Professional digital competence (PDC) in teacher education – teacher candidates reasoning about programming when involved in problem-solving activities with digital tools

Abstract

The increased emergence of digital tools in educational contexts have changed the conditions for teaching and learning which, in turn, has meant a need for the development of professional digital competence (PDC) among teachers worldwide. Simultaneously, and aligned with this, programming has become an increasingly important part of schooling in many parts of the world and a step toward developing computational thinking. In this paper we investigate teacher candidates reasoning about programming when involved in problem-solving activities with digital tools. The unit of analysis is programming activities conducted by a group of 17 teacher candidates in a Swedish primary teacher education. The research question posed is: How do digital tools co-determine teacher candidates’ reasoning about programming and its pedagogical application during problem-solving activities with digital tools designed for teaching? Drawing from a sociocultural approach, the results of the present study imply that the teacher candidate’s appropriation of knowledge is co-determined by the digital tool itself and as such it does not provide any deeper understanding for its pedagogical use.

Keywords:

• Problem-solving
• professional digital competence
• programming
• teacher candidates
• teacher education

Introduction

Digitalization of society has led to a situation where information and knowledge are made accessible in new manners, and our knowing and reasoning to an increasing extent take place in coordination with various digital tools (Säljö, 2019). This change in society has implications for education where digital tools have gained increasing importance in schools and have changed the conditions for teaching and learning in terms of what knowledge and skills should be focused upon (Godhe & Sofkova Hashemi, 2019). From an education policy point of view the answer to this new situation has been, among other things, in the form of the concept of professional digital competence (PDC) (e.g., Brevik et al., 2019; Gudmundsdottir & Hatlevik, 2018). The EU framework and guidelines, which have been developed to support teachers’ PDC, DigCompEdu, (Redecker, 2017), highlight the importance of teachers’ exploring of digital technologies and their pedagogical uses. Being a teacher implies skills in using digital tools but also, as important, competence in evaluating and adapting digital tools to specific areas of knowledge (Lund et al., 2014).

The majority of studies carried out within the field of PDC in teacher education are surveys (e.g., Almås et al., 2021; Gudmundsdottir & Hatlevik, 2018). This research often focuses on teacher candidates’ perceptions of and beliefs in using digital tools for teaching undertakings (Monjelat & Lantz-Andersson, 2020). This implies that there is a need for qualitative research studies which focuses on teacher candidates’ reasoning, discussions, and reflections. An area of knowledge closely linked to PDC is programming. The curricula in the Nordic countries have chosen to link programming with both specific areas of knowledge and to the development of digital competence (Bocconi et al., 2018). The Swedish curriculum for compulsory school contains content related to programming in mathematics, technology, Swedish, civics and crafts (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2019). In this way, teachers at different levels and different subjects are responsible for teaching programming. In their education, Swedish students must also be given the opportunity to develop a critical and responsible approach to digital technology as well as to develop knowledge about how programming can affect “both course of events as well as public debate” (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2019, p. 9). The writings of the Swedish curriculum thus cover different levels of complexity that proceeds from concrete coding (what is?), to digital technology (what does?) and finally to the importance of programming in a societal context (why?) (Lilja, 2019). In recent years, programming has become an increasingly important part of schooling in many parts of the world and a step toward developing computational thinking (Balanskat & Engelhardt, 2015). Based on this, the present study aims to contribute to the field of digital competence by investigating tool-mediated problem-solving activities in ongoing regular teacher education. The study will focus on teacher candidates reasoning about programming when involved in problem-solving activities with digital tools. More specifically, the present study addresses the following research question:

• How do digital tools co-determine teacher candidates’ reasoning about programming and its pedagogical application during problem-solving activities with digital tools designed for teaching?

Today, there are large differences in how schools use digital tools. Following a review by the Swedish Schools Inspectorate in 2019, it was concluded that schools that were included in the review did not comply with the curriculum’s requirements for the use of digital tools in the subjects of mathematics and technology (Swedish Schools Inspectorate, 2019). These are the subjects in which knowledge goals in programming are most clearly projected in the curriculum (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2019). Furthermore, many teacher education programs have been criticized for their limited focus on developing teacher candidates’ digital skills (Almås et al., 2021). For example, there is evidence that teacher candidates need support in linking theoretical perspectives that have been taught at the university with experiences gained from their practical school experiences (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Lund & Eriksen, 2016). Accordingly, it is argued by Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) and Lund and Eriksen (2016) that this integration between practice and university-based education is a major practical challenge. Thus, in the current teacher education system, there are clear limitations both regarding teacher educations’ opportunities to create good conditions for teacher candidates to develop digital competence, and the schools’ opportunities to meet the teachers’ needs for practical experiences in becoming digital competent (Gudmundsdottir & Hatlevik, 2018; Voogt & McKenney, 2017). At the same time, there are high expectations on teachers to be digital competent as they are expected to use digital tools in their teaching (Livingstone, 2012). Internationally, the missing complementary relationship between teacher education and school practices is well-documented and challenging for the teacher candidates’ limited opportunities to develop PDC in the context of their education (Gudmundsdottir & Hatlevik, 2018; Voogt & McKenney, 2017). Thus, there is a need for research of teacher candidates’ ongoing activities and discussions within a regular teacher education setting.

Teacher candidates’ development of professional digital competence (PDC)

School, like society at large, has changed radically with the emergence of digitalization and today’s prospective teachers encounter a complex work context that includes different digital practices for which different skills are required. To prepare students for today’s digitalized society, teachers need to be digital competent themselves, that is, competent in using digital tools and to implement them in their teaching with a clear pedagogical intention/agenda. Accordingly, teacher education has an important role in preparing future teachers to develop such skills (Jimarkon et al., 2021) to enhance their learning (Almås et al., 2021). This is in line with what teacher candidates in Camilleri et al. (2021) express as important content for teacher education to keep up with the digitalized society. It is therefore vital that teacher education can meet and respond to the expectations of teacher candidates’ future practice in an adequate manner by providing them with the necessary PDC.

PDC can be described as “an integrated part of teacher candidates’ professional development as they are expected to learn how to make optimal use of ICT and make the best of the potential that lies in ICT for teaching and learning” (Brevik et al., 2019, p. 1). However, in a study by Gudmundsdottir and Hatlevik (2018) that explores how newly qualified teachers are prepared to use information and communication technology (ICT) in their initial teacher education (ITE), the results show that nearly half of the newly qualified teachers in the study report fairly poor quality and contribution of ICT training during their teacher education (Gudmundsdottir & Hatlevik, 2018). The authors claim, in line with much other research (e.g., Ell et al., 2017; Sancho-Gil et al., 2017), that continuous effort is needed to review the quality of ITE and contribute specifically to the development of PDC and developing teacher candidates’ ICT self-efficacy in ITE (Gudmundsdottir & Hatlevik, 2018).

Research points to differences between skills of using digital tools in everyday activities and skills of using such tools as resources for learning in teaching activities (Kirschner & De Bruyckere, 2017). Baek and Sung (2021) demonstrate that teacher candidates in their perceptions of using digital tools in their future teaching did not feel ready and thus expressed a lack of confidence in using such resources (see also Kimm et al., 2020). In teacher education, teacher candidates meet various digital tools, however, research shows that the students do not find activities of testing and playing with the tools as enough for developing skills in how to implement them in their future teaching (Almås et al., 2021). Rather, as Almås et al. (2021) illustrate, teacher candidates request experimental and explorative activities that include discussions and reflections on pedagogical potentials and implications of the tools. In line with this, research (e.g., Brooks et al., 2020) shows that knowledge exchange between teachers becomes productive and meaningful if those involved have similar experiences. At the same time, teachers point out that they lack practical opportunities to test different types of digital tools and to discuss digital experiences or lack of such (Brooks et al., 2020; Rikkerink et al., 2016).

Furthermore, as argued by Almås et al. (2021): “even if teacher educators demonstrated innovative ways of using ICT in pursuit of pedagogical objectives, students often failed to recognize and learn from them” (p. 73). In line with this, research (e.g., Choi & Hong, 2019; Choi et al., 2017) report how teacher candidates express that they find it difficult to implement teaching methods based on digital tools due to a lack of knowledge about teaching strategies. In addition, Brevik et al. (2019) has conducted a study which lies in the interface between PDC and transformative agency required to prepare teacher candidates for complex learning and teaching situations that involve options and informed decision making (Brevik et al., 2019), and they claim that “traces of transformation, going beyond the status quo, were nearly non-existent” (ibid, p. 2). This implies that digital resources were commonly adapted to existing educational practices.

According to computer scientists, computational thinking includes skills necessary for people as for succeed in problem-solving activities and as preparation for jobs that require high-tech competences (Baek & Sung, 2021; Rehmat et al., 2020; Wing, 2006; Yadav, 2017). Computer scientists and researchers involved in the debate of programming as part of schooling have different views regarding what knowledge and skills of programming that are important to teach in school. This means that teachers need to be prepared and equipped to make choices in issues of programming where experts sometimes have very different views (Lilja, 2019). In order to make it possible for students to learn about programming and skills linked to digital competence it is central to create conditions for developing teachers’ and teacher candidates’ PDC.

Theoretical framework

Theoretically, the research reported here is underpinned by a sociocultural perspective on learning where the empirical interest concerns how learning is constituted in social practices by the parties involved (Säljö, 2010; Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1998). The unit of analysis include cultural tools and focuses on discussions that evolve in tool-mediated settings. Central to the sociocultural perspective is the idea that people appropriate cultural tools in social practices (Säljö, 2005; Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1998). Learning, thus, becomes a matter of developing skills in using cultural tools in relevant ways in situated practices. From a sociocultural perspective, cultural tools constitute resources that support different types of reasoning and mediates knowledge in new ways. The digital tool, BBS micro:bit, used by teacher candidates in the present study is an example of a mediating tool for teacher candidates’ understanding about programming.

An interesting aspect of a mediating tool such as micro:bit is that it builds on scientific and technical knowledge that, to a large extent, is hidden or “blackboxed” (Latour, 1999) to the user. Blackboxing refers to:

the way scientific and technical work is made invisible by its own success. When a machine runs efficiently, when a matter of fact is settled, one need focus only on its inputs and outputs and not on its internal complexity. Thus, paradoxically, the more science and technology succeed, the more opaque and obscure they become. (Latour, 1999, p. 304)

This means that the tool function as a black box that contains several technical features that are invisible for the user and which the user does not need to pay attention to. This blackboxed nature of digital tools will have consequences for how teacher candidates engage with the micro:bit and the insights they make.

Methodology

Context and participants

The participants included in this study are 17 teacher candidates engaged in programming activities as part of regular teaching activity. The teacher candidates are studying year 3 in a 4-year Primary teacher education program (school years 4-6). The study is derived from one half-day-lesson with activities related to the use of digital tools designed for teaching programming. Due to the pandemic situation caused by Covid 19, the lesson was conducted via Zoom. The teaching activity is part of a course in general science and technology. The course is organized by KomTek, an organization of technology and entrepreneurship with the aim of arousing interest in technology and entrepreneurship in society at large, with a focus on children and young people. KomTek is linked to the municipality. KomTek is part of several Swedish municipality and is organized nationally as a nonprofit association. The first part of the lesson includes an introduction where an ICT instructor from KomTek introduces programming, digital tools for programming and how they can be used in learning activities. In the major part of the lesson, Zoom’s Breakout Rooms were used where teacher candidates worked in groups of three to four, with programming activities using BBC micro:bit. The micro:bit is described below. All teacher candidates were provided with one micro:bit each. The problem-solving activity included tasks of programming a dice and a pedometer. In the end of the lesson the teacher candidates answered three questions. Two of the questions were linked to the programming activities in terms of testing the probability of the appearance of a certain figure on the dice and the third question concerned how they can work interdisciplinary with the same programming activities in schools and in which subjects. The last twenty minutes of the lesson the teacher candidates were gathered in full class and presented their answers to the questions.

Micro:bit

In order to understand the logic of the study, the digital tool micro:bit will be presented and described. The BBC micro:bit (https://microbit.org/) is a small computer without its own operating system which means that the user needs to program everything that the tool needs to do. The micro:bit is most easily programmed in Microsoft MakeCode (https://makecode.microbit.org/) which is a free, open source platform. The user can choose block-based programming or text-based programming. The teacher candidates in the present study use block-based programming in Microsoft MakeCode to program the micro:bit. In block-based programming the user uses coding instruction “blocks” to program, for instance a dice. Block-based programming is an entry-level activity compared to text-based programming which is a more advanced level.

On the front of the micro:bit there are two buttons, A and B and a display with 25 LED lights (see Figure 1). On the lower part of the micro:bit there are a number of contacts which can be used to connect the tool with external equipment. The user transfer the program from the computer to the micro:bit using a USB cable. For example, the user can choose to display text on the screen when clicking the button A or create a game that is started by shaking the micro:bit.

Figure 1. BBC micro:bit.

Data collection and analysis

In this study we have analyzed approximately 3 h of recordings of teacher candidates problem-solving activities in the context of using a micro:bit. The teacher candidates’ interaction with each other as well as the activities on the shared screen in Zoom were transcribed.

The recordings of the activities and reasoning in Zoom, are analyzed using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) where we identified patterns in the empirical material which in turn were organized in themes. The method presents possibilities for studying the interaction in detail and enables the researchers to find patterns in the conversation or interaction observed (Rogers et al., 2011). The analytical work started by identifying and documenting potentially interesting aspects that were considered relevant in relation to the research question. In doing so, a systematic coding of the data was carried out in a process including the following phases: (1) getting to know the data, (2) generating initial codes, (3) searching for initial themes, (4) reviewing themes, and (5) defining themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006), as is shown in Table 1 below. The analysis of the programming activities aims to map the participants’ reasonings of programming in relation to the digital tool and its possible implications for their teaching practice.

Table 1. Analytical phases in thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006)

Phases	Activities undertaken	Foci guided by analysis
Phase 1	Repeatedly reviewing recordings	Overall view of the material: getting to know the data
Phase 2	Transcription of specific excerpts	Identifying recurring patterns: generating initial codes
Phase 3	Organization of excerpts into themes	Analyzing excerpts in accordance with initial codes: searching for initial themes
Phase 4	Checking the themes guided by RQ	Deciding which excerpts to include: reviewing themes
Phase 5	Establishing themes	Defining themes

Findings

The results are organized around two themes that concern teacher candidates’ reasoning of (1) the potentials of the use of digital tools and its pedagogical application in teaching activities and (2) instructional challenges involved in the use of digital tools and its pedagogical application. The themes are empirically derived and demonstrate the types of reasoning involved in tool-mediated problem-solving activities in teacher education.

Potentials of the use of digital tools and its pedagogical application in teaching activities

The two excerpts below illustrate how teacher candidates in their group discussions reason about the potentials of the use of digital tools and its pedagogical application in teaching activities. The teacher candidates use Microsoft MakeCode to code the micro:bit. In this activity, the teacher candidates merely focus on the functionalities of the digital tools as they, for instance, spend a lot of time getting the micro:bit to connect to their computer. The findings reveal that in instances where the teacher candidates reason about the potential of the specific digital tool, their reasoning is oriented toward the assignment and to the question that concerns how they can work interdisciplinary in schools with the very same activities that they work with and what subjects that would be relevant for such activities. In the first excerpt, Teacher candidate 1 and Teacher candidate 2 reason about what subjects that would be relevant to implement learning activities of programming a dice and a pedometer.

Excerpt 1.

Teacher candidate 1: mathematics is-

Teacher candidate 2: yeah exactly that goes without saying

Teacher candidate 1: math and technology

Teacher candidate 2: mm

Teacher candidate 1: and you can like already if you work with simple mathematics like if you think of addition and subtraction and all that stuff you can like- you can see patterns and you can see eh important things so the students get to work with programming at the same

Teacher candidate 1 and Teacher candidate 2 are confident in that the activity of programming a dice and a pedometer is well suited for the subjects of mathematics and technology. However, when Teacher candidate 1 starts to elaborate on how such an activity could be implemented in mathematics her line of reasoning is speculative. In her utterance, Teacher candidate 1, has an idea that the programming activity could be implemented in the subject of mathematics in learning activities of “simple mathematics” and more specifically in terms of calculating addition and subtraction. She continues by suggesting “you can see patterns and you can see eh important things” which indicates vagueness regarding programming and its place in the curriculum and core content in mathematics. As mentioned in the previous section, the ICT instructor from KomTek starts the lesson by giving the teacher candidates a short introduction about programming and how it can be used in learning activities. In the introduction the ICT instructor points to the curriculum and core content in mathematics in school years 4-6 that includes programming. From excerpt 1, and the empirical material in general, it is evident how the teacher candidates’ discussions, both when engaged in the programming activity and in the activity of answering the question given in the assignment, do not contain central concepts related to programming such as algorithms, variables, sequence. An essential part of learning about programming is to be familiar with the concepts that are relevant. Teacher candidate 1 continues her line of reasoning by saying “so the students get to work with programming at the same”. This utterance demonstrates how programming is regarded upon as something separate from the mathematical knowledge content, rather than as a mean for learning programming as something that is integrated in the learning of mathematics.

Even if the teacher candidates in excerpt 1 are certain that the subjects of mathematics and technology are relevant for introducing learning activities with the micro:bit, they struggle with concretizing it into practical framework. In excerpt 2, we introduce another group of teacher candidates which, similar to the group in excerpt 1, sees the subjects of mathematics and technology as relevant areas for implementing a learning activity with digital tools linked to programming. After establishing mathematics and technology as obvious subjects for such learning activity, Teacher candidate 3, Teacher candidate 4 and Teacher candidate 5 continue to search for additional subjects.

Excerpt 2.

Teacher candidate 3: and probably with sports as well

Teacher candidate 4: what do you mean

Teacher candidate 3: count laps or something by shaking it (pause) I do not know

Teacher candidate 4: yes

Teacher candidate 5: mm

Teacher candidate 4: it is mainly technology and math that you think of

Teacher candidate 3: yes it may be a bit far-fetched, but if you were to look for all the loopholes that exist.

Teacher candidate 4: yes yes but of course. I do not know if physics gets in there somewhere

Teacher candidate 3: it surely does

Teacher candidate 5: mm

Teacher candidate 4: it just feels that way

Both teacher candidates in excerpt 1 and excerpt 2 show a certainty when they mention the subjects of mathematics and technology. However, when group members in excerpt 2 suggest the subjects of physical education and health and physics they do not speak in the same matter of course: “and probably with sports as well” and “I do not know if physics gets in there somewhere”. Furthermore, Teacher candidate 3 stresses that “yes it may be a bit far-fetched, but if you were to look for all the loopholes that exist” and the suggestion by Teacher candidate 4 is based on a feeling that she has. In this way, the teacher candidates have started to think about different subjects that could be suitable for implementing activities of programming a dice and a pedometer. However, the activity of using the digital tools has not led to a deeper understanding of and reflections on how and why the subjects of physical education and health and physics are suitable subjects for such activity.

Teacher candidate 3 shows difficulties in concretizing her proposal of the subject of physical education and health into a practical framework. She suggests that the digital tools could be used to count laps and after a small pause she continues by saying “I don’t know”. Here, the teacher candidates’ reasoning when mentioning obvious and not so obvious subjects is characterized by the same kind of vagueness. Excerpt 2, thus, indicates that additional learning activities are needed where the teacher candidates get time and tools for discussion and reflection.

Instructional challenges involved in the use of digital tools and its pedagogical application

This section presents three excerpts illustrating how teacher candidates reason about instructional challenges involved in using digital tools for learning to program. Before the conversation specified in Excerpt 3, the teacher candidates participating in one of the Zoom Breakout Rooms are engaged in a discussion regarding what subjects that would suit programming activities in their future teaching and how the activity they are working on in this workshop could become a template for their teaching. Their discussion ends with a range of potential subjects, such as mathematics, technology, physical education and health, and Swedish language. Following this discussion, Excerpt 3 addresses the issue of the teachers’ sense of raised expectations on them in terms of a necessity of including programming in their teaching.

Excerpt 3

Teacher candidate 1: but what I think like this now we get this but it will come - so the expectations of teachers will increase very much in terms of programming but most have no training in programming at all

Teacher candidate 2: no

Teacher candidate 1: and they are like a bit- they contradict each other quite a lot heh

In the excerpt, Teacher candidate 1, continues her line of reasoning regarding raised expectations on teachers by saying that most of them have no training in teaching programming. This, according to Teacher candidate 1, is “they contradict each other quite a lot”. Teacher candidate 1 finishes her reasoning with a laughter which indicates that she finds the equation of higher expectations on teachers regarding the implementation of programming-related learning activities and teachers’ skills and knowledge to perform such activities being not coherent. Programming is a newcomer in the Swedish curriculum, which as such it comes with expectations and demands on new knowledge and skills to become competent enough to carry out teaching activities including programming. Thus, Teacher candidate 1 has a point as she has identified a general lack of knowledge and skills among teachers due to a lack of training.

In Excerpt 3, Teacher candidate 1, starts the conversation by saying “now we get this”. “this” refers to the problem-solving activity that the teacher candidates are engaged in and where they use micro:bit to program a dice and a pedometer. However, what “this” implies and what learning outcome in terms of how this activity can contribute to develop their knowledge and skills in teaching programming is not further elaborated among the group members. In Excerpt 4, however, a teacher candidate from another group puts words on “this” as she in the final presentation of the task, compares the activity of using the micro:bit with an activity of learning to play the piano.

Excerpt 4

Teacher candidate 6: it’s kind of like if you are going to learn to play the piano you get a notebook with a lot of notes and so… now you have to print out the notes for twinkle twinkle little star so it is about the same principle that you are thrown into something and so you have to solve it and you do it in the end eh

ICT instructor: mm

Teacher candidate 6: but I can imagine that it is partly frustrating for us students but then maybe also for the students that it will also be frustrating. Why does it not work eh

Teacher candidate 6 expresses what, in the overall empirical material, characterizes the way in which the teacher candidates approach the activity with the digital tool in order to solve the programming tasks they are occupied with. The majority of teacher candidates are not familiar with the digital tool, and as mentioned earlier, some teacher candidates have problems getting the technology to work and spend a lot of time trying to solve technical issues. Teacher candidate 6 considers the activity with micro:bit as something they have been “thrown into” and that they should solve the problem even though they have no background knowledge or experience of this kind of problems. She continues her reasoning by saying” so you have to solve it and you do it in the end eh”. Here, Teacher candidate 6 points to an aspect that is important when it comes to developing skills in using digital tools, that is, getting to know the tool and playing around with it and thus create an image of its pedagogical potential. Likewise, to get an idea of where the students may encounter problems and what kind of support, they as teachers would need to offer in such situations. Teacher candidate 6 continues by saying that to be “thrown into” a digital tool with which one is unfamiliar could lead to frustration among teacher candidates on the one hand and students on the other. In this way, the excerpt displays how teacher candidates express instructional challenges by reasoning about aspects related to the functionality of the digital tool, which means that they are concerned with issues such as being able to use the tool rather than the content, that is, programming.

The two above-mentioned excerpts illustrate instructional challenges of using the digital tool, as in being able to handle its functionalities. Another instructional challenge that appeared in the empirical material was directed toward the content of teaching programming and the issue of teaching with progression. In Excerpt 5, we meet Teacher candidate 6 again, as she summarizes what her group discussed in the group activity.

Excerpt 5

Teacher candidate 6: yes precisely because blocks are easy to follow and so on, but then maybe it comes at a higher level where you sort of have to sit and write code

ICT instructor: mm

Teacher candidate 6: and if I as a teacher do not know it, it can be a bit problematic because then I can not teach, but you simply have to take it step

In excerpt 5, Teacher candidate 6, stresses that block-based programming is easy to follow. She continues her line of reasoning by pointing to the matter of teaching with progression in mind when saying: “but then maybe it comes at a higher level where you sort of have to sit and write code”. Accordingly, Teacher candidate 6 finds the activity of writing code significant with learning programming on a higher level compared to the activity of working with block-based programming. This is a point that is evident in the overall empirical material, that is, that block-based programming tools are easy enough for the teacher candidates to use in their teaching. Digital tools for block-based programming are developed so that beginners can easily use them and often they do not require any prior knowledge of programming. In such environments, the user can focus on solving the problem (formulating the algorithm) which differs from text-based programming. Text-based programming instead requires a text-based programming language where the user develops more complicated programs through such languages. Teacher candidate 6 continues her reasoning by saying that it will be problematic to teach programming at a higher level if she as a teacher does not have the required knowledge and skills.

Discussion

As established previously, teacher education has a responsibility to address the whole part of developing professional digital competence (PDC) as well as to equip teacher candidates with tools to develop skills in evaluating tools, designing teaching ideas, reflections, etc. (Jimarkon et al., 2021; Almås et al., 2021; Camilleri et al., 2021). In the present study, and in relation to our research question, it was evident that there was no room for the teacher candidates due to lack of time to deepen their reflections on the use of digital tools in programming, which according to previous research (Brooks et al., 2020; Rikkerink et al., 2016) is a valuable part to consider when implementing digital tools in teaching activities. The teaching activity itself was predetermined by the framing of the task and did not really open up for the teacher candidates to reason about opportunities with digital tools to teach about a knowledge content. The ICT instructor in the introduction of the lesson provides the teacher candidates with some keys regarding the pedagogical use of micro:bit. The teacher candidates do not, however, use these keys to develop their reasoning about the application of such a tool in a teaching practice. As stated previously, competence in not only exploration but also in evaluating and adapting digital tools to specific areas of knowledge and pedagogical use (Lund et al., 2014) is vital for the development of PDC for teachers (Redecker, 2017).

Furthermore, learning to program using a block-based language compared to learning to program using a text-based language means that you don’t need to reach a deeper level of understanding of the logic of programming. However, in this specific context it is of importance that teacher candidates understand some of the concepts and approaches that are blackboxed (Latour, 1999). Here, the teacher educators have a vital function in unpacking the features in the tools that are relevant for the specific content of programming. In their discussions, the teacher candidates do not use central concepts linked to programming. This, however, is not surprising due to the design of the tool, i.e. you can immediately start working in the tool without knowing key concepts related to programming. It becomes clear in the result where the teacher candidates cannot deepen their reasoning about the practical framework. The activity with the micro:bit give the teacher candidates an entrance to programming, but it does not solve the issue of reaching a conceptual understanding of how to teach programming, i. e. the pedagogical application of the digital tool.

Similar to previous research (Kimm et al., 2020; Rikkerink et al., 2016), the teacher candidates in this study express that they lack competence to teach with the specific digital tool. It is evident from this study and others (cf., Kirschner & De Bruyckere, 2017; Brevik et al., 2019) that teacher education does not equip teacher candidates enough for this. Rather, the activity of using a micro:bit is oriented toward the functionality of the tool and to proceed in the digital environment and with the task. Accordingly, to handle the tool does not come hand in hand with knowledge about how to handle its pedagogical application. It is required that teacher education has more elements that are linked to the use of digital tools in teaching, where teacher candidates can develop skills in critically examining digital tools, evaluating the pedagogical potential, and so on. The results of the present study imply that the teacher candidate’s appropriation of knowledge is codetermined by the digital tool itself and as such it does not provide any deeper understanding for its pedagogical use.

The findings of this study have implications for teacher education as they not only focus on technology-oriented skills on how digital tools can be manipulated, but rather on the importance of offering teacher candidates an arena for developing skills related to pedagogical applications of digital tools. Like other pedagogical media such as textbooks, excursions, and labs that teachers usually use for a pedagogical/didactic purposes, it is essential that teaching including digital technology focuses on its pedagogical/didactic potentials. Teaching activities, like the one presented in this study, would therefore benefit from elements of having teacher educators that can share experiences of how to didactically plan for teaching specific content (e.g., programming) with digital tools, show strategies and examples of such work. Results from previous research illustrate that such elements are effective in developing teacher candidates PDC (Røkenes & Krumsvik, 2016; Foulger et al., 2017).

Conclusion

The opportunities with KomTek seem to be a positive exception when it comes to the possibilities of practically exploring digital tools and teaching methods. We conclude that KomTek adds important components to teacher candidates’ education and that it is a point that these are done in a different context than regular campus teaching, where the framework creates opportunities even for students who have negative experiences of the subject to get new and more positive experiences. At the same time, in the larger context of teacher education, it becomes important to introduce digital tools together with different pedagogical approaches that are grounded in theoretically, empirically and conceptually substantiated arguments. The experiences that teacher candidates make through problem-solving activities where the primary purpose is to explore interfaces and opportunities of digital tools cannot be expected to lead to an understanding of how to incorporate these components in educational instruction. This needs to be treated in additional teaching elements within the framework of teacher education. As previous research has shown, the quality of teaching with and about digital tools is generally low in teacher education (Gudmundsdottir & Hatlevik, 2018; Ell et al., 2017; Sancho-Gil et al., 2017). Teacher candidates need support in linking theoretical perspectives from academia to school practice (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Lund & Eriksen, 2016). Hence, our study shows, in line with previous research (e.g., Gudmundsdottir & Hatlevik, 2018; Voogt & McKenney, 2017), that there is a limitation in terms of teacher educations ability to provide teacher candidates with opportunities for the development of PDC. As shown in this study, teacher education have come only so far in relation to providing teacher candidates an arena to develop PDC in terms of using tools for programming. This however, is not enough and with this paper we hope contribute to raise awareness of the complexity of this matter and show that it is necessary to take a step away from activities of just exploring digital tools to gain PDC.

Disclosure statement

Not potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Emma Edstrand

Emma Edstrand, PhD in Educational Science, Senior Lecturer at the School of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences, Halmstad University, Sweden.

Edstrand’s research interest concerns the inter-section between how people learn, and the role digital technologies may play in such contexts. Her research is also directed towards digitalization and teacher candidates’ digital competence. Edstrand is currently involved in a project focusing on how Virtual Reality (VR) environments can contribute to the development of students’ learning in multilingual study guidance teaching.