Exploring teacher educators’ challenges in the context of digital transformation and their self-reported TPACK: a mixed methods study

ABSTRACT

The ongoing digital transformation requires teachers and teacher educators to re-conceptualise their roles and tasks. The purpose of the present study is to examine teacher educators’ challenges in the context of digital transformation, their technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) and the role of personal and contextual characteristics. To this end, this study employed an exploratory sequential mixed methods research design. Data were collected from individual semi-structured interviews (N = 8) and an online questionnaire (N = 179). Findings reveal that teacher educators experience challenges on the lecturer and institutional level. However, they rate their TPACK rather high. Results of multiple linear regression analysis indicate that frequency of digital technology use and perceived challenges are significant predictors of TPACK. Findings of the study shed light on teacher educators’ digital upskilling needs and relevant personal and contextual factors which need to be considered in the design of professional development curricula.

KEYWORDS:

• Teacher educators
• professional development
• digital transformation
• TPACK
• mixed method research

Introduction

The ongoing digital transformation, which was further accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, requires teachers and teacher educators worldwide to re-conceptualise their roles and tasks (Ceallaigh 2022). Teacher educators play a major role in educating and preparing (future) teachers to integrate digital technology in their classrooms (Tondeur et al. 2019; Uerz, Volman, and Kral 2018). As second-order teachers, they act as role models for (future) teachers in teaching with digital technology and should ensure that (future) teachers acquire the necessary digital competences (Lindfors, Pettersson, and Olofsson 2021). To achieve this challenging goal, teacher educators themselves need to demonstrate the required digital competences. This implies that teacher educators are required to continuously work on their competences and engage in continuing professional development (CPD) activities throughout their entire career (Van der Klink et al. 2017).

In the past decade, a substantial amount of research on pre-service and in-service teachers’ digital competences, mainly operationalised as Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK; Mishra and Koehler 2006), has been conducted. The TPACK framework describes the different domains of knowledge required by teachers to integrate technology successfully into their teaching (Mishra 2019). The TPACK framework distinguishes between three core domains of knowledge, including pedagogical knowledge (PK), content knowledge (CK) and technological knowledge (TK), and emphasises the importance of the interplay of these knowledge domains (Chai, Koh, and Tsai 2013; Mishra and Koehler 2006). While the TPACK framework has garnered significant attention over the past decade, the international research focus on the specific target group of teacher educators remains notably scant – despite their pivotal role as second-order teachers (Uerz, Volman, and Kral 2018) and ‘gatekeepers’ (Tondeur et al. 2019). To date, there is little research about the perspective of teacher educators regarding the ongoing digital transformation and its accompanying challenges, their self-reported TPACK and the relations with personal and contextual characteristics.

Against this background, the aim of the present study is threefold: a) to identify teacher educators’ challenges in the context of digital transformation, b) to examine how teacher educators perceive their TK, TPK and TPACK, and c) to investigate how teacher educators’ TPACK is related with personal and contextual characteristics. The study, conducted in Austria, offers insights that resonate far beyond its local context, highlighting the digital upskilling needs of teacher educators along with crucial personal and contextual factors. These findings are of international relevance, especially given the burgeoning global demand for digital competences among educators in the face of rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and related technologies. This research contributes original and timely knowledge that is vital for informing the development of professional training curricula worldwide.

Theoretical and empirical background

The professional group of teacher educators and the situation in Austria

The working group ‘Teacher Professional Development’ of the European Commission defines teacher educators as ‘all those who actively facilitate the (formal) learning of student teachers and teachers’ (European Commission 2013, 8). This broad definition indicates that teacher educators do not represent a homogeneous professional group. Rather, they work in many different institutional contexts (i.e. universities or teacher education colleges) and come from various educational backgrounds. Even teacher educators within the same country may vary considerably in terms of educational qualifications (Bachelor, Master, PhD), subject areas, work experience (in school and CPD), competences, work environments etc. Teacher educators must fulfil an array of different tasks: teaching and supervising (prospective) teachers, developing curricula, collaborating with school-based mentors and conducting research (Izadinia 2014). Experienced teacher educators may also hold leadership positions (e.g. Head of a Department) (Guberman and Mcdossi 2019). Empirical research (e.g. Goodwin et al. 2014) has shown that teacher educators often feel unprepared to manage all these different tasks. According to Swennen, Jones and Volman (2010), teacher educators are characterised by having several professional identities; they may view themselves as schoolteachers, as teachers in higher education, as researchers or as teachers of teachers – or a combination thereof.

The situation is no different for Austria. Various Austrian researchers (e.g. Katschnig et al. 2021; Wanitschek et al. 2020) point to the fact that teacher educators have different academic degrees in different fields, possess different competences (for example in teaching, research, supervision, school social work, leadership or coaching) and work in a spectrum from full employment to a part-time position as teacher educators. Teacher educators typically work at one of the 14 Austrian University Colleges of Teacher Education and there are three different types of employment. Teacher educators either have a full position at the University College of Teacher Education (permanent staff) or they are assigned or seconded staff. Assigned staff (German: dienstzugeteilt) refers to schoolteachers who are temporarily assigned for service to the University College of Teacher Education. Seconded staff (German: mitverwendet) refers to schoolteachers who are also temporarily assigned part-time for service to the University College of Teacher Education, but at the same time still work as teachers at school (Teacher Educator Service and Remuneration Law 2012). Teacher educators are responsible for both initial teacher education and teachers’ CPD. To create a guiding framework that supports University Colleges of Teacher Education in designing the responsibilities of the staff, a multidimensional activity profile was established by a working group of the Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research (BMBWF 2021). This activity profile is intended to provide an overview of the diverse activities of the staff responsible for teachers’ CPD in Austria. The main tasks include 1) university teaching and lecturing activities, 2) research activities and publications, 3) CPD for own field of activity, 4) internal and external communication, 5) external representation (i.e. participation in networking meetings and working groups) (BMBWF 2021). It is assumed that teacher educators need digital competences for all five task areas. This assumption is supported by empirical evidence from a study by Amhag, Hellström and Stigmar (2019) who found that teacher educators use digital tools in four different ways: for teaching, communication, administration and research. The successful integration of digital technology in teaching, however, is of utmost importance since teacher educators need to fulfil their dual didactical task of being a role model in teaching with digital technology and in turn enabling (prospective) teachers to develop digital competences (Lindfors, Pettersson, and Olofsson 2021).

Teacher educators’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

The TPACK framework emphasises the importance of the interactions of different knowledge domains, e.g. TPK and TPACK. The development of TPACK should be promoted by teacher education institutions (Voogt and McKenney 2017); however, this requires that teacher educators need to have the necessary digital competences. To date, there is only little research concerning the extent to which teacher educators possess these competences (Uerz, Volman, and Kral 2018).

In an empirical study with more than 500 teacher educators from six different countries in Europe and Asia, Castéra et al. (2020) found that the T knowledge domains were usually rated lower, indicating teacher educators’ need for further training on how to use technology (TK) as well as how to use technology to enable teaching approaches (TPK) in a particular subject or on a certain topic (TCK, TPACK). The study by Amhag, Hellström and Stigmar (2019) also highlights that teacher educators need pedagogical support for digital teaching. In other empirical studies (e.g. Voithofer and Nelson 2021; Voithofer et al. 2019), teacher educators not only rated their TPACK, but had to indicate whether they apply TPACK concepts in their teacher training courses (TPACK adoption). Teacher educators’ self-rated TPACK score turned out to be an important predictor of TPACK adoption (Voithofer et al. 2019). Teacher educators’ level of TPACK adoption, however, was rather low in these studies (Voithofer and Nelson 2021; Voithofer et al. 2019).

One would assume that the COVID-19 pandemic and the accompanying conditions have affected teacher educators’ digital competences and their TPACK, since teacher educators were ‘forced’ to integrate digital technologies in their teaching. As indicated by Swennen (2020), the COVID-19 pandemic was ‘one giant and collaborative experience in experiential learning’ for teachers and teacher educators (657). An empirical study on teacher educators’ sense of self-efficacy under COVID-circumstances found that teacher educators were indeed fairly satisfied with their professional performance; however, they rated their ability to integrate digital technologies effectively in their teaching much lower compared to other knowledge domains (e.g. content knowledge) (Donitsa-Schmidt and Ramot 2022).

Characteristics associated with TPACK

The C♭-model developed by Sailer, Schultz-Pernice and Fischer (2021) intends to systematise research on digital learning and teaching and to delineate the complex interplay of factors that facilitate successful digital teaching and learning in higher education. One of the factors includes higher education teachers’ (and thus also teacher educators’) knowledge, skills and attitudes, which can be further differentiated into basic digital skills (TK), technology-related teaching skills (TPK and TPACK) and attitudes towards digital technology. The C♭-model proposes that higher education teachers’ digital technology use (e.g. frequency of digital technology use) and higher education teachers’ qualification (i.e. further education and training, experiences during academic qualification) are related to higher education teachers’ knowledge, skills and attitudes. Higher education teachers’ qualification is, in turn, related to institutional, organisational and administrative factors. These factors are now further specified and empirical evidence for the target group of teacher educators is provided, if possible.

Digital Technology Use. Previous research has often focused on teacher educators’ technology integration, i.e. how often they integrate digital technologies in their teaching (e.g. Ifinedo and Kankaanranta 2021). The C♭-model assumes a bi-directional relationship between higher education teachers’ frequency of digital technology use and their knowledge, skills and attitudes (Sailer, Schultz-Pernice, and Fischer 2021). Integrating digital technologies in teaching frequently can be seen as a form of practice-based learning, which can affect teacher educators’ TPACK. Teacher educators’ TPACK, in turn, has an impact on teacher educators’ digital technology use in teaching.

Qualification. The C♭-model presumes that higher education teachers’ participation in training programmes and experiences during academic qualification have a positive impact on their knowledge, skills and attitudes (Sailer, Schultz-Pernice, and Fischer 2021). Teacher educators’ professional development activities can be further divided into formal CPD (e.g. training courses, seminars, workshops or conferences) and informal CPD (e.g. discussions with colleagues) (Van der Klink et al. 2017). Lindfors, Pettersson and Olofsson (2021) suggest that teacher educators’ digital competences can be improved through professional development programmes and ‘collegial learning’ and ‘peer mentoring’ (396). However, to our knowledge, there is no empirical study which has shown that teacher educators’ participation in formal and informal CPD is a predictor of teacher educators’ TPACK. Concerning teacher educators’ experience during academic qualification (e.g. experience as schoolteacher or teacher educator), Nelson et al. (2019) found no significant total effect on teacher educators’ TPACK.

Institutional, Organisational and Administrative Factors. According to the C♭-model, higher education teachers’ qualification relates to institutional, organisational and administrative factors. In the research literature, there is broad consensus that the successful integration of digital technology not only depends on personal but also on contextual factors (Liu, Geertshuis, and Grainger 2020). Relevant contextual factors, based on the C♭-model (Sailer, Schultz-Pernice, and Fischer 2021), include institutional infrastructure (e.g. technical equipment in rooms), technical and educational support (i.e. adequate support system to integrate digital technology), digitalisation policy and commitment of university administration (e.g. digitalisation strategy) and organisational development (i.e. organisational change among different stakeholders). For the target group of teacher educators, Nelson et al. (2019) found that higher perceptions of institutional support are indeed associated with higher TK and TPACK.

Age and Gender. Personal factors that are not mentioned in the C♭-model but have been investigated in other empirical studies on teachers’ TPACK include teachers’ age and gender. Regarding age, prior studies either found no or a negative correlation with teachers’ TPACK (e.g. Koh, Chai, and Tsai 2014). Findings regarding teachers’ gender remain inconclusive; while in some studies (e.g. Koh, Chai, and Tsai 2010) male (prospective) teachers rated their knowledge, particularly their TK higher than female (prospective) teachers, other studies (e.g. Jang and Tsai 2012) found no significant relationships between gender and TPACK.

The present study

When looking at prior TPACK research, it becomes obvious that the target group of teacher educators has been rather neglected as compared to pre-service and in-service teachers. Due to the various roles of teacher educators and their diverse prior skills and motivations, this target group is difficult to address in terms of CPD activities related to digitalisation. CPD activities, however, need to be aligned with teacher educators’ CPD needs. It is therefore important to gain broad understanding of teacher educators’ current professional situation and to identify challenges they are presently facing in the context of digital transformation. The present study aims to achieve this goal by using a mixed methods research design, which is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Research questions and design of the study.

At the outset of the present study, we adopted an open-ended perspective and conducted semi-structured interviews with Austrian teacher educators to get a deeper insight into their professional situation and current perceived challenges regarding the integration of digital teaching and learning technology. We then attempted to investigate whether the mentioned challenges apply to a larger group of Austrian teacher educators using a quantitative online survey.

Prior empirical studies with teacher educators from several different countries revealed that teacher educators typically rate their T knowledge domains lower than other knowledge domains (e.g. content knowledge). In the present study, we aimed to examine how Austrian teacher educators perceive their TK, TPK and TPACK. As the professional group of teacher educators in Austria is quite heterogeneous, we intended to determine whether there are any differences between permanent staff, seconded staff and assigned staff of teacher educators.

The literature review has shown that determinants and contextual factors of teacher educators’ TPACK are still underexplored. The C♭-model addresses important factors that facilitate successful digital teaching and learning; however, as noted by Sailer, Schultz-Pernice and Fischer (2021, 10) ‘not every aspect and every proposed relation in the C♭-model is equally well investigated yet’. In the present study, we therefore wanted to empirically examine the role of personal and contextual characteristics on teacher educators’ TPACK. By focusing on only one country, in this case Austria, it is possible to delineate the important personal and contextual factors. Specifically, we sought to investigate to what extent teacher educators’ demographic characteristics (age, gender), their qualifications (highest educational qualification, teacher educator experience, school experience and participation in formal and informal professional development activities), their technology integration (frequency of digital technology use in teaching) and their perceived challenges in the context of digital transformation are related to their TPACK.

Methodology

Design and procedure

To answer the research questions presented above, an exploratory sequential mixed methods research design (McCrudden, Marchand, and Schutz 2019) was implemented (see also Figure 1). In the first phase, qualitative data was collected via semi-structured interviews. The guided interviews were conducted with eight teacher educators from different Austrian University Colleges of Education using the video-conferencing system Zoom in January and February 2022. The selection of interview partners was based on relevant characteristics of the 14 Austrian University Colleges of Teacher Education (size, privately/state-funded university, level of digitalisation of the university). All interview partners were involved in conducting teachers’ CPD. In addition, respondents were partly involved in the organisation of CPD at their institution, so that they had a wider overview of challenges and competences. The average duration of the interviews was about 65 minutes. Besides teacher educators’ challenges, teacher educators were asked about evolving roles, tasks and needs in the context of digital transformation, which are not part of the current investigation. The recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim in German. Subsequently, the transcripts were analysed using the software MaxQDA employing qualitative content analysis according to Mayring (2015). Both deductive and inductive categories were devised to identify relevant themes. Based on the qualitative data findings on teacher educators’ challenges, a follow-up quantitative questionnaire was developed to evaluate the generalisability of the initial qualitative findings. The online questionnaire was distributed via the survey tool Unipark and participants were recruited via an email-distribution list by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research. Quantitative findings were analysed descriptively (research question 2) and for research question 3 linear multiple regression analysis was performed using the statistic software SPSS.

Participants

In this study, we used a convenience sampling strategy. Teacher educators from all 14 Austrian University Colleges of Teacher Education were invited by the Austrian Ministry of Education, Science and Research to voluntarily contribute to this research. The link to the online survey was distributed via email and the online survey was open for four weeks, from 8 April 2022 to 04.05.22. A total of 179 teacher educators participated in the online survey. The response rate for the online survey is unknown due to the online survey being administered by a third party (Austrian ministry) and restrictions in data sharing. 65.4% of the respondents were female, 30.7% were male and 1.7% were diverse (2.2% did not indicate). Respondents are on average M = 48.47 years old (SD = 9.83). Mean job experience in CPD is M = 11.23 years (SD = 9.10) and in school M = 18.02 years (SD = 10.36). Regarding the highest educational qualification, 62% had achieved a master’s degree/diploma, 20% had completed a doctorate/PhD and 84% of the respondents had a degree in the field of teacher training. Most of respondents are in seconded (48.6%) or assigned (18.4%) employment, while 30.07% are permanent staff.

Instruments

The quantitative questionnaire included a combination of items from previously validated instruments, newly created scales and personal demographics. The following demographic variables were obtained: gender, age, highest educational qualification, experience as a schoolteacher in years (school experience) and experience as teacher educator in years (TE experience). In addition, teacher educators were asked which formal and informal CPD offers in the context of digitalisation they use. Based on their indications, a sum score was formed with a higher total score representing a higher amount of formal and informal CPD offers used. As a validation check, teacher educators were additionally asked how many CPD courses they on average attend in one academic year (1 = none, 2 = 1–2, 3 = 3–4, 4 = 4–5, 5 = more than 5) and how many of these are related to the topic of digitalisation (same response scale). As these two variables correlated substantially and statistically significantly (r = .24 and r = .66) with the variable ‘formal CPD’, this variable was then used for further analyses. Teacher educators’ technology integration in teaching was measured by asking the participants how often they use digital tools for the preparation, implementation and follow-up of teaching (Cronbach’s α = .78).

To measure teacher educators’ TK, TPK and TPACK, the respective subscales of the TPACK.xs scale (Schmid, Brianza, and Petko 2020) were implemented in a slightly adapted version. Since this questionnaire was originally developed for teachers, some items were reformulated so that they are suitable for the context of teacher educators (e.g. for TPACK, teacher educators had to think about the topic and subject area they teach and not a particular school subject). Two experts in the field of educational technology and teacher professional development from the Austrian Ministry were asked to review the reformulated items for relevance, clarity and alignment with the TPACK framework. The experts provided feedback, which was incorporated into the final version of the scale. Additionally, we evaluated the hypothesised three-dimensionality of our TPACK scale to substantiate the scale’s construct validity. The analysis confirms that the TPACK framework for assessing teacher educators’ digital competences is best represented as a multidimensional construct, with the 3-factor model providing superior fit compared to 1- and 2-factor alternatives; detailed interpretations and results are elaborated in the Appendix. Besides, all three subscales yielded satisfactory internal consistencies (TK: α = .91, TPK: α = .93, TPACK: α = .90).

To measure teacher educators’ challenges in the context of digital transformation, nine new items were formulated based on the qualitative data findings (see Table 1). The items were introduced with the following question: ‘Digitalisation brings along major challenges for lecturers. How much do the following challenges apply to you personally when you think about your work at the University College of Teacher Education?’. On a scale from 1 to 5, teacher educators could indicate whether they do not see this as a challenge at all (1) or whether they see this as a very big challenge (5).

Table 1. Rotated results of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) (n = 179).

Item number	Item description	M	SD	F1	F2
Item 1	Teachers need technical skills to use digital tools.	2.75	1.30	.84	.23
Item 2	Teachers need integrated knowledge about the use of digital tools and their pedagogical benefits.	2.91	1.32	.94	.21
Item 3	Teachers need to be able to reflect critically on the use of new technologies in higher education.	2.79	1.32	.73	.24
Item 4	The continuing education offerings on digital competences for teachers are not sufficient or not suitable for their needs.	2.67	1.21	.28	.63
Item 5	The workload of multiple tasks does not leave enough room for personal training and development.	3.30	1.44	.32	.60
Item 6	It is difficult to articulate one’s own needs in terms of digital skills.	2.54	1.25	.41	.56
Item 7	There is a lack of incentives or requirements for continuing education and training.	2.54	1.31	.22	.72
Item 8	There is a lack of networking with colleges from the own and other University Colleges of Teacher Education on the topic of digitalisation.	2.70	1.35	.26	.67
Item 9	The technical equipment at the University College of Teacher Education is not sufficient.	2.82	1.51	−.00	.41

The highest loadings of the items on the two factors are presented in bold.

Results

Teacher educators’ perceived challenges in the context of digital transformation

Qualitative findings

All eight teacher educators reported that the shift to distance learning and remote work due to the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a major challenge for teacher educators at their institution. Teacher educators’ perceived challenges were inductively grouped into nine different categories, which later formed the basis for the quantitative questionnaire. The first challenge concerned the lack of basic digital skills of some teacher educators, leading to the situation that more experienced teacher educators had to provide technical support to other colleagues. Second, interviewees highlighted the importance of integrated knowledge by arguing that teacher educators need more knowledge on methodological-didactic implementation of digital tools in teaching. Interviewee 2, for example, mentioned:

‘I need a certain repertoire of methods. I can’t just use Zoom and share a PowerPoint there. Then I’m just doing a PowerPoint again, only this time via Zoom and everyone is sitting at home’.

The third challenge relates to teacher educators’ lack of knowledge of legal aspects of digitalisation, e.g. data protection and data security. Fourth, interviewees mentioned that critical reflection on digital transformation and (future) developments (e.g. artificial intelligence, big data) presents a major challenge. Teacher educators also expressed that only a limited amount of time can be used for CPD activities due to their high workload of multiple tasks, which forms the fifth challenge. Interviewee 1, for example, said:

Actually, we’re always at the limits where we say we need another reduction of teaching load to be able to do the other things well.

Sixth, interviewees mentioned that a clear definition of teacher educators’ work tasks and competences needed would be helpful to identify upskilling areas. Interviewee 3, for instance, expressed that it is extremely difficult to select CPD courses if there are no standards or certain requirements related to digital competences. The seventh challenge concerns the lack of incentives or requirements for teacher educators’ CPD. Interviewee 6 suggested that mandatory training courses would be good because cooperation with some colleagues (who show a lack of basic digital skills) would then be easier. Teacher educators also pointed to the lack of informal exchange with colleagues from their own (due to remote work) and other University Colleges of Teacher Education. Finally, teacher educators referred to the insufficient technical equipment at some organisations. Interviewee 6, for instance, mentioned:

The equipment in the offices is not that good … there are between 2 and 3 people per office which is good for collaboration but bad for online meetings. Everyone has a computer, but no second screen, webcams can be borrowed from the secretary’s office … the sound in the office is not that good either so online meetings are done from home, where self-paid equipment is used.

Quantitative findings

Based on the qualitative data findings, nine items were formulated to see whether these challenges apply to a larger group of Austrian teacher educators. To investigate the underlying structure of the nine items of the teacher educator challenges scale, exploratory factor analysis (Maximum likelihood estimation with varimax rotation) was conducted. The scree plot pointed towards a two-factor solution accounting for 55.04% of the common variance among the items, with eigenvalues of 3.63 and 1.33. Table 1 presents the results of the exploratory factor analysis as well as the means and standard deviations of the different items. The set of items with high loadings on the first factor accounted for 40.28% and was labelled ‘challenges on the lecturer level’. The set of items with high loadings on the second factor accounted for 14.77% of the variance and was labelled ‘challenges on the institutional level’. In the second step, a reliability test was conducted on each of the two factors to examine the internal consistency, yielding satisfactory Cronbach’s alpha values of .90 and .81 respectively.

In our sample, teacher educators regard challenges on the lecturer level (M = 2.82, SD = 1.20) as slightly higher than challenges on the institutional level (M = 2.76, SD = 0.96). The biggest challenge for teacher educators seems to be the high workload of multiple tasks, which does not leave enough room for personal training and development.

Teacher educators’ self-reported TPACK

In general, teacher educators rated their TK (M = 3.97; SD = 0.88), their TPK (M = 3.94; SD = 1.02) and their TPACK (M = 3.81; SD = 1.07) as rather high. To examine whether there are any differences in teacher educators’ TK, TPK and TPACK between permanent, seconded and assigned staff, one-way ANOVAs were performed for each subscale. For teacher educators’ TK (p = .79) and TPK (p = .22), we could not find statistically significant differences between the three groups. For teacher educators’ TPACK, however, there was a statistically significant difference between at least two groups as determined by one-way ANOVA (F(2, 172) = 4.77, p = .01). A Tukey post hoc test revealed that the TPACK of seconded staff was significantly lower than the TPACK of permanent staff (p = .02, 95% C.I. = [0.06, 0.89]). There was no statistically significant difference between permanent and assigned staff (p = .99) and only a marginally significant difference between assigned and seconded staff (p = .06).

Characteristics associated with teacher educators’ self-reported TPACK

Intercorrelations of all study variables were computed to identify general patterns among all study variables (see Table 2). To examine whether teacher educators’ demographic characteristics, qualifications, technology integration and perceived challenges in the context of digital transformation are related to their TPACK, we then performed multiple linear regression analysis.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and correlations for study variables.

Variable	n	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1. Gender	179	–	–	–
2. Age	162	48.47	9.83	.03	–
3. Highest educational qualification	179	7.93	1.23	.21**	.18*	–
4. TE experience	179	11.23	9.10	.11	.62**	.25**	–
5. School experience	172	18.02	10.36	−.06	.71**	−.03	.38**	–
6. Formal CPD	179	2.74	1.96	.08	.18*	.12	.26**	.21**	–
7. Informal CPD	179	4.10	1.70	.04	.08	.23**	.20**	.05	.38**	–
8. Technology integration	179	3.99	.99	.12	−.04	.19*	.08	.00	.35**	.14	–
9. TK	179	3.97	.88	.29**	−.12	.14	.07	−.02	.39**	.15*	.40**	–
10. TPK	179	3.94	1.02	.10	−.01	.17*	.12	.02	.31**	.15	.53**	.54**	–
11. TPACK	179	3.81	1.07	.09	−.05	.20**	.10	−.06	.25**	.20**	.51**	.50**	.79**	–
12. Challenges on the individual level	179	2.82	1.20	.06	.05	.07	−.05	.04	−.10	.01	.04	−.19*	.09	−.06	–
13. Challenges on the institutional level	179	2.76	.96	−.05	−.13	.11	−.10	.02	−.07	−.05	.12	−.07	.00	.13	.51**	–
14. Type of employment	172	–	–	−.03	.20*	−.06	.02	.36**	.03	.12	−.01	−.05	.02	−.04	.03	.05	–

The analysis yielded significant effects for three variables (see Table 3): technology integration, challenges on the lecturer level and challenges on the institutional level. Teacher educators’ demographic characteristics (i.e. gender and age) did not significantly predict their TPACK scores. Likewise, teacher educators’ qualifications (i.e. highest educational qualification, TE and school experience, participation in formal and informal CPD) were not significantly associated with teacher educators’ TPACK. However, informal CPD (B = .085, p = .09) seems to have a higher effect on teacher educators’ TPACK than formal CPD (B = .008, p = .86). Teacher educators’ frequent technology integration (i.e. frequency of digital technology use in teaching) was positively related with higher levels of teacher educators’ TPACK. Another significant predictor of teacher educators’ TPACK are teacher educators’ perceived challenges on the lecturer level: if these are perceived as big challenges, teacher educators’ TPACK decreases, as indicated by the negative regression coefficient B. Teacher educators’ perceived challenges on the institutional level also turned out to be a significant predictor of teacher educators’ TPACK; however, if these are perceived as big challenges, teacher educators’ TPACK increases, as indicated by the positive regression coefficient B. Overall, this model explains 20.8% of the variance in the TPACK scores.

Table 3. Results of the multiple linear regression analysis predicting teacher educators’ TPACK.

Model	R^2	Adj. R^2	F	B	SE	β	t	p	95% CI
	.26	.21	F(10, 147) = 5.133***
Constant				1.25	.86		1.45	.15	[−.45, 2.95]
Age				−.002	.01	−.02	−.16	.87	[−.03, .02]
Gender				.050	.15	.02	.34	.74	[−.24, .35]
Highest educational qualification				.046	.09	.04	.53	.60	[−.13, .22]
TE experience				.007	.01	.06	.62	.54	[−.02, .03]
School experience				−.005	.01	−.06	−.52	.61	[−.03, .02]
Formal CPD				.008	.05	.02	.18	.86	[−.09, .10]
Informal CPD				.085	.05	.13	1.69	.09	[−.01, .18]
Technology integration				.454	.08	.41	5.41	<.001	[.29, .62]
Challenges lecturer level				−.168	.08	−.19	−2.24	.03	[−.32, −.02]
Challenges institutional level				.192	.09	.18	2.03	.04	[.01, .38]

Dependent variable: Teacher educators’ TPACK, *** F-value is significant at the p < .001, B = unstandardised regression coefficient; SE = standard error; t = t-statistic value; CI = confidence interval; N = 179.

Discussion and conclusion

The goal of this study was to gain a broad understanding of Austrian teacher educators’ current perceived challenges in the context of digital transformation, their self-reported TPACK and the role of personal and contextual characteristics in this regard. Using a mixed methods approach, we could investigate the current professional situation of Austrian teacher educators both in-depth via the interviews and from a large-scale perspective via the online survey. Identifying teacher educators’ digital upskilling needs and the role of personal and contextual factors is an important step for the design of professional development curricula. Although we focused on one single country, in our case Austria, the findings of our study can be beneficial for the development of professional development programmes for teacher educators globally, as the challenges and needs for training in teaching with digital technology are common themes worldwide.

The qualitative and quantitative findings of this study show that Austrian teacher educators perceive challenges both on the lecturer and institutional level. Challenges on the lecturer level include particularly the availability of integrated knowledge about the use of digital tools and their pedagogical benefits (TPACK). This finding is in line with previous research (e.g. Donitsa-Schmidt and Ramot 2022), which found that TPACK is most challenging for teacher educators, as it necessitates the interplay of technology, pedagogy and subject matter. Challenges on the institutional level notably concern the excessive workload of multiple tasks, which inhibits Austrian teacher educators from participating in CPD activities. Similar observations concerning the high workload, large number of time-consuming tasks and lack of time were made in other empirical studies with teacher educators from the USA (Carpenter et al. 2020), Ireland (Ceallaigh 2022) and Vietnam (O’Connor et al. 2023).

Despite the challenges, Austrian teacher educators rated their TK, TPK and TPACK fairly high – higher than pre-service teachers (Schmid, Brianza, and Petko 2020), but lower than a sample of in-service teachers who used the same questionnaire (Cui and Zhang 2022). Align with results from previous empirical studies (e.g. Donitsa-Schmidt and Ramot 2022), teacher educators’ TPACK was rated lowest among the T dimensions. Seconded staff, i.e. teacher educators who currently also work as schoolteachers rated their TPACK significantly lower than permanent and assigned staff. A possible explanation for this result might be that this group has a higher workload and perhaps difficulties switching between two work contexts. Due to their first-hand experience as schoolteacher, they might also be aware that the successful integration of digital technologies for teaching and learning a particular subject is not an easy endeavour. It might be that seconded staff has therefore provided more realistic evaluations of their TPACK compared to their counterparts.

Our findings from linear multiple regression analysis suggest that frequency of digital technology use and challenges on the lecturer and institutional level are significantly associated with teacher educators’ TPACK. The frequency of digital technology use highlights the importance of informal CPD and practice-based learning. If teacher educators frequently gain experience in using digital technologies in their teaching, they estimate their TPACK higher. This is in line with the finding that informal CPD has a higher, though not significant, effect on teacher educators’ TPACK than formal CPD. This finding, thus, corroborates previous research (e.g. Donitsa-Schmidt and Ramot 2022) showing that informal learning is the type of professional learning that teachers educators prefer to engage in and that positively impacts their work. In our study, teacher educators’ qualifications were not significantly associated with teacher educators’ TPACK. The proposed relation between higher education teachers’ qualification and their knowledge, skills and attitudes in the C♭-model (Sailer, Schultz-Pernice, and Fischer 2021) could therefore not be confirmed in our study. A possible explanation for the non-correlation between formal CPD and TPACK could be that by attending CPD courses teacher educators realise that the successful integration of digital technologies in teaching is much more complex than they thought, which then impacts their self-beliefs about their competences.

Interestingly, challenges on the lecturer and institutional level both have an impact on teacher educators’ TPACK, but we found opposite regression coefficients. If teacher educators perceive challenges on the lecturer level as big, it makes sense that they rate their TPACK lower. If teacher educators perceive challenges on the institutional level as big, they, in contrast, rate their TPACK higher. Teacher educators with higher TPACK might be more aware of institutional shortcomings and potentials for improvement as compared to teacher educators with lower TPACK. Ungar and Baruch (2016) made similar observations in their study and suggested that teacher educators who feel more competent in using technology can better master challenges related to its integration in teaching and learning. Besides, teacher educators with higher TPK can better assess the quality of technology integration (Ungar and Baruch 2016). Overall, it can be concluded that teacher educators with low TPACK are rather confronted with challenges on the lecturer level, while teacher educators with high TPACK are faced with challenges on the institutional level.

Limitations and future research

The current study displays some limitations which need to be acknowledged. First, the study relies solely on teacher educators’ subjective self-reports. Teacher educators had to self-assess their TK, TPK and TPACK using a short, ecologically valid and reliable questionnaire (Schmid, Brianza, and Petko 2020). Teacher educators’ responses may be biased due to social desirability, particularly because participants were contacted by the Ministry. Previous empirical studies (e.g. Kopcha et al. 2014) have shown that self-report measures only weakly correlate with performance-based assessments. Future studies are therefore encouraged to use test-based approaches (e.g. Lachner, Backfisch, and Stürmer 2019) to assess teacher educators’ TPACK dimensions. To measure technology-related teaching skills, another option would be to use scenario-based self-assessment instruments, for example the IN.K19 (Sailer, Schultz-Pernice, and Fischer 2021), which combine self-reports with job-related scenarios to help respondents estimate their skills more accurately. The use of a convenience sampling strategy, while practical, also constitutes a limitation of this study as it may not fully represent the diverse populations of teacher educators.

Another limitation concerns the fact that our multiple linear regression model explains only 21% of the variance in teacher educators’ TPACK. Future studies are invited to continue investigating the influence of additional relevant personal and contextual characteristics on teacher educators’ TPACK. These include, for example, attitudes towards digital technologies, institutional infrastructure, technical and educational support, digitalisation policy and commitment to organisation and organisational development (Sailer, Schultz-Pernice, and Fischer 2021). Finally, it must be noted that – due to the cross-sectional design – causal claims about the relationship between TPACK and other variables should be made with caution. More (quasi-)experimental studies are warranted to advance our understanding of important determinants of teacher educators’ TPACK. These could, for instance, investigate the effects of different forms of CPD on teacher educators’ TPACK.

Implications, recommendations and conclusion

The findings of the present study have some practical implications for the design of professional development curricula not only in Austria but globally. To provide tailor-made CPD opportunities for teacher educators, their tasks, responsibilities and necessary competences need to be clarified and communicated clearly. For the Austrian case, tasks, responsibilities and necessary competences need to be determined separately for the three types of employment (permanent, seconded and assigned staff). Given that seconded staff has additional school responsibilities, it is less likely that they can devote the same amount of time to tasks as permanent and assigned staff. It should be clarified whether tasks such as research activities and publications or external representation are also part of their job profile. Considering the multiple burdens of teacher educators, a curriculum with a modular structure and hybrid or digital implementation of training programmes is recommended. Besides, it should be pondered how time resources could be created for teacher educators’ training (e.g. reduction of teaching load). Concerning formal CPD, more training offers for the methodological-didactic implementation of digital tools in teaching need to be provided to foster teacher educators’ TPACK. These should include practice-based elements, meaning that teacher educators design and develop technology-enhanced learning scenarios for their teaching. There should also be training programmes for different competence levels (e.g. beginner, intermediate, advanced). Besides formal CPD, opportunities for informal exchange with colleagues from their own and other teacher education organisations should be created. This could be accomplished through a common online platform or face-to-face networking events.

To conclude, the added value of the present study lies in the combination of qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis to gain a broad understanding of Austrian teacher educators’ current perceived challenges in the context of digital transformation, their self-reported TPACK and the role of personal and contextual characteristics. We identified previously unexplored challenges of Austrian teacher educators in the context of digital transformation, contributing to a more nuanced understanding of their digital upskilling needs. Besides, the study adds to the limited research on teacher educators’ TPACK who are considered gatekeepers as they prepare the future generation of teachers to integrate educational technologies into their teaching. The study also advances theory by testing a specific set of relationships between teacher educators’ TPACK and personal and contextual characteristics as established in the C♭-model by Sailer, Schultz-Pernice and Fischer (2021). In terms of practice, the study provides guidelines for the design of professional development curricula and necessary framework conditions on the institutional level. Key takeaways of the study include the following:

• Teacher educators find integrating knowledge of technology, pedagogy and content particularly challenging.

• On the institutional level, teacher educators are concerned about the excessive workload of multiple tasks.

• Frequency of digital technology use is a significant predictor of teacher educators’ TPACK.

• Informal CPD has a higher effect on teacher educators’ TPACK than formal CPD.

• Teacher educators’ gender, age and professional experience were not significantly associated with their TPACK.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This research project was funded by the European Union via the Technical Support Instrument, in cooperation with the Directorate-General for Structural Reform Support of the European Commission and the Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research of Austria as beneficiary.

Notes on contributors

Marlene Wagner

Marlene Wagner is a post-doctoral researcher at the Centre for Digitalisation in Lifelong Learning at the University for Continuing Education Krems, Austria. She holds a PhD in Psychology from the University of Passau, Germany. Her research focuses on the effectiveness of technology-enhanced learning environments (e.g. flipped classrooms, synchronous hybrid classrooms) and on teachers’ as well as teacher educators’ professional development regarding technology integration in the classroom.

Tobias Ley

Tobias Ley is a Professor for Continuing Education in Digital Learning Environments. His research interests are in technology-enhanced learning and learning analytics, adaptive and collaborative learning technology and educational innovation. His research has been published in over 100 scientific articles and has won several awards, including the state science award of the Estonian Academy of Sciences in 2020, and the European Research Excellence Award for Vocational Education and Training in 2018. Tobias holds a PhD and habilitation in Psychology and Knowledge Management from the University of Graz, Austria.

Lydia Kammerer

Lydia Kammerer is a recent graduate from the Teacher Training Programme at Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria, and currently works as a middle school teacher. She used to work as a research assistant at the Department of Educational Research at Johannes Kepler University Linz and has been involved in the project “Digitalisation of the Austrian Education System – The Digital Upskilling of Teacher Educators”.

Christoph Helm

Christoph Helm is Professor of Education and Head of the School of Education at Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria. He is also the chair of the study commission PhD in Education. His research interests include school and teaching quality research, large-scale studies, out-of-field teaching and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on schools, teaching and learning. Christoph holds a PhD and habilitation in educational research from the Johannes Kepler University Linz.

Appendix

Table A1 and A2 provide detailed results from a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) comparing different factor structures of the (adapted) TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) scale for measuring digital competences in teacher educators. The first table indicates a 3-factor model with good fit indices, suggesting a nuanced structure of TPACK. The second table compares a 3-factor model with 2- and 1-factor alternatives, showing that the 3-factor model outperforms the others in terms of fit, indicating that TPACK is best represented as a multidimensional construct comprising separate but related dimensions. These findings support the content validity of the adapted TPACK version used in our study.

Table

npar	df	p	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	ci.low	ci.upp	SRMR
27.00	51	0.000	0.942	0.925	0.090	0.071	0.109	0.046

Table

χ2	df	p-value	rmsea	cfi	tli	SRMR	AIC	BIC	dchi	ddf	npval
118.97	51.00	0.00	0.09	0.94	0.93	.05	3,753.96	3,837.98	–	–	–
262.47	53.00	0.00	0.15	0.83	0.79	.08	3,936.60	4,014.40	78.802a	2	0
381.14	54.00	0.00	0.19	0.73	0.67	.09	4,082.21	4,156.89	162.005b	1	0