Introduction

The rapid development of technologies has complicated their adoption and implementation into teacher professional development all over the world (Brenneman et al. 2019; Rosenberg and Koehler 2015; Wang et al. 2018). In order to develop the capacity of educators to deliver instruction that prepares children for a society dependent on digital innovation, teacher preparation programs across the globe have integrated technology into their curriculum (Tondeur et al. 2012, 2017). Many national policies and curriculum have provided guidance on the use of technology in the early years, such as Australia’s Statement on Young Children and Digital Technologies (Early Childhood Australia 2018) and the U.S. position statement on Technology and Interactive Media as Tools in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children From Birth Through Age 8 (NAEYC & Fred Rogers Center 2012). China is not an exception. Over the past decade, early childhood teacher education programs throughout China have gradually embedded technology into educator preparation, and studies of technological innovations in early childhood practice represent one of the fastest-growing research areas (Wang 2018a, b; Zhou 2015; Zhu and Wang 2013).

Despite global and national imperatives to support and enhance the integration of technology into young children’s play and learning, research on early childhood educators’ classroom practices suggest wide disparities in practitioners’ perceptions and use of technology in preschool settings around the world (Aldhafeeri et al. 2016; Danniels et al. 2020; Hu and Yelland 2019; Jeong and Kim 2017; Slutsky et al. 2019). Although many researchers and educators argue that technology has a “rightful place” in early learning (Edwards et al. 2018), others continue to question the suitability of digital resources in early learning contexts or lack confidence for providing necessary guidance and scaffolding to integrate technology into play-based instruction (Edwards et al. 2018; Nikolopoulou and Gialamas 2015; Palaiologou 2016; Parette et al. 2010). Even with the ubiquitous proliferation of technology in young children’s lives, alignment between technology use and developmentally appropriate practice (Copple and Bredekamp 2009) has remained a contentious issue (Parette et al. 2010).

Research on the role of teacher education and professional development in preparing preservice and inservice educators with competencies for developmentally appropriate implementation have revealed diverse practices tied to cultural contexts and pedagogic values influenced by sociocultural traditions (Dong and Mertala 2020; Donohue and Schomburg 2017). The empirical research has primarily focused on practices in Western nations (Dong and Mertala 2020). To address this knowledge gap, we explore Chinese preservice teachers’ technology use and self-efficacy to examine the common and diverse forces shaping trends for integrating technology into early childhood teacher preparation.

China’s Policies Related to Technology in Early Childhood Teacher Education

Since 2012, China’s government has adopted several policies to develop and strengthen the integration of technology into early childhood teacher education. In September 2012, China issued the Professional Standards for Early Childhood Teachers (Trial), which articulated competencies for preschool teachers that included the use of technology tools to enhance teaching and learning practice (Ministry of Education 2012, p. 4). The standards represented the first time China’s national policy established explicit expectations for technology use in early childhood settings (Zhu and Wang 2013) and conveyed the importance of developing preschool teachers’ capacity for teaching with technology to support children’s construction of knowledge. By including expectations for technology integration in the national policy, the Chinese government has formally recognized technology integration as an essential dimension of preschool teachers’ preparation, training, and assessment (Zhang 2014).

Subsequently, in 2017 China’s government issued Higher Education Professional Accreditation Standards for Early Childhood Education Majors, establishing educational outcome criteria for early childhood teacher preparation programs (Ministry of Education 2017). The classroom implementation and field experience section of the policy stipulates that universities should prepare preservice educators to improve children’s learning outcomes through the appropriate use of technology in instruction (Pei 2018). Moreover, the policy section on university capacity development directs universities to support professors in developing their own technology integration capabilities to instruct students in their teacher preparation programs (Zhang 2017). The quality assurance section of the policy also specifies that technology should be used in program monitoring and evaluation of teacher candidates (Sun 2017). As a result, the policy has influenced the curriculum of Chinese university teacher preparation programs.

Current Technological Use Status in China

Since 2012 when the Chinese government enhanced support to schools for technology integration, recent studies indicate that many Chinese preschools have invested in their ICT infrastructure. Most preschools in urban areas are equipped with computers, whiteboards, projectors, tables, and other digital devices (Li and Xu 2018; Liu and Chen 2019). Some preschools in China have integrated new technologies into their curriculum, such as robotics (Li and Zhou 2016), 3D printing (Lian 2017), and immersive technologies (i.e., Augmented reality and virtual reality) (Wang 2018; Zhu and Zhuo 2018).

Despite these investments, instructional implementation of technology integration into early childhood classrooms is still rudimentary and focuses on traditional teaching models that deliver curriculum through teacher-directed instruction that only passively engages students in watching videos or using a program for drill and practice (Zhang 2019). Even in preschools that have access to technology equipment, teachers struggle to design and implement activities that seamlessly integrate the resources (Liu 2018). Additionally, although preschool teachers recognize the importance of ICT, they have relatively low confidence and abilities to integrate technology into education (Chui 2018). Consequently, early childhood teachers in China need to develop their technology integration skills through professional development.

Self-efficacy

Technological integration is an essential area of focus within teacher preparation programs. Competencies for teaching with digital tools is associated with teachers’ self-efficacy (Wu and Wang 2015), so it is especially important that teachers have confidence in their ability to use technology to enhance teaching and learning (Lemon and Garvis 2016). Bandura (1994) conceptualized the concept of “self-efficacy” as an individual’s belief about his or her ability to successfully complete a particular field task. In general, self-efficacy represents how confident the individual feels about handling specific tasks and challenges (Bandura 1997). To teachers in this study, it refers to how confident they feel about integrating technology into their instructional practice. Numerous studies have shown positive correlations between self-efficacy and technology integration. An increase in self-efficacy can have a positive impact on the intent to implement technology (Irving 2009; Lemon and Garvis 2016; Lin 2008). Moreover, improvements in technology integration skills lead to increases in confidence (Al-Awidi and Alghazo 2012; Kim et al. 2013). Nonetheless, fostering self-efficacy for digital technologies requires adequate support during teacher preparation programs (Lemon and Garvis 2016), and this inquiry focuses on this critical area of study.

Teacher Preparation Program

Technology integration is a dynamic, flexible, and changeable process, and teachers can increase technology integration skills with training (Cheng 2016; Yildiz and Kocak 2016). The teacher preparation program is an important component of teacher professional development. Herring et al. (2016) posit that technology preparation programs can have various forms, including “an educational technology course, practical experiences in the design, teaching, and reflection on hands-on lessons with technology” (p. 266). During the teacher preparation training process, teachers can promote their professional development of information technology in the field of education and the continuous updating of educational concepts, teaching models, and teaching methods (Liu 2018). Moreover Lei (2009), states that teacher preparation programs help preservice teachers make connections between technology and teaching and make the transition from “digital native students to digital native teachers” (p. 92). Given the active role of the teacher preparation program, it is a significant context to explore in this study.

Research Questions

The primary goal of this study is to explore preservice teachers’ technology use and self-efficacy while engaged in their field based student teaching experiences. Four questions guide the research.

  1. 1.

    To what extent do Chinese ECE preservice teachers use technology during their teacher preparation coursework?

  2. 2.

    How do Chinese ECE preservice teachers’ rate their self-efficacy for integrating technology into instruction?

  3. 3.

    What is the relationship between Chinese ECE preservice teachers’ technological self-efficacy and technology use?

  4. 4.

    What are the implications of these findings for early childhood teacher preparation programs in China?

Methods

Research Background

This study took place in a public university located in the central region of China. Fifty-six preservice teachers participated in the study. All participants were in their senior year and had just completed their coursework and final internship. The university coursework includes general education curriculum, basic subject course, professional basic courses, and professional development course. In China’s universities, the core technical training course for education majors is Modern Educational Technology (Chui 2018; Guo 2015; Ma et al. 2017; Qin and Fu 2017; Yu 2016), and it is a widely adopted course in China, designed to ensure preservice teachers develop their technology skills (Chui 2018; Tang et al. 2013). The course content emphasizes traditional technical methods, such as audio processing, video processing, animation, CAI courseware production, and web design. The course content is outdated and based on old software (Liu 2018). Moreover, this course tends to be technology-centric rather than having a focus on technological pedagogical content knowledge; the instructors are from the technology department, without any early childhood background. The instruction provides a cursory overview rather than in-depth examination or critical reflection on technology within the early years (Yu 2016). The training focuses on how to use the technology itself, not on how to integrate technology into education (Zhou 2015). Additionally, the course ignores disciplinary differences (Guo 2015). Therefore, it is difficult for pre-service teachers to understand how the course content relates to the early childhood context (Yu 2016), and many pre-service teachers do not understand why they need to take this course (Guo 2015).

In the case university, Modern Educational Technology, a 2 credit professional course, is the only compulsory technology course and is completed during the sophomore year. There are several technology electives, including Photographic Camera Technology, Photoshop Technology and Application, Coreldraw Technology and Application, and Video Processing Technology.

As part of the requirement of the teacher preparation program, upon coursework completion, preservice teachers have to attend a final internship (student teaching) for 18 weeks (the whole semester). There were eleven cooperative schools (9 Hubei Preschools and 2 Guangzhou Preschools) that support the internship. Each preservice teacher had one cooperative teacher to guide their classroom teaching experience.

Data Collection

An online questionnaire was sent to the participants through their university email address. The responses were anonymous, and the participants were assured that there were no right or wrong answers. All eligible students completed the questionnaire, but one was deleted due to invalid responses.

The survey had five sections. The first section included demographic questions. The subsequent sections collected data on attitudes towards teaching young children, preservice teacher preparation, early childhood final internship, and early childhood teachers’ technology self-efficacy. Existing scales were used to design the survey items, including an adaptation of Schmidt et al. (2009) preservice teachers’ knowledge of teaching and technology survey for TPACK integration and teacher preparation; Stipek and Byler’s (1997) early childhood teachers’ belief and practice scales to explore attitudes; and Blackwell et al. (2013) and Blackwell et al. (2014) surveys of digital technologies used in early childhood practice.

The wording and expression of the items were further revised to align with practices in the Chinese context. Surveys were translated into Mandarin and reviewed by several early childhood professionals to ensure accuracy of the translation. These professionals included two early childhood professors from China, one graduate student who is familiar with the teacher preparation process in Chinese universities, and one Chinese preschool teacher who was fluent in both English and Mandarin.

Results

Demographic Information

Participants included 51 female and 4 male preservice teachers. The age-range of the respondents was 21–24 years. These demographics are typical of senior undergraduate students who major in early childhood in China. The data analysis generated four main themes: extent of technology use; self-efficacy for using technology; the relationship between using technology and self-efficacy; and the role of the teacher preparation program in fostering technology competencies.

Extent of Technology Use

Frequency

Both quantitative (closed-ended question) and qualitative data (open-ended questions) showed that there were various types of digital technology resources in preservice teachers’ final internship classrooms that they could access as part of their planning and instruction to achieve curricular goals. As shown in Table 1, the most common digital technologies in daily use were Smartphone or mobile phone, interactive whiteboard, laptop or desktop computer, and computer projector. On the other hand, there are several digital technologies no one reported as part of their daily classroom practices, such as E-reader, game console, robotics, digital assistants, assistive technologies, and virtual reality headsets.

Table 1 The data connected with different kinds of technologies
Full size table

Table 1 also shows the frequency of using technologies for instructional purposes in preservice teachers’ final internship. Since N/A = 0, Never Use = 1, Once a month = 3, Daily = 7, the sequence score is from 0 to 7, so a higher average rating indicated a higher frequency of use in their classrooms. The four most frequently used digital devices (phone, whiteboard, computer, and computer projector), with daily use scores ranging between 3.56 to 5.24. The results indicate that the most frequently used equipment includes more traditional devices.

Pedagogical Skills

The data in Table 2 summarizes the preservice teachers’ pedagogic approaches for technology integration. Preservice teachers’ most frequently used teaching activities with technology focused on playing videos and listening to music, which comprised more than half of the reported activities. This result suggests that most preservice teachers who integrate technology into their teaching practice deliver the curriculum content through passive approaches.

Table 2 Preservice teachers’ approaches to technology integration during internship
Full size table

It is essential to notice that whole group instruction also occupied a crucial position. Responses to the question: “Consider a typical week in your class and select the option that best represents children’s technology use in your classroom”, over 68% indicated that their instruction with technology involved mostly teacher-directed activities with some time for child-initiated and over 25% noted that they use technology only for teacher-directed activities. On the other hand, free choice time activities and creative activities were typically reported as never implemented by the majority of participants, suggesting that teacher-centric instructional pedagogies dominate technology practices.

Furthermore, there are context-specific practices in China that influence the use of technology as part of preservice teachers’ professional development. Over 45% of preservice teachers responded that every day or almost every day they use a social networking site (e.g., QQ, Wechat, and Weibo) to exchange ideas with other teachers, and about 30% reported that they look online for content or materials they think will engage their students. Conversely, a majority of students (nearly 70%) responded that they rarely or never receive email alerts or online newsletters that follow developments in their field. In the Chinese context, preservice teachers primarily rely on social networks (e.g., QQ, Wechat) for professional growth. Unlike email listservs, social media offers them real time access to ideas as well as opportunities to collaborate with other educators, serving as a catalyst for building supportive professional learning networks.

Technology Integration Self-Efficacy

Participants’ self-efficacy for using technology was reflected in their responses to items about their attitudes toward the use of technology as part of their instructional practices and more specifically their perceptions about the integration of technology into play-based pedagogy. The majority of participants (over 85%) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that they believe early childhood educators should integrate technology into their teaching practices. In fact, less than 2% of respondents somewhat disagreed with this statement, suggesting a generally positive attitude toward the use of technology in teaching.

Moreover, on items specific to play-based pedagogy, a primary modality of instruction in the early years, nearly 83% of participants agreed or strongly agreed with integrating technologies into children’s play. Only 6% of participants somewhat disagreed, and no one indicated strong opposition toward the use of technology during play-based learning experiences. Three respondents who expressed some concern about technology in early childhood play-based instruction commented that successful integration required “long-term training,” “wasted the technology,” and “offered minimal enhanced benefit for learning” [translated from Chinese]. Nonetheless, preservice teachers expressed overall positive attitudes toward the integration of technology as part of their play-based pedagogic approach.

Confidence

The confidence means reported in Table 1 reflect responses to the question: How confident are you at using the following technologies with children in a developmentally appropriate way? The average confidence value did not exceed a rating of 4, suggesting that preservice teachers lacked high self-confidence for using a variety of technologies with young children. They were most confident using the interactive whiteboard, smartphone/mobile phone, computer projector, tablets, laptop or desktop computer, digital camera or video recorder, DVD player/recorder, and e-reader. Conversely, they lacked confidence for developmentally appropriate use of the 3D printer, digital visual presenter, digital audio recorder, robotics, game console, assistive technologies, virtual reality headsets, and digital assistants.

Moreover, in response to questions on how support structures affected their confidence for integrating technologies into teaching and instruction, over 95% of preservice teachers expressed moderate to high levels of confidence when they had access to reference manuals, observed implementation by someone else, could request assistance if they got stuck, had dedicated time for advance planning and preparation, were provided with a lesson plan/curriculum, or had used similar technologies before. Less than 4% of participants totally lacked confidence even when provided supports.

Relationship Between Technology Use and Self-efficacy

As summarized in Table 1, the most common digital resources in daily use were phones, interactive whiteboards, computers, computer projectors, and tablets. Preservice teachers reported the highest confidence using these same digital resources with children in developmentally appropriate ways. Therefore, the frequency of using digital devices is positively associated with the degree of confidence for integrating the technological tools into instruction. Preservice teachers have stronger self-efficacy when they use their most frequently accessed devices.

Although the preservice teachers’ attitudes towards technology integration were generally positive, their choice of technological pedagogies tended to focus on passive implementation approaches that support traditional and didactic instructional practices. As shown in Table 2, the preservice teachers most frequently used a computer to play videos or engage children in listening to music. Both of these approaches typically involved children in the role as consumers of content. The participants’ qualitative responses similarly reflected a preference for using the computer to show PowerPoints to young children or display content on the interactive whiteboard. Two respondents commented, “PowerPoint is enough.”

Teacher Preparation Program

The University Coursework

Although the compulsory technology course for ECE students is Modern Education Technology, the participants did not mention this class when responding to the prompt: “Describe a specific episode where a professor or an instructor effectively demonstrated or modeled combining content, technologies, and teaching approaches in a classroom lesson.” Preservice teachers mentioned a variety of other courses in their program of study, such as Early Childhood Education, Early Childhood Observation and Evaluation, and Curriculum Theories. Their responses suggested that faculty made a notable effort to integrate technology into the early childhood professional courses. In fact, respondents reported that nearly 58% of their professors effectively demonstrated strategies for integrating content, technology, and pedagogy. Overall the majority of preservice teachers (approximately 85%) strongly agreed or agreed that their program faculty appropriately modeled technology integration in early childhood instruction. None-the-less, instruction tended to focus on how practitioners can operate devices and deliver content with technology; there was little evidence that the program coursework demonstrated how to create participatory learning environments that used the technology in open and exploratory ways or fostered critical reflections on the pedagogic possibilities of fostering children’s engagement through creation, collaboration, experimentation, or social interactions mediated by digital tools.

The Final Internship

Based on responses to open-ended questions about their final internship placements, we noted general trends as preservice educators engaged in field-based experiences. First, partnership schools typically were equipped with digital resources (i.e., computers, projectors, interactive whiteboards, etc.) but did not have access to emerging technologies, such as robotics, 3D printing, or virtual reality devices. Most of the technology implementation occurred during whole group instruction with little opportunity for small group or individualized experiences to promote creativity or design projects.

Second, some cooperating teachers expressed negative attitudes towards the integration of technology into instruction, dissuading the preservice teachers from embedding technologies into the curriculum and questioning the value of improving their technology skills. One participant wrote:

My cooperating teacher does not like to use electronic technology very much for three reasons. First, parents think that it is not suitable for children’s vision development, and increasing the risk of addicted to electronic devices. Second, the cooperating teacher is old. Third, she thinks non-technical participation is enough. There is no need to add technical factors. My classroom has the latest multimedia types of equipment which have not [been] used much. I think it is a kind of waste.

Lastly, the partnership schools had purchased curriculum resource packages from companies and educational organizations that included pre-designed curriculum with comprehensive lesson plans. These packages included necessary equipment for instructional implementation, such as electronic whiteboards and computers. The collaborating teachers relied on these prepackaged resources, which were designed as plug and play with no additional planning required. Three preservice educators highlighted the reliance on these materials in their written responses. Two observed how “the cooperating teachers only use the supporting materials and electronic resources package to teach.” However, one preservice teacher noted the cooperating teacher’s attempts to adapt the pre-packaged curriculum enhanced student engagement:

My internship school has well prepared digital materials and package. The publisher developed interactive courseware for each textbook with flash animations and games. They are highly interesting and easy to operate. However, at the same time, the problem is the capacity is fixed, and there is limited space for teachers to revise or individualize instruction. My cooperating teacher hyperlinked the interactive content to the courseware and captured photos of the children in pictures during a rainstorm to embed into the “It’s raining” course. It made the children feel more engaged in the learning experience.

None-the-less, most preservice teachers expressed satisfaction with the models they observed in their field experience placement. Approximately 77% of preservice teachers agreed or strongly agreed that their cooperating teachers appropriately modeled the integration of content, technologies, and teaching approaches.

Discussion and Conclusion

Although the penetration rate of new technologies was limited, partnership schools and the university had access to essential electronic devices, such as computers, interactive whiteboards, and projectors, a finding consistent with prior studies on technology in early childhood programs throughout China (Dong 2016; Liu and Chen 2019). Additionally, preservice teachers’ overall attitudes towards the integration of technology into instructional practice were positive.

At the same time, there are several issues that undermined ECE preservice teachers’ self efficacy for technology use and limited their instructional practices integrating technology in the field. The Chinese government has recently implemented various policies to support the use of technology in early childhood contexts, and the policy documents can be useful for highlighting and channelling focus on issues that need concerted attention. None-the-less, diffusion of innovation takes time, and policies often require early adopters to have success before the population at large translates the approaches into practice. The broader preschool education system in China has paid insufficient attention to technology integration. Some cooperating teachers still espouse beliefs that technology is unnecessary to the early childhood setting and allocate the resources to the corner of the classroom where they can be ignored or forgotten (Li et al. 2018; Liu and Chen 2019). Even when preservice educators expressed interest in trying out technology in the classroom, they often confronted cooperating teachers’ negative attitudes, which dissuaded the preservice educators from using the digital devices. It seems that some of the experienced practitioners’ lack of awareness of strategic documents reflected a disconnect between the professionals responsible for implementing the policy goals and the policy itself.

Furthermore, using technology for personal purposes did not appear to be a strong predictor for the prospective use of technology in teaching. This study confirmed the conflicts between teachers’ positive attitudes toward technology and low user frequency seen in Dong’s (2018) and Li et al.’s (2017) studies. For example, although preservice teachers identified mobile phones as their most frequently used digital devices and reported a high degree of confidence using them, they infrequently used them in the classroom as part of their instructional planning or delivery. Many preservice educators perceived that mobile phones were for personal purposes only. One participant expressed that these technologies could “enhance communication between teachers and students, but do nothing about classroom teaching.” Although the preservice teachers have grown up with technology (Vodanovich et al. 2010), our findings confer with previous research that concluded preservice teachers are more apt to use technology in their personal life, while rarely using it for instruction (Lei 2009).

Also, although preservice teachers had generally positive attitudes about digital technologies, they had limited development of strategies for technological pedagogical implementation. Both qualitative and quantitative results in this study indicated that the preservice educators primarily relied on teacher-centric instructional approaches when using technology. Although Western culture has influenced teaching pedagogies, resulting in more child-centric learning experiences than previously observed in China’s ECE programs (Weng and Li 2018), children often remain passive recipients with only the teacher actively using the technology to deliver direct instruction. Children’s access to the technology resources tended to be limited and highly regulated. As Dong and Newman (2018) noted, teachers tend to serve as technical troubleshooters, focused on conventional and procedural use of digital tools.

Demand for Higher Quality Teacher Preparation

In the study, many preservice teachers believed that as long as they knew how to design and deliver instruction through Powerpoint, they had the abilities to appropriately use technology. They depended on their professors and cooperating teachers to serve as models of effective instruction. However, the preservice educators primarily observed technology being used to show videos or play music; as a result, their repetoire of skills were similarly limited.

The required university educational technology course, Modern Education Technology, focused on traditional technology applications. Moreover, some of the course content was dated and no longer relevant. For example, instruction on flash teaching animation was based on old software (Liu 2018). Since the course instructors were professors of instructional technology, they lacked background in ECE, resulting in a disconnect between the technocentric course content and developmentally appropriate field based applications (Yu 2016). The training focused on how to use the technology itself, not on how to integrate technology into education (Zhou 2015). Additionally, the course ignored disciplinary differences (Guo 2015). Therefore, many preservice teachers did not understand the purpose and relevance of the course, and they lacked motivation to develop their technological pedagogies.

Overall, the teacher preparation program has a strong demand for higher quality technology experiences. Despite access to a range of technology tools, there was a missed opportunity to fully realize the potential of technology in supporting teaching and learning. Consequently, it is not only necessary to improve the training of preservice teachers, but also to improve the preparation of cooperating teachers and university professors to serve as exemplars for technnology integration.

Finally, although there are various issues and preservice teachers had lower self-efficacy scores in integrating technology into teaching practice (Table 1), they still have great positive attitudes. More importantly, the results show that, if given various supports, they may develop high confidence in embedding technology into instruction. Therefore, it is vital to increase support and upgrade the quality of the current teacher preparation programs.

Limitations and Future Research

The key limitation to the current study concerns the generalizability of the results. This study was limited to one university in the central part of China, the number of participants was small, and the participants only reflect perspectives on technology integration practices in partnership preschool sites in Hubei and Guangzhou. Although the results in the study do not represent the overall situation in China, there is a specific value of exploring the phenomenon in this region of China.

Follow-up studies may pursue several directions. Further research might explore how preservice teachers, cooperative teachers, and professors rate items on the survey of technology integration and explore correlations between beliefs and practices among the various stakeholders. Moreover, study of the effects of the new policies and training requirements on technology use and self efficacy among both preservice and inservice educators is needed. Although attitudes towards technology among teachers were generally positive, the pedagogical value and impact on learning require more in-depth study. Considering that the integration of technology into early childhood education is a global issue, it is also worthwhile to compare differences between Chinese early education technology practices and those of other countries in the world, in order to better understand the influences of diverse cultural and ideological discourses on educational outcomes.