https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9536-4234
ABSTRACT
Initial teacher education provide learning opportunities that allow future teachers to develop digital skills and self- and co-regulation learning (SCRL). However, there is need for research on how to prepare students teachers to use Information and Communication Technologies (ITC) on SCRL. This qualitative exploratory study took place in ICT and Education Basic course (“TIC e EB”, Portuguese-language acronym) from Higher Education Institution, that adopted project-based learning (PBL) over five phases. In teamwork, the students developed an educational integration project of ICT with a curriculum content of Basic/Preschool Education. The research goals were: 1) Identify which ICT were integrated in the projects and understand their educational purposes; 2) Identify and understand which CRL strategies were adopted during the PBL phases; 3) Identify the difficulties experienced and how they overcame them, 4) Verify the students’ perception of TIC e EB course. Teams actively explored and integrated a diversity of ICT (n = 34) in their projects: tools to provide content and pedagogical activities; platforms that allow development of interactive and gamified activities and others. Students mentioned different CRL strategies and difficulties. Strategies to overcome difficulties were the exploration of new tools/applications, seeking information and help from the teacher. The teams mentioned that the “TIC e EB” was an asset in their academic path and professional future, challenger, and trigger to “think outside the box”.
1. Background
There is a growing importance on the use of digital resources and media in the daily practice of teachers (Gudmundsdottir & Hatlevik, Citation2018; Tondeur et al., Citation2018). The digital competence is a key for improving the quality of education (Galindo-Domínguez & Bezanilla, Citation2021; Lázaro et al., Citation2019), and considered as a complex concept that includes several skills, such as: cognitive, emotional and sociological knowledge to use digital environments efficiently (Reisoğlu & Çebi, Citation2020).
Future teachers are required to be digitally competent (Gudmundsdottir et al., Citation2020; Krumsvik, Citation2014) in being able to: integrate and manage technical aspects of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in pedagogical practice (Galindo-Domínguez & Bezanilla, Citation2021), use them with responsibility (Gudmundsdottir et al., Citation2020), and make critical decisions regarding their use in the teaching and learning process to promote learning (Domingo-Coscollola et al., Citation2019; Krumsvik, Citation2014; Starkey, Citation2020). The integration ICT is recognized as an essential component in the initial teacher education (ITE) (Gudmundsdottir et al., Citation2020). For the integration of ICT to be successful requires interaction between technology, content, and pedagogy (Dinçer, Citation2018).
However, there is a need to professional development of digital skills in student teachers, preparing them to be able to integrate efficacy ICT in their pedagogical practices (Gudmundsdottir & Hatlevik, Citation2018; Gudmundsdottir et al., Citation2020; Tondeur et al., Citation2018, Citation2019), provide opportunities for them to experience and practice ICT (Darling-Hammond, Citation2000; Edwards, Citation2009; Gudmundsdottir et al., Citation2020) to combine their pedagogical and technological knowledge (Gudmundsdottir et al., Citation2020; Tondeur et al., Citation2018, Citation2019), and to develop essential skills such as: creativity, collaboration and problem solving (Caena & Redecker, Citation2019).
The European Commission has produced guidelines on digital competence, namely DigCompEdu, identifying areas of competence that need to be developed, such as: self-regulation of learning and co-regulation learning (Redecker, Citation2017).
Self-regulation learning (SRL) skills are considered important for active teacher learning (Saariaho et al., Citation2016). The co-regulation of learning (CRL) is seen as a facilitator and social support for the development of these SRL skills, allowing the achievement of a significant level of learning (Saariaho et al., Citation2016). CRL can be understood as the mutual regulation of metacognition, cognition, behavior, motivation, and their emotions in situations of coordination between themselves and other people (for example, teachers or peers, tutors, etc.) (Panadero & Järvelä, Citation2015; Pedrosa et al., Citation2019), involves shared learning processes (Hadwin et al., Citation2011), sharing and interdependence of responsibility for tasks, such as: monitoring, evaluation, and regulation, allows the development of cognitive skills (Hadwin et al., Citation2011; Panadero & Järvelä, Citation2015; Pedrosa et al., Citation2019). CRL is characterized by the adoption of learning strategies, such as: planning, coordination, information sharing and communication between team members (Zheng & Huang, Citation2016) monitoring and evaluation of the tasks of all team members (Panadero & Järvelä, Citation2015)
As explained by (Saariaho et al., Citation2016): “The future teacher’s core skill is to learn how to regulate both their own and others’ learning.” SCRL can trigger a positive cycle in student-teacher learning (Saariaho et al., Citation2018). However, student teachers need support in initial training to develop their self- and co-regulation of learning strategies (SCRLs) (Saariaho et al., Citation2016). One way is created learning activities that involve collaboration with other students, and design tasks with clear goals and instructions for the group working together (Saariaho et al., Citation2016), with teacher educators support.
Thus, ITE must provide learning opportunities that allow future teachers to develop self- and co-regulation of learning strategies (SCRLs) and more evaluated/researched (Saariaho et al., Citation2016). However, more research is needed on initial teacher education under this lens: how to prepare students teachers to use ITC in their practices (Gudmundsdottir & Hatlevik, Citation2018), including studies that focus on self- and co-regulation learning strategies (Galindo-Domínguez & Bezanilla, Citation2021; Saariaho et al., Citation2016).
2. Teaching context and learning assignment
This study occurs in TIC e EB in Portuguese-language acronym, optional course, part of the second semester of the third year of the Education Basic undergraduate programme at University of Aveiro – Portugal, in the 2021/2022 academic year. The format was b-learning mode and synchronous sessions using the Moodle and colibri-zoom platforms, over 13 academic weeks. During classes, autonomous work, dialogue, critical thinking, initiative, and creativity are encouraged. The main course goal is to mobilize digital competences articulating with pedagogical knowledge, for the elaboration of a project in which students integrate and explore ICT.
The teaching and learning methodology employs Project-Based Learning (PBL) (Kokotsaki et al., Citation2016), over five phases, where the students in teamwork must develop an educational integration project of ICT with a curriculum content of Basic Education or Preschool Education. In each phase, the teams presented the status of the project, sent part of the final report, and sent metacognitive challenges (Pedrosa et al., Citation2021, Citation2022). Nineteen students were enrolled, organized into five teams and they had the freedom to choose the theme of the project to be developed. The themes chosen by the teams were different and cover different level of Basic Education (see ).
Table 1. Themes and level of education chosen by the TIC e EB teams.
3. Methodology
This exploratory study aimed: 1) Identify which ICT were integrated by students in their projects and understand for what educational purposes; 2) Identify and understand which co-regulated learning strategies were adopted by students during the PBL phases and ICT integration; 3) Identify the difficulties experienced by students in this integration and understand how they overcame them, and 4) Verify the students’ perception of TIC e EB and their contribution to their ITE.
A qualitative methodology (Cohen, Citation2002) was adopted in two ways: 1) Descriptive analysis to quantify the number of ICT that the teams integrate in the development of their projects and describe the respective pedagogical goals of use ICT. The data were collected from final report (n = 5, one per team), and 2) Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, Citation2006) of data collected from metacognitive challenges in each phase of project (n = 25; five per team) to aim identify the co-regulated learning strategies (CRLs) and students’ difficulties. The thematic analysis was also adopted to verify the students’ perceptions about TIC e EB course, from data collected of final report.
For the identification of CRLs, the content analysis matrices were built based on the SRL strategies of (Zimmerman, Citation2013) adapted by (Pedrosa et al., Citation2019) to CRL perspective (see ).
Table 2. Subcategories of co-regulation learning strategies (CRLs) and definitions.
For the others, content analysis matrices were constructed to identification of team´s difficulties in the development of project, and their perceptions about TIC e EB course, they were built according to the content that emerged with the analysis and organized into categories, subcategories, indicators, and recording units. A cyclical process of improvement, synthesis and reflection of the matrices was carried out. Several re-readings of the documents were carried out, and the relevant textual excerpts were selected.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. The ICTs used by the teams and their goals
There were a variety of ICTs that were integrated by the teams in their projects (n = 34), the teams actively explored and integrated a diversity of tools/applications to achieve their goals (see ). Also, the ICTs also varied between the teams which reveals the diversity of choice. The most choose tools and applications available on the web.
Table 3. The ICTs that were integrated by the teams in the projects and their purposes.
All teams used websites (WIX) to provide and aggregate content and pedagogical activities produced (see ). Also, there was predominant use of platforms for creating educational content and dynamic presentations, as Canva and Genially (see ).
Figure 1. Example of a website in WIX built by one of the teams.
Figure 2. Online board game created by one of the groups with genially.
All teams frequently used platforms for creating educational activities and games, e.g., Educaplay and Wordwall (see ). And platforms that allow develop interactive and gamified activities (e.g., Kahoot, Mentimeter), and others (see ).
Figure 3. Examples of games created by teams: a crossword puzzle in educaplay and an anagram in wordwall.
Figure 4. Examples of other ICTs used by teams: Kahoot, Padlet, Flipsnack.
4.2. Co-regulated learning strategies adopted by students during the PBL phases
The Teams (T) mentioned different types of co-regulated learning strategies (CRLs) that varied and adjusted according to each team throughout the project development phases. The main strategies reported were those of co-evaluation (see ), organization (see ), transformation (see ), planning (see ) and seeking information (see ).
Table 4. CRLs subcategory: Co-evaluation.
Table 5. CRLs subcategory: organizing.
Table 6. CRLs subcategory: transforming.
Table 7. CRLs subcategory: planning.
Table 8. CRLs subcategory: seeking information.
Regarding co-evaluation subcategory (see ), the teams’ ability to jointly assess their performance at each stage of project development was noted. A common aspect among all the teams was that they considered had achieved the goals proposed in each phase, e.g.: “(…) group self-evaluates positively, since managed to perform all the tasks that we had planned and overcome the obstacles that were emerging.” Team 4, Phase 5
Likewise, there was an awareness of the teams in relation to the status of the project on the evolution, improvements, reorganization, and difficulties, e.g.: ”(…) positive evaluation (…) website is advanced (…) good knowledge about the tool that we are going to use for the transposition of the board game to the digital (…) However, there are still some doubts and difficulties (…)” Team 5, Phase 2; ”(…) positive balance (…) we could have explored a little more (…) different educational resources (…) we admit that if we had a better organization regarding the management of the time (…) developed more resources (…) use of ICT.” Team 3, Phase 5
For the organizing subcategory (see ), was observed that there is a predominance the team organization strategies, namely: decision-making, scheduling of meetings, and after phase 1 an evident division of tasks by each team member: ”(…) After a meeting we decided to that it would be beneficial to distribute some tasks (…) some elements (…) were responsible for the research and collection of information for the theoretical foundation, others (…) building the site and the game.” Team 5, Phase 2; “(…) divided into tasks in which each had a deadline to deliver their part. Afterwards, the group met again to organize (…)” Team 3, Phase 4
The transformation subcategory (see ), the strategy frequently adopted by all teams was the production of resources or materials for the project: “(…) create a poster, through Canva (…).” Team 3, Phase 1. The planning of pedagogical activities took place essentially in phases 2 and 3, e.g., “The group defined different contents, (…) activities (…) objectives and competences (…) and the methodology that will be used.” Team 2, Phase 2. However, there was no mention of the treatment of material and information collected in the search for information.
In the planning subcategory (see ), in phase 1 all teams defined the project goal and a work plan, e.g.: “(…) establish the goals of the project and skills (…) the theme (.,) a title, logo and slogan were created for the project.” Team 3, Phase 1. In the following phases, planning was focused on specific tasks according to the project phase, e.g.: “For the next phase, we intend to have the website practically developed, as well as having the activity plans finalized.” Team 1, Phase 2
Regarding the search for information, although the entire team in each phase mentioned the strategy, it was not frequently adopted throughout the phases in a consistent way (see ).
The following subcategories of CRLs were not mentioned: Goal setting; Keeping records/note taking; Monitoring; Physical and Psychological environmental structuring; Co-consequences; Review/Essay/Repetition; Memorization; Seeking social assistance – Others; and Reviewing records.
4.3. Difficulties experienced and strategies adopted to overcame them by teams
The teams mentioned different types of difficulties that varied throughout the 5 phases (see ). In the initial phases (Phase 1 and 2), the most common difficulties among the teams were the definition of goals and skills (teams 2 and 3) to be explored in the project: “(…) difficulty in defining the concrete goals and skills that we wanted to be developed throughout the various activities of the game (…)” Team 2, Phase 1
Table 9. Difficulties of the teams during the development of the project.
Teams 4 and 5, respectively, expressed difficulty in defining the themes/activities for the project and selecting the appropriate tools, e.g.: “(…) define a new theme and (…) new activities (…)” Team 4, Phase 1; “(…) select the ideal tools for transforming the physical board into a digital game.” Team 5, Phase 1
Also, difficulties related to the use and practical handling of the tools/applications for the intended purposes, due to the lack of prior knowledge and the limitations of the tools/applications (all teams in different phases, which in some cases remained in the later stages). These difficulties required the teams to have the ability to adapt the activities or explore other tools. Some examples: “(…) video in Animaker, (…) audios were not syncing with images (…) we had to choose to use Canva, since it was a more practical (…)” Team 4, Phase 3; ”(…) construction of our website, since it is a platform never before worked by any member of the group.” Team 3, Phase 3.
In the later stages (Phase 3, 4, and 5), the difficulties mentioned were in time management (Teams 1 and 3), e.g.: ”(…) time management. In this last stage of the semester, reconciling work, presentations, and other tasks of all courses (…)” Team 3, Phase 5
In the theoretical component (teams 2 and 5): ”(…) find theoretical foundations for what we intended (…)” Team 2, Phase 3
Planning of pedagogical activities (team 4), in selecting the appropriate project evaluation model (teams 1 and 5), e.g.: “(…) in the evaluation methodology to be adopted (…) “Team 1, Phase 4
It is worth mentioning the difficulty of team 3 (which implemented the project in real practice in conjunction with another course) regarding compliance with the GDPR, e.g.: “(…) GDPR also hampered what would be the ‘normal’ process of activities and elaboration of the website (…) declaration of informed consent (…) bureaucratic work somewhat complex.” Team 3, Phases 2 and 3
To overcome the difficulties, the teams adopted CRLs (see ) such as Seeking Social Assistance from teacher (in all phases) or colleagues: “(…) meet with the teacher and record some tools that were suggested.” Team 5, Phase 1; “We had the help of another group” Team 3, Phase 3. And searching for information (phases 2 and 3): “(…) We carry out information search to solve our problems.” Team 2, Phase 2
Table 10. CRLs adopted by teams to solve the difficulties.
In addition to other strategies such as exploring new tools/applications, e.g.: ”(…) through the exploitation of WIX and the help of the internet” Team 3, Phase 3; “(…) we looked for more alternatives and explored each one of them to understand which ones best suit our objective.” Team 5, Phase 1
4.4. Teams’ perceptions about TIC e EB course
The teams mentioned that the TIC e EB course was an asset in their academic and professional future, challenging and triggered to “think outside the box”, e.g.: “(.) thinking outside the box, of transforming a physical game into a digital format, which was undoubtedly very challenging. ” Team 5 June 20225 June 2022.; “(…) an added value in our academic path.” Team 1 June 20221 June 2022; “(…) to gain tools for one day, as future Educators and/or Teachers, to have bases for us to continue using ICT, the Game Based Learning method and interdisciplinarity.” Team 4 June 20224 June 2022.
It also allowed them to contact, learn and explore new tools and applications, integrate and apply knowledge in other courses, e.g.: “(…) we become more discerning in the use of ICT in favour of the teaching and learning process, (…) transmit this knowledge and transpose it to courses and to our future as education professionals.” Team 1 June 20221 June 2022; “(…) develop various skills related to ICT (…) know and explore various tools that we were previously unaware (…) expanding our knowledge of the diversity of tools that exist for different purposes” Team 5 June 20225 June 2022.
As well as allowing them to develop skills such as critical thinking, creativity, problem solving and collaborative work, see examples: ”(…) develop our creativity and collaborative work.” Team 5 June 20225 June 2022; “(…) complex process of team and individual work, with a lot of research and some recourse to the trial/error strategy.” Team 1 June 20221 June 2022; “(…) [Learning about] the use of certain pedagogical methods, strategies and didactics, it is possible to make the teaching and learning process fun and flexible.” Team 3 June 20223 June 2022.
5. Conclusions and final thoughts
TIC e EB course trigger students’ interest in exploring and interacting with a wide range of ICT. The teams actively explored and integrated a diversity of ICT (n = 34) in their projects. It is possible to verify the ability of the teams to develop projects using ICT for different educational purposes, revealing digital skills, namely: select appropriate tools available on the web, such as: Websites (Wix) to sharing content; platforms for creating educational activities, games, educational content, interactive and gamified activities. This reveals the development of competences in area 2 of the DigCompEdu (Reisoğlu & Çebi, Citation2020), namely, in selecting, creating, and sharing educational resources.
Throughout the development phases of the projects, the teams revealed the adoption of various strategies for CRLs that were adjusted according to the evolution of teamwork. The main strategies reported were those of organizing, planning, transforming, seeking information and co-evaluation, evidencing an alignment with the development of digital skills. In terms of organizing, the strategies of division of tasks and team meetings were predominant; in the seeking information, the exploration of ICT; in transforming focused essentially on the production of educational resources and materials. We can conclude that TIC e EB course contributed to promote CRLs, which are essential for future teachers (Reisoğlu & Çebi, Citation2020; Saariaho et al., Citation2016), and provided clues for future research: correlation between the development of CRLs and digital skills. However, planning strategies with a focus on pedagogical activities plans were rarely mentioned. Taking notes, monitoring, environmental and psychological structuring, co-consequences, reviewing records and memorization were not mentioned by teams. In future editions, it is important: to design activities that allow teams to develop these strategies and, to use other data collection instruments that allow the entire prism to be evaluated CRLs in a complete way (Galindo-Domínguez & Bezanilla, Citation2021; Saariaho et al., Citation2016).
The difficulties varied throughout the phases. In the initial focused on the definition of goals and skills to be explored in the project (planning); in the later related with the practical use of tools/application. To overcome the difficulties, the strategies adopted were the exploration of new tools/applications, seeking help from the teacher and seeking information.
The teams mentioned that the TIC e EB was an asset in their academic path and professional future, a challenging and triggered to “think outside the box”. It also allowed them to contact, learn and explore new tools and applications, integrate, and apply knowledge in other courses, and develop skills, such as: critical thinking, creativity, problem solving and collaborative work.
It is concluded that TIC e EB contribute to the development of essential skills of future teachers: digital, critical thinking, creativity, and CRLs. In future research, it is important to analyze and reflect on how digital skills and CRLs influence each other.
Acknowledgments
D. Pedrosa wishes to thank Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) and CIDTFF - Universidade de Aveiro, Portugal, for Stimulus of Scientific Employment – CEECIND/00986/2017 Individual Support 2017. Thanks all the students who collaborated on this research.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Additional information
Funding
References
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
- Caena, F., & Redecker, C. (2019). Aligning teacher competence frameworks to 21st century challenges: The case for the european digital competence framework for educators (Digcompedu). European Journal of Education, 54(3), 356–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12345
- Cohen, L. (2002). Research methods in education (5th ed.). Routledge.
- Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 166–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487100051003002
- Dinçer, S. (2018). Are preservice teachers really literate enough to integrate technology in their classroom practice? Determining the technology literacy level of preservice teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 23(6), 2699–2718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9737-z
- Domingo-Coscollola, M., Bosco-Paniagua, A., Carrasco-Segovia, S., & Sánchez-Valero, J.-A. (2019). Fomentando la competencia digital docente en la universidad: Percepción de estudiantes y docentes. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 38(1), 167–782. https://doi.org/10.6018/rie.340551
- Edwards, A. (2009). Becoming a Teacher. In H. Daniels, J. Porter, & H. Lauder (Eds.), Educational theories, cultures and learning (Vol. 1, pp. 153–164). Routledge.
- Galindo-Domínguez, H., & Bezanilla, M. J. (2021). Digital competence in the training of pre-service teachers: Perceptions of students in the degrees of early childhood education and primary education. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 37(4), 262–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2021.1934757
- Gudmundsdottir, G. B., Gassó, H. H., Rubio, J. C. C., & Hatlevik, O. E. (2020). Student teachers’ responsible use of ICT: Examining two samples in Spain and Norway. Computers & Education, 152, 103877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103877
- Gudmundsdottir, G. B., & Hatlevik, O. E. (2018). Newly qualified teachers’ professional digital competence: Implications for teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 41(2), 214–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1416085
- Hadwin, A. F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2011). Self-regulated, co-regulated, and socially shared regulation of learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of selfregulation of learning and performance (pp. 65–84). Routledge.
- Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving Schools, 19(3), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480216659733
- Krumsvik, R. J. (2014). Teacher educators’ digital competence. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58(3), 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2012.726273
- Lázaro, J. L., Usart, M., & Gisbert, M. (2019). Assessing teacher digital competence: The construction of an instrument for measuring the knowledge of pre-service teachers. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 8(1), 73–78. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2019.1.370
- Panadero, E., & Järvelä, S. (2015). Socially shared regulation of learning: A review. European Psychologist, 20(3), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000226
- Pedrosa, D., Cravino, J., Morgado, L., & Barreira, C. (2019). Co-regulated learning in computer programming: Students Co-reflection about learning strategies adopted during an assignment. In M. A. Tsitouridou, J. Diniz, & T. Mikropoulos (Eds.), Technology and innovation in learning, teaching and education. TECH-EDU 2018. Communications in computer and information science (Vol. 993). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20954-4_2
- Pedrosa, D., Fontes, M. M., Araújo, T., Morais, C., Bettencourt, T., Pestana, P. D.,Morgado, L., & Cravino, J. (2021). Metacognitive challenges to support self-reflection of students in online software engineering education. In 2021 4th International Conference of the Portuguese Society for Engineering Education (CISPEE), Lisbon, Portugal (pp. 1–10). IEEE.
- Pedrosa, D., Morgado, L., & Cravino, J. (2022). A strategy to support engineering education teaching staff monitoring students’ learning process: Metacognitive challenges. In International Symposium on Project Approaches in Engineering Education; Active Learning in Engineering Education Workshop; International Conference on Active Learning in Engineering Education (PAEE/ALE’2022), Alicante, Spain (pp. 295–303). Department of Production and Systems. PAEE Association School of Engineering of University of Minho.
- Redecker C. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompedu. Publications Office of the European Union.
- Reisoğlu, İ., & Çebi, A. (2020). How can the digital competences of pre-service teachers be developed? Examining a case study through the lens of DigComp and DigCompEdu. Computers & Education, 156, 103940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103940
- Saariaho, E., Anttila, H., Toom, A., Soini, T., Pietarinen, J., & Pyhältö, K. (2018). Student teachers’ emotional landscapes in self-and co-regulated learning. Teachers & Teaching, 24(5), 538–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2018.1430565
- Saariaho, E., Pyhältö, K., Toom, A., Pietarinen, J., & Soini, T. (2016). Student teachers’ self-and co-regulation of learning during teacher education. Learning: Research and Practice, 2(1), 44–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2015.1081395
- Starkey, L. (2020). A review of research exploring teacher preparation for the digital age. Cambridge Journal of Education, 50(1), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2019.1625867
- Tondeur, J., Aesaert, K., Prestridge, S., & Consuegra, E. (2018). A multilevel analysis of what matters in the training of pre-service teacher’s ICT competencies. Computers & Education, 122, 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.002
- Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Baran, E., Siddiq, F., Valtonen, T., & Sointu, E. (2019). Teacher educators as gatekeepers: Preparing the next generation of teachers for technology integration in education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1189–1209. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12748
- Zheng, L., & Huang, R. (2016). The effects of sentiments and co-regulation on group performance in computer supported collaborative learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 28, 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.10.001
- Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: A social cognitive career path. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.794676