Choosing Digital Tools in Educational Scenarios: A Case Study with In-Service Teachers

This paper examines the choices of digital tools made over traditional ones by 18 Greek teachers of foreign language, humanities, and arts, in educational scenarios during in-service blended training on script design. Each trainee submitted four scenarios and was free to select his/her own tools. Hierarchical cluster analysis performed on the participants, showed two groups, with the first group ending up with decreasing use of digital tools, whereas the other group exhibited a progressive increase, with constructive and collaborative categories being more popular. All disciplines increased the usage of communicative tools. Teachers of Humanities usually employ projections and Art teachers use more physical objects. Teachers of foreign languages tend to the fewest digital tools in every scenario. All trainees used more multidisciplinary tools than specialized ones; the latter was mostly applied by Art teachers. The research findings shed light on the trends revealed by teachers’ choices and enrich the knowledge base about the planning repertoires and logic of in-service teachers.

Introduction

Greece, following global educational systems, initiated in-service training on digital literacy for teachers in 2003 [1]. While UNESCO considers “ICT competencies of teachers essential to integrate ICT in [⋯] classes” [2], in-service training provides young students with skills to face the demanding roles in modern society. Integrating technology in the class of the 21^st century means creativity and digital fluency for inspired teaching [3], qualifications that teachers engaged in school routine struggle to achieve, as they seem to lack digital cultivation [3], [4]. Thus, digital literacy becomes a necessity for both teachers and students.

According to Blurton [5], these tools are defined as “a diverse set of technological tools and resources used to communicate, create, disseminate, store, and manage information”, i.e., devices, applications, and e-objects, and they possess the power to make us digitally wise [6], offering enhanced or effective learning [7]. They aim to engage pupils in exploring their natural tendencies, learning how to collaborate, communicate their ideas, develop new ways of thinking, and interact with each other while being simultaneously in an entertaining environment [8].

In 2006, Mishra and Koehler [9] introduced the term TPACK which stands for Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. This means an adequate knowledge of all three fields in combination, ending up in technologically and pedagogically enhanced teaching. On the contrary, lack of TPACK knowledge is quite a problem for teaching properly [9], [10]. Nevertheless, as essential as it might be for teachers to be digitally literate, there is skepticism about whether or not they possess this kind of knowledge, and furthermore if they can enhance their teaching by engaging in the process of educational scenario design [11]. Despite teachers’ positive attitude towards ICT resources, their reluctance to actually employ them in teaching [12] indicates a gap between theory and practice. However, training may be successfully used to bridge this gap [13].

Digital tools are categorized based on their pedagogical use, rather than their characteristics, to facilitate the learning process. Moreover, the objectives of a lesson define how a digital tool will be used [14]. Four main ICT tools categories are discerned [14]:

1) Informative tools, providing intel (e.g., browsers, homepages, internet).

2) Collaborative tools, enabling peer interaction (e.g., wikis, platforms).

3) Constructive tools, constructing new skills and learning based upon older knowledge (e.g., word processors, mindmaps).

4) Communicative tools, which are used in the context of pupils’ communication while working on a project (e.g., emails, chat).

Lim and Tay [14] report another category, named “situated”, which provides an environment for experiencing joy and happiness, such as virtual reality or games. Many digital tools are generic, attracting students who rely on Internet to complete their learning tasks [14]. However, there are also tools that are specialized in specific learning needs. So, the following classification of tools was also taken in mind:

1) Multidisciplinary type, fulfilling multiple learning needs (as blogs), or

2) Specialized type (i.e., an interactive map for History).

Another focus of this research is how teachers integrate tools to alter learning. We specifically examine how the level of their (or lack of) digital knowledge has an influence on the design choice and whether their discipline also affects this choice. In every case, teachers use all the help they can, from a blackboard with chalk to computers and their ICT tools. Traditional teaching is represented by three groups of tools, namely:

• Projections, which represent a rather traditional way of thinking (students see a history map, or a professor’s speech in a video, instead of a real teacher).
• Physical Objects, which were in use long before computer invaded classrooms, (i.e., recycling material) and
• School materials, such as a blackboard or students’ books.

In this research, we investigate the criteria on which trainees were based to select ICT tools in their educational scenarios and any possible impact this choice may bring along.

Methodology

In-Service Training

In-service teachers’ training is an ambitious educational project, aiming at integrating technology within lessons, with the ultimate goal of improving teachers’ capacity to deliver their lessons in the future school. Designing, organizing, performing, tracking learning paths, evaluating in-service training, and certificating knowledge and technical skills are required for lessons’ delivery. In-service training enhances the teaching methods of all disciplines, to exploit the potential of the internet and access to information.

In-service training requires curricula, study, and implementation of design, organization, application, and evaluation of technical, pedagogical, and cognitive knowledge. Its supportive mechanisms are ICT tools, being creatively engaged in the lesson at hand. In Greece, the Ministry of Education holds the responsibility for the project, while branches such as Teachers’ Training Organization, Institute of PC technology, Pedagogical Institute, Institute of Educational Policy (since 2012), and finally an Institute of ICT computers and publications, named “Diofantos” (since 2011) perform training courses [15].

Some subsections of the project were in-service training courses that took place in certain places across Greece, via blended learning method, with face-to-face and e-learning sessions, using web platforms, as detailed below. These courses consisted of three-hour sessions, for approximately two months [16].

Our study follows teachers (of both Elementary and High school) as trainees in an in-service course from February to March 2018. The course was aimed at the training of 19 school teachers on using and engaging digital tools in their learning designs. Therefore, by ending the course, trainees were challenged to incorporate ICT in their educational scenarios, with two goals: (a) to make lessons more attractive, creative, and modern, and (b) most importantly, to help their students build their own path in seeking knowledge.

Participants and Training

Teachers’ expertise varies, as each trainee has specialized in a certain scientific field. Trainees were categorized into eight categories, regarding similar features. Further classification of the eight categories leads to three groups of disciplines: (a) Art teachers, one of theater and two musicians, (b) Foreign language teachers, consisting of three English teachers in Lower Secondary school and three in Primary school, one German teacher and one French teacher, both in Primary school, and (c) Humanities teachers, seven of Greek Language and Literature and one of Social studies. This classification was based on lesson modules, regarding the trainees’ perspective and culture. Each trainee submitted four projects during the in-service course. However, one language/literature teacher has left the course from the beginning. So, the final number of trainees was 18, by which 72 projects were submitted.

Blended training was carried out mostly via e-learning, except for two 3-hour sessions, which took place face to face. The e-learning platform was Blackboard Collaborate (BBC). Participants had the opportunity to plan their scenarios in a wiki platform beforehand, to receive feedback, revisions, and suggestions from the trainer. After that, they submitted their final scenarios to Moodle, the formal training platform.

The digital tools that trainees used were classified into four sub-categories, due to their quantity, based on similar characteristics and way of use [14], whereas traditional tools were also classified into three subcategories, with respect to the traditional way of thinking and teaching.

There was also a division into multidisciplinary and specialized types, depending on their function.

Tools vary and accomplish different goals. Many of them were taught within the course, and others were already known by trainees. Each scenario might contain one or more tools of either digital and/or traditional type. Trainees had the convenience to select whichever tool they thought would fulfill their aims.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical tests were performed by the IBM SPSS v.25 statistical software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Differences in the tools’ use among disciplines were tested using either the Pearson chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test, depending on cell frequencies. The Cochran-Armitage test for trend was applied to explore linear trends in binomial proportions across levels of projects. The non-parametric Friedman test for repeated measures was applied to test the trend in ICT tools use across timelines. Comparison of variables between two or more groups was performed by the Mann–Whitney U or Kruskal-Wallis H tests, respectively. Hierarchical clustering of trainees was achieved by the unweighted-pair group method with the arithmetic average algorithm (UPGMA). The statistical significance level was set at a = 0.05.

Results

Teaching Tools

In Table I the classification of tools into digital and traditional ones is presented.

Table I. ICT and Traditional Tools’ Subcategories and Examples

Category	Definition	For example, tools	For example, apps
Digital tools
Informative tools	Applications providing	Browsers	https://www.mozilla.org
	vast amount of	Images	https://images.google.com/
	information	Museums online	www.namuseum.gr
		Foundations’ websites	http://web.ime.gr/
		Repositories	http://photodentro.edu.gr/aggregator
		Interactive images	https://edtech.gr/thinglink/
		Digital libraries	https://el.wikipedia.org/
		Digital dictionary	https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/
		Articles	https://www.buzzfeed.com/
		Interactive maps	http://photodentro.edu.gr/aggregator
Collaborative tools	Tools that permit	Timelines	https://www.timetoast.com/
	interaction among peers	ΜS word puzzles	https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/words-free-word-puzzles/9p7n8c8pwzbk?activetab=pivot:overviewtab
		Google drive	https://www.google.com/intl/el_gr/drive
		Exhibition creation	https://www.artsteps.com/
		Brainstorming/	https://cmap.ihmc.us/
		Brainwriting
		Matching game	https://www.education.com/worksheet-generator/reading/matching-lists/
		Interactive map	www.projectbritain.com,
		Interviews/questionnaires	https://www.google.com/forms/about/
		Opera creation	http://toytheater.com/composer.php
		MS ppt	https://www.microsoft.com/el-gr/microsoft-365/powerpoint
		Google maps	https://www.google.com/intl/en_uk/earth/
		Digital poster	http://edu.glogster.com/
		Cartoons	https://www.pixton.com/
		Role playing	Acting in class
		Debate	In https://my.pbworks.com/
		Collaborative creations	https://quizlet.com/
		Worksheet	https://docs.google.com,
		Mind maps	https://bubbl.us/,
		Presentation	https://prezi.com/
		Flipping book	https://issuu.com
		Collaborative work	https://el.padlet.com/
		Crossword puzzles	http://edtech.gr/crossword.labs
		Timelines	https://www.timetoast.com/
			http://www.readwritethink.org/classroom-resources/student-interactives/timeline-30007.html
Constructive tools	Tools which manipulate	Debate in a wiki, Wiki	https://www.pbworks.com/
	information, stimulating	Voki	https://l-www.voki.com/
	cognitive skills	Fiil in worksheets	https://docs.google.com
	(evaluating, connecting, analysing, synthesizing,	Hansel & Gretel: Learning about Opera!	http://creativekidseducationfoundation.org/kids/opera/base.htm
	imagining, problem	Blog	https://www.blogger.com/about/?bpli=1
	solving)	Role playing	Acting in class
		Google forms	https://www.google.com/forms/about/
		Interactive images	https://edtech.gr/thinglink/
		Debate	In https://my.pbworks.com/
		Crossword makers	http://edtech.gr/crossword.labs
		Music sheets construction	http://toytheater.com/composer.php
		Language exercise	https://writeandimprove.com
		Mind maps	https://bubbl.us/
			https://coggle.it/
			https://www.popplet.com/
		Biography composition	http://www.toondoo.com/
		Flipping book	https://issuu.com
		Interactive whiteboard	Device
		Presentation	https://www.microsoft.com/el-gr/microsoft-365/powerpoint/, https://prezi.com
		Constructive creations	https://quizlet.com/
			https://www.canva.com/el_gr/
		Creative writing	https://docs.google.com
		Matching game	https://www.education.com/worksheet-generator/reading/matching-lists/
		Music learning platform “Emmeleia”	https://www.classicsforkids.com/
		Music composition	musescore2
Communicative tools	Systems that facilitate	Opera creation	http://creativekidseducationfoundation.org/kids/opera/base.htm
	communication beyond class,	Creative writing	https://docs.google.com
	such as emails	Online communication	https://el.padlet.com/ ,
			https://www.google.com/forms/about/
		Matching (exercise)	https://www.education.com/worksheet-generator/reading/matching-lists/
		Critical discussion	Exchange of views
		Concept maps mind	https://bubbl.us/ ,
		maps	https://coggle.it/, https://cmap.ihmc.us/
			https://www.xmind.net/embed/az9c/
			https://app.imindmap.com/
		Wiki	https://my.pbworks.com/
		Presentation	https://www.microsoft.com/el-gr/microsoft-365/powerpoint
		Crossword puzzles	http://edtech.gr/crossword.labs ,
		Music sheets construction	http://toytheater.com/composer.php
		Cartoons	http://www.toondoo.com/
			https://www.pixton.com/
			https://cosylab.gr/index.php/tools/116-comic-strip-creator
		Writing questions	https://www.google.com/forms/about/
		Creative writing	http://www.readwritethink.org/
		History source processing	https://www.biography.com/
Traditional tools
Projections		Opera of Patras’ theatre hearing	http://en.operastudiopatras.gr/
		Documentary films	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owysE0zs-nw
		mp3
		Presentation	https://www.microsoft.com/el-gr/microsoft-365/powerpoint
		Mind maps: Freemind/ popplet	https://www.edrawsoft.com/ad/mindmaster/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIyuDvr6yI8AIVGuh3Ch0wWwSOEAAYASAAEgLi2vD_BwE
			https://www.popplet.com/
		Photos/video	https://www.moovly.com/
		Song hearing	Mp3 player
		Maps	https://www.google.com/maps
Physical objects		Music instruments
		Interviews
		Interactive whiteboard
		Blackboard
		Trees plantation
		Recycling material	Bins
		School printedMaterial	Maps, books, paper worksheet
School material		Printed material	Texts, books, maps, worksheets
		Recycling material	Bins
		Blackboard
		Video notes
		Video projector
		Mp3	Hearing songs

Table II presents a different classification of tools into multidisciplinary and specialized.

Table II. Type of Tools and Examples

Multidisciplinary type	Specialized type
Google drive	Opera creation
Office MS	Hansel & Gretel: Learning about Opera!
Mind maps/ Brainstorming/ Brainwriting	Creative writing/thinking
Crossword puzzles	Music composing
Categorization	http://toytheater.com/composer.php
Timelines	http://creativekidseducationfoundation.org/kids/opera/base.htm/
Conversation/critic	https://writeandimprove.com
Blog	Oxford dictionary
Penzu	Buzzfeed (article)
Wikis/Pbworks/Wikipedia	Musescore2
Comparative assessment	Biography
Peer assessment	Dictionary.cambridge.org.
Interviews/debate	Games/role playing
Padlet/popplet	Music instruments
Questionary syntax/google forms	National Archaeological museum (www.namuseum.gr)
Glogster	Documentary films
Projections (some)	Lesson material (physical objects/printed books)
Blackboard/interactive whiteboard	Projections (some)

Projects and Tools

Fig. 1 depicts the proportion of ICT and traditional tools used by trainees in each of the four submitted projects, across the course. The increasing application of digital tools is obvious, as from 57.5% in the first project, it reaches the value of 78.7% in the last one. This growing utilization of digital tools during the training was confirmed with statistical analysis. The Cochran-Armitage test for trend revealed a significantly increasing proportion of ICT tools from the first to the last project, along with decreasing use of traditional tools (χ²(1) = 7.556, p = 0.006).

Fig. 1. Usage of ICT and traditional tools (%) over the course.

Hierarchical cluster analysis revealed that trainees are classified into two distinct clusters, based on the progress in the application of digital and traditional tools across the course. These two clusters exhibit different attitudes across training. In fact, the difference is detected in the fourth project, where the 12 trainees that belong to the first cluster used just one or two digital tools (median = 1), versus the six trainees of the second cluster who employed three to five digital tools (median = 4) (Mann Whitney U test, p < 0.001). The first cluster exhibited a fall in the application of digital tools in the fourth project (Friedman test, p = 0.011), whereas the second one showed an increase from the second to the last project (Friedman test, p = 0.007).

By examining the usage of specific digital tools’ categories between the clusters in more depth, it was found that trainees of the second cluster exhibited an increasing application of collaborative, constructive, and communicable tools (Friedman tests, p = 0.024, p = 0.028, p = 0.020, respectively), and no differences on informative tools. In accordance, no time-related differences in the application of the various categories of digital tools were found in the first cluster. Regarding the application of traditional tools, the two clusters showed also different attitudes. Participants in the first cluster showed a decreasing usage of traditional tools (Friedman test, p = 0.033), whereas those in the second cluster remained stable at utilizing one or two traditional tools per project, over time.

By examining the overall application of tools, regardless of time progress, a significant difference in the application of ICT tools between the two clusters was observed (Mann-Whitney U test, p = 0.001), with the second cluster exhibiting higher application not only of ICT tools generally, but specifically in the usage of collaborative (Mann-Whitney U test, p = 0.039) and constructive tools (Mann-Whitney U test, p=0.038), whereas the application of the remaining categories of ICT or traditional tools was the same between the two clusters. The two clusters differed in the proportions of realms they consisted of (Fisher exact test, p = 0.016). The first cluster comprised 33% of the Fine Arts’ teachers, all Foreign languages’ teachers, and 43% of the teachers of Humanities. Regarding the distribution of categories of ICT tools in all trainees, the usage of informative, collaborative, and constructive tools did not differ across the four projects, in contrast with communicative tools which differed across the course (Friedman test, p = 0.008), and specifically between the first and the last project, (post-hoc pairwise comparisons, Bonferroni correction, p = 0.022). Overall, the most popular digital tools were those belonging to constructive (36%), and collaborative (33%) categories (Fig. 2a). Accordingly, projections (51%) and school material (44%) dominated among traditional tools (Fig. 2b).

Fig. 2. Distribution of categories of a. ICT tools and b. traditional tools during the course.

With regards to the number of digital tools used in each lesson plan, 77.5% of all trainees applied one or two digital tools in every lesson plan they submitted, whereas a percentage of 22.5% applied three or more tools on each occasion. Only in one plan concerning the first project, no ICT tool was applied. In contrast, in 43.1% (31 out of 72) of the projects, there was no usage of traditional tools, whereas, in another 51.4%, this use was limited to one or two traditional tools per scenario.

Multidisciplinary Versus Specialized Tools

Multidisciplinary type tools were applied excessively, compared to specialized ones, starting from 85% in the first project and reaching 91% in the last one (Fig. 3). This excess of multidisciplinary tools was statistically confirmed (Fisher’s exact test, p = 0.011). No significant trend in the employment of multidisciplinary and specialized tools was exhibited in the course of time, taking all trainees together. However, when examining the two clusters separately, Friedman tests revealed significant differences in the application of multidisciplinary tools (but not specialized ones) in both clusters across the course (first cluster, p = 0.014 and second cluster, p = 0.031). The pattern was the same, i.e., in the first cluster there was an increase in the second project, but a decrease in the fourth, while in the second cluster, there was an increase in the fourth project. Generally, trainees in the second cluster applied more multidisciplinary tools in their lesson plans compared to those belonging to the first cluster (Mann-Whitney U test, p = 0.035).

Fig. 3. Usage of multidisciplinary and specialized type tools across the four projects by trainees.

Disciplines and Tools

An interesting quest was to look for a possible effect trainees’ discipline might have on their selections when it comes to digital tools. Trainees were classified into eight categories, along with subsequent grouping into three groups of realms. The number of scenarios in each category might be one or more.

Table III presents the usage of the four digital and the three traditional categories of tools in the projects submitted by each disciplinary group and in total, as a percentage of the projects. In all projects, digital tools’ application (98.6%) outweighs that of traditional ones (56.9%). By examining the application of specific categories of digital and traditional tools among disciplines, differences were observed regarding projections (Kruskal-Wallis test, p = 0.036) and physical objects (at the border of significance, Kruskal-Wallis test, p = 0.052). Post-hoc test revealed that teachers of Humanities utilized projections more than Arts’ teachers (p = 0.037) and Foreign Languages’ teachers (p = 0.041), whereas Fine Arts’ teachers applied more physical objects compared to Humanities (p = 0.029). Finally, specialized tools were used more by the teachers of Fine Arts than the other two disciplines (p = 0.002 with Foreign Language and p = 0.046 with Theoretical studies).

Table III. Utilization of Tools by the Three Disciplinary Groups and in Total (As Percentages of the Submitted Projects)

	Realm	Fine arts teachers (N = 3)	Foreign languages teachers (N = 8)	Humanities teachers (N = 7)	Total
	Projects (N)	12	32	28	72
ICT tools	Informative (%)	16.7	37.5	42.9	36.1
	Collaborative (%)	100.0	81.3	92.9	88.9
	Constructive (%)	100.0	93.8	96.4	95.8
	Communicative (%)	75.0	50.0	67.9	61.1
	Total ICT tools (%)	100.0	96.9	100.0	98.6
	Projections (%)	16.7	28.1	50.0	34.7
Traditional tools	Physical objects (%)	16.7	3.1	0.0	4.2
	School material (%)	50.0	40.6	32.1	38.9
	Total traditional (%)	58.3	56.3	57.1	56.9

By examining, within each discipline, the progress of each category of tools over time, it was found that the Fine Arts’ group used digital tools right from the beginning. Foreign Languages’ teachers showed a trend of increasing the use of communicative tools from the first to the fourth project (test for trend, p = 0.041), while they also used the other three categories of digital tools in 37.5%–93.8% of their projects. Finally, Humanities teachers exhibited a significantly decreasing use of traditional tools generally (test for trend, p = 0.027) and of school material specifically (p = 0.030). Taking all disciplines together, we observed an increasing usage of communicative digital tools across the four projects (test for trend, p = 0.002).

As for the employment of multidisciplinary and specialized tools, there was no differentiation over time, as the multidisciplinary tools surpassed the specialized ones, all along the course.

Finally, by examining the number of digital tools applied in the scenarios, some differences are observed between different disciplines. Chi-square tests showed that Foreign Language teachers are more likely to apply one or two digital tools in each lesson plan they develop, compared to the Fine Arts’ teachers (Fisher exact test = 9.193, p = 0.007) and Humanities teachers (χ²(2) = 6.571, p = 0.036), who tend to use three or more digital tools in the same scenario. The comparison between Fine Arts’ and Humanities’ teachers did not reveal any such difference (p = 0.412).

Discussion

The main finding of this study is that the progress in ICT engagement is independent of teachers’ disciplines and is mainly affected by personal traits, willingness to change, or other personal incentives. Cluster analysis distinguished two separate groups, based on digital tools’ use. The first group though enthusiastically began to embody digital tools, ended up rather tired, looking forward to completing training. The second group, as they were more enthusiastic than merely attracted by tools’ potentials, developed a distinct increasing interest across training. An explanation may be that, due to their restricted technological knowledge, teachers remained focused on whichever enlightening tip or information and any possible help they could get. They also wanted to learn the function of certain categories of tools. Constructive and collaborative tools were by far the ICT tools mostly used. This preference could be explained via their functionality: Constructive apps are designed for creative expression and allow children to build new skills or competencies, add new evidence, explore new ideas, and comprehend acquired knowledge, so ultimately they act and feel creative. Collaborative tools on the other hand allow colleagues intimacy as they interact by filling in their gaps, helping each other with a new skill or a new way of thinking or acting. Communicative tools complement the physical interaction of children that takes place at school and provide ground for building strong relationships. Informative tools that demand initiative in searching the Internet, were avoided by teachers, presumably for ensuring children’s safety and protection. Another obstacle to embracing the use of technology is the preparation of students for national exams [17]. There are curricula to be taught and stress is overwhelming teachers in Lyceum most of the time, while they feel the lack of time as a trap from which they cannot escape, in order to prepare their students for the introductory exams for University. That argument presupposes that teachers in upper secondary schools would have been negative in using ICT. Nevertheless, in this study regardless of the curricula, there existed those who changed their attitude towards integrating technology.

There was an obvious decrease in traditional tools’ use in the first cluster, while the second cluster steadily used one or two traditional tools in each lesson plan, all along the course. No use of traditional tools was observed in the 43.1% of teachers, yet another 51.4% used one or two of them, mostly projections and school material, in every submitted project. As shown in Table III, the Humanities group seems to have used projections more than others, most likely in an effort to change traditional teaching using a computer as an alternative teacher, which is not much of such a change. In contrast, the Fine Arts teachers seem to consider projections as not so innovative, as they use them in only 17% of their projects, the lowest percentage observed across disciplines. They prefer physical objects, however, more than other majors, perhaps because Art teachers, through their divergent thinking, create new perspectives on their use, harnessing them through a more creative, innovative pattern. Physical objects may offer new perspectives depending on the adopted approach, as recycling may be. Humanities teachers appear indifferent to physical objects, and show little interest in school material, using it in 32% of their projects. On the other hand, Fine Art teachers make higher use of the school material, that is the schoolbooks. It is reasonable to consider that their books are already innovative, challenging them and their pupils to new adventures, new creative thinking, or playing, like in theater or music plays. Therefore, Art teachers tend to integrate books into their lessons.

A high percentage of 77.5% of all teachers used one or two digital tools steadily in every project they submitted, whereas only 22.5% used three digital tools or more in their projects. Regarding the number of tools per scenario, Art and Humanities groups used three or more tools, whereas Foreign Language teachers applied just one or two digital tools along the course. A possible explanation for this differentiation may be the impact every discipline has on teachers' epistemologies and worldviews. Language, as any code, follows a mathematical structure. Therefore, Foreign Language teachers appeared to be more practical, adopting a simple and clear way of teaching, with one or two digital tools in every scenario. On the contrary, both Art and Humanities teachers adopted a more sophisticated holistic way of thinking, so they captured ideas of making their lessons impressive, joyful, and constructive at the same time. This concept ended up with three or more digital tools integrated into each one of their projects. So, these two disciplines used digital tools at a steady high rate.

Excessive use of multidisciplinary tools may be due to their complex (and many) features functionalities, so trainees of the second cluster were willing to embody them in their scenarios from the first till the last project. A possible explanation for this finding may be initial insecurity and false perceptions of these trainees, which gradually ended up in activities including technology. This means that only experts in ICT-or those who feel adequate and comfortable using technology-used specialized tools all along. Fine Arts’ teachers exhibited such an attitude, which makes them the most innovative and versatile group of teachers, in our experimentation.

According to our findings, Fine Arts’ teachers seem to be already familiar with digital tools and their features and/or advantages in learning scenarios, right from the beginning. This is to be expected given the fact that art is imaginative and creates prototypes in music or plays and may be attributed to their curriculum aiming at novel techniques and experiences, like the ones that digital tools are targeting. Both Humanities and Foreign Language teachers seem more reluctant to change their attitudes than Art specialists, who, by definition, create from scratch. In other words, Humanities teachers have acquired a mindset of observing changes in societies, people, characters, and events, judging and relating influences, causes, and effects. Changes in the way the school community operates are associated with changes in the actions and dynamics of society, which require long periods to consolidate. Therefore, they may have learned to function more skeptically. Inertia and other constraints have been reported to decelerate educational changes [18].

In accordance with previous research, some teachers experienced difficulties in embracing creative thinking and teaching, not giving up their way of thinking [19]. This makes them rigid in altering their mindset, while others, mostly the digitally literate, proved flexible in adopting innovation and changes [17]. These findings are in line with this study’s results, by taking into account the second group of teachers who exhibited progress from the beginning until the end of the training when finally became experts. Our research points out that even if teachers in the same discipline share attitudes and behaviors derived from their scientific field, the main determinants of whether or not they become digitally literate are their personality and willingness. In our sample, clusters with mixed disciplines but with similar progress in ICT engagement were distinguished, further validating this conclusion.

Nowadays, a major number of teachers have been trained in integrating ICT tools in their scenarios. Even though they mostly have excellent ideas involving a lot of ICT tools, they often lack technological equipment at the school. On the other hand, poverty increases the inadequacy of resources (e.g., money, internet connectivity, and so on), so most children in the wider province may be unable to keep up with technological pace. There is a necessity to adopt a more digital mentality and the Educational Policy of Ministry to become a provider of many goods, due to outdated tech status in most schools. There is no doubt that newly appointed teachers have skills and a good will to practice all new technological potentials, but they lose their interest as soon as they experience school reality over the years.

Conclusions

1) Informative, Collaborative, Constructive, and Communicative tools are interrelated and comprise the digital tools group. Traditional teaching, on the other hand, consists of Projections, Physical Objects, and School material.

2) Trainees conducted four projects to submit. It seems that in the last project, trainees were more comfortable and confident to include ICT tools in their teaching planning. The results show that trainees were willing to divert from the traditional educational tools and tried to develop novel skills in their educational scenarios.

3) Teachers sometimes use digital tools through the lens of traditional culture, indicating difficulties and rigidity in changing their mentality.

4) Multidisciplinary tools as a whole are used more than specialized ones, probably because teachers are novices and the specialized tools require more expertise, which lines up with perspectives in the field [20].

5) Disciplines were not found to play a major role in developing a teaching culture on digital literacy to survey trainees. It was rather personality traits that determined teachers’ progression. The first cluster showed no significant changes in digital tools’ use, but the second cluster developed confidence in digital tools and embraced them with ease. Research has proved extremely difficult for a teacher to alter their attitude towards ICT integration into teaching practice [21]. Yet, in the current study, since digital tools were of major and increasing- use, it seems that even novice teachers of ICT, dare to include innovative, digitally enriched content in learning design.