Learning Across Domains: Exploring Elementary Preservice Teachers’ Understanding of Technology’s Role in Equity Pedagogy

Abstract

This qualitative study explored how elementary preservice teachers (PSTs) in an equity-centered teacher preparation program understood technology’s role in equity pedagogy. Drawing on two focus groups of five PSTs each—organized to reflect the most recent cohort’s division into separate sub-cohorts—and a short reflective writing activity, we examined (1) how the PSTs conceptualized the relationship between technology and equity pedagogy, (2) what opportunities and challenges they perceived at this intersection, and (3) how various aspects of their program shaped their understanding. While PSTs generally viewed technology as a tool for advancing equity pedagogy, their understanding varied considerably between the two sub-cohorts, particularly in terms of their knowledge, confidence, and perceived barriers to teaching at the intersection of these domains. These differences appeared to stem from how well-supported PSTs felt in making connections between these domains across their coursework, field experiences, and peer interactions. This study reinforces the need for more intentionally integrated coursework that equips PSTs to use technology for advancing equity in the K–12 curriculum.

1. Introduction

As U.S. classrooms grow increasingly diverse, the need for equity-centered teacher preparation has never been more urgent. Nearly half of public school students come from racially, culturally, linguistically, and socioeconomically diverse backgrounds. In contrast, about 80% of teachers are white, middle-class women (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023). This demographic gap underscores the importance of preparing teachers to effectively support all learners (J. A. Banks, 2018; Ladson-Billings, 1995). In response, many teacher education programs have sought to embed equity and social justice principles into coursework (Darling-Hammond & Oakes, 2019). These initiatives reflect a broader movement toward preparing preservice teachers (PSTs) to enact equity pedagogy. C. A. M. Banks and Banks (1995) define equity pedagogy as, “teaching strategies that help students from diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural groups attain the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to function effectively within, and help create and perpetuate, a just, humane, and democratic society” (p. 152).

At the same time, the rapid expansion of digital tools and platforms has made technology a central feature of contemporary education (U.S. Department of Education, 2024). Emerging technologies such as generative AI continue to reshape how teaching and learning are mediated. When thoughtfully integrated, technology can expand equitable learning opportunities. For example, it can support multimodal instruction, enable translanguaging, and empower students to create content that reflects their identities (Donovan et al., 2014; Pleasants & Radloff, 2024). However, technology is not neutral. It operates within sociopolitical contexts and may reproduce, rather than disrupt, systemic inequities (Heath & Segal, 2021).

These risks are well-documented. Historically marginalized students are more likely to experience low-rigor, drill-and-practice technology use, while more privileged students engage more often in higher-order, creative, and collaborative digital learning (U.S. Department of Education, 2024). This “digital use divide” is often linked to teachers’ beliefs about technology’s role in equity pedagogy. For instance, when teachers view technology primarily as a tool for delivering content or managing compliance, students are more likely to encounter low-level, drill-and-practice uses. In contrast, when teachers see technology as a means to foster creativity, collaboration, and student voice, it is more often used in ways that promote equitable participation and deeper learning (Rafalow, 2014; Reich, 2019).

Equipping educators to critically evaluate and intentionally integrate technology is essential to disrupting curricular inequities (Cheah et al., 2023; Herring Watson & Wake, 2025). Yet, despite a growing body of scholarship emphasizing this need (e.g., Nzuza, 2025; Weisberg & Dawson, 2023), little is known about how PSTs themselves conceptualize the relationship between equity and technology, what opportunities and challenges they perceive at this intersection, and how program structures shape their understandings. This gap is particularly salient given the well-documented influence of teacher beliefs on technology integration decisions (Ertmer, 2005; Reich, 2019).

This study addressed this gap by examining the knowledge and perceptions of elementary PSTs enrolled in an equity-centered teacher preparation program at a historically white institution in the southeastern U.S. Like many university-based teacher preparation programs (Wilson et al., 2020), this one structures equity pedagogy and educational technology as separate domains, with dedicated coursework in each. This context provided a unique opportunity to investigate how and to what extent PSTs develop an integrated understanding of these domains, and how that understanding could shape their future pedagogy. This exploratory qualitative study was guided by the following questions:

• How do elementary PSTs conceptualize the relationship between technology and equity pedagogy?
• What opportunities and challenges do they perceive at this intersection?
• How do their program experiences shape their understanding of technology’s role in equity pedagogy?

2. Background and Framing

2.1. Study Context

This study took place in an undergraduate, equity-centered teacher preparation program leading to K-6 teacher certification with reading and ESOL endorsements. The program follows an upper-division cohort model. PSTs begin their coursework in the fall of their junior year and progress with the same group of peers, which fosters collaboration and reflects the social nature of learning (Vygotsky, 1978). Fieldwork is integrated throughout the program, with PSTs completing multiple short-term internship placements across diverse school settings during their junior year, followed by a year-long placement in a single classroom. These senior-year placements increase in intensity from two to four days per week, allowing PSTs to build sustained relationships with students and mentor teachers. Consistent with situated learning theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991), these field experiences provide authentic opportunities for PSTs to observe, enact, and reflect on equity pedagogy principles in real-world classroom settings.

A central feature of the program’s equity-centered design is an “equity pedagogy” course sequence offered across four consecutive semesters. The curriculum is anchored in the cross-pollination of two inclusive teaching frameworks: Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and Culturally and Linguistically Sustaining Pedagogy (CLSP). Drawing on cognitive neuroscience research, UDL centers on proactively designing flexible, multimodal learning environments that anticipate and reduce barriers to learning through multiple means of engagement, representation, and action/expression (CAST, 2018). CLSP, in turn, treats students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds as assets rather than obstacles. It also emphasizes the development of critical consciousness, helping students recognize their ability to challenge oppressive systems and advocate for change in their communities and beyond (Paris, 2012; Paris & Alim, 2017). Prominent equity scholars recommend cross-pollinating these frameworks to address both the structural barriers and sociocultural factors that shape students’ educational experiences (e.g., Kieran & Anderson, 2019; Waitoller & Thorius, 2016). Building on this foundation, the equity pedagogy courses invite PSTs to examine how intersecting minoritized identities such as race, ability, gender, language, and sexuality shape students’ K-12 schooling experiences and outcomes.

PSTs also take a stand-alone educational technology course during the first semester of their senior year. Although not formally integrated into the equity pedagogy sequence, the ed tech course includes concepts such as UDL, ethical dimensions of digital citizenship, and how emerging technologies like AI can reinforce biases and systemic inequities in schools. The program’s parallel emphasis on equipping PSTs with foundational knowledge in both equity pedagogy and technology integration creates a valuable context for investigating how they understand the relationship between these domains. Next, we examine technology’s role in equity pedagogy, identify related opportunities and challenges, and consider how teacher preparation programs can better equip PSTs to teach with technology in equity-focused ways.

2.2. Technology’s Role in Equity Pedagogy

As technology becomes more deeply embedded in K–12 education, it is essential for educators to recognize that its impact on equity depends on how it is integrated in the curriculum. When guided by a critical lens and implemented with intention, technology can serve as a powerful tool for advancing equitable teaching. Digital tools offer multiple pathways for engagement, representation, and expression—core principles of UDL (CAST, 2018). For example, adaptive learning platforms can tailor content to students’ readiness levels, while multimodal tools such as videos, simulations, and visual organizers can enhance accessibility (Howorth et al., 2024). Assistive technologies, such as speech-to-text software, screen readers, and alternative input devices, can remove learning barriers for students with disabilities. Similarly, accessibility features like captions, voice-dictation tools, and digital language supports can expand access for multilingual learners while honoring their linguistic identities (Dieker et al., 2024; Navas-Bonilla et al., 2025). Technology can also support CLSP-aligned goals by affirming students’ cultural backgrounds and expanding opportunities for representation. Collaborative platforms and student-created media, such as digital stories, can center students’ diverse voices and experiences, while digital portfolios and mind-mapping applications offer flexible, culturally responsive ways for students to demonstrate their understanding (Navas-Bonilla et al., 2025; Paris & Alim, 2017). Collectively, these opportunities illustrate technology’s potential to support equity pedagogy.

However, realizing this potential is not automatic. Digital tools are designed and implemented within sociocultural and political contexts, often reflecting the values, assumptions, and biases of their creators—biases that can become embedded in algorithms, interfaces, and instructional features (Benjamin, 2019). These assumptions can lead to reductive uses of technology, such as drill-and-practice exercises, automated assessments, or content delivery platforms that prioritize efficiency over student agency and engagement (Reich, 2019). Historically marginalized students are especially likely to encounter technology as a mechanism for remediation or control, rather than as a means of developing 21st-century competencies like creativity, collaboration, and critical thinking (Herring Watson & Wake, 2025; Reich, 2019).

Understanding why these inequitable patterns persist requires examining the barriers that influence teachers’ technology integration decisions. Ertmer’s (1999) framework offers a useful distinction between first-order (external) and second-order (internal) barriers. First-order barriers include insufficient availability of technology and limited time and support for its integration. While these barriers may persist in some under-resourced communities, technology access in U.S. schools and communities has expanded significantly in recent years. As of 2019, over 99% of schools had broadband internet (EducationSuperHighway, 2019), while the shift to remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic further accelerated 1:1 device initiatives across districts (Connect K-12, 2022). As a result, attention has increasingly shifted to second-order barriers. These internal barriers can present more persistent challenges in contemporary classrooms than external barriers (Durff & Carter, 2019; Reich, 2019). These include teachers’ attitudes toward technology’s value for learning and their confidence and willingness to shift their pedagogical practices, all of which are influenced by broader cultural norms and the nature of their preparation.

2.3. Preparing Teachers to Integrate Technology for Equity

Addressing these barriers begins with how future teachers are prepared to think about and use technology in the classroom. This work extends beyond cultivating technical fluency, requiring a deep understanding of how digital tools can be integrated in alignment with inclusive teaching frameworks like UDL and CLSP. PSTs must not only understand how technology functions in educational settings but also critically examine how it shapes, and is shaped by, curriculum, classroom power dynamics, and broader sociopolitical contexts (Nzuza, 2025; Weisberg & Dawson, 2023).

Recent scholarship emphasizes the importance of cultivating PSTs’ balanced, critically informed beliefs about educational technologies. This entails preparing them to ask not just how a tool works, but who it benefits, when it should be used, and whether it supports or undermines their instructional goals (Cheah et al., 2023; Pleasants & Radloff, 2024). Without this critical lens, teachers risk perpetuating inequitable practices with technology—for example, relegating students to low-quality digital tasks, using technology as a mechanism for compliance rather than engagement, or adopting emerging technologies like AI without considering embedded racial or linguistic biases. Yet, while existing research highlights the importance of preparing future teachers to examine the ethical and pedagogical dimensions of technology use, it remains unclear how PSTs conceptualize the relationship between technology and equity, what opportunities and challenges they perceive at this intersection, and how specific aspects of their preparation shape this understanding. This study seeks to address these gaps.

3. Method

3.1. Participants

At the time of data collection in Spring 2025, 41 PSTs were enrolled in their final semester of the aforementioned equity-centered teacher preparation program. The cohort was divided into two sub-cohort groups of 22 and 19 PSTs, intentionally organized by program coordinators to reflect diversity across racial/ethnic backgrounds and academic performance. All 41 PSTs were invited to participate in this study and offered USD 20 in compensation. Ten PSTs volunteered—five from each sub-cohort group. All participants identified as female; eight were white, one was white and Hispanic/Latina, and one was Black and Asian. While demographic data for the entire cohort were not available to the research team, the program coordinator confirmed that this sample reflected the overall composition of the cohort, which, like the broader U.S. elementary teaching workforce, was predominantly white women.

3.2. Data Collection

Because of the close relationships fostered by the program’s cohort model, we conducted separate focus groups for each sub-cohort group of PSTs, ensuring that participants could build on shared experiences (Krueger & Casey, 2015). Focus groups lasted approximately one hour each, were conducted in person, and followed a structured protocol aligned with this study’s research questions. The protocol, included in Appendix A, invited participants to: (a) establish shared definitions of equity pedagogy and educational technology, and (b) discuss the relationship between these domains, opportunities and challenges of integration, and program influences.

The first author facilitated both focus groups. The second author, who had served as the cohort’s instructor for their stand-alone educational technology course, observed and asked occasional follow-up questions. This pairing allowed for a deeper understanding of participants’ program experiences and contributed to trust-building. At the conclusion of each focus group, we engaged in a brief form of member checking (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) by asking participants whether they felt their views aligned with one another and reflected their broader cohort groups’ perspectives. Participants emphatically affirmed that they did, providing additional confidence in the representativeness of the group discussions.

Following the focus groups, participants individually completed a short, reflective “wrap-up” writing activity, featured in Appendix B. This activity was designed to clarify participants’ perspectives, expand their thoughts, capture ideas they may not have shared in group discussion, and evaluate the extent to which equity pedagogy principles were reflected in three representative teaching scenarios involving technology: (1) a math gaming app where students progress individually, (2) a teacher-led lesson using digital slides to introduce parts of speech, and (3) a group project in which students use a block-based coding platform to create animations about invasive species.

3.3. Data Analysis

Immediately after each focus group, the first and second authors debriefed and recorded initial impressions. We then engaged in multiple rounds of reflexive thematic analysis rooted in Braun and Clarke’s (2021) method. First, we read focus group transcripts and participants’ reflective writings in full to establish familiarity. Second, we conducted open coding to identify broad patterns in participants’ perspectives. Third, we iteratively refined codes, compared them across data sources, and organized them into focused categories. Finally, we condensed these categories into themes aligned with this study’s research questions.

The first author took the lead on coding and theme development, with the second author reviewing codes, challenging interpretations, and collaboratively refining categories. The first author also drew on the second author’s role as the PSTs’ educational technology instructor to contextualize differences observed between the two groups. These consultations, while not part of the formal data set, provided valuable insights into programmatic and pedagogical influences shaping participants’ varied perspectives. Analytic rigor was supported through these collaborative discussions, peer debriefing among the research team, and the involvement of the third author as a critical friend (Stenhouse, 1975), who provided alternative interpretations and prompted deeper reflection. This triangulation of perspectives fostered critical reflexivity and strengthened trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

The coding template was explicitly guided by this study’s theoretical framing. Equity pedagogy (C. A. M. Banks & Banks, 1995) provided the overarching lens for examining how participants conceptualized teaching for diverse learners, while UDL (CAST, 2018) and CLSP (Paris & Alim, 2017) informed the operationalization of equity-oriented teaching practices. Ertmer’s (1999) first- and second-order barriers further shaped how we interpreted opportunities and challenges the participants described. These frameworks helped us connect codes to the research questions and ensure analytic consistency across data sources.

3.4. Ethical Considerations

Ethical safeguards were in place throughout this study. All participants provided written informed consent prior to participation. Focus group recordings were deleted after transcription, and all identifying details were removed from transcripts and reflective writings. For confidentiality, all quotations presented in the Findings section are attributed to pseudonyms selected by participants. Each pseudonym is followed by the participant’s focus group designation when appropriate (e.g., Caroline, Group 1). To further protect confidentiality, the data for this study are not publicly shared, as qualitative reflections and group discussions may include potentially identifiable details given the small group context.

4. Findings

4.1. How Do Elementary PSTs Conceptualize the Relationship Between Technology and Equity Pedagogy?

Participants generally viewed technology as a valuable tool for supporting equity pedagogy, particularly in promoting accessibility and engagement through UDL. However, their understandings of how technology can support both UDL and CLSP varied considerably, with notable differences in understanding observed between the two groups.

4.1.1. Technology’s Role in UDL

Participants across both focus groups recognized technology’s potential for supporting UDL, particularly through multiple means of representation. Several participants highlighted translation software and closed captions as valuable for bridging language barriers for English Language Learners (ELLs) and providing alternative formats for students with disabilities. For example, Caroline (Group 1) explained, “Offering multiple forms of representation is much easier with speech-to-text, assisted tech, closed captions, audio, [and e-readers].” Participants also recognized affordances in gamified platforms like Reflex Math and Amira, an AI-powered reading tutor, for adapting content and feedback based on students’ skill levels. Having witnessed Amira help one of the students in her field placement segment and blend words, Noelle (Group 1) expressed that her students appreciate “getting one-on-one [support]” from these types of programs.

Many participants also saw value in leveraging technology to promote multiple means of engagement. For instance, Caroline (Group 1) described a hands-on activity where her students interacted with Bee-Bot robots as “incredibly engaging,” while Bella (Group 2) explained how tools like Achieve3000, an adaptive reading platform, align content with students’ interests. Participants also appreciated how technology can offer immediate feedback and rewards. Leah (Group 1) described her experience teaching with a gamified math program where a student excitedly shared, ‘Look, I won the toothbrush!’—showing how even small rewards can foster engagement. Bella (Group 2) similarly highlighted her students’ enthusiasm for a daily Google Forms activity that featured “fun things they really love,” like presenting a “joke of the day and letting them write how funny it is.”

Most participants were also able to connect the wrap-up activity scenarios to UDL principles, identifying both where technology supported UDL and where gaps remained. In scenario #1, which featured a math gaming app where students progressed individually, Taylor (Group 1) explained that the tool aligned with UDL because it “allows the students to interact with the content at their own pace.” Similarly, Ashley (Group 2) highlighted the program’s adaptive features as evidence of multiple means of representation, noting how it adjusted difficulty to students’ variability. At the same time, participants effectively pointed out where UDL principles were lacking. Reflecting on the same scenario, Noelle (Group 1) voiced a perspective echoed across both groups: “Students are working towards the SAME goals. Not all students have their same abilities, so their goals should be different.” Emily (Group 2) raised additional concerns about the math game, cautioning that “speed/badges could cause some students stress/anxiety.”

Notably, Group 1 more readily offered examples of how technology can promote all three UDL principles, including multiple means of action and expression, a principle that Group 2 did not address. For instance, Caroline explained that technology “gives students different ways to respond and express themselves” and “represent information [how] they want to.” These examples, while foundational, highlighted how technology can support diverse learning needs in basic yet effective ways. Group 1 participants also mentioned tools like Apple Freeform, a digital whiteboard app that allows for various forms of expression (e.g., images, text, video), and Pink Cat, an educational gaming platform where students can respond orally, manipulate objects on screen, and create their own question sets. As Vada (Group 1) emphatically stated, “I tried Pink Cat games, and my kids loved it!”

In contrast, Group 2 initially struggled to articulate connections between UDL and technology. When prompted to consider how the two domains intersected, the group initially fell into a long silence until Zoey expressed, “I don’t think of tech when I think of UDL,” a sentiment that others affirmed with nods. Emily added, “I just never made that connection.” Although Group 2 participants eventually offered relevant examples, their ideas were more teacher-centered. For instance, they described using digital slides and videos to deliver content or gamifying lessons with tools like Reflex Math, but unlike Group 1, they did not highlight how technology could support UDL principles by empowering students to create content or engage in more flexible, student-centered forms of learning.

4.1.2. Technology’s Role in CLSP

Overall, participants’ understanding of technology’s role in CLSP was less developed compared to UDL. Group 1 made more meaningful connections, with several participants describing technology’s potential for supporting translanguaging with tools like Google Translate and educational apps like BrainPOP, which offers language translation features. Vada emphasized how technology can be used to not only increase cultural representation but also challenge traditional Eurocentric pedagogical norms, stating, “You can have videos or audio of people reading books with a certain cultural dialect… so it’s not always the traditional white female educator [delivering content].”

In contrast, Group 2 participants mainly focused on teacher-driven uses of technology for learning about students’ cultural backgrounds. For instance, Victoria described searching online for information about Ramadan to share with her class, explaining, “a lot of the students were asking, What is Ramadan? And we didn’t really know. So we were able to look it up and explain to them what it is.” Similarly, Emily recalled finding a video on YouTube of a traditional song during the Chinese New Year, explaining, “We were able to look it up [online]... it is really nice that you can pull up pictures or a video.” While these examples promoted cultural awareness, they were reactive; technology was used to address cultural topics as they arose during instruction, rather than to proactively center students’ cultural and linguistic assets or challenge traditional pedagogical norms.

Notably, neither group discussed technology’s potential to foster critical consciousness through student-driven activities such as multimedia presentations, digital stories, or podcasts. This gap persisted in the wrap-up activity data. For example, when reflecting on scenario #2, in which the teacher delivered a lesson on parts of speech using digital slides while students took notes, Zoey (Group 2) was the only participant to propose a revision that explicitly emphasized cultural and linguistic relevance. She recommended, “Include connections to the things culturally/linguistically/personally relevant to individual/groups of students, ensuring EVERY student is reflected somehow.” No other participants mentioned CLSP-related ideas in the wrap-up activity, instead focusing their attention solely on the presence or absence of UDL principles.

4.2. What Opportunities and Challenges Do PSTs Perceive at the Intersection of Technology and Equity Pedagogy?

While both groups identified similar opportunities and challenges, they differed in which aspects they emphasized most, as well as in their motivation to confront perceived challenges in order to pursue opportunities for educational equity.

4.2.1. Teaching Opportunities

As previously noted, participants in both groups described how technology can offer rich opportunities to advance equity pedagogy. However, the nature of the opportunities that were discussed varied between Groups 1 and 2. Group 1 positioned technology as a foundational element of equitable teaching, emphasizing its potential to support both student learning and instructional decision-making. As Taylor reflected, “If we didn’t have technology, I don’t know what we would do to help kids who [are struggling].” Others echoed this sentiment. For instance, Caroline declared, “I think [tech] is essential to engage students, represent information, and acknowledge cultural and linguistic identities. I feel like we’re going to be the ‘new gen’ teachers [who] use tech for everything… but I’m excited to!”

In contrast, Group 2 participants tended to view technology as a tool for supporting teacher-driven tasks, such as designing and delivering equity-focused lessons, rather than perceiving opportunities for increasing student expression and engagement. As Victoria explained, “What I’m mostly looking forward to using technology for is lesson planning… looking online for what’s already out there.” Several Group 2 participants discussed the utility of generative AI tools for streamlining this work. For instance, Bella noted, “I can just get an answer [from a tool like ChatGPT] to base my lesson on,” while Ashley added, “I love AI! I’ll definitely use it for teaching advice.” Group 2 participants also mentioned tools like Canva and Google Slides as helpful for creating multimodal instructional content, and Google Forms for gathering information about their students.

4.2.2. Teaching Challenges

Participants identified a range of challenges that aligned with Ertmer’s (1999) external (first-order) and internal (second-order) barriers to technology integration. Notably, while Group 1 participants acknowledged these challenges, they did not dwell on them. In contrast, Group 2 participants expressed deeper apprehension about how such challenges could hinder their ability to teach with technology in equity-focused ways.

External Barriers. Participants identified gaps in technology access as a persistent barrier to equitable technology integration, expressing particular frustration over the high cost of advanced technologies. Emily (Group 2) expressed, “I think [it’s] awesome to bring robots into the classroom, but I’m very discouraged by the cost.” Vada (Group 1) similarly noted, “It’ll be easier to use iPads or things we already have, rather than getting fancy robotics.” Several participants also voiced concerns that students without home access to devices or internet may be at a growing disadvantage if technology becomes more central to a teacher’s pedagogy. As Bella (Group 2) explained, “We encourage the kids to go home and do Reflex [Math], [but some] may not have a laptop or Wi-Fi, and then [others] are coming back way ahead.”

Participants also described limited time and support as major constraints. Vada (Group 1) remarked, “I feel like [integrating technology] takes up a lot of instructional time,” a sentiment echoed by participants in both groups. Several Group 1 participants also believed teaching foundational digital literacy skills to be burdensome. As Leah explained, “When the iPads first came in, [students] were struggling to log in every day for weeks.” Noelle added, “We have a tech period where the kids do iStation or Reflex [Math], but they don’t [learn] the foundational knowledge of what a computer is, what the keys mean... So it takes up time.”

Several Group 2 participants expressed particular concerns about how rigid pacing guides and curriculum mandates restricted their ability to integrate technology meaningfully. As Zoey shared, “We have a pile of Dash robots [at my placement school], and they’ve never been touched [because] of required curriculum stuff.” Group 2 also voiced frustration over the time-intensive nature of mandated online testing, especially when the software was perceived as inaccessible. As Ashley shared, “My kids take all their tests on paper, then we have them fill out a bubble sheet and enter it online. It’s wasted time that we could be using for real technology integration.”

Internal Barriers. Many participants expressed concerns about a lack of preparedness they felt to integrate technology with equity pedagogy. This challenge seemed rooted in a broader lack of confidence. For example, Noelle (Group 1) described seeing a TikTok video about Class Dojo, a gamified classroom management tool. While intrigued, she hesitated to implement it, expressing, “Class Dojo looks so fun, but actually doing it in practice? I don’t know how that could work.” Several Group 2 participants conveyed a particular sense of uncertainty and insecurity. Victoria expressed, “Using and integrating technology is really hard for me,” while Zoey wondered how she could effectively teach her students how to use technology in equitable ways when she didn’t “feel completely competent” doing so herself.

Participants in both groups expressed some internal resistance to technology integration, particularly around online testing platforms. Bella (Group 2) described her frustration with rigid district mandates: “They have a very, very specific test window… our class might not have finished Chapter 4. All the teachers are complaining, but even the district rep said she couldn’t change it.” Others highlighted developmental challenges for younger students. Noelle (Group 1) explained, “Starting in third grade, [students] do all of their testing online… but we give them a paper copy first, because they’re not used to the technology yet. Some don’t even know how to enter their password.”

Some participants also questioned whether more interactive tools like adaptive learning games promote meaningful learning or merely surface-level engagement. Emily (Group 2) noted that while her students enjoyed playing Reflex Math, their scores on math fluency tests remained low. Zoey (Group 2) raised a similar concern about iReady, a personalized learning platform for reading and math: “Kids do iReady at home, and their parents help them… then they can’t do [the same concepts] in class.” Classroom management was another point of concern for some participants. Leah (Group 1) described noticing how repeated uses of “fun games” on iPads led students to disengage from traditional learning tasks: “When we do actual work [without technology], they say, ‘This is boring, I don’t want to do it.’” Several Group 2 participants expressed similar anxiety over the novelty of more advanced digital tools, with Victoria predicting, “The robots are going to cause fights. They’re also going to get broken.” These concerns appeared to reflect a deeper fear of overreliance on technology by both Groups. Several Group 1 participants worried that constant use of tools like Google Translate might hinder ELLs’ language development. As Vada argued, “If you are always Google translating to talk to [students], then they’re not really learning, and you’re not teaching them in the best way.” Several Group 2 participants also questioned the social-emotional implications of screen time for students’ mental well-being. For instance, Ashley shared, “I feel like I’m not doing the right thing putting [students] on a computer, because they need interaction with other kids.”

Despite these concerns, Group 1 generally expressed optimism about technology’s potential to promote equitable learning. For instance, Taylor described technology as “the basis of everything,” emphasizing its central role in modern classrooms. She argued that limiting its use would be counterproductive, responding emphatically, “Please, no!” when asked if technology should be scaled back in the curriculum. In contrast, Group 2 voiced stronger reservations about students’ long-term technology reliance, expressing uncertainty about the payoff. As Ashley shared, “My biggest concern [is], when does it end? Will students be on computers 100% of the day in 10 years?” Victoria similarly expressed, “Even if you did give technology a good shot, it takes so much time and energy, I don’t know if it is worth it.” Bella added, “The way I integrate tech in my class will depend on how supported I am. If I don’t have resources or help, I probably won’t integrate it in my first year [of teaching].”

4.3. How Do PSTs’ Program Experiences Shape Their Understanding of Technology’s Role in Equity Pedagogy?

Participants’ understanding was mainly shaped by their coursework, field experiences, and peer interactions. While certain aspects supported integrated thinking, others posed challenges to establishing meaningful and lasting connections between technology and equity pedagogy, with notable differences in how each group experienced and made sense of these influences.

4.3.1. Coursework

Many participants credited their ed tech course with helping them overcome initial resistance to integrating technology in the elementary curriculum. Group 2 participants, in particular, had entered the program with significant skepticism. As Victoria shared, “I came in so closed minded… And then the [ed tech] class opened [me] up to the idea that technology can be really great.” Zoey added, “My perspective changed to thinking that it was possible to integrate technology strategically throughout [all] content areas.” Group 1 participants echoed this shift in perspective, noting that the tech course expanded their understanding of age-appropriate tools beyond platforms like Google Classroom and YouTube to interactive apps like Pink Cat and Blookit, a game-based quiz-style learning platform. Caroline reflected, “I [initially] tied technology with testing, which gave me anxiety. But after integrating tools in my internship [that we learned about in class], I got to see it positively in a real-life scenario.” Despite these optimistic takeaways, both groups agreed that their ed tech course did not make the connection between technology and equity pedagogy explicit enough, even with a unit dedicated to UDL.

This concern also extended to the program’s overall structure. Nearly all participants described a persistent divide between coursework focused on technology and coursework focused on equity pedagogy. They felt this separation limited their ability to see how the two domains could intersect. Bella (Group 2) explained that the program “made it hard to merge the two… [they] are not intertwined [in our courses], which creates this perception that tech is an isolated subject.” Participants from both groups expressed a desire for more integrated coursework. Vada (Group 1) suggested, “It might be beneficial to add tech in the other [equity pedagogy] classes, and maybe even our internship seminar, [as] we went through a whole year [in the program] where tech wasn’t really discussed much at all.”

Despite these structural challenges, several Group 1 participants described meaningful course experiences that helped bridge their understandings; most notably, a guest speaker with physical disabilities who demonstrated how assistive technologies supported his learning. Taylor recalled, “That [experience] stuck with me… I learned that tech could help people,” while Noelle similarly emphasized that “actually seeing technology used in practice for people who need [it]” left a lasting impression. Although Group 2 engaged in the same activities during their coursework, such experiences did not appear to have a comparable impact, as no Group 2 participants mentioned them.

4.3.2. Fieldwork

Participants’ understandings and perceptions were also meaningfully shaped by their fieldwork experiences, though the nature of this influence varied between groups. For most Group 1 participants, field placements appeared to reinforce and extend the connections they had begun forming in their courses. They described observing equitable and effective technology use by mentor teachers and implementing their own tech-enhanced lessons with positive results. Caroline shared how leading a computational thinking lesson with robots transformed her perspective: “I had students who cannot sit down for five minutes sitting through a 30-min lesson, and now I’m actually excited to use technology in the classroom!” Other Group 1 participants described applying interactive tools they learned about in their ed tech course, such as Pink Cat and Bee-Bot robots, and seeing increased student engagement. These hands-on, practical experiences solidified Group 1’s belief that technology can meaningfully support equity pedagogy when thoughtfully implemented.

In contrast, Group 2 participants described how their field experiences made it difficult to sustain the positive perspective shifts they’d gained from their coursework. Barriers described previously such as limited time, rigid curricula, and the isolation of technology from core instructional practices hindered their ability to make meaningful connections between the two domains. For instance, Zoey expressed that while she’d experienced a positive shift in her perceptions of technology’s role in equity pedagogy during her ed tech course, “my perspective sort of returned to the original as I saw technology not being integrated at [my] school… it’s separate from [the core] curriculum.” Bella similarly emphasized, “We don’t see a lot of really cool tech integration because that’s saved for computer lab, or we don’t have the time to explore it.” Group 2 participants also expressed that their mentor teachers lacked the knowledge and confidence to integrate technology equitably, reinforcing their own doubts about doing so. These persistent disconnects between coursework and fieldwork led Group 2 to question if and how technology could meaningfully support equity pedagogy in real classroom contexts.

4.3.3. Peer Interactions

Group 1 participants emphasized the value of cohort-based interactions in shaping their understandings and perceptions of technology’s role in equity pedagogy. Noelle attributed great value to “hearing how other people are using tech in their placements… what works [and] what didn’t work.” Taylor similarly emphasized, “It’s so beneficial to hear, ‘Oh, this worked for my second graders,’ and think, ‘I should try it!” Several participants remarked that these ongoing, informal conversations with cohort peers helped them overcome initial doubts and hesitations, allowing them to more clearly envision how technology could support equity pedagogy. These exchanges appeared to foster a shared sense of purpose among Group 1 participants, contributing to a kind of group-level consensus around the value of technology integration. As Caroline confidently noted, “We all share similar views on integrating tech.” While Group 2 participants also expressed sharing aligned views with one another, they did not attribute peer interactions with shaping their understanding of technology’s role in equity pedagogy.

5. Discussion

This study explored how elementary PSTs enrolled in an equity-centered teacher preparation program understand technology’s role in equity pedagogy. It makes a novel contribution by shifting the focus from what teacher educators design to how PSTs themselves conceptualize the intersection of equity and technology in the curriculum. No prior studies have examined these conceptualizations directly, despite the strong influence of teacher beliefs on technology integration practices (Ertmer, 2005; Reich, 2019).

Findings revealed that participants widely viewed technology as a valuable tool for advancing equity, particularly through the UDL principles. These findings align with existing research on technology’s potential for increasing the accessibility and flexibility of instruction to support diverse learners (CAST, 2018; Dieker et al., 2024). However, only Group 1 offered concrete examples of how technology can support multiple means of action and expression. Both groups also demonstrated a more limited, teacher-centered understanding of how technology can support CLSP, providing few examples that centered student voice, identity, or critical consciousness.

This finding suggests that while UDL has gained some traction in teacher preparation, CLSP remains under-integrated in technology coursework, leading to uneven uptake among PSTs. These findings echo prior research showing that PSTs often approach technology integration without a critical lens, focusing on access and functionality rather than on how digital tools can reinforce or disrupt systemic inequities in the classroom (Herring Watson & Wake, 2025; Weisberg & Dawson, 2023).

Participants identified a range of opportunities and challenges at the intersection of technology and equity pedagogy, with notable differences in how the groups perceived and engaged with these possibilities. Despite acknowledging both external and internal barriers, Group 1 perceived technology as essential for enacting equitable instruction, particularly in supporting accessibility through tools such as assistive technologies and adaptive platforms. In contrast, Group 2 tended to view technology as an optional support rather than a central component of teaching.

One explanation for this difference is that Group 1 had more opportunities to see technology modeled effectively in their field placements and to discuss its meaningful usage with peers. Group 2, in contrast, appeared to have fewer of these reinforcing experiences. The outcome resulting from such a discrepancy aligns with research on situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991) that emphasizes the role of authentic, social contexts in shaping professional beliefs. Group 2’s more limited and teacher-centered framing of technology’s role in equity pedagogy further reflects the persistence of second-order barriers—specifically, beliefs about technology’s value for learning (Ertmer & Newby, 2016).

Our findings echoe Reich’s (2019) argument that structural inequities are often reproduced when educators frame digital equity narrowly as access rather than student-centered practice. Additionally, they extend Williamson et al.’ (2023) work on technology infusion by showing that leaving integration to chance, rather than embedding it coherently across equity and technology coursework, may reinforce these second-order barriers rather than disrupt them. In this way, our findings contribute to a growing body of work (e.g., Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2007; Tondeur et al., 2012) calling for program coherence as a critical factor in PSTs’ ability to apply complex pedagogical frameworks at the intersection of these domains.

Participants’ conceptualizations of technology’s role in equity pedagogy were shaped by multiple aspects of their teacher preparation program, though the nature and impact of these influences varied across groups. Both groups lamented the separation between coursework on equity pedagogy and educational technology, with Group 2 particularly noting that this structural divide hindered their ability to form lasting, integrated understandings across the two domains. In contrast, Group 1 described how, in the absence of explicit integration of technology and equity pedagogy in their coursework, peer interactions and student-centered fieldwork experiences helped them make meaningful connections between these domains. This finding extends the literature by showing not what kinds of technology integration opportunities PSTs are exposed to but how they interpret, negotiate, and internalize those experiences within equity-focused program contexts. This lens highlights how program structures and peer contexts shape conceptual development in ways that have not been fully explored in prior research.

In doing so, it aligns with and extends prior research demonstrating that PSTs benefit from opportunities to learn about technology integration through collaborative interactions and authentic, context-based applications of their knowledge (Tondeur et al., 2012). However, our findings diverge from Tondeur and colleagues’ conclusions in that peer interactions served as a primary—not supplementary—mechanism for bridging domains, a dynamic that appeared to meaningfully support Group 1’s ability to connect technology integration with equity pedagogy, but did not seem to similarly enhance Group 2’s learning. This underscores that while social and situated learning opportunities can be valuable (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978), there are limits to relying on incidental or informal learning alone.

This notion helps explain the sharp contrast between the two groups: PSTs with multiple, authentic contexts in which to experiment with equity and technology integration developed richer conceptualizations, while those without such contexts maintained narrower, more fragmented views. These findings underscore the need for intentional alignment across coursework, field experiences, and reflective opportunities to support deep conceptual integration (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2007). Notably, we observed little dissonance in participants’ responses within the two focus groups. When asked directly whether they felt their views aligned with one another and reflected their broader sub-cohort group, participants emphatically affirmed that they did. This absence of divergent perspectives within groups may reflect a phenomenon akin to groupthink, where consensus is maintained through shared assumptions, or it may reflect the cohort-based structure of the program, which fosters close relationships and shared meaning-making. While this dynamic limited opportunities to explore counter-perspectives, it also highlights how cohort-based programs can cultivate powerful, collective orientations toward teaching, even if those orientations lack critical tension needed for deeper reflection (Sapon-Shevin & Chandler-Olcott, 2001).

5.1. Implications for Teacher Educators

This study offers several implications for how teacher preparation programs can better prepare PSTs to make curricular connections between technology and equity pedagogy. We organize these recommendations in three priority areas.

First, programs should move beyond treating these domains of teacher knowledge as separate and distinctive. While stand-alone educational technology courses offer valuable exposure to digital tools and practices (Wilson et al., 2020), they should not be the only context in which PSTs engage with technology’s pedagogical and equity dimensions. A technology infusion approach such as the one outlined by Williamson et al. (2023) offers a compelling alternative by embedding technology-rich, contextually grounded learning experiences across teacher preparation coursework, methods instruction, and field placements. While developed nearly two decades earlier, McShay and Leigh’s (2005) double infusion framework remains a valuable complement, highlighting the reciprocal importance of embedding equity frameworks such as UDL and CLSP into educational technology courses while also integrating critical technology-related concepts into equity-focused coursework. In practice, this means equity pedagogy courses might require PSTs to design a lesson that incorporates either UDL or CLSP and a digital tool, while ed tech courses could ask PSTs to analyze case studies of technology use through a UDL or CLSP lens. Embedding these types of integrated assignments would help move programs beyond parallel, siloed treatment of these domains.

Second, teacher preparation programs should consider how fieldwork and collaborative learning opportunities are structured to support PSTs in extending the connections they make between technology and equity pedagogy in their coursework. One promising approach is to have PSTs collaborate with their mentor teachers to co-design and implement a lesson in which technology supports equity pedagogy in student-centered ways. This process might begin with a discussion about available technology, instructional needs, and shared goals, allowing both parties to meaningfully contribute. Teacher educators could scaffold this process by providing planning templates that prompt PSTs to identify which UDL or CLSP principles a tech-enhanced lesson addresses and then debriefing these lessons in seminar settings. Such collaboration shifts the locus of control, positioning PSTs not only as learners but also as contributors to their mentor teachers’ ongoing professional growth—an important consideration given that many educators lack the preparation and mindsets needed to equitably integrate technology (Weisberg & Dawson, 2023, 2024). In parallel, teacher educators should create space within seminar courses for structured peer dialogue about technology’s role in equity pedagogy. For instance, PSTs could present dilemmas from their fieldwork and discuss how technology might support or hinder equity-focused instruction in those instances.

Third, teacher preparation programs must prioritize the development of equitable technology integration strategies—an area where many PSTs in this study, particularly those in Group 2, demonstrated significant gaps in understanding. For instance, participants’ enthusiasm about integrating emerging technologies like generative AI in their teaching was rarely accompanied by critical reflection on how these tools might reinforce bias, surveillance, or curricular inequities (Heath & Segal, 2021). To address this lack of criticality, programs should explicitly engage PSTs in examining the sociopolitical dimensions of technology, including algorithmic bias, platform ethics, and data privacy (Cheah et al., 2023). These discussions should be situated within pedagogical contexts, emphasizing how digital tools shape teaching practices, student agency, and classroom power dynamics. For example, PSTs could participate in simulation activities that model equity dilemmas involving digital platforms (Weisberg, 2025) or evaluate existing K–12 technology policies for their equity implications. Structured tasks like these could help PSTs move beyond technical fluency toward more reflective, justice-oriented practice (Dieker et al., 2024).

Teacher preparation programs have both a pedagogical and ethical responsibility to help future educators navigate and challenge the inequities embedded in digital systems. Without this foundation, PSTs risk integrating technology in ways that are misaligned with the principles of equity pedagogy (Heath et al., 2022; Herring Watson & Wake, 2025). However, advancing this work can be particularly difficult in today’s policy climate, especially in states or school systems where legislation restricts discussions of systemic inequality, race, or identity-based discrimination in K–12 education. These dynamics help explain why PSTs’ more limited conceptualizations of equity and technology may persist when equity frameworks are actively muted or constrained by policy in certain contexts. This underscores the political nature of teacher education (Apple, 2004) and highlights the need for teacher educators to adopt strategic, values-aligned framing that simultaneously equips PSTs with critical tools while navigating restrictive environments. For instance, programs might frame discussions in terms of “responsible technology use” or “digital well-being” as entry points while still preparing PSTs to recognize underlying issues of inequity in classrooms.

5.2. Implications for Future Research

This study points to several important directions for future research. First, more work is needed to understand how PSTs’ beliefs about technology and equity pedagogy evolve over time, particularly as they transition from preparation programs into the realities of full-time teaching. Future studies might explore how early teaching experiences reinforce or challenge the conceptual foundations laid during teacher preparation and what types of ongoing support help sustain equity-focused technology integration. Longitudinal studies could illuminate whether and how the conceptual connections formed during PSTs’ preparation persist, deepen, or shift in response to new instructional and institutional demands.

Second, future research should further examine the role of mentor teacher relationships in shaping PSTs’ understandings at this intersection, as field placements are often the primary context in which PSTs encounter technology integration in practice (Tondeur et al., 2012). When mentor teachers’ beliefs or practices diverge from those emphasized in coursework, it may limit PSTs’ opportunities to explore student-centered, equity-oriented uses of technology.

Third, future research could use mixed methods approaches, combining surveys and classroom observations. Surveys can capture broader trends in PSTs’ beliefs across larger populations, while observations can show how those beliefs are enacted in practice. Together with qualitative approaches, these methods would provide a more comprehensive and triangulated understanding of PSTs’ development at the intersection of equity pedagogy and technology integration.

5.3. Limitations

While this study offers insights into how elementary PSTs conceptualize technology’s role in equity pedagogy, several limitations should be noted. First, the participant sample was small (n = 10) and voluntary, raising the possibility of self-selection bias. Although the program coordinator confirmed that the sample reflected the demographic composition of the broader cohort, the sample was predominantly white women. While consistent with national patterns in the elementary teaching workforce (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023), this demographic profile may limit the representativeness of the findings for more diverse populations of PSTs. Nevertheless, the findings can still inform teacher education programs nationally, particularly because the demographic profile aligns with broader trends in the profession. This suggests that similar challenges and opportunities are likely to be encountered elsewhere, even if contextual variations shape how they manifest.

Second, while focus groups and reflective writing allowed for collaborative meaning-making and individual reflection, these data collection methods may not have captured the full range of participants’ perspectives, particularly those less comfortable sharing in group contexts. Including additional data sources, such as classroom observations or longitudinal interviews, could provide a more comprehensive picture of PSTs’ evolving understandings at this intersection of domains. As such, the results should be interpreted as exploratory rather than exhaustive, offering a foundation that other researchers can extend through complementary methodologies.

Third, the dual roles of the first and second authors—as facilitator and observer/instructor—may have influenced participant responses. Although these roles supported rapport and trust, they also introduced the potential for social desirability bias. We attempted to mitigate this influence through reflexivity, peer debriefing, and triangulation across the research team. Future studies might address this limitation by engaging external facilitators or triangulating with observational data to strengthen trustworthiness.

Finally, this study was situated within a single teacher preparation program in the southeastern U.S., which may limit generalizability of findings to certain institutional and policy contexts. However, the program’s separation of equity-centered coursework and educational technology coursework is typical of many U.S. teacher preparation programs (Weisberg & Dawson, 2023). This enhances the potential transferability of the findings, while still underscoring the need for additional research across varied program models, geographic regions, and policy environments. We encourage future research to explore these questions across such diverse contexts to examine how structural differences influence PSTs’ integration of technology for equity pedagogy.

5.4. Conclusions

This study demonstrates how PSTs in an equity-focused program made sense of technology’s role in equity pedagogy while also revealing gaps that persist when technology and equity coursework are siloed. Group 1’s responses illustrate how exposure to peer dialogue, fieldwork, and concrete models of accessibility can foster more nuanced understandings of how frameworks like UDL support technology integration, whereas Group 2’s limited and teacher-centered framing at this intersection of domains underscores the risks of relying on incidental or fragmented learning opportunities. These findings suggest that teacher preparation programs should intentionally integrate equity and technology frameworks across coursework and field experiences to prepare PSTs for the sociopolitical realities and inevitabilities of teaching with technology.

This study’s contribution lies in documenting how PSTs themselves conceptualize the intersection of equity and technology, thereby offering new insights into how beliefs, peer interactions, and program structures shape PSTs’ learning across these domains. While the conclusions are bounded by the small, self-selected sample and single-program context, this study contributes actionable insights into how program design can either constrain or expand PSTs’ capacity to use technology in equity-oriented ways.