.1.1. Teachers’ professional knowledge to use technology terestingly, self-assessments of skills and knowledge are recently dis-
Regarding the use of educational technology, TPACK is a prominent cussed to rather capture teachers’ current beliefs in their capability to
and frequently used framework which allows to describe teachers' achieve technology integration (i.e., self-efficacy, see Bandura, 1982;
professional knowledge for effectively integrating educational tech- Marsh et al., 2019) than their actual state of knowledge (see also Chai,
nology in the classroom (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). TPACK is based on Koh, & Tsai, 2016; Graham, 2011; Lachner, Backfisch, et al., 2019;
the general knowledge framework by Shulman (1986) who proposed Scherer et al., 2017, for a critical discussion on TPACK self-reports) and
three knowledge components which are critical to enhance teaching may reflect motivational orientations towards technology integration.
quality in general (see also Baumert et al., 2010; Hill, Ball, & Schilling,
2008; Kunter et al., 2013 for empirical evidence): a) Content knowledge
(CK) refers to teachers' domain specific subject matter knowledge; b) 1.1.2. Teachers’ motivation to use technology
pedagogical knowledge (PK) constitutes the domain general knowledge Motivation is conceptualized as an internal state which activates
which enables teachers “to create powerful learning opportunities” and guides (teaching) behavior (see Green, 2002; Lauermann, Eccles, &
across domains (Voss, Kunter, & Baumert, 2011, p. 953); c) pedagogical Pekrun, 2017). Besides other critical motivational variables, such as
content knowledge (PCK), in contrast, constitutes knowledge about teaching enthusiam (Keller, Hoy, Goetz, & Frenzel, 2016; Kunter et al.,
subject specific teaching representations and students' (mis-)concep- 2008; Lazarides, Gaspard, & Dicke, 2019) or goal orientation (Butler,
tions, which is necessary to make subject-matter knowledge compre- 2007; Han, Yin, & Wang, 2016; Retelsdorf, Butler, Streblow, &
hensible for students (Baumert et al., 2010; Hill et al., 2008; Shulman, Schiefele, 2010), a common motivational theory which has been con-
1986). In their TPACK framework, Mishra and Koehler (2006) added sidered frequently in teacher education is the expectancy-value theory
technological knowledge (TK) which refers to teachers' professional (e.g., Hwang, Hong, & Hao, 2018; Kale, 2018; Watt & Richardson,
knowledge of technologies such as educational technologies and 2014). The theory assumes that (teaching) behavior is mostly con-
handling of software. Adding technological knowledge resulted in three strained by self-efficacy beliefs (i.e., individual expectancy to success-
additional T-dimensions (Scherer, Tondeur, & Siddiq, 2017), which are fully accomplish a task), and the general values which are associated
commonly associated with technology-enhanced teaching: Technolo- with the task (e.g., utility-value of the task, see Eccles & Wigfield,
gical content knowledge (TCK) is regarded as knowledge about how to 2002). Regarding teachers' technology integration, specific models
apply technology in subject specific content areas; technological peda- were developed and empirically tested which frame the integration of
gogical knowledge (TPK) regards teachers' domain-general knowledge of technology (c.f. acceptance of technology) as a function of their self-
how educational technology can be applied to support students’ efficacy when using technology (i.e., TPACK self-efficacy, see Scherer
learning during teaching (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Lachner, Backfisch, et al., 2018) and their anticipated utility of technologies (e.g., Petko,
& Stürmer, 2019; Scherer, Tondeur, Siddiq, & Baran, 2018). Last, 2012; Scherer et al., 2019; van Braak, Tondeur, & Valcke, 2004).
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) specifically refers to Scherer et al. (2019) conducted a meta-analytic structural equation
content specific teaching strategies with educational technology modeling study comprising 114 empirical studies to investigate the
(Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Therefore, TPACK goes beyond operational potential effects of teachers' motivational beliefs (i.e., self-efficacy,
knowledge about technology and is essential for integrating subject utility-value) on the intention to use technology and their reported
matter specific teaching processes with educational technology (see technology use. The authors found that teachers’ combined motiva-
also Narciss & Koerndle, 2008; Valanides & Angeli, 2008; Ligorio et al., tional beliefs of self-efficacy and utility-value largely (β = 0.334)
2008, for related discussions on professional knowledge). predicted their intention to use technology when teaching. Higher le-
General research on (teacher) expertise which commonly contrasts vels of intentions subsequently resulted in more frequent technology
experts to novices, demonstrated that acquiring such interrelated integration (β = 0.296, see also Wozney, Venkatesh, & Abrami, 2006,
knowledge as TPACK requires ample amounts of deliberate practice. for related studies).
2
1.2. The present study: Examining effects of teachers’ expertise on the teachers were asked to design a lesson plan to introduce the
quality of technology-enhanced lesson plans Pythagorean theorem to a secondary mathematics class. By means of
content analysis, we rated the quality of the lesson plans regarding the
1.2.1. Study overview instructional quality (Fauth et al., 2014; Hugener et al., 2009; Kunter
Taken together, previous research generated valuable insights into et al., 2013; Praetorius, Pauli, Reusser, Rakoczy, & Klieme, 2014) and
teachers' professional competences regarding the use of educational the technology exploitation (Hamilton et al., 2016; Hughes et al., 2006;
technology. At the same time, it has tended to produce relatively mixed Puentedura, 2006).
findings. The reasons for these mixed findings may be threefold. First,
previous research predominantly relied on self-reports for assessing 1.2.2. Research questions and hypotheses
teachers' professional knowledge, which have been shown to be less 1.2.2.1. Hypotheses 1: Teachers’ professional knowledge. Following the
reliable and less valid measures for assessing the complex and in- relative expert-novice paradigm (e.g., Berliner, 2001; Chi, 2011; Wolff,
tegrated knowledge structures required for teaching with technology Jarodzka, & Boshuizen, 2017), we hypothesized that advanced teachers
(e.g., Akyuz, 2018; Kopcha et al., 2014; Scherer et al., 2017). Second, (i.e., trainee teachers, in-service teachers) would possess more content
research often focused on the effects of teachers' professional knowl- knowledge (H1a) and pedagogical content knowledge (H1b) than
edge or motivational beliefs in an isolated manner (see Kunter et al., novice teachers (i.e., pre-service teachers). Additionally, we expected
2013 for a critical discussion). Thus, it is not clear whether and how that in-service teachers possessed more content knowledge and
cognitive and motivational factors, as crucial constituents of teachers' pedagogical content knowledge than trainee teachers due to their
professional competence, may interact and differently contribute to the higher levels of relative teacher expertise. Furthermore, we explored
capability to integrate technology for teaching. Third, research often expertise-related differences regarding teachers’ self-reported
relied on simply assessing the mere quantity of technology use as a technological knowledge (H1c). However, we refrained from making
primary outcome. Although these findings provide evidence on the clear predictions, as technological subject-matter is commonly not (yet)
general use of technology in classrooms, these studies do not allow an obligatory part of the curriculum in German teacher education
investigating the quality of technology integration (see Scherer et al., programs, and is mainly acquired from informal learning processes.
2019; Voogt, Fisser, Pareja Roblin, Tondeur, & van Braak, 2013, for a
critical consideration). Therefore, it is important to examine, whether 1.2.2.2. Hypotheses 2: Teachers’ motivational beliefs. We explored
and how educational technology can be used to improve the general teachers' motivational beliefs as a further constituent of their
instructional quality of teaching, for instance by providing challenging professional competence. Following expectancy-value theory (Eccles
learning activities (i.e., cognitive activation), or by supporting students' & Wigfield, 2002), we explored potential expertise-related differences
learning (i.e., instructional support) through individual monitoring and regarding teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs in teaching mathematics with
scaffolding of students’ learning processes (Fauth, Decristan, Rieser, technology (i.e., TPACK self-efficacy; H2a) and their perceived utility of
Klieme, & Büttner, 2014; Hugener et al., 2009; Kunter et al., 2013). using technology for teaching (i.e., utility-value; H2b).
Furthermore, from an educational technology perspective, it is also
important to examine which technologies are utilized by teachers as a 1.2.2.3. Hypotheses 3: Quality of the lesson plans. Finally, we
proxy for their subject specific use of technologies (i.e., quantity of investigated the effects of teachers’ expertise on the quality of
technology exploitation), as well as their capabilities to exploit the dis- technology-enhanced lesson plans, measured by the instructional
tinct functions of the applied educational technologies (i.e., quality of quality (H3a) and the technology exploitation (H3b) of the lesson plans.
technology exploitation) to adequately integrate technology in the We hypothesized that advanced teachers (i.e., trainee teachers, in-
classroom (Hamilton, Rosenberg, & Akcaoglu, 2016; Hughes, Thomas, service teachers) would provide better lesson plans in terms of
& Scharber, 2006; Puentedura, 2006). instructional quality and technology exploitation than novice teachers
Against this background, in the current study, we investigated ef- (i.e., pre-service teachers), whereas in-service teachers would also
fects of teachers' professional knowledge and their motivational beliefs provide better lesson plans than trainee teachers.
on their ability to integrate technology to foster the quality of lesson
plans (i.e., instructional quality and technology exploitation). To obtain 1.2.2.4. Hypotheses 4: Mediating processes. Additionally, we explored
sufficient variability in teachers’ professional knowledge and their whether teachers' professional knowledge (i.e., content knowledge,
motivational beliefs, we followed a relative teacher expertise approach pedagogical content knowledge, technological knowledge) and/or
(see Borko & Livingston, 1989; Cortina et al., 2015; Herppich et al., teachers' motivational beliefs (i.e., TPACK self-efficacy, utility-value)
2014; Krauss et al., 2008; Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986; Wolff et al., 2016, mediated the assumed effects of their relative expertise on the
for related approaches) and contrasted mathematics teachers who dif- instructional quality (H4a) and the quality of technology exploitation
fered in their level of relative expertise. Thus, we selected distinct ex- (H4b) of the lesson plans. This analysis allowed us to disentangle
pertise status groups which clearly differed regarding their academic whether the effects of teachers’ relative expertise occurred because of
qualification (pre-service teachers: no state examination, trainee tea- differences regarding their cognitive and motivational constituents of
chers: first state examination, in-service teachers: second state ex- their professional competence (i.e., professional knowledge,
amination), and their teaching experience (no teaching experience, first motivational beliefs).
teaching experience, considerable teaching experience). Therefore, we
did not compare trends within a distinct teacher population (e.g., 2. Method
Klassen & Chiu, 2011; Lauermann & König, 2016), but gradual relative
expertise differences across different status groups. 2.1. Participants and design
In the current study, we first assessed teachers’ motivational beliefs
(i.e., self-efficacy beliefs and utility-value regarding technologies in Ninety-four German mathematics teachers (academic track) dif-
school) and their basic components of professional knowledge of fering in their level of relative teacher expertise (i.e., pre-service tea-
TPACK (i.e., content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge chers, trainee teachers, in-service teachers) participated in the study.
with a test-based assessment, and technological knowledge with a self- We excluded one trainee teacher and one in-service teacher from the
report questionnaire). Subsequently, we provided the teachers with a analysis as they did not complete the study. Thus, the final sample
lesson-planning scenario to investigate their reasoning when designing comprised of 92 mathematics teachers (63 female). The size of the re-
technology-enhanced mathematics lessons. In this scenario, the cruited sample exceeded the required sample size as determined by an
3
a-priori power analysis (G*Power: Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, Scheiter, 2019; Willoughby, Anderson, Wood, Mueller, & Ross, 2009,
2009). The required sample size was N = 69 when setting α-error to for related approaches).1
0.05 and power to .80. We assumed a medium to large effect regarding
potential differences between expert and novice teachers ( 2p = 0.13).
2.2.1.3. Technological knowledge. We used a self-report measure for
A medium to large effect can be expected as recent teacher expertise
assessing technological knowledge, as recent empirical research
studies showed medium to large effects of teacher's relative expertise
documented the validity of self-report measures regarding specific
both on the availability of professional knowledge (König & Lebens,
technological knowledge (Akyuz, 2018; Hargittai, 2005). We adapted
2012; Krauss et al., 2008) and on the quality of related but distinct core
the test by Hargittai and presented current and available technologies
practices, such as the generation of instruction and lesson plans
which are frequently used in technology-enhanced mathematics
(Lachner & Nückles, 2016; Leinhardt, 1989), classroom monitoring
instruction (i.e., software, hardware, actions with technology). The
(e.g., Cortina et al., 2015; König & Lebens, 2012; Wolff et al., 2016;
teachers were required to assess their availability of knowledge
Wolff et al., 2017), or formative assessment (Herppich et al., 2014).
regarding these technologies. The test comprised of eight items (e.g.,
The pre-service teachers (n = 28) were undergraduate students
“I can install apps on tablets.“; “I can design interactive exercises for
with a major in mathematics teaching. They were in their fourth se-
students with GeoGebra.“). Teachers answered the questions on a five-
mester on average and had no teaching experience. The trainee teachers
point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). To
(n = 42) held the first sate examination of the teacher education pro-
analyze the quality of the adapted questionnaire, as part of the current
gram and were enrolled in the specialized induction program for the
main study, we conducted an online pre-study with N = 69
German academic track (Gymnasium). They had on average half a year
mathematics teachers (n = 57 pre-service teachers and n = 12
of teaching experience (SD = 0.52). The in-service teachers (n = 22)
trainee teachers) who were asked to answer the technological
had successfully completed the teacher education program (i.e., uni-
knowledge questionnaire. None of the mathematics teachers of the
versity program and the induction program and therefore held the
pre-study participated in the main study. Although Cronbach's alpha
second state examination). They possessed considerable teaching ex-
was good (pre-study: Cronbach's α = 0.81; main study: Cronbach's
perience (M = 14 years, SD = 11.20).
α = 0.76), confirmatory factor analyses with the sample of the pre-
The study had a three-group, one-factorial design, with the in-
study revealed that the presumed one-factorial structure of the
dependent categorial variable teacher's relative expertise (i.e., pre-service
technological knowledge questionnaire was not met, as the model fit
teachers, trainee teachers, in-service teachers) and the dependent
indices fell below the conventional cutoff criteria (CFI = 0.827,
variables instructional quality and technology exploitation of the lesson
SRMR = 0.089, RMSEA = 0.148, Hu & Bentler, 1999). The poor
plans. As mediating variables, we assessed teachers' professional
model fit indices predominantly resulted from the low factor loadings of
knowledge (i.e., content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge,
three items (model fit without these items: CFI = 1.00, SRMR = 0.039,
and self-report technological knowledge), and their motivational beliefs
RMSEA < 0.001). However, we decided to include these three items in
(i.e., TPACK self-efficacy, utility-value), as constituting parts of their
one index as excluding the items would lead to lower Cronbach's alpha
professional competence.
which might suggest that the results of the confirmatory factor analysis
should be treated with caution (potentially due to the restricted sample
2.2. Materials size). More important, the predictive validity of the group affiliation
was higher for the index with the inclusion of the three items
2.2.1. Teachers’ professional knowledge (r2 = 0.29), than with exclusion of the three items (r2 = 0.12) and
We assessed teachers’ professional knowledge with three different including or excluding the items did not change the main findings.
subtests. Additionally, from a conceptual point of view the three items covered
crucial aspects of technology-enhanced teaching (e.g., “I can design
2.2.1.1. Content knowledge. To assess teachers' in-depth content interactive exercises for students with GeoGebra.“).
knowledge about the Pythagorean theorem (which was the topic of
the provided scenario), two subject-matter experts developed a content
2.2.2. Motivational beliefs
knowledge test. The test comprised of 12 multiple-response items with
Following expectancy-value theory (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002), we
four answer options (for examples, see Appendix). The reliability of the
measured teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs of teaching mathematics with
content knowledge test was satisfying (Cronbach's α = 0.63), given
technologies and their perceived utility-value regarding technology-
that we assessed different scientific aspects of the Pythagorean theorem.
enhanced teaching of mathematics.
2.2.1.2. Pedagogical content knowledge. To assess specific pedagogical

content knowledge regarding the Pythagorean theorem, we 2.2.2.1. TPACK self-efficacy. To assess teachers' self-efficacy beliefs
administered two open questions which related to teachers' regarding the domain-specific integration of technology during
professional knowledge about students’ problems and misconceptions mathematics teaching (i.e., TPACK-self efficacy, see Scherer et al.,
(i.e., “Which difficulties do students generally encounter while learning 2018), we used the questionnaire by Schmidt et al. (2009) comprising
the Pythagorean theorem?“; “Which misconceptions do students of seven items which were translated into German. With the help of
generally possess regarding the Pythagorean theorem?“). Answers these items, teachers had to prospectively assess whether they would be
were scored with a coding scheme (i.e., task-specific and general capable of applying distinct educational technologies to advance
conceptual misconceptions, procedural difficulties, and pedagogical mathematical learning and teaching processes (e.g., “I can use
justification of the answer), yielding a possible maximum score of 8 educational technology to increase the learning success of the
(see also Krauss et al., 2008; Voss et al., 2011, for related approaches). students”; “I can use educational technology to optimize the methods
To measure the reliability of our PCK-test, we followed suggestions in my lesson.“; Cronbach's α = .90). The items were answered on a five-
by Chi (1997) and asked two trained raters to code 20% of the parti- point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
cipants’ answers. Interrater agreement (two-way random effects, abso-
lute agreement, single measurement) was very good, ICC (2,1) = 0.85 1
Additionally, we measured teachers' general pedagogical content knowledge
(Koo & Li, 2016; Wirtz & Caspar, 2002). Thus, only one rater coded the by administering some sample items of the PCK-test by Krauss et al. (2008). The
remaining answers (see also Herppich et al., 2014; Kant, Scheiter, & reliability of the selected sample items, however, was not satisfying. Therefore,
Oschatz, 2017; Lachner, Backfisch, et al., 2019; Schmidgall, Eitel, & we refrained from reporting these findings.
4
Table 1
Coding scheme of instructional quality.
Subcategories Description Prototypical example of high quality
Provision of cognitive challenging Teacher provided students with Students evaluate the relationship of the three different side squares of triangles.
activities challenging tasks.
Activation of prior knowledge Teacher provided tasks to activate Students are required to recall the different kinds of triangles at the beginning of a lesson by
students' prior knowledge. an assessment app.
Initiating conceptual change Teacher addressed students' potential Students work with an app where triangles can be changed dynamically. On the triangle sides
misconceptions. (e.g., a) hang squares which display squares with the side length of the triangle side lengths
(e.g., a2). With that students get a conceptual understanding of the meaning of the squared
triangles side lengths within the theorem.
Engaging students' self-explanations Teacher asked students to self-explain Teacher shows not right-angled and right-angled triangles with the tablet. Students have to
information. explain whether the Pythagorean theorem also applies here.
Support of students' self-discovery Students have to discover underlying Dyads of students receive a problem in which they apply the Pythagorean theorem.
concepts.
Provision of guidance Teacher gives guidance. Teacher distributes prepared worksheets with step-by-step worked examples.
Provision of prompts/feedback Teacher provides feedback to a student's Teacher provides in-time feedback during the problem-solving phase.
answer.
2.2.2.2. Utility-value of educational technology. Regarding teachers' teachers filled out a provided spreadsheet comprising three main col-
perceived utility-value of educational technologies, we applied a scale umns (i.e., learning objectives, social form, and technology use). To
by van Braak et al. (2004) comprising of four items (e.g., “I believe that further enhance teachers’ processing, we included a set of prompts (e.g.,
a progressive introduction of technology into education responds to our “What are your learning objectives of the different lesson sequences?“,
society's changing needs”; “I highly value the introduction of “How do you want to work on these objectives with your students in the
technology in the classroom.“, see also Sang, Valcke, van Braak, & different sequences?“, “How do you want to integrate tablets in the
Tondeur, 2010; Teo, Huang, & Hoi, 2018; Cronbach's α = 0.83). Again, different sequences?” see Kramarski & Michalsky, 2010, for related
the items were answered on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 approaches).
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). We analyzed the quality of the lesson plans on two different di-
mensions: a) instructional quality (as measured by ratings of cognitive
activation and instructional support) and b) technology exploitation (as
2.2.3. Lesson plan scenario measured by the quantity of technology exploitation as types of usage
To analyze teachers’ capability of integrating technology, we fol- and quality of technology exploitation as the level of potential ex-
lowed a scenario approach in which teachers were required to design a ploitation).
lesson plan and select educational technologies for distinct teaching
processes. This procedure allowed us to measure their ability to ade-
2.2.3.1. Instructional quality. Instructional quality was assessed by the
quately choose educational technology for potential teaching processes
quality of the described teaching methods within the lesson plans in
in a contextualized but also highly controlled manner (see also Harris &
terms of potential cognitive activation and instructional support
Hofer, 2011; Kopcha et al., 2014; Kramarski & Michalsky, 2010 for
(Hardy, Jonen, Möller, & Stern, 2006; Hugener et al., 2009). Thus,
similar approaches). The use of lesson plans was further motivated by
instructional quality assessed the potential quality of teaching methods
the fact that in many educational systems the provision of lesson plans,
which could be achieved by realizing the lesson plans. To measure
and the selection of distinct educational technologies is a common core
instructional quality, we used an adapted coding scheme by Hugener
practice in teaching (Bos et al., 2014). The teachers were given the
et al. (2009) and rated the lesson plans by means of seven criteria (i.e.,
following scenario (see also, Lachner, Weinhuber, & Nückles, 2019;
provision of cognitive challenging activities, activation of prior
Ostermann, Leuders, & Nückles, 2015, for related scenarios in mathe-
knowledge, initiating of conceptual change, engaging students' self-
matics):
explanations, support of students’ self-discovery, provision of guidance,
provision of prompts/feedback, for examples, see Table 1). For each
In your school, students and teachers were recently equipped with
category, the teachers could receive 0 (subcategory not present) to 3
tablets. You are asked to integrate tablets in your mathematics
points (subcategory completely present) on a three-point Likert scale,
classes (8th grade). Your class comprises of 30 students with dif-
yielding a possible maximum score of 21. Two raters coded 20% of the
ferent levels of mathematics achievement. The individual achieve-
lesson plans, ICC (2,1) = 0.84 to ensure the reusability and clarity of
ment levels are comparably distributed among the class (i.e., there
the categorization scheme.
are equally as many high-performing, medium-performing, and low-
performing students). In the next lesson (45 min), you will introduce
the Pythagorean theorem to your class. Please design a lesson plan 2.2.3.2. Technology exploitation. First, we examined the quantity of
for this lesson in the provided spreadsheet. You are free in selecting technology exploitation by analyzing the different types of educational
the instructional method. However, you are required to integrate technologies which the teachers described in their lesson plans, as a
tablets when teaching. The extent and duration of the tablet use is proxy for the use of innovative educational technologies. As simply
left to you. counting the different types of technologies would result in a plethora
of different technologies, we aggregated the different technologies by
The scenario can be regarded to be authentic considering that due to means of an inductive categorization procedure (Mayring, 2015), which
recent political initiatives, schools are increasingly equipped with resulted in seven dominant types of educational technologies:
educational technologies such as tablets. Furthermore, German teachers presentation applications, dynamic geometry environments, file
are exclusively responsible for selecting learning materials and educa- transfer services, media players, audience response systems, and web
tional technologies and - if they see fit for their lesson - to implement search engines. Inter-rater agreement of two raters coding 20% of the
them accordingly. However, currently they receive little if any support lesson plans was good with 89% of total agreement (Kappa = .717).
in developing technology-enhanced lessons. More importantly, we analyzed the quality of technology exploita-
Similar to commonly applied templates in teacher education, the tion within the lesson plans, which allowed us to assess whether
5
Table 2
Coding scheme of quality of technology exploitation.
Criteriaa Description Prototypical examples
Substitution The technology substitutes traditional media with no functional Students read a scanned text.
enrichment.
Augmentation The technology substitutes with functional enrichment. Students read a text which is enriched with hyperlinks, so that students can retrieve
additional information if needed.
Modification The technology enables a significantly redesign of a task. Students use geometry apps to scaffold their conceptual understanding of the
Pythagorean theorem.
Redefinition The technology allows novel learning tasks, which would not be Students create an e-book with interactive materials such as simulations and audio
possible without using technology. explanations about the Pythagorean theorem.
a
The criteria are hierarchical, resulting in 1 point (substitution) to 4 points (redefinition) for each lesson plan based on the highest dimension applied within the
respective lesson plan.
teachers were able to exploit the distinct functions of technologies to checked whether our data were confounded by potential outliers.
potentially support students’ learning processes (Hughes et al., 2006; Graphical boxplot analyses of the dependent variables revealed that
Puentedura, 2006). Based on conceptualizations by Puentedura (2006), there were two outliers (see Fig. 1). Both outliers were included in the
the quality of technology exploitation was assessed on four hierarchical main analyses, as removing these two participants from the sample did
dimensions: substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition not change the findings.
(see Table 2, for the coding scheme). As such, participants could receive
0 (i.e., no technology-integration) to 4 (i.e., technology-use which re- 3.2. Hypotheses 1: Teachers’ professional knowledge
defined teaching processes) points for the entire lesson plan (see
Table 2, for examples). Again 20% of the lesson plans were rated by two By applying contrast analysis (Furr & Rosenthal, 2003), we first
coders. Interrater reliability was very good, ICC (2,1) = 0.90. tested whether advanced teachers (i.e., trainee teachers and in-service
teachers) possessed more professional knowledge (CK, PCK) than no-
2.3. Procedure vice teachers (i.e., pre-service teachers): pre-service teachers: 2; trainee
teachers: 1; in-service teachers: 1 (expert-novice-contrast). The second
The entire study was tablet-based and lasted 90 min. The teachers contrast tested for additional differences within the advanced teacher
were tested in small groups and were each seated in front of a tablet sample (within-expertise-contrast: pre-service teachers: 0; trainee tea-
computer (Apple iPad 4) and a wireless keyboard. At the beginning, the chers: 1; in-service teachers: 1).
experimenter informed the teachers about the main scope of the study Regarding teachers’ content knowledge (H1a), the expert-novice-
and obtained written consent. In the introduction phase (15 min), the contrast was significant, F (1, 89) = 5.91, p = .017, 2p = 0.062
teachers answered the two motivation scales (i.e., TPACK self-efficacy, (medium effect), indicating that trainee teachers and in-service teachers
utility-value of educational technologies). In the knowledge assessment possessed more content knowledge than pre-service teachers. The
phase (30 min), they completed the two knowledge tests (i.e., content within-expertise-contrast, however, was not significant, F (1,
knowledge test, pedagogical content knowledge test) and indicated 89) = 3.32, p = .721, 2p = 0.001 (small effect), suggesting that
their technological knowledge with the self-report questionnaire. In the trainee teachers and in-service teachers possessed comparable amounts
planning phase (40 min), the teachers designed a lesson plan to assess of content knowledge.
their situational knowledge about integrating technology in mathe- Regarding teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (H1b), a similar
matics instruction. At the end of the study, the teachers answered a pattern emerged: The expert-novice-contrast was significant, F (1,
short demographic questionnaire (e.g., gender, teaching experience, 89) = 33.97, p < .001, 2p = 0.276 (large effect). Again, the within-
vocational training). After completing the study, all teachers were de- expertise-contrast was not significant, F (1, 89) = 2.44, p = .122, 2p
briefed. = 0.027 (small effect), indicating that advanced teachers (trainee
teachers, in-service teachers) outperformed novice teachers (pre-service
3. Results teachers). There were no significant differences between trainee tea-
chers and in-service teachers (see Table 4).
We applied an alpha level of 0.05 for all statistical analyses. We Furthermore, we explored for potential differences regarding tea-
used partial η2 ( 2p ) as an effect size measure, interpreting values < .06 chers’ self-reported technological knowledge (H1c). We performed an
as a small effect, values between 0.06 and 0.14 as a medium effect, and ANOVA with the self-reported technological knowledge as the depen-
values > 0.14 as a large effect (see Cohen, 1988). dent variable and the expertise groups as a between-subjects factor. The
ANOVA was not significant, indicating that the teachers perceived
comparable technological knowledge across the expertise groups, F (1,
3.1. Preliminary analyses
89) = 1.24, p = .292, 2p = 0.027 (small effect, see Table 4).
Several ANOVAs and χ2 - tests revealed no significant differences
between the expertise groups regarding gender χ2 (2) = 4.56, 3.3. Hypotheses 2: Teachers’ motivational beliefs
p = .102; their possession of a private tablet, χ2 (2) = 3.90, p = .142;
and their instructional beliefs, F (2, 89) = 0.62, p = .537, 2p = 0.014. To explore potential differences regarding teachers' motivational
Furthermore, the advanced teachers (i.e., trainee teachers and in-ser- beliefs, we conducted a MANOVA with their TPACK self-efficacy beliefs
vice teachers) were comparable regarding their amount of vocational (H2a) and perceived utility-value of educational technology (H2b) as
training concerning the implementation of technology, χ2 (63) = 4.23, the dependent variables and the expertise groups as a between-subjects
p = .238; and regarding their average use of technology when teaching factor. The MANOVA was significant, Wilk's Λ = 0.76, F (1,
χ2 (63) = 0.34, p = .555. Naturally, the three expertise groups differed 89) = 6.51, p < .001, 2p = 0.129 (medium effect; univariate
regarding their teaching experience, F (2, 89) = 54.93, p < .001, 2p ANOVAs: TPACK self-efficacy: F (1, 89) = 0.93, p = .002, 2
p = 0.135,
= 0.555. For the descriptive statistics, see Table 3. utility-value: F (1, 89) = 7.83, p < .001, = 0.150, see Table 4).
2
p
Before testing our main hypotheses, as a further safeguard, we Regarding TPACK self-efficacy, planned contrasts revealed that in-
6
Table 3
Descriptive statistics of teachers’ demographics.
Demographics Pre-service teachers Trainee teachers In-service teachers
Female 75.00% 61.90% 45.50%

Own a private tablet 64.40% 42.90% 68.20%
Instructional beliefsa 4.21 (SD = 0.43) 4.08 (SD = 0.41) 4.09 (SD = 0.67)
Qualification No university degree University degree in teacher education (1st Certificate by the government to be allowed to
state examination) teach at schools (2nd state examination)
Teaching experience None 6 months (SD = 0.52) 14 years (SD = 11.20)
Vocational training regarding teaching with NA 31.00% 36.40%
technologies
Taught with technologies more than 3 h in last NA 47.60% 68.20%
half of a year
a
Beliefs about the value of discursive meaningful learning measured with 12 items (e.g., “Teachers should encourage students to find their own solutions to
mathematical problems, even if they are inefficient”) on a 5-point-Likert Scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), Cronbach's α = .84 (applied and
validated by Kunter et al., 2013).
service teachers had higher levels of TPACK self-efficacy beliefs than (i.e., trainee and in-service teachers) described the use of dynamic
trainee teachers, F (1, 89) = 13.72, p < .001, 2p = 0.134 (medium geometry applications more often in their planning than novice tea-
effect), none of the other comparisons were significant (F < 1). chers (i.e., pre-service teachers). Further χ2-tests with teachers’ relative
For teachers’ perceived utility-value, we found that advanced tea- expertise as the independent variable and the frequency of dynamic
chers (trainee teachers, in-service teachers) reported higher levels of geometry applications as the dependent variable confirmed this as-
utility-value than novice teachers, F (1, 89) = 9.80, p = .002, 2p sumption, χ2 (2) = 10.89, p = .004, 2p = 0.118 (large effect).
= 0.099 (medium effect). In-service teachers also had higher utility- More importantly, we analyzed the quality of teachers’ technology
value than the trainee teachers, F (1, 89) = 8.67, p = .004, 2p = 0.089 exploitation of the distinct technologies. Therefore, we conducted se-
(medium effect). parate contrast analyses with the technology exploitation as the de-
pendent variable. Again, we found that the expert-novice-contrast was
3.4. Hypotheses 3: Quality of lesson plans significant, F (1, 89) = 6.84, p = .011, 2p = 0.071 (medium effect).
The within-expertise-contrast was not significant, F (1, 89) = 0.09,
To analyze the quality of the lesson plans, we similarly performed p = .769, 2p = 0.001 (small effect), indicating that advanced teachers
separate contrast analyses for instructional quality and integration of (i.e., trainee teachers and in-service teachers) outperformed novice
technology. Regarding teachers’ instructional quality (H3a), the expert- teachers (i.e., pre-service teachers) regarding the quality of technology
novice-contrast was significant, F (1, 89) = 16.70, p < .001, 2p exploitation. Again, there were no significant differences between the
= 0.158 (large effect, see Table 4), whereas, the within-expertise- advanced teachers (i.e., trainee teachers, in-service teachers).
contrast was not significant, F (1, 89) = 0.68, p = .411, 2p = 0.008
(small effect, see Table 4), indicating that lesson plans by advanced 3.5. Hypothesis 4: The mediating processes
teachers (i.e., trainee teachers, in-service teachers) demonstrated
higher quality of potential instructional quality than the ones by novice Finally, we examined the underlying processes of the effects of
teachers (i.e., pre-service teachers). As for the previous analyses, we did teachers' relative expertise on the quality of lesson plans (H4). First, we
not obtain significant differences between the trainee teachers and the conducted simple univariate correlations between the dependent mea-
in-service teachers. sures (i.e., instructional quality, quality of technology exploitation) and
To investigate hypothesis 3b, that is, whether teachers' relative ex- teachers' professional knowledge (CK, PCK, TK) and motivational be-
pertise also accounted for differences regarding the technology ex- liefs (i.e., TPACK self-efficacy, utility-value), as indicators of their
ploitation, we first explored the quantity of technology exploitation as professional competence. The correlations revealed that instructional
the different types of educational technologies which the teachers re- quality was significantly correlated with teachers' pedagogical content
ported in their lesson plans (see Fig. 2). Overall, the teachers tended to knowledge and their perceived utility-value (see Table 5). The quality
most exclusively rely on presentation applications (e.g., PowerPoint, of technology exploitation was significantly correlated with teachers’
Keynote), as well as dynamic geometry applications (e.g., GeoGebra). pedagogical content knowledge, the perceived utility-value of educa-
Furthermore, they rarely used audience response systems and web tional technologies, and their TPACK self-efficacy beliefs (see Table 5).
search engines for their lesson, which seems plausible, as we required Regarding the underlying effects of instructional quality (H4a), we
the teachers to plan an introductory lesson to the Pythagorean theorem. conducted a mediation analysis with pedagogical content knowledge
Additionally, the descriptive statistics indicated that advanced teachers and utility-value as simultaneous mediators (as they were significantly
Fig. 1. Outlier analysis with boxplot graphics.
7
Table 4
Means and standard deviations of the dependent measures as a function of teachers’ relative expertise.
Variables Pre-service teachers Trainee teachers In-service teachers
M SD M SD M SD
a
Professional knowledge
Content knowledge 75.52 07.70 79.97 09.87 81.75 06.11
Pedagogical content knowledge 34.23 10.23 57.32 23.44 65.08 22.92
Technological knowledge 42.85 12.98 46.11 13.32 42.99 15.87
Motivational beliefsb
Utility-value 2.71 0.91 2.98 0.73 3.63 0.89
Self-efficacy beliefs 3.06 1.03 2.66 0.85 3.56 0.89
Quality of lesson plansa
Instructional quality 50.83 14.81 61.58 12.12 64.39 11.74
Quality of technology exploitation 50.89 24.98 63.09 19.31 64.77 21.35
a
Values represent percentage scores.
b
Teacher ratings ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
correlated with instructional quality). Teachers' relative expertise was Table 5

the contrast-coded predictor (pre-service teachers: 2; trainee teachers: Bivariate correlations among the dependent measures.
1; in-service teachers: 1) and instructional quality was the dependent 1 2 3 4 5 6
variable (see Fig. 3). We applied the bootstrapping methodology by
Hayes (2017) via the PROCESS macro version 3 for SPSS and ran 1 Instructional quality
10,000 bootstrap samples to derive 95% confidence intervals for the 2 Quality of technology .577**
exploitation
indirect effect (Valente, Gonzalez, Miočević, & MacKinnon, 2016). The 3 Content knowledge .094 .079
mediation analyses revealed that the effect of expertise on instructional 4 Pedagogical content .209* .223* .284**
quality of the lesson plans was mediated by teachers' perceived utility- knowledge
value a×b = 0.633, SE = 0.367, 95% CI [0.035; 1.457], as zero was 5 Technological -.117 .077 .056 .140
knowledge
not included in the confidence intervals. However, the mediation via
6 Utility-value .327** .422** .134 .218* .293**
teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge was not significant, 7 Self-efficacy beliefs .131 .235* .006 .079 .704** .543**
a×b = −0.069, SE = 0.613, 95% CI [-1.294; 1.106].
Regarding teachers' quality of technology exploitation, we similarly *p < .05. **p < .001.
included teachers' utility-value, TPACK self-efficacy beliefs, and peda-
gogical content knowledge as potential mediators, as all three variables professional competence - have differential effects on the quality of
were correlated with the quality of technology exploitation. The ana- technology integration within mathematics lesson plans depending on
lysis revealed that the instructional quality was mediated by teachers' teachers' relative levels of expertise. In line with general findings on
utility-value a×b = 4.174, SE = 2.098, 95% CI [0.776; 0.8.836], but relative teacher expertise (Baumert et al., 2010; Berliner, 2004;
not by teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge a×b = 1.847, McIntyre et al., 2017), we found that advanced teachers (i.e., trainee
SE = 1.451, 95% CI [-0.902; 4.880], nor by their TPACK self-efficacy teachers and in-service teachers) designed lesson plans with higher
beliefs a×b = 0.091, SE = 0.657, 95% CI [-1.363; 1.416]. instructional quality and higher levels of technology exploitation than
Apparently, only the perceived utility accounted for the instruc- novice teachers (i.e., pre-service teachers). Mediation analyses revealed
tional quality and the quality of technology exploitation of teachers’ that the effect of relative teacher expertise was mediated by the per-
lesson plans (see Fig. 2). ceived utility of technology for teaching. Thus, teachers’ perceived
utility played a crucial role for designing technology-enhanced
mathematics instruction.
4. Discussion From a technological point of view, this finding is interesting. Even
though across expertise groups, the teachers described the use of
In the present study, we investigated whether and how teachers' comparable types of technologies (except for dynamic geometry
professional knowledge and motivational beliefs - crucial facets of their
Fig. 2. Type of mentioned technologies within the lesson plans. Bar charts represent the frequency of use of the different applications per relative expertise group.
8
Fig. 3. Findings of the parallel mediation analyses for instructional quality (Fig. 1A) and quality of technology exploitation (Fig. 1B) with teaching experience coded
with the expert-novice-contrast (pre-service teachers = −2, trainee teachers = 1, in-service teachers = 1) as independent variable. Pedagogical knowledge,
instructional quality, and quality of technology exploitation were measured by percentage scores. Numbers represent unstandardized path coefficients for direct and
total effects (in parentheses).
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Table 6
Prototypical Contrasting Cases of the Lesson Plans of each Expertise Group.
Learning objectives Technology use
Pre-service teacher The students should understand the statement of the Pythagorean Teachers presents static visualizations of different triangles with the areas of the page
theorem. squares.
Students consolidate their knowledge. Students practice using paper pencil.
Trainee teacher The students should realize that the Pythagorean theorem is only Students explore the problems with GeoGebra©.
valid in right-angled triangles by working on everyday tasks.
The different characteristics of triangles is clear to students. Teacher presents static visualization of triangles.
Students can formulate the Pythagorean theorem. Students write on paper.
In-service teacher The students should understand the relevance of the Pythagorean Teacher shows pictures about the problem of equal determination of cornfields in
theorem. ancient Egypt.
Students understand underlying concepts of the Pythagorean Students get simulations in GeoGebra© with the option to recap prior knowledge if
theorem. necessary (e.g., right triangles) and the task to explain the relationships of the
components of the formula of the Pythagorean theorem.
Students can explain the meaning of the Pythagorean theorem in Some students present their assumptions.
their own words. Teacher shows pictures of the beginning again and class applies the Pythagorean
Students understand relationship of formula and application. theorem together.
Note. These are paraphrased lesson plans to be space-saving.
9
applications) in their lesson plans, the advanced teachers used the the analysis of actual planning and teaching processes in authentic
technologies differently for teaching and process and exploited the scenarios in which teachers also have access to the web or teaching
potential of distinct technologies in a more pronounced manner., re- platforms, are needed to more directly investigate the underlying pro-
sulting in higher levels of instructional quality and technology ex- cesses of technology integration.
ploitation. Therefore, the higher levels of instructional quality and Third, from a methodological perspective, our study adds to po-
technology exploitation likely resulted as the advanced teachers used tential advancements in measuring teachers' technology integration.
the technologies differently for teaching processes (Ertmer, Ottenbreit- Previous quantitative research primarily relied on self-report measures
Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, & Sendurur, 2012), and exploited the po- which asked teachers to report the frequency of technology use (e.g.,
tential of distinct technologies in a more pronounced manner (see Lin et al., 2013; Petko, 2012; Scherer et al., 2019), which often suffer
Table 6 for prototypical contrasting examples, Teddlie & Yu, 2007). from reliability and validity issues. As a consequence, these self-as-
What are the theoretical merits of our study? First, in line with sessments are often only weakly correlated with teachers' actual per-
general findings on teaching quality (e.g., Baumert et al., 2010; Hill formance (Akyuz, 2018; Kopcha et al., 2014). In contrast, we followed a
et al., 2008; Kunter et al., 2013), the significant correlation between scenario approach in which teachers were required to plan a tech-
PCK and teaching quality suggests that teachers' pedagogical content nology-enhanced lesson (see also Harris & Hofer, 2011; Kramarski &
knowledge was considerably related to the quality of their lesson plans Michalsky, 2010). Additionally, we adapted frequently used and fea-
across expertise groups (see Table 5). Although the self-reported tech- sible rating schemes from research on instructional quality to measure
nological knowledge predicted teachers' TPACK self-efficacy (see also the quality of the lesson plans (e.g., Hugener et al., 2009; Kunter et al.,
Akyuz, 2018, for related findings), it was not related to their ability to 2013; Praetorius et al., 2014). Using scenarios allows researchers to
integrate technologies in a qualitative manner. This finding suggests measure qualitative aspects of teachers’ technology integration as a
that rather subject specific pedagogical content knowledge is relevant function of their ability to implement high instructional quality and a
to deliberately use technology for teaching, however knowledge about high level of technology exploitation in a relatively controlled albeit
specific technologies (i.e., technological knowledge) seems less im- highly contextualized manner, as teachers were asked to provide po-
portant. On one hand, this finding could have resulted as we adminis- tential worked-out plans for a technology-enhanced mathematics
tered a self-assessment questionnaire for measuring teachers' techno- lesson. This assumption is also corroborated by findings which docu-
logical knowledge. On the other hand, our findings were recently mented that scenario approaches may trigger similar cognitive and
replicated in a domain-general setting with test-based assessments. motivational processes as authentic (teaching) practices (Bolzer,
Lachner, Backfisch, and Stürmer (2019) asked in-service teachers to Strijbos, & Fischer, 2015; Robinson & Clore, 2001). However, we have
answer different knowledge tests. The authors showed that only tea- to note that we did not obtain significant differences between the
chers’ pedagogical knowledge predicted the availability of technolo- trainee teachers and the in-service teachers, particularly on their
gical pedagogical knowledge, but not their technological knowledge. knowledge dimensions (i.e., CK, PCK), and on the quality of the lesson
These findings strengthen the assumption that particularly professional plans (i.e., instructional quality, quality of technology exploitation).
knowledge, which is related to pedagogical (content) knowledge, is Based on the current findings only, it is difficult to pinpoint potential
relevant to effectively integrate technology during teaching. reasons for these non-significant differences which may reflect true
Second, our mediation analysis confirmed that teachers' motiva- equalities or potential shortcomings of scenario-based approaches. It is
tional conditions largely accounted for effective technology integration. possible that lesson plan scenarios are capable to separate only coarse
In line with the expectancy-value theory (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002), it expertise differences that occur when contrasting pre-service teachers
seems that teachers' perceived utility-value increased their efforts to without any teaching experience with trainee or in-service teachers,
integrate technology in a didactical manner during the lesson design, who both have teaching experience, albeit to different degrees. A sce-
which subsequently increased the instructional quality and quality of nario approach may be less suited to reveal more fine-grained differ-
technology exploitation of the designed lesson plans. An unexpected ences resulting from the amount of practical experience. Therefore, it
finding, however, was that TPACK self-efficacy beliefs did not mediate would be interesting to reinvestigate relative expertise differences more
the effect of teacher's relative expertise on instructional quality and situated in authentic classroom studies in which teachers deliberately
technology exploitation, given that previous studies demonstrated dis- integrate technology during teaching (see for related approaches the
tinct relations between teachers' TPACK self-efficacy, and their use of analysis of videotaped lessons, Hugener et al., 2009). On the other
technology (Farjon et al., 2019; Knezek & Christensen, 2016; Petko, hand, it could also well be that trainee teachers and in-service teachers
2012). On the one hand, this finding may have resulted from the fact are comparable in their lesson plan competence as this is a core practice
that we required our participants to use technology in the experimental of their daily teaching and extensively trained during the formal tea-
design of the study. However, the non-significant findings were also cher education program which both trainee teachers and in-service
obtained in studies in which teachers could apply educational tech- teachers successfully accomplished. Accordingly, it is an open issue
nology in an optional manner (Backfisch, Lachner, Stürmer, & Scheiter, whether professional knowledge primarily develops as a function of
2019). Therefore, we rather attribute these different findings to the fact formal teacher education or of teaching experience.
that we measured the quality and not the quantity of technology in- Fourth, regarding educational practice, our findings further suggest
tegration. Apparently, high levels of self-efficacy may be required to that teachers' motivational beliefs should be more strongly considered
regularly apply technology in classroom settings (i.e., quantity of in teacher education. Focusing on the motivational beliefs and their
technology integration), as indicated by research which documented associated experiences may provide a beneficial approach to enhance
distinct relationships between teachers' technology-related self-efficacy teachers’ professional development (Borko, 2004), for instance by in-
beliefs and their frequency of technology integration (Scherer et al., tegrating methods of systematic self-reflection in which teachers can
2018). Whether and how teachers implement technology deliberately monitor their motivational beliefs during technology-enhanced
for teaching processes (i.e., the quality of technology integration), teaching.
however, appears to rather depend on the perceived utility of tech-
nology for teaching. These findings are in line with studies inspired by 4.1. Limitations and future research
the framework of distributed cognition (Hollan, Hutchins, & Kirsh,
2000), as they highlighted that a sound integration of technology One limitation refers to the causality of our findings, as we analyzed
during teaching goes beyond operational knowledge of educational the quality of authentic lesson plans by different teacher groups that
technologies (Narciss & Koerndle, 2008; Ligorio et al., 2008). That said, varied in the degree of their relative expertise defined as teaching ex-
process-data by means of think-aloud protocols or interviews, as well as perience and academic qualification. This approach contributed to the
10
ecological validity of our findings. However, we did not experimentally org/10.1177/0270467604265535.

manipulate the quality of teachers' professional knowledge (i.e., con- Bolzer, M., Strijbos, J.-W., & Fischer, F. (2015). Inferring mindful cognitive-processing of
peer-feedback via eye-tracking: Role of feedback-characteristics, fixation-durations
tent knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, technological knowl- and transitions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31, 422–434. https://doi.org/
edge) as well as their underlying motivational beliefs (i.e., TPACK self- 10.1111/jcal.12091.
efficacy, utility-value). Therefore, empirical conclusions regarding the Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.
Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033008003.
causal role of teachers’ motivational beliefs for the design of tech- Borko, H., & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation: Differences in mathe-
nology-enhanced lesson plans should be treated with caution (Hayes, matics instruction by expert and novice teachers. American Educational Research
2017). Journal, 26(4), 473–498. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312026004473.
Bos, W., Eickelmann, B., Gerick, J., Goldhammer, F., Schaumburg, H., Schwippert, K., ...
Another caveat is that we only used one single mathematical pro- Wendt, H. (2014). ICILS 2013. Computer-und informationsbezogene Kompetenzen von
blem (i.e., the Pythagorean theorem) which possibly restricts the gen- Schülerinnen und Schülern in der 8. Jahrgangsstufe im internationalen Vergleich. Münster
eralizability of our findings. The Pythagorean theorem can be regarded [ua]: Waxmann.
van Braak, J., Tondeur, J., & Valcke, M. (2004). Explaining different types of computer
as a representative mathematical problem which is taught throughout
use among primary school teachers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 19,
secondary education and requires both essential algebraic and geo- 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173218.
metric knowledge. Nevertheless, it would be worthwhile to replicate Butler, R. (2007). Teachers' achievement goal orientations and associations with teachers'
our findings with additional mathematical problems and in other do- help seeking: Examination of a novel approach to teacher motivation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99(2), 241. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.241.
mains, particularly in language learning or the humanities, as they re- Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2016). A review of the quantitative measures of
quire different implementations of educational technology due to dif- technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). In M. Herring, M. Koehler, &
ferent core practices (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). P. Mishra (Eds.). Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for
educators (pp. 87–106). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9781315771328.
4.2. Conclusion Chauhan, S. (2017). A meta-analysis of the impact of technology on learning effectiveness
of elementary students. Computers & Education, 105, 14–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compedu.2016.11.005.
In conclusion, the present study contributes to a better under- Chi, M. T. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The
standing of teachers' cognitive and motivational conditions which en- Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315. https://doi.org/10.1207/
able them to implement technology in the mathematics classroom. Our s15327809jls0603_1.
Chi, M. T. (2011). Theoretical perspectives, methodological approaches, and trends in the
findings show that motivational beliefs and especially teachers’ per- study of expertise. Expertise in mathematics instruction (pp. 17–39). Boston, MA:
ceived utility-value of educational technologies play a critical role in Springer.
integrating technology into teaching. Therefore, motivational aspects Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of
physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152. https://doi.
should be considered more often in teacher education programs to
org/10.1207/s15516709cog0502_2.
support teachers to effectively integrate educational technology in their Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:
classroom. By effectively integrating educational technologies during Erlbaum.
teaching, teachers can enhance the quality of their teaching and at the Cortina, K. S., Miller, K. F., McKenzie, R., & Epstein, A. (2015). Where low and high
inference data converge: Validation of CLASS assessment of mathematics instruction
same time help students prepare for a digital future. using mobile eye tracking with expert and novice teachers. International Journal of
Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-
Acknowledgement 014-9610-5.
Drossel, K., Eickelmann, B., & Gerick, J. (2017). Predictors of teachers' use of ICT in
school–the relevance of school characteristics, teachers' attitudes and teacher colla-
We would like to thank Eleonora Dolderer, Jonas Raggatz, and Anna boration. Education and Information Technologies, 22, 551–573. https://doi.org/10.
Rosenträger for their assistance in conducting the study. The research 1007/s10639-016-9476-y.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review
reported in this article was supported by the Federal Ministry of of Psychology, 53, 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.
Education and Research in Germany (BMBF) under contract number 135153.
01JA1611. Iris Backfisch is a doctoral student at the LEAD Graduate Epstein, R. M., & Hundert, E. M. (2002). Defining and assessing professional competence.
Jama, 287(2), 226–235. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.2.226.
School & Research Network [GSC1028], funded by the Excellence
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012).
Initiative of the German federal and state governments. Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship.
Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.
02.001.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Farjon, D., Smits, A., & Voogt, J. (2019). Technology integration of student teachers
explained by attitudes and beliefs, competency, access, and experience. Computers &
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https:// Education, 130, 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.11.010.
doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101300. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using
G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research
Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.
References Fauth, B., Decristan, J., Rieser, S., Klieme, E., & Büttner, G. (2014). Student ratings of
teaching quality in primary school: Dimensions and prediction of student outcomes.
Learning and Instruction, 29, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.
Akyuz, D. (2018). Measuring technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) 001.
through performance assessment. Computers & Education, 125, 212–225. https://doi. Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Gebhardt, E. (2014). Preparing for life in
org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.012. a digital age: The IEA international computer and information literacy study international
Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content reportBerlin: Springerhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14222-7.
knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers & Education, 55, 1656–1662. Furr, R. M., & Rosenthal, R. (2003). Evaluating theories efficiently: The nuts and bolts of
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.009. contrast analysis. Understanding Statistics: Statistical Issues in Psychology, Education,
Backfisch, I., Lachner, A., Stürmer, K., & Scheiter, K. (2019). Teachers' utility-value but not and the Social Sciences, 2, 33–67. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328031US0201_03.
self-efficacy predicts the quality of technology integration. (manuscript submitted for Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological peda-
publication). gogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 57(2011), 1953–1969.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.010.
37(2), 122. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122. Green, S. K. (2002). Using an expectancy-value approach to examine teachers' motiva-
Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., et al. (2010). tional strategies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 989–1005. https://doi.org/10.
Teachers' mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and stu- 1016/S0742-051X(02)00055-0.
dent progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 133–180. https://doi.org/ Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in
10.3102/0002831209345157. teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1),
Berliner, D. C. (2001). Learning about and learning from expert teachers. International 184–205. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312906.
Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 463–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883- Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The substitution augmentation
0355(02)00004-6. modification redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use.
Berliner, D. C. (2004). Describing the behavior and documenting the accomplishments of TechTrends, 60, 433–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y.
expert teachers. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 24, 200–212. https://doi. Han, J., Yin, H., & Wang, W. (2016). The effect of tertiary teachers' goal orientations for
11
teaching on their commitment: The mediating role of teacher engagement. instruction. Learning and Instruction, 18(5), 468–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Educational Psychology, 36(3), 526–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2015. learninstruc.2008.06.008.
1044943. Lachner, A., Backfisch, I., Hoogerheide, V., van Gog, T., & Renkl, A. (2019a). Timing
Hardy, I., Jonen, A., Möller, K., & Stern, E. (2006). Effects of instructional support within matters! Explaining between study phases enhances students' learning. Journal of
constructivist learning environments for elementary school students' understanding Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000396 Advance online
of “floating and sinking.”. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 307–326. https://doi. publication.
org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.307. Lachner, A., Backfisch, I., & Stürmer, K. (2019b). A test-based approach of modeling and
Hargittai, E. (2005). Survey measures of web-oriented digital literacy. Social Science measuring technological pedagogical knowledge. Computers & Education, 103645.
Computer Review, 27, 130–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439308318213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103645.
Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge Lachner, A., Jarodzka, H., & Nückles, M. (2016). What makes an expert teacher?
(TPACK) in action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers' curriculum-based, Investigating teachers' professional vision and discourse abilities. Instructional
technology-related instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Science, 44(3), 197–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9376-y.
Education, 43, 211–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2011.10782570. Lachner, A., & Nückles, M. (2016). Tell me why! Content knowledge predicts process-
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: orientation of math researchers' and math teachers' explanations. Instructional Science,
A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press. 44, 221–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9365-6.
Herppich, S., Wittwer, J., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2014). Addressing knowledge deficits Lachner, A., Weinhuber, M., & Nückles, M. (2019c). To teach or not to teach the con-
in tutoring and the role of teaching experience: Benefits for learning and summative ceptual structure of mathematics? Teachers undervalue the potential of principle-
assessment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 934. https://doi.org/10.1037/ oriented explanations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 58, 175–185. https://
a0036076. doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.03.008.
Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowl- Lauermann, F., Eccles, J. S., & Pekrun, R. (2017). Why do children worry about their
edge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers' topic-specific knowledge of students. academic achievement? An expectancy-value perspective on elementary students'
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 372–400. worries about their mathematics and reading performance. ZDM, 49, 339–354.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0832-1.
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: Lauermann, F., & König, J. (2016). Teachers' professional competence and wellbeing:
A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. Understanding the links between general pedagogical knowledge, self-efficacy and
Hugener, I., Pauli, C., Reusser, K., Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy, K., & Klieme, E. (2009). burnout. Learning and Instruction, 45, 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.
Teaching patterns and learning quality in Swiss and German mathematics lessons. 2016.06.006.
Learning and Instruction, 19, 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.02. Lazarides, R., Gaspard, H., & Dicke, A. L. (2019). Dynamics of classroom motivation:
001. Teacher enthusiasm and the development of math interest and teacher support.
Hughes, J., Thomas, R., & Scharber, C. (2006). Assessing technology integration: The Learning and Instruction, 60, 126–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.
RAT–replacement, amplification, and transformation-framework. Society for in- 01.012.
formation technology & teacher education international conference (pp. 1616–1620). Leinhardt, G. (1989). Math lessons: A contrast of novice and expert competence. Journal
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). for Research in Mathematics Education, 52–75.
Hwang, M.-Y., Hong, J.-C., & Hao, Y.-W. (2018). The value of CK, PK, and PCK in pro- Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J. G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of
fessional development programs predicted by the progressive beliefs of elementary Educational Psychology, 78(2), 75.
school teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 448–462. https://doi.org/ Ligorio, M. B., Cesareni, D., & Schwartz, N. (2008). Collaborative virtual environments as
10.1080/02619768.2018.1471463. means to increase the level of intersubjectivity in a distributed cognition system.
Kale, U. (2018). Technology valued? Observation and review activities to enhance future Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(3), 339–357. https://doi.org/10.
teachers' utility value toward technology-integration. Computers & Education, 117, 1080/15391523.2008.10782511.
160–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.10.007. Lin, T.-C., Tsai, C.-C., Chai, C. S., & Lee, M.-H. (2013). Identifying science teachers'
Kane, M. T. (1992). An argument-based approach to validity. Psychological Bulletin, perceptions of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK). Journal of
112(3), 527. Science Education and Technology, 22, 325–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-
Kant, J. M., Scheiter, K., & Oschatz, K. (2017). How to sequence video modeling examples 012-9396-6.
and inquiry tasks to foster scientific reasoning. Learning and Instruction, 52, 46–58. Malmberg, L.-E., Hagger, H., Burn, K., Mutton, T., & Colls, H. (2010). Observed classroom
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.04.005. quality during teacher education and two years of professional practice. Journal of
Keller, M. M., Hoy, A. W., Goetz, T., & Frenzel, A. C. (2016). Teacher enthusiasm: Educational Psychology, 102(4), 916. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020920.
Reviewing and redefining a complex construct. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), Marsh, H. W., Pekrun, R., Parker, P. D., Murayama, K., Guo, J., Dicke, T., et al. (2019).
743–769. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9354-y. The murky distinction between self-concept and self-efficacy: Beware of lurking
Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2011). The occupational commitment and intention to quit jingle-jangle fallacies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(2), 331. https://doi.org/
of practicing and student teachers: Influence of self-efficacy, job stress, and teaching 10.1037/edu0000281.
context. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(2), 114–129. https://doi.org/10. Mayer, R. E. (2019). Computer games in education. Annual Review of Psychology, 70.
1016/j.cedpsych.2011.01.002. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102744.
Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2016). Extending the will, skill, tool model of technology- Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical background and procedures.
integration: Adding pedagogy as a new model construct. Journal of Computing in Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education (pp. 365–380). Dordrecht:
Higher Education, 28, 307–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-016-9120-2. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9181-6_13.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge McIntyre, N. A., Mainhard, M. T., & Klassen, R. M. (2017). Are you looking to teach?
(TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70. Cultural, temporal and dynamic insights into expert teacher gaze. Learning and
Koh, J. H. L., Woo, H. L., & Lim, W. Y. (2013). Understanding the relationship between Instruction, 49, 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.12.005.
Singapore preservice teachers' ICT course experiences and technological pedagogical Meschede, N., Fiebranz, A., Möller, K., & Steffensky, M. (2017). Teachers' professional
content knowledge (TPACK) through ICT course evaluation. Educational Assessment, vision, pedagogical content knowledge and beliefs: On its relation and differences
Evaluation and Accountability, 25, 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-013- between student and certified teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 158–170.
9165-y. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.04.010.
König, J., & Lebens, M. (2012). Classroom Management Expertise (CME) von Lehrkräften Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A
messen: Überlegungen zur Testung mithilfe von Videovignetten und erste empirische framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017–1054.
Befunde. 5(1), 3–28 [Classroom Management Expertise (CME) of teachers: Narciss, S., & Koerndle, H. (2008). Benefits and constraints of distributed cognition in
Considerations for testing using video vignettes and initial empirical findings]. foreign language learning: Creating a web-based tourist guide for London. Journal of
Lehrerbildung auf dem Prüfstand. Research on Technology in Education, 40(3), 281–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation 15391523.2008.10782509.
coefficients for reliability research. Journal of chiropractic medicine, 15(2), 155–163. Näykki, P., & Järvelä, S. (2008). How pictorial knowledge representations mediate col-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012. laborative knowledge construction in groups. Journal of Research on Technology in
Kopcha, T. J., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Jung, J., & Baser, D. (2014). Examining the TPACK Education, 40(3), 359–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2008.10782512.
framework through the convergent and discriminant validity of two measures. OECD (2015). Students, computers and learning. Making the connection. Paris: OECD
Computers & Education, 78, 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.003. Publishinghttps://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239555-en.
Kramarski, B., & Michalsky, T. (2010). Preparing preservice teachers for self-regulated Ostermann, A., Leuders, T., & Nückles, M. (2015). Wissen, was Schülerinnen und Schülern
learning in the context of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Learning and schwer fällt. Welche Faktoren beeinflussen die Schwierigkeitseinschätzung von
Instruction, 20, 434–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.05.003. Mathematikaufgaben? Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 36, 45–76. https://doi.org/
Krauss, S., Brunner, M., Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Neubrand, M., et al. (2008). 10.1007/s13138-015-0073-1 [Knowing what students know. Which factors influence
Pedagogical content knowledge and content knowledge of secondary mathematics teachers’ estimation of task difficulty?].
teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 716–725. https://doi.org/10.1037/ Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2003). Unterrichtsskripts im schweizerischen und im deutschen
0022-0663.100.3.716. Mathematikunterricht. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 31, 238–272 [Teaching scripts in
Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Baumert, J., Richter, D., Voss, T., & Hachfeld, A. (2013). Swiss and German mathematics lessons].
Professional competence of teachers: Effects on instructional quality and student Petko, D. (2012). Teachers' pedagogical beliefs and their use of digital media in class-
development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 805–820. https://doi.org/10. rooms: Sharpening the focus of the “will, skill, tool” model and integrating teachers'
1037/a0032583. constructivist orientations. Computers & Education, 58, 1351–1359. https://doi.org/
Kunter, M., Tsai, Y. M., Klusmann, U., Brunner, M., Krauss, S., & Baumert, J. (2008). 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.013.
Students' and mathematics teachers' perceptions of teacher enthusiasm and Praetorius, A.-K., Pauli, C., Reusser, K., Rakoczy, K., & Klieme, E. (2014). One lesson is all
12
you need? Stability of instructional quality across lessons. Learning and Instruction, 31, development and test. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2432–2440. https://doi.org/10.
2–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.12.002. 1016/j.compedu.2011.06.008.
Puentedura, R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education [Blog post]. Retrieved Teo, T., Huang, F., & Hoi, C. K. W. (2018). Explicating the influences that explain in-
from http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/. tention to use technology among English teachers in China. Interactive Learning
Retelsdorf, J., Butler, R., Streblow, L., & Schiefele, U. (2010). Teachers' goal orientations Environments, 26, 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2017.1341940.
for teaching: Associations with instructional practices, interest in teaching, and Tondeur, J., Aesaert, K., Prestridge, S., & Consuegra, E. (2018). A multilevel analysis of
burnout. Learning and Instruction, 20(1), 30–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. what matters in the training of student teacher's ICT competencies. Computers &
learninstruc.2009.01.001. Education, 122, 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.002.
Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2001). Simulation, scenarios, and emotional appraisal: Valanides, N., & Angeli, C. (2008). Distributed cognition in a sixth-grade classroom: An
Testing the convergence of real and imagined reactions to emotional stimuli. attempt to overcome alternative conceptions about light and color. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1520–1532. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Research on Technology in Education, 40(3), 309–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01461672012711012. 15391523.2008.10782510.
Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student teachers' thinking Valente, M. J., Gonzalez, O., Miočević, M., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2016). A note on testing
processes and ICT integration: Predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with mediated effects in structural equation models: Reconciling past and current research
educational technology. Computers & Education, 54, 103–112. https://doi.org/10. on the performance of the test of joint significance. Educational and Psychological
1016/j.compedu.2009.07.010. Measurement, 76(6), 889–911. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164415618992.
Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2013). Technological
meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers' adop- pedagogical content knowledge - a review of the literature. Journal of Computer
tion of digital technology in education. Computers & Education, 128, 13–35. https:// Assisted Learning, 29, 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00487.x.
doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009. Voss, T., Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2011). Assessing teacher candidates' general peda-
Scherer, R., Tondeur, J., & Siddiq, F. (2017). On the quest for validity: Testing the factor gogical/psychological knowledge: Test construction and validation. Journal of
structure and measurement invariance of the technology-dimensions in the Educational Psychology, 103(4), 952. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025125.
Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) model. Computers & Watt, H. M. G., & Richardson, P. W. (2014). Why people choose teaching as a career: An
Education, 112, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.012. expectancy-value approach to understanding teacher motivation. In P. Richardson, S.
Scherer, R., Tondeur, J., Siddiq, F., & Baran, E. (2018). The importance of attitudes to- Karabenick, & H. Watt (Eds.). Teacher motivation (pp. 25–41). New York: Routledge.
ward technology for student teachers' technological, pedagogical, and content Willoughby, T., Anderson, S. A., Wood, E., Mueller, J., & Ross, C. (2009). Fast searching
knowledge: Comparing structural equation modeling approaches. Computers in for information on the Internet to use in a learning context: The impact of domain
Human Behavior, 80, 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.003. knowledge. Computers & Education, 52(3), 640–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Schmidgall, S. P., Eitel, A., & Scheiter, K. (2019). Why do learners who draw perform compedu.2008.11.009.
well? Investigating the role of visualization, generation and externalization in Wirtz, M. A., & Caspar, F. (2002). Beurteilerübereinstimmung und Beurteilerreliabilität:
learner-generated drawing. Learning and Instruction, 60, 138–153. https://doi.org/10. Methoden zur Bestimmung und Verbesserung der Zuverlässigkeit von Einschätzungen mit-
1016/j.learninstruc.2018.01.006. tels Kategoriensystemen und Ratingskalen. Göttingen: Hogrefe [Inter-rater agreement
Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. and inter-rater reliability: Methods for calculating and improving the reliability of
(2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development ratings by category systems and rating scales].
and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Wolff, C. E., Jarodzka, H., & Boshuizen, H. P. (2017). See and tell: Differences between
Research on Technology in Education, 42, 123–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1- expert and novice teachers' interpretations of problematic classroom management
60761-303-9. events. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.
Schmidt, H. G., & Rikers, R. M. J. P. (2007). How expertise develops in medicine: 2017.04.015.
Knowledge encapsulation and illness script formation. Medical Education, 41, Wolff, C. E., Jarodzka, H., van den Bogert, N., & Boshuizen, H. P. (2016). Teacher vision:
1133–1139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02915.x. Expert and novice teachers' perception of problematic classroom management scenes.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. American Instructional Science, 44(3), 243–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9367-z.
Education Research Association, 15, 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/ Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. (2006). Implementing computer technologies:
CBO9781107415324.004. Teachers' perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal 14(1), 173–207.
of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Zhu, C., & Urhahne, D. (2018). The use of learner response systems in the classroom
1558689806292430. enhances teachers' judgment accuracy. Learning and Instruction, 58, 255–262. https://
Teo, T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers' intention to use technology: Model doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.07.011.
13

Learning and Instruction: A B B A B B A B

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Learning and Instruction: A B B A B B A B

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Learning and Instruction: A B B A B B A B

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Learning and Instruction 66 (2020) 101300

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning and Instruction

Professional knowledge or motivation? Investigating the role of teachers’ T

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

2.2.1.2. Pedagogical content knowledge. To assess specific pedagogical

Female 75.00% 61.90% 45.50%

Fig. 1. Outlier analysis with boxplot graphics.

correlated with instructional quality). Teachers' relative expertise was Table 5

Note. These are paraphrased lesson plans to be space-saving.

ecological validity of our findings. However, we did not experimentally org/10.1177/0270467604265535.

You might also like