ICT integration in teachers’ lesson plans: a scoping review of empirical studies

ABSTRACT

The paper applies a scoping review of k = 16 empirical studies from nine countries and three continents that aim at an empirical investigation of teachers‘ ICT integration in lesson plans as part of their professional competence. We summarise the results into four sections: conceptualisations, study design, measurement instruments, and key findings of studies. Although most studies predominantly relate their conceptualisations on the TPACK model, they go beyond in addressing ICT integration in lesson plans as a skill, using various measurement instruments. We therefore link key findings of studies to the teacher competence discourse, highlighting ICT integration in lesson plans as a situation-specific skill of teachers, being predicted by teacher knowledge and beliefs and predicting observable teacher performance in class. Moreover, intervention studies inform about the change of ICT integration in lesson plans effected by learning opportunities both in initial teacher education and in teacher professional development.

KEYWORDS:

• Competence
• ICT
• lesson plan
• teacher
• teacher education
• TPACK

Introduction

Teaching and learning can benefit from using and integrating information and communication technology (ICT) (Belland et al. 2017; Legrain et al. 2015; Li and Ma 2010; Sung, Yang, and Lee 2017). However, whether and to what level of quality ICT is implemented in teaching and learning heavily depends on the decisions teachers make for the instructional design of their lessons. How teachers plan their lessons, therefore, is decisive for ICT integration in the classroom. Broad agreement exists that lesson planning serves to integrate technology into the classroom (e.g. Webb and Cox 2004; Harris and Hofer 2011; Hutchison and Woodsward 2018; Tondeur et al. 2012; Kirschner 2015). For example, Janssen, Knoef, and Lazonder (2019, 115) maintain that ‘successful use of ICT in the classroom requires thoughtful integration of technology and pedagogical processes during lesson preparation’. In educational research, various frameworks are utilised to conceptualise teachers’ integration of ICT in their lesson planning (see, for overviews, e.g. Kimmons, Graham, and West 2020; Tondeur et al. 2012). Therefore, in the following, ‘integration’ is initially used as a comprehensive term to refer to various measures taken by the teacher to account for ICT, digitalisation, or technology during lesson planning. Then, one of the objective of the present scoping review is to contribute to a more precise understanding of the underlying processes of how teachers integrate ICT in lesson planning as part of their professional competence.

Since digitalisation at school has increasingly become a prominent topic – both due to the general digital transformation process (Selwyn 2012; McFarlane 2019) and the need for distant learning during school closure caused by the pandemic (König, Jäger-Biela, and Glutsch 2020a; Carrillo and Flores 2020) – we consider ICT integration in lesson planning as highly relevant topic for teacher education and professional development and therefore ask what empirical educational research says so far about how teachers integrate ICT in their lesson plans. Although lesson planning as a topic in teacher education has been dominated by numerous guidelines and prescriptive frameworks developed in recent decades and applied by teacher educators in training preservice teachers (e.g. John 2006; Scholl 2018), empirical research on lesson planning, in particular with a focus on related teacher competence facets, has become visible only recently (König et al. 2020b; König, Krepf, Bremerich-Vos, and Buchholtz 2021). This recent development gives occasion to conduct a scoping review (Munn et al. 2018) of empirical studies on ICT integration in lesson planning. The present paper uses a database of k = 16 empirical studies to generate answers to the following research questions:

First, what kind of teachers’ ICT integration in their lesson planning has been investigated so far in empirical educational research? Here we are interested in conceptualisations, study designs, and measurement instruments that have been developed and applied. Second, what key empirical findings have been brought forward by these studies? Due to our focus on teacher competence, we are interested in the relationships to relevant teacher variables, such as their knowledge and performance, as well as learning opportunities that support a teacher’s professional ICT integration in lesson plans. We consider the focus of these research questions relevant since the mere occurrence of ICT in classroom teaching and learning does not necessarily mean that teachers are sufficiently equipped to actively create appropriate environments to allow digitalisation in schools. Our focus on teachers’ ICT integration in their lesson planning therefore emphasises the significant role teachers play in the transformation process of digitalisation at school and what teacher education can contribute to support teacher competence in this particular area.

Teacher competence

The integration of technology into the classroom may depend on the contribution of various factors (e.g. Atman Uslu and Usluel 2019). Regarding teachers, their knowledge, skills, and attitudes have increasingly received attention over the last decade (European Commission 2013). Teacher competence can be considered as ‘context-specific, cognitive performance dispositions that are functionally responsive to situations and demands in certain domains’ (Kaiser and König 2019, 599; Blömeke, Gustafsson, and Shavelson 2015). Following Shulman’s classification of teacher knowledge (Shulman 1987), the knowledge base of the professional teacher comprises at least content knowledge (CK), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), and general pedagogical knowledge (GPK) (Blömeke 2017). For mastering typical challenges of teaching, teachers are required to weave such knowledge into coherent understandings and skills (Blömeke, Gustafsson, and Shavelson 2015), coupled with affective-motivational teacher characteristics (e.g. teacher beliefs and self-efficacy, Blömeke 2017). The ICT transformation process in educational systems (Selwyn 2012) has resulted in extending the ‘classical’ teacher knowledge categories proposed by Shulman (1987): Today, teachers are required to incorporate specific knowledge they need to master the challenges associated with using ICT in teaching and learning at school.

One of the frameworks employed by many empirical studies on teacher knowledge and ICT is the TPACK model, which portrays the professional knowledge that teachers should possess (Mishra and Koehler 2006). It specifically focuses on the technological knowledge (TK) of teachers, which is added to a more basic understanding of teacher knowledge classified by Shulman (1987). The TPACK model specifies various intersections of TK with CK and GPK, often illustrated by a Venn diagram (Mishra and Koehler 2006, 1025). TPACK is the overall intersection of teacher knowledge categories (CK, GPK, and TK, including PCK). It is called ‘technological pedagogical content knowledge’ and constitutes the core of the model developed by Mishra and Koehler (2006).

Although many studies have used TPACK as a framework and survey instruments exist to measure the proposed seven distinct knowledge types resulting from the Venn diagram (e.g. Schmidt et al. 2009), its practicality for analysing technology integration in empirical studies has been questioned (e.g. Brantley-Dias and Ertmer 2013). Following this critical discourse, we consider that teachers’ competence towards ICT integration requires not only a professional knowledge base that can be described through analytically differentiated categories as suggested by TPACK, but also situation-specific skills to link such teacher knowledge with teacher performance in class (Blömeke, Gustafsson, and Shavelson 2015; König et al. 2021).

Lesson planning

That professional knowledge as a ‘cognitive disposition‘ of teachers is relevant, but not sufficient for their successful teaching performance, has largely been agreed on (Blömeke, Gustafsson, and Shavelson 2015; König et al. 2020b; Sailer et al. 2021). Teacher professional knowledge, such as knowledge about ICT integration as defined by the TPACK model, is not equal to the teacher’s procedure of planning a lesson or the integration of ICT in lesson plans (Brantley-Dias and Ertmer 2013; Harris and Hofer 2011). Lesson planning is bounded on contexts such as specific learning groups (Mutton, Hagger, and Burn 2011; Jacobs, Martin, and Otieno 2008; John 2006). For example, ‘teachers need to use their knowledge of learners and their subject expertise to select appropriate ICT resources that will provide affordances to enable students to meet the learning objectives' (Webb and Cox 2004, 276). Accounting for this, going beyond the limited scope of declarative knowledge tests (Shavelson 2010), teacher competence research has started to measure situation-specific skills related to lesson planning (König et al. 2020b, 2021). The present review examines empirical studies that approach the situation-specific measurement of teachers’ decisions when planning ICT integration for their lessons.

ICT integration in lesson planning

For decades, the integration of teaching material and media has been accounted for in the conceptualisations of lesson planning (Reiser 2001). Besides major fields of teachers’ planning decisions, such as content transformation, setting learning objectives, and selecting teaching methods, teachers have long been required to decide about appropriate material (e.g. worksheets, tasks) and media representation (e.g. realia, blackboard writing, and drawing) (Arnold and Koch-Priewe 2011). However, with the wider ICT transformation process in educational systems (Selwyn 2012; McFarlane 2019) and the increasing attainment of prominence of digitalisation in schools, the demands posed on teachers’ action have changed fundamentally (Tondeur et al. 2012; Voithofer and Nelson 2020).

Schools are expected to increasingly interweave their curriculum with ICT, and teachers are required to provide learning opportunities for their students to allow the use of advanced technological tools and digital resources for creative and innovative problem solving (Kozma 2011). Therefore, the demand to integrate ICT in lesson planning clearly goes beyond teachers’ decisions about appropriate material and media representation.

Against this background, numerous frameworks and models to describe and categorise a teacher’s use of ICT in the classroom have been developed, too great to be detailed here (e.g. Atman Uslu and Usluel 2019; Kimmons, Graham, and West 2020; Tondeur et al. 2012). We may illustrate this exemplarily by mentioning three different approaches – without intending to be exhaustive: First, technology integration in educational settings has been discussed that would be consistent with the already cited TPACK framework (e.g. Kimmons, Graham, and West 2020; Wetzel et al. 2014). Second, a more general approach is the Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) model by Puentedura (2006). Starting with the Substitution level, in which technology is merely substituted for analogue technology, teachers are encouraged to move up to higher levels: Augmentation (providing functional changes of tasks and tools), Modification (redesigning of technology integration), and Redefinition (using ICT to create novel tasks). Other models have been developed as well that relate to SAMR (see, for more details, e.g. Kimmons, Graham, and West 2020; Pringle, Dawson, and Ritzhaupt 2015). Third, an overall emphasis on teaching for ‘meaningful learning’ while using technology has been given by various conceptualisations and corresponding frameworks over nearly two decades (e.g. Ashburn and Floden 2006; Howland, Jonassen, and Marra 2013; Koh 2019). For example, the Technology Integration Matrix (TIM) constitutes a framework for planning for the use of technology to enhance learning (Harmes, Welsh, and Winkelman 2016). It comprises several pedagogical elements (e.g. collaborative, constructive etc.) that are linked to levels of technology integration (e.g. entry, adoption etc.).

Although the need to prepare students for a society in which digital literacy plays an important role has been acknowledged in many countries worldwide and reflected in education policy with a large scope, such as the European Digital Competence Framework (DigComp, Ferrari 2013), broad agreement exists that computer technology hardware alone does not directly lead to student progress (Li and Ma 2010). Technical infrastructure is a precondition for implementing ICT in instructional contexts, but teachers must be trained and prepared to use technology in ways that are pedagogically adequate. For example, in their Technology Integration Planning Cycle (TIPC) framework, Hutchison and Woodsward (2018) claim to prioritise learning goals over the selection of technology to create meaningful learning experiences for students. Therefore, research is needed that examines the deeper principles of teaching and learning and how teachers integrate technology into pedagogical contexts (Baker et al. 2018; Kirschner 2015). This includes research investigating approaches to how teachers during teacher education can be supported in ICT integration in pedagogical requirements, such as lesson planning.

Research questions

1) What kind of teachers’ ICT integration in their lesson planning has been investigated so far in empirical educational research? We are interested in the conceptualisations, study designs, and measurement instruments that have been developed and applied.

2) What empirical key findings have been brought forward by these studies? We are interested in the relationships to relevant teacher variables, such as their knowledge and performance, as well as learning opportunities that support ICT integration in lesson plans.

To our knowledge, a corresponding scoping review of empirical studies providing insight into these questions has not been conducted yet. A more general review was published a decade ago by Tondeur et al. (2012). They broadly reviewed empirical studies related to the preparation of preservice teachers to integrate technology in education. Concerning ICT integration in lesson planning as the specific topic of our review, Tondeur et al. (2012, 139) included six studies under the ‘key theme of learning technology by design’, which were published before 2010. These studies only allowed statements about lesson planning (e.g. through interviews) but did not provide an empirical investigation of a teacher’s lesson plan. As the review by Tondeur et al. (2012) deliberately focused only on qualitative studies, any insights into measurement instruments with which ICT integration in lesson plans was captured could not be provided. As teacher competence measurement research has increased significantly over the last decade and recently suggested an innovative model like the ‘competence as continuum’ model by Blömeke, Gustafsson, and Shavelson (2015), we were interested in reviewing more recently developed empirical approaches.

Methods

Systematic literature search

In December 2021, a systematic search was conducted to identify potentially relevant literature. The search request ‘teach* AND plan* AND lesson AND study AND digital’ was chosen to be included either in the title or the abstract or the author keywords of publications. We varied the search request threefold by using ‘technology’, ‘internet’ and ‘ict’ instead of ‘digital’ to assure that various references are included in the results. To focus on empirical approaches the word ‘study’ was utilised (Page et al. 2021). Using a truncation (*) we assured that the search would account for other endings such as teaching, teacher, plans, and planning. Search was first carried out using the Web of Science. Then, we similarly searched for articles in ERIC, where we used the search request ‘teacher AND “lesson plan” AND study AND digital’ and varied also threefold. We did not impose restrictions regarding publication year during the search. However, we only selected articles that had been published in journals with peer review to assure quality of publications. Altogether, we got 1,115 hits from both databases, with 301 duplicate records and 410 records marked as ineligible by automation tools. Therefore, we identified 404 articles for screening (Figure 1). Their references were exported to Excel. At least two members of our author team screened titles and abstracts carefully and reduced our selection to articles with empirical studies focusing on ICT integration in lesson plans through an evaluation, using the following exclusion and inclusion criteria.

Figure 1. Flow diagram (following the guidelines of Page et al. 2021).

Exclusion criteria: We excluded 354 articles that (1) had a different topic or thematic focus than teachers’ lesson planning, (2) were not empirical (e.g. normative guidelines for lesson planning), (3) focused on planning in different contexts (such as pre-school teaching), and (4) focused ICT integration in lessons without any clear consideration of teachers’ planning competence.

Inclusion criteria: We included only those studies that built their empirical investigations using lesson plan documents or artefacts with regards to ICT integration. That means, neither articles that investigated lesson planning only through surveys or interviews about lesson planning (e.g. asking teachers about their perception of lesson planning without assessing lesson plans or planning artefacts) nor articles investigating lesson planning as such without contributing on ICT integration specifically (e.g. Jacobs, Martin, and Otieno 2008) could be included.

Thus, we got a literature corpus including 50 articles (Figure 1). Before full-text reading, we screened the full-texts by looking for the context of the lesson plan analysis. Further 24 articles did not match the above mentioned criteria for in- and excluding the abstracts of articles. Applying these exclusion and inclusion criteria led to a final selection of 26 publications, allowing the assessment for eligibility (Figure 1).

During full-text reading, four articles showed missing confirmability concerning the lesson plan analysis. Four empirical studies turned out to have an incongruous sample or a different research focus than ICT integration. Two articles turned out to provide preliminary results only for more complex research undertaken in two further articles by the same authors (Janssen and Lazonder 2016; Janssen, Knoef, and Lazonder 2019; Krauskopf et al. 2014), therefore they were excluded. We decided to reduce the selection to 16 articles that were finally included in the present review (see Appendix 2). Studies included were conducted in nine different countries and three continents. They were published between 2014 and 2021, but on average, they were not older than three years.

Data analysis

Since the focused field in the literature has not been comprehensively reviewed yet and the aim of the present review is to map its breadth and depth, we decided to define our approach as ‘scoping review’ that serves to summarise the available evidence, but – compared with a ‘systematic review’ approach – focuses more on the identification of knowledge gaps, the scope of the existing literature, and the need for clarifying concepts (Munn et al. 2018).

We developed 30 categories for analysing the studies closely related to the specific focus of our research questions (Table 1). Drafts of categories were developed, followed by an iterative refinement process and supported by the creation of summary tables. Table 1 provides an overview of our final analysis categories. Additionally, short descriptions for each category can be found in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 contains an overall summary table from which our results are derived.

Table 1. Analysis categories (for short descriptions, see Appendix 1).

Part	Area	Analysis category
Conceptualisation	General concepts	Model or framework etc. applied
		Subject-specific technological concepts
		Technological tools
	General study design	Learning opportunities
		Measurement of lesson planning skills
		Target group PST, IST, other
Study design	Study sample	Size
	Specific aspects of study design	Cross-sectional
		Pre-post
		Experimental
	Stimulus and conditions	Lesson planning task
		Specifity of task
		Link to curriculum
		Template use
		ICT material
Instruments	Construct	Dimensions
		Items
		Scoring
		Subject focus
	Methodology	Quantity
		Quality
Key findings	Study variables	ICT integration in lesson plans
		Cognitive disposition
		Affective-motivational disposition
		Performance
		Teacher characteristics
		Teacher education characteristics
	Analysis	Correlational findings
		Typology of ICT learning opportunities
		Effectiveness measurement

Due to the heterogeneity of studies, we primarily decided on applying thematic analysis using the analysis categories as guidelines. Low inferent coding of analysis categories that would be typical for content analysis was applied if possible (Dixon-Woods et al. 2005). For example, ‘sample size’ as an analysis category related to a very specific aspect of study design (see Table 1) could be directly coded following content analysis strategy and then statistically processed, allowing us to shortly state the range of sample size across studies (min. 24, max. 306) in the section ‘Results’. In contrast, the methodological ‘quality’ of instruments measuring a teacher’s skill to integrate ICT into lesson plans as another analysis category required a thorough thematic analysis for which we produced summaries providing descriptions of key points. However, the breadth of this analysis category made it necessary to describe in detail the studies’ instruments in the following section ‘Results’.

To answer research question 1, analysis categories relate to the conceptualisation, study design, and measurement instruments of studies (see Table 1). Regarding the categories related to conceptualisation, we were, for example, interested to learn about the models or frameworks deployed by each study (some of which we have mentioned in the introduction of the present paper, see sub-section ‘ICT integration in lesson planning’). Concerning the categories related to study design, we for example analysed whether the single study was cross-sectional, pre-post, or experimental (following the classification by Campbell and Stanley 1963). Instruments were analysed using psychometric quality criteria (e.g. construct definition, number of items; following American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), and National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) 2014). To answer research question 2, analysis categories relate to study variables that derive from the ‘competence as continuum’ model by Blömeke, Gustafsson, and Shavelson (2015) and the kind of empirical analysis conducted by the single study. It turned out that analyses of interest for our scoping review were those producing correlational findings, typology of ICT learning opportunities, and effectiveness measurements (Hill, Mancenido, and Loeb 2021).

Results

Conceptualisation

All studies analysed the written lesson plans of teachers with particular attention to ICT integration in lesson plans. Although the studies – as will be outlined in the following – show variation concerning their detailed conceptualisations, empirical approach, and analysis focus, they show commonalities with regards to two basic features of conceptualisation.

First, nearly all studies’ conceptualisations are related to the TPACK model – there is only one study (Sawyer and Myers 2018) without such an explicit link. Several studies used TPACK to derive criteria for coding relevant aspects that could be found in the lesson plans (e.g. Kapici and Akcay 2020; Koh 2019; Janssen and Lazonder 2016; Janssen, Knoef, and Lazonder 2019; Pringle, Dawson, and Ritzhaupt 2015; Zimmermann, Melle, and Huwer 2021). The SAMR model is only applied by one study (Backfisch et al. 2020) to the TPACK model. Similarly, other studies relate their conceptualisation not only to TPACK, but also to the approach of ‘meaningful learning’ while using technology (e.g. Koh 2019; Paratore et al. 2016). More specific conceptual links were further provided through subject-specific technological concepts (e.g. Janssen and Lazonder 2016; Janssen, Knoef, and Lazonder 2019; Paratore et al. 2016) or technological tools such as internet platforms and apps (e.g. Krauskopf et al. 2014).

Second, although various study designs were applied, almost all studies comprised the purposeful provision of formal opportunities for study participants to learn about ICT integration in their lesson plans and then measure the participants’ lesson-planning skills. That means, research designs related to a university course in educational technology or to a teacher professional development initiative (see Appendix 2). Only the study by Backfisch et al. (2020) did not explicitly frame their measurement of ICT integration in lesson plans with specific learning opportunities. Instead, this study is the only one that not only includes preservice teachers, but also additional samples of trainee and in-service teachers (to allow an analysis on relative teacher expertise). All other studies focused either on preservice or on in-service teachers (see Appendix 2). One reason might be each study’s aim to investigate how ICT integration in lesson plans can be supported during initial teacher education or teacher professional development.

Study design

Study samples show variations concerning their size (min. 24, max. 306; see Appendix 2). Half of the studies were cross-sectional, and the other half used pre-post or experimental designs. The studies were neither longitudinal (three or more time points of data collection with repeated measures) nor true experimental with randomised grouping. In most of the studies, lesson plans were only captured once, which means that some studies with a pre-post design used different pre-post measures (e.g. self-efficacy towards technology in the studies by Lee and Lee 2014; Paratore et al. 2016). However, four studies used lesson plans as pre- and post-measures (Koh 2019; Neumann, Alvarado-Albertorio, and Ramirez-Salgado 2021; Pringle, Dawson, and Ritzhaupt 2015; Zimmermann, Melle, and Huwer 2021), therefore analysing participants’ change of ICT integration in lesson planning skills.

Although, in all studies, preservice teachers were required to complete a lesson planning task, both the description and the relevance of the task vary. For example, whereas Bilici, Guzey, and Yamak (2016, 240) asked preservice teachers to prepare ‘technology-enriched lesson plans’, Schmid, Brianza, and Petko (2021) just required their study participants to create a lesson plan in general. In the study by Lee and Lee (2014), the performance regarding the design of the lesson plan in the study was even part of a curriculum-based assessment. Therefore, differences exist both with regard to stimulus and the conditions under which the study participants created lesson plans. In some studies, teachers were asked to use planning material such as lesson plan templates (e.g. Backfisch et al. 2020; Janssen, Knoef, and Lazonder 2019) and ICT material such as a platform or apps (e.g. Krauskopf et al. 2014). Possibly, this influenced the researchers‘ choice of instrument they used for analysing and coding lesson plans.

Instruments

All studies have in common that they used lesson plans created by preservice or in-service teachers. As documented in Appendix 2, three studies likewise applied the Technology Integration Assessment Rubric (TIAR) previously developed by Harris, Grandgenett, and Hofer (2010). All other studies applied different instruments for analysing and coding ICT integration in those plans.

One reason might be that instruments were related to plans for different teaching subjects (biology, chemistry, history, literacy, mathematics, science, or mixed; see Appendix 2), but also to reach specific research objectives and fulfill the purpose of each study’s research design. Although the instruments were generally related to typical planning aspects, such as learning objectives, teaching strategies, or technology selection (see Appendix 2) and many of them relate to TPACK, they largely vary from a detailed ICT integration content point of view, which makes it difficult to directly compare their ICT content focus. Obviously, the studies have developed different ICT foci, possibly influenced by the various ICT integration frameworks and models available, leading to a heterogeneous state of research. In the following, we therefore focus more closely on the methodological approach and compare instruments with regard to capturing the quantity and/or quality of ICT integration in lesson plans – along with variations related to the elaboration and complexity of measurement approaches.

Simple instruments that mainly capture quantity were used by Sawyer and Myers (2018) and Schmid, Brianza, and Petko (2021). Taking the latter as an example, it examines whether any ‘planned technology use’ was done, followed by the classification of those lesson plans that included and planned for technologies, with which a distinction was made based on whom these technologies were to be used by only teacher or students.

Most of the reviewed studies measured the quality of ICT integration in lesson plans. On a simpler level, Lee and Lee (2014, 123) analysed lesson plans using the ASSURE model with eight items, each rated from 1 to 7 that should provide quality in ‘three levels: excellent, fair, and poor’. Among generic lesson planning aspects (e.g. learner analysis, objective statements, teaching strategies), more specific ICT integration planning was also included (e.g. technology selection). Similarly, Kapici and Akcay (2020, 10) used four criteria for lesson plan coding ‘determined with respect to the TPACK framework’ and rated on Likert-scale items. Whereas ‘phases of enquiry-based learning’ and ‘scaffolding tools’ were criteria related to pedagogical knowledge, ‘inserting virtual or remote laboratory into the lesson plan’ and creating ‘types of questions’ applied in the assessment for students were related to the TK of preservice teachers.

On a more advanced level concerning the measurement of quality, Backfisch et al. (2020) included instructional quality aspects related to cognitive activation and constructive support of students, as well as the quality of ICT integration based on the SAMR model (see Appendix 2). Each lesson plan was scored hierarchically for the highest dimension applied, that is from Substitution (1), Augmentation (2), Modification (3) to Redefinition (4). The approach developed by Janssen and colleagues (Janssen and Lazonder 2016; Janssen, Knoef, and Lazonder 2019) comprises complex coding of how TPACK is represented in learning activities, design justifications, and the overall quality of lesson plans. Scores reflect whether the integration of ICT is correct or missing, practical, generic, or specific regarding technology pedagogical integration and technology pedagogical content integration. Using the TIAR, three studies (Deng et al. 2017; Neumann, Alvarado-Albertorio, and Ramirez-Salgado 2021; Tsai and Tsai 2019) scored the degree of ICT alignment being implemented in lesson plans on four dimensions: Conceptually, the TIAR relates to specific areas of TPACK, namely curriculum goals and technologies (TCK), instructional strategies and technologies (TPK), technology selection (TPACK), and fit of content, pedagogy, and technology (TPACK) (Harris, Grandgenett, and Hofer 2010).

Krauskopf et al. (2014) specifically coded lesson plans for the extent to which preservice teachers planned that their students would use the web-based digital video tool WebDIVER, differentiating between no tool affordances, general tool affordances, at least one affordance specific to WebDIVER, and two or more affordances specific to WebDIVER. Finally, the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge-based Lesson plan Assessment Instrument (TPACK-LpAI) used by Bilici, Guzey, and Yamak (2016) produced scores that reflect ‘the educational technologies, reasons for using them, and the instructional activities in scenario formats that were reported in the lesson plans’. It is important to mention that this is the only study that connected lesson plan scores to observation protocols of videotape recordings of preservice teachers teaching that lesson.

Key findings related to ICT integration in lesson plans as part of teacher competence

In the following we use the heuristic in Figure 2 to report on key findings of studies related to ICT integration in lesson plans. The heuristic relates to the teacher competence discourse following the general model by Blömeke, Gustafsson, and Shavelson (2015), suggesting ‘competence as continuum’, which transforms teachers’ dispositions through their situation-specific skills into performance (definded as observable teacher behaviour and teacher-student interaction in class). In the very centre of the heuristic, we place ICT integration in lesson plans. From our analysis of empirical approaches and measurement instruments, we conclude that ICT integration in lesson plans requires teachers to account for the specific teaching situation (e.g. the learning group, existing digital resources) and to integrate ICT into a number of other planning decisions (e.g. content transformation, setting learning objectives). It therefore can be considered a ‘situation-specific skill’, whereas it is theoretically and empirically different from both teacher knowledge/beliefs as ‘cognitive and affective-motivational dispositions’ (left side of Figure 2) and ‘observable behaviour’ of teacher performance in class (right side of Figure 2) (Blömeke, Gustafsson, and Shavelson 2015, 7). Based on the findings of the reviewed studies, we consider this analytical differentiation essential. To plan for ICT integration goes beyond the mere application of declarative teacher knowledge, as described by the TPACK model (Shavelson 2010), since planning depends on contextual factors (Hutchison and Woodsward 2018; John 2006; König et al. 2020b; Mutton, Hagger, and Burn 2011; Webb and Cox 2004). That is the reason why a number of the studies clearly differentiate between TPACK scales and measures of lesson planning skills (e.g. Backfisch et al. 2021; Deng et al. 2017; Neumann, Alvarado-Albertorio, and Ramirez-Salgado 2021). However, teacher planning does not equal teaching performance, as the latter is of a behavioural nature and depends on teachers’ interaction with students (e.g. Bilici, Guzey, and Yamak 2016).

Figure 2. Heuristic for summarising key findings on ICT integration in lesson plans (see Appendix 2 for study numbers 1–16), following ‘competence as continuum’ (Blömeke, Gustafsson, and Shavelson 2015).

Several studies show that teachers’ skills for integrating ICT in their lesson plans are associated with their professional knowledge and beliefs (Backfisch et al. 2020; Deng et al. 2017; Lee and Lee 2014; Schmid, Brianza, and Petko 2021; Zimmermann, Melle, and Huwer 2021). Regarding the teacher knowledge and lesson planning skills, Backfisch et al. (2020, 8) report a correlation between the teachers’ PCK and their skill to provide instructional quality (r = .21, p < .05) and quality of technology exploitation (r = .22, p < .05) in lesson plans, whereas Deng et al. (2017, 8) report correlations between the preservice teachers’ self-reported TCK, TPK, and TPACK and TIAR score (.62 ≤ r ≤ .70, each correlation p < .01). In contrast to this, Schmid, Brianza, and Petko (2021) could not find significant differences between qualitatively different profiles of self-reported TPACK among preservice teachers and planned technology use. Regarding affective-motivational dispositions and lesson planning skills, Lee and Lee (2014, 124) report a correlation of r = .33 (p < .05) between ‘self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration’ (SEIT) and ‘lesson planning skills’, whereas Zimmermann, Melle, and Huwer (2021, 1870) report correlations between TPACK self-efficacy (.32 ≤ r ≤ .46, each correlation p < .05) as well as attitudes (.50 ≤ r ≤ .54, each correlation p < .01) and lesson planning scores. As correlations are not that high, these key findings suggest that cognitive and affective-motivational dispositions can be empirically separated from lesson planning skills and, since the correlations are practically relevant, that lesson planning skills may depend on these dispositions, following the assumptions of the model by Blömeke, Gustafsson, and Shavelson (2015). In contrast to this, there is only one study (Bilici, Guzey, and Yamak 2016) providing empirical findings on the correlation between lesson planning skills and actual performance related to ICT integration in teaching practice (right side of Figure 2).

Teaching experience: a relevant teacher characteristic for ICT integration in lesson plans

Additionally, correlations exist with teaching experience, as the analysis of relative expertise by Backfisch et al. (2020) shows. Experienced teachers outperformed preservice teachers in ICT integration in lesson planning, so we included ‘experience’ as teacher characteristics in our heuristic (left side at the bottom of Figure 2).

Learning opportunities: technology-related coursework, introducing specific ICT tools

As most of the studies maintain that learning opportunities, such as technology-related coursework, are associated with study participants’ skills for ICT integration in their lesson plans, it seemed to be necessary to add initial teacher education characteristics to the model (right side at the bottom of Figure 2). With regard to the learning opportunities, the studies can be roughly divided into three categories: A first type did not provide ICT learning opportunities specifically (Deng et al. 2017; Sawyer and Myers 2018; Schmid, Brianza, and Petko 2021), a second type provided a short, specific introduction to one or more ICT tools as part of the study (Janssen and Lazonder 2016; Janssen, Knoef, and Lazonder 2019; Krauskopf et al. 2014). The third type designed a specific method course during a special time period varying between a few weeks until even a yearlong professional development (Bilici, Guzey, and Yamak 2016; Kapici and Akcay 2020; Koh 2019; Lee and Lee 2014; Neumann, Alvarado-Albertorio, and Ramirez-Salgado 2021; Paratore et al. 2016; Pringle, Dawson, and Ritzhaupt 2015; Tsai and Tsai 2019; Zimmermann, Melle, and Huwer 2021).

Studies of the second type familiarised their participants with various ICT tools before they were asked to design their lesson plans. Krauskopf et al. (2014) exposed preservice teachers to a short video tutorial to get to know the web-based digital video tool WebDIVER. Janssen and Lazonder (2016) and Janssen, Knoef, and Lazonder (2019) presented tools (SCYDynamics model editor; five ICT collaboration tools) to the preservice teachers and also offered individual elements of the TPACK basis (technological, pedagogical, or content knowledge), either in separate or included form, as a knowledge base for the conceiving lesson plans.

Regarding the third type, as part of the method courses, preservice or in-service teachers were familiarised with various digital tools and their possible applications during a special time period. For example, Kapici and Akcay (2020) carried out a seven-week implementation process in which participants were familiarised with a virtual learning platform, received a sample lesson plan from the instructor as an example, and then integrated the individual steps of enquiry-based learning into their technology-enhanced lesson plan. Support is given in the studies of type three through different professional development strategies regarding the integration of ICT into lesson plans. Furthermore these strategies were based on different models (TPACK model: Bilici, Guzey, and Yamak 2016; Koh 2019; Neumann, Alvarado-Albertorio, and Ramirez-Salgado 2021; Paratore et al. 2016; ASSURE model: Lee and Lee 2014). The quality of support for creating lesson plans differed slightly. With Bilici, Guzey, and Yamak (2016), the preservice teachers had the opportunity to use sample lesson plans as a guide only, while the participants in Lee and Lee (2014) received feedback on their lesson plans from the lecturer. Participants in Tsai and Tsai (2019) received feedback from their fellow students after a presentation in the plenum at the end of the semester.

Four studies measured the effectiveness of learning opportunities (preservice teachers) or professional development (in-service teachers) with regards to ICT integration in lesson plans before and after the intervention. All studies report a significant increase of skills with practical relevance (Neumann, Alvarado-Albertorio, and Ramirez-Salgado 2021, 1035: d = .38 for the overall TIAR score; Koh 2019, 588: d > 1.2 for each of the five meaningful learning dimensions; Zimmermann, Melle, and Huwer 2021, 1869: d ≥ 1.5 for TPACK categories). Pringle, Dawson, and Ritzhaupt (2015, 656) report significant increases in the frequency of the ‘level of integration in lesson plans’.

Discussion

Digitalisation at school has increasingly become a major challenge that confronts teachers with the demand to integrate ICT in their lesson planning. Against this background, the present paper reviewed a selection of k = 16 empirical studies from nine countries and three continents (Asia, Europe, North America) that aimed at an empirical investigation of preservice and in-service teachers‘ ICT integration in lesson plans. Our research was guided by two questions. First, what kind of teachers’ ICT integration in their lesson planning has been investigated so far in empirical educational research? Second, what key empirical findings have been brought forward by these studies that contribute to the teacher competence discourse?

The analysis of the studies’ conceptualisations demonstrated the impact of the TPACK model (Mishra and Koehler 2006) on this relatively young area of research (the reviewed studies were not older, on average, than three years). Researchers in almost all of the selected studies seem to agree that the more study participants are knowledgeable of TPACK, the better they should be able to integrate ICT in planning, at least from a conceptual point of view. At the same time, the studies suggested an analytical separation between knowledge and planning, since lesson planning was more or less clearly reflected and operationalised as a teacher’s skill. With the exception of three studies using the TIAR likewise (Deng et al. 2017; Neumann, Alvarado-Albertorio, and Ramirez-Salgado 2021; Tsai and Tsai 2019), various measurement instruments were used, showing the heterogeneity of empirical approaches in the relatively young research field. However, the majority of instruments captured both generic planning aspects and ICT-specific planning aspects, and in most cases, this allowed quite a comprehensive measurement of how teachers are able to integrate ICT into their lesson plans. This may indicate evidence for reliable and valid measurement approaches using coding schemes and rating inventories, as developed and applied by the researchers of the reviewed studies.

We used the major empirical findings of the studies (such as relation to other study variables and constructs) to suggest a heuristic that accounts for ICT integration in lesson planning as an explicit construct and as part of teacher competence (Figure 2). Building on the work by Blömeke, Gustafsson, and Shavelson (2015) that represents topical conceptions of teacher competence measurement, we argued that a teacher’s skill to integrate ICT into lesson plans has to be conceptually and empirically separated from teacher knowledge as described by the TPACK model. We believe that all studies that analysed the relationship between components of the TPACK model and ICT integration in lesson plans confirmed this differentiation of competence components. This is important, since teacher knowledge as specified by TPACK has been considered being distal to teacher performance in class (e.g. Brantley-Dias and Ertmer 2013), making necessary to use more proximal measures (Blömeke, Gustafsson, and Shavelson 2015). The differentiation between planning as a situation-specific skill and teacher performance in class was also indicated by evidence, although represented by only one study (Bilici, Guzey, and Yamak 2016), which signals that further research is needed in this area. Moreover, study approaches without such situation-specific measures for planning, but making far reaching claims about teachers’ skill to integrate ICT in their lesson planning (e.g. Hutchison and Woodsward 2018) might reflect on their methodology and integrate in future studies a corresponding measure such as applied in the studies reviewed here.

There are clear limitations to the reviewed studies to be discussed. First, regarding their research designs, in-service teachers were not targeted primarily and ICT integration in lesson plans was repeatedly measured only in four pre-post studies (Koh 2019; Neumann, Alvarado-Albertorio, and Ramirez-Salgado 2021; Pringle, Dawson, and Ritzhaupt 2015; Zimmermann, Melle, and Huwer 2021). As a consequence, empirical evidence on the change or development of the skills related to ICT integration in lesson plans was provided by these studies, and another exception is the analysis of relative expertise by Backfisch et al. (2020). Future research with a focus on analysing ICT intervention effects should therefore intensify the implementation of pre-post measures, preferably combined with a control group design, which has not been used by any of the reviewed studies. This would strengthen the analysis of effectiveness the ICT-specific learning opportunities may have on the development of teachers’ lesson planning skills in the area of ICT integration. In addition, more studies should be initiated that investigate ICT integration in lesson planning as a situation-specific skill and the underlying cognitive dispositions of those who already have the corresponding competence in varying but fundamentally higher degrees: experienced teachers. Except for three studies (Backfisch et al. 2020; Koh 2019; Pringle, Dawson, and Ritzhaupt 2015), preservice teachers were always chosen as the target group, demonstrating the researchers’ interest in the relevance of initial teacher education for supporting ICT integration in lesson planning of teachers. However, the individual and determining dispositions of teachers’ skills for ICT integration in their lesson plans may be better studied by experts than by developing novices (Rothland et al. 2021). The present review emphasises this with the integration of ‘teaching experience’ in Figure 2, supported by first evidence (Backfisch et al. 2020). However, there is a general need for empirical studies on ICT integration in lesson planning focusing on in-service teachers as well as on comparisons of pre-service and in-service teachers. Future research might, for example, utilise school inspections of teacher performance, where the submission of lesson plans are required (Bagaya et al. 2020).

Second, different investigation foci and operationalisations of measurement instruments did not facilitate the comparability of each study’s findings. For example, even the four pre-post studies (Koh 2019; Neumann, Alvarado-Albertorio, and Ramirez-Salgado 2021; Pringle, Dawson, and Ritzhaupt 2015; Zimmermann, Melle, and Huwer 2021) build on various frameworks differently (e.g. TPACK, TIAR, ‘meaningful learning’ approach), making difficult to compare their effect sizes. Future research should therefore refer to empirical approaches and instruments developed by the reviewed studies to allow for the accumulation of empirical results and stimulate further research progress. This would support the generalisation of the findings across the single study – a necessary requirement for conducting a ‘systematic review’ in the future instead of the present ‘scoping review’ (Munn et al. 2018). The only approach that became visible among the selected studies was the TIAR, as this was used by three different research groups (Deng et al. 2017; Neumann, Alvarado-Albertorio, and Ramirez-Salgado 2021; Tsai and Tsai 2019) in different contexts (China, USA, Taiwan). Findings of these studies are promising as they may open up the perspective for comparative research approaches in the future.

Third, this scoping review has shown that assessing the situation-specific skills of ICT integration in lesson planning goes beyond the mere measurement of teacher knowledge on the basis of the TPACK model. This is consistent with other views in the literature (e.g. Brantley-Dias and Ertmer 2013; Sailer et al. 2021). ICT integration as a situation-specific skill, as we have suggested heuristically (Figure 2), might serve to bridge the gap between TPACK (teacher knowledge) and ICT integration in teacher–student interaction in the classroom. However, there is the clear need to examine how lesson plans are actually implemented in teacher performance in class. As we only found one study focusing on the link between preparing and teaching lessons (Bilici, Guzey, and Yamak 2016), this desideratum should be prioritised in future research. Moreover, future research could examine the necessity of differentiating ICT-related teacher performance into preparing and teaching lessons, for example, by following the concepts of ‘reflection on action’ and ‘reflection in action’ by Schön (1983).

Finally, although the TPACK model clearly provides a convincing rationale for future test development research, further conceptual developments could be part of future research. For example, none of the studies explicitly connected their conceptualisation to the European Digital Competence Framework for Educators (DigComEdu; Caena and Redecker 2019). This was surprising, since the studies may overlap with elements of DigComEdu, for example, regarding teachers’ digital resources, ICT tool applications of students, or cognitive demands posed on teachers during planning such as ‘technology selection’ (see Appendix 2). Since the relevance of DigComEdu for teacher education curriculum development has increased, future research should reflect on how ICT integration in lesson plans can be connected with this framework.

Limitations of the present scoping review

Three limitations of the present review should be mentioned. First, as a scoping review, our intention was to map the breadth and depth of a relatively young research field. As relevant publications may increase in the near future, a systematic review approach should follow (Munn et al. 2018). Second, we gave priority to the cognitive perspective on teacher competence, therefore leaving room for more detailed reviews of affective-motivational teacher characteristics in the future (Blömeke 2017). Third, subject-specific foci have hardly been accounted for in our review, which also could be strengthened in future reviews of the research field, since lesson planning is bound on the subject (König et al. 2021).

Conclusion

To conclude, the review has shown that there is a convincing and promising young research field related to preservice and in-service teachers’ skills for ICT integration in lesson planning. Carried out in European, but also Asian countries and the US, this research seems to be timely and relevant in different teacher education systems and cultural contexts – with the potential to make significant contributions to the European and international discourse on teacher education now and shortly. One of the objective of our review was to highlight the requirement of ICT integration in lesson planning as an increasingly professional demand put on teachers. That means, today, it seems necessary that teachers explicate and reflect (Schön 1983) on the specific methods and tools they include in planned lessons so that complex demands of ICT integration in teaching and learning are appropriately addressed. The situation-specific measurement of teachers‘ decisions during lesson planning provides valuable insight into the quality of ICT implementation and allows examination of being effective for classroom teaching. The studies included in the review show that professional ICT integration needs specific learning opportunities in teacher education and professional development. The outcome of such effective learning opportunities can be considered as part of teacher professional competence, increasing the provision of such learning opportunities may enhance the quality of teacher education and teacher professional development.

Implications for teacher education

Currently, teachers are heavily challenged to deal with the ICT transformation process at school (Tondeur et al. 2017; König, Jäger-Biela, and Glutsch 2020a). Educational research that contributes to an evidence-based understanding of how teachers may integrate ICT when planning lessons and how preservice and in-service teachers may effectively acquire strategies of such integration can therefore be of very high value. In particular, first answers to the question of how teacher education can be effective are given by the four pre-post studies (Koh 2019; Neumann, Alvarado-Albertorio, and Ramirez-Salgado 2021; Pringle, Dawson, and Ritzhaupt 2015; Zimmermann, Melle, and Huwer 2021), indicating concrete strengths of newly created learning opportunities that specifically address ICT integration in lesson plans. When developing teacher education curriculum and teacher professional development measures, such evidence-based knowledge derived from ‘effectiveness research for teacher education‘ (Hill, Mancenido, and Loeb 2021) can inform future educational policy and curriculum design and thus may support associated educational reforms (Kaiser and König 2019; Caena and Redecker 2019). In an era of rapid transformation in technological innovations and digitalisation – also in educational contexts (Carrillo and Flores 2020; Kozma 2011; McFarlane 2019; Selwyn 2012) – educational reforms presumably profit from evidence-based decisions better than ever before, highlighting the significance of empirical studies identified, analysed, and promoted by the present scoping review.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

The research reported in this article was funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany (BMBF) under grant number 01JA1815 (project ZuS, ‘Zukunftsstrategie Lehrer*innenbildung Köln: Inklusion und Heterogenität gestalten’) and grant number 01JA2003 (project DiSK, „Digitalstrategie Lehrer*innenbildung Köln: Kompetenzen nachhaltig entwickeln“). Both projects ZuS and DiSK are part of the ‘Qualitätsoffensive Lehrerbildung’ (Quality Initiative for Initial Teacher Education), a joint initiative of the Federal Government and the Länder, which aims to improve the quality of teacher training. The authors are responsible for the content of this publication.

Notes on contributors

Johannes König

Johannes König is a full professor of empirical school research at the University of Cologne Germany. His current research includes school research, teacher education research, teacher competencies, teacher knowledge and international comparisons.

Sandra Heine

Sandra Heine is a research assistant at the University of Cologne, Germany. Her current research interests include teacher education research, teacher (digital) competencies, teacher (digital) knowledge and digitalisation in education.

Daniela Jäger-Biela

Daniela Jäger-Bielais a research assistant at the University of Cologne, Germany. Her current research interests include teacher education research, teacher competencies and educational governance research.

Martin Rothland

Martin Rothland is a full professor of educational science with a focus on general didactics and research on teaching. His current research includes research on teachers, teacher education and the teaching profession.

Appendix 1

Analysis categories with short descriptions

Table

Area	Analysis category	Short description
Basic characteristics	Publication details	Articles in alphabetical order (from 01 to 16), names of authors and co-authors, article’s publication year, country and continent of the institution(s) or universitie(s) the author(s) are affiliated.
Conceptualisation
General concepts	Model or framework etc. applied	The study’s conceptualisation is related to a model (e.g. TPACK model, SAMR model, the ‘meaningful learning’ approach etc.)
	Subject-specific technological concepts	The study’s conceptualisation is related to subject-specific technological concepts
	Technological tools	The study’s conceptualisation is related to specific technological tools (e.g. a specific internet platform or app)
General study design	Learning opportunities	The study design comprises learning opportunities for study participants to learn about ICT integration in their lesson plans (e.g. university course or professional development initiative)
	Measurement of lesson planning skills	The study design comprises a measurement of lesson planning skills.
	Target group PST, IST, other	The study design targets samples of preservice teachers (PST), in-service teachers (IST), and/or other.
Study design
Study sample	Size	Number of participants
Specific aspects of study design	Cross-sectional	Participants provided data once (1 time point of data collection).
	Pre-post	Data on ICT integration in lesson plans skills measured before and after a treatment, including designs with waiting control group (2 time points of data collection; repeated measures).
	Experimental	Non-experimental design without randomized grouping and/or true experimental design with randomized grouping
Stimulus and conditions	Lesson planning task	Study participants were required to complete a lesson planning task
	Specifity of task	General lesson planning vs. technology enriched lesson planning
	Link to curriculum	Lesson planning task was embedded in the curriculum
	Template use	Study participants were asked to use a lesson planning template
	ICT material	Study participants were asked to use ICT material (e.g. an internet platform or app)
Instruments
Construct	Dimensions	Name of dimension(s) that is/are measured, including sub-dimensions
	Items	Number of items and how they are related to dimensions
	Scoring	Scoring of items and dimensions
	Subject focus	Specific subject (e.g. Mathematics) vs. mixed (i.e. study participants from various subjects planned lessons for their subjects)
Methodology	Quantity	Quantity of ICT integration in lesson plans
	Quality	Quality of ICT integration in lesson plans
Key findings
Study variables	ICT integration in lesson plans	Variable(s) for ICT integration in lesson plans is/are included.
	Cognitive disposition	Variable(s) for cognitive disposition(s) is/are included (e.g. TPACK self-reports)
	Affective-motivational disposition	Variable(s) for affective-motivational disposition(s) is/are included (e.g. teacher self-efficacy beliefs)
	Performance	Variable(s) for ICT integration in teaching practice is/are included (e.g. observation of classroom performance and interaction)
	Teacher characteristics	Variable(s) of teacher characteristic(s) is/are included (e.g. teaching experience)
	Teacher education characteristics	Variable(s) of teacher education characteristic(s) is/are included (e.g. technology related coursework as part of ICT-specific learning opportunities)
Analysis	Correlational findings	Findings from correlational analysis of study variables, including statistical significance of correlations
	Typology of ICT learning opportunities	Provision of ICT learning opportunities in a study (no provision, short introduction, specific design)
	Effectiveness measurement	Examining increase of ICT integration in lesson plans skills, including statistical significance and practical relevance

Appendix 2:

Study design, empirical approach, and instruments

Table

No.	Authors / Country	Sample size ^a	Subject focus	Design	Data source and empirical approach	Instruments: Dimensions, items, and scores used for lesson plan analysis
1	Backfisch et al. (2020)/Germany	92 (28 PST, 42 TT, 22 IST)	Mathematics	Cross-sectional	Scenario approach measuring ‘situational knowledge about integrating technology in mathematics’ (p. 6); comprising lesson plan scenario, template, and item prompts; content analysis of lesson plans	Coding lesson plans using several measures: Instructional quality (7 items: provision of cognitive challenging activities, activation of prior knowledge, initiating of conceptual change, engaging students’ self-explanations, support of students’ self-discovery, provision of guidance, and provision of prompts/feedback; each scored 0–3) Technology exploitation: Quantity (different types of technologies) and Quality (1 item, hierarchical score based on the SAMR model); score from 1 (substitution) to 4 (redefinition)
2	Bilici, Guzey, and Yamak (2016)/Turkey	27 PST	Science	Cross-sectional	Document analysis of lesson plans using the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge-based Lesson plan Assessment Instrument (TPACK-LpAI); lesson plans were created by PSTs in a Science Methods course on preparing technology-enriched plans	TPACK-LpAI with four sections: Collecting data on background information (subject area, unit of lesson, and lesson title) Instructional goals and learning objectives 8-item scoring rubric (each scored 1–4): orientation towards science teaching with technology (1); knowledge of assessment (2); knowledge of students´ understanding of science (2); knowledge of instructional strategies (1); knowledge of curriculum and curriculum material (2) Additional comments
3	Deng et al. (2017)/China	280 PST	Chemistry	Cross-sectional	Document analysis of lesson plans, using the Technology Integration Assessment Rubric (TIAR, Harris, Grandgenett, and Hofer 2010)	TIAR with four items, each scored from 1 (not aligned) to 4 (strongly aligned), and with a total score 4–16: Curriculum goals and technologies Instructional strategies and technologies Technology selection Fit of content, pedagogy, and technology
4	Janssen and Lazonder (2016)/Netherlands	54 PST	Biology	Experimental	Lesson plan scenario (material given on student resources, lesson plan assignment and template, support material), analysis, and coding of lesson plans created by PST	Learning activities (5, each scored of the presence of pedagogical content and technological information) Justifications (7, each scored about pedagogy, content, or PCK and about technology, TPK, TCK, or TPACK) Lesson plan quality regarding justifications of the usage or non-usage of ICT (2 items, one for technology and pedagogical integration [TP] and one for TPACK), scoring differentiates between incorrect or missing (0), practical (1), general (2), and specific (3)
5	Janssen, Knoef, and Lazonder (2019)/Netherlands	73 PST, primary level	Science	Experimental	PST had to create a technology-infused lesson plan using the support materials/template, tools, and to justify the decisions	Learning activities (7 items, each scored of the presence of pedagogical, content, and technological information) Justifications (7 items, each scored as pertaining to pedagogy, content, or PCK and as technology, TPK, TCK, or TPACK) Lesson plan quality (2 items)
6	Kapici and Akcay (2020)/Turkey	38 PST	Science	Pre-post	Lesson planning with a virtual platform, document analysis of PST’s lesson plans; effects of lesson planning on self-efficacy (pre-post)	Coding rubric with 4 Likert-scale items (each scored 1–5): TPACK-based lesson plan assessment instrument Phases of enquiry-based learning (PK) Scaffolding tools (PK) Virtual or remote laboratory (TK) Assessment (TK)
7	Koh (2019)/Singapore	47 IST	Mixed ^b	Pre-post	Assessing pedagogical change that teachers enacted through their lesson design as part of a course on TPACK design scaffolds; expert rating of teachers’ lesson plans before and after designing lesson plans	Coding rubric with 5 items related to meaningful learning with ICT (each scored 0–4): Active Constructive Authentic Intentional Cooperative
8	Krauskopf et al. (2014)/Germany	24 PST	History	Cross-sectional	Design task of planning a lesson using an internet platform called WebDIVER; Document analysis of lesson plans PSTs created using templates and materials from the internet platform	Four measures: Coding scheme for 13 planning elements (content elaboration, detail perception, empathy, exchange, historic comparison, lesson start, material preparation [teacher], motivation, shortening movies, students’ media literacy, students’ productive use, teacher presentation, vividness) Cognitive goals Socio-cognitive goals Tool affordance specificity described in lesson plans, scored 0–3: none (0), general (1), one specific to WebDIVER (2), two or more affordances specific to WebDIVER (3)
9	Lee and Lee (2014)/South Korea	136 PST	Mixed ^b	Pre-post	Education technology coursework intervention with design task of lesson planning; effects of lesson planning on self-efficacy toward technology integration (pre-post), knowledge for effective technology integration is measured during the course by an exam	Lesson plans coded by the ASSURE model with 8 items, each scored 1–7: Learner analysis Objective statements Teaching strategies Technology selection Teacher activities prior to class implementation Teacher activities during class Student activities Student evaluation plans
10	Neumann, Alvarado-Albertorio, and Ramirez-Salgado (2021)/USA	33 PST	Mixed^b	Pre-post	Educational technology course with document analysis of two lesson plans that were submitted five weeks apart, using the Technology Integration Assessment Rubric (TIAR; Harris, Grandgenett, and Hofer 2010)	TIAR with four items, each scored from 1 (not aligned) to 4 (strongly aligned), and with a total score 4–16: Curriculum goals and technologies Instructional strategies and technologies Technology selection Fit of content, pedagogy, and technology
11	Paratore et al. (2016)/USA	29 PST	Literacy	Cross-sectional	Course integrating educational media and technology with literacy instruction with document analysis of three lesson plans developed by PSTs collaboratively in groups of two or three during one semester	Four sections of coding: Key teaching actions (8, each scored of the presence of activating knowledge, assessing, demonstrating, differentiating, explaining, guiding, providing feedback, promoting independence/transfer) Awareness and use of technology devices and educational media (3, each scored of the presence of intended student actions when using technology, media type, and technology) Teaching episodes with technology (Yes/No) Meaningful technology use (Yes/No)
12	Pringle, Dawson, and Ritzhaupt (2015) /USA	525 lesson plans (306 pre; 219 post), created by IST	Science	Pre-post	IST submitted their best science lesson using technology at the beginning and the end of a yearlong technology integration initiative; data (lesson plan) collection via an online system	Coding scheme developed from the TPACK framework (all items coded with Yes/No): CK: Science topics (15 items) PK: Attributes of meaningful learning environments (4 items) and assessment practices (9 items) PCK: Science practices (4 items) and cognitive demand for content area learning (2 items) TPK: Level of integration (ACOT continuum) in lesson plans (5 items) TK: General hardware (14 items) and software (20 items) TCK: Science software (7 items)
13	Sawyer and Myers (2018)/USA	158 PST, primary	Mixed ^b	Cross-sectional	Document analysis of lesson plans	Counting the used resources in lesson plans (internet vs. physical resources) Counting if technology is planned to use (Yes/No)
14	Schmid, Brianza, and Petko (2021)/Switzerland	173 PST	Mixed ^b	Cross-sectional	Coding lesson plans that PST created when attending course on teaching methodology	Lesson plan scenario: Technology use is planned (yes/no) User of technology (teacher and/or student)
15	Tsai and Tsai (2019)/Taiwan	47 PST	Mixed ^b	Cross-sectional	Document analysis of lessons plans, using the Technology Integration Assessment Rubric (TIAR; Harris, Grandgenett, and Hofer 2010); measurement in the beginning and after attending a course on using instructional media	TIAR with four items, each scored from 1 (not aligned) to 4 (strongly aligned), and with a total score 4–16: Curriculum goals and technologies Instructional strategies and technologies Technology selection Fit of content, pedagogy, and technology
16	Zimmermann, Melle, and Huwer (2021)/Germany	41 PST	Chemistry	Pre-post	Seminar intervention to develop PSTs’ TPACK; analysing the lesson plans by evaluating the participants’ abilities to choose appropriate tools and sufficiently integrate them in different lesson plan phases.	Coding scheme developed from the TPACK framework with seven categories (pedagogical techniques and lesson phases), each scored from 1 (low) to 5 (high) and specifically related to PCK, TK, TPK, and TCK (28 items in total)

TK – technological knowledge, TCK – technological content knowledge, PCK – pedagogical content knowledge, PK – pedagogical knowledge, CK – content knowledge, TPACK – Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge, TIAR – Technology Integration Assessment Rubric.

^aPST – preservice teachers, TT – trainee teachers, IST – in-service teachers. ^b Mixed – PSTs from various subjects who planned lessons for their subjects.