We evaluate the effects of an online self-assessment tool on teachers’ competencies and beliefs about information and communication technologies (ICTs) in education. The causal impact of the tool is evaluated through a randomized encouragement design involving 7,391 lower secondary teachers across 11 European countries. Short-run impact estimates show that the use of the tool led teachers to critically revise their technology-enhanced teaching competencies (−0.14 standard deviations [SD]) and their beliefs about the use of ICT in education (−0.35 SD), while no impact on teachers’ ICT training is found. The effects are concentrated among teachers in the top-end tail of the distribution of pre-treatment outcomes. We provide suggestive evidence that the feedback score provided by the tool triggered such results by providing a negative information shock.
AndradeH.ValtchevaA. (2009). Promoting learning and achievement through self-assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 12–19.
2.
AngristJ. D.ImbensG. W.RubinD. B. (1996). Identification of causal effects using Instrumental Variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91, 444–455.
3.
BackfischI.SchererR.SiddiqF.LachnerA.ScheiterK. (2021). Teachers’ technology use for teaching: Comparing two explanatory mechanisms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 104, 103390.
4.
BaranE.Canbazoglu BiliciS.Albayrak SariA.TondeurJ. (2019). Investigating the impact of teacher education strategies on preservice teachers’ TPACK. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 357–370.
5.
BatesC. C.MorganD. N. (2018). Seven elements of effective professional development. The Reading Teacher, 71(5), 623–626.
6.
BloomH. S. (1984). Accounting for no-shows in experimental evaluation designs. Evaluation Review, 8(2), 225–246.
7.
BobbaM.FrisanchoV. (2022). Self-perceptions about academic achievement: Evidence from Mexico City. Journal of Econometrics, 231(1), 58–73.
8.
BulmanG.FairlieR. W. (2016). Technology and education: Computers, software, and the internet. In HanushekE. A.MachinS.WoessmannL. (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of education (Vol. 5, pp. 239–280). Elsevier.
9.
CabellosB.SiddiqF.SchererR. (2024). The moderating role of school facilitating conditions and attitudes towards ICT on teachers’ ICT use and emphasis on developing students’ digital skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 150, 107994.
10.
CameronT. (2005). Updating subjective risks in the presence of conflicting information: An application to climate change. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 30(1), 63–97.
11.
Castaño MuñozJ.VuorikariR.CostaP.HippeR.KampylisP. (2023). Teacher collaboration and students’ digital competence-evidence from the SELFIE tool. European Journal of Teacher Education, 46(3), 476–497.
12.
ChengS. L.LuL.XieK.VongkulluksnV. W. (2020). Understanding teacher technology integration from expectancy-value perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 91, 103062.
13.
CohenJ.WongV.KrishnamachariA.BerlinR. (2020). Teacher coaching in a simulated environment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 42(2), 208–231.
14.
ComiS. L.ArgentinG.GuiM.OrigoF.PaganiL. (2017). Is it the way they use it? Teachers, ICT and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 56, 24–39.
15.
DavisF. D. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results [Doctoral dissertation]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
16.
EscuetaM.NickowA. J.OreopoulosP.QuanV. (2020). Upgrading education with technology: Insights from experimental research. Journal of Economic Literature, 58(4), 897–996.
European Commission. (2019). 2nd survey of schools: ICT in education. Publications Office of the European Union.
20.
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. (2019). Digital education at school in Europe (Report). Eurydice. Publications Office of the European Union.
21.
FaberJ. M.LuytenH.VisscherA. J. (2017). The effects of a digital formative assessment tool on mathematics achievement and student motivation: Results of a randomized experiment. Computers & Education, 106, 83–96.
22.
FalckO.MangC.WoessmannL. (2018). Virtually no effect? Different uses of classroom computers and their effect on student achievement. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 80(1), 1–38.
23.
FüttererT.SchererR.ScheiterK.StürmerK.LachnerA. (2023). Will, skills, or conscientiousness: What predicts teachers’ intentions to participate in technology-related professional development?Computers & Education, 198, 104756.
24.
GonzalezN. (2017). How learning about one’s ability affects educational investments: Evidence from the Advanced Placement Program (Mathematica Policy Research Working Paper 52). Mathematica.
25.
HaalandI.RothC.WohlfartJ. (2023). Designing information provision experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 61(1), 3–40.
26.
HattieJ.TimperleyH. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
27.
ImbensG. W. (2014). Instrumental variables: An econometrician’s perspective. Statistical Science, 29, 323–358.
28.
KoehlerM. J.MishraP.CainW. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?Journal of Education, 193(3), 13–19.
29.
KostonsD.Van GogT.PaasF. (2012). Training self-assessment and task-selection skills: A cognitive approach to improving self-regulated learning. Learning and Instruction, 22(2), 121–132.
30.
KulhavyR. W.StockW. A. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude. Educational Psychology Review, 1(4), 279–308.
31.
LaurillardD. (2012). Teaching as a design science. Routledge.
LooneyJ. (2015). Online self-assessment with MENTEP: A review of the literature. European Schoolnet.
34.
MishraP.KoehlerM. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
35.
OECD (2015), Students, computers and learning: Making the connection, PISA. OECD Publishing.
36.
OECD. (2020). Teachers’ training and use of information and communications technology in the face of the COVID-19 crisis. Teaching in focus n. 35.
37.
PetkoD.CantieniA.PrasseD. (2017). Perceived quality of educational technology matters: A secondary analysis of students’ ICT use, ICT-related attitudes, and PISA 2012 test scores. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(8), 1070–1091.
38.
PollyD.MimsC.ShepherdC. E.InanF. (2010). Evidence of impact: Transforming teacher education with preparing tomorrow’s teachers to teach with technology (PT3) grants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 863–870.
39.
PuzioK.ColbyG. T.Algeo-NicholsD. (2020). Differentiated literacy instruction: Boondoggle or best practice?. Review of Educational Research, 90(4), 459–498.
40.
RavallionM. (2020). Should the randomistas (continue to) rule? In BédécarratsF.GuérinI.RoubaudF. (Eds.), Randomized control trials in the field of development: A critical perspective (pp. 47–78). Oxford University Press.
41.
RichterD.KunterM.KlusmannU.LüdtkeO.BaumertJ. (2011). Professional development across the teaching career: Teachers’ uptake of formal and informal learning opportunities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 116–126.
42.
SchererR.SiddiqF.TondeurJ. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Computers & Education, 128, 13–35.
43.
SchleicherA. (2016). Teaching Excellence through professional learning and policy reform: Lessons from around the world [International Summit on the Teaching Profession]. OECD Publishing.
44.
SchmidR.PetkoD. (2019). Does the use of educational technology in personalized learning environments correlate with self-reported digital skills and beliefs of secondary-school students?Computers & Education, 136, 75–86.
45.
SteffensK. (2006) Self-regulated learning in technology-enhanced learning environments: Lessons of a European peer review. European Journal of Education, 41(3), 353–379.
46.
TondeurJ.AesaertK.PynooB.van BraakJ.FraeymanN.ErstadO. (2017). Developing a validated instrument to measure preservice teachers’ ICT competencies: Meeting the demands of the 21st century. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 462–472.
47.
TondeurJ.Pareja RoblinN.van BraakJ.FisserP.VoogtJ. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge in teacher education: in search of a new curriculum. Educational Studies, 39, 239–243.
48.
UNESCO. (2023). Global Education Monitoring Report 2023: Technology in education—A tool on whose terms?
VoithoferR.NelsonM. J.HanG.CainesA. (2019). Factors that influence TPACK adoption by teacher educators in the US. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(6), 1427–1453.
51.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2014). Procedures and standards handbook (Version 3.0). U.S. Department of Education.
52.
WiswallM.ZafarB. (2015). How do college students respond to public information about earnings?Journal of Human Capital, 9(2), 117–169.
53.
YanZ. (2020). Self-assessment in the process of self-regulated learning and its relationship with academic achievement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(2), 224–238.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
