Table of Contents



This study describes and evaluates a teacher preparation program that combines a school-university partnership and a 1:1 device initiative.


This educational design research report combines a 1:1 technology device experience with a school-university partnership to enhance teacher preparation for educational technology use.


This is a mixed-methods educational design research study. Interview responses share the benefits and lessons learned from the program experience. Survey responses give information about educational technology confidence among teacher candidates who took part in this program.


This study provides a description of a unique teacher preparation program designed to enhance educational technology confidence among teacher candidates and shares lessons learned from this experience in light of collected data.


Teacher candidates’ social outcome expectations for using technology were increased. Qualitative data indicate that the program also benefitted elementary school teachers by enhancing educational technology confidence and providing extra help.

Recommendations for Practitioners 

University teacher candidates should be given more embedded technology-focused classroom experiences. Smaller university class sizes are necessary to support these types of experiences.

Recommendations for Researchers

Future studies could more deeply investigate how school-university partnership programs with technology affect teacher candidates’ social outcome expectations and educational technology confidence.

Impact on Society

Approaches to teacher preparation similar to the one presented in this study can enhance students’ social outcome expectations for using technology.

Future Research

Future studies could investigate various educational technology initiatives’ effects on teacher candidates’ educational technology confidence and share teacher preparation program designs aimed at enhancing educational technology use.


teacher preparation, teacher candidate, educational technology, educational technology confidence, 1:1, school-university partnership


To prepare K-12 students for our fast-paced technological world, schools and teachers are doing more and more to integrate educational technology in the classrooms. University teacher preparation programs also seek to prepare teacher candidates (TCs) with the necessary skills to integrate technology into teaching and learning experiences. However, not all TCs are confident and comfortable implementing educational technology to support teaching and learning after their university preparation is over (Sutton, 2011; Tondeur et al., 2012). The common model for teacher preparation programs – the stand-alone educational technology class – has drawbacks, which include a lack of pedagogical method development, lack of time, failure to adapt to current research, and failure to address extraneous real-world issues that affect technology integration (Hartshorne, Ferdig, & Dawson, 2005). To overcome some of these issues, teacher preparation programs have developed initiatives to increase preparation, confidence, and experience for educational technology use among TCs. Two types of initiatives designed to increase this type of preparation, which are relevant to the current study, are school-university partnerships and 1:1 device programs (Donovan & Green, 2010; El-Amin et al., 2002; Nguyen et al., 2016; Polly, Heafner, Chapman, & Spooner, 2015). This educational design research study describes and evaluates a program that combines a school-university partnership and a 1:1 device initiative. The program design includes university elementary education language arts methods and educational technology classes integrated into a local elementary school. University TCs, university faculty members, elementary school teachers, and elementary students all have 1:1 iPads for teaching and learning activities. A variety of activities in the program involved TCs working directly with elementary students on learning activities including classroom observations, 1:1 learning projects, educational maker spaces, and whole-class teaching.


Innovative teacher preparation programs in the United States have focused on better connecting university and K-12 schools to provide TCs with more real-world practice integrating technology (Benedict, Holdheide, Brownell & Foley, 2016; El-Amin et al., 2002; Johnson-Gentile, Lonberger, Parana, & West, 2000; Polly et al., 2015). These innovative programs can range from university-connected K12 lab schools hosted on university campuses, to K-12 school-university partnerships featuring university classes in local K-12 schools (Polly et al., 2015). Holding university teacher preparation classes in a K-12 school can greatly increase the use of technology for K-12 learning and also improve the educational technology training of TCs (Hartshorne et al., 2005; Polly et al., 2015). Such experiences can help TCs gain knowledge and experience in dealing with real-world extraneous issues that can serve as barriers to technology integration in ways that traditional stand-alone educational technology classes cannot (Hartshorne et al., 2005; Lees & Kennedy, 2017).

Teacher preparation programs can also suffer from a lack of adequate access to technology tools and resources for TCs, leading to a lack of time for developing teaching methods and working with the technology tools (Hartshorne et al., 2005). To overcome these issues, some teacher preparation programs have adopted 1:1 device technology programs in an effort to support better technical expertise and use among TCs (Donovan & Green, 2010; Nguyen et al., 2016; Vasinda, Ryter, Hathcock, & Wang, 2017). A 1:1 device technology program means that each student within a class or a school has a personal device, such as an iPad or laptop, that he or she uses throughout the day (Bebell & Pedulla, 2015). A teacher preparation program that features 1:1 devices for TCs can better support beliefs consistent with high technology use and higher technology expertise among TCs than programs without 1:1 devices (Donovan, Green & Hansen, 2012; Hughes, 2013). In such programs, TCs have high access to technological devices and more opportunities to develop teaching methods using these devices (Nguyen et al., 2016).

Initiatives featuring 1:1 devices in K-12 schools also have great potential for enhancing student achievement and supporting positive changes in teaching methods (Bebell & Pedulla, 2015; Cavanaugh, Dawson, & Ritzhaupt, 2011). In one study, the implementation of laptop computing along with professional development within several schools yielded an increase in student-centered learning, project-based learning and time focused on academic tasks (Cavanaugh et al., 2011). Professional development and training that is situated within actual K-12 classrooms may be the best way to help teachers and TCs to teach effectively in a 1:1 device learning environment (see Kopcha, 2012).

Though there are many potential benefits of school-university partnerships and 1:1 device initiatives, as yet there are not many reports of teacher preparation programs that combine these approaches together (see Ally, Grimus, & Ebner, 2014; Benedict et al., 2016; Nguyen, 2016). Some possible reasons for this might include the high costs of 1:1 devices that match those used at the elementary school, difficulty coordinating the purchase and distribution of these devices, and difficulty in setting up partnerships with local schools and making arrangements for university TCs to attend classes away from campus (Baran, 2014; Benedict et al., 2016). The approach reported here is unique because it features university teacher preparation classes held within a working public elementary school and Apple iPads as the 1:1 devices for all university and elementary students.


One way to measure positive changes that may occur from innovative teacher preparation programs is to determine TCs’ confidence by using educational technologies for teaching and learning. Researchers have studied teachers’ and TCs’ preparation and confidence to integrate technology using terms such as technology self-efficacy (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, & Sendurur, 2012; Wang, Ertmer, & Newby, 2004) and outcome expectations (Niederhauser & Perkmen, 2010). Positive computer self-efficacy beliefs have a positive influence on computer use (Igbaria & Iivari, 1995; Thompson, Compeau, Higgins, & Lupton, 2008), and evidence suggests that teachers’ and TCs’ self-efficacy for technology integration is a factor in determining whether technology will be used in the classroom (Abbitt & Klett, 2007; Albion, 2001).

In addition to self-efficacy, outcome expectations among TCs have been shown to relate to their motivation to use instructional technologies (Niederhauser & Perkmen, 2010). Outcome expectations – beliefs that behavior will lead to a valued outcome – consist of three components, which include (a) performance outcome expectations, (b) self-evaluative outcome expectations, and (c) social outcome expectations (Bandura, 1986; Niederhauser & Perkmen, 2010). Teachers’ intrapersonal beliefs, including their expectations of how others will view them (social outcome expectations), can affect their use of technology in the classroom (Niederhauser & Perkmen, 2008, 2010). The above-mentioned studies suggest that TCs with a high self-efficacy for technology use and high outcome expectations are more likely to use educational technologies in their classrooms.


Despite advances in teacher preparation programs, there are still difficulties with aligning educational technology theory and practice to support TCs’ confidence to use and teach with educational technologies (Sutton, 2011; Tondeur et al., 2012). Few research reports of teacher preparation programs combine both 1:1 device initiatives and classes within a working school, with all of the possibilities for interaction with K-12 students that these provide (see Ally et al., 2014; Benedict et al., 2016; Nguyen et al., 2016). This report is an evaluation of the first year of a teacher preparation program that included elementary education classes within an elementary school and 1:1 devices. Data collected include quantitative survey data on educational technology outcome expectations and self-efficacy and qualitative interview data from elementary school faculty and administration on the benefits and lessons learned from the experience. The study follows tenets of educational design research, which includes real-world interventions, an iterative design process, and a focus on real-world utility (Van Den Akker, Gravemeijer, McKenney, & Nieveen, 2006). The questions for this educational design research study are 1. What program benefits have been realized and lessons have been learned from the perspective of current elementary teachers? 2. How has the program affected elementary teachers’ and teacher candidates’ educational technology confidence?


Evaluation data from this study suggest that a program that includes a 1:1 technology initiative and school-university partnership could increase TCs’ social outcome expectations. From a qualitative perspective, the program benefited the elementary school by providing extra help for elementary teachers and students and enhancing educational technology confidence among current teachers.

Based on this evaluation and first year of implementation experiences, the authors offer some suggestions for others who may be considering implementing a similar teacher preparation program. In this program, TCs learned much that cannot be replicated in a university course by experiencing authentic, embedded elementary classroom situations. Additionally, the embedded experiences this program provided an avenue for TCs, university faculty members, and current teachers to share and learn new ideas, strategies, and technologies from each other. An additional value of this experience was that TCs learned how to work with students in a 1:1 classroom and about possible 1:1 learning projects that could be used in their own future classrooms.

This program also found success due to a shared understanding from all the stakeholders that the coordination would be a “work in progress” and that everyone involved would need to remain flexible. Coordinating this type of program requires diligent work, patience, and understanding. It takes time and effort to coordinate the university class activities to match the needs of elementary classes, yet this time and effort is a necessary component of the experience. For those who may be considering implementing a similar program, smaller university class sizes (under 25 universities TCs) will likely work best in order to allow coordination with elementary class activities.

An unanticipated benefit of this program was elevated professionalism observed among new incoming TCs. In the second year of implementation, new TCs approached the program differently and were more prepared at the onset of the program and seemed to “rise to the challenge.” In general, it is recommended that more teacher preparation programs consider designing a program that includes more embedded experiences within an actual K-12 classroom where 1:1 technology is a primary focus.

About KSRA

The Kavian Scientific Research Association (KSRA) is a non-profit research organization to provide research / educational services in December 2013. The members of the community had formed a virtual group on the Viber social network. The core of the Kavian Scientific Association was formed with these members as founders. These individuals, led by Professor Siavosh Kaviani, decided to launch a scientific / research association with an emphasis on education.

KSRA research association, as a non-profit research firm, is committed to providing research services in the field of knowledge. The main beneficiaries of this association are public or private knowledge-based companies, students, researchers, researchers, professors, universities, and industrial and semi-industrial centers around the world.

Our main services Based on Education for all Spectrum people in the world. We want to make an integration between researches and educations. We believe education is the main right of Human beings. So our services should be concentrated on inclusive education.

The KSRA team partners with local under-served communities around the world to improve the access to and quality of knowledge based on education, amplify and augment learning programs where they exist, and create new opportunities for e-learning where traditional education systems are lacking or non-existent.

FULL Paper PDF file:




Gregory M. Francom* Northern State University, Aberdeen, South Dakota, USA gregory.francom@northern.edu Andria L. Moon Northern State University, Aberdeen, South Dakota, USA





Publish in

Journal of Information Technology Education-Research, JITEResearch  Volume 17  •  2018  •  pp. 423-440



PDF reference and original file: Click here

Website | + posts

Nasim Gazerani was born in 1983 in Arak. She holds a Master's degree in Software Engineering from UM University of Malaysia.

Website | + posts

Professor Siavosh Kaviani was born in 1961 in Tehran. He had a professorship. He holds a Ph.D. in Software Engineering from the QL University of Software Development Methodology and an honorary Ph.D. from the University of Chelsea.

+ posts

Somayeh Nosrati was born in 1982 in Tehran. She holds a Master's degree in artificial intelligence from Khatam University of Tehran.