journal of the australian council for computers in ... · volume 27, no. 3 australian educational...

Teaching teachers for the future: How, what, why, and what next? Geoff Romeo, Margaret Lloyd and Toni Downes

A U S T R A L I A N

JOURNAL OF THE AUSTRALIAN COUNCIL FOR COMPUTERS IN EDUCATION

Volume 27, No. 3

Australian Educational Computing is the refereed journal of theAustralian Council for Computers in Education (ACCE) andis published twice a year.

All editorial material including press releases, books, software andother products for review should be sent to:

The EditorAustralian Educational ComputingDr Jason ZagamiGriffith University, School of Education and Professional StudiesGold Coast Campus, Griffith University QLD 4222, Australia /Parklands Drive Southport QLD 4215, AustraliaE-mail: [email protected]

Desktop PublishingMichelle Cox, ICT in Education Victoria

Cover DesignMichelle Cox, ICT in Education Victoria

Journal Website http://acce.edu.au/journal

ACCE Affiliated GroupsACSPO Box 534Queen Victoria Building Sydney NSW 1230CEGACTPO Box 1516Tuggeranong ACT 2901QSITEPO Box 8Red Hill Qld 4059ICTENSWPO Box 1017Randwick NSW 2031CEGSAPO Box 93Hindmarsh SA 5007

Advice to ContributorsThe editorial panel welcomes contributions in the form of original articles, letters, reports and reviews. AEC provides a vehicle for the publication of articles for which a national audience is appropriate. These fall into a number of categories. There are articles relating to research in the educational computing field and which are likely to be of interest to a wide cross-section of teachers. These may come as follow-up papers from keynote speakers at national conferences, or might be the results of Australian or international research. In addition there are a number of educators who are exploring new ideas about the use of computers in the classroom and who are writing articles of national interest. The journal may contain reprinted articles from sister international organisations such as ISTE and IFIP; however the majority of articles should be Australian content.

• Refereed/Reviewed papers can be articles relating to research, theoretical articles, position or policy papers• Non Refereed/Reviewed papers can be papers relating to practice or policy• Authors should ensure that their manuscript conforms loosely to the American Psychological Association (APA) bibliographic convention.• Apart from the title page no author identification should appear on the manuscript.• Figures, tables and graphics should be provided in camera-ready form.• Photographs should be black and white rather than coloured.• Authors should limit articles to a maximum of 4000 words.• Include an abstract of 100-150 words.• Electronic copy in the form of a plain (unformatted) text file, Microsoft word file, should be submitted via e-mail to the editor,• Authors should include a brief autobiographical statement (include at end of article; before references section) and a current photograph.• Digital photographs of authors should be standard size of around 140mm x 100mm and 300 dpi in resolution. When saved as a jpeg they should be about 400KB in memory, file sizes less than 100KB, and .png and .gif files are not acceptable. Send photos separately; do not embed in word doc.

Papers contributed for the Refereed/Reviewed sections will be anony-mously refereed by at least two members of the Editorial Board. All submitted material will pass through an editorial phase to maintain journal standards and balanced coverage. All articles accepted may be published in both print and electronic forms. All material is copyright unless otherwise stated in writing and may not be reproduced in any form without the permission of the editor. Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily represent the views of the editorial panel or the Australian Council for Computers in Education. The Australian Council for Computers in Education does not endorse products or services advertised in this journal.

Deadlines31st March, 2013 for Vol 28, No. 131st August, 2013 for Vol 28, No. 2

TASITE Inc.C/o ACS SecretariatAPI Institute69 Liverpool StHobart TAS 7000ICT in Education Vic.Level 2 Room 10Statewide Resources Centre150 Palmerston StreetCarlton Vic 3053ECAWAPO Box 297Claremont WA 6010ITEANTPO Box 36841Winnelle NT 0812

ABN 27 84 095 650 ISSN 0816-90-20

Ass Prof Peter Albion University of Southern Queensland QLD Prof Neil Anderson James Cook University QLD Dr Wing Au University of South Australia SA Dr Dianne Chambers University of Melbourne, VIC Prof Margaret Cox Kings College London UNITED KINGDOM Dr Michael Dyson Monash University VIC Prof Toni Downes University of Western Sydney, NSW Dr Pam Gibbons Australian Catholic University, NSW Dr Susan Edwards Monash University, VIC Dr Tony Fetherston Edith Cowan University, WA Ass Prof Glenn Finger Griffith University, QLD Dr Andrew Fluck University of Tasmania TAS Dr Donna Gronn Australian Catholic University Dr Lynette Henderson James Cook University, QLD Dr Michael Henderson Monash University, VIC Dr Teo Yiong Hwee Australian Catholic University A/Prof Romina Jamieson-Proctor University of Southern Queensland Dr Tony Jones University of Melbourne, VIC Dr Richard Johnson Deakin University VIC Dr Steve Kennewell Swansea School of Education, UK Dr John King James Cook University, QLD Ass Prof Margaret Lloyd Queensland University of Technology QLD Dr Jenny Masters LaTrobe University VIC Ass Prof Anne McDougall University of Melbourne, VIC. Dr David McKinnon Charles Sturt University, NSW Ass Prof Catherine McLoughlin Australian Catholic University, ACT Robert Munro University of Starthclyde UK John Murnane University of Melbourne VIC Ass Prof Paul Newhouse Edith Cowan University, WA Dr Paul Nicholson Deakin University VIC Prof Ron Oliver Edith Cowan University, WA Dr Jeremy Pagram Edith Cowan University, WA Dr Keryn Pratt University of Otago, NEW ZEALAND Dr Nick Reynolds University of Melbourne Prof Geoff Romeo Australian Catholic University Dr Trudi Sweeney Flinders University SA Dr Sue Trinidad Curtin University of Technology, WA Ass Prof Marta Turcsanyi-Szabo Evotos Lorand University HUNGARY Dr Peter Twining Open University UNITED KINGDOM Dr John Vincent University of Melbourne VIC Dr Mary Webb Kings College London UNITED KINGDOM Ass Prof Len Webster Monash University VIC Prof Nicola Yelland Victoria University, VIC

[email protected]@jcu.edu.au

[email protected]@unimelb.edu.au

[email protected]@education.monash.edu.au

[email protected]@mackillop.acu.edu.au

[email protected]@[email protected]

[email protected]@acu.edu.au

[email protected]@education.monash.edu.au

[email protected]@usq.edu.au

[email protected]@deakin.edu.au

[email protected]@[email protected]

[email protected]@edfac.unimelb.edu.au

[email protected]@acu.edu.au


[email protected]@bigpond.net.au

[email protected]@ecu.edu.au


[email protected]@flinders.edu.au

[email protected]@ludens.elte.hu


[email protected]@calt.monash.edu.au

[email protected]

Editorial Board

Editorial

CONTENTS

acce.edu.au December 2012

Teaching Teachers for the Future (TTF) Project TPACK Survey: Summary of the Key Findings Glenn Finger, Peter Albion, Romina Jamieson-Proctor, Rob Cavanagh, Peter Grimbeek, Margaret Lloyd, Robert Fitzgerald, Trevor Bond and Geoff Romeo

Development of the TTF TPACK Survey InstrumentRomina Jamieson-Proctor, Peter Albion, Glenn Finger, Rob Cavanagh, Robert Fitzgerald, Trevor Bond and Peter Grimbeek

Using Most Significant Change Stories to document the impact of the Teaching Teachers for the Future Project: An Australian Teacher Education Story Deborah Heck and Trudy Sweeney

Pre-Service Education Students Evaluating the TTF Mathematics PackagesChris Campbell Teaching teachers for the future: modelling and exploring immersive personal learning networks Paul Chandler and Christine Redman

TTF@ACU: Our StoryDonna Gronn, Geoff Romeo and Stephen Sheely

Collaborative inquiry: building pre-service teachers’ capacity for ICT pedagogical integrationMichael Henderson, Milorad Cerovac, Natalie Bellis and Greg Lancaster

2

3

13

26

36

48

54

63

69

Mobile learning in maths teacher education: Driving pre-service teachers’ professional developmentMatthew Kearney and Damian Maher

76

CONTRIBUTED PAPERS (REVIEWED)

Tell me what you see: Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of exemplary digital pedagogyMargaret Lloyd and Michelle Mukherjee

85

Making Connections In Science: Engaging With ICT to Enhance Curriculum UnderstandingJennifer Masters, Graeme Draaisma and Carolan James

95

Resistance to Advocacy: pre-service teachers recognising the potential of curriculum-based virtual worlds for TPACK-framed science teachingChris Reading and Helen Doyle

101

Teacher educators as learners: Enabling learning while developing innovative practice in ICT-rich educationChris Reading and Helen Doyle

109

How Prepared are our Pre-service Teachers to Integrate Technology? A Pilot StudyTrudy Sweeney and Aaron Drummond

117

Preservice Teachers experience with online modules about TPACKBruce White and Ruth Geer

124

A case for including Online Pedagogy as subject matter in ICT and Pedagogy Methods unitsMichelle Williams and Paul Sutton

133

Social Ecological Model Analysis for ICT IntegrationJason Zagami

143

bozzetto

Highlight

Australian Educational Computing Volume 27 Number 3, 2013 3

Teaching teachers for the future: How, what, why, and what next?

Geoff Romeo – Australian Catholic University Marg Lloyd – Queensland University of Technology

Toni Downes – Charles Sturt University Abstract

This paper contextualises the Teaching Teachers of the Future (TTF) Project and acts as a preamble for the TTF stream of papers at ACEC2012. It discusses the aims and objectives of the project, its genesis in a changing educational and political landscape, the use of TPACK as a theoretical scaffold, and briefly report on the operations of the various components and partners. Further, it will discuss the research opportunities afforded by the project including a national survey of all pre-service teachers in Australia gauging their TPACK confidence and the use of the Most Significant Change (MSC) methodology. Finally the paper will discuss the outcomes of the project and its future.

Introduction As there will be many papers presented at this conference reporting on the outcomes of The

Teaching Teachers for the Future (TTF) project, it is important to understand, and record, the origins of the project, how it was operationalised, and to recognise its significance. That is the purpose of this paper; it is intended to act as a preamble to the many conversations about TTF that will happen during the conference and help people understand that it has been a once in a professional lifetime opportunity to make a difference at a systemic level.

The Australian government through the Department of Employment, Education and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) and the ICT Innovation Fund (ICTIF) funded the project. The project team was awarded AUD$8.8 million to conduct ICT capacity-building on a scale not seen before in this country. It involved all 39 Australian Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) providing teacher education working alongside the peak bodies of the Australian Council of Deans of Education (ACDE), the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL), Education Services Australia (ESA) and the Australian Council for Computers in Education (ACCE).

To say that it was a significant project is understatement. It was an ambitious, nationally significant undertaking that focussed on pre-service teachers, teacher educators and the new Australian Curriculum, The broad aim of the project was to initiate systematic change of teacher education curriculum and pedagogy across the country.

This was to be achieved through three components. 1. Build explicit ICTE dimensions to complement the new National Professional Standards for

Graduating Teachers (AITSL 2011) [Component 1 - C1]; 2. Develop digital exemplar ICTE resources in English, Mathematics, Science and History – the

first phase of the new Australian Curriculum, to inform teacher education programs and guide professional practice for pre-service teachers, and [Component 2 - C2];

3. Establish a sustainable national support network of expertise and resources to drive systemic change in curriculum and pedagogy in teacher education in Australia [Component 3 - C3].

Underpinning each of these components was the need to connect with government policy and initiatives - all tenders are political and this was no exception, and there was a pressing need to move the ICTE in education agenda forward at a systemic level. The project team firmly believed that the gains achieved in ICT in education over several decades were patchy at best and that the use of technology in education was poorly understood and mostly unsuccessfully implemented.

After nearly five decades of computers in education, there is still confusion about the use of technology in classrooms and widespread reluctance to move beyond tokenistic use. There is not a universal, shared vision regarding the use of technology in the classroom and teachers are confronted with many theories and

bozzetto

Highlight


instructional designs, and bombarded with confusing, even romantic, views of what the technology is capable of delivering. (Romeo, 2006, p.150)

TTF was an explicit decision to move the debate away from hardware and software and focus

attention (and money!) on linking government policy, initiatives and agencies, developing potent, standalone resources, and building the capacity of people. There would be no digital education revolution without changing the thinking and action of educators and no change without significant capacity building on a large scale. $8.8million was never going to be enough to achieve this but it was a significant beginning.

Genesis of the TTF The TTF project had its genesis in early 2010 as a response to the Australian government’s call for

projects “to support teachers and school leaders to embrace … new technology and encourage them to creatively and effectively integrate the use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) into the classroom” (DEEWR, 2010, p. 3). As part of the broader Digital Education Revolution (DEEWR, n.d; Rudd, Smith & Conroy, 2007), projects were to be funded by an especially created ICT Innovation Fund (ICTIF).

Three key sectors were targeted for funding: • Improving the capability of pre-service teachers, • Enhancing the capacity of in-service teachers; and, • Driving innovation through leadership.

While the TTF project was keen to impact on the latter two sectors, its prime objective lay with the first, that was, enriching the experience of pre-service teachers and, as a result, affecting practices and pedagogies in teacher education.

To initiate the project bid, a small group of academics led by Professor Toni Downes, Charles Sturt University and Chair of the Australian Council of Deans of Education, and Professor Geoff Romeo, Australian Catholic University, began conversations about what they would see as a significant way forward in promoting transformative change in Australian schools through the meaningful use of information and communication technology (ICT) and the role that teacher education institutions could play in this.

Eventually, a project plan emerged, one informed by the research and a firm belief that an approach coordinated on various levels needed to be initiated. It was seen as vitally important to break away from past and existing practices that did not seem to be effective in sponsoring change. What emerged, particularly in its bringing together of all HEIs and government agencies, with a common goal, was something that had never been seen before in Australia.

The educational and political landscape An understanding of the educational and political landscape in Australia from 2007 - 2010, when

there was much national innovation and a number of key initiatives, is important in understanding why the project emerged as it did is.

A critical project design tenet of the TTF project was that it needed to be of its time, that is, aimed at meeting current and future needs, rather than replicate what already existed or had been trialled before. It needed, above all else, to fit within emerging ideas about 21st Century learning, greater and more ubiquitous access to educational technology in classrooms and the curricular changes occurring within Australian schooling and the professional registration of teachers. It was thus part of, rather than adjunct to, the educational and political landscape in which it would operate. The important elements of this landscape – which became interwoven into the project’s design - may be summarised as follows:

The Digital Education Revolution (DER)

The DER first came to attention as part of a political campaign (Rudd et al., 2007) with the primary aim of achieving a student to computer ratio, in Years 9 to 12, of 1:1 by the end of 2011. Since


enacted, it has, as expected, been predominantly concerned with funding computer hardware and infrastructure in secondary schools and has become increasingly aligned to the rollout of the National Broadband Network (NBN). It has also adopted corollary strategies, supported by additional funding, for developing online curriculum resources and digital architecture, and a recently announced online curriculum support package (Garrett, 2011).

The DER is also, as noted, responsible for funding the ICT Innovation Fund, which has backed the TTF Project. While obviously enabling the TTF project through funding, the DER has also created a climate of change and a renewed emphasis on the meaningful and broadly based integration of ICT in Australian classrooms.

The Australian Curriculum

In initial discussions around the TTF Project, what was clear was that HEIs needed to embrace both the content and spirit of the Australian Curriculum, including its intention to position ICT within all learning areas as a general capability. While governments, regulatory authorities, and ACARA made this clear, by the end of 2010 no particular initiatives had been mooted, and no funding had been set aside to particularly address the significant curriculum changes that universities would need to undertake.

To this end, the TTF development team made the decision to focus on the Phase 1 of the Australian Curriculum. Each participating institutions would choose one or two of the four learning area(s) they would address with the TTF Project gaining coverage of all across the participating institutions. This would not only build capacity in the ICTE area, but also support the institutions during the necessary realignment of their teacher education curricula.

It was anticipated that the work of the project would provide a template for how teacher education institutions might approach ICTE in the other learning areas of the Australian Curriculum as they were released.

National Standards for Graduating Teachers

Another significant shift in the landscape came through the establishment of the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) on January 1, 2010. As with the curriculum, the process accrediting teacher education courses had traditionally been a function of state and territory governments in Australia. This was now moving to a national process overseen by AITSL.

In this process the onus would fall to HEIs, seeking accreditation, to demonstrate how courses met the newly released National Professional Standards for Graduating Teachers. Furthermore, the national programs standards that would guide the accreditation process identified ICT as a particular area that needed to be addressed within the curriculum framework of courses seeking accreditation.

As such, by 2015 all Australian teacher education institutions would need to be able to demonstrate how the new standards, particularly at Graduate level, were being met through their pre-service courses. As expected, and in line with international trends, ICT features in these standards and so supporting institutions to prepare for national accreditation, through curriculum review and renewal, became the third focus of the project design.

The success of the TTF proposal, in seeking funds through the ICT Innovation fund, in many ways, can be attributed to the design of the project in producing tangible outcomes and accountabilities across these three initiatives, the DER, the Australian Curriculum, and the inaugural national accreditation of teacher education programs.

There were a number of events across the educational and political landscape, which initially threatened the TTF project. These included the Australian Federal Election in 2010, the devastating floods in early 2011, and the closure of the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC). The 2010 national election was called for August, which coincidentally clashed with the proposed announcement of the ICTIF grants, thus postponing any decision regarding the project. The announcement of the successful bid was not made until November, 2010. Interestingly, the end dates did not change although three months had been effectively lost to the project – this was significant, as it had been planned to complete recruitment for the project before the end of the 2010 calendar year. Furthermore, one of the first tasks of the minority government was to shut down the ALTC. The Council had, at the request of the Australian Council of Deans of Education, generously


agreed to be the consortium lead in the TTF project. These events succeeded in delaying rather than halting the project. It is an indication of the shared goodwill and drive for change that the project managed to survive. In particular Education Services Australia, one of three consortium members, generously stepped into the breach at the point of developing contracts and agreed to be the lead institution. The delays did, however, have some flow-on effect through the project, particularly in reducing the lead time needed to change learning experiences in pre-service classes and in recruiting key personnel.

Structure and operations of the TTF The TTF project may appear at first to be a highly complex set of connections and interconnections

between the partner agencies and each participating university. But, it was founded – quite simply - on three interdependent components supported by a community, here labelled as the National Support Network (See Figure 1).

Figure 1. Organisational structure of the TTF project The project built a consortium of partners to work interdependently on the three project components.

These were: Education Services Australia (ESA), the Australian Council of Deans of Education (ACDE), the Australian Council for Computers in Education (ACCE) and the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). Further, the Deans of Education in all Australian HEIs pledged support for the project.

Component 1

Component 1, under the direction of the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) and the peak teacher professional association, the Australian Council for Computers in Education (ACCE), was concerned with building explicit ICTE dimensions into the National Professional Standards for Graduating Teachers and linking them to the Australian Curriculum. The purpose, in the shorter term, was to enable pre-service teachers to map their proficiency against the graduate Standards and similarly for university academics to use the annotated Standards as a guide for developing meaningful assessments and learning experiences for students.

The tangible outcome of Component 1 was a cohesive set of print and digital resources published online [http://www.teacherstandards.aitsl.edu.au]. It includes: an e-Evidence user guide, and the ICT Elaborations and Annotated Illustrations of Practice - video vignettes of pre-service and beginning teachers in the classroom. They are publicly available to inform the professional learning of practising teachers as well as continuing to support teacher education pedagogy.

Component 2

The aim of Component 2, as led by Education Services Australia (ESA), was to develop a high quality collection of digital resources for pre-service teachers, teacher educators and teachers. The resources were to represent Australian classrooms and to make explicit the connection to the Australian Curriculum and the National Professional Standards for Teachers.


Twelve resource packages were produced, that is, one for each of the Phase 1 learning areas of the Australian Curriculum (English, Mathematics, History, and Science) for the early years, middle years and senior years of schooling. Each resource is at least 30 screen pages in length and includes purposeful classroom footage, extensive references and, importantly, the voices of pre-service teachers. An important design parameter was that the resources were to be stand-alone, that is, available for all pre-service teachers independent of their university programs. The resources may be found, with access limited to educators, at http://www.ttf.edu.au.

The resource packages were published in Semester 2, 2011. Available evaluation data shows teacher education institutions are successfully accessing the resources through the e-content portal. The addition of metadata records has enabled national distribution of the resources to jurisdictions and sectors through their portals. Materials have been, and will be, repurposed for use by other national projects.

Component 3

Component 3 was, put simply, about people, curriculum and pedagogy. More formally, it was about driving change, building capacity, sharing expertise and developing sustainable professional networks both within and between HEIs. The more tangible outcomes of Component 1 (documentation around the Graduate Standards) and Component 2 (exemplars of practice) were designed to support Component 3.

Through Component 3 funding, senior academics with ICTE expertise were partially released from teaching duties and highly accomplished ICTE educators were seconded to work with teacher educators, particularly curriculum methods lecturers, and pre-service teachers to develop and share exemplary ICTE curriculum and resources. Titles were invented for the roles they would undertake. The senior academics were known as TTF Project Coordinators, abbreviated to TTFPC. The seconded teachers or early career academics were employed as ICT Pedagogy Officers, abbreviated as ICTPOs.

The role of the TTFPC was to mentor and assist the ICTPO and to provide strategic leadership in the institutional components of the project. It was at first presumed that each of the 39 providers – even those with multiple campuses – would appoint one TTFPC and one ICTPO. Those in the institutions working within Component 3 were supported through a National Support Network (NSN). The NSN connections were simple. First, there was a SharePoint site, the hub of the project, where all information was stored, a calendar was maintained, and events were recorded. Second, there were email lists used for discussion and reminders of milestones. Thirdly, there were face-to-face events.

The TTF project convened three face-to-face NSN workshops. At these events, plans were made and progress was shared between institutions. There was a high level of acceptance of the ICT Pedagogy Officers (ICTPOs) within participating institutions accompanied by an exceptionally high level of retention, with only three of the 39 providers, reporting any change of personnel during the life of the project. Of particular interest was the diversity of activity within the institutions with each designing programs best suited to their own situation. Further, there was a palpable energy around the project and the expected synergies within and between institutions were evidenced, particularly through the cooperation, sharing and collaboration in the project’s designated online spaces. One of the most welcome findings from the final report is in the sense of ongoing commitment, with frequent reference made to proposed work continuing on from the project, intended use of resources, and longer term curriculum changes being set in place.

The final report has recognised TTF project as a catalyst to broader change both within the institutions and on into classrooms. Terms such as “opportunity” and “guide” are frequently used giving a clear sense that this project met its ambitious intention to effect systematic change.

Theoretical framework It is important to remember that TTF is not a research project but, rather, a teaching and learning

project that needed to appeal to and be understood by politicians, bureaucrats, teachers, and pre-service teachers as well as teacher educators. The underpinning theoretical framework(s) had to be understood, credible, and accepted, and offer a move away from the tokenistic use of technology in schools..


There were two main influences on the design and conduct of the project. These were: 1. The grounded practical advice provided in ICT in Education Practices: A Capacity-

Building Toolkit for Teacher Education Institutions in the Asia-Pacific (Lim, Chai & Churchill, 2010); and,

2. The conceptual framework known as TPACK or technological, pedagogical and content knowledge (Koehler & Mishra, 2008, 2009; Koehler, Mishra & Yahya, 2007; Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

Leading ICT in Education Practices: A Capacity-Building Toolkit for Teacher Education Institutions in the Asia-Pacific.

Initial planning for the project was influenced by the toolkit developed by Lim, Chai and Churchill (2010), particularly in its Strategic Dimension Two (Program: Curriculum, Assessment and Practicum). The ICT capacity-building “toolkit” (Lim, Chai & Churchill, 2010) has remained the guiding document for the TTF Project as it moves into the stage of planning for the future. The rubrics for measurement will be put to use nationally in the final stages of the project.

TPACK

TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) is a conceptual framework for teacher education built from Shulman’s (1986) understandings of pedagogical content knowledge. It brings together teachers’ content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and technological knowledge, focusing on the interactions between these three domains (See Figure 2)

Figure 2: TPACK model (Mishra & Koehler, n.d) The authors acknowledge that there was limited critical appraisal of TPACK in the conceptualisation

of the project and none is attempted in this paper. We also acknowledge that TPACK is contested in some literature and this project has not really contributed to the development of TPACK as a theory. This however was not our purpose, the concept provided the TTF project with an important and valuable schema for thinking about, discussing and integrating ICT in the curriculum. In the TTF project, TPACK also provided a framework for the resources built as part of Components 1 and 2, as the conceptual basis for a comprehensive national student survey, and in some instances, as the means to audit existing courses in pre-service curriculum studies.

Further, TPACK provided a useful starting point in conversations with the curriculum methods lecturers and to move them along from the notion of ICT as an “add-on” or a simple tool for reporting or presentation of findings. Importantly, TPACK provided the project with the language to describe the intersection and interplay of the three core elements of knowledge of content, pedagogy and technology. It allowed the project leaders to bridge the gap between research and curriculum design and provided guidance on how to apply the ideas in education contexts, including teacher education programs, and the building of resources.


Evaluation and research The TTF Project, while not a research project per se, provided opportunities for research at both a

national and local level. First, was a cycle of reporting to the funding body, DEEWR, which was met through scheduled interim reports and face-to-face briefings. Evaluation was also built into Components One and Two in quite formal ways. For example, Component One was evaluated by AITSL through a survey and sample interviews with a focus on how the ICTE Elaborations would be used to support the development of ICT capacities of pre-service teachers.

Further, Component Two was evaluated by ESA through a similar survey and interview process to consider the value and functionality of the developed resources as well as a more comprehensive approach that involved pre-service teachers.

The impact of Component Three was subject to rigorous evaluation coordinated by a specially convened Research and Evaluation Working Group. This took the form of two independent studies. The first was quantitative in nature and involved extensive surveys to collect data on the perceptions of TPACK usefulness and confidence of pre-service teachers at all levels. The second was qualitative and made use of the Most Significant Change technique (Dart & Davies, 2003). Its intention was to gather rich project data through the iterative recounting of stories of practice. More on the outcomes of these more formal research initiatives will be reported during the course of this conference.

TTF outcomes, recommendations, and the future The TTF project had both a unique opportunity, and the unenviable responsibility, to make the most

of a rare opportunity for national funding and organisational support to make a change to how ICTE is promoted and modelled in initial teacher education across Australia.

The project also faced challenges and opportunities posed by the current educational and political landscape of teaching and learning in Australia. It was a watershed project marked by goodwill, commitment and sustained focus. The time was right for such a project and not surprisingly it generated significant outcomes;.

The final report states

A significant outcome of the TTF Project has been its demonstration of the value-adding potential of successful collaboration between three national organisations—the Australian Council of Deans of Education (ACDE), representing all institutions responsible for educating pre-service teachers, Education Services Australia (ESA) and the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL).....

(TTF) has:

• for the first time, involved all 39 teacher education institutions in Australia in a national project. • demonstrated an effective model for national organisations to work in partnership in the education

sector. • developed a suite of quality resources encompassing the Australian Curriculum, National

Professional Standards for Teachers, and ICT in education (ICTE). • fostered significant enhancement in the ICTE capacities of participating teacher educators. • on a national level, increased the confidence of pre-service teachers in using ICT in the classroom,

and their confidence to facilitate student use of ICT (DEEWR 2012)

These outcomes were achieved through the three integrated components of the project. During the course of the conference these achievements and will be celebrated, critiqued and propagated.

The final report of the project makes a number of recommendations relating to universities, DEEWR, ACDE, resource development and professional development. These arise from teacher education institutions’ Action Plans and the comprehensive evaluation of Components 1, 2 and 3. In summary, those recommendations include:

1. Each Faculty or School responsible for Teacher Education should

• develop and maintain an easily accessible repository of resources

• develop a leadership team to help staff to use these resources

• redesign certain key units to provide both a model of integrated ICTE strategies and a model of


effective redesign processes to form the basis of a broader redesign initiative across the school/faculty.

• develop institutional processes/systems to enable sustainable improvements in curriculum, pedagogy and assessment in relation to ICTE dimensions, and graduates that can demonstrate the ICTE dimensions of the National Standards for Graduate Teachers.

2. Future capacity building and change implementation projects in the use of ICT in education (ICTE), implementing the Australian Curriculum and National Professional Teacher Standards should emulate the collaborative model tested and proven to be very successful in the TTF project.

3. ACDE should assume responsibility for sustaining facilitation of a collaborative national support network of ICTE experts across Australian teacher education institutions. As part of this responsibility ACDE will encourage and support:

• Each Faculty or School responsible for Teacher Education should develop and share exemplary ICTE pedagogy in one additional Australian curriculum area and in one cross-curriculum priority and generic capability statement.

• The development of informal State and Territory networks to ensure ICTE elements of the Australian Curriculum include local content and technological priorities.

• Collaborative research in areas of need identified by the TTF Project Evaluation.

4. Consideration should be given to preparing Holistic Statements against the National Professional Standards for Teachers rather than against Focus Areas within Standards.

5. Consideration should be given to the development of a suite of resource packages to support Phase 2 of the Australian Curriculum, utilising reviewed model of existing TTF resource packages.

(DEEWR 2012)

So what of the future? The project has always been seen as a catalyst for change in teacher education pedagogy and curriculum. The ACDE along with the original consortium partners recently submitted an application for further funding (TTF Phase 2) however this has been unsuccessful. So with no further funds, how will the directions and goodwill between institutions be sustained? How will the momentum for change be sustained? How will the networks that have been established and worked so effectively, especially the networks between institutions and government agencies be maintained and lubricated? What will happen to the significant resources that have been generated and how will they be stored and maintained? What will compel teacher education institutions to implement their action plans and continue working in this way? How can stakeholders build on the significant investment that has already been made? These questions need to be discussed as part of our formal and informal conversations at this conference . Sustainability, without funding, is problematic and it will take a great deal more goodwill to keep TTF alive and vibrant along with commitment from Deans and Universities.

Has the journey been worthwhile? The significance of the TTF project should not be underestimated. It was a project of its time juxtaposing with policy and national initiatives. It was also a large-scale complex project that transcended geographical, institutional and jurisdictional boundaries to provide important outcomes. Above all it has brought us closer together professionally and demonstrated to stakeholders that we can collective impact policy and practice on national scale. We all now face the major challenge of maintaining the momentum..

Acknowledgement The authors would like to acknowledge the significant work and leadership of the Australian Council

of Deans of Education, Education Services Australia, the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, and the Australian Learning and Teaching Council. Further, we would like to acknowledge the excellent work of ICTPOs and TTFPCs and thank them for their dedication – without them there was no TTF. The Teaching Teachers for the Future project was funded by the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment, and Workplace Relations through the ICT Innovation Fund.


References AITSL (2011) National professional standards for teachers Education Services Australia as the legal

entity for the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA) Carlton South. Retrieved December, 16, 2011 from http://www.teacherstandards.aitsl.edu.au/static/docs/AITSL_National_Professional_Standards_for_Teachers_Final_version2.pdf

Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States. Contemporary issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 71-88.

Becker, H.J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey: Is Larry Cuban right? Revision of a paper written for the January, 2000 School Technology Leadership Conference of the Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, D.C. Retrieved November 4, 2011, from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/ccsso.pdf

Commonwealth of Australia (2009). Digital education revolution national partnership. Retrieved from http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/DigitalEducationRevolution/Pages/default.aspx

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Reforming schools through technology, 1980- 2000. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Dawson, V. (2008). Use of information and communication technology by early career science teachers in Western Australia. International Journal of Science Education, 30(2), 203-219.

Davies, R., & Dart, J. (2005). The most significant change (MSC) technique: A guide to its use. Retrieved November 11, 2011, from http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/MSCGuide.pdf

DEEWR (Department of Education, Employment and Work Relations). (2010). ICT Innovation Fund Guidelines 2010-2012. Retrieved October 31, 2011, from http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/DigitalEducationRevolution/DigitalStrategyforTeachers/Documents/ICTInnovationGuidelines.rtf

DEEWR (Department of Education, Employment and Work Relations). (n.d). Digital education revolution. Retrieved October 31, 2011 from http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/DigitalEducationRevolution/Pages/default.aspx

Drucker, P. (2009). Managing in a time of great change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School. DEEWR (Department of Education, Employment and Work Relations). (2012) ICT Innovation Fund

Project: Teaching Teachers for the Future (Building the ICTE capacity of pre-service teachers in Australian Universities), Final report of the TTF project [Publication Pending]

ESA (Education Services Australia). (2010). ICT professional learning: National mapping of ICT-based professional learning. Melbourne, Australia: ESA.

Garrett, P. (2011, September). Media release: $41 million for online curriculum support to benefit teachers and students. Department of School Education, Early Childhood and Youth. Retrieved from http://ministers.deewr.gov.au/garrett/41-million-online-curriculum-support-benefit-teachers-and-students

Horne, D. (1964). The lucky country. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. Jamieson-Proctor, R., Finger, G., & Albion, P. (2010). Auditing the TPACK capabilities of final year

teacher education students: Are they ready for the 21st century? Paper presented at ACEC, Melbourne, April 6-9.

Jordan, K. (2011). Beginning teacher knowledge Results from a self-assessed TPACK survey. Australian Educational Computing, 26(1), 16-26.

Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology, Handbook of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators (pp. 3-29). New York: Routledge.

Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1). Retrieved September 7, 2011, from http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/general/article1.cfm


Koehler, M., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy, & technology. Computers & Education, 49(3), 740-762.

Kozma, R. B. (2003). Global perspectives: innovative technology integration practices from around the world. Learning & Leading with Technology, 31(2), pp. 6-9, 52-54.

Lim, C.P., Chai, C.S., & Churchill, D. (2010). Leading ICT in education practices: A capacity-building toolkit for teacher education institutions in the Asia-Pacific. Singapore: Microsoft.

MCEETYA (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs). (2008). Educational goals for young Australians. Carlton South, Australia: Curriculum Corporation. Retrieved July 22, 2010, from http://www.mceecdya.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (n.d). What is TPACK? Retrieved from http://tpack.org Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for

teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), pp. 1017–1054. Romeo, G.I. (2006) Engage, empower, enable: Developing a shared vision for technology in

education. In D. Hung, & M.S. Khine, Engaged Learning with Emerging Technologies (pp.149-175) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Rudd, K., Smith, S. & Conroy, S. (2007) A digital education revolution. Retrieved 31/12/2007 from http://www.alp.org.au/download/now/labors_digital_education_revolution_campaign_launch.pdf

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. Professor Geoff Romeo has a PhD from Monash University. He is the editor of Australian Educational Computing, a past board member of the Australian Council for Computers in Education, and a past President of Information and Communication Technologies in Education, Victoria (ICTEV). In 2004 Professor Romeo received state and national awards for outstanding leadership in ICT in Education and was made a fellow of the Australian Council of Computers in Education in 2010. He joined the Faculty of Education at the Australian Catholic University as the Associate Dean, Teaching and Learning in 2010.

Dr Margaret Lloyd is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education at QUT, an OLT National Teaching Fellow and editor of the online open access journal, the Journal of Learning Design. She has had a long association with teacher professional associations and is the current President of QSITE. She took a leading role in the Teaching Teachers to the Future Project by coordinating the National Support Network which established and built networks within and between the participating higher education institutions. [email protected] Professor Toni Downes has worked with universities, educational systems and schools, for nearly 30 years in the pursuit of improving education through the effective use of new information and communication technologies. Her work has included numerous research and professional projects, over 70 publications, many keynote addresses, professional presentations and workshops and over $1 million in grants and consultancies. She has been a keynote or distinguished speaker at international conferences in New Zealand, US, England, Switzerland, Hungary, PNG, Thailand, Hong Kong, Wales, China, Finland and Norway. Her research projects, consultancies and advocacy work has spanned national and international ICT policy and curriculum frameworks; quality leadership and ICT in schools; the investigation of the educational use of the Internet; and ground breaking work in the 1980s and early 1990s on young people’s uses of computers in homes and schools. Her most recent work focuses on participation and performance in HSC computing and IT subjects. Over the span of her career, Professor Downes has made significant contributions to the leadership of professional and academic organisations. These include time as President of the NSW Computer Education Group and later the Secretary of the Australian Council of Computers in Education, and Chair of various national and international conferences on computers and education. In recognition of this work, in 2004 she was awarded the prestigious Outstanding Service Award from the UNESCO sponsored organisation -‐ the International Federation of Information Processing. Between 2010 and 2012 she was President of the Australian Council of Deans of Education. She lead this national organisation as the sector moved, with great difficulty to an Australian Curriculum, to National Standards for Teachers and to the national accreditation of teacher education programs. In her role as president she was able to combine her leadership and expertise in ICTs in Education and teacher education through the collaborative development of a national project, This $7.8 Million project, funded by the Australian Government, involves every Australian University with pre-‐service teacher education programs building their capacity to graduate beginning teachers who are confident and competent to use ICT for improved learning outcomes of children in our schools. In 2011 she was made a fellow of the Australian Teacher Education Association and the Australian College of Education for her career-‐long achievements in teacher education and the field of ICT in education.