Systematic Review of Qualitative Evidence

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308128849
Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and
technology use in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence
Article in Educational Technology Research and Development · September 2016
DOI: 10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2
CITATIONS
141
READS
12,107
4 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Pieo - Effects of educational innovations in social-ethnic segregated schools View project
Teacher beliefs and technology integration View project
Jo Tondeur
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
190 PUBLICATIONS 5,590 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Johan van Braak
Ghent University
122 PUBLICATIONS 6,257 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Peggy A. Ertmer
Purdue University
162 PUBLICATIONS 9,814 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Anne Ottenbreit-Leftwich
Indiana University Bloomington
50 PUBLICATIONS 2,972 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Peggy A. Ertmer on 03 October 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

R E S E A R C H A R T I C L E
Understanding the relationship between teachers’
pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education:
a systematic review of qualitative evidence
Jo Tondeur1,2,3 • Johan van Braak 1 • Peggy A. Ertmer 2,3 •
Anne Ottenbreit-Leftwich 4
Ó Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2016
Abstract This review was designed to further our understanding of the link between
teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their educational uses of technology. The synthesis of
qualitative findings integrates the available evidence about this relationship with the ulti-
mate goal being to facilitate the integration of technology in education. A meta-aggregative
approach was utilized to analyze the results of the 14 selected studies. The findings are
reported in terms of five synthesis statements, describing (1) the bi-directional relationship
between pedagogical beliefs and technology use, (2) teachers’ beliefs as perceived barriers,
(3) the association between specific beliefs with types of technology use, (4) the role of
beliefs in professional development, and (5) the importance of the school context. By
interpreting the results of the review, recommendations are provided for practitioners,
policy makers, and researchers focusing on pre- and in-service teacher technology training.
Keywords Pedagogical beliefs  Technology use  Systematic review  Qualitative
evidence  Meta-aggregation
Introduction
Current evidence indicates that although the use of technology during the teaching and
learning process is steadily increasing (e.g., Berrett et al. 2012; Inan and Lowther 2010),
achieving ‘technology integration’ is still a complex process of educational change. This is
& Jo Tondeur
[e-mail]
1 Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, B9000 Ghent, Belgium
2 Interfaculty Department for Teacher Education, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
3 Department of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education, Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN, USA
4 Instructional Systems Technology, School of Education, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN,
USA
123
Education Tech Research Dev
DOI 10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2

apparent as the use of technology in schools is still extremely varied and, in many instances,
limited (e.g., Spector 2010). Achieving the goal of meaningful technology integration (i.e.,
using technology to support 21st century teaching and learning) does not depend solely on
technology-related factors (Arntzen and Krug 2011; Ertmer 2005; Kimmons et al. 2015;
Tondeur et al. 2008a). Ultimately, teachers’ personal pedagogical beliefs play a key role in
their pedagogical decisions regarding whether and how to integrate technology within their
classroom practices (Deng et al. 2014; Inan and Lowther 2010).
Researchers have argued that teachers’ classroom practices are highly influenced by
their pedagogical beliefs (Fives and Gill 2015; Kagan 1992; Pajares 1992; Richardson
1996). Based on the results of previous research (Ertmer et al. 2015; Hermans et al. 2008;
Lin et al. 2012; Zhao and Frank 2003), teachers select applications of technology that align
with their selections of other curricular variables and methods (e.g., teaching strategies)
and that also align with their existing beliefs about ‘good’ education. Technological
devices such as computers, tablets, or interactive whiteboards do not dictate one’s peda-
gogical approach (Lawless and Pellegrino 2007); rather, each device enables the imple-
mentation of a range of approaches to teaching and learning (Tondeur et al. 2008b). In
other words, the role technology plays in teachers’ classrooms relates to their conceptions
of the nature of teaching and learning.
In this respect, research on educational innovations suggests that technology integration
can only be fully understood when teachers’ pedagogical beliefs are taken into account
(Ertmer 2005; Lim and Chan 2007; Liu 2011; Sang et al. 2010a). As noted by Chen (2008),
‘‘in a classroom, the teacher perceives and defines a teaching situation, makes judgments
and decisions, and then takes related actions’’ (p. 66). More specifically, on the basis of
their beliefs, teachers choose specific instructional strategies and tools, including tech-
nology, to incorporate into their classroom practices (Lim et al. 2014; Prestridge 2012;
Zhao and Cziko 2001). Although we recognize that technology decisions are not the only
decisions influenced by teachers’ beliefs, this is the primary focus of this article.
With the call for increased technology integration (e.g., U. S. Department of Education,
Office of Educational Technology 2010), it is important to examine the link between
teachers’ beliefs and teachers’ practices. In the last decade, the relationship between
teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their uses of technology has been examined extensively
(e.g., Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich 2010; Prestridge 2012; Sang et al. 2010b), but still
this relationship remains unclear (Mueller et al. 2008). Given the centrality and importance
of teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and the lack of a clear understanding about the relationship
between beliefs and classroom technology use, the purpose of this qualitative review is to
further clarify this relationship. A meta-aggregative approach was used to locate, critically
appraise, and synthesize the qualitative evidence base (see Hannes and Lockwood 2011).
Before describing this methodology in more detail, we first examine how pedagogical
beliefs have been defined in recent educational research.
Background
Defining pedagogical beliefs
It is difficult to describe teacher beliefs in unequivocal terms considering the myriad of
ways they have been defined in the literature (e.g. Ertmer 2005; Hermans et al. 2008; Lim
et al. 2013). According to Richardson (2003), beliefs are defined as psychological
understandings, premises, or propositions felt to be true; whereas, knowledge is referred to
J. Tondeur et al.
123

as ‘‘factual propositions and understandings’’ (Calderhead 1996, p. 715). The totality of
one’s beliefs about the physical and social world, as well as beliefs about oneself, is posited
to exist within a comprehensive belief system (Rokeach 1968). In general, beliefs serve as
personal guides that help individuals define and understand the world and themselves
(Pajares 1992).
Although we hold beliefs about almost everything, pedagogical beliefs refer specifically
to the understandings, premises, or propositions about teaching and learning that we hold
to be true (Denessen 2000). As described by Pajares (1992), ‘‘All teachers hold beliefs
about their work, their students, their subject matter, and their roles and responsibilities’’
(p. 314). In this review, we focus specifically on teachers’ beliefs about teaching and
learning and refer to these as pedagogical beliefs. A teacher’s pedagogical belief system
comprises a complex and multifaceted structure of related beliefs on teaching and learning
(Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich 2010; Hermans et al. 2008). Core beliefs are the most
stable and therefore the most difficult to change as they have multiple connections to other
beliefs (Richardson 1996). According to Ertmer (2005), core beliefs about the nature of
teaching also are resistant to change because they have been formed over many years of
experience and have been supported by strong authority and broad consensus. In contrast,
beliefs that are more peripheral and more recently formed are more dynamic and thus,
more open to change (Fives and Gill 2015).
In the field of educational technology, teachers’ beliefs have been commonly classified
into one of two categories: teacher-centered beliefs and student-centered beliefs (Deng
et al. 2014; Ravitz et al. 2000). Teacher-centered beliefs are typically associated with
behaviorism (Deng et al. 2014) and tend to emphasize discipline, subject matter, and moral
standards (Mayer 2003). The teacher acts as an authority, supervising the process of
learning acquisition and serving as the expert in a highly structured learning environment.
In contrast, teachers with student-centered beliefs tend to emphasize individual student
needs and interests (Kerlinger and Kaya 1959; Mayer 2003), and typically adopt classroom
practices associated with constructivism and/or social constructivism (Deng et al. 2014).
For example, based on a key tenet of the constructivist theory (i.e., knowledge emerges in
contexts in which it is relevant) (Bednar et al. 1991), student-centered approaches tend to
revolve around students’ active participation in authentic disciplinary problems, using real
tools of the discipline (Ertmer and Glazewski 2015). As many as 50 years ago, Kerlinger
and Kaya (1959) criticized this bi-polar distinction. Their study provided support for the
hypothesis that teachers may hold both teacher-centered and student-centered pedagogical
beliefs. Given this, researchers today are encouraged to consider a multi-dimensional
approach to exploring teachers’ belief systems (Tondeur and Hermans et al. 2008).
Relationship between pedagogical beliefs and technology use
Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs act as a filter through which new knowledge and experiences
are screened for meaning and relevance (Kagan 1992). This also applies to teachers’
experiences with technology. Researchers have proposed that, in conjunction with the use
of technology over time, teachers often change their classroom practices and, ultimately,
adopt more student-centered beliefs (e.g., Matzen and Edmunds 2007). However, this is
not true of all teachers. This may be because teachers’ individual experiences, beliefs,
emotions, knowledge, self-efficacy, skills, and motivations can be influenced by their
teaching contexts (Stoll 1999). Moreover, teachers’ perceptions about, and actions towards
changing and developing their teaching methods, including their uses of technology, are
Understanding the relationship between teachers’...
123

influenced by what they believe represents good teaching and effective learning (Borko
and Putnam 1995; Ertmer et al. 2015; Fullan 2001).
Evidence suggests that teachers who hold constructivist beliefs tend to be highly active
technology users (Ertmer et al. 2015; Judson 2006). According to Becker (2000), not only
do these teachers tend to use technology more frequently than teachers with teacher-
centered beliefs, but they also tend to use them in more student-centered ways (i.e.,
allowing students to select and direct their own uses of available technology tools). More
specifically, teachers with constructivist beliefs have been observed to use technology as an
information tool (e.g., to retrieve and select information; see Tondeur et al. 2008) and as a
means to help students develop higher-order thinking and problem-solving skills (Berg
et al. 1998). According to Ananiadou and Claro (2009), teachers with constructivist beliefs
use technology to support students’ capacity to ‘‘apply knowledge and skills in key subject
areas and to analyze, reason, and communicate effectively as they raise, solve, and
interpret problems in a variety of situations’’ (p. 7).
Purpose of the study
Based on findings from Inan and Lowther (2010) and Miranda and Russell (2012),
teachers’ pedagogical beliefs are observed to be strong predictors of their uses of tech-
nology. However, findings are not as clear-cut as initially thought. As noted earlier, there is
still the general perception that teacher beliefs and practices are uni-dimensional (teacher-
centered or student-centered), as opposed to multi-dimensional (Kerlinger and Kaya 1959).
A multi-dimensional view suggests that teachers hold varying degrees of both kinds of
beliefs (Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich 2010).
Another complexity in this research area relates to inconsistencies between beliefs and
practices. As noted by Pajares (1992) and others (e.g., Chen 2008), pedagogical beliefs
may compete with other beliefs or external factors and as such, be altered in practice. The
specific context in which pedagogical beliefs are applied influences, sometimes to a great
extent, the manner in which those beliefs manifest (Ertmer 2005). Frequently, these
inconsistencies are attributed to intervening factors that can have both direct and indirect
effects on teachers’ abilities to translate their pedagogical beliefs into practice, including
teacher-related (e.g., competence, motivation, confidence, self-efficacy), school-related
(e.g., leadership, policies), and cultural and societal-related (e.g., parental expectations,
standardized testing requirements) (e.g., Ertmer et al. 2015; Windschitl and Sahl 2002).
The goal of this review is to synthesize the available evidence on the relationship between
teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their uses of technology.
Research method
Meta-aggregation of qualitative studies
In this study, we applied a systematic review method to locate, critically evaluate, and
synthesize studies about the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their
classroom uses of technology. Petticrew and Roberts (2008) defined a systematic literature
review as an interpretation of a selection of documents on a specific topic that optimally
involves summarization, analysis, evaluation, and synthesis of the documents. The
advantage of such a systematic review is that it produces a map of the ‘bigger picture.’
J. Tondeur et al.
123

Systematic reviews can facilitate understanding of a topic, identify common threads across
studies, and/or aid in the development of theory (Hammersley 2001; Tondeur et al. 2012).
The researchers used a meta-aggregative approach, developed in 2001 by the Joanna
Briggs Institute (http://joannabriggs.org), which comprises a systematic process of
extracting and synthesizing qualitative data. The outcome was an aggregative approach
that (1) emphasized the complexity of interpretive and critical understandings of phe-
nomena; (2) recognized the need to ensure that the approach to synthesis is transparent; and
(3) ensured that the synthesized statements would be practical and usable (Hannes and
Lockwood 2011). According to these authors, qualitative approaches can provide insights
into how and why specific pedagogical beliefs and technology uses are linked, or the
perceived reasons for the success or failure of interventions or programs in this field.
The increase in volume of available qualitative research in the field of pedagogical
beliefs and technology use enables the aggregation of findings, allowing us to synthesize
the knowledge gathered from individual studies. The main steps of meta-aggregation, as
used in this study, are outlined in our analysis section. Additional examples of the meta-
aggregative approach can be found in the Joanna Briggs Library of systematic reviews
(http://joannabriggslibrary.org).
Search strategy and inclusion criteria
Initially, identified articles were subject to two criteria for inclusion in the synthesis. First,
the research needed to focus on teachers’ pedagogical beliefs, and second, the article needed
to include some discussion of, or investigation into, how these beliefs related to classroom
technology use. The studies included in this synthesis were located through an extensive
search of the Web of Science. Opinion pieces, letters, and editorials were excluded. Key
words used in the literature search included ‘‘ICT,’’ ‘‘technology,’’ as well as ‘‘pedagogical
beliefs’’ or ‘‘educational beliefs’’ in combination with search filters identifying only qual-
itative empirical studies. Although the definition of technology can cover a broad range of
ideas, when searching within the Web of Science databases, the words ‘‘technology,’’ ‘‘IT,’’
or ‘‘ICT’’ were used. Furthermore, we restricted our search to include only empirical studies
published in English within the 10-year period of 2002–2012. Based on these searches, 77
potentially relevant journal articles were identified by the review team. The review team
consisted of the four authors, all experienced in research on the relationship between
pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education. The authors duly note their own biases
toward student-centered practices, which may be apparent throughout this paper. Ertmer
et al. (2015) conducted a review and found that constructivist beliefs lead to uses of
technology that support the development of 21st century skills.
In a first screening, the titles and abstracts of the studies were examined by two team
members. Exclusions were made if studies did not use qualitative methods or were
insufficiently focused on the topic. The insufficiently focused articles tended to concentrate
more heavily on generally beliefs about ICT as opposed to educational beliefs. Based on
this screening, only 14 studies remained (see Table 1). In some cases, full papers had to be
scanned due to poorly structured abstracts.
Analysis
As mentioned earlier, a meta-aggregative approach was used to review the qualitative
evidence. More specifically, this approach followed a three-step process, as described by
Hannes et al. (2010):
Understanding the relationship between teachers’...
123