Received: 9 January 2017 Revised: 16 August 2017 Accepted: 9 December 2017

DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12225

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Differences in pre‐service teachers' knowledge and readiness

to use ICT in education
Teemu Valtonen | Jari Kukkonen | Sini Kontkanen | Kati Mäkitalo‐Siegl | Erkko Sointu

University of Eastern Finland, Finland

Correspondence
Teemu Valtonen, University of Eastern
Finland, Yliopistokatu 2, P.O. Box 111, Joensuu
FI‐80101, Finland.
Email: teemu.valtonen@uef.fi
Funding information
Kulttuurin ja Yhteiskunnan Tutkimuksen
Toimikunta; Academy of Finland, Research
Council for Culture and Society, Grant/Award
Numbers: 273970 and 296799
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to provide insights into differences between pre‐service teachers based
on the areas of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) and the areas of theory of
planned behaviour (TPB) in the context of using information and communication technology in
education. The target group consisted of 267 first‐year pre‐service teachers at 3 Finnish
universities. Differences between pre‐service teachers were outlined using cluster analysis based
on their knowledge of different TPACK areas (the respondents' weak and strong areas). To see
how the TPB areas aligned with the 4 TPACK clusters, 1‐way analysis of variance was used.
Statistically significant differences between the 4 clusters were found in all the TPB areas except
subjective norms. These results provide insights into the differences among pre‐service teachers
in the context of TPACK and the TPB. They also suggest that instead of considering pre‐service
teachers as one homogenous group, we need to understand the variations among their abilities
and knowledge in order to be able to provide them with support they need within teacher
education.

KEY W ORDS

clustering, pre‐service teacher, TPACK, TPB

1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N
The role of information and communication technology (ICT) in
education is emphasized in schools today. The important role of ICT
can be seen in the 21st‐century skills that contemporary and future
students are expected to gain at school. Among these skills, readiness
for collaboration, problem‐solving, and creative and critical thinking are
central. ICT is a means of teaching these skills (Voogt & Roblin, 2012).
In Finland, the central role of ICT can also be seen in the national
curriculum for basic education since autumn 2016. ICT is a target for
learning and especially a tool for working and learning (Finnish
National Board of Education, 2014). Therefore, to take advantage of
ICT in pedagogically meaningful ways, teachers need specific skills.
Teachers' education should provide new teachers with readiness to
use ICT for various learning purposes.
The expectations for pre‐service teachers can be seen as twofold.
First, pre‐service teachers are part of the net generation (Tapscott,
[Correction added on 15 January 2018, after first online publication: Several ref-
erence citations were missing in text and in the References section. These have
been added in this version.]
2008), the generation who actively use ICT in everyday living, as well
as for teaching and learning. Second, today's pre‐service teachers are
the generation who actively use various ICT applications but still lack
the skills to use ICT for teaching and learning (Lei, 2009). According
to previous studies, despite the omnipresence of ICT applications, such
as smart phones and tablet computers, pre‐service teachers still do not
necessarily have personal experiences of learning with ICT (Lei, 2009).
In addition, descriptions concerning the net generation (also called
digital natives) often define the whole generation as one more or less
homogenous group (see Prensky, 2001; Tapscott, 2008). However, this
is not accurate; there are differences among net generation students
(see Jones, Ramanau, Cross, & Healing, 2010), which indicate the need
for more detailed research.
In this study, pre‐service teachers are studied using two theoreti-
cal frameworks. The first framework is Mishra and Koehler's (2006)
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) that focuses
on the knowledge needed for skilled use of ICT in education. The
second framework is Ajzen's (1991) theory of planned behaviour
(TPB) that focuses on attitudes, subjective norms, self‐efficacy, and
behavioural intentions. In this study, the TPB is connected to the use

174 © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jcal J Comput Assist Learn. 2018;34:174–182.
VALTONEN ET AL.
of ICT in education (i.e., TPB‐ICT). The aim of this study is to outline
the differences between pre‐service teachers based on the areas of
TPACK and to outline the relations between TPACK and TPB frame-
works. In addition, pre‐service teachers' assessments concerning the
areas of TPACK and TPB are discussed. The target group consisted
of 265 first‐year pre‐service teachers at three Finnish universities.
2 | T HE O R E T I C A L F R A M E W O R K
This section outlines the main characteristics of the TPACK and TPB‐
ICT frameworks. In addition, the results from previous studies are also
discussed to describe the areas that pre‐service teachers assessed as
their strong and weak TPACK and TPB‐ICT areas. The shortcomings
of previous research are also discussed.
2.1 | Technological pedagogical content knowledge
The first main theoretical framework in this study is Mishra and
Koehler's (2006) TPACK. TPACK consists of three foundational
elements: technological knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and
content knowledge. These three foundational elements form three
intermediate elements: technological pedagogical knowledge, peda-
gogical content knowledge, and technological content knowledge.
The foundational and intermediate elements form TPACK.
The TPACK framework has been actively used since it was
introduced. Voogt, Fisser, Roblin, Tondeur, and Braakt (2013)
reported several ways that TPACK was used in more than 200 studies
between 2005 and 2011. TPACK has been studied from different
perspectives, including different technologies (Kontkanen et al.,
2015; Jang, 2010; Krauskopf, Zahn, & Hesse, 2012) and different
contents (Grandgenett, 2008; Lee, 2008; Van Olphen, 2008).
Recently, several studies focused on developing psychometrically
sound instruments for studying pre‐service teachers' TPACK using
different pedagogical groundings (see Valtonen et al., 2015a; Koh,
Chai, & Tsai, 2010; Schmidt et al., 2009). However, the number of
surveys for measuring or auditing of different areas of TPACK and
describing users' strong and weak areas is limited.
Archambault and Crippen (2009) examined 596 online teachers'
TPACK using 1 to 5 scale (1 = poor, 5 = excellent). Their results
suggested that the strongest areas were pedagogical and technological
knowledge (M = 4.04 and 4.02) and the combination of these areas,
pedagogical content knowledge (M = 4.04). The teachers were weaker
in the other areas of TPACK; the mean values were below 4. Similarly,
Jordan (2011) measured the TPACK of 64 beginning‐level teachers.
The results showed that the teachers were rather confident in all areas.
However, content knowledge was assessed as strongest, although the
differences between the areas were small. Koh et al. (2010) measured
the TPACK of 1,185 pre‐service teachers using a 7‐point Likert scale
(1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The TPACK framework was
modified, but the areas aligned with TPACK (technological knowledge,
content knowledge, knowledge of pedagogy, and knowledge of teach-
ing with technology). The results showed that the respondents
assessed themselves as slightly above average in all areas; knowledge
of pedagogy was the highest (M = 5.00) and content knowledge the
175
lowest (M = 4.71) suggesting that the differences between the three
areas of TPACK were small. In addition, development studies with a
longitudinal approach have been conducted. The results from a pretest
by Baran, Chuang, and Thompson (2011) showed that pre‐service
teachers assessed their content knowledge (literacy) and technological
pedagogical knowledge as strongest (M = 3.86 and 3.85, respectively;
scale 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The lowest assessments
were for technological content knowledge (M = 3.20). A pretest study
by Chai, Koh, and Tsai (2010) measured 889 pre‐service teachers'
technological knowledge, content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge,
and TPACK using a 1 to 7 scale. The results indicated that pedagogical
knowledge and TPACK were assessed the highest (M = 4.95 and 4.91,
respectively); the lowest assessment was for technological knowledge
(M = 4.39). In total, these results indicate various aspects of weak and
strong TPACK areas and analyses related to the level of TPACK
constructs among pre‐service teachers. However, the various
constructs are studied as a single group and lacked understanding of
the differences among respondents.
2.2 | Theory of planned behaviour
The second theoretical framework used in this study is the TPB by
Ajzen (1991). Based on the TPB, behaviour, in this case, the use of
ICT in education (i.e., TPB‐ICT), is determined by behavioural inten-
tions, and behavioural intentions are determined by three elements:
attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control (Ajzen,
1991). Attitudes refer to whether the behaviour is positively or nega-
tively valued by the respondent. Subjective norms refer to the social
part of the behaviour (i.e., how the behaviour is valued by important
others, such as friends, peers, and colleagues). Perceived behavioural
control refers to the resources available and how the respondent
assesses his or her skills to conduct the behaviour (Ajzen, 2002). In this
study, the focus is the respondents' skills because in this phase, they
are not able to assess their use of ICT in education resources.
According to Teo and Tan (2012), the TPB is a valid model for
explaining pre‐service teachers' behavioural intentions for using ICT
for teaching and learning. Based on their study, attitudes seem to have
the strongest effect on pre‐service teachers' behavioural intentions to
use ICT in education (β = .59, p < .001).
Aligning with TPACK research, a limited number of studies have
measured pre‐service teachers' TPB areas related to the use of ICT
in education. Teo (2012) outlined descriptive statistics for 157 pre‐ser-
vice teachers' attitude toward the use of ICT, subjective norms,
perceived ease of use, and behavioural intentions using a 5‐point
Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Results indicated
that the differences between the elements were small. Behavioural
intentions were scored the highest (M = 3.93) and subjective norms
the lowest (M = 3.48). In the study by Valtonen et al. (2015b), the ele-
ments of the TPB were measured using a 6‐point scale (1 = strongly dis-
agree, 6 = strongly agree). Results indicated similarly that behavioural
intentions were scored the highest (M = 4.67), although self‐efficacy
scored the lowest (compared with perceived ease of use); the mean
value was 3.95. Chu and Chen (2016) measured elements of the TPB
among 201 undergraduate students. The results showed that attitudes
were scored the highest and subjective norms the lowest. Similarly to
176
TPACK research, studies on differences among pre‐service teachers'
TPB areas are scarce. The target pre‐service teachers groups are
described as one group.
2.3 | Insights for future studies
In quantitative studies, the TPACK and TPB‐ICT frames have been
mainly used as a “one size fits all” idea without considering the
differences, subgroups, between respondents. The number of studies
focusing on strong and weak areas of TPACK and TPB‐ICT and
variations between pre‐service teachers is limited. In a TPACK study,
Koh and Chai (2014) grouped two clusters of pre‐service teachers
based on seven areas of TPACK. The pre‐service teachers in Cluster
1 had higher values in each of the seven areas, and the second
cluster was lower in all areas. In both groups, the variations aligned;
that is, in both groups, the strongest area was content knowledge
and the weakest was TPACK. We assume that this type of studies
is needed more to better understand the nature of and the develop-
ment of pre‐service teachers' TPACK and TPB areas. Bullock (2004)
showed that there are differences between pre‐service teachers in
their methods of using ICT in education. The differences can be
seen even among pre‐service teachers with similar backgrounds,
such as similar courses and support from teacher training (Bullock,
2004). Instead of seeing the cohorts of pre‐service teachers as a
homogenous group, we should focus more on the differences among
pre‐service teachers. This would provide us with more detailed
understanding of today's pre‐service teachers as users of ICT in
education and provide increased possibilities for designing teacher
education practices to better support the development of pre‐ser-
vice teachers with different abilities to take advantage of ICT in
their future work.
3 | METHODS
3.1 | Aims of the study
The aim of this paper is to provide insights into pre‐service teachers as
users of ICT in education. This will be done using the TPACK and TPB
theoretical frameworks. Main research questions are
1. What are the strong and weak areas of TPACK?
2. What kind of pre‐service teacher sub‐groups (clusters) can be
identified based on the areas of TPACK?
3. What are the ratings of pre‐service teachers' TPB areas?
4. What is the relation between pre‐service teachers' TPACK and
areas of TPB?
3.2 | Methodology used
Research data (quantitative) were collected with an online question-
naire as part of pre‐service teacher education courses during the end
of 2014. In order to answer Questions 1 and 3, descriptive statistics
(mean value and standard deviation) were used. In order to answer
VALTONEN ET AL.
Question 2, the k‐means cluster analysis was used. For the fourth
question, relation between pre‐service teachers' TPACK and areas of
TPB, the one‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used.
3.3 | Participants
The sample consisted of 267 first‐year pre‐service teachers (three
whole cohorts, altogether 365 pre‐service teachers were accepted as
students) from three Finnish universities (four campuses). Data were
collected as part of pre‐service teacher education courses during the
end of 2014. The data were collected with following procedures: (a)
Permission to conduct the research was acquired from the head of
each teacher education department; (b) the responsible teachers of
courses were contacted by the researchers in order to obtain permis-
sion to collect the data in their courses; (c) researchers participated
in the courses and explained the aims of the research to the target
group; and (d) informed consent was obtained from the participating
pre‐service teachers, and participation was voluntary. This resulted a
sample of 267 pre‐service teachers thus 98 individual did not
participate for the following reasons: (a) Participation for the study
was voluntary; (b) all the students accepted as students at 2014 did
not start their studies at 2014; and (c) even though the course where
the data were collected was compulsory, all first year pre‐service
teachers did not participate. Still, the response rate was adequate
(73.2%). Pre‐services teachers graduate with a master's degree in
education that provides them with a qualification to teach basic
education pupils in Grades 1 to 6. In the target group, 203 participants
(76%) were female, and 64 (24%) were male, which represents the
typical gender distribution of Finnish teacher education students. The
mean age of respondents was 21.7 years (SD = 3.6).
3.4 | Measures
TPACK was measured using the TPACK‐21 questionnaire (Valtonen
et al., 2015a). This questionnaire contains 36 items measured on a 6‐
point Likert‐type scale (1 = I need a lot of information about the mea-
sured area; 6 = I have strong knowledge of the measured area). The areas
pedagogical content knowledge and technological pedagogical knowl-
edge are measured using two perspectives presented by the devel-
opers of the TPACK‐21 instrument. First, general‐level statements
are not grounded in a specific pedagogical practice or learning theory.
These statements align with previous TPACK assessment instruments,
such as the Survey of Pre‐service Teachers' Knowledge of Teaching
and Technology (Schmidt et al., 2009). The subscales presenting this
general level in this study are marked as general. Second, there are
statements in which the pedagogy is grounded in 21st‐century skills
(i.e., collaboration, creative thinking, and problem‐solving; see Voogt
& Roblin, 2012). The additional 21st‐century skills approach was
selected for this study as the developers of TPACK‐21 instruments
argued for the need for a more concrete tie to the pedagogy of TPACK
measurements (Valtonen et al., 2015a). The subscales presenting this
part are marked as 21 in this study. The questionnaire focuses on
TPACK from nine perspectives: pedagogical knowledge (seven items
such as “facilitating students' discussions during group work [2–5] stu-
dents and facilitating students' reflective thinking”), technological
VALTONEN ET AL.
knowledge (four items, such as “I am familiar with new technologies
and their features”), content knowledge in science (four items, such
as “I understand the basic theories and concepts of the natural sci-
ences”), technological pedagogical knowledge (general; three items,
such as “I can choose the best possible methods for teaching science”),
technological pedagogical knowledge 21 (six items, such as “In teach-
ing, I know how to use ICT as a medium for sharing ideas and thinking
together”), pedagogical content knowledge (general; three items, such
as “I can choose the best possible methods for teaching science”), ped-
agogical content knowledge 21 (six items, such as “In teaching the nat-
ural sciences, I know how to guide students' content‐related problem
solving in groups of 2–5 students”), technological content knowledge
(four items, such as “I understand ICT applications used by
professionals in the natural sciences”), and TPACK (seven items, such
as “In teaching natural sciences … I know how to use ICT as a tool
for sharing ideas and thinking together”). Initial studies of the
TPACK‐21 instrument demonstrated adequate reliability and validity
from exploratory factor analysis (Valtonen et al., 2015a) and confirma-
tory factor analysis (Valtonen et al., 2017) perspectives. In addition, the
internal consistency (indicated by Cronbach alpha) values for this study
for each subscale are presented in Table 1.
The questionnaire focusing on TPB‐ICT areas is based on previous
questionnaires, especially questionnaires by Teo and Lee (2010) and
Valtonen et al. (2015b). The TPB‐ICT questionnaire contains 18 items
measured on a 6‐point Likert‐type scale (1 = strongly disagree,
6 = strongly agree): attitude (six items, such as “The use of ICT in edu-
cation is integral to today's society” and “It is important for me that my
future students learn to use ICT”), subjective norms (three statements,
such as “My future students will assume that I can use ICT for teach-
ing” and “I assume that my future colleagues will consider it important
to use ICT in teaching”), self‐efficacy (four statements, such as “I am
very skillful in using new ICT when I need it” and “I can make
students learn better with the help of ICT”), behavioural intentions
(four statements, such as “Regardless of resources, I will make sure that
my students will use ICT in their studies” and “In my future career, I will
improve my ICT skills by participating in training”). The reliability and
structure of the TPB‐ICT have been demonstrated earlier (Valtonen
TABLE 1 Cronbach's alpha (95% CI) of technological pedagogical
content knowledge 21
α [95% CI]
Pedagogical knowledge 21 .93 [.92, .94]
Technological knowledge .92 [.90, .94]
Content knowledge, science .88 [.86, .90]
Technological pedagogical knowledge 21 .95 [.94, .96]
Technological pedagogical knowledge, general .93 [.92, .94]
Pedagogical content knowledge 21, science .95 [.94, .96]
Pedagogical content knowledge general, science .88 [.86, .91]
Technological content knowledge, science .89 [.87, .91]
Note. Pedagogical knowledge (seven items), technological knowledge (four
items), content knowledge (four items), technological pedagogical knowl-
edge 21 (six items), technological pedagogical knowledge general (three
items), pedagogical content knowledge 21st (six items), pedagogical con-
tent knowledge general (three items), and technological content knowledge
(four items). The α internal consistency (Cronbach α). CI = confidence
interval.
177
TABLE 2 Cronbach alpha (α) [95% CI]
α [95% CI]
Attitude .90 [.88, .91]
Self‐efficacy .84 [.81, .87]
Subjective norms .83 [.79, .86]
Behavioural intentions .88 [.86, .90]
Note. Attitudes for using ICT in education (six items), self‐efficacy for using
ICT in education (three items), subjective norms for using ICT in education
(four items), behavioural intentions for using ICT in education (five items).
The α internal consistency (Cronbach α). CI = confidence interval.
et al., 2015b; Sointu et al., 2017). The internal consistency (indicated
by Cronbach alpha) values for this study for each subscale are pre-
sented in Table 2.
3.5 | Data analysis
The data analysis proceeded in five phases. First, composite scores of
individual items from both TPACK‐21 and TPB‐ICT were calculated
based on the results of earlier studies (Valtonen et al., 2015a; Valtonen
et al., 2015b). Second step focused on assessing the strong and weak
areas of pre‐service teachers' TPACK by means of descriptive statistics
of the entire sample. The third phase focused on building the pre‐ser-
vice teacher clusters. This was done using composite score results
from TPACK‐21. More particularly, this was conducted using the k‐
means cluster analysis (Jain, 2010). In the fourth phase, TPB‐ICT
results were investigated with descriptive statistics for entire sample.
Finally, the association between TPACK‐21 clusters and TPB‐ICT areas
was analysed with one‐way ANOVA (Ren, 2007). Altogether, these
phases provide insights into the pre‐service teachers' knowledge
(TPACK‐21) and readiness to use ICT in education (TPB‐ICT) focusing
especially differences among pre‐service teachers. SPSS v22 was used
for the statistical analysis.
In order to cluster the pre‐service teachers, the k‐means cluster
analysis was used. Cluster analysis groups respondents based on mea-
sured characteristics (Jain, 2010), in this case, the areas of TPACK.
The aim of cluster analysis is that the differences between members
of a specific cluster are small and the differences between the clusters
are large (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010; Jain, 2010). As a
method, cluster analysis is exploratory in nature, that is, researcher does
not necessarily have a prespecified model that will be tested. Typically,
k‐means cluster analysis is conducted with different numbers of clusters
to find a solution that is the most meaningful in the research context
(Jain, 2010). Previous research focusing on clustering pre‐service
teachers based on TPACK is scarce. In this study, we wanted a more
detailed picture of variations in pre‐service teachers' TPACK. Thus, we
tested cluster models with three and four cluster in order to highlight
the variation among pre‐service teachers' TPACK in a way that is com-
prehensible from the perspective of TPACK framework. With four clus-
ters, we gained clusters that outlined the variation among pre‐service
teachers' TPACK with reasonable size clusters (smallest cluster n = 43).
In order to compare, the areas of TPB between different pre‐ser-
vice teacher profiles the one‐way ANOVA were used. One‐way
ANOVA is a method for studying the differences between the mean
178
values of different groups (see Ren, 2007). The analysis included post
hoc testing to identify statistically significant differences among the
groups. To adjust the significance levels for the number of multiple
comparisons, the Bonferroni correction was used (Vogt, 2005).
4 | RESULTS
The original factor structure of the TPACK‐21 (Valtonen et al., 2015b)
was followed in this study. This is why we did not include the actual
TPACK statements in the analysis, only the foundational (pedagogical
knowledge 21, content knowledge, and technological knowledge) and
intermediate (pedagogical content knowledge (general), pedagogical
content knowledge 21, technological pedagogical knowledge (general),
technological pedagogical knowledge 21, and technological content
knowledge) subscales, altogether 36 statements. For the TPB‐ICT
(Valtonen et al., 2015b), the original factor structure was followed.
The mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) are presented in Table 3.
4.1 | TPACK for all data and clusters
Based on the descriptive results for all respondents, first‐year pre‐
service teachers were most confident about their pedagogical knowl-
edge (M = 3.21). They were least confident about their technological
content knowledge (M = 2.23). Altogether, the variations among the
TPACK subscales were small; the difference between the strongest
and weakest areas was only 0.98. Although the differences between
the mean values among the TPACK areas were small, the standard
deviations indicated some differences among respondents (see
Table 3). The standard deviation for all subscales was above 1, and
especially with statements technological knowledge and technologi-
cal pedagogical knowledge (general), the standard deviation
was higher indicating possible larger differences between the
respondents.
Based on the k‐means cluster analysis, the respondents were
divided into four groups according on their TPACK assessments. With
TABLE 3 Means and standard deviations
M (SD)
Pedagogical knowledge 21 3.21 (1.03)
Technological knowledge 2.85 (1.23)
Content knowledge, science 2.98 (1.09)
Technological pedagogical knowledge 21 2.94 (1.12)
Technological pedagogical knowledge, general 3.06 (1.25)
Pedagogical content knowledge 21, science 2.96 (1.04)
Pedagogical content knowledge general, science 2.90 (1.05)
Technological content knowledge, science 2.23 (1.05)
Note. Pedagogical knowledge (seven items), technological knowledge (four
items), content knowledge (four items), technological pedagogical knowl-
edge 21 (six items), technological pedagogical knowledge general (three
items), pedagogical content knowledge 21st (six items), pedagogical con-
tent knowledge general (three items), and technological content knowledge
(four items). Items that form the mean sum variables of TPACK measured
with a 6‐point Likert‐type scale (1 = I need lot of information about the mea-
sured area; 6 = I have strong knowledge of the measured area). M = mean;
SD = standard deviation.
VALTONEN ET AL.
four clusters, the results were the most comprehensible and best
showed the differences among the respondents. The sizes of the four
groups varied from 43 to 103 (see Table 4). Clusters are named based
on the weak and strong areas of TPACK in each clusters.
The clusters were named as follows: Cluster 1 (C1) as Needs in
Every TPACK Area; Cluster 2 (C2) as Needs in Technological Knowl-
edge Areas; Cluster 3 (C3) as Confidence in Technological
Pedagogical Areas; and Cluster 4 (C4) as Confident in every TPACK
area.
Respondents in the C1 assessed most of their knowledge lowest
compared to other groups. Only technological knowledge and techno-
logical pedagogical knowledge (general) were higher compared to the
C2. The strongest areas in the C1 were pedagogical knowledge and
technological knowledge, which was scored the highest of all the
TPACK areas. Combinations of these areas (i.e., intermediate areas)
were assessed as weaker in the C1, especially areas related to combin-
ing science content with other areas. Altogether, it seems that the
science content is challenging for the pre‐service teachers in this
cluster.
The second smallest group was C2, which was identified as Needs
in Technological Knowledge Areas. C2 members assessed their
pedagogical knowledge and content knowledge (science) as highest
compared to the other TPACK areas. These areas were also higher than
among members of C1 and C3. In contrast, the areas related to technol-
ogy received the lowest assessments of all the TPACK areas within the
C2 and the lowest compared to the other clusters. Differing from the
other clusters, the weakest area for the C2 members was technological
knowledge (MC2 = 1.61). Interestingly, the C2 contained mainly women;
only 3.1% of the male (n = 2) respondents were in this group.
The largest cluster was C3, Confidence in Technological Pedagog-
ical Areas (n = 103). The four highest assessed areas focused on
technology and pedagogy and a combination of these areas. Especially,
the technological pedagogical knowledge (general), pedagogical
knowledge, and technological pedagogical knowledge 21 were
assessed high. The cluster members' weaker areas were those that
contain science content knowledge, especially the technological
content knowledge, which was the only area assessed below 3
(M = 2.36). The number of men in this group was pronounced
(n = 33); more than half (51.6%) of the male respondents were in this
group.
The smallest cluster was C4, Confident in every TPACK area
(n = 43), with similarities to C3. Respondents in this cluster were
confident about all TPACK areas. The highest assessed area was
the intersecting area of technological and pedagogical knowledge
(technological pedagogical knowledge [old] and technological
pedagogical knowledge 21). Pre‐service teachers in this cluster
assessed themselves as knowledgeable about teaching with technol-
ogy to take advantage of ICT for various pedagogical purposes.
Compared to the pedagogical content knowledge subscales (peda-
gogical content knowledge 21 and pedagogical content knowledge
[general]), the results were lower indicating strong confidence in
using ICT for teaching and learning purposes in general without
science content.
Results also indicated that the differences between the TPACK
elements within the clusters varied. In C1 and C4, the differences
VALTONEN ET AL. 179

TABLE 4 Final TPACK cluster, means, gender variation, and description of clusters
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4
nC1 = 75 nC2 = 46 nC3 = 103 nC4 = 43
Scale MC1 MC2 MC3 MC4

Pedagogical knowledge 2.25 3.48 3.46 4.02

Technological knowledge 2.33 1.61 3.28 4.03
Content knowledge, science 2.04 3.33 3.03 4.12
Technological pedagogical 1.97 2.09 3.40 4.46
knowledge 21
Technological pedagogical 2.02 1.99 3.64 4.63
knowledge, general
Pedagogical content knowledge 21, 1.78 3.37 3.14 4.17
science
Pedagogical content knowledge 1.84 3.28 3.04 4.04
general, science
Technological content knowledge, 1.49 1.66 2.36 3.84
science
Gender variationa
Men: (% of entire sample) 25.0% 3.1% 51.6% 20.3%
Women: (% of entire sample) 29.1% 21.7% 34.5% 14.8%
Description of clusters Needs in Every Needs in Technological Confidence in Technological Confident in
TPACK Area Knowledge Areas Pedagogical Areas every TPACK area

Note. TPACK = technological pedagogical content knowledge.

Gender variation is compared to the sample (N = 267), χ2(3) = 14,61, p = .00. M = mean.
a

between the highest and lowest assessed TPACK areas were small (C1:
0.84 and C4: 0.79). In C2 and C3, the differences were bigger (C2: 1.87
and C3: 1.28) indicating that pre‐service teachers assessed themselves
as more skilled in some areas than in others. In addition, the pre‐ser-
vice teachers considered the technological content knowledge science
their weakest knowledge area. Only in C2 was technological knowl-
edge the lowest‐assessed area.
4.2 | Theory of planned behaviour in ICT
The next phase of the research focused on TPB‐ICT. First, the means
for all respondents were found, and then the TPACK clusters were
compared with one‐way ANOVA (see, e.g., Ren, 2007). The means
and standard deviation results are presented in Table 5.
Compared to the values previously presented for TPACK areas,
the values for the TPB‐ICT areas were higher generally. The highest
value with the smallest deviation was for subjective norms (M = 4.28)
indicating that the use of ICT in education is valued among people
TABLE 5 Means and standard deviations
M (SD)
Attitude 4.09 (0.85)
Self‐efficacy 3.57 (1.07)
Subjective norms 4.28 (0.78)
Behavioural intentions 4.07 (0.87)
Note. Attitudes for using ICT in education (six items), self‐efficacy for using
ICT in education (three items), subjective norms for using ICT in education
(four items), and behavioural intentions for using ICT in education (five
items). Items that form the mean sum variables of the TPB‐ICT measured
with 6‐point Likert‐type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree).
M = mean; SD = standard deviation.
important to the respondents. The results also indicated generally a
positive attitude (ATT) toward the use of ICT in education (M = 4.09)
and intentions to use ICT in future work as a teacher (M = 4.07). The
lowest value was for self‐efficacy (M = 3.57) indicating that respon-
dents were not as confident about using ICT in education. In addition,
the standard deviation for self‐efficacy was highest (1.07) indicating a
larger variation among the respondents.
When the TPACK clusters were compared to the TPB‐ICT areas,
the differences between the clusters varied (Table 6).
When attitudes (ATT) toward the use of ICT in education were
assessed, only the pre‐service teachers in C2 differed statistically
significantly from the others, F(3, 263) = 13.48, p = .00. The C2 pre-
sented the most negative attitudes toward the ICT in education
(M = 3.46) compared to the pre‐service teachers in other clusters;
the means for the other clusters were higher than 4. However, the
mean value for the C2 was close to the middle of the 1 to 6 scale
indicating that the C2 members' attitudes were not overtly negative
but instead were neutral.
For self‐efficacy, there were statistically significant differences
between the clusters, F(3, 263) = 50.66, p = .00. Especially, the pre‐ser-
vice teachers in C4 had high self‐efficacy with small variance (M = 4,
47, SD = 0.52). The means of the other clusters were lower than 4;
the C3 had the second highest mean among all clusters. The clearly
lowest means were for the C2 (M = 2.43) indicating that these pre‐ser-
vice teachers had weak confidence on their skills to use ICT in
education.
When the results for subjective norms were compared between
the clusters, the results showed no statistically significant differences,
F(3, 263) = 1.10, p = .38. Despite the differences in attitudes and self‐
efficacy, the use of ICT in education was seen as equally important by
the respondents' important others in all clusters.
180
TABLE 6 TPACK clusters and theory of planned behaviour‐information and communication technology areas
Cluster 1 Cluster 2
nC1 = 75 nC2 = 46
MC1 (SDC1) MC2 (SDC2)
Attitudes 4.09 (0.89) 3.46 (0.89)
Self‐efficacy 3.29 (1.10) 2.43 (0.92)
Subjective norms 4.31 (0.84) 4.10 (0.86)
Behavioural 4.06 (0.95) 3.61 (0.98)
intentions
Description of Needs in Every Needs in Technological
clusters TPACK Area Knowledge Areas
Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; TPACK = Technological pedagogical content knowledge.
In the last area, behavioural intentions, there were statistically
significant differences between the groups, F(3, 263) = 6.37, p = .00.
The C2 differed statistically significantly from all the other clusters
with the lowest mean (M = 3.61). These results aligned closely with
the attitudes toward the use of ICT in education. However, the C2
mean was at the positive side of the 1 to 6 scale indicating some inten-
tion to use ICT in education.
5 | C O N CL U S I O N
The results indicated that altogether in the TPACK areas, pedagogical
knowledge received the highest scores, aligning with the results from
previous TPACK studies (Archambault & Crippen, 2009; Chai et al.,
2010; Koh et al., 2010). The weakest area was technological content
knowledge. Results from the cluster analysis indicate differences
between pre‐service teachers in the areas of TPACK and most TPB
areas. The clusters Confidence in Technological Pedagogical Areas
and Confident in every TPACK area had strongest similarities. In both
clusters, the TPACK areas that combine pedagogy and technology
were assessed high. In the Confidence in Technological Pedagogical
Areas cluster, pedagogical knowledge was more emphasized. From
the perspective of the net generation, these respondents align with
the most positive expectations for the net generation (i.e., the genera-
tion who are confident about using ICT for teaching and learning pur-
poses; see Prensky, 2001; Tapscott, 2008). In contrast, the Needs in
Every TPACK Area cluster lacked confidence in all TPACK areas. The
respondents assessed their strongest areas as technological knowledge
and pedagogical knowledge indicating a need for knowledge for how
to combine these areas. The Needs in Technological Knowledge Areas
cluster differed from all the other clusters in that the pre‐service
teachers were weak in all areas related to technology. The respondents
in this cluster showed confidence in pedagogy and content areas and
in the combination of these areas (the teachers working without using
ICT). The results for these two clusters show similarities with studies
that showed today's pre‐service teachers' confidence in using ICT for
education should not be taken for granted (Lei, 2009).
Altogether when pre‐service teachers assessed the areas of TPB,
the results indicate that the highest results with lowest variation were
for the subjective norms. This result differs from those in previous
studies. According to Valtonen et al. (2015b) and Teo (2012), the
highest values were from behavioural intentions for using ICT in
VALTONEN ET AL.
Cluster 3 Cluster 4
nC3 = 103 nC4 = 43
MC3 (SDC3) MC4 (SDC4)
4.26 (0.73) 4.40 (0.61)
3.89 (0.74) 4.47 (0.52)
4.29 (0.72) 4.38 (0.69)
4.16 (0.75) 4.33 (0.66)
Confidence in Technological Confident in every
Pedagogical Areas TPACK area
education. In contrast, in a study by Chu and Chen (2016), the lowest
results were for subjective norms. From the perspective of four pre‐
service teacher TPACK clusters, the results were aligning. The Needs
in Technological Knowledge Areas cluster differed from the other clus-
ters with a more negative attitude and lower intentions to use ICT in
education. In addition, self‐efficacy aligned with TPACK clustering.
The Needs in Technological Knowledge Areas and Needs in Every
TPACK Area clusters had the lowest self‐efficacy. The Confident in
every TPACK area cluster had the highest self‐efficacy. Despite these
differences, the important feature is that the differences between sub-
jective norms were not statistically significant among the TPACK clus-
ters. It seems that although knowledge (TPACK), attitudes, and self‐
efficacy related to the use of ICT in education differed, all the respon-
dents saw the expectations related to the importance of using ICT in
education.
The results for the TPACK clusters align with the results by Koh
and Chai (2014) where they divided pre‐service teachers into two
clusters (higher confidence and lower confidence). Results from the
present study indicate that the clusters Confidence in Technological
Pedagogical Areas and Confident in every TPACK area had higher
values than the Needs in Every TPACK Area and Needs in Technolog-
ical Knowledge Areas clusters. However, the four‐cluster model is
important. By dividing the respondents into four clusters, we gained
better insight into the differences between pre‐service teachers and
the differences among the TPB areas between clusters.
Seeing the differences between pre‐service teachers' TPACK and
TPB areas is important for teacher education. To provide teachers with
knowledge, positive attitudes, and self‐efficacy toward using ICT in
education, the differences between pre‐service teachers need to be
better acknowledged. As the results indicate, one cluster of respon-
dents had low knowledge and self‐efficacy related to the use of ICT
in education. Especially from the perspective of low self‐efficacy, it is
important to provide pre‐service teachers with positive personal
experiences of learning with ICT in a pedagogically meaningful way
(Valtonen et al., 2015b). According to Ertmer and Ottenbreit‐Leftwich
(2010), the more examples pre‐service teachers have, the more likely
they will gain the knowledge and confidence they need to use ICT in
education. Similarly, teachers' strong areas need to be brought up
and taken advantage of. Pre‐service teachers with high confidence in
combining pedagogy and technology to teach with ICT need to be
encouraged to further develop their strong areas and to provide sup-
port for pre‐service teachers with low confidence.
VALTONEN ET AL.
Differences between the clusters indicated that the model of
TPACK (the Venn diagram with equal TPACK areas) should be consid-
ered more as a theoretical model for studying pre‐service teachers'
areas of knowledge needed for using ICT in education. In practice,
TPACK should be considered as a combination of knowledge entities
in which strengths vary between individuals (i.e., some pre‐service
teachers feel confident in areas like content knowledge and pedagog-
ical content knowledge, whereas others feel more confident in tech-
nology‐related areas). In teacher education, the equal size Venn
diagram should rather be seen as a goal for teachers indicating coher-
ence between the elements of TPACK. In addition, the one size fits all
TPACK framework can serve as a reflective tool for supporting pre‐
service teachers' professional development (Roblyer & Doering,
2010)—which areas need to be further developed and which areas
are strong. TPACK can serve as a flexible framework that aligns with
individual teachers' unique knowledge structures.
In the future, it will be important to continue this research with
two ways. First, the longitudinal perspective is important to describe
the development of TPACK and possible changes in TPB areas. The
longitudinal method will provide perspectives on how clustering
evolves during teacher education. Do the clusters evolve in a similar
manner, or are there differences among the ways in which pre‐service
teachers' TPACK in different clusters develops? The second important
area of research is describing the content of the TPACK areas using
qualitative methods. This way, we can provide a technology, pedagogy,
and content perspective of the weak and strong areas of pre‐service
teachers' TPACK.
ACKNOWLEDGEMEN TS
This work was supported by Suomen Akatemia/Academy of Finland
[Grant 296799 and 273970].
ORCID
Teemu Valtonen http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1803-9865
RE FE R ENC E S
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self‐efficacy, locus of control
and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
32, 665–683.
Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K‐12
online distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in
Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 71–88.
Baran, E., Chuang, H. H., & Thompson, A. (2011). TPACK: An emerging
research and development tool for teacher educators. TOJET: The Turk-
ish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(4), 370–377.
Bullock, D. (2004). Moving from theory to practice: An examination of the
factors that preservice teachers encounter as the attempt to gain expe-
rience teaching with technology during field placement experiences.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(2), 211.
Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Facilitating preservice teachers'
development of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge
(TPACK). Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 63–73.
Chu, T. H., & Chen, Y. Y. (2016). With good we become good: Understand-
ing e‐learning adoption by theory of planned behavior and group
influences. Computers & Education, 92, 37–52.
181
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit‐Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology
change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.
Finnish National Board of Education (2014). National core curriculum for
basic education 2014.
Grandgenett, N. F. (2008). Perhaps a matter of imagination: TPCK in math-
ematics education. In Handbook of technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 145–166). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate
data analysis: A global perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Jain, A. K. (2010). Data clustering: 50 years beyond K‐means. Pattern
Recognition Letters, 31(8), 651–666.
Jang, S. J. (2010). Integrating the interactive whiteboard and peer coaching
to develop the TPACK of secondary science teachers. Computers & Edu-
cation, 55(4), 1744–1751.
Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation or
digital natives: Is there a distinct new generation entering university?
Computers & Education, 54(3), 722–732.
Jordan, K. (2011). Beginning teacher knowledge: Results from a self‐
assessed TPACK survey. Australian educational. Computing, 26(1),
16–26.
Koh, J., & Chai, C. (2014). Teacher clusters and their perceptions of techno-
logical pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) development through
ICT lesson design. Computers & Education, 70, 222–232.
Koh, J., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Examining the technological
pedagogical content knowledge of Singapore preservice teachers
with a large‐scale survey. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26,
563–573.
Kontkanen, S., Dillon, P., Kärkkäinen, S., Kukkonen, J., Valtonen, T., &
Väisänen, P. (2015). A Second Life experiment in sex education with
pre-service teachers and its contribution to the development of their
proto-professional knowledge. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 14(3),
17–36.
Krauskopf, K., Zahn, C., & Hesse, F. W. (2012). Leveraging the affordances
of YouTube: The role of pedagogical knowledge and mental models of
technology functions for lesson planning with technology. Computers
& Education, 58(4), 1194–1206.
Lee, J. K. (2008). Toward democracy: Social studies and TPCK. In Handbook
of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp.
129–144). New York, NY: Routledge.
Lei, J. (2009). Digital natives as preservice teachers: What technology
preparation is needed? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education,
25(3), 87–97.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content
knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College
Record, 108(6), 10171–10154.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Hori-
zon, 9(5), 1–6.
Ren, B. (2007). Post hoc comparisons. In N. J. Salkind, & K. Rasmussen
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics (pp. 779–782). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2010). Theory and practice: Foundations
for effective technology integration. Integrating educational technology
into teaching, 3.
Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin,
T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)
the development and validation of an assessment instrument for pre-
service teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2),
123–149.
Sointu, E. T., Valtonen, T., Cutucache, C., Kukkonen, J., Lambert, M. C., &
Mäkitalo‐Siegl, K. (2017). Differences in preservice teachers' readiness
to use ICT in education and development of TPACK. In P. Resta & S.
Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher
182
Education International Conference 2017 (pp. 2462–2469). Chesapeake,
VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education
(AACE).
Tapscott, D. (2008). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing
your world HC. New York, NY: McGraw‐Hill.
Teo, T. (2012). Examining the intention to use technology among pre‐ser-
vice teachers: An integration of the technology acceptance model and
theory of planned behavior. Interactive Learning Environments, 20(1),
3–18.
Teo, T., & Lee, C. B. (2010). Explaining the intention to use technology
among student teachers: An application of the theory of planned
behavior (TPB). Campus‐Wide Information Systems, 27(2), 60–67.
Teo, T., & Tan, L. (2012). The theory of planned behavior (TPB) and pre‐ser-
vice teachers' technology acceptance: A validation study using
structural equation modeling. Journal of Technology and Teacher Educa-
tion, 20(1), 89–104.
Valtonen, T., Sointu, E., Mäkitalo‐Siegl, K., & Kukkonen, J. (2015a). Devel-
oping a TPACK measurement instrument for 21st century pre‐service
teachers. Seminar Net, 11(2), 87–100.
Valtonen, T., Kukkonen, J., Kontkanen, S., Sormunen, K., Dillon, P., &
Sointu, E. (2015b). The impact of authentic learning experiences with
ICT on pre‐service teachers' intentions to use ICT for teaching and
learning. Computers & Education, 81, 49–58.
Valtonen, T., Sointu, W., Kukkonen, J., Kontkanen, S., Lambert, M., &
Mäkitalo‐Siegl, K. (2017). TPACK updated to measure pre‐service
VALTONEN ET AL.
teachers' twenty‐first century skills. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 33(3), 15–31.
Van Olphen, M. (2008). TPCK: An integrated framework for educating
world language teachers. In Handbook of technological pedagogical
content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 107–128). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Vogt, P. (2005). Bonferroni technique (or test or inequality). In W. P. Vogt
(Ed.), Dictionary of statistics & methodology (3rd ed.) (pp. 31). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & Braakt, J. (2013). Technolog-
ical pedagogical content knowledge—A review of the literature.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109–121.
Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international
frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national
curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44, 299–321.
How to cite this article: Valtonen T, Kukkonen J, Kontkanen S,
Mäkitalo‐Siegl K, Sointu E. Differences in pre‐service teachers'
knowledge and readiness to use ICT in education. J Comput
Assist Learn. 2018;34:174–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jcal.12225