The Institutional Gap in Teacher Continuing Education: Cross-National Evidence on Barriers to Technology Integration
Authors
Aleksandra Leonteva
Share
Annotation
Continuing professional education (CPE) for teachers faces growing pressure to equip educators with technological competencies that instructional practice now demands - yet the infrastructure through which such competencies are developed remains poorly understood and underexamined. International comparative data indicate that existing CPE systems are failing to meet this demand at both scale and quality. Drawing on data from OECD TALIS 2024, Pearson School Report 2023, Tech4Teachers 2024, and the TCEA/SETDA EdTech Landscape Report (2024), this paper identifies and analyses six systemic barriers constraining technology integration in teacher CPE: coverage deficits, knowledge gaps, low programme effectiveness, superficial adoption patterns, absent mandatory competency standards, and structural time constraints. The analysis demonstrates that these barriers do not operate independently but form a self-reinforcing institutional system - one that resists incremental, single-barrier intervention. The analysis draws on the DigCompEdu and TPACK theoretical frameworks, with UNESCO SDG4 and ISTE Standards as policy reference points. The paper argues that before evidence-based CPE redesign is feasible, the nature, scope, and interdependence of these barriers must be systematically established - a diagnostic contribution this paper makes explicit. The findings conclude with research-oriented propositions for future programme-level and policy-level investigation.
Keywords
Authors
Aleksandra Leonteva
Share
References:
Celik I., Muukkonen H., Dede C. 2024, 40 (3) The affordances of artificial intelligence-based tools for supporting 21st-century skills: A systematic review of empirical research in higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. https://10.14742/ajet.9069.
Darling-Hammond L., Hyler M.E., Gardner M. (2017) Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/effective-teacher-professional-development-report.
Ertmer P.A. (1999) Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299597.
Ertmer P.A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich A.T., Sadik O., Sendurur E., Sendurur P. (2012) Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers , Education, 59(2), 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001.
European Commission. Education and training monitor 2023 (2023). Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2766/361440.
Guskey T.R. Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching (2022) 8(3), 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512.
Helen Crompton (2023) Evidence of the ISTE Standards for Educators leading to learning gains, Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 39:4, 201-219, DOI: 10.1080/21532974.2023.2244089
Holmes W., Porayska-Pomsta K., Holstein K., Sutherland E., Baker T., Shum S. B., Santos O. C., Rodrigo M. T., Cukurova M., Bittencourt I. I., Koedinger K. R. (2022) Ethics of AI in education: Towards a community-wide framework. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32(3), 504–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00239-1.
Joyce B., Showers B. (2003). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). ASCD. https://www.unrwa.org/sites/default/files/joyce_and_showers_coaching_as_cpd.pdf
Kennedy M. M. (2016). How does professional development improve teaching? Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 945–980. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626800
Mishra P., Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
OECD. (2024). TALIS 2024 results https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2025/10/results-from-talis-2024_28fbde1d/90df6235-en.pdf. OECD Publishing.
Pearson (2023). Pearson school report 2023. https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/global-store/en-gb/files/Pearson-SchoolReport-2023.pdf. Pearson Education.
Redecker C. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu (Y. Punie, Ed.). Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/159770
TCEA , SETDA. (2024). EdTech landscape report 2024 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED672710.pdf. TCEA/SETDA.
Tech4Teachers. (2024). Tech4Teachers report 2024 https://digitalpovertyalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Tech4Teachers-White-Paper-2024.pdf. Tech4Teachers.
UNESCO. Education 2030: Incheon declaration and framework for action. UNESCO. 2018. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245656.
Voogt J., Fisser P., Pareja Roblin N., Tondeur J., van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge - a review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00487.x
Zawacki-Richter O., Marin V. I., Bond, M., Gouverneur F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education - where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
Other articles of the issue
