Technological Innovations in Education: Applications in Education and Teaching 9819927846, 9789819927845

Citation preview

Susanne Garvis Therese Keane   Editors

Technological Innovations in Education Applications in Education and Teaching

Technological Innovations in Education

Susanne Garvis · Therese Keane Editors

Technological Innovations in Education Applications in Education and Teaching

Editors Susanne Garvis Griffith Institute for Educational Research Griffith University Mt. Gravatt, QLD, Australia

Therese Keane School of Education La Trobe University Melbourne, VIC, Australia

ISBN 978-981-99-2784-5 ISBN 978-981-99-2785-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2785-2 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Preface

With the rapid rise of technology, innovations in education are achieved at a rapid rate. In this book, we capture some of the recent movements with education, including virtual reality and social media. Our focus is on teaching, teacher education, and learning. Across the book is a range of chapter, bringing together experts from across the globe to contribute. We would like to thank the authors for their important contribution in bringing the chapters to the editors, especially given the many barriers faced during COVID times. We also extend a thank you to the reviewers of the chapters who provided detailed feedback that was useful for the authors. We thank the reviewers for their time and commitment to producing this book. We also extend thanks to our families who allowed us time to work with this book. It was a challenge during the last two years, but we have managed to create a wonderful volume of work. As academics at Griffith University and La Trobe University within Australia, we acknowledge the people who are the traditional custodians of the land and pay respect to the elders, part and present, and extends that respect to other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. Mt. Gravatt, Australia Melbourne, Australia

Susanne Garvis Therese Keane

v

Introduction

During 2020 and 2021, many schools, and higher education providers around the world made a rapid transition to online learning to support students during remote learning during COVID. This move pushed many schools and higher education providers into new territory, exploring possibilities to support students through technological innovation. The growth in knowledge and understanding during this period was huge and allowed outstanding innovation to be created. In teaching and teacher education, the context of this book, schools and higher education providers continued to support learning of students. As such, it is important that such technology and innovation are documented to support and expand movements in teaching and teacher education. This book provides a snapshot of technology and innovation in teacher education and teaching. By highlighting innovation, we can also highlight the gaps and needs for improvement within student learning in contemporary times. The promise of transforming teachers’ practices challenges the simple industrial model of education which is built on the assumption that what’s worth learning is already known. Technology in education done properly pushes the boundaries of learning beyond what’s known. Instead, technology allows us to discover the new and expand the frontiers of what is possible. As such, this book makes a major contribution to technology and innovation in teaching and teacher education. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) refers to a related skillset known as global competence, which embraces those dispositions and skills that students will need to flourish in an ever-increasingly interconnected world, that will require “individuals [who] can examine local, global and intercultural issues, understand and appreciate different perspectives and world views, [and] interact successfully and respectfully with others” (OECD, 2018, p. 4). Connected to the OECD’s refocusing on collaborative problem-solving and global competence are abstraction, spatial inferential reasoning, and innovation capabilities. These are part of a set of skills and capabilities that are increasingly and urgently seen as being necessary for a future ready workforce (World Economic Forum, 2021). The challenge of responding to the needs of students in a rapidly changing world requires us to seek new solutions and new ways of learning beyond what is outlined vii

viii

Introduction

in the teaching standards. Teaching standards forms the basis for initial teacher education programmes and the professional development and appraisal of early, mid, and highly experienced career teachers. It is imperative that teachers reflect and support the development of progressive practices and pedagogies. An emerging trend in education narratives about developing students’ innovation is that teachers’ pedagogies and practices need to go beyond the traditional mastery and become more student centric in order to navigate a complex and uncertain world. For example, in this book we learn about the emerging place of virtual reality and social media to support pre-service teachers during their learning that allows continued opportunities for scaffolding and building strong foundation of teacher pedagogy. This book explores innovation from several perspectives, including teacher educators and teacher practitioners. The book will be of particular interest to academics, policy makers, teacher educators, and teachers interested in the latest technology and innovation. They will be able to learn about current innovation and technology through case studies and other examples. The focus will be not only on future research, but also theoretical and practical development moving forward to support future technological advances to support all students in educational settings. This book contains nine chapters, and each of the authors of these chapters looks at innovation in education through their own lens: Chapter 1, authored by Therese Keane from La Trobe University in Melbourne, and Christina Chalmers from Queensland University of Technology in Australia, focuses on virtual reality professional experiences in initial teacher education. They make the argument that whilst it is not a substation for real-world professional experience in schools, it is a viable way to supplement pre-service teacher’s understanding of the classroom context. Using virtual reality, pre-service teachers can be introduced to complex interactions that they could encounter such as aggression, insolence, and bullying. These scenarios provide opportunities for them to engage in meaningful teaching experience where they can respond to realistic scenarios in a low-risk environment. Chapter 2 from Wendy Goff from Swinburne University in Melbourne shares a case study about the use of a virtual reality simulated classroom using a lowimmersion VR platform that draws on Mursion software and a “human in the loop” to provide a real-time teaching experience. Analysing teacher efficacy, this chapter demonstrates that there was significant change of the pre-service teacher’s selfefficacy after their participation in a VR simulated classroom. It was also reported that pre-service teachers experienced a sense of performance attainment and a sense of developing mastery through the VR simulated experience. Chapter 3 co-authored by Narelle Lemon and Katrina van Vuuren from Swinburne University and Siobhan O’Brien from La Trobe University in Melbourne provides the findings from their project where they required pre-service teachers to enhance their connectedness and professional relationships using Instagram, whilst explicitly being able to observe the practices of others, which previously had not been accessible. It enabled the establishment of an online professional profile that supported the ability for pre-service teachers to access and share resources, information, and/or research.

Introduction

ix

Chapter 4 written by Minna Maunula, Heidi Harju-Luukkainen, Minna Maunumäki, Päivi Perkkilä, and Essi Korkeaniemi from the University of Jyväskylä, Finland, explores an online collaboration between German and Finnish students to increase students’ awareness of international education questions related to the teacher profession. Using a trialogical model of building knowledge, the authors discuss the advantages and disadvantages of web-based learning. Chapter 5 is co-authored by Tina Yngvesson from University of Borås, Sweden, and John Siraj-Blatchford, University of Plymouth, UK. They investigate teacher attitudes to learning, where learning is seen as a collaborative co-constructed product of the teacher and child. They look at mapping the current state of technology in relation to Swedish ECEC practice against the background of steering documents and the preschool teacher education programme. Chapter 6 by Susanne Garvis from Griffith University in Queensland and Therese Keane from La Trobe University in Melbourne explores the use of educational robotics in early childhood education. They examine the current trends in research for educational robotics and early childhood education and care. The authors found that literature focuses on the upper years of early childhood education and care (4 and 5 year old children), involvement with families is absent, and interventions are short term. They also argue the need for computational thinking to be developed further within the field of early childhood education with greater engagement with educational robotics with all children in early childhood settings. Chapter 7 by Milorad Cerovac from La Trobe University and Therese Keane from La Trobe University in Melbourne makes an argument for the importance of three types of thinking skills that pre-service teachers require to foster innovation in the classroom: computational thinking, design thinking, and systems thinking (CDS). Exposing pre-service teachers to the CDS thinking skills set during their initial teacher education degree would arguably improve their ability to then mode and develop the creativity and innovation capabilities of their students to participate in an increasingly complex and interconnected world. Chapter 8 from Liz Jackson, from Queensland of Technology, Therese Keane from La Trobe University from Melbourne, and Susanne Garvis from Griffith University in Queensland makes a case why enterprise education is needed to be taught to students in Australia. The benefits for students include self-efficacy, creativity, problem-solving, confidence and lifelong learning habits, skills needed to prepare students for life and contribute to the future of work. Unlike some European countries where Entrepreneurial Education is featured in ITE courses, Australia lags behind.

Final Words from the Editors All chapters provide a thought-provoking perspective of how technological innovations are impacting education. Whilst each chapter presents a unique perspective, the authors collectively agree on the importance of innovation regardless of which part of the world they reside in. We hope that this book contributes to the body of

x

Introduction

work on the importance of technological innovations. Each chapter of the book adds a new perspective to the conversation and deepens our understanding of technology and innovation and its ubiquitous nature. We hope that this book inspires educators, researchers, and policy makers alike to support conversations about innovation and reflective practice. Finally, we also would like to thank the authors and reviewers for their contribution to this important conversation. Susanne Garvis Therese Keane

References OECD. (2018). Preparing our youth for an inclusive and sustainable world: The OECD PISA global competence framework. www.oecd.org/pisa/Handbook-PISA-2018-Global-Competence.pdf World Economic Forum. (2021). Upskilling for shared prosperity: Insight report January 2021. https://www.weforum.org/reports/upskilling-for-shared-prosperity

Contents

1 The Role of Virtual Reality Professional Experiences in Initial Teacher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Therese Keane and Christina Chalmers

1

2 VR Simulations to Develop Teaching Practice with Pre-service Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wendy Goff

13

3 Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions of Establishing Professional Connections on Instagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Narelle Lemon, Siobhan O’Brien, and Katrina van Vuuren

25

4 Web-Based International Learning in a Finnish Teacher Education Program: Building Students’ International Competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Minna Maunula, Heidi Harju-Luukkainen, Minna Maunumäki, Päivi Perkkilä, and Essi Korkeaniemi

41

5 A Way Forward for Preschool Teacher Education and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tina Yngvesson and John Siraj-Blatchford

57

6 A Literature Review of Educational Robotics and Early Childhood Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Susanne Garvis and Therese Keane

71

7 Incorporating Technologies-Based Thinking Skills in Initial Teacher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Milorad Cerovac and Therese Keane

85

8 Analysis of Entrepreneurial Education in Secondary Schools: Teaching the Next Generation of Innovators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Liz Jackson, Therese Keane, and Susanne Garvis

xi

About the Editors

Susanne Garvis is Professor of Early Childhood Education at Griffith University, Australia. She is an internationally renowned early childhood education expert within policy, quality, and learning. She has worked with various governments, professional organisations, and NGOs across the world where her research has informed teacher education, policy development, and professional learning. Her contributions to policy include a large-scale meta-analysis showing how bachelor qualified teachers enhances quality in early childhood education and care. She is a mixed methods researcher with extensive experience in narrative (story constellations) and statistics. Her focus is on supporting voice, experience, and knowledge within empirical research. She has extensive research, teaching, and leadership experience in early childhood teacher education and teacher education across Sweden and Australia. In Australia, she was the previous chair of the Department of Education at Swinburne University of Technology. In Sweden, she has been a professor of Education at the University of Gothenburg and a guest professor at Stockholm University. At the University of Gothenburg, she was the Director of the Centre for Educational Sciences and Teacher Education, which consisted of over 80 doctoral students and supervisors. Also in Sweden, she was the leader of the government funded Nordic Early Childhood Research Group with over 50 members from across the Scandinavian region. The group had a specific focus on researching Nordic childhoods, learning, and family. Therese Keane has been a champion for empowering girls in STEM for 30 years. She is currently the Associate Dean Research and Industry Engagement and Professor of STEM Education in the School of Education at La Trobe University. Her passion and many achievements have been acknowledged by her peers in her receiving numerous international, national and state awards. She has worked in a variety of school settings where she has taught IT and led in K-12 education as the director of ICT. Her Doctorate in Education focused on ICT Leadership in schools. Therese has served on several boards including; the chair of Australian Computer Society’s (ACS) ICT Educators Committee, Australian Council of Computers in Education (ACCE), and Australian Representative for the International Federation of Information Processing xiii

xiv

About the Editors

(IFIP) Technical Committee on Education (TC3). Currently, she is the Vice Chair for TC3—WG3.3—Research into Educational Applications of Information Technologies. She is the Deputy Editor for Education and Information Technologies—the official journal of the IFIP Technical Committee on Education covering the complex relationship between information and communication technologies and education. She has written 16 textbooks in all units of VCE Senior Information Technology in Victoria since 1995 and has worked with the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA) in the development of the VCE IT Study Design and VCE Exams and various roles associated with VCE assessment. She has been involved in the provision of professional development to ICT teachers and research into the use of technology, gender inequalities in STEM-based subjects, robotics in education, and computers in schools for teaching and learning purposes. She has developed and delivered workshops in humanoid robot (NAO) for primary and secondary school students and was also involved with the FIRST LEGO League as the tournament director for Victoria (2015–2019) and the lead mentor for the RoboCats—a schoolgirl only robotics team that participated in the FIRST Robotic Competition from 2014 to 2020.

List of Figures

Fig. 3.1 Fig. 5.1

Fig. 7.1 Fig. 7.2 Fig. 7.3 Fig. 7.4

Constructivist online learning framework aligned to Instagram integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pillars of sustainable development (UN, 2002, https://com mons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:11625_2018_627_Fig1_H TML.webp) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The four main steps (or elements) of computational thinking (image created by M. Cerovac) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The five-stage design thinking process (image created by M. Cerovac) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Simplistic view of systems thinking within a secondary school classroom (image created by M. Cerovac) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The three thinking skills underpinning the Australian Curriculum Technologies (ACARA, n.d.-c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30

61 89 91 93 95

xv

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Table 3.1 Table 8.1

Paired sample t-test before and after the simulation activity . . . . Mapping of Instagram use vision to AITSL standards . . . . . . . . . The EntreComp competencies (Bacigalupo et al., 2016) . . . . . . .

19 29 111

xvii

Chapter 1

The Role of Virtual Reality Professional Experiences in Initial Teacher Education Therese Keane

and Christina Chalmers

Abstract The adoption of virtual reality professional experiences in initial teacher education programs has been expedited over the last few years. Virtual reality has provided alternative professional experiences for preservice teachers unable to attend traditional classrooms due to school closures and visitor restrictions due to COVID-19. Virtual reality has been used as a substitute for traditional professional experiences and to create valuable online professional experiences for preservice teachers. This chapter discusses the advantages and disadvantages of adopting these virtual reality professional experiences. These experiences can involve microteaching with virtual classrooms or responding to critical incidents. Immersing in classroom scenarios and critical incidents in virtual reality environments can help preservice teachers prepare for the challenges of their future face-to-face classrooms and for teaching online. There are, however, a number of challenges to the adoption of virtual professional experiences in initial teacher education programs. These challenges include the acceptance of virtual reality as a valuable experience, addressing potential short-term health risks, and ensuring access to relevant technologies. Teacher educators also need time to develop the skills needed to design realistic virtual reality classroom scenarios and incidents that can extend preservice teachers professional experiences. Future research needs to address these challenges. Keywords Virtual reality · Initial teacher education · Professional experience · Critical incidents · Preservice teachers

T. Keane (B) La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] C. Chalmers Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. Garvis and T. Keane (eds.), Technological Innovations in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2785-2_1

1

2

T. Keane and C. Chalmers

1.1 Introduction The move to online learning and teaching for most schools occurred around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many teachers were expected to rapidly adapt to teaching in online learning environments, with limited experience with teaching in these contexts (Michalec et al., 2021). This rapid move to online learning was also particularly challenging for teacher educators trying to provide valuable professional experience opportunities for preservice teachers (Assunção Flores & Gago, 2020). Professional experiences for preservice teachers had to be shifted from traditional face-to-face classrooms to online and virtual reality environments (Sasaki et al., 2020). This highlighted implications for preservice teacher programs, as some teacher educators were unprepared for teaching in online learning environments. Many preservice teachers, while considering themselves competent technology users, also had low self-efficacy with using virtual reality environments due to lack of experience (Gallup et al., 2021). This chapter highlights the benefits and challenges of adopting virtual reality professional experiences in intial teacher education programs and discusses how the technology-based virtual reality environments can support preservice teachers’ continued professional development and reflection on their pedagogical practices. Even prior to the COVID pandemic online learning in education was increasing and teachers, without any formal training, were expected “to learn as they go” (Hojeij & Baroudi, 2021, p. 14). The shift to online learning and virtual professional experiences offered opportunities for preservice teachers to gain valuable teaching experiences by utilising innovative technologies (Kenon et al., 2021). The use of virtual reality experiences is emerging in the field of teacher education, providing preservice teachers safe environments to practise their skills and to respond to virtual challenges (Hudson et al., 2019). There has been an increase in the development of virtual reality simulations over the last few years designed to enhance teacher education (Howell & Mieska, 2021). Technology-based simulated environments can be used to supplement and support preservice teachers’ practicum experiences (Sasaki et al., 2020).

1.2 Literature Review During the COVID-19 pandemic schools were locked down and classes were delivered remotely and for some preservice teachers their professional experience was delayed (Quezada et al., 2020). Preservice teachers who were fortunate enough to have been allocated a school to complete their professional experience did this remotely. These preservice teachers were not in a physical, ‘bricks and mortar’ classroom in the presence of students, but rather delivering classes online (Assunção Flores & Gago, 2020; Korucu-Kı¸s, 2021). Most of these preservice teachers delivered their classes remotely, using a combination of technology including the internet, whilst their students undertook their studies from their home. Therefore, limiting

1 The Role of Virtual Reality Professional Experiences in Initial Teacher …

3

physical interaction amongst students and their teachers. These preservice teachers were seen to have missed out on two important aspects of Initial Teacher Education (ITE): being in the same room with students, in a dynamic classroom, simultaneously managing students as well as teaching content (Assunção Flores & Gago, 2020); and in some cases, on the reflection of their practice with their mentor teacher (Orland-Barak & Wang, 2021). Whilst not necessarily confined to the pandemic the “lack of practice in the school setting” (Stavroulia et al., 2019, p. 194) is a common problem across teacher education. There is considerable variability in the amount of school practise preservice teachers receive throughout their training. Almost all education systems across the world regulate a minimum period of professional experience in ITE courses; however, there is no consensus and the duration can vary from 50% of the entire ITE course to as little as 8% (Davydovskaia et al., 2021). The tension lies between universities being vastly theoretical entities and ITE courses requiring high quality practical experiences in school settings (Darling-Hammond, 2014). This theory–practice gap can be addressed by using virtual reality and by offering preservice teachers effective and immersive training that reflects real world classroom experiences to enable them to acquire basic classroom teaching competence. This has been identified as a key priority for preparation into the teaching profession (Caena, 2014). Immersive virtual reality systems are a form of technology that provides participants with simulated computer generated experiences in three-dimensional (3D) environments projected through a headset over the eyes of the user. This provides an immersive experience, leading the user to perceive the virtual environment as realistic (Araiza-Alba et al., 2021, 2022). Six types of virtual reality systems were identified and each of these used different equipment to allow the user to interact with the environment: Window systems/computer-based VR; Mirror systems; Vehicle-based systems; Cave automatic virtual environments (CAVE systems); Immersive virtual reality (IVR) (uses head mounted displays) and Augmented reality systems. For this chapter, we refer to immersive virtual reality (IVR) experiences which use the following equipment: • head-mounted displays such as Oculus Rift and HTC Vive; • on-screen displays using a variety of methods to interact with the learning environment. There are many different levels of immersion within the realms of virtual reality, ranging from passive to interactive, where the user can spontaneously navigate and interact with the environments through objects or avatars (Southgate, 2018). As part of the virtual reality experience, the user is immersed in the artificial world and has the opportunity to execute physical actions and manipulate virtual objects (Smith, 2015). Virtual reality has been used as an effective training tool in diverse areas spanning from medicine, mining, and military to fire safety and earthquake training (Li et al., 2017; Shewaga et al., 2018; Van Wyk & De Villiers, 2009; Yu et al., 2016). Many of these environments can be deemed dangerous or hazardous (Pantelidis, 2009) and there are benefits of using immersive virtual reality in situations where there is

4

T. Keane and C. Chalmers

significant risk to participants. By practising, being in a simulated situation, without putting participants into actual danger opportunities. They can prepare how they would react to certain behaviours and focus on decisions they would make based on what they experience. Participants can experience difficult situations and respond to challenges they could encounter in the real world (Caserman et al., 2019; Makransky et al., 2019). Researchers have reported on the value of virtual teaching experiences for preservice teachers due to school shutdowns, and due to the increase in online learning environments and virtual schools (Gallup et al., 2021). Virtual experiences can also help reduce preservice teachers’ anxiety prior to formal professional experience (Theelen et al., 2019). Many preservice teachers experience anxiety with choosing and applying classroom management strategies during their professional experience and with preventing disruptive behaviours in the classroom (Mouw et al., 2020). These negative experiences can affect their wellbeing and attrition. Preservice teachers also can find the transition from theory to classroom practice stressful, and introducing virtual reality classroom simulations can alleviate this anxiety by providing a ‘safe space’ for preservice teachers to make mistakes and experimentation (Dalinger et al., 2020). Many ITE courses prior to 2020, however, do not incorporate virtual reality experiences in their teaching programs (Clarke & Wolff, 2018). Preparing future teachers for traditional classrooms and to also teach virtually is important. Teacher education programs need to prepare preservice teachers to work with students in traditional faceto-face classrooms and in online learning environments (Luke & Vaughn, 2022) and to assist in the transition from theory to classroom practice (McGarr, 2021; McGarr et al., 2017). Preservice teacher programs that incorporate virtual reality classroom experiences as well as online and traditional face-to-face professional experiences better prepare their students for this transition. Virtual reality can provide students with the experience to respond to authentic classroom events and critical incidents. Some of the advantages reported include: • • • • •

Improved preparation for classroom teaching. The ability to respond to authentic classroom events and critical incidents. Developing a realistic view of educational practice. Teacher educators being able to control the content, structure, and timing of events. Receiving timely feedback and opportunities for reflection on teaching practice.

There is an opportunity for technology to play an important role in ITE preparation by using virtual reality and artificial intelligence to simulate the classroom environment and provide students with classroom experience (Sasaki et al., 2020). This simulated classroom experience can take the form of a preservice teacher presenting a lesson to students using avatars, before actually undertaking professional experience in a school. The avatar can be controlled partially by artificial intelligence and a person (actor) who is a specialist and responds and reacts in real time to the preservice teacher. Teacher educators can control digital avatars while interacting with preservice teachers in virtual reality experiences (Howell & Mieska, 2021). This allows the preservice teachers to experience challenging behavioural issues

1 The Role of Virtual Reality Professional Experiences in Initial Teacher …

5

in a safe virtual environment, and they can also practise important parent-teacher conferencing skills (Luke & Vaughn, 2022). Examples of virtual reality used in initial teacher education include simSchool (Badiee & Kaufman, 2015), TLE TeachLivE™ (Dieker et al., 2019) which is now known as Mursion (Peterson-Ahmad et al., 2018) and iSee (Pendergast et al., 2022). The simSchool platform has been predominantly used in North American universities. The platform places preservice teachers in a simulated classroom environment, where they get to demonstrate their teaching skills on simStudents who respond in individual ways to tasks assigned, tone of voice used, and to classroom management strategies employed (simSchool, 2022). Mursion, another virtual reality platform uses a combination of virtual reality and artificial intelligence to allow preservice teachers to interact with students in the form of digital avatars whilst being monitored by university lecturers, so that there is open reflection about the experience (Peterson-Ahmad et al., 2018). With iSee, the platform integrates webcam feeds as avatars, to represent the preservice teachers and school students moving within the virtual learning scenarios, including classrooms and outdoor spaces (Pendergast et al., 2022).

1.3 Implementation Whilst not a replacement for professional experience in schools, the opportunity to supplement students’ understanding of the classroom context with virtual reality experiences is much needed. This is especially important given some preservice teachers have never stepped in a ‘bricks and mortar’ classroom due to lockdowns caused by COVID, and due to the difficulties universities have in finding placements for preservice teachers (Sasaki et al., 2020). Rather than just substituting for traditional professional experiences, these virtual experiences can be used to create additional valuable experiences for preservice teachers to extend their professional learning. Some researchers warn, however, that while virtual practicum experiences may benefit preservice teachers, they cannot capture the complexity of face-to-face classrooms (e.g., Korucu-Kis, 2021). Virtual reality simulations are needed that engage preservice teachers’ in ‘enacted responses’ for realistic classroom challenges (Brown, 1999). Stavroulia et al. (2019) proposed a five phase framework to support the development of virtual reality experiences for teacher education. The framework is aimed to support teachers’ continued professional development and is focused on the reflection of pedagogical aspects as well as the development and implementation of realistic classroom scenarios. This framework can be adapted for virtual reality experiences in teacher education programs, in order for preservice teachers to transfer the knowledge gained to their future classrooms. Phase 1 of the framework involves analysing and investigating the needs of the preservice teachers involved when developing realistic classroom scenarios. This could include identifying scenarios related to dealing with behaviour management issues, classroom diversity, individualised learning, and classroom management. Phase 2 involves identifying teacher competencies to be

6

T. Keane and C. Chalmers

developed during the proposed virtual reality scenario. These competencies include “pedagogical content knowledge, issues of inclusion and diversity, use of technologies, reflection, research and collaboration skills, and adaptability” (Stavroulia et al., 2019, p. 200). Phase 3 is focused on designing the scenarios, based on the previous phases and inspired by realistic school incidents. Phase 4 looks at choosing and developing the VR application in order to create realistic experiences for preservice teachers. Phase 5, the implementation and evaluation phase, involves the evaluation of the VR application implementation and of the impact of participating in the virtual reality classroom scenario on the professional development of the preservice teachers.

1.3.1 Classroom Scenarios Virtual reality simulations are seen as the bridge between theory and the teaching that preservice teachers will be expected to do in classrooms. As part of the development of the virtual reality experience, the design of authentic classroom scenarios is imperative (Klassen et al., 2020). The scenarios need to be carefully crafted so that they reflect real interactions between teachers and students and provide preservice teachers with the ability to engage and then reflect on their practice (Stavroulia et al., 2019). Preservice teachers can explore instructional strategies, practise teaching methods, engage in reflective practice, and receive feedback on effective teaching practices (Landon-Hays et al., 2020). Examples of classroom scenarios used in virtual reality simulations for teacher education include incidents of bullying, substance abuse, aggression and/or insolence towards teachers or other peers, and scenarios that allow preservice teachers to practise their communication skills. Whilst not an exhaustive list, they are indicative of the types of complex interactions preservice teachers may encounter in a classroom. Preservice teachers can also be involved in microteaching online with virtual classrooms or can be responding to and reflecting on critical incidents in virtual reality platforms.

1.3.2 Critical Incidents Critical incidents can be presented as challenges or dilemmas that preservice teachers need to respond to (Klassen et al., 2020). During a virtual reality experience, preservice teachers can test a variety of responses, practise their teaching strategies, and receive immediate feedback. Virtual reality can provide opportunities for engaging in meaningful teaching experiences where preservice teachers can respond to realistic classroom scenarios, and critical incidents, in relatively ‘low-risk’ environments (Theelen et al., 2019). They can gain valuable experience and the virtual reality applications incorporating classroom scenarios and critical incidents can provide opportunities for their reflection on future practice (Brown, 1999).

1 The Role of Virtual Reality Professional Experiences in Initial Teacher …

7

Examples of critical incidents include a series of “how to scenarios” such as how the preservice teacher would respond to confronting behaviour from students. These could include various degrees of severity such as the non cooperation of students when given instructions to undertake work, stopping antisocial behaviour such as shouting out answers, swinging on chairs, not listening to instructions, disrupting the equilibrium of the classroom, or escalating to violence. These scenarios are intentionally uncomfortable so that the preservice teacher can prepare themselves to be able to use strategies should a real incident occur when they are in practice.

1.3.3 VR Applications For virtual reality applications to be accepted as effective learning tools, they need to be highly immersive, as these experiences are more likely to evoke emotions from the user (Stavroulia et al, 2019). Immersive Virtual Reality (IVR) has the ability to stimulate the senses of its users and in the case of preservice teachers, present scenarios in a realistic and authentic manner, resulting in interest and willingness to interact with the content or environment, and additionally IVR has the potential to stimulate interest and motivation (Araiza-Alba et al., 2021). According to Araiza-Alba et al. (2021) immersive virtual reality is known for its potential to elicit the interest of students when used as a tool for active engagement. Furthermore, immersive virtual reality technology facilitates users to directly interact with experiences and scenarios to provide a foundation for them to remember and transfer their learning to real situations, which is ideal for preservice teachers and teacher education (Araiza-Alba et al., 2021; Dede et al., 2017). This is encouraging when applied to teacher education and providing preservice teachers with opportunities to demonstrate micro-teaching opportunities or to respond to potential classroom issues.

1.3.4 Challenges The adoption of virtual professional experiences can be challenging in ITE courses due to preservice teachers’ lack of experience with virtual reality, limited access to appropriate technologies, and issues of acceptance (Araiza-Alba et al., 2022). Similar to other technology innovations, the acceptance of the virtual reality experiences as part of preservice teachers’ preparation to teach includes an acceptance of why this experience is important for their future classrooms. For the successful adoption of virtual reality experiences, preservice teachers and teacher educators need to understand the rationale behind why these virtual experiences are important. Understanding that these types of experiences are not substitutes for traditional face-to-face classroom experiences but how they can complement these experiences.

8

T. Keane and C. Chalmers

Barriers to effective integration of virtual reality in ITE programs also include time constraints and a lack of access to appropriate technologies (Bower et al., 2020). Lack of access can limit the successful implementation of virtual reality experiences in ITE programs. This includes lack of access to devices with the necessary technical specifications to be able to use virtual reality. Immersive virtual reality experiences require the use of head-mounted displays and hand-held controllers, which can pose a challenge if not all preservice teachers have access (Bower et al., 2020). Shortterm safety risks with the use of virtual reality headsets have also been identified (Araiza-Alba et al., 2022), these risks include effects of motion sickness, eyestrain, and headaches, and the risk of crashing into objects while immersed in the virtual experience. Further research and future technological advances are addressing these issues (Southgate, 2018). Cost is also a key barrier to the adoption of virtual reality and access to realistic classroom simulations that mirror classroom realities and support the overall pedagogy of the education setting (Howell & Mieska, 2021). Virtual reality scenarios can be expensive and time-consuming to develop. Teacher educators need time to develop the skills necessary to design realistic virtual reality scenarios (Brown, 1999), and to provide opportunities for reflection and feedback (Klassen et al., 2020). There is limited research on how to supervise preservice teachers in virtual settings (Gallup et al., 2021). The production of the virtual reality scenarios may also require specialised personnel with skills in designing learning episodes and media development (Brown, 1999).

1.3.5 Addressing the Challenges Acceptance of virtual reality in teacher education courses needs to be backed by evidence led practice. Preservice teachers need to be briefed about the process and the rationale why virtual reality technology is being used to complement their professional experience. Acceptance of this aspect of the ITE course for preservice teacher teachers may initially be in the form of a hurdle requirement, whereby they complete a virtual reality simulation experience before undertaking professional experience in a school environment. There is limited literature, however, about the effectiveness of virtual reality in preparing preservice teachers for professional experience, therefore making it difficult to conclude what the benefits are, despite the potential it presents (Peterson-Ahmad et al., 2018). Whilst there is not a plethora of studies explicitly dedicated to the use of virtual reality and professional experience, Araiza-Alba et al. (2020) reported that virtual reality implementations in developmental psychology are valid and useful tools that have the capacity to simulate the challenges of real-life experiences. Theelen et al. (2019) concluded that preservice teachers felt better prepared for teaching in practice and reported a more realistic image of teaching following a virtual internship. Further research using randomised control trials are needed to be able to establish whether the

1 The Role of Virtual Reality Professional Experiences in Initial Teacher …

9

use of virtual reality applications improves preservice practice compared to different predetermined conditions when applied to teacher education.

1.4 Conclusion There has been an increase in the development of virtual reality simulations designed to enhance teacher education and provide preservice teachers safe environments to practise their skills and respond to virtual classroom scenarios and critical incidents. Having experienced closures of schools and universities in an unprecedented way due to COVID-19, preservice teachers over the past few years have not had the usual level of classroom preparation. There was also an increase in the use of online learning prior to COVID. Recent technological advances have supported the emergence of virtual reality applications that can provide preservice teachers with valuable classroom experiences. Using virtual reality to complement preservice teachers’ professional experience with typical classroom scenarios and critical incidents can help prepare preservice teachers for their future classrooms. While this chapter highlighted both the benefits and challenges to the adoption of virtual reality professional experiences, looking into the future of teacher education, these types of experiences can build preservice teachers’ confidence for their future classrooms. The virtual reality scenarios can create additional online experiences that can extend the preservice teachers’ professional learning and prepare them to teach in online learning environments. These technology-based virtual reality environments can also supplement and support preservice teachers’ professional experiences. Virtual reality professional experiences for ITE can support preservice teachers’ continued professional development and their reflection on pedagogical approaches. By providing preservice teachers with realistic classroom scenarios and critical incidents they can engage with and then reflect on their future pedagogical practices.

References Araiza-Alba, P., Keane, T., Beaudry, J. L., & Kaufman, J. (2020). Immersive virtual reality implementations in developmental psychology. International Journal of Virtual Reality, 20(2). https:/ /doi.org/10.20870/IJVR.2020.20.2.3094 Araiza-Alba, P., Keane, T., & Kaufman, J. (2022). Are we ready for virtual reality in K–12 classrooms? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2022. 2033307 Araiza-Alba, P., Keane, T., Chen, W. S., & Kaufman, J. (2021). Immersive virtual reality as a tool to learn problem-solving skills. Computers & Education, 164, 104121. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.compedu.2020.104121 Assunção Flores, M., & Gago, M. (2020). Teacher education in times of COVID-19 pandemic in Portugal: National, institutional and pedagogical responses. Journal of Education for Teaching, 46(4), 507–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1799709

10

T. Keane and C. Chalmers

Badiee, F., & Kaufman, D. (2015). Design evaluation of a simulation for teacher education. SAGE Open, 5(2), 2158244015592454. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015592454 Bower, M., DeWitt, D., & Lai, J. W. (2020). Reasons associated with preservice teachers’ intention to use immersive virtual reality in education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(6), 2215–2233. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13009 Brown, A. H. (1999). Simulated classrooms and artificial students. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(2), 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.1999.10782281 Caena, F. (2014). Initial teacher education in Europe: An overview of policy issues. European Commission Directorate-General for Education and Culture School policy/Erasmus+ ET2020 Working Group of Schools Policy. http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/strategic-framework/ expert-groups/documents/initialteacher-education_en.pdf Caserman, P., Zhang, H., Zinnacker, J., & Gobel, S. (2019). Development of a directed teleport function for immersive training in virtual reality. 11th international conference on virtual worlds and games for serious applications, VS-games 2019-proceedings, 1DUUMY. https://doi.org/10. 1109/VS-Games.2019 Clarke, N. C. & Wolff, D. (2018). Virtual tools for teacher training and practicum interaction. In M. Çakmak & M. Gündüz (Ed.), Dimensions and emerging themes in teaching practicum: A global perspective (pp. 52–71). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351209885 Dalinger, T., Thomas, K. B., Stansberry, S., & Xiu, Y. (2020). A mixed reality simulation offers strategic practice for pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 144, 103696. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103696 Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). Strengthening clinical preparation: The holy grail of teacher education. Peabody Journal of Education, 89(4), 547–561. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2014. 939009 Davydovskaia, O., De Coster, I., Birch, P., Vasiliou, N., & Motiejunaite-Schulmeister, A. (2021). Teachers in Europe: Careers, development and well-being. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2797/997402 Dede, C. J., Jacobson, J., & Richards, J. (2017). Introduction: Virtual, augmented, and mixed realities in education. In Virtual, augmented, and mixed realities in education (pp. 1–16). Springer. https:/ /doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5490-7_1 Dieker, L. A., Straub, C., Hynes, M., Hughes, C. E., Bukathy, C., Bousfield, T., & Mrstik, S. (2019). Using virtual rehearsal in a simulator to impact the performance of science teachers. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations (IJGCMS), 11(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGCMS.2019100101 Gallup, J. L., Ray, B., & Bennett, C. A. (2021). A roadmap for development, implementation, and evaluation of virtual practicums in teacher education: Virtual practicums amidst a global crisis. In L. Kyei-Blankson, J. Blankson, & E. Ntuli (Ed.), Handbook of research on inequities in online education during global crises (pp. 163–182). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-79986533-9.ch009 Hojeij, Z. & Baroudi, S. (2021). Engaging pre-service teachers in virtual field experience during COVID-19: Designing a framework to inform practice. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 19(3), 8–20. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJDET.2021070102 Howell, H., & Mieska, J. N. (2021). Approximations of practice as a framework for understanding authenticity in simulations of teaching. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 53(1), 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1809033 Hudson, M. E., Voytecki, K. S., Owens, T. L., & Zhang, G. (2019). Preservice teacher experiences implementing classroom management practices through mixed-reality simulations. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 38(2), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870519841421 Kenon, V. H., Garcia, P. M., Schramm, D., & Arellano, S. J. (2021). Utilizing online innovative technology for student success in higher education learning environments. In C. Crawford (Ed.), Shifting to online learning through faculty collaborative support (pp. 206–228). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-6944-3.ch011

1 The Role of Virtual Reality Professional Experiences in Initial Teacher …

11

Klassen, R., Bardach, L., Rushby, J. V., Maxwell, L., Durksen, T. L., & Sheridan, L. (2020). The development and testing of an online scenario-based learning activity to prepare preservice teachers for teaching placements. Teaching and Teacher Education, 104, 103385. https://doi. org/10/1016/j.tate.2021.103385 Korucu-Kis, S. (2021). Preparing student teachers for real classrooms through virtual vicarious experiences of critical incidents during remote practicum: A meaningful-experiential learning perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 6949–6971. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10639-021-10555-7 Landon-Hays, M., Peterson-Ahmad, M. B., & Frazier, A. D. (2020). Learning to teach: How a simulated learning environment can connect theory to practice in general and special education educator preparation programs. Education Sciences, 10(7), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/edu csci10070184 Li, C., Liang, W., Quigley, C., Zhao, Y., & Yu, L. F. (2017). Earthquake safety training through virtual drills. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 23(4), 1388–1397. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2017.2656958 Luke, S. E., & Vaughn, S. M. (2022). Embedding virtual simulation into a course to teach parent– teacher collaboration skills. Intervention in School and Clinic, 57(3), 182–188. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/10534512211014873 Makransky, G., Borre-Gude, S., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Motivational and cognitive benefits of training in immersive virtual reality based on multiple assessments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12375 McGarr, O. (2021). The use of virtual simulations in teacher education to develop pre-service teachers’ behaviour and classroom management skills: Implications for reflective practice. Journal of Education for Teaching, 47(2), 274–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020. 1733398 McGarr, O., O’Grady, E., & Guilfoyle, L. (2017). Exploring the theory-practice gap in initial teacher education: Moving beyond questions of relevance to issues of power and authority. Journal of Education for Teaching, 43(1), 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2017.1256040 Michalec, P., Brunhofer, L., & O’Malley, J. A. (2021). Thriving through disruption: COVID-19, online education, and innovation. In C. Crawford (Ed.), Shifting to online learning through faculty collaborative support (pp. 39–54). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-79986944-3.ch003 Mouw, J., Fokkens-Bruinsma, M., & Verheij, G. (2020). Using virtual reality to promote preservice teachers’ classroom management skills and teacher resilience: A qualitative evaluation. Sixth International Conference on Higher Education Advances. https://doi.org/10.4995/HEA d20.2020.11049 Orland-Barak, L., & Wang, J. (2021). Teacher mentoring in service of preservice teachers’ learning to teach: Conceptual bases, characteristics, and challenges for teacher education reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 72(1), 86–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487119894230 Pantelidis, V. (2009). Reasons to use virtual reality in education and training courses and a model to determine when to use virtual reality. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 2(1), 59–70. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1131313.pdf Pendergast, D., O’Brien, M., Prestridge, S., & Exley, B. (2022). Self-efficacy in a 3-dimensional virtual reality classroom—Initial teacher education students’ experiences. Education Sciences, 12(6), 368. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12060368 Peterson-Ahmad, M. B., Pemberton, J., & Hovey, K. A. (2018). Virtual learning environments for teacher preparation. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 54(4), 165–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958. 2018.1515544 Quezada, R. L., Talbot, C., & Quezada-Parker, K. B. (2020). From bricks and mortar to remote teaching: A teacher education program‘s response to COVID-19. Journal of Education for Teaching, 46(4), 472–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1801330 Sasaki, R., Goff, W., Dowsett, A., Parossien, D., Matthies, J., Di Iorio, C., Montey, S., Rowe, S., & Puddy, G. (2020). The practicum experience during Covid-19–Supporting initial teacher

12

T. Keane and C. Chalmers

education student’s practicum experience through a simulated classroom. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), 329–339. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/216244/ Shewaga, R., Uribe-Quevedo, A., Kapralos, B., Lee, K., & Alam, F. (2018). A serious game for anesthesia-based crisis resource management training. Computers in Entertainment, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.1145/3180660 simSchool. (2022). simSchool. Retrieved from https://simschool.org/home/simschool/ Smith, J. W. (2015). Immersive virtual environment technology to supplement environmental perception, preference and behavior research: A review with applications. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(9), 11486–11505. https://doi.org/10.3390/ije rph120911486 Southgate, E. (2018, May). Immersive virtual reality, children and school education: A literature review for teachers. Australia DICE Report Series, Issue 6. https://ericasouthgateonline.files. wordpress.com/2018/06/southgate_2018_immersive_vr_literature_review_for_teachers.pdf Stavroulia, K. E., Christofi, M., Baka, E., Michael-Grigoriou, D., Magnenat-Thalmann, N., & Lanitis, A. (2019). Assessing the emotional impact of virtual reality-based teacher training. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 36(3), 192–217. https:// doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-11-2018-0127 Theelen, H., Willems, M. C., van den Beemnt, A., Conijn, R., & den Brok, P. (2019). Virtual internships in blended environments to prepare preservice teachers for the professional teaching context. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(1), 194–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/ bjet.12760 Van Wyk, E., & De Villiers, R. (2009). Virtual reality training applications for the mining industry. In Afrigraph. http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1510000/1503465/p53-van_wyk.pdf?ip=136. 186.248.250&id=1503465&acc=ACTIVESERVICE&key=65D80644F295BC0D.8CC58A B4E41E133F.4D4702B0C3E38B35.4D4702B0C3E38B35&_acm_=1567563233_91c4019 573d969093dfbb910de6fefac Yu, F., Hu, X., Ma, C., Zhao, Y., Liu, Y., Yang, F., & Chen, G. (2016). MDIS cloth system: Virtual reality technology for firefighter training. Proceedings—VRCAI 2016: 15th ACM SIGGRAPH Conference on Virtual-Reality Continuum and Its Applications in Industry, 1, pp. 219–225. https://doi.org/10.1145/3013971.3013977

Therese Keane is Professor in STEM Education and has been a champion for empowering girls in STEM. She is currently the Associate Dean of Research and Industry Engagement at La Trobe University. Her passion and many achievements have been acknowledged by her peers in her receiving numerous international, national and state awards. She has worked in a variety of school settings where she has taught IT and lead in K-12 education as the Director of ICT. Therese is Deputy Editor for “Education and Information Technologies”—the official journal of the IFIP Technical Committee on Education covering the complex relationship between information and communication technologies and education. Christina Chalmers is a senior lecturer in STEM and Technologies Education at the Queensland University of Technology. Her research focuses on: group metacognition, computer supported collaborative learning, digital pedagogies, and robotics-based STEM education. She currently coordinates the Technologies Curriculum unit and a STEM Masters unit within the Faculty of Creative Industries, Education, and Social Justice. Chris is the project leader for the Robotics@QUT outreach program and is the coordinator of the Children’s Technology Centre for the Australian Research Council of Excellence for the Digital Child. Chris has published in top international journals on mathematics, robotics education, and STEM “Big Ideas”.

Chapter 2

VR Simulations to Develop Teaching Practice with Pre-service Teachers Wendy Goff

Abstract In this chapter, findings that demonstrate how a VR simulation was harnessed to develop teaching self-efficacy in a university classroom are shared. The VR simulated classroom utilised in the study was a low-immersion VR platform that draws on Mursion software and a ‘human in the loop’ to provide a realtime teaching experience. Data were collected via pre and post survey and a debrief session with teacher educators. Bandura’s four primary sources of information that promote selfefficacy: performance attainments; vicarious experiences of observing the performances of others; verbal persuasion/social influences; and physiological states were drawn on to analyse the effectiveness of the VR simulation for the development of teacher self-efficacy. In this chapter, the project is outlined and key findings from the study are presented. Recommendations for future work in this area are also offered. Keywords Virtual Reality · Simulated classroom · Teacher education · Placement experience · Initial teacher education · Self-efficacy

2.1 Introduction Prior to 1988 the preparation of teachers in Australia was the responsibility of Training Colleges and Colleges of Advanced Education (CAE). These colleges were vocational in nature, practice driven, and were considered second-tier institutions within the Australian adult education context (Mayer, 2015). In 1988 Initial Teacher Education (ITE) moved into the university context and there was pressure placed on the vocation to prove its legitimacy in the university and in the wider educational research field. There was also pressure on ITE to prove its intellectual value within the university context and “the research sought was to illuminate a knowledge base for teaching and then teacher learning” (Mayer, 2015, p. 463). Since the transition into the university context ITE has received wide criticism. Much of this critique has centred on a perceived lack of balance between theory and W. Goff (B) Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. Garvis and T. Keane (eds.), Technological Innovations in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2785-2_2

13

14

W. Goff

practice, and a perceived lack of opportunity for the practical application of theoretical ideas, skills and strategies in the university context (Finn, et al., 2020; Zeichner, 2010). In fact, since the conception of university based ITE in 1988, universities have been positioned as highly theoretical and disconnected from classroom practice and as a result have come under enormous criticism for not adequately preparing ITE students to enter the classroom (Finn, et al., 2020). To address this criticism and perceived notions of inadequacies in preparing ITE students for classroom practice, universities have forged partnerships with schools that seek to provide opportunities for ITE to translate theoretical ideas into teaching practice. In most university contexts around the world this partnership has translated into a mandatory school-based practicum experience that is embedded across each year of the ITE program (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2022). In Australia, this has resulted in a wider dichotomy between theory and practice and has shaped ITE in ways that are now reliant on schools to develop ITE students practical experience. In 2016, Loughran and Hamilton warned that when theory and practice is structured as a dichotomy in ITE programs, that eventually a belief forms that only time in schools can develop practical understandings (Loughran & Hamilton, 2016; Finn, et al., 2020; Fitzgerald, et al., 2003). This ‘formed belief’ has implications for universities, ITE students and schools, particularly in relation to which context develops specific understandings, knowledge, and skills, and where responsibility might lie should ITE students continue to be perceived by society as ‘underprepared’ when entering the teaching workforce. Around the world the recent Covid-19 pandemic coupled with this ‘formed belief’ around the dichotomy of theory and practice in ITE has posed significant challenges for universities, governments, and schools, particularly in relation to the practicum experience of ITE students. It has also prompted key players involved in the preparation of teachers for classroom practice to rethink the theory–practice nexus and to seek out ways in which the practical skills and understandings of ITE students can be developed in the university context. The study reported in this paper adds to this discussion by providing insight into how a Virtual Reality (VR) simulated classroom embedded in an ITE program was used to develop ITE student’s self-efficacy around their teaching practice, defined in this study as teacher self-efficacy.

2.2 Literature Review Although often thought of as a new technology, VR simulation was introduced to the world in the late 60s through flight simulators developed by the military (Dede et al., 2017; Finn et al., 2020). During this time VR simulation was espoused as a viable tool for developing procedural knowledge or for mastering a sequence of steps to complete a specific task, but there was less information about how the tool might utilised to support declarative knowledge or to develop conceptual understandings. Toward the early 2000 the potential of Virtual Reality (VR) and simulated learning

2 VR Simulations to Develop Teaching Practice with Pre-service Teachers

15

environments beyond the development of procedural knowledge began to be recognised across different discipline areas in the HEI context. Despite this recognition in the various disciplines, the incorporation of VR simulated learning environments into ITE programs has primarily remained elusive. This aperture is evidenced by the limited published research about VR simulations in ITE (McGarr, 2020), and in the conventional theory-practicum representations still found in most ITE programs (Finn et al., 2020). Despite this paucity in practice and the research literature there is a small body of evidence beginning to emerge. For example, in their work that sought to examine how ITE students experience working in a VR simulated classroom affected their self-efficacy, Nissim & Weissblueth analysed 176 fourth year ITE students written reflective narrative reports after their participation in the VR classroom. A key finding of this study was that ITE student’s involvement in the VR classroom both enhanced their confidence and feelings of self-efficacy, whilst simultaneously supporting teaching innovation and creativity (Nissim & Weissblueth, 2017). In another study, Finn and colleagues examined International ITE students’ experiences in the VR simulated classroom (Finn et al., 2020). ITE students were required to plan and teach a lesson in the VR simulated classroom, watch a video recording of their teaching practice, and submit a written reflection about their experience. Similar to Nissim and Weissblueth, the researchers then analysed the written reflections. One of the main findings of this study was that ITE students appeared to move “beyond the mechanics of teaching and towards an explicit focus of understanding the needs of students, including what students need for effective learning” (Finn et al., 2020, p. 81). This aligns with what Ditchburn’s suggests in relation to the traditional model of ITE practicum experience. He suggests that a traditional model of ITE practicum experience “does not encourage PSTs [pre-service teachers] themselves to theorize about their practice, engage in pedagogical risk taking, or to assimilate critical reflective practices as a considered and natural part of their work” (2017, p. 94). In similar work, Hudson and colleagues worked with 25 undergraduate ITE students to develop their skills in classroom management (Hudson et al., 2018). Drawing on a mixed-reality VR simulation the ITE students interacted with three specifically designed classroom-based scenarios that had escalating student (avatar) behaviours for the ITE students to manage. ITE students were asked to reflect via video after each teaching episode and completed a perceptions questionnaire after all three sessions were finalised. An interesting finding from this study was that participation in the VR simulation not only taught classroom management skills, but it also provided the opportunity for ITE students to refine and develop their fluency with such skills (Hudson et al., 2018). Fluency can be defined as the “combination of accuracy plus speed that characterizes competence performance” or “a combination of quality plus pace” (Binder, 1996, p. 163). In relation to teaching it can be described as “second nature performance [or] doing the right thing without hesitation” (Binder, 1996 p. 163). Fluency is generally developed through practice and is closely tied to individual notions of self-efficacy (Duke et al., 2014). In relation ITE, fluency is typically explored in curriculum

16

W. Goff

studies e.g. developing reading fluency or developing mathematical fluency but rarely explored in relation to the development of ITE students and the performative aspects of teaching. This is problematic given that real world teaching consists of repeated cycles of planning, practice, performance and reflection on instructional activities (Kim et al., 2019). According to Bandura self-efficacy is tied to fluency and “is concerned with judgements about how well one can organise and execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations” (Bandura, 1983, p. 122). He further explains that there are four primary sources of information that promote self-efficacy: “performance attainments/enactive mastery experiences; vicarious experiences of observing the performances of others; verbal persuasion/social influences; and physiological states” and that “self-percepts of efficacy operate as cognitive mediators of action” (Bandura, 1983, p. 126). In current offerings of ITE courses in Australia the development of selfefficacy in relation to teaching practice is primarily left to school-based practicum experiences. This may have implications for Australian ITE student’s preparedness to enter the classroom, particularly given that in Australia, students only participate in 60–80 days (dependent on degree) of supervised practicum teaching experience over the entire duration of their degree. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, [t]he length of the teaching practicum varies widely across countries. For example, for perspective teachers of general subjects at the lower secondary level, the teaching practicum ranges from 155 hours in Japan to 1800 hours in Hungary, though the typical duration is less than 800 hours in three-quarters of the countries and other participants with data. (OECD, 2022, Teacher Initial Education. Education GPS. https://gpseducation.oecd.org/reviewedu cationpolicies/#!node=41731&filter=all)

The incorporation of a VR simulation into ITE programs might contribute to supporting the development of teaching self-efficacy, and as a result, work towards better preparing ITE students to enter the teaching profession by developing their fluency in teaching practice. Bandura’s four primary sources of self-efficacy provide a sound theoretical framework for examining the potential of the VR classroom on ITE student’s development of a sense of teaching self-efficacy. The four primary sources are explained in more detail in the following section.

2.2.1 A Closer Look at Bandura’s Four Primary Sources of Self-Efficacy Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief in their personal capacity to demonstrate and execute specific behaviours and competencies that will elicit and produce a specific performance attainment (Bandura, 1983). It is also tied to levels of confidence

2 VR Simulations to Develop Teaching Practice with Pre-service Teachers

17

in one’s own ability or control over that attainment. According to Bandura (1983) there are four sources of information that support the development of self-efficacy: • Performance attainment/enactive mastery experiences refers to how individuals make sense of their experiences, achievements and failures including how they then organise this information according to efficacy beliefs. • Vicarious experiences refer to the impact of observing individuals similar to self, succeed. These experiences support individuals to believe that they too possess the capabilities for success. • Verbal persuasion/Social influence refers to those influential people in the lives of individuals and how they contribute to a sense of self and self-efficacy. • Physiological states highlight the influence that the state of an individual has on their experiences, and in turn the development of self-efficacy. In the study reported in this chapter, Bandura’s 4 primary sources of self-efficacy are drawn on to evaluate how the VR classroom when incorporated into an ITE program can be used to develop ITE student’s teaching self-efficacy. It should be noted that in this study, physiological state refers to the perceived physiological state of the participants as explained by the participants. The research question under investigation was: How can practicing teaching in a VR simulated classroom support ITE student’s teaching self-efficacy and preparedness to enter the real-world classroom?

2.3 Method The VR simulated classroom utilised in the study was a low-immersion VR platform that draws on Mursion software to offer ITE students a real-time interactive teaching experience. Mursion is a unique software platform that requires a ‘human in the loop’ to ensure that all interactions are responsive and reflect a real-time authentic classroom experience. In the project reported in this paper, this involved employing two ‘simulation specialists’ who were trained actors. The actors controlled the student avatars within the VR simulated classroom and interacted with ITE students in real time to provision for an authentic classroom experience. Prior to participating in the simulation, ITE students were asked to prepare a lesson, formulate some smart goals for their teaching practice, make a time to teach their lesson via an online booking system, and to share their lesson with the simulation specialist prior to their allocated timeslot. Once a booking was made ITE students logged into the VR simulated classroom and taught their lessons to five student avatars; “Bennet”, the avatar facilitator (also controlled by the simulation specialist) explained the process to the students and provided technical support. Each lesson was video recorded, and the video recordings were shared with ITE student and their lecturers after their lesson was delivered. A debrief session took place with the lecturer one week after each of the simulations. Debrief sessions were held 1:1 with ITE students, they were conversational in nature and were focused on ITE students perceived progress towards their SMART goals. During this time the students were

18

W. Goff

encouraged to share their overall reflections about their teaching practice and to reflect on their progress and performance of the smart goals they had formulated. Two-hundred and thirty-eight ITE students participated in the study. Participants were final year ITE students who were enrolled across the undergraduate and postgraduate ITE program. Participants had engaged in one school-based practicum experience prior to participating in the study. Data were collected via a pre- and post-questionnaire that was emailed to students, before and after their participation in the VR simulation. The pre-questionnaire was conducted in week 1 of the unit and the post-questionnaire was emailed in week 11 of the unit. Questionnaires included the collection of demographic and personal information (personal identifier; gender; location); the collection of organisational information (the lesson taught and primary goals for the lesson); 27 five-point likert scale questions that were focused on perceptions of teaching practice before and after participation in the VR simulation; and 4 open-ended short answer questions that were also focused on perceptions of teaching practice but were tied more explicitly to the affordances to teaching practice through the VR simulation. Data were analysed through quantitative and qualitative methods. SPSS was used to conduct a paired sample T-Test on the 27 five-point likert scale questions. In preand post-survey instrument students were asked to rate their current level of confidence about teaching a lesson, managing a classroom, managing student behaviour, engaging students, and adapting to student behaviour or responses. Scale: 1 (Not confident at all), 2, 3 (Somewhat confident), 4, 5 (Extremely confident). The examination of the 4 open-ended short answer questions formed the basis of the qualitative analysis. Bandura’s four primary sources of information that promote self-efficacy: performance attainments; vicarious experiences of observing the performances of others; verbal persuasion/social influences; and physiological states (Bandura, 1983, p. 126) were drawn on as an analytical lens to analyse the qualitative questionnaire data. Demographic and personal information (personal identifier; gender; location); the collection of organisational information (the lesson taught and primary goals for the lesson) have not been included in the findings reported on in this chapter. Data were examined for two key purposes: (1) To ascertain evidence of change in ITE student’s teaching self-efficacy and if change was present: (2) To determine how that change took place through a VR simulated environment. In the following section the results of this examination are presented.

2.4 Results Quantitative Results Student ratings of the sense of self-efficacy pre- and post-simulation were partnered and compared according to survey questions. These questioned focused on:

2 VR Simulations to Develop Teaching Practice with Pre-service Teachers

19

Pair 1 = Teaching a lesson Pair 2 = Managing a classroom Pair 3 = Managing student behaviour Pair 4 = Engaging students Pair 5 = Adapting to student behaviour or responses Pair 6 = Overall confidence

A paired-sample t test was conducted before and after the VR simulation to establish if there was a change in the sense of teacher self-efficacy after the students had participated in the VR experience. Table 2.1 presents the findings of this analysis. There was a significant difference in the self-efficacy rating for teaching a lesson before (M = 3.465, SD = 0.924) and after (M = 3.802, SD = 0.774) the simulation; t(85) = 4.195, p = 0.000. There was also a significant difference in the self-efficacy rating for managing a classroom before (M = 3.453, SD = 0.923) and after (M = 3.767, SD = 0.659) the simulation; t(85) = 3.341, p = 0.001. This pattern continued in the self-efficacy rating for managing students behaviour before (M = 3.162, SD = 0.874) and after (M = 3.581, SD = 0.723) the simulation; t(85) = 5.015, p = 0.000. In relation to the self-efficacy rating for engaging students there was again a significance difference before (M = 3.848, SD = 0.707) and after (M = 0.0369, SD = 0.771) the simulation; t(85) = 3.469, p = 0.001. In relation to adapting to student behaviour responses before (M = 3.244, SD = 0.834) and after (M = 3.639, SD = 0.746) the simulation also indicated a significant different between pre-and post-tests; t(85) = 3.639, p = 0.000. The self-efficacy rating for overall confidence across all questions was also significant before (M = 2.686, SD = 0.918) and after (M = 3.895, SD = 0.748) the simulation; t(85) = 12.704, p = 0.000. Table 2.1 Paired sample t-test before and after the simulation activity Mean Teaching a lesson

Post Pre

3.465

0.924

Managing a classroom

Post

3.767

0.659

Pre

3.453

0.923

Managing student behaviour

Post

3.581

0.723

Pre

3.162

0.874

Engaging student

3.802

Std. dev 0.774

Post

3.848

0.707

Pre

3.569

0.771

Post

3.639

0.746

Adapting to student behaviour responses

Pre

3.244

0.834

Overall confidence

Post

3.895

0.748

Pre

2.686

0.918

Paired t test t-value

df

Sig (two-tailed)

4.195

85

0.000

3.341

85

0.001

5.015

85

0.000

3.469

85

0.001

3.639

85

0.000

12.704

85

0.000

20

W. Goff

When it was established that there was evidence of change in ITE student’s teaching self-efficacy before and after the VR simulated experience, qualitative data were then analysed. These data were analysed using Bandura’s four primary sources of information that promote self-efficacy: performance attainments/enactive mastery experiences; vicarious experiences of observing the performances of others; verbal persuasion/social influences; and physiological states (Bandura, 1983, p. 126). In the following section, the findings of this analysis are presented.

2.4.1 Qualitative Results Performance attainment/enactive mastery experiences emerged as the main driver of the development of a sense of teacher self-efficacy with the data set. This was reflected in comments such as “The simulation assisted me to develop my confidence in explicit explanations” and “It helped me to develop my ability to provide attention and to communicate with different levels of students.” The idea of enactive mastery experiences was embedded in the notion of developing confidence and was evident in comments such as: “it builds confidence when something you planned is used firstly well by you and is also effective in practice. It helps because we need practice. The more we practice the easier it gets” and “it was a great experience and having control of the classroom allowed me to practice my skills that I’m now confident transferring into the real classroom.” Experiences of observing performance was another key factor identified as supporting the development of a sense of teacher self-efficacy. However, in this study, rather than observing the performances of others, it was the ability to watch the performance of self that developed a sense of teacher self-efficacy. This was evident in comments such as: “the ability to re-watch my lesson helped to reflect on my professional practice and identify possible areas for improvement and strengths” and “the simulation enabled me to listen to what I did in the lesson and reflect on and improve my teaching strategies”. It was also highlighted in comments such as “It helped me to practice my skills developed in my previous, real placement” and “I believe the more opportunities to do this the better we will be at teaching.” Verbal persuasion/social influence was another key component of the development of a sense of teacher self-efficacy. This was closely tied to the debrief sessions that took place post-simulation and was evident in comments such as: “detailed, positive and constructive feedback has boosted my confidence” and “The debrief highlighted areas I did well which I had not thought I had done”. Goal-orientated verbal persuasion/social influence also emerged as a driver of the development of self-efficacy: “the best part was the reinforcement of the goals I had set for myself and the acknowledgement that I was on the right path to achieving them”. Physiological state was explicitly linked to elements of the VR simulation. For example:

2 VR Simulations to Develop Teaching Practice with Pre-service Teachers

21

I think having the talk with Bennet at the start helps to calm the nerves and I loved the fact that the students ask questions back It was realistic, fun and took away the stress of a real classroom and the best part was that it was a safe place to practice teaching out loud, with student participation that was relevant to what I was presenting.

Physiological state was also explained through feelings of performance success: the best part was feeling as though you’re talking to real students and then successfully working through the same challenges you would in a real classroom and once I felt comfortable with the technology, it felt almost like a real situation, providing me with valuable practice time to develop my skills.

2.5 Discussion and Conclusion This purpose of the study presented in this chapter was (1) To ascertain evidence of change in ITE student’s teaching self-efficacy; and if present (2) To determine how that change took place through a VR simulated environment. Findings from the quantitative analysis provided evidence of a significant change in ITE student’s teaching self-efficacy after their participation in a VR simulated classroom. This change was evident across all elements of teaching practice explored (teaching a lesson, managing a classroom, managing student behaviour, engaging students, and adapting to student behaviour or responses) with a significant change in overall teaching confidence pre- and post-simulation. This evidence is not a novel finding but it does align with findings in similar research in this area (For example, Pendergast, et al., 2022; Nissim & Weissblueth, 2017). Evidence of a change pre- and post-participation in the VR classroom in ITE student’s teaching self-efficacy is an important finding because it challenges the belief and a major criticism of ITE that the university context only develops theoretical knowledge and schools are the context in which ITE students are prepared for the practical or performative aspect of teaching. Of course, more work is needed in this area to realise the full potential of the VR simulated classroom in the ITE context, but the study presented in this chapter coupled with the existing body of developing knowledge around the VR simulated classroom certainly provides some promising insight. Once it was established that there was evidence of change in ITE students’ teaching self-efficacy after their participation in a VR simulated classroom, the focus of analysis shifted to understanding how that change took place in this context (experience in the VR simulated classroom). Bandura’s four primary sources of information that promote self-efficacy provided a useful vehicle to investigate whether the VR simulated environment supported the development of teacher self-efficacy. During the analysis of qualitative data, it was evident that ITE students experienced a sense of performance attainment and a sense of developing mastery through the VR simulated experience. This is an important finding as it is not a notion that

22

W. Goff

is not necessarily a focus in real-world professional experience models where ITE students work with a mentor teacher in the real-world classroom. In most schoolbased models of professional experience, there is in fact little opportunity for ITE students to reflect on and refine their skills and understandings through refinement and repetition or repeated cycles of refined or modified practice. This lack of opportunity for repeated practice might have significant implications for ITE students teaching self-efficacy, particularly if the feedback provided by the mentor teacher is highly critical or focused solely on areas for improvement. It also poses questions around the impact of mentor feedback, particularly if this feedback is not able to be harnessed and acted upon immediately or until a subsequent placement. This is an area that warrants some further investigation. Developing a sense of mastery of teaching practice is a notion that has received little attention in ITE. Mastery is tied to self-efficacy (Rutenfrans-Stupar et al., 2020), so it makes sense to provide opportunities for mastery if the development of teacher self-efficacy is to be a priority or outcome of ITE. The findings in this study suggest that the development of mastery is afforded through the VR simulated classroom, but more work is needed to determine how this mastery might translate into the real-world classroom. Aligning with the work of Ledger (2021) this study suggests that the traditional model of professional experience also needs some interrogation around opportunities for ITE students’ mastery experiences, particularly in relation to the notion of repeated practice, performance, refinement and resilience. An interesting finding in this study centred on the notion of the vicarious experiences of observing the performances of others. Qualitative data collected in this study provided little evidence of students connecting to, or drawing on, their previous experiences of observing the performance of others (their mentor teachers in the real-world classroom) or their experiences of observing their peers in the VR environment. However, what did emerge in the data was the impact of the observation of own teaching performance on the development of a sense of teaching self-efficacy. Observing the video of their own teaching practice provided ITE students with an opportunity to isolate strengths and weaknesses, as well as an opportunity for the development of goals to drive further improvement. This is an area that warrants some further exploration, particularly in relation to the impact of observation of the video recordings of ‘own teaching practice’ on existing classroom teachers’ professional growth and development. The opportunity for debrief after the VR simulated environment was seen to be explicitly linked to students’ level of teaching confidence. This is an important notion that should serve as a reminder to ITE educators that to maximise the effectiveness of the incorporation of new technologies into ITE, the pedagogies around these technologies are an important consideration. In the study reported in this chapter, ITE students highlighted that at times they did not recognize their strengths or the good aspects of their teaching practice until it was highlighted to them through the debrief session. This is also an important notion in relation to the development of teacher self-efficacy because the unknown cannot be drawn upon or be developed further.

2 VR Simulations to Develop Teaching Practice with Pre-service Teachers

23

Perceived physiological states were a noticeable feature of the data and were explicitly linked to the affordances of the VR platform. Findings suggest that the VR simulated classroom provided an ‘opportunity to practice’ in a ‘safe environment’ with ITE students describing their perceived physiological state according to this affordance. This poses some significant questions about the ‘safety’ of current models of ITE and ITE students experiences in the real-world classroom. Particularly in relation to the perceived physiological state that the experience might evoke and how this might impact on teaching performance and the development of teaching selfefficacy; this is of particular importance as we emerge from a post-pandemic world. More work is needed in this area to establish whether the perception of physiological state is the same as actual physiological state, as well as what this might look like across the virtual and physical contexts. Further work is also necessary to establish the effectiveness of current models of ITE practicum experiences and how these experience impact on the development of teacher self-efficacy and preparedness for the classroom. Findings in this study allude to the notion that real-world classrooms are not considered ‘safe spaces’ by ITE students so it would be interesting to determine how this might impact on teacher self-efficacy, mastery and preparedness. Some comparative work around the two different models, and some work on how they might come together to support and maximise teacher self-efficacy would provide a way to investigate this notion.

References Bandura, A. (1983). Self-efficacy determinants of anticipated fears and calamities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 464–469. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.464 Binder, C. (1996). Behavioral fluency: Evolution of a new paradigm. The Behavior Analyst, 19, 163–197. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/557/ Dede, C. J., Jacobson, J., & Richards, J. (2017). Introduction: Virtual, augmented, and mixed realities in education. In L. Liu, C. Dede, R. Huang, & J. Richards (Eds.), Virtual, augmented, and mixed realities in education (pp. 1–16). Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-549 0-7_1 Duke, D., Fiacconi, C. M., & Köhler, S. (2014). Parallel effects of perceptual fluency and positive affect on familiarity-based recognition memory for faces. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00328 Finn, M., Phillipson, S., & Goff, W. (2020). Reflecting on diversity through a simulated practicum classroom: a case of international students. Journal of International Students, 10(S2), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v10iS2.2748 Fitzgerald, A., Goff, W. & White, S. (2003). The dilemmas inherent in curriculum design: Unpacking the lived experiences of Australian teacher educators. Journal of Education. https://journals.sag epub.com/home/jexa Hudson, M. E., Voytecki, K. S., & Zhang, G. (2018). Mixed-reality teaching experiences improve preservice special education students’ perceptions of their ability to manage a classroom. Journal for Virtual Worlds Research, 11(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.4101/jvwr.v11i2.7308 Kim, S., Raza, M., & Seidman, E. (2019). Improving 21st-century teaching skills: The key to effective 21st-century learners. Research in Comparative and International Education, 14(1), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/17454999198292

24

W. Goff

Ledger, S. (2021). Resilience building for pre-service teachers: BRiTE, micro-teaching and augmented reality/simulation (BRiTE-AR). In: C. F. Mansfield, (Ed.), Cultivating teacher resilience. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5963-1_15 Loughran, J., & Hamilton, M. (2016). Teaching and teacher education: The need to go beyond rhetoric. In R. Brandenberg, S. McDonough, J. Burke, & S.White (Eds.), Teacher education: Innovation, intervention and impact (pp. 253–264). Springer.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-98110-0785-9_15 Mayer, D. (2015). An approach to the accreditation of initial teacher education programs based on evidence of the impact of learning teaching, Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, Melbourne. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/itereform-stimulus-paper-1-mayer.pdf?sfvrsn=abfbec3c_0 McGarr, O. (2020). The use of virtual simulations in teacher education to develop pre-service teachers’ behaviour and classroom management skills: Implications for reflective practice. Journal of Education for Teaching, 46, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1724654 Nissim, Y., & Weissblueth, E. (2017). Virtual reality (VR) as a source for self-efficacy in teacher training. International Education Studies, 10, 52–59. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n8p52 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2022, October 9). Education GPS, OECD. 09:52:35 http://gpseducation.oecd.org Pendergast, D., O’Brien, M., Prestridge, S., & Exley, B. (2022). Self-efficacy in a 3-dimensional virtual reality classroom—initial teacher education students’ experiences. Education Sciences, 12(6), 368. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12060368 Rutenfrans-Stupar, M., Hanique, N., Van Regenmortel, T., et al. (2020). The importance of selfmastery in enhancing quality of life and social participation of individuals experiencing homelessness: Results of a mixed-method study. Social Indicators Research, 148, 491–515. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11205-019-02211-y Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347671

Wendy Goff is currently employed as Associate Professor, School Partnerships and Early Years Mathematics at Swinburne University. Her research is focused on adult relationships and their impact on children’s learning and development. Wendy’s research has been primarily situated in partnerships with schools and in the initial teacher education context—she draws on different vehicles within these contexts including VR simulation. Wendy has published and presented her work both nationally and internationally.

Chapter 3

Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions of Establishing Professional Connections on Instagram Narelle Lemon , Siobhan O’Brien, and Katrina van Vuuren

Abstract Social media is one way educators can connect professionally. In initial teacher education (ITE), social media integrated into learning and teaching, enables pre-service teachers (PSTs) to extend ways to reflect, access resources, and connect with others while developing a professional profile. Integration is an emerging field within ITE, with most reporting on the use of Twitter and Facebook, however little has been reported on the use of Instagram with PSTs. The aim of this chapter is to present PSTs’ perceptions of Instagram use within their ITE studies. The study shared is underpinned by a constructivist online learning framework where 76 PSTs enrolled at an Australian university reflect upon their use of Instagram after a semester of integration into professional experience subjects. Revealed from post-semester written reflections, is how Instagram integrated into ITE offers an opportunity for PSTs to feel more connected and experience a different form of online learning that enables them to make their reflective practice visible, while enhancing professional development. Keywords Social media · Instagram · Initial teacher education · Pre-service teachers · Connection · Reflective practice

3.1 Introduction Social media use in initial teacher education (ITE) has been growing steadily (see for example Carpenter & Morrison, 2018; Hood, 2017; Hyndman & Harvey, 2019; Lemon, 2019; Paris et al., 2015; Prestridge et al, 2019; Saini & Abraham, 2019). N. Lemon (B) · S. O’Brien · K. van Vuuren Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] S. O’Brien e-mail: [email protected] K. van Vuuren e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. Garvis and T. Keane (eds.), Technological Innovations in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2785-2_3

25

26

N. Lemon et al.

Illuminated from this, is a new way of connecting pre-service teachers (PSTs) to this emerging professional practice, one that is rarely considered or negotiated by PSTs and teacher educators. What we have noticed is that discussions on social media use, when used with PSTs, has been focused primarily on Twitter and Facebook. Little has been reported on the use of Instagram and the nature of engagement by those using it for learning and teaching purposes or in sharing the journey of becoming a teacher (Lemon & O’Brien, 2019). This can be noted as a gap, with assumptions being drawn as to, if it is being used, how it might be used, and what engagement looks like. In this chapter we look at the intersections between Instagram use within the context of ITE and the perceptions of PSTs from their self-reported use of the platform, as experienced when integrated into a semester of study. As a further contribution to the field, extending on the work of Carpenter et al (2019), who have started to investigate teachers’ use of Instagram, we offer one case to further contribute to the discussion of what is possible when Instagram is integrated purposefully into ITE. Carpenter et al. (2019) have identified that teachers in the profession who use Instagram professionally, with one or more other social media platforms, are most commonly seeking professional advice and sharing examples of pedagogy. In this chapter, we share a study undertaken with 76 PSTs from an Australian university, which highlights how Instagram offers opportunities for connection, reflection and the production of evidence that illustrates professional growth. We suggest that with planned integration into ITE programs, Instagram offers an opportunity for PSTs to make their reflective practice visible, while enhancing their professional development and connection to others. We demonstrate how Instagram offers PSTs an alternative way to access, share resources and establish diverse professional networks.

3.1.1 Social Media in Initial Teacher Education Social media platforms harness the function of interaction, with a capacity that can foster rich conversations via the act of reciprocity, unbounded by hierarchy or bureaucracies (Budge et al, 2016; Carpenter & Krutka, 2014). It is these characteristics of social media that offer intentional facilitation of authentic learning, which for PSTs, creates the possibility for them to participate in purposeful dialogues that are relevant and timely for them (Carpenter & Krutka, 2014; Lieberman & Mace, 2010; Wesely, 2013). For PSTs, opportunity is afforded whereby personal social media use can be harnessed, highlighting how familiar platform features such as posting, use of images, commenting and responding, can be transferred to professional use. By integrating social media into the curriculum and/or assessment, teacher educators are able to harness their own professional use, knowledge and networks to scaffold PSTs in the ITE context (Lemon, 2019). PSTs are then invited to explore professional digital identity, voice and development with an extended network; that is beyond the university and school setting for professional experience. This can in turn, enhance, interrupt and/or compliment their growth as a teacher. It is this professional use of social media, that offers the capacity to share emotions, experiences and learnings,

3 Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions of Establishing Professional …

27

that can enhance and further build upon information that is delivered only face-toface (Roberts & Butler, 2014; Seo, 2013). Learning this way can be personalised and unbounded (Carpenter & Krutka, 2014; Chawinga, 2017; Rutherford, 2010); that is, an extension from the physical four walls of a classroom or outside of an online delivery of learning and teaching structures. It has been reported that at the time of ITE training that requires an extended period of time in a school setting, PSTs can feel isolated or disconnected to their peers and lecturers (Carpenter & Krutka, 2014; Lemon, 2019; Rutherford, 2010). Social media presents itself as one alternative to enable PSTs to feel more connected. Furthermore, it creates opportunities for PSTs to enhance their peer relationships (Rutherford, 2010) and access conversations with peers, lecturers and the broader profession, to support their confidence to articulate their professional growth (Bull et al., 2008; Carpenter, 2015; Carpenter & Morrison, 2018). Specifically, in ITE, social media has been found to be a support for PSTs, as it provides affordances for connecting, networking, accessing resources, posing questions, and exchanging ideas (Chawinga, 2017; Mercieca & Kelly, 2018; Nielsen et al, 2013; Wertalik & Wright, 2017). In addition, opportunity is provided to make reflective practice visible (Bull et al., 2008; English & Duncan-Howell, 2008; Lemon, 2019; Wright, 2010), as well as support various modes of learning within ITE programs, including blended, face-to-face and online (Prestridge et al., 2019). The use of social media not only supports a community, but also the honing in on reflective practice skills. This use of social media, illuminates the individual growth and skill development, associated with the act of being a teacher (Wright, 2010). Social media creates a new learning environment and changes the way that information is shared, not just for educational settings, but for all individuals and institutions (Kahveci, 2015). However, there have been indications of some drawbacks within some disciplines, with issues raised about privacy (Hyndman & Harvey, 2019; Prestridge et al., 2019), and familiarity with social media, including the assumption that all students use social media and can transfer use from personal to professional use (Lemon, 2019; Lemon & O’Brien, 2019). Also illuminated, when considering social media use in ITE, is the pedagogical decision to integrate social media into this higher education classroom. No matter the discipline, a shift is required by teachers to both understand current practices in social media and thus, know the platform of choice (Bull et al., 2008; Bullock, 2012; Lemon, 2019; Munoz et al., 2014; Nielsen et al., 2013; Wright 2010). The blurring of boundaries between personal and academic spheres is also of consideration, when social media is transferred into ITE (Gettman & Cortijo, 2015). In higher education more widely, there has been a significant rise in the communication of the benefits and possibilities that exist, when social media is integrated more formally into the curriculum (Munoz et al., 2014; Paris et al., 2015; Prestridge et al., 2019). When considering the integration of social media in ITE, planning must be explicit for how PSTs can be educated about personal to professional transfer of use (Lemon, 2019). This is largely reliant on PSTs’ positive intentions, which are largely shaped by their actual and past experiences with those technologies (Sadaf et al, 2016; Saini & Abraham, 2019). As such, when integrating social media into

28

N. Lemon et al.

educational experiences, it is important to provide training and scaffolding so that PSTs can effectively use social media during their academic practices, whereby they can problem solve and explore the differences between personal and professional use (Bull et al., 2008; Bullock, 2012; Carpenter, 2015; Carpenter & Morrison, 2018; Lemon, 2019).

3.2 The Study This chapter reports on the second pilot (Semester 2, 2018) from a 3-year study, that aimed to explore the place of social media in professional experience subjects located within ITE, with a specific focus on the perceptions of the PSTs. The first pilot focused on Twitter, but PSTs nominated a change to Instagram (Lemon & O’Brien, 2019), a free platform centred around the visual medium of photography (still and moving) that supports the accessibility of capturing lived experiences generated by handheld devices, such as a smartphone. Instagram works in a similar way to other social media platforms, in that the user has an account which people can follow, and they can use to follow others. There are opportunities to follow focused streams of content directed through the use of hashtags (that work like keywords). Hashtags, according to Olszanowski (2015), operate under four categories to explain motivation to share using a specific hashtag, these include to find a) “like-minded people”; b) “inspiration in the hashtag feed”; c) “in hashtag-based challenges, contests, and/ or communities”; and d) to archive “collections of images” (pp. 234–235). In this study we created a hashtag for the project that all PSTs and teacher educators were invited to use, alongside hashtags that aligned with each subject code. This enabled us to form a community across subjects and within subjects. The hashtag details are however, not shared in this chapter, as aligned to ethical permission and protection of the participants. We discuss this further under data collection procedures. Over 95% of the participants indicated in their pre-reflection that they used Instagram in their personal lives and preferred to use this platform for use in ITE. This choice was articulated by PSTs in regard to Instagram being a platform they already use, had on their devices and had already established a pattern for use. We saw benefit in integrating Instagram into the professional experience subjects in the ITE program, as a way to both utilise this high rate of personal use and to connect PSTs beyond just their close peer network, while extending their reflective practice in a wider network. We note that the remaining participants (less than 5%), were not familiar with Instagram, but were users of other social media platforms and had personal knowledge of social media intricacies (for example, profile, follow, comments, likes and direct messaging) and ways of working (for example the act of reciprocity, use of hashtags to facilitate connection and access to others). In thinking about how social media supports PSTs, in Table 3.1 we note the key dimensions that were offered by integrating Instagram as part of the learning experience that guided us: (1) Supporting reflective practice, (2) Enhancing the collection, creation, curation, commenting on and/or sharing of professional resources,

3 Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions of Establishing Professional …

29

(3) Student-centred discussions, (4) Professional engagement with technology, and (5) Creation of a sense of community. We aligned these dimensions to the AITSL Graduate Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL], 2017) to support cohesion between the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of Instagram use and to support PSTs creation of evidence to meet these standards, for their professional experience portfolio assessment task. This was relevant for the context of this research, as the structure of the professional experience portfolio was an assignment where PSTs were being asked to write 200 to 250 word reflective statements to accompany evidence that demonstrates how they meet specific focus areas, in relation to their practice as a teacher. Across the four years of study, each professional experience unit builds on focus areas, scaffolding knowledge and links to practice. We purposefully aligned Instagram use to the focus areas in Table 3.1 as they were common across all professional experience units. As we designed the project, we carefully considered how we structured our 12-week subjects to integrate Instagram. A constructivist online learning framework (Huang, 2002) underpinned this study, which was guided by the elements of authentic, collaborative, facilitation of, and high-quality learning, alongside interactive and learning-centred approaches. We represent this visually in Fig. 3.1. In this figure, designed by one of the authors, we refer to the inner circle that highlights key instructional principles that guide the practice of teaching with Instagram, and is informed by Huang’s (2002) constructivist online learning framework for adult learners, that builds from the work of Dewey (1916), Bruner (1966) and Vygotsky (1978). The second layer illuminates key learner-centred and collaborative environments that support critical reflection and experiential processes within the context of ITE. We mapped this framework to the pedagogical decisions that we scaffolded in the integration of Instagram over 12 weeks of a semester, across two subjects, where PSTs were learning about the place of practical and theoretical development Table 3.1 Mapping of Instagram use vision to AITSL standards Key dimensions of Instagram use

Alignment to AITSL Graduate Australian Professional Standards for Teachers

Support reflective practice

6.2 Engage in professional learning and improve practice

Collect, create, curate, comment on and/or share 3.4 Select and use resources professional resources 6.3 Engage with colleagues and improve practice Student centred engagement with the profession 6.1 Identify and plan professional learning needs Professional engagement with technology to understand the broader impact of technology

4.5 Use ICT safely, responsibly and ethically 7.1 Meet professional ethics and responsibilities

Create a sense of community

7.4 Engage with professional teaching networks and broader communities

30

N. Lemon et al.

Fig. 3.1 Constructivist online learning framework aligned to Instagram integration

in becoming a teacher. We made explicit decisions throughout the semester to support the PSTs, this included: • Scaffolding how to create a professional digital profile for social media, including privacy settings for personal and professional accounts. • How to reflect and create visual narratives with a professional voice. • Ethical and safe professional social media etiquette, including photography best practices. • How to establish a practice for posting, underpinned by boundaries for smart use of time. • Weekly opportunities to post in class, to enable PSTs to practice, seek support on the spot and to troubleshoot. • Weekly prompts or questions to inspire content that could be posted, aligned to the curriculum focus. • Each teacher educator maintaining a professional Instagram account and modelling effective use throughout the semester. These are represented in the outer circle of Fig. 3.1 and subsequent outside circle comments. We note that this is interwoven and complex. It is not linear, with stages overlapping and moving back and forth.

3 Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions of Establishing Professional …

31

Participants The participants who were part of the project, and who have been reported in this chapter, were taught in semester 2, 2018 (in the months of August to November). 76 PSTs enrolled in two subjects participated. One subject was delivered to undergraduates at second year, and the second to undergraduates at third year. 62 PSTs (81.5%) were active on Instagram throughout the semester with 55 (72%) participating in the research component of the project. PSTs nominated a pseudonym as part of data collection, and these are used in this chapter. Both subjects were taught by two of the authors of thi chapter. Data collection and analysis Qualitative data was collected over multiple points of time, upon university ethics approval. The protocols of data collection involved all PSTs completing written reflections as a part of class learning activities in weeks 1 (pre) and 12 (post), however, self-nomination was offered to have the reflections collected to form data for this research. PSTs’ pre-reflections included questions such as: • Have you used social media in your university experiences? • What are you excited about, and concerned about, in using social media in the learning context at university? Post-reflective questions for the PSTs included prompts such as: • A strengths, weaknesses, observation and threat (SWOT) mapping of experiences using social media for learning at university. • Can you share a specific example of how you have used the platform to support your learning? The teacher educators maintained reflective journals throughout the 12-week teaching semester. These were kept independent from each other until the unit was completed. Observation was carried out by the teacher educators of student commentary (for example asking questions or troubleshooting) as well as, general observations of activity on Instagram, but not of specific content or patterns of participation, to avoid the PSTs feeling that they were under surveillance. Ethics did not include collecting data of actual Instagram posts. As a result, no images, screen shots, or use of profiles, handles or the project hashtag are used in the reporting, or within this publication, and were also removed from the data set during analysis to ensure the further anonymisation of users. A qualitative research methodology was drawn on, that consists of “interpretative material practices that make the world visible” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2013, p. 7) in order to explore the PSTs’ perceptions of Instagram use. Applying a constant comparative method (Fraenkel et al., 2012), one researcher conducted open coding, with a second cross checking. Key themes were generated based on data informed by both practice and the literature on social media use in higher education (Boeije, 2010).

32

N. Lemon et al.

3.3 Perceptions of Instagram Instagram offers an alternative way for PSTs to access and share resources, while establishing diverse professional networks. In the next section of this chapter, we illuminate the key themes that emerged from the PSTs post-written reflections after a semester of planned integration of Instagram, within curriculum and assessment. Revealed is how Instagram integrated into ITE, offers an opportunity for PSTs to feel more connected and experience a different form of online learning that enables them to make their reflective practice visible, while enhancing their professional development. We note that participant names used are pseudonyms and not actual Instagram handles, rather they are names the PSTs chose as part of the deidentification process.

3.3.1 Feeling Connected and Supported Enhanced connectedness Upon reflecting on their use of Instagram during a semester, the PSTs revealed several important strengths of Instagram use in their ITE studies. The ability to connect with others, their peers and those in the profession, as well as facilitate access to resources was strongly articulated. This revealed a reciprocity, promoting the benefit of the ongoing repeated action of sharing and contributing to discussions that is beneficial to both parties for mutual benefit (Lemon, 2018; Lewis, 2015). The exchanges on Instagram contributed to the development of community cohesion and interdependence, and thus supported the enactment and production of social gestures that are connected to giving; symbolic in nature, not about profit or benefit in relation to a contract or economic exchange (Pelaprat & Brown, 2012). Reciprocity existed when there was active engagement with topics, themes, and various audiences. The hashtag for the project facilitated this, bringing like-minded people together. We were all united by a focus on professional experience and being and becoming teachers. The PSTs acknowledged that there was a convenience in using Instagram, in that it provided them with an ease to accessing and sharing resources, information and/or research that both ignited possibilities, promoted pedagogical development, and stimulated new connections between theory and practice (Carpenter & Morrison, 2018; Chawinga, 2017; Lemon, 2019; Wertalik & Wright, 2017). The data revealed that this benefit was prominent both within the context of their local Instagram communities and sub-communities (the PSTs’ direct subject of study and other placement subjects within the degree) as well as enabling them to branch out into broader communities. For instance, Amandarach71 explicitly noted, “[There are] lots of other accounts with great ideas”, whilst another PST commented that one of the ways that they used the platform to support their learning was, “using the ‘explore’ element to glean resource ideas” (Elizabeth). It is this potential, that this platform affords for PSTs to find an additional access point into the profession by engaging with teachers in the

3 Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions of Establishing Professional …

33

field who share their knowledge; acting as one of the key drivers for the integration. It was encouraging to see that some of the PSTs embraced this opportunity and identified ways in which this resource sharing could directly benefit their professional practice (Carpenter, 2015; Carpenter & Morrison, 2018; Chawinga, 2017; Lemon, 2019; Wertalik & Wright, 2017). The PSTs highlighted how Instagram enhanced connectedness and relationships. Throughout the reflective post-semester responses, PSTs self-reported that their Instagram use enhanced relationships and bonds, which was enabled through both the ‘like’ feature and ‘comment’ capability of Instagram (boyd, 2014; Carpenter & Morrison, 2018). PSTs acknowledged various types of connections that they felt the platform enabled, including: connections with peers, tutors, mentors (teachers supporting PSTs during professional experience) and other teachers. Instagram became a platform that enhanced and supported learning, a way to seek out and/ or provide support (Carpenter & Morrison, 2018). This connectedness: “benefitted us as a student to still have interaction[s] with our tutors during the placement if there was a problem” (March), and “[it encouraged us to] interact with people from the comments of teachers and peers” (Lolly). Professional connections Instagram granted an opportunity for PSTs to reach out and make connections beyond their local community and sub-communities, with affordances emerging for connection to the profession. PSTs in weekly activities were often asked to engage with hashtags used within the profession to find teachers who inspired them or facilitated access to new ideas (for example #aussieed, #teacherwellbeing or #teachersofinstagram). The hashtags, used like a keyword search, enabled targeted research of practice. As the PSTs carefully curated their profiles and extended their networks, they were able to establish professional connections and furthermore, build professional networks (Chawinga, 2017; Lemon, 2019; Nielsen et al., 2013; Wertalik & Wright, 2017), for example: “receiving teachers and request[s] coming from my hashtag for example, primary school teachers” (Tidahikka). Peer engagement and connection The way in which the platform encouraged observation and reflection within this online community, also stood out as a unique affordance that supported a sense of belonging and connection. Of specific note, was the capacity for PSTs to observe the practice of their peers; something that had not been possible before without the use of Instagram. One PST highlighted that it was, “[a] good way to see how other classmates are going [while on professional experience]” (Marcus) whilst another PST commented, “[it was] great to observe what other students were experiencing on placement” (Melissa). Expanding upon this, when asked how Instagram was used to support learning, April Grace commented, “self-reflection by observing my classmates’ posts. Critical thinking of my teaching process”, highlighting how the opportunity to observe the practice of their peers encouraged them to reflect upon their own practice. Additionally, a number of PSTs commented on how it contributed towards them making regular or daily reflections, with one PST aligning their use

34

N. Lemon et al.

of Instagram to that of a diary. This highlights the significant connection points to the profession that social media offers (Carpenter & Morrison, 2018; Hood, 2017; Lemon, 2019; Lu & Yang, 2014; Munoz et al., 2014; Paris et al., 2015; Prestridge et al., 2019) while reinforcing how, when integrated into ITE curriculum, Instagram can not only support access to resources but can become an avenue to support professional actions such as reflection, networking, and metacognitive thinking.

3.3.2 Online Learning Evidence generation for assessment While Instagram use provided an opportunity for PSTs to connect with one another, it also provided a space for PSTs to undertake online learning that facilitated seeking advice and additional assessment support. Whilst on placement, the PSTs were required to gather evidence of professional growth to demonstrate their skills, understanding and knowledge of the AITSL graduate teaching standards for their portfolio assessment. In line with this requirement, it was noted in the PSTs’ post-placement reflections, that use of the platform enabled the sharing of ideas for evidence with their peers, supporting reflective and metacognitive thinking and reinforcing the language of the AITSL graduate teaching standards in action. But more importantly, PSTs were able to present visual narratives (Lemon, 2019; Lemon & O’Brien, 2019) that facilitated the curation of professional narratives that told a story about what their experiences had been, pedagogy undertaken and/or resources for example, that had been created to support student learning. Instagram enacted a diary of professional development and growth, a way to visualise reflection on action, and to access further feedback from those within the community. Professional learning was made visible. Time management The PSTs were supported with the professional use of Instagram, with explicit moments to practice their professional posting, while in the university classroom. These were focussed on language, tone and what is/isn’t appropriate to share visually and textually. Time management was also discussed, especially around boundaries set for when to post. Specific focus was also placed on posting in relation to when in an educational setting, such as school. PSTs were not encouraged to stop teaching midstream to capture images to post on Instagram. Rather the emphasis of the posts was on ‘reflection on action’ (Schön, 1983), encouraging the PST to consider aspects post-teaching, such as impact and engagement in relation to the AITSL graduate teaching standards, and the specific focus areas that were addressed in the portfolio for each subject. There were occasions when mentor teachers captured photos of PSTs taking lessons, which was a useful way to support the PST while reflecting, as they could see themselves interacting with the children. At other times, PSTs captured photos that they would come back later to post, utilising the practice of a ‘latergram’ often shared as #latergram.

3 Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions of Establishing Professional …

35

Developing a professional profile As PSTs planned, developed, and maintained their professional profile on Instagram, considerations for how one curated their image, introduction to self, and content was required. This was carefully scaffolded by the teacher educators—critically looking at other profiles and also sharing how each of the teaching team had developed their own profile as a connection point for PSTs. As the PSTs engaged with the complexities of social media as professionals, including the creation of accounts and profiles cultivated for sharing teaching and professional identity, there was also an acknowledgment of the need to curate how one maintains their digital identity, specifically about the curation of voice and public presence, that is an embodiment of professional ethics and social media policy (university, school, and education sector). ‘Privacy’ and ‘what is public’, were critical considerations for PSTs, who recognised the need to engage with “privacy options and that they do not fully control their own online identity” (Dennen & Burner, 2013, p. 3). PSTs were invited and required as such, to think critically about the potential for their personal identity to become an active part of the learning and professional environment. The PSTs were required to think through and plan for their digital identity. They were invited to critically consider personal and professional identities, and indeed where boundaries blur. The use of Instagram in this project is designed to assist PSTs to explore how social media use can be, and often needs to be refined. The authentic application, alignment to assessment and integration throughout a semester with all content, scaffolds how social media can be used most efficaciously in their personal to professional transitions. As a result, PSTs are doing this publicly (Lemon, 2019). Risks were attached; threats as we have called them. As the PSTs shared in post-reflections, this became evident for them. What was revealed was a familiarisation, or lack thereof, regarding performing in such ways. Interestingly, PSTs were still revealing themselves, especially to those who were following them, their peers. There seemed to be a misunderstanding and lack of understanding as to how social media can work. And with this reveal comes a responsibility to what is shared. In integrating social media into ITE, it has been reported that it is not uncommon for PSTs to be unaware of personal to professional transfer of use (Lemon, 2019; Nielsen et al., 2013). In this way, we were bridging disconnections between available modality and learning opportunities (Munoz et al., 2014) while opening up possibilities for how social media can be utilised for professional development. Thus, supporting the transformation between personal and professional use and opening up dialogue and reflection/metacognition. As such, we invited PSTs to engage with this complex rhetoric in practice. What was revealed, was that for some, there was a lack of awareness around how one can manage social media platforms such as Instagram. “Follow requests from people I don’t know and had nothing to do with university” (Amanda) and “private messages from randoms” (Peter) are exemplars of this thinking. For some PSTs, there was a lack of awareness of the public space within social media, how other social media users engage, and how one chooses to engage with requests for followers.

36

N. Lemon et al.

Adjusting to professional use of Instagram One of the most significant aims of this project was to enable PSTs to connect in a supportive environment, with the benefit of a professional social media account to support connection, access to resources and to engage in reflective practice. We have noted over the duration of the project, that 100% of the PSTs engaged with at least one social media platform personally, but all had not had the opportunity to consider or engage with professional use. We scaffolded this opportunity, providing authentic ways to explore this technology and problem solve what could be possible. Even with explicit teaching and multiple learning activities to scaffold digital identity, for some PSTs, Instagram was viewed as a distraction; something extra they “had to do” (April Grace). It is interesting that some PSTs considered the use of social media as a distraction, indicating that they had a self-awareness around their personal use patterns (Lemon, 2019). It also indicates that, some PSTs, did not value the use of social media for professional development and connection, regardless of the highlighted aims of the project. The value of social media is something to be further explored in relation to digital identity and professional to personal transfer (Hyndman & Harvey, 2019; Wright, 2010), while also highlighting the need to reinforce in different ways, how digital tools can support professional learning and ITE assessment practices. The purpose of using Instagram professionally, required PSTs to discuss the project aims with their mentor teachers, in accordance with professional ethical procedures. Communication with mentor teachers was imperative. Protocols, communication letters, and supportive information kits were developed for the PSTs as support aides during the initial discussions and for a reference point throughout professional experience placements. All PSTs were required to provide evidence via a contract between PST, mentor/school and the university so it was evidenced that conversations have occurred on the ‘why?’ of Instagram use, and the importance of ethical practice, including consent. Mentor teachers were invited to engage with the hashtag and post as well. All posts however, were to not show any student faces nor identifying features of a school, mentor teacher, other staff, or students. As PSTs carefully negotiated these elements, a threat was revealed when this did not occur. Tidahikka revealed, “teachers needed to be notified of taking pics” as she acknowledged her communication of the use and why this had not been as open as required, endorsed and modelled by the teacher educators. Parallel to this threat, observation was made that photography in school environments and of young people could be unethically captured, documented and shared. “[I] had to blur out pics due to confidentiality of children” (Tidahikka) revealing for some PSTs, a lack of awareness of photographs of children policy and ethics. This example reinforces why integrating social media into the ITE classroom provides significant learning opportunities to scaffold and reinforce PSTs ethical practice, in alignment with the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2017) and the significant opportunity that partnerships with schools, in projects such as this, support professional practice.

3 Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions of Establishing Professional …

37

3.4 Conclusion Understanding PSTs perceptions, in relation to social media use as part of ITE programs, is of great significance, as various digital ways of connecting, accessing resources, developing communities and reflecting are being explored to support professional engagement and growth. However, if this is to be seriously considered by teacher educators and the wider community, there needs to be a clear narrative of why social media is used, what platform is engaged with, and how it is integrated to support professional growth and reflective practice. This study provides a snapshot from one setting, of how Instagram use enabled PSTs to enhance their connectedness and professional relationships, while explicitly being able to observe the practices of others, which previously had not been accessible. Instagram is one social media platform that is familiar to many PSTs and that facilitates connections to resources and the profession for future teachers. Integration into ITE curriculum allows for scaffolding of reflective practice, evidence of professional growth, and the ability to make ethical decisions involving the sharing of practice in public spaces. By integrating Instagram explicitly into initial teacher studies, and in this case, into professional experience subjects, opportunity is afforded to connect PSTs with new practices emerging in the profession. This study proposes that the integration and scaffolding of Instagram, enables the establishment of an online professional profile that supports the ability for PSTs to access and share resources, information and/or research, and furthermore, provides a connection to the ease and convenience of familiar social media platforms. Alongside this, the way in which the use of Instagram enabled and enhanced connectedness and relationships including, connections with peers, teacher educators, mentors and other teachers in the profession is revealed. We acknowledge that some PSTs found that managing time to post in order to capture specific events or stages of their placement was challenging and suggest that the aims and purpose of the project need to be concise and should clearly articulate how this interaction directly benefits professional growth. In order to enhance further uptake and value, we suggest that the use of social media requires explicit embedding into assessments (to ensure that it is not perceived as an extra task or a choice to not engage), ethical decisions on social media use (for example, what could be posted) needs to be explicitly worked through, and a collaborative partnership with mentors and schools established, to highlight the benefits of such online communities.

References Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2017). Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. Retrieved from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/standards Boeije, H. (2010). Analysis in qualitative research. Sage Publications Ltd. boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Harvard University Press.

38

N. Lemon et al.

Budge, K., Lemon, N., & McPherson, M. (2016). Academics who tweet: ‘messy’ identities in academia. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 8(2), 210–221. Bull, G., Thompson, A., Searson, M., Garofalo, J., Park, J., Young, C., & Lee, J. (2008). Connecting informal and formal learning: Experiences in the age of participatory media. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(2), 100–107. Bullock, S. M. (2012). Creating a space for the development of professional knowledge: A self-study of supervising teacher candidates during practicum placements. Studying Teacher Education, 8(2), 143–156. Carpenter, J. (2015). Preservice teachers’ microblogging: Professional development via Twitter. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 15(2), 209–234. Carpenter, J. P., & Krutka, D. G. (2014). How and why educators use Twitter: A survey of the field. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(4), 414–434. Carpenter, J. P., & Morrison, S. A. (2018). Enhancing teacher education…with Twitter? Kappan Online, 100(1), 25–28. Carpenter, J., Morrison, S., Craft, M. & Lee, M. (2019). Exploring how and why educators use Instagram. In K. Graziano (Ed.), Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international conference (pp. 2686–2691). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Chawinga, W. D. (2017). Taking social media to a university classroom: Teaching and learning using Twitter and blogs. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(3), 1–19. Dennen, V. P., & Burner, J. K. (2013). Boundaries, privacy, and social media use in higher education: What do students think, want, and do? Retrieved at https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/spir/ article/viewFile/8480/6750 Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2013). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In Y. K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln. (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (4th ed., pp. 1–42). Sage. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. The Free Press. English, R., & Duncan-Howell, J. (2008). Facebook goes to college: Using social networking tools to support students undertaking teaching practicum. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(4), 596–601. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill. Gettman, H. J., & Cortijo, V. (2015). “Leave Me and My Facebook Alone!” understanding college students’ relationship with Facebook and its use for academic purposes. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9(1), 8. Harvey, S., & Hyndman, B. (2018). An investigation into the reasons physical education professionals use Twitter. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 37(4), 383–396. Hood, N. (2017). Conceptualising online knowledge sharing: What teachers’ perceptions can tell us. Technology. Pedagogy and Education, 26, 573–585. Hramiak, A. (2010). Online learning community development with teachers as a means of enhancing initial teacher training. Technology Pedagogy and Education, 19(1), 47–62. Huang, H. M. (2002). Toward constructivism for adult learnings in online learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 27–37. Hyndman, B. P., & Harvey, S. (2019). Health and physical education teacher education 2.0: Preservice teachers’ perceptions on developing digital Twitter skills. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 44(2), 1–18. Kahveci, N. G. (2015). Pre-service teachers’ conceptions on use of social media in social studies education. International Journal of Progressive Education, 11(1), 82–101. Lemon, N. (2019). Twitter in the initial teacher education arts classroom: Embracing risk taking to explore making learning visible. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 18(1), 81–97. Lemon, N. (2018). Collaborating and co-curating knowledge: Social media, museums and education audiences. Australasian Journal of Popular Culture, 7(1), 93–106.

3 Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions of Establishing Professional …

39

Lemon, N., & O’Brien, S. (2019). Social media use in initial teacher education: Lessons on knowing where your students are. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 44(12), 1–20. Lewis, S. C. (2015). Reciprocity as a key concept for social media and society. Social Media + Society, 1(1), 1–2. Lieberman, A., & Mace, D. P. (2010). Making practice public: Teacher learning in the 21st century. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 77–88. Lu, H. P., & Yang, Y. W. (2014). Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use a social networking site: An extension of task-technology fit to social-technology fit. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 323–332. Mercieca, B., & Kelly, N. (2018). Early career teacher peer support through private groups in social media. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 46(1), 61–77. Munoz, L. R., Pellegrini-Lafont, C., & Cramer, E. (2014). Using social media in teacher preparation programs: Twitter as a means to create social presence. Perspectives on Urban Education, 11(2), 57–69. Nielsen, W., Moll, R., Farrell, T., McDaid, N., & Hoban, G. (2013). Social media use among pre-service primary teachers. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 10(8), 3–13. Olszanowski, M. (2015). The 1x1 common: The role of Instagram’s hashtag in the development and maintenance of feminist exchange. In N. Rambukkana (Ed.), Hashtag publics: The power and politics of discursive networks (pp. 229–242). Peter Lang. Paris, L. J., Boston, J., & Morris. (2015). Facebook and the final practicum: The impact of online peer support in the assistant teacher program. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(9), 1–20. Pelaprat, E., & Brown, B. (2012). Reciprocity: Understanding online social relations. First Monday, 17(1), 10–11. Prestridge, S. (2019). Categorising teachers’ use of social media for their professional learning: A self-generating professional learning paradigm. Computers & Education, 129, 143–158. Prestridge, S., Tondeur, J., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2019). Insights from ICT-expert teachers about the design of educational practice: The learning opportunities of social media. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 28(2), 157–172. Roberts, S.L. and Butler, B.M., 2014. Consumers and producers in the social studies classroom: how Web 2.0 technology can break the cycle of ‘teachers and machines’. In W. B. Russell (Ed.), Digital social studies (pp. 147–166). Information Age. Rutherford, C. (2010). Using online social media to support preservice student engagement. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(4), 703–711. Sadaf, A., Newby, T., & Ertmer, P. (2016). An investigation of the factors that influence preservice teachers’ intentions and integration of Web 2.0 tools. Educational Technology Research & Development, 64(2016), 37–64. Saini, C., & Abraham, J. (2019). Implementing Facebook-based instructional approach in preservice teacher education: An empirical investigation. Computers & Education, 128(2019), 243–255. Seo, K. (2013). Professional learning of observers, collaborators, and contributors in a teachercreated online community in Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 34(3), 337–350. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books. Tondeur, J., Forkosh-Baruch, A., Prestridge, S., Albion, P., & Edirisinghe, S. (2016). Responding to challenges in teacher professional development for ICT integration in education. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 110–120. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press. Wertalik, D., & Wright, L. T. (2017). Social media and building a connected college. Journal of Cogent Business Management, 4(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2017.1320836 Wesely, P. M. (2013). Investigating the community of practice of world language educators on Twitter. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(4), 305–318.

40

N. Lemon et al.

Wright, N. (2010). Twittering in teacher education: reflecting on practicum experiences. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 25(3), 259–265. https://doi.org/10. 1080/02680513.2010.512102

Narelle Lemon is Professor and an internationally recognised interdisciplinarity researcher across the fields of education, arts, and positive psychology known for her work on wellbeing literacy and self-care. She is currently Associate Dean (Education) in the School of Social Sciences, Media, Film and Education at Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. Narelle tweets as @rellypops, blogs as Wellbeing Whisperer, and podcasts as Teachers Supporting Teachers. Dr. Siobhan O’Brien is a Senior Lecturer at La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia, where she works with pre-service teachers in Education courses to develop their capabilities, self-care and preparedness for professional experience. Siobhan is committed to the use of learning innovations including VR simulations and social media to engage, interact and increase users’ digital literacy. Katrina van Vuuren is Lecturer in the Department of Education at Swinburne University of Technology, teaching and researching in Initial Teacher Education. Her teaching focuses on professional experience and building capacity in future teachers. Katrina is currently a PhD candidate at Deakin University.

Chapter 4

Web-Based International Learning in a Finnish Teacher Education Program: Building Students’ International Competence Minna Maunula , Heidi Harju-Luukkainen , Minna Maunumäki , Päivi Perkkilä , and Essi Korkeaniemi

Abstract Web-based teaching and learning are increasing in popularity across the globe. Web-based studying and learning are both possibilities and challenges for adult students, and they require a special focus in both planning and implementation of the teaching (Sharma and Hannafin in Interactive Learning Environments 15:27–46, 2007; Wang in Interactive Learning Environments 17:1–13, 2009). Online activities are opening new opportunities for international learning experiences as well. Kokkola University Consortium at the University of Jyväskylä in Finland is an adult education campus. On a yearly basis around 45 class teachers for basic education are graduating from the teacher training program. In June 2021 the Kokkola teacher education program organized together with a German teacher training unit, an international online event for around 60 students. The aim for this event was to increase students’ awareness of international education questions related to the teacher profession. After this event an anonymous online survey was conducted for the Finnish students, and it was analyzed with systematic content analysis. From these premises a research question was designed, how is online international collaboration supporting students’ understanding of international education questions related to the teacher profession? As a theoretical framework for this chapter, we use M. Maunula · H. Harju-Luukkainen (B) · M. Maunumäki · P. Perkkilä · E. Korkeaniemi University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland e-mail: [email protected] M. Maunula e-mail: [email protected] M. Maunumäki e-mail: [email protected] P. Perkkilä e-mail: [email protected] E. Korkeaniemi e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. Garvis and T. Keane (eds.), Technological Innovations in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2785-2_4

41

42

M. Maunula et al.

the trialogical model of building knowledge (Hakkarainen and Paavola in Transformation of knowledge through classroom interaction, Routledge, pp. 65–80, 2009), which is based on the tradition of investigative learning practices. As a conclusion to this chapter, we discuss the benefits and pitfalls of web-based learning in building students’ international competency. Keywords Web-based learning · International learning · Teacher education · International competence · Trialogical knowledge building

4.1 Introduction Web-based teaching and learning are increasing in popularity across the globe. Webbased studying and learning are both possibilities and challenges for adult students, and they require a special focus in both planning and implementation of the teaching (Sharma & Hannafin, 2007; Wang, 2009). Online activities are opening new opportunities for international learning experiences in university contexts (Hauschildt et al., 2015). This can be done through High-Impact Practices (HIPs). These include for instance common intellectual experiences, collaborative assignments, projects, undergraduate research, and global learning. Further, HIPs will prepare students for future demanding global and societal contexts (Vahed & Rodriguez, 2021). Vahed and Rodriguez (2021) highlight that during an online HIP, students are engaged in global learning, it facilitates access to co-construction of discipline-specific knowledge and encourages exposure to different worldviews by engaging cross-cultural interactions. Universities are therefore looking for ways to encourage students to be more globalized in their worldview and to acquire intercultural competence. This is crucial to avoid prejudice and to increase tolerance in the global workforce in the future (Silla et al., 2021). One way to do this is to incorporate cross-national asynchronous with students from different countries within courses. According to Commander et al. (2016) cross-national online discussions facilitate new knowledge regarding for instance very different cultures. Further their research also offered a model for online teaching that provided international learning experiences where students explored meaningful concepts and relationships to address relevant problems in education. However, learning experiences online can also face challenges. Karkar-Esperat’s (2018) study indicated that some online students faced challenges with language proficiency, isolation, instructor’s lack of experience and lack of motivation. To become a teacher in Finland, candidates are required to have a master’s degree from a university. Graduation from a five-year program gives class teachers the official qualification to teach in compulsory basic education in Finland on grades 1–6 (Harju-Luukkainen et al., 2019). The teacher education program integrates both theoretical aspects of education as well as periods of practical training. A high level of education is seen as important because Finnish teachers work autonomously without clear supervision. The Finnish teacher education’s teaching is research based. This means that all the lecturers at universities are involved in doing research themselves

4 Web-Based International Learning in a Finnish Teacher Education …

43

and actively follow the research field that they teach (Määttä et al., 2013). This research-based approach focuses on developing teaching candidates’ pedagogical thinking and decision-making, especially in regards how to justify his/her decisions (see Kansanen, 2006). Further, the main goal of Finnish teacher training is to develop inquiry-oriented teachers (Jyrhämä & Maaranen, 2012). With the help of this competence teachers will be able to combine both theoretical and practical knowledge and, based on this knowledge, form a practical but personal theory that is applicable to their classroom. The Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture (2016) published a strategic policy about refinements to teacher training in Finland on all levels. This document defines future objectives for both pre-service and in-service training. The main objectives emphasize the need to provide prospective Finnish teachers with a wide basic knowledge, expertise and acting that creates innovations, and both individual and organizational expertise. This study was conducted during Covid-19, amongst German and Finnish higher education student groups. The initial idea was for the German students to visit Finland, and for the students to meet face-to-face for activities and tasks. However, due to Covid -19 pandemic, this had to be transformed into an online activity. It is important to note that the responses to Covid -19 have been different across the countries in the world, also in Finland and Germany. Nevertheless, the pandemic has resulted in a state of emergency in both of them. It can be stated that Covid has disrupted the “normal” routines of societies, ranging from individual lives to educational institutions and beyond (Lemon et al., 2022). The online event (using Zoom) for teachers was organized in June 2021, between the high education institutions and in total around 60 students participated. The students were divided into smaller groups, where they could freely discuss the topic of the teacher profession and how the teacher profession is formed in one’s own country. The aim for this event was to increase students’ awareness of international education questions related to the teacher profession. After this event an anonymous online survey was conducted for the 45 Finnish students. From these premises we formulated the following research question; How is online international online discussion supporting student’s understanding of international education questions related to the teacher profession? The textual data was analyzed with the help of content analysis. The theoretical framework of this paper consists of a trialogical model of building knowledge, which is the core in any learning. After that we present our data and methods. At the end of the chapter, we will present our findings as well as discuss some implications regarding our research.

4.1.1 Trialogical Model of Building Knowledge A trialogical model of building knowledge is a novel approach to learning which is essentially associated with three metaphors of learning: the knowledgeacquisition metaphor, the participation metaphor, and the knowledge-creation metaphor (Hakkarainen & Paavola, 2009; Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2005; Paavola

44

M. Maunula et al.

et al., 2004). The knowledge-acquisition metaphor highlights learning as a process in which knowledge is transferred to the mind of the individual. This metaphor is built on the idea that knowledge is a property of an individual mind, and a person is the basic unit of knowing and learning. This view represents a “monological” view on human cognition and activity (Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2005). An alternative metaphor for the knowledge-acquisition metaphor is the participation metaphor, which examines learning as a process of growing up and socializing to the learning community. This means that participation in diverse cultural practices and common forms of learning activities shape cognitive activity in many ways. Thus, from a participatory perspective, learning means growing into a full member with a gradual transition to full participation. Here, knowledge is simply understood as part of cultural practices. The third metaphor for learning, the knowledge-creation metaphor, creates a bridge between the two metaphors mentioned above. This metaphor emphasizes an innovative exploratory approach in which innovative ideas, tools, and practices are built on intelligent action and knowledge is rebuilt or what is already known has changed significantly during the process (Hakkarainen & Paavola, 2009). Particularly, it draws attention to the innovative aspects of learning which means processes of deliberately creating and advancing knowledge (Karlgren et al., 2020). If we compare these three metaphors with each other, then in the acquisition metaphor the formation of knowledge can be seen as internal processes of the individual mind. In the metaphor of participation, a dialogical perspective is present in the formation of knowledge because it emphasizes interaction with culture, the surrounding environment, or people. The metaphor of knowledge creation itself represents a trialogical approach to learning (TLA) because it emphasizes collaborative creative ways of working, collaborative development of mediating objects or artifacts as the starting point for knowledge creation rather than monologues within the mind or dialogues between minds (Hakkarainen & Paavola, 2009). As mentioned in the context of the third metaphor, TLA integrates both individual knowledge and conceptual processes and “dialogic” (emphasizing both individual knowledge and conceptual processes) approaches into the third element, where knowledge artifacts are constructed in accordance with the objectives of the collaborative learning community. The two metaphors, acquisition, and participation metaphors, of learning are immersed in the knowledge creation metaphor, which includes both individual and social processes, construction of conceptual knowledge and social practices, which are crucial part of fostering collaborative creativity (Sansone et al., 2016). Based on the above, TLA has clearly been influenced by the knowledge building theory (KB) (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994, 2003), as both are based on technology-focused collaborative learning, and both aiming to support and sustain students’ shared knowledge construction (Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2014). As TLA focuses on expanding innovative potential to knowledge practices, both individual and social practices, which are involved with knowledge building, KB will focus on the innovation of knowledge, mostly intended as conceptual artifacts or ideas (Hakkarainen & Paavola, 2009). KB could be defined as a practice-based approach because it has been developed in close interaction with teacher trainees—in practices that have not been conceptualized (Sansone et al., 2016). To promote the

4 Web-Based International Learning in a Finnish Teacher Education …

45

interaction between theory and pedagogical practices, and for the design of educational technology, there has been developed six design principles to characterize the features of learning through TLA. These principles are as follows: 1. Organizing activities around shared ‘objects’: This is the key idea of collaborating participants to develop shared ‘objects’ (conceptual artifacts e.g., ideas, plans, designs), concrete material products e.g., design artifacts, prototypes) or practices e.g., ways of working). Knowledge creation is collaborative working advancing shared knowledge objects. 2. Supporting the integration of individual and collective activities and work through developing shared objects: The individual work is combined with that of the team, taking in account individual needs and “exploiting” inclinations and interests. 3. Emphasizing development and creativity in working on shared objects through transformations and reflection: The goal of this principle is to highlight how to support knowledge creation processes through interactions and transformation between various forms of knowledge (explicit knowledge, underarticulated (tacit) knowledge, knowledge practices and conceptualizations). 4. Fostering long-term processes of knowledge advancement with shared objects (artefacts and practices): Collaborative creation and development processes of innovative ideas, artefacts and so on takes time. The focus here is on practices and tools which support work with a longer period than is common within a course, such as developing things meant for subsequent use and encouraging links between different courses. 5. Promoting cross-fertilisation of various knowledge practices and artefacts across communities and institutions: Creating connections between educational, professional, and research communities in terms of bringing cultures of schooling in closer contact with professional cultures and engaging students in expert-like knowledge practices from the very beginning of their studies. 6. Providing flexible tools for developing artefacts and practices: Appropriate technology should be in place to help participants jointly create and share, develop and modify information. (Karlgren et al., 2020; Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2005). The focus of the TLA model is on technology-enhanced learning environments. The knowledge-creation metaphor has similarities with constructivism. Most widely used metaphor concerning learning is the construction of knowledge which is built on the assumption that knowledge and social practice are constructed by learners. The knowledge creation metaphor also emphasizes aspects of creating something new in the process of learning. The problem is that a constructivist attitude in psychology and education does not contain specific analyses of constructive processes, especially respect of innovations. Constructivism exists in various interpretations and in many versions, and for this reason it has become meaningless and can even be described as impoverished (Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2005). Constructivist learning environments (CLEs) are often defined as technology-based spaces (e.g., web-based learning environments) in which students ‘explore, experiment, construct, converse

46

M. Maunula et al.

and reflect on what they are doing so that they learn from their experiences’. Considering the traditional instructional settings that are largely teacher-centred, CLEs have numerous advantages, such as more student-centred, collaborative learning, engaging and reflective and it supports the focus of the TLA (Wang, 2009). Web-based learning (WBL) can be equated with CLE and TLA, because it is a cognitive learning strategy application in a constructive and collaborative learning environment using web facilities. WBL has common interests with the knowledge creation metaphor because one feature of the WBL emphasizes collaborative creative ways of working, collaborative development of mediating objects or artifacts as the starting point for knowledge creation (Rashid et al., 2016). Especially the collaborative aspect gives space for the common knowledge creation.

4.2 Data In this study, our aim is to examine web-based international collaboration learning in Finnish teacher education. We were particularly interested in the issues of web-based collaboration possibilities and internationalization related to the teaching profession. From the theoretical premises described earlier, we have formulated a research question: how is online international collaboration supporting student’s understanding of international education questions related to the teacher profession? Before data collection the students attended an international seminar organized for both German and Finnish higher education students. The international seminar took place in June 2021 between one Finnish and one German higher education institution and was attended by about 60 students in total. After a short introduction of student groups, the students were divided into smaller groups. Each group consisted of both Finnish and German students. In these smaller groups students were given an opportunity to freely discuss for 30 min. The students were encouraged to discuss and describe to each other the educational context in one’s own country and policy perspectives as well as practical challenges related to the profession. The aim of the event was to raise students’ awareness of international education issues. After the event, an anonymous online survey was conducted with 45 Finnish student teachers, who responded anonymously and without any identifying information. The textual data was collected with the help of an online survey including open questions directed to the Finnish teacher students. The questionnaire consisted of six qualitative questions on web-based international cooperation. The questions were related to the importance of internationalization in the teacher’s profession, learning experiences related to the web-based international collaboration event they participated in, the possibilities of combination of technology and internationalization in teaching profession, challenges, and opportunities for international cooperation and finally, respondents were given the opportunity to freely describe their views related to the event. Before answering the questionnaire, the students were informed that their answers would be used as research data and were asked for their permission.

4 Web-Based International Learning in a Finnish Teacher Education …

47

Students were informed that the data would be anonymised by removing their identity and any identifying information. The data were kept in the researchers’ files for the duration of the study and behind passwords.

4.3 Methods To answer the research question, we analysed the data using thematic content analysis. This refers to a method of analysis that allows us to draw reproducible and valid inferences from texts to their contexts of use (Krippendorff, 2018; Patton, 2002). We began the process of hermeneutic analysis by first familiarizing ourselves with the data and discussing it using researcher triangulation (e.g., Patton, 2002). Then we thematized the data according to a trialogical approach into monological, dialogical and trialogical main themes (Hakkarainen & Paavola, 2009). We refined the analysis and interpreted the main themes into the following sub-themes, knowledge reception, participation, and knowledge creation in relation to web-based international professional collaboration. The analysis was a hermeneutic dialogue between researchers, theory, and data (Patton, 2002). As a result of abductive reasoning, we formed an overall understanding of the data (Campos, 2011). The research material was in Finnish, and only the quotations from the material presented in the results were translated into English. The size of the data (N = 45) can be seen as a limitation of the study, but on the other hand, qualitative research aims to gain an in-depth understanding of rich data (e.g., Patton, 2002). The data for this qualitative study was obtained through an online survey and as such the in-depth views of the students may have limited representation in the data. However, the last open question of the online survey allowed for a free narrative on the topic by the research participants. The chapter presents quotes from the student teachers, which allow the reader to assess the researchers’ interpretations of the phenomenon under study and the trialogical learning framework. Reliability is enhanced by the triangulation of researchers, whereby in the discussions the researchers constructed and, on the other hand, tested the emerging understanding (Korstjens & Moser, 2018).

4.4 Results In this section we describe closer how online international collaboration is supporting student’s understanding of international education questions related to the teacher profession. We describe the results with the help of the main themes of the trialogical learning approach: (1) monological knowledge acquisition, (2) dialogical participation and (3) trialogical knowledge creation. First, we describe student teachers’ perceptions of online activities in the teaching profession. Then we describe student teachers’ responses to international cooperation and the teaching profession. Finally,

48

M. Maunula et al.

we consider the advantages and shortcomings of the online discussion. To support our interpretation, we provide quotations from the data.

4.4.1 Monological Knowledge Acquisition in Web-Based International Collaboration According to the results, for some student teachers, the web-based collaboration with German student teachers was perceived as an individual learning, i.e. a monologue process within the mind. Technology provided a learning platform through which knowledge could be shared and assimilated. The student teachers described the monological starting points of learning: the things they had heard and learned during the discussion. The starting point for learning was the individual. It is good to know internationally about the job of a teacher and the structure of education.

The starting points of individual learning and knowledge acquisition were also reflected in the experiences of uncertainty about their own knowledge and language skills. For some students, learning was seen as an individual process and a process of knowledge acquisition. For them, familiar learning practices were a barrier to new learning. For them, the online discussion was a new and exciting learning situation that concretised their development as students. At the same time, they were given the opportunity to develop. It would have been more interesting if I had dared to open my mouth and talk more. Maybe next time :). For me, it would have certainly helped if I had known in advance the framework of what the seminar would cover and what I could prepare for by thinking of questions to ask the Germans. In that situation, I just couldn’t ask them, because I was nervous just to see if I understood them.

Finnish student teachers were at a level in their own learning where web-based collaboration supported their needs for knowledge acquisition and their intrinsic cognition. However, they were not yet able to reflect on the role of internationality in growing up as a teacher through the dimensions of participation or knowledge creation.

4.4.2 Dialogical Participation in Web-Based International Collaboration Cultures The results showed that some student teachers considered web-based collaboration as an important opportunity to participate and become part of the expert group discussion and learning. Students appreciated the opportunity to break the boundaries of individual learning by participating in new and exciting web-based collaboration. Such participatory and dialogical learning emphasizes social cognition and

4 Web-Based International Learning in a Finnish Teacher Education …

49

the gradual growth into social communities. Their thinking and learning are on the borderline between monological and trialogical: web-based collaboration appeared to them as participation, but monological and individual efforts to acquire knowledge also remained persistent. The student teachers saw web-based collaboration as a good opportunity to “get” new tips for teaching that they could “bring” into their own teaching. Rather than seeking to go beyond their own knowledge and develop their collective participation, they were content with the social acquisition of knowledge and its application. You could get pedagogical tips and a completely different perspective on teaching. I see it as particularly important to get tips from outside our own culture. You could pick up the "best aspects" from other countries and bring them into our teaching.

The student teachers saw many important meanings of internationality, both from the students’ point of view and in the ongoing process of growing as teachers. They perceived internationalization as important for example in meeting students’ multiculturalism, strengthening students’ language skills and implementing class activities. From the point of view of the teacher’s work, it was seen as a general knowledge to broaden one’s own awareness of education systems and policies in other countries and to participate in international expert discussions. Overall, internationalization was seen as an important part of a teacher’s work in general, but not directly related to teaching. Being international is relevant and valuable, at least if you work as a researcher or at a higher level. If I think about my own work, I don’t think internationality is so important.

The student teachers were at a stage in their learning where web-based collaboration allowed them to participate in collaborative activities, but learning was perceived as social cognition. Learning was seen as knowledge acquisition without the participation and knowledge creation dimensions. Instead of monologic or mind-centred models of learning and activity, dialogic or interactional models were emphasized. The importance and potential of internationalization as part of the teacher’s work was recognised, but not yet seen as a natural part of one’s own work while the studies were still in progress. Above the teacher’s work, there was seen to be an even higher level at which issues related to internationality were only beginning to become relevant.

4.4.3 Trialogical Knowledge Creation in Web-Based International Collaboration According to the results, the web-based seminar was a meaningful experience for most of the student teachers from a trialogical learning perspective. The experience of participating in and benefiting from an online seminar opened new perspectives on the possibilities of online activities as a future teacher. According to student teachers, online mediation “makes the world smaller” and enables pupils to become truly involved by significantly expanding their own everyday contexts. Student teachers

50

M. Maunula et al.

reflect on how online collaboration would bring new authentic global dimensions and opportunities for collaboration to learning environments. Student teachers emphasized their own and their pupils’ active role as innovators in the community and as creators of new practices, in line with the trialogue learning model. It was clear to the student teachers that long-term online and international collaboration needs to be built to equip pupils with the skills for the future. Combining online and international teaching is particularly important because these are skills that students will need in the future. It’s important that they get practice and skills from an early age.

According to the student teachers, online mediation was an essential part of the future teacher’s work, and a meaningful part of the process of becoming a teacher. With digitalisation, many social processes have become intertwined with online environments, and this starting point, according to the student teachers, had to be considered in the development of the school of the future. They identified their own role as a key facilitator of online mediation and community attachment, as well as an enabler of collaborative learning for pupils. The international seminar meeting gave student teachers a concrete insight into the potential of online activities as future teachers. By their own actions, student teachers set an example of how to work proactively in communities and create new practices. Some student teachers found the online international seminar a very meaningful insight and an example of how each teacher can be an active developer in his or her community. They stressed that school as a society is inevitably changing and that the courage to renew and innovate is essential. These insights inspired student teachers and reinforced the importance of the individual in community innovation. The world is changing, and you have to keep up with it. Technology is a key part of everyday life, so as a future classroom teacher you need to be aware of that. I also see the importance of combining technology and internationalism, because we live in a global world and cooperation is a strength.

Student teachers also considered the international outlook to be a natural starting point for their future teaching profession. Student teachers associated international cooperation with several opportunities for collaborative involvement, such as increasing students’ language skills and cultural understanding. In addition, teachers considered it important for their own professional development to learn about education systems and policies in different countries. Through this, the Finnish education system and especially its development perspective were strengthened. From the perspective of trialogical learning, the aspect of inclusion and development was highlighted. The results showed also that student teachers recognised the importance of international cooperation from the pupils’ point of view. International cooperation reinforces the authenticity of the phenomena being taught and the collaborative constructivist learning process. According to the student teachers, the perspective of multiculturalism and growing up with it was natural for the pupils. According to the student teachers, the starting point as future teachers, they would be confronted with the

4 Web-Based International Learning in a Finnish Teacher Education …

51

phenomenon of multiculturalism and that the classrooms would have a rich cultural background. They considered this starting point as a richness and strength for learning in a community of different cultures. According to the student teachers, learning about different cultures was also an opportunity to deepen their own cultural understanding. It’s good to build international relations with both teachers and students. Collaboration between cooperation classes and group work online, challenging each other to different activities, etc. Language skills would be improved, and the cultures of different countries could be explored. Trips could be organized to visit the cooperation classes.

The results show that student teachers were open to the potential of online opportunities for international cooperation and identified several benefits. All dimensions of trialogical learning were identifiable in student teachers’ thinking. At the level of monological learning, student teachers addressed the themes of online mediation and internationalization at an individual level and as a way of receiving information. At the dialogical learning level, the student teachers participated in the online meeting and absorbed aspects of international activities in relation to their own culture. At the level of trialogical learning, in the most sophisticated responses, student teachers identified their own responsible role as a community developer. They also reported that the teacher’s pedagogical solutions were aimed at enabling students to work together in a community and to find collaborative new creative solutions. According to student teachers, the core task of the future teacher is to guide pupils in a sustainable way towards “global thinking” that transcends individual and cultural boundaries. It is also crucial for teacher education to provide student teachers with collaborative and innovative learning experiences that combine contemporary knowledge components. Research reflection on student teachers’ experiences also deepens the understanding of those involved in the process and enables the development of quality in teacher education at curriculum level.

4.4.4 Summary of Results: The Benefits and Pitfalls of Web-Based Learning Finally, we conclude with a summary of the benefits and pitfalls of web-based learning in building students’ international competency. Innovative pedagogical experiments during this study gave student teachers a concrete idea of what meaningful learning experiences can be and how teachers can design and implement them pedagogically. Abstract learning objectives for student teachers became more concrete through the experiments, such as how online mediation supports opportunities for growth in international cooperation. The abstract goal of internationalization also became more concrete at the competence level; language skills, establishing and maintaining contact, planning new collaborations, and exposing oneself to uncertain situations. The everyday nature of online activities has reduced the use of online tools during the pandemic, but pedagogically meaningful activities need to be continuously developed and diversified.

52

M. Maunula et al.

According to student teachers, the international dimension of the teaching profession was important and online mediation created new opportunities for international cooperation. However, student teachers reflected on practical constraints in their future teaching profession, such as how to find time in their daily school life to carry out different projects, given the already numerous demands. There were also doubts about the working time of a teacher. The most important and most frequently mentioned limitation was student teachers’ experience of their own language skills. On the other hand, from the students’ perspective, they saw online international contacts as a collaborative and natural way to learn languages and also to be motivated to learn a language. In addition, student teachers perceived international networking and activities as new and exciting. They wondered how to create international partnerships in practice and how their own skills were sufficient. Further, student teachers reflected that technology enables many things to be done remotely, but that the interactive dimension becomes more passive at a distance and does not replace face-toface encounters. On the other hand, they found the pedagogical experiments during their studies eye-opening: it is not about what they already know, but what they can learn. The concrete realization of this new perspective will enable the trialogical dimension of learning to be strengthened in the future.

4.5 Discussion In this chapter, we looked at web-based international collaboration in a Finnish teacher education program and the building of students’ international competence. Web-based technological innovations are shaping social practices, including education. Technological advances are creating new HIP opportunities for training, strengthening international collaboration (Hauschildt et al., 2015; Vahed & Rodriguez, 2021) and the shift towards trialogical knowledge creation. Web-based collaboration is both a possibility and a challenge for adult student teachers, and they require a special focus in both planning and implementation of the teaching (also Sharma & Hannafin, 2007; Wang, 2009). We described student teachers’ perceptions of online activities in the teaching, international cooperation, and the teaching profession. The student teacher´s perceptions were constructed by using the main themes of the trialogical learning approach: monological knowledge acquisition, dialogical participation and trialogical knowledge creation (Hakkarainen & Paavola, 2009). Combining different dimensions of learning and knowledge creation with technological solutions raises both concerns about the diminishing of collaborative knowledge creation and on the other hand enables wider learning contexts. Monological knowledge acquisition, and the individual’s mental process, can be seen as a first step in a trialogical knowledge creation perspective. Monological knowledge acquisition, web-based international collaboration is the reception of individual pieces of information, with an emphasis on skills that are lacking from a dialogical participation perspective. Dialogical webbased international collaboration is possible when participants have sufficient skills

4 Web-Based International Learning in a Finnish Teacher Education …

53

to participate in web-based interaction, like also Karkar-Esperat (2018) highlights. Among these participation skills, this study highlighted adequate language skills and the courage to participate in online discussions. In dialogical participation in webbased international collaboration, there was participation in pre-organised collaborative activities and learning by participating. The next and more refined level is trialogical knowledge creation, which in addition to monological knowledge acquisition and dialogical participation, involves collaborative innovation and the creation of new knowledge. Web-based international collaboration and trialogical knowledge creation emerged in this study as student teachers´ insights into how they as future teachers can enable pupils to engage in web-based international collaboration. Their own learning experiences in the web-based international collaboration seminar was powerful and collaborative, much more than they expected. In a knowledge society, the starting point is a constant change and problem solving. Web-based international collaboration creates an excellent basis for trialogical knowledge creation and learning it step by step. Web-based international collaboration is a challenging but rewarding learning opportunity for all education system levels (also Commander et al., 2016). The associated skills and the processing of learning at the meta-level enable the trialogical knowledge creation level to be reached. As future teachers, recognising the different stages of this process is essential, learning progresses from the monologic and dialogic level to the trialogical level. Achieving a level of trialogical learning is challenging and requires building a scaffold for students. Students need guidance and encouragement to progress their learning from monological and dialogical level to the trialogical level. Students’ reflection is emphasized, their own learning should be made visible, and its development systematically assessed throughout their studies. Also, the curriculum level should take into account the different stages of learning and their gradual development, i.e. ensure a safe learning environment where skills can be practiced at different levels and in stages. Finally, we consider the advantages and shortcomings of online collaboration. According to this study, all dimensions of trialogical knowledge creation can be observed in the processes of online internationalization competence. Web-based knowledge creation is a cumulative process in which the collaborative nature of communities is supported by technologies. It is a process of simultaneous and integrated knowledge creation and transformation of social practices. The use of technology in education requires a combination of both the social dimension and learning theory perspectives. Awareness of the different aspects of learning and the processual nature of learning is a key starting point. In teacher education, a meta-level approach to the intersection of these elements is a factor that strengthens the multidimensionality of the teaching profession. In the future, online activities will be closely integrated with learning processes. Creative and research-based pedagogical solutions that support the diverse needs of different individuals and enhance the social collaborative knowledge creation of learning will continue to be needed. It is essential to consider what kind of understanding of learning and what kind of teaching is carried out by a teacher who sees learning as a monologue or dialogue, compared to a teacher for whom learning is primarily a social and trialogical creation

54

M. Maunula et al.

of knowledge? Realistically, teachers and students are different, participating with varying degrees of competence. In any case, trialogical learning guides sustainable solutions to social problems. Implementing trialogical learning is not easy and is not facilitated by online mediation, it requires teachers and students to be courageous and to throw themselves into the process.

References Campos, D. (2011). On the distinction between Peirce’s abduction and Lipton’s inference to the best explanation. Synthese, 180, 419–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9709-3 Commander, N., Zhao, Y., Gallagher, P., & You, Y. (2016). Cross-national online discussions: International learning experiences with American and Chinese students in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(4), 365–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14703297.2015.1006524 Hakkarainen, K., & Paavola, S. (2009). Toward a trialogical approach to learning. In B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus, & R. Hershkowitz (Eds.), Transformation of knowledge through classroom interaction (pp. 65–80). Routledge. Harju-Luukkainen, H., Wang, J., & La Torre, D. (2019). Using content analysis to compare a U.S. urban teacher residency to a Finnish teacher education program. Urban Review, 51, 247–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-018-0475-8 Hauschildt, K., Gwos´c, C., Netz, N. & Mishra, S. (2015). Social and economic conditions of student life in Europe: 2012–2015. Eurostudent. Retrieved from www.eurostudent.eu/download_files/ documents/EVSynopsisofIndicators.pdf Jyrhämä, R. & Maaranen, K. (2012). Research orientation in a teacher’s work. In H. Niemi, A. Toom, & A. Kallioniemi (Eds.), Miracle of education: The principles and practices of teaching and learning in Finnish schools (pp. 97–111). Sense Publishers. Kansanen, P. (2006). Constructing a research-based program in teacher education. In F. K. Oser, F. Achtenhagen, & U. Renold (Eds.). Competence oriented teacher training. Old research demands and new pathways (pp. 11–22). Sense Publishers. Karkar-Esperat, T. M. (2018). International graduate students’ challenges and learning experiences in online classes. Journal of International Students, 8(4), 1722–1735. https://doi.org/10.32674/ jis.v8i4.227 Karlgren, K., Paavola, S., & Ligorio, M. B. (2020). Introduction: What are knowledge work practices in education? How can we study and promote them? Research Papers in Education, 35(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2019.1677761 Korstjens, I. & Moser, A. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 120–124. https://doi. org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375092 Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis an introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). SAGE. Lemon, N., Harju-Luukkainen, H. & Garvis, S. (2022). Learning with and from another: Valuing self-care as a part of the higher degree research student and supervisor relationship. In S. Obradovi´c-Ratkovi´c, M. Bajovic, A. Pinar Sen, V. Woloshyn, & M. Savage (Eds.), Supporting student and faculty wellbeing in graduate education. Teaching, learning, policy, and praxis. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003268185 Määttä, K., Uusiautti, S. & Paksuniemi, M. (2013). What are Finnish teachers made of? A glance at teacher education in Finland formerly and today. Nova Science Publisher´s Inc. Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Modeling innovative knowledge communities: A knowledge-creation approach to learning. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 557–576.

4 Web-Based International Learning in a Finnish Teacher Education …

55

Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor—An emergent epistemological approach to learning. Science & Education, 14, 535–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11 191-004-5157-0 Paavola, S. & Hakkarainen, K. (2014). Trialogical approach for knowledge creation. In S. Tan, H. So, & J. Yeo (Eds.). Knowledge creation in education. Education innovation series. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-047-6_4 Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage. Rashid, Z. A., Kadiman, S., Zulkifli, Z., Selamat, J. & Hashim, M. H. (2016). Review of web-based learning in TVET: history, advantages and disadvantages. International Journal of Vocational Education and Training Research, 2(2), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijvetr.20160202.11 Sansone, N., Bortolotti, I., & Buglass, S. (2016). The trialogical learning approach in practices: Reflections from pedagogical cases. QWERTY, 11(2), 99–120. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledgebuilding communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0303_3 Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building environments: Extending the limits of the possible in education and knowledge work. In A. DiStefano, K. E. Rudestam, & R. Silverman (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distributed learning (pp. 269–272). Sage Publications. Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M. (2007). Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(1), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820600996972 Silla, I., Tordera, N., & Pérez-Nebra, A. R. (2021). Online intercultural exchange: A case study in work and organisational psychology. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.2003219 Vahed, A., & Rodriguez, K. (2021). Enriching students’ engaged learning experiences through the collaborative online international learning project. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 58(5), 596–605. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2020.1792331 Wang, Q. (2009). Designing a web-based constructivist learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820701424577

Minna Maunula Ph.D. (Education) is a university lecturer and operative director at the University of Jyväskylä, Kokkola University Consortium Chydenius. Her interests include research on the life course of adults, the relevance of education in a global era, and the development of web-based and multi-modal higher education in adult education. Heidi Harju-Luukkainen has worked for multiple years in leadership position in universities. She published more than 250 scholarly papers and worked in more than 40 projects globally. Harju-Luukkainen has worked in multiple countries in top research universities (UCLA, USC) as well as in many Nordic research universities (HU, JYU, GU, NORD). She has developed education programs for universities, been a PI of PISA sub-assessments in Finland. Her research interests are broad ranging from early childhood education to adult education. Minna Maunumäki Ph.D. (Education) is a University teacher in Education, Adult Education and Early Childhood Education at the University of Jyväskylä. Her research interests include learning at different stages of life, learning assessment and critical research in education policy, and the development of web-based and multimodal teaching in adult education. Dr. Päivi Perkkilä Senior University Lecturer, Ph.D. (Education), University of Jyväskylä. Päivi Perkkilä is associate professor of mathematics education at University of Turku. Her research interests are mathematical thinking, languaging of mathematical thinking, learning materials in mathematics education mathematics teacher education and adult students’ the view of mathematics. Perkkilä has published several peer-reviewed articles in her research areas. He acts as an editorial board member and a reviewer for several international journals.

56

M. Maunula et al.

Essi Korkeaniemi is a University teacher at the University of Jyväskylä, Kokkola University Consortium Chydenius. Essi´s range of responsibility are the multimodal early childhood teacher training programmes. She is also doing doctoral studies and she´s research focuses on the pedagogical leadership of an ECE teacher in a team of educators

Chapter 5

A Way Forward for Preschool Teacher Education and Technology Tina Yngvesson

and John Siraj-Blatchford

Abstract In Sweden educational technology is an integrated and all-round accepted component of the preschool curriculum (Lpfö18) and both the National Agency for Education and the European Digital Education Action Plan (2021–2027) underlines the importance of digitally competent and confident teachers. Assuming a social constructivist approach, this chapter explores the possibility that technological competence is not simply inherent in actions performed, rather it is a mode of thinking that is applied when considering how to address unsolved problems. The main focus of the study is thus to investigate teacher attitudes to learning, where learning is seen as a collaborative co-constructed product of the teacher and child. The chapter does this through mapping the current state of technology in relation to Swedish ECEC practice against the background of steering documents, and the preschool teacher education program. Keywords Preschool teacher education · Technological competence · Innovation · Teacher · Child · Co-construction

5.1 Introduction During the past decade, technology and technological innovations have had, and continue to have a significant impact on education at all levels. Educational software, teaching aids and hybrid classrooms change the way we teach and also re-imagines how the traditional classroom is shaped (Undheim, 2021). With the increasing use of ICT in society, it is crucial to critically examine, consider and reconsider how children apply, engage and use technology in ECEC settings in order to ensure that children do not maintain status quo as consumers of technology, but evolve T. Yngvesson (B) University of Borås, Borås, Sweden e-mail: [email protected] J. Siraj-Blatchford University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. Garvis and T. Keane (eds.), Technological Innovations in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2785-2_5

57

58

T. Yngvesson and J. Siraj-Blatchford

to be producers (Holloway et al., 2013; Siraj-Blatchford, 2015; Siraj-Blatchford & Brock, 2016; Undheim, 2021; Yelland, 2017). Thus, understanding the effects that technological innovations have on children in ECEC as well as their teachers can be considered a critical step in developing sustainable strategies and techniques in terms of managing and using ICT in early childhood education (Siraj-Blatchford, 2009; Siraj-Blatchford & Whitebread, 2003).

5.2 The Swedish Policy Context With the first computers being introduced into the school system during the 1970s technology in education has a long tradition in Sweden. Swedish academics have participated in many major international collaborations associated with the early development of early childhood including the Children’s Awareness of Technology (CHAT) and Developmentally Appropriate Technology in Early Childhood (DATEC) (Charioca et al., 2005; Siraj-Blatchford & Whitebread, 2003). The norm of blending analogous and digital ways of teaching and learning is commonly accepted, and when Apple iPads made their entry into the Swedish market on November 30th 2010, the distribution of the new technology was swift. By May 2012 it had been implemented as an educational learning tool across the nation (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2016). Albeit operating digital tools was nothing new to the nation’s educators, teaching and learning with them was. Preschool teachers across Sweden were given brief introductory courses in how to implement the iPad into pedagogical activities in early childhood education and plans to enter this more broadly into the curriculum for preschool were made. However, whilst the curriculum was updated in 2010 to include technology more broadly in pedagogy, stating that the preschool should be responsible for “developing pedagogical content and environments that inspire development and learning and that challenge and stimulate the interest and curiosity of the children and keep their attention”, the text regarding technology itself remained unchanged. In the 1998- and 2010 edited version of the curriculum, it is stated that children should have the opportunity to “develop their ability to identify technology in everyday life, and explore how simple technology works (Swedish National Agency for Education 1998, 2010, p. 10). Fast forward eight years to the 2018 revision and it is stated that children should develop “an ability to discover and explore technology in everyday life” (see more Swedish National Agency for Education 2018, p. 15). Thus, the developments in terms of textual content in this policy document, remains largely the same as prior to iPads being integrated as a learning tool in Swedish ECEC. Policy is intended to be a social practice, in the way that policy discourses include collections of ideas and concepts, that are categorised and then produced, reproduced and finally transformed into a particular set of practices and through which meaning is given to physical and social realities (Ball, 2012; see also Wodak, 2011). Thus, policy on digital technology in preschool expresses the intended practices and social

5 A Way Forward for Preschool Teacher Education and Technology

59

realities of ECEC today, for instance concerning meaning making, understanding, development and learning, but also change. Hence, policy is not emanating solely from governments, but is also a way of accomplishing governance through how various actors continuously draw upon rules that provide them with guidelines to act in the best interest of the child, in terms of development and learning. Inclusion and education for sustainable development (ESD) are two themes that have also become central in the Swedish curriculum policies for preschool and heavy emphasis is also placed on ESD in the preschool teacher program. The National Agency for Education and the Education Act (see more the Education Act 2010:800) is the central administrative authority for all publicly organised education, including preschool, after-school care, primary-, middle- and high school, gymnasium level college and university (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2016). All curriculums and educational plans governed by this national body are thus a reflection of the democratic model upon which Sweden rests. The Curriculum for Preschool states in its fourth paragraph that, “Education should be undertaken in democratic forms and lay the foundation for a growing interest and responsibility among children for active participation in civic life and for sustainable development—not only economic, but also social and environmental. Both long-term and global future perspectives should be made explicit in education” (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2016). Mirroring this curriculum, is the teacher training program module titled Technology and digital competence. In this module, the overarching syllabus goal regarding developing the students’ knowledge and understanding is two-pronged. The first pertains to technology education (learning with technology) where the student is to, • demonstrate knowledge and understanding in safely and critically applying digital tools in pedagogical activities and • to observe the meaning/impact of various media- and digital environments in these (University of Borås, 2022). The second goal pertains to educational technology (learning about technology) and is situated among the local goals of the preschool teacher training program where it is stated that the teacher candidate is to, • demonstrate digital competence relevant for the profession through being able to use and apply different digital tools, design teaching environments with the support of digital tools, as well as critically assess various forms of digital material and social media (University of Borås, 2022). These overarching goals also reflect the European Union’s Digital Education Action Plan (2021–2027), which states that in order to achieve its objectives the curriculum shall include development in two priority areas. These are: 1. Fostering the development of a high-performing digital education ecosystem This includes, • infrastructure, connectivity and digital equipment

60

T. Yngvesson and J. Siraj-Blatchford

• effective digital capacity planning and development, including up-to-date organisational capabilities • digitally competent and confident teachers and education and training staff • high-quality learning content, user-friendly tools and secure platforms which respect e-privacy rules and ethical standards. 2. Enhancing digital skills and competences for the digital transformation This requires, • • • •

basic digital skills and competences from an early age digital literacy, including tackling disinformation computing education good knowledge and understanding of data-intensive technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI) • advanced digital skills, which produce more digital specialists ensuring that girls and young women are equally represented in digital studies and careers (adapted from Digital Education Action Plan (2021–2027), pp. 4–6). Both approaches emphasize the need for students to gain a critical appreciation ‘about’ technology as well as the competencies required to educate ‘with’ technology. However, whilst the goals are clear in both EC and teacher training program perspectives, and we can read in the international literature and academic debate about the many claims that are made about digital technology and how these contribute to ECEC in terms of educational challenges, very little literature can be found related to critique beyond e-privacy, disinformation and gender inequality. Arguably, the area that is the weakest of all in terms of guidance is the question of how children are supported in the developing a more inclusive and critical knowledge and understanding for sustainable development.

5.3 Technology Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) Sustainable development has become the overarching paradigm of the United Nations, and increasingly dominates national and international attention and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) may be considered to provide guiding principles for the evaluation of technologies. This may be in terms of an application of its popular definition as involving developing the technological; ‘needs of the present generation without putting at risk the capacity of generations to come in meeting their own needs’ Brundtland (1983). It may also be considered in terms of the application of the popular three or four ‘pillar’ model of sustainable development and sustainable consumption (Shao et al., 2017). Ecological and evolutionary science tells us that every organism survives in its physical and biological niche, just as long as it follows the universal imperative of economy or ‘the principle of least effort’. In other words,

5 A Way Forward for Preschool Teacher Education and Technology

61

Fig. 5.1 Pillars of sustainable development (UN, 2002, https://commons. wikimedia.org/wiki/File: 11625_2018_627_Fig1_H TML.webp)

it survives as long as it continues to adapt to biological and physical changes in the environment, and as long as it conserves its energy and resources. The popular ‘three pillar model’ of sustainable development (Fig. 5.1) applies this ecological principle to policy by stressing the need to respect the reciprocal nature and influence of the physical and biological environment, social cultural co-operation, and economy. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals defines sustainable targets that include the provisions of effective early childhood education (SDG4), and an education for sustainable development (ESD) that contributes towards all of the other SDG targets. These include SDG5 the achievement of gender equality, SDG10 reduced inequality and the intergenerational reproduction of inequality, and SDG12 sustainable consumption. Every child’s cognitive structures, their understandings of the world, of others and of themselves, their personality, motivations, hopes and desires emerge in the complex ferment of a multiplicity of interacting ecological systems. Bronfenbrenner identified them as the microsystem, the mesosystem, the exosystem, the macrosystem, and the chronosystem (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1997). Johnson and Puplampu (2008) have also proposed the ecological techno-subsystem, a dimension of the microsystem. In Bronfenbrenner and Morris (1997) the Process–Person– Context–Time Model (PPCT) has since become the bedrock of this bioecological model which highlights the importance of understanding a person’s development within environmental systems. For the child, the influence of significant people, and the technological context may be what provides motivation (intrinsic or otherwise) and ‘time’ may be considered the overarching space where meaning is developed. From an ‘embodied’ and/or ‘extended cognition’ perspective both the physical environment and technological resources, and the social and cultural environment together provide the child with invitations to play that may be identified as ‘affordances’ (Gibson, 2010). Gibson’s ecological theory of perception stresses that these affordances should be understood as neither inherent in the child nor in the environment—but rather inherent in the interaction of them together.

62

T. Yngvesson and J. Siraj-Blatchford

In a consideration of the child’s technology education, we can also usefully consider the particular developmental niche (Harkness & Super, 1993) which provides the materials, social and cultural context for their adaptation. For Harkness and Super (1993) the developmental niche consists of three interrelated subsystems: the physical and social settings that the child inhabits which includes in our case the technological infrastructure, the culturally regulated customs and practices of childcare and child rearing that includes all those pedagogies applied in use of technology, and the psychological assumptions of the caretakers, including teachers and parents’ ethnotheories, the physical and social setting i.e., the technological hardware and software applied in the child’s home and in there school. What technology is available to them, how many other children require access, do some children have greater access than others? What affordances do they offer? Every technological artefact may be considered to have embedded within it the social relations and values of its production, ‘hardened history’, they have each been designed and they are maintained to serve social/cultural purposes and the interactive ‘affordances’ that they provide include gender positioning. As Nobel (1991) has suggested technologies are often regarded as ‘irreducible brute facts’ but as Layton (2010) argues: The politics of technological literacy – who creates and controls the meanings of the phrase, how imposition of meaning is achieved – is a central concern of technology education today and is inescapably rooted in value considerations (p. 2)

As Gilligan (1982) notably suggested, women and girls display values to men and boys and the values embedded in educational technology may be incongruent with their needs. Research carried out in the UK by the office for Communication found for example that between the ages of 5 and 7, less than half the number of girls played computer games than boys, although they were twice as likely to use the internet or go online. The gap grows wider into the teenage years. Many boys like computer games and often girls prefer to be social and communicate. Products have sometimes been developed to provide so called ‘pink software’, applying themes that might encourage more interest for girls in games, often these have been found to be are less educationally demanding, and in any event the research suggests that even those girls who do enjoy computer games tend to grow out of them sooner than boys. The implications of this are not so much that we need to develop different technology for boys and girls, we need to develop a better technology education that reflects sustainable values for all. Many of the foregoing arguments may be applied equally to the technological alienation and disadvantage of marginalised, disabled and disadvantaged groups and the elderly. A more critical and sustainable technology education will therefore contribute towards at very least; UN SDGs 4, 5, 10 and 12. Yet, as Harkness and Super (1993) suggest, the culturally regulated customs and practices of the children’s education and care are often so thoroughly integrated into the larger culture and so commonly practiced by members of the community that they require no justification, they are simply perceived as the “natural” or most rational way to behave. For Harkness and Super, a leading role is assigned to the third subsystem, namely, the psychological ethnotheories or belief systems held by parents and educators.

5 A Way Forward for Preschool Teacher Education and Technology

63

In considering the concept of taking an Environmental Education or Education for Sustainable Development perspective in design and technology, and from an Australian conceptualism, Pavlova (2011) has argued that an emphasis on the social dimension of design for sustainable development was needed to strengthened and align technology education with the global agenda and international developments. Pavlova cited Hill and Elshof (2007) in suggesting; that “this could pose challenges for many D & T curriculum designers and practitioners as not all teachers see these aspects of learning as essential”. Less than half of the teachers in Pitt and Lubben’s (2009, p. 337) study in three countries reported that they were confident in teaching the social dimension of sustainability.

5.4 Teacher Perspectives Awareness of the relevance of sustainable development to technology has often been restricted to a consideration of the ecological design of products (Elshof, 2003). Filho et al. (2009) have argued that Technology and especially a Design and Technology education has a significant role in supporting ESD although they emphasised that there remained a pressing need for training teachers to realise this potential. Knutsson (2018) has argued that we should be seriously questioning technology’s ability to deliver environmental and social sustainability. Knutsson (2018) argues that students should be exposed to more critical perspectives than currently available in conventional thinking about technology, and also to more holistic ‘systems’ understandings of technology. Knutsson (2018) argues that this would contribute towards developing a more critical technological literacy. For Knutsson (2018), such an approach would open up the prospect of addressing the Global North–South divide between technologically advanced and technologically poor countries, while Eriksen (2018) takes this critique further to suggest that technological optimism in the Norwegian educational context is such that ESD remains situated within a colonial epistemological regime. While addressing the educational contexts of older students, Eriksen’s (2018) suggestion that we should be interrupting the hegemonic narratives, empowering children to make a difference in the world (Biesta, 2014) is as relevant to all children in any democratic education that respects children’s right to knowledge and citizenship. As Eriksen (2018, p. 37) suggests, what is required is that we, foster system-critical thinking and pose the questions; “Why is it like this,” “Does it have to be like this,” and “How could it be different?”): “the school should take responsibility for discussing and handling the impressions students receive as active consumers of several media sources. The importance of being able to “hold paradoxes and not be overwhelmed by complexity, ambiguity, conflict, uncertainty and difference (Andreotti, 2011, p. 395) is also regarded as central to decolonial educational approaches”).

Svensson and von Otter (2008) carried out semi-structured interviews with eight Swedish technology teachers in grades 7–9 and found that teachers’ perceptions and their teaching about technology and sustainability was dominated by thoughts of

64

T. Yngvesson and J. Siraj-Blatchford

recycling, consequence and systems. The researchers concluded that the teachers needed greater support to provide a more critical approach to technology in sustainable development. Their research also confirmed the findings of a number of other studies that have noted that teachers tend to adopt a less than critical, optimistic attitude towards technology in the context of sustainable development (Elshof, 2009; Knutsson, 2018). In early learning settings, the majority of children need support from proximal teachers. These teachers hold the role of educator and should be able to critically reflect on both the limitations and possibilities of integrating digital technology in early childhood, whilst also including the children in reasoning about how, when, why (Gibbons, 2010; Selwyn, 2010; Undheim, 2021) and for what digital technology is applied. With digital technology in this regard, is meant digital devices and tools, and also digital media and other resources that can for example be used for integrating purposes, such as including non-verbal or non-Swedish speaking children in learning and teaching (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2016). A number of skills are considered important for children’s success in today’s societies. Among these are skills such as communication, problem solving and adaptability, but also continued curiosity, imagination and the will to keep learning new things. An interview study conducted by Fox-Turnbull (2019) on two Swedish early childhood education teachers in the Stockholm area, was two pronged. The first main finding was concerned with insights into children’s learning and the second with insights into the role of conversation and observation in the learning process. In the first category, the findings were primarily concerned with preconditions needed to ensure successful learning, such as being provided with opportunities to explore, collaborate, transfer knowledge between themselves and also opportunities to be creative (meaning access to technology, materials and so on) (pp. 81–85). The second category was concerned mainly with recognizing the value of questioning the children’s learning with the children, as well as observing the children and later on reflecting with them on what they had experienced (p. 87). The curriculums applied in this study were from the Swedish, New Zealand and English cultural context and common for all three is, among other things, that whilst the curricula recognize technology as a necessary aspect of ECE. The study concluded however, that none of the curricula provide the necessary information needed for teachers, in terms of how knowledge and understanding in this regard, is to be achieved. Similarly, in an attitude-centered survey conducted by Kelly et al. (2022), the findings showed significant discrepancies in teacher attitudes in terms of opportunities and creating opportunities for online play and creativity—largely as a result of unclear guidelines in terms of how to best execute pedagogical activities with children involving online play, and in this study also how this interacts with outdoor play. Set against the paradigm of the three components of attitude, affective component, behavioral (conative) and cognitive component, the research illuminated how “teachers’ understanding of how and if their attitudes may affect children’s’ opportunities may also be improved” (p. 11) and that “policymakers may overview how outdoor and online learning are portrayed within policy” (pp. 11–12). There are other concerns than the emergence of policy and how this is translated into practice, however. One such concern is how children approach learning with technology differently from

5 A Way Forward for Preschool Teacher Education and Technology

65

one another, depending on gender. Hallström et al. (2015) concluded in their ethnographic study in the Swedish cultural context, that boys and girls assume different approaches to one another when handling and learning with digital tools. Rather than dissolve gender boundaries, this difference in approaches aids to support the existing gender structures, something which in Sweden may be considered detrimental to the nations plight for an equal society. In a pedagogical perspective however, developing teacher understanding regarding technology and gender is crucial if children are to be provided with equal opportunities for learning and development (see more Lpfö18). This gender-oriented discourse within technology and pedagogy extends also into preschool teachers’ attitudes and perceptions about how to use digitality in early childhood education. Some research supports that teacher perceptions are often times found to be strongly interrelated with the professional learning environment that teachers operate in (Hallström et al., 2015; Hernwall, 2016) and those reluctant parents and teachers, may be an obstacle in terms of the children’s development in terms of learning with digitality. Thus, in an effort to help prepare children for a future in a society where digitality is central, it is crucial that parent and teacher attitudes are evolved to ward a standpoint of wanting to help prepare the children better, so that their learning processes may be enriched (Papadakis et al., 2021). Furthermore, teacher attitudes to learning with technology has also been found to be improved when teachers were given the opportunity to improve their competence through establishing routines around the teaching hours dedicated to this (Nordlöf et al., 2017/2019). Nordlöf et al. (2017) also found that when teachers felt more organised about learning structures, the children also benefited, increasing the status of ICT as a subject and subsequently children’s learning. Overall, the existing research concerning learning with technology in Swedish ECE, suggests that rather than focus only on the traditional tasks of teaching and learning, teacher’s must also be reflexive in regard to their attitudes about what skills children need to develop in order to become “functional members of society” (Mertala, 2019), assuming a holistic approach that considers not only the teaching task, but also the socialisation tasks that teachers are faced with. If education is to be meaningful to teachers and useful to children, technology must be integrated at a larger scale that what we see in the Swedish educational system today and a shift from learning about, to learning with must take place.

5.5 Conclusions: Towards an Ecological and Embodied Perspective to Technology Education It is more than a decade and a half since Zhao et al. (2006) noted the ubiquitous nature of technological applications in schools. At that time they were already advocating the adoption of an holistic ecological approach to its study and Lewontin (2000) found that,

66

T. Yngvesson and J. Siraj-Blatchford Schools are complex social environments with various groups that are closely connected and form a network of changes. When a technology is introduced into the school system, other things such as teaching practices, learning activities, and even social relationships also change. These changes cause further changes in technology use that, in return, affect how other things change. Therefore, changes in schools are bidirectional or even circular, which is akin to the ecological process whereby genes, organisms, and the environment continuously interact with each other; a d these interactions shape not only the organism but also the environment. (p. 137)

Adopting a broadly social constructivist and ecological approach this paper has aimed to investigate teacher attitudes to learning, where learning is seen as a collaborative co-constructed product of the teacher and child and where digital technology cannot be considered as in a vacuum, rather as part of a creative learning process. Historians and anthropologists encourage the evaluation of cultures by the technologies that they create and, our relationship with technology is actually symbiotic, what we make says who we are…and what we are, what we make! While technology education is rarely considered a citizenship issue, the fact is that in the process of making technological choices and applying the technologies around us we also change ourselves. The technologies we develop change the way we think, live and even the ways in which we perceive ourselves. (Siraj-Blatchford & Whitebread, 2003, p. 1)

From an ecological perspective however, Zhao et al. (2006) suggest that there are six implications that can be drawn for research and development in technology and education: 1. There is a need to build networks of teachers so that individuals can build upon their social capital and social networks to get technical support when needed: “Technology uses in schools are not independent and isolated events or artefacts, but are situated in complex relations within the school ecosystem” (p. 146). 2. Allow time—It always takes time for a technology innovation to interact with the environment and for the ecosystem to achieve new equilibrium: “It takes time for a technology innovation to interact with the environment and for the ecosystem to achieve new equilibrium” (p. 146). 3. Encourage play—this is a principle as true for teachers as it is for children: “teachers can make mistakes without fear of embarrassment, practice their skills at their own pace, and become comfortable with it” (p. 146). 4. Connect the two existing practices and beliefs: “we should focus on using technology to improve student learning because the foremost concern of teachers is student achievement” (p. 147). 5. Find the right niche—the particular technology should meet the natural need of pedagogy, but: “If there is no existing niche, a new niche can be created through, for example, curriculum reform”. 6. Treat the technology as part of the existing ecosystem in which students learn and play: “The most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave

5 A Way Forward for Preschool Teacher Education and Technology

67

themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it”. Layton (1992) recommends the use of four perspectives that teachers may apply to bring values ‘into prominence’, these involve the recognition: 1. that technologies are successful when the values embedded in the design are congruent with the dominant social values of the consumer culture. 2. that conversely technologies become obsolete when the values that are embedded in them are no longer congruent with a culture in society. 3. that technologies transferred between [sub] cultures often result in the rejection/ radical adaptation of the technology or else the often-damaging transformation of the society. 4. that for all of the above reasons we must be aware of the distinctly gendered ‘moral orientations’ of men and women, boys and girls. Layton also usefully cites the work of Goonatilake (1984) and Nobel (1979) and argues that: “There is nothing inevitable about the form which a technology takes; it is shaped by the value decisions of those in control” (p. 47). He also suggests that the Curriculum: “opens the way for critical reflection not only on all aspects of pupils’ own work but also on the value options and decision processes which have empowered technological developments in the past and which are doing so today” (p. 48). Layton argues that there is a need to make values the subject of deliberation and critical reflection between pupils and between pupils and teachers. One might add that there is still an urgent need to encourage this process between all of those involved in the development of technology education. As Elshof (2009) has suggested this is an opportune time for progressive teachers, researchers and curriculum administrators to re-imagine technological education and in the process green the technology education curriculum from top to bottom” (2010, p. 54).

References Andreotti, V. (2011). Towards decoloniality and diversality in global citizenship education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9, 381–397. Ball, S. J. (2012). Politics and policy making in education: Explorations in sociology. Routledge. Bennett, J., & Grimley, L. (2001). Parenting in the global community: A cross cultural perspective. In M. Fine & S. Lee (Eds.), Handbook of diversity in parent education (pp. 97–132). Academic Press. Biesta, G. J. (2014). Utdanningens vidunderlige risiko. Bergen Fagbokforlag. Bourbour, M. (2020). Using digital technology in early education teaching: learning from teachers’ teaching practice with interactive whiteboard. International Journal of Early Years Education [Online], 1–18. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative research Journal. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. (1997). The ecology of developmental processes. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. 1). Wiley.

68

T. Yngvesson and J. Siraj-Blatchford

Charioca, V., Siraj-Blatchford, J., Pramling-Samuelsson, I., Sherida, S., Esparteiro, B., Saude, S., Passarinho, A., Espirito Santo, A., Nuez, R., & Genova, K. (2005). ICT in the early years: Handbook for trainers. Impresso. Danby, S., Fleer, M., Davidson, C., & Hatzigianni, M. (Eds.). (2018). Digital childhoods: Technologies and children’s everyday lives (Vol. 22). Springer Elshof, L. (2003). Technological education, interdisciplinarity, and the journey toward sustainable development: Nurturing new communities of practice. Canadian Journal of Science Mathematics and Technology Education, 3, 165–184. Elshof, L. (2005). Teacher’s interpretation of sustainable development. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(2), 173–186. Elshof, L. (2009). Toward sustainable practices in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19, 133–147. Elshof, L. (2020). Transcending the age of stupid: Learning to imagine ourselves differently. Journal for Activist Science & Technology Education, 1(1), 45. Eriksen, K. (2018). Education for sustainable development and narratives of Nordic exceptionalism: The contributions of decolonialism, Nordidactica. Journal of Humanities and Social Science Education. Filho, W., Evangelos, M., & Pace, P. (2009). Education for sustainable development: Current discourses and practices and their relevance to technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19, 149–165. Fox-Turnbull. (2019). Enhancing the learning of technology in early childhood settings, Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 44(1). Genovese, J. (2003). Piaget, pedagogy, and evolutionary psychology, evolutionary psychology. human-nature.com, 1, 127–137. Gibbons, A. N. (2010). Reflections concerning technology: A case for the philosophy of technology in early childhood teacher education and professional development programs. In S. Izumi-Taylor, S. Blake (Eds.), Technology for early childhood education and socialization: developmental applications and methodologies (pp. 1–19). IGI Global. Gibson, R. (2010). The ‘art’ of creative teaching: implications for higher education. Teaching in education, 15(5), 607–613. Hallström, J., Elvstrand, H., & Hellberg, K. (2015). Gender and technology in free play in Swedish early childhood education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25, 137–149. Harkness, S., & Super, C. (1993). The developmental niche: Implications for children’s literacy development. In L. Eldering & P. Leseman (Eds.), Early interaction and culture: Preparation for literacy. The interface between theory and practice (pp. 115–132). UNESCO Hernwall, P. (2016). ‘We have to be professional’—Swedish preschool teachers’ conceptualization of digital media. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 5–23. Hill, A. M., & Elshof, L. (2007). Sustainable practices as an aspect of technological literacy: Research findings from secondary school teachers’ and their classrooms. Presented at the PATT18 Pupils Attitudes Towards technology International Conference on Design and Technology education research, Glasgow. Holloway, D., Green, L., Livingstone, S. (2013). Zero to eight: Young children and their internet use. EU Kids. Online. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/52630/1/Zero_to_eight.pdf Kelly, S. K., Sharpe, R. M., & Fotou, N. (2022). Early years and key stage 1 teachers’ attitudes towards outdoor and online play. Education, 3–13. Knutsson, B. (2018). Green machines? Destabilizing discourse in technology education for sustainable development. Critical Education, 9(3). Larke, L. R. (2019). Agentic neglect: Teachers as gatekeepers of England’s national computing curriculum. British Journal of Educational Technology. Advance online publication. https://doi. org/10.1111/bjet.12744 Layton, D. (1992). Values and design and technology, design curriculum matters. Loughborough University of Technology.

5 A Way Forward for Preschool Teacher Education and Technology

69

Marklund, L. (2019). Swedish preschool teachers’ perceptions about digital play in a workplacelearning context. Early Years. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2019.1658065 Mertala, P. (2019). Teachers’ beliefs about technology integration in early childhood education: A meta-ethnographical synthesis of qualitative research. Computers in Human Behavior, 101(2019), 334–349. Nordlöf, C., Höst, G. E., & Hallström, J. (2017). Swedish technology teachers’ attitudes to their subject and its teaching. Research in Science & Technological Education, 35(2), 195–214. Nordlöf, C., Hallström, J., & Höst, G.E. (2019) Self-efficacy or context dependency? Exploring teachers’ perceptions of and attitudes towards technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29, 123–141. O’Leary, Z. (2014). The essential guide to doing your research project (2nd ed.). Sage. Papadakis, S., Vaiopoulou, J., Sifaki, E., Stamovlasis, D., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2021). Attitudes towards the use of educational robotics: Exploring pre-service and in-service early childhood teacher profiles. Educational Science. Pavlova, M. (2006). Technology education for sustainable futures. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 11(2). Pavlova, M. (2013). Teaching and learning for sustainable development: ESD research in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(3), 733–748. Pavlova, M. (2018). Sustainability as a transformative factor for teaching and learning in technology education. Handbook of Technology Education, 827. Pavlova, M. (2011). PATT 25; CRIPT 8—Perspectives on learning in design & technology education. Griffith University. Pitt, J., & Lubben, F. (2009). The social agenda of education for sustainable development within design and technology: The case of the sustainable design award. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(2), 167–186. Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: Notes towards the critical study of educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 65–73. Shao, J., Taisch, M., & Ortega Mier, M. O. (2017). Influencing factors to facilitate sustainable consumption: From the experts’ viewpoints. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142(1), 203–216. Siraj-Blatchford, J. (Ed.). (2006). Developing new technologies for young children. Trentham Books. Siraj-Blatchford, J. (2009). Education for sustainable development in early childhood. International Journal of Early Childhood, 41(2), 9–22. Siraj-Blatchford, J. (2015). Is it time to remove ICT from the early learning goals? Early Years Educator, 17(8), 18–20. Siraj-Blatchford, J., & Brock, L. (2016, April). Early childhood digital play and the zone of proximal developmental flow (ZPDF). Proceedings I Congreso Internacional de Innovacion Y Tecnologia Educativa en Educacion Infantil, Seville. Siraj-Blatchford, J., & Palmer, N. (2011). Knowledge, learning processes and ICT in early childhood education. He Kupu, 2(5). Siraj-Blatchford, J., & Whitebread, D. (2003). EBOOK: Supporting ICT in the early years. McGrawHill Education. Stephen, C., & Edwards, S. (2015). Digital play and technologies in the early years. Early years (London, England) [Online], 35(2), 227–227. Sung, H-Y., Siraj-Blatchford, J., & Kucirkova, N. (2015). Your guide to outstanding childhood practice in ICT. Practical Pre-Sxchool Books. Swedish National Agency for Education [Skolverket]. (2010). Education Act 2010:800. Swedish National Agency for Education [Skolverket]. (2016). Preschool Curriculum. [Läroplan för förskolan, Lpfö], 1998, and the amended Preschool Curriculum 2010 Svensson, M., & von Otter, A.-M. (2008. June 18–21). Technology teachers’ different ways of thinking about sustainable development in technology education research and practice. In N. Seerly, J. Buckley, D. Canty, & J. Phelan (Eds.), Technology education: Perspectives on human capacity and development, PATT36 International conference. Athlone Institute of Technology, Co. Westmeath, Ireland.

70

T. Yngvesson and J. Siraj-Blatchford

Undheim, M. (2021). Children and teachers engaging together with digital technology in early childhood education and care institutions: A literature review. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 1–18. United Nations (UN). (2002, September). Report of the world summit on sustainable development. Johannesburg. A/Conf.199/20* Accessed at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/478154?ln=en University of Borås. (2022). Educational plan for the Preschool teacher program. University of Borås Sweden. https://kursinfodoc.hb.se/PdfMaker.aspx?type=program&code=LGFÖR& revision=19,100&language=SV Wodak, R. (2011). Complex texts: Analysing, understanding, explaining and interpreting meanings. Discourse Studies, 13(5), 623–633. Yelland, N. (2017). Teaching and learning with tablets: A case study of twenty-first-century skills and new learning. In N. Kucirkova & G. Falloon (Eds.), Apps, technology and younger learners: International evidence for teaching (pp. 57–72). Routledge. Zhao, Y., Lei, J., & Frank, K. (2006). The social life of technology: An ecological analysis of technology diffusion in schools. Pedagogies, 1(2), 135–149.

Tina Yngvesson is a lecturer in early childhood education at the University of Borås as well as a PhD research fellow in education at Nord University in Norway. Alongside various international and national research projects in early learning, child development and parental involvement in education, she also has a strong interest in the emergence of curriculum and the bridge between policy and praxis. John Siraj-Blatchford is currently a Director of SchemaPlay and an honorary Professor at the School of Education, University of Plymouth. John does research in Early Childhood Education and Education for Sustainable Citizenship. He is an experienced teacher in schools and preschools and in teacher education. He has taught research methodology, science, technology, environmental politics and educational psychology, and he has carried out research using qualitative, quantitative and multiple methods.

Chapter 6

A Literature Review of Educational Robotics and Early Childhood Education Susanne Garvis

and Therese Keane

Abstract Educational robotics is an emerging field with school aged children; however, it is relatively new to the field of early childhood education and care. This means that the use of educational robotics to help support and develop learning with young children has not been researched extensively. As such, teachers may push back on the use of educational robotics in the classroom or may not have the skills to support the learning of young children. There is a growing need to understand current research around educational robotics and early childhood education, especially in prior to school settings (children aged birth to five years). Across the literature however, little attention has been given to acknowledging the use of educational robotics in early childhood education, especially given the difference of the early childhood education context compared to formal schooling. This article draws together the brief research literature that is available to provide an international snapshot of current trends for educational robotics in early childhood education and care settings by answering the question—what are the current trends in research for educational robotics and early childhood education and care. The findings from the review have the potential to provide a reflection of educational robotics while also prompting ways forward for the development of computational thinking with young children. Key messages are given for working with the very youngest of children to ensure that they are also supported when we talk about educational robotics.

S. Garvis (B) Griffith University, Mount Gravatt, QLD, Australia e-mail: [email protected] T. Keane La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. Garvis and T. Keane (eds.), Technological Innovations in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2785-2_6

71

72

S. Garvis and T. Keane

6.1 Introduction The terms educational robots and robots in education are often synonymous and tend to be used interchangeably however there are sublte differences between the two (Scaradozzi et al., 2019). Robots in education tends to be a broader term encompassing what robotics can do for people in education. However, for this paper, the focus will be on educational robots. At its simplest definition, educational robots are considered to be a tool used in education. Educational robots (also known as pedagogical robots) are typically devices used to introduce children to programming in Science, Technology, Engineering or Mathematics (STEM). These devices range from programable robot-like toys for very young children, to more professional automated systems used with older students. According to Angel-Fernandez and Vincze (2018, p. 41): Educational Robotics is a field of study that aims to improve learning experience of people through the creation, implementation, improvement and validation of pedagogical activities, tools (e.g. guidelines and templates) and technologies, where robots play an active role and pedagogical methods inform each decision.

Educational robotics typically consist of a device that is either already constructed or needs to be constructed, along with the ability to program its activity, enabling students to explore the environment by themselves with the assistance of their teacher (Benitti, 2012; Karim et al., 2015). Modern pedagogical theories of learning such as constructivism (Ackermann, 2001), social constructivism (Vygotsky & Cole, 1978) and constructionism (Papert, 1980) provide for interactive learning and the use of educational robotics is a naturally aligned conduit. Piaget argued that learning is constructed by having the learner actively engaged in learning rather than passively receiving information. Papert extended Piaget’s work and developed the constructionist theory of learning, in which he argued that people build knowledge most effectively when they are consciously building something—whether practical or theoretical (Keane & Sterling, 2016). The earliest educational robot is attributed to Papert along with the development of the LOGO programming language and the first physical floor turtle robot. Papert’s (1980, p. 5) vision articulated: In many schools today, the phrase “computer-aided instruction” means making the computer teach the child. One might say the computer is being used to program the child. In my vision, the child programs the computer and, in doing so, both acquires a sense of mastery over a piece of the most modern and powerful technology and establishes an intimate contact with some of the deepest ideas from science, from mathematics, and from the art of intellectual model building.

Papert envisioned that student robot interaction would increase motivation (both intrinsic and extrinsic) by being able to control the device and enabling it to interact by programming a series of commands. He also believed that teaching programming to children such as the LOGO programming language had a positive effect on thinking and learning. Using robots to learn programming has been well established and researchers have found positive results identifying children’s attitudes and motivations when using educational robots during formal schooling (Kaloti-Hallak

6 A Literature Review of Educational Robotics and Early Childhood …

73

et al., 2015; Levy & Ben-Ari, 2015), however further research is needed to determine that this is the case with very young children. Some researchers have also found that children benefit from learning programming as it helps develop skills such as computational thinking including collaboration, problem solving and logical thinking however there is some discrepancy as to how much of this cognitive development can be attributed to programming (Critten et al., 2022). Even though Yesharim and Ben-Ari’s (2018) study on young children (in Grade 2) focused on participation in a robotics based computer science unit, the authors concluded that children found programming difficult and only did well when there was a physical robot and assistance from the teacher. Whilst this study focused on children in Grade 2, this study is very relevant as it shows that programming is a highly complex higher order skill that needs to be taught alongside a phyical robotic device to asisst students with visualising the concepts to younger children. Therefore, the use of a physical, educational robot is imperatve when teaching younger students how to program so that they can emulate the steps through the phycial robotic device. In another study by Critten et al. (2022), found that young children aged between 2 and 4 years of age were able to develop communication, collaboration, lanning, logical thinking and proble solving skills through udnertaking play based activities, however it was found that the young children needed support to program the educational robots. Their exposure to logic, sequencing algorithms and debugging was valued, but required assitance from the teachers. In comparison to the Yesharim and Ben-Ari (2018) study that focused on children who were approximately 7 years old, both studies recognised that chidlen need support to use the educational robots. Underlying the use of educational robots and programing is the ability to solve problems. Even though the term computational thinking was initially coined by Papert in the 1980s, the definition developed by Wing (2006) is the one that is most cited and refers to the solving of problems, designing systems, and understanding human behavior. These three concepts are fundamanetal principles in computer science and by extension educational robots and programming. The importance of being able to thinking logically to solve problems is an important underlying skill that young children need to develop from an early age. Obviosuly, the level of complexity should be aligned to their cognitve development to provide young chidlren with the basisi to build on these skills as they progress through their schooling. Early childhood education and care is a growing field around the world and caters for children in before formal school settings (birth to five years) to participate in positive learning experiences to support learning and development. Some countries will have universal access to allow children to participate in early childhood settings, that includes engagement with an educator or teacher. Furthermore, some countries have specific curricula to support planning and programming when working with young children, to assist positive outcomes for all children. The intention is the curricula guides teacher practice and pedagogy within the early years context. As yet however, few studies have explored how educational robots are engaged with within these classrooms.

74

S. Garvis and T. Keane

The purpose of this paper is to provide a summary of key trends from the international research literature to describe the use of educational robotics in early childhood education and care settings. Reviewing the literature, the intention is to provide a summary around perspectives, type of research, computational thinking and usage programs. In particular, we focus on children aged birth to 5 years, with an acknowledgement that many early childhood education programs around the world do not begin until ages 3 or 4 because of early childhood education policy around universal access. This means many children only start attending early childhood services when they have access to universal access. As such, our research question is: what are the current trends in research for educational robotics and early childhood education and care. Findings from this literature review are important for building the field of computational thinking with young children. Our findings are also important for work around policy in regards to curriculum content and delivery, acknowledging learning continua and the importance of scaffolding thinking in the early years. As yet, computational thinking is not an established word in early childhood education and care curricula, with only a handful of countries (for example Singapore) recognising and supporting computational thinking across educational pathways (early childhood education to formal schooling).

6.2 Method In 2021, the authors met to discuss possible research projects on computational thinking and young children within early childhood education and care. While the number of educational robotics used in early childhood education and care has increased in recent times, previous studies have not specifically scoped out key trends from empirical research literature. Given the literature that was available, a literature review was warranted to establish baseline understanding of the research field at this point in time. The following research question was created: • What are the current trends in research for educational robotics and early childhood education and care? This literature review aimed to establish what can be learned on the use of educational robotics in early childhood education and care settings. In this case, early childhood education and care was described as providing education and care for children from birth to five years of age. Search terms for this systematic search included ‘educational robotics AND preschool’. These terms were searched within SCOPUS databases with limitations of articles being in English, peer-reviewed, journal articles. The date range was chosen as a time range to provide only relevant and up to date empirical evidence from the field. A range of different search strategies for literature reviews were followed, including instances of truncations of keywords and targeting databases specific to the field (O’Brien & McGuckin, 2016).

6 A Literature Review of Educational Robotics and Early Childhood …

75

For example, the word preschool also included searches with kindergarten, early childhood education, kinder, creche, long day care and childcare. The initial search produced 2344 articles. A further screening word of age range birth to 5 years was added. However, no articles appeared with children younger than 3 years of age. The final search resulted in 14 articles that were filtered to 14 after meeting the search criteria (see appendix 1 for bibliographic information of papers). Articles were excluded because they were not in English, did not cater for children aged birth to 5 years or did not have a focus on education and robots. In the findings section below, we present the common themes that emerged across the 14 articles, including the type of research and perspective. After looking and discussing these main themes, we also examine and explore further issues and concerns around educational robotics and young children and early childhood education and care. A particular reflection is made around the importance of empirical research to develop understandings around the development of computational thinking with young children. This process to consider the field more broadly beyond the preliminary review also provides “insights that can be neglected or passed over in the steps towards exclusion and quality control that are not required in the systematic review model” (Jesson et al., 2011, p. 5). Further, describing the current trends from the empirical studies in this snapshot in time helps to provide areas of need for future development of children’s learning as we have stronger integration of technology into the lives of young children and within early childhood education and care settings across the world.

6.3 Findings and Discussion 6.3.1 Trend 1. Characteristics of Research In the 14 articles reviewed, characteristics across the research articles emerge. The first is around the types of studies undertaken, with one study being a review of ‘social’ robots and literacy and language learning, 3 studies being theoretical frameworks and the remaining studies being small scale empirical studies with either teachers, preservice teachers or children as participants. These studies also generally focused on children aged 3 years and above. No empirical studies were conducted with children aged under 3 years. The studies were also small scale (highest sample was 84 children) and involved small intervention studies to track change in time (usually a period of weeks but not longer). The studies were not able to show if change was sustained over time or how change influenced future growth in learning and development. In the literature review (Neumann, 2019), key themes emerged such as the need for more experimental and rigor design studies classifying benefits and barriers. In literature that was reviewed after this time, a similar observation can still be made. Furthermore, Neumann (2019) suggests that there is limited research on early literacy learning with robots and specifically on how best teachers could integrate

76

S. Garvis and T. Keane

social robot activities into early years learning curriculum and learning outcomes. Again, this observation still exists for all areas of the curriculum after this initial postulation was made in 2019 across the research field. Another key consideration across the limited studies reviewed is the location. Studies came from countries such as Sweden, Israel, China or the United States, however no studies emerged from countries such as Australia or Russia. The empirical studies also occurred in a formal classroom space, with no studies undertaken in alternate spaces such as outside, home environments or other learning environments. The predominant type of robots used with young children are the Bee-bot suite of robots. The Bee-Bot is shaped like a beetle and has typically a yellow and black casing with the following dimensions: 125 × 100 × 75 mm. The Blue-Bot is identical to the Bee-Bot, however the two main differences is that it has a clear casing and can be connected to a computer or a tablet via a blue-tooth device. The back of the beetle has seven buttons that can be pressed as a sequence to allow the Bee-Bot to move. These buttons are: • • • • • • •

Move forward 15 cm Move backward 15 cm Turn left 90° Turn right 90° Execute the sequence of instructions Pause Reset (format the robot).

The Bee-Bot can memorise up to 200 commands therefore allowing young children to create programs that range from very simple to complex ones. Typically, Bee-Bots are used as a floor robot with very young children to give them the confidence to understand the teaching of control, programming and problem-solving. The Bee-bot has been designed specifically for young children to be friendly and accessible for children to use. Scratch Jr, an educational visual programming language developed by MIT Media lab is a free program that is typically used with children aged between 5–7 years of age. Children are able to create interactive stories and games through the use of graphical programming blocks and they can use their own voice and insert their own sounds and pictures.

6.3.2 Trend 2. Perspectives of Participants When reflecting on the perspectives or main participants across the research articles, it became clear there was a focus on teacher skills and professional learning associated with robots (6 articles). This included the use of teacher words (Fridberg & Redfors, 2021), perspectives around technology education (Weng & Li, 2020), teaching coding as another language (CAL) (Bers, 2019), the implementation of teaching practices

6 A Literature Review of Educational Robotics and Early Childhood …

77

(Otterborn et al., 2020), developmentally appropriate practice in technology integration (Hunsaker & West, 2020) and the role of the teacher in fostering preschoolers computational thinking (Wang et al., 2021a). As such, all of these papers are around enhancing professional learning and practice for teachers and pre-service teachers. This also suggests that skills development has been identified as an important contributor to support better implementation of robots into early year settings and require teachers who are confident and understand the importance of engaging with robots. The perspectives of families did not appear in any articles reviewed. This suggests a large gap in the current literature as robot activities appeared to happen in isolation within the early years classroom. We know the importance of home-school partnerships for learning, however given the infancy of the research field, it may explain the current gap of family perspective within educational robots and young children. Future research could support this transfer of knowledge between the early childhood and home environment, especially for households that may have significant engagement with technology (such as virtual assistants and Smart technology across the household). Furthermore, it would also allow children to understand the importance of robots and technology in both contexts and support their future engagement and confidence when working with robots. While there were studies that focused on children’s outcomes such as gains in sequencing and problem solving (Nam et al., 2019), scientific processes (Turan & Aydo˘gdu, 2020) and cognitive abilities (Çiftci & Bildiren, 2020), children appeared to be ‘researched on’ with measurements made around growth in learning outcomes. Again, given the infancy of the research field, it may explain the current lack of research that includes the child perspective on engagement with educational robots. The research did not show children’s preferences and perspectives for educational robots and overall, what children thought about the experience of engaging with educational robots in their early years settings. Future research would benefit from knowing what children think and feel about engaging with educational robots and how robots could be used to support their learning and development. As direct receivers of the planned activities with the robot, it is important to understand their experience.

6.3.3 Trend 3. Frameworks/Theoretical Foundation Across the articles reviewed, three articles were based on introducing new theories and frameworks within robotics and young children. Bers (2019) describes a pedagogical approach for early childhood computer science called “Coding as another language (CAL), as well as 6 coding stages or learning trajectories. The approach is informed by constructionism (Papert, 1980), positive technological development (Bers, 2012) and dialogical instruction (Alexander, 2008; Clarke et al., 2015; Littleton & Howe, 2010; Resnick et al., 2010). As such, the paper describes engagement with curriculum with the aim of education being to help people think creatively and to solve problems. In another theoretical article, a think piece was

78

S. Garvis and T. Keane

presented by authors that applied a framework based on Gibson’s theory of affordances and Palmer’s external representations (Clarke-Midura et al., 2019). The framework was for toys for children aged 3–7 years with a focus on high quality coding tools and variations in play scenarios. In the final article, evidence centred design (ECD) (Mislevy & Haertel, 2006) was used to develop an assessment tool for kindergarten aged children’s computational thinking. As such, the contribution was around the inclusion of spatial reasoning in early childhood computational thinking. As such, the three papers show building of frameworks and theoretical understandings for young children and provide evidence of enhanced learning and engagement with young children. It is hoped that future research will also extend on current frameworks and theoretical perspectives as well as develop and provide new ways of understanding educational robots and young children in early childhood settings. Through such perspectives, young children’s learning with educational robots will be able to be supported to allow growth in learning and development. Further development of frameworks and theoretical perspectives also provides a strong foundation for building robust research that allows the perspective of multiple participants, a variety of early childhood context and acknowledges cultural variations.

6.3.4 Trend 4. Educational Robots as a Tool for Child Outcomes Five of the articles also tried to create relationships with enhanced children outcomes. Friedberg and Redfors (2021) for example looked at the enhancement of STEM word usage after the implementation of robots with children aged 4 to 5 years. They found that the teacher’s words helped stimulate children’s word usage in STEM. Relationships between robotic education and children’s skills for scientific process were also explored by Turan and Aydo˘gdu (2020) showing that children who engaged in the intervention program had higher test scores for scientific processes (again children were aged 5 years). Çiftci and Bildiren (2019) looked at the influence of coding of cognitive abilities and problem-solving skills with 4 and 5 years olds. Findings suggest an increase in the non-cognitive abilities of children in the experiment group with no statistically significant difference in problem solving. Again, with a study of preschoolers (n = 84) old Brainin et al. (2021) found that children who were exposed to a programmable robot intervention displayed significantly higher spatial-relations and mental-rotation improvement compared with the traditional intervention and control group. Finally, card-coded robots were also associated with kindergartner’s sequencing and problem solving. Findings suggest that the enhanced planning experience using card-coded robots was beneficial for improving young children’s thinking skills.

6 A Literature Review of Educational Robotics and Early Childhood …

79

Overall, these studies are still in their infancy and have small sample sizes and with children aged four and above. More studies are needed to confirm and build the importance of the relationships between robots and children’s outcomes. In particular, a range of longitudinal studies are also needed to show long term impact as well as how educational robots can be supported across a child’s schooling.

6.4 Conclusion While educational robotics is a growing field in education, within early childhood education the research field still appears in infancy. In this paper, we have collated the preliminary international literature to provide a snapshot of current trends that largely highlights gaps. In particular, literature available appears to focus on the upper years of early childhood education and care (4 and 5 year old children), involvement with families is absent and interventions are short term. We hope that computational thinking is developed further within the field of early childhood education with greater engagement with educational robotics with all children in early childhood settings. We also hope that the research field is able to move forward where educational robotics become a normal practice in early years classrooms rather than with short term interventions and at the discretion of the teacher. If we are hoping to support children in the digital age, we must reflect on how we can support all young learners.

Appendix

Year

Authors

Title

Journal

2019 Neumann, Michelle M

Social Robots and Young Children’s Early Language and Literacy Learning

Early Childhood Education Journal

2021 Fridberg, Marie; Redfors, Andreas

Teachers’ and children’s use of words during early childhood STEM teaching supported by robotics

International Journal of Early Years Education

2020 Turan, Sedat; Aydo˘gdu, Fatih

Effect of coding and robotic education on pre-school children’s skills of scientific process

Education and Information Technologies

2020 Weng, Jiayi; Li, Hui

Early technology education in China: A case study of Shanghai

Early Child Development and Care (continued)

80

S. Garvis and T. Keane

(continued) Year

Authors

Title

Journal

2019 Bers, Marina Umaschi

Coding as another language: a Journals of pedagogical approach for teaching Computers in computer science in early childhood Education

2020 Çiftci, Serdar; Bildiren, Ahmet

The effect of coding courses on the cognitive abilities and problem-solving skills of preschool children

2020 Hunsaker, Enoch; West, Richard E

Designing Computational Thinking TechTrends and Coding Badges for Early Childhood Educators

2020 Otterborn, Anna; Schönborn, Konrad J; Hultén, Magnus

Investigating Preschool Educators’ Implementation of Computer Programming in Their Teaching Practice

Early Childhood Education Journal

2021 Wang, X. Christine; Choi, Youngae; Benson, Keely; Eggleston, Corinne; Weber, Deborah

Teacher’s Role in Fostering Preschoolers’ Computational Thinking: An Exploratory Case Study

Early Education and Development

2021 Brainin, Einat; Shamir, Adina; Eden, Sigal

Robot programming intervention for promoting spatial relations, mental rotation and visual memory of kindergarten children

Journal of Research on Technology in Education

2021 Wang, Xin; Yin, Nian; Zhang, Zhinan

Smart design of intelligent companion toys for preschool children

Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing

Computer Science Education

2019 Clarke-Midura, Jody; Lee, The building blocks of coding: a Victor R; Shumway, Jessica comparison of early childhood F; Hamilton, Megan M coding toys

Information and Learning Science

2019 Nam, Ki Won; Kim, Hye Jeong; Lee, Suyoun

Connecting Plans to Action: The Effects of a Card-Coded Robotics Curriculum and Activities on Korean Kindergartners

Asia Pacific Educational Researcher

2021 Clarke-Midura, Jody; Silvis, Deborah; Shumway, Jessica F; Lee, Victor R; Kozlowski, Joseph S

Developing a kindergarten Computer Science computational thinking assessment Education using evidence-centered design: the case of algorithmic thinking

References Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference. Future of Learning Group Publication, 5(3), 438. Alexander, R. J. (2008). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. Dialogos.

6 A Literature Review of Educational Robotics and Early Childhood …

81

Angel-Fernandez, J. M., & Vincze, M. (2018). Towards a definition of educational robotics. Proceedings of the Austrian Robotics Workshop 2018 Austrian Robotics Workshop 2018, Austria. Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978–988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011. 10.006 Bers, M. (2012). Designing digital experiences for positive youth development: From playpen to playground. Oxford University Press. Bers, M. (2019). Coding as another language: A pedagogical approach for teaching computer science in early childhood. Journal of Computers in Education., 6, 499–528. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s40692-019-00147-3 Brainin, E., Shamir, A., & Eden, S. (2021). Robot programming intervention for promoting spatial relations, mental rotation and visual memory of kindergarten children. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1858464 Çiftci, S., & Bildiren, A. (2020). The effect of coding courses on the cognitive abilities and problemsolving skills of preschool children. Computer Science Education, 30(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/08993408.2019.1696169 Clarke, S., Resnick, L. B., & Rosé, C. P. (2015). Dialogic instruction: A new frontier (3rd ed., pp. 378–389). Handbook of Educational Psychology. Clarke-Midura, J., D Silvis, D., Shumway, J. F., Lee, V. R., & Kozlowski, J. S. (2021). Developing a kindergarten computational thinking assessment using evidence-centered design: The case of algorithmic thinking. Computer Science Education, 31(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08993408.2021.1877988 Clarke-Midura, J., Lee, V. R., Shumway, J. F., & Hamilton, M. M. (2019). The building blocks of coding: A comparison of early childhood coding toys. Information and Learning Science, 120(7), 505–518. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-06-2019-0059 Critten, V., Hagon, H., & Messer, D. (2022). Can pre-school children learn programming and coding through guided play activities? A case study in computational thinking. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50(6), 969–981. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01236-8 Fridberg, W., & Redfors, A. (2021). Teachers’ and children’s use of words during early Childhood STEM teaching supported by robotics. International Journal of Early Years Education. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2021.1892599 Hunsaker, E., & West, R. E. (2020). Designing computational thinking and coding badges for early childhood educators. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 64(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00420-3 Jesson, J. K., Matheson, L., & Lacey, F. M. (2011). Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques. SAGE. Kaloti-Hallak, F., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M. (2015). Students’ attitudes and motivation during robotics activities. Proceedings of the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education. Karim, M. E., Lemaignan, S., & Mondada, F. (2015). A review: Can robots reshape K-12 STEM education? 2015 IEEE international workshop on Advanced robotics and its social impacts (ARSO). Keane, T., & Sterling, L. (2016). This little-known pioneering educator put coding in the classroom. Retrieved 29 September 2022, from https://theconversation.com/this-little-known-pioneeringeducator-put-coding-in-the-classroom-63971 Levy, R. B.-B., & Ben-Ari, M. M. (2015). Robotics activities–Is the investment worthwhile? International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives, Ljubljana, Slovenia. Littleton, K., & Howe, C. (2010). Educational dialogues: Understanding and promoting productive interaction. Routledge.

82

S. Garvis and T. Keane

Mislevy, R. J., & Haertel, G. D. (2006). Implications of evidence-centered design for educational testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25(4), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1745-3992.2006.00075.x Nam, K. W., Kim, H. J., & Lee, S. (2019). Connecting plans to action: The effects of a card-coded robotics curriculum and activities on Korean kindergartners. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28(5), 387–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00438-4 Neumann, M. M. (2019). Social robots and young children’s early language and literacy learning. Early Childhood Education Journal, 48(2), 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-019-009 97-7 O’Brien, A., & McGuckin, C. (2016). The systematic literature review method: Trials and Tribulations of electronic database searching at doctoral level. In SAGE research methods. Cases. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/978144627305015595381 Otterborn, A., Schönborn, K. J., & Hultén, M. (2020). Investigating preschool educators’ implementation of computer programming in their teaching practice. Early Childhood Education Journal, 48(3), 253–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-019-00976-y Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms, children, computers and powerful ideas. Basic Books. Resnick, L. B., Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2010). How (well-structured) talk builds the mind. In D. Preiss & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching and human development (pp. 163–194). Springer. Scaradozzi, D., Screpanti, L., & Cesaretti, L. (2019). Towards a definition of educational robotics: a classification of tools, experiences and assessments. In Smart learning with educational robotics (pp. 63–92). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19913-5_3 Turan, S., & Aydo˘gdu, F. (2020). Effect of coding and robotic education on pre-school children’s skills of scientific process. Education and Information Technologies, 25(5), 4353–4363. https:/ /doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10178-4 Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press. Wang, C. X., Choi, Y., Benson, K., Eggleston, C., & Weber, D. (2021a). Teacher’s role in fostering preschoolers’ computational thinking: An exploratory case study, Early Education and Development, 32(1), 26–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1759012 Wang, X., Yin, N., & Zhang, Z. (2021b). Smart design of intelligent companion toys for preschool children. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 35(2), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060420000499 Weng, J., & Li, H. (2020). Early technology education in China: A case study of Shanghai. Early Child Development and Care, 190(10), 1574–1585. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.154 2383 Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https:// doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215 Yesharim, M. F., & Ben-Ari, M. (2018). Teaching computer science concepts through robotics to elementary school children. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.21585/ijcses.v2i3.30

Susanne Garvis is a Professor of Early Childhood Education at Griffith University, Australia. She has extensive experience within quality, learning and policy development within early childhood education and has worked with various government agencies, NGOs and professional organisations within Australia and across the world. Her work has informed early childhood teacher education in a number of different countries. She has published numerous articles, books and regularly provides professional learning for early childhood teachers. Therese Keane is Professor in STEM Education and has been a champion for empowering girls in STEM. She is currently the Associate Dean of Research and Industry Engagement at La Trobe

6 A Literature Review of Educational Robotics and Early Childhood …

83

University in the School of Education. Her passion and many achievements have been acknowledged by her peers in her receiving numerous international, national and state awards. She has worked in a variety of school settings where she has taught IT and lead in K-12 education as the Director of ICT. Therese is Deputy Editor for “Education and Information Technologies”—the official journal of the IFIP Technical Committee on Education covering the complex relationship between information and communication technologies and education.

Chapter 7

Incorporating Technologies-Based Thinking Skills in Initial Teacher Education Milorad Cerovac

and Therese Keane

Abstract Initial teacher education (ITE) programs provide pre-service teachers with much of the theoretical and to some extent practical, underpinnings of their developing professional practice. The ITE programs ensure that pre-service teachers gain sufficient knowledge and understanding around student development, how students learn, the importance of knowing the subject content and how to plan, teach, and assess that content. Given pre-service teachers are entering classrooms in the twentyfirst century, they require skills that will position their students to participate in an increasingly technologically advanced and interconnected world. However, what appears to be missing from ITE programs is the growing attention given to computational, design and systems thinking, that future pre-service teachers will need, not only to solve the complex problems that they will continue to face in their classroom, but also the same skills that they will need to model and then develop in their future students. Keywords Technologies · Initial teacher education · Professional practice · Computational thinking · Design thinking · Systems thinking

7.1 Introduction Initial teacher education (ITE) programs provide pre-service teachers with theoretical and practical knowledge, skills, and experiences. Theories of teaching and learning, curriculum and pedagogy, the characteristics and diversity of learners, and the social contexts of education are part of ITE programs. Most ITE programs also offer preservice teachers’ exposure to the application of transformative technologies in the M. Cerovac (B) La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] T. Keane La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. Garvis and T. Keane (eds.), Technological Innovations in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2785-2_7

85

86

M. Cerovac and T. Keane

classroom, which acknowledge the urgency and expectation of teachers to embed innovative teaching practices using digital technologies in the classroom. Doing so is considered crucial to prepare students for the complex inter-connected global community that awaits them (Bement et al., 2015). Amongst the set of knowledge, skills and experiences that ITE programs typically provide, what is missing and posited by the authors are the trinity of thinking skills that is evident in industry and gaining increasing traction in education. Computational thinking, design thinking, and systems thinking, are argued to be three skills that are garnering attention across the broader education community. Two key arguments can be offered to justify the incorporation of three types of thinking skills within ITE programs: computational, design, and systems (CDS) thinking. Firstly, teachers are generally expected to model the skills that students are to learn and develop. To do so means that both pre-service and in-service teachers need to have the depth of familiarity and experience with the key stages, elements, and nuances that underly each of the three thinking skills. Having these requisite knowledge and skills then positions the teacher to effectively impart the knowledge and skills associated with CDS thinking. The significance of having teachers experienced in CDS thinking is noted in the research on critical thinking in education, where concern exists around teachers’ ability to think critically (Kaye & Hager, 1991; Koziko˘glu, 2019; Michelot et al., 2022). The research of Šukolová and Nedelová (2017) and their analysis of final year Bachelor degree students revealed those students undertaking teaching degrees (i.e. pre-service teachers) performed well below final year undergraduates from other faculty programs on critical thinking ability. Given the emphasis from curriculum designers and government authorities that critical thinking is to be embedded in all teaching disciplines, the idea that pre-service teachers lack the very skill they are expected to develop in students could be viewed as yet another reason to criticise the quality of teachers and ITE course providers. With increasing attention to improve the thinking capability of students, and with the findings of Šukolová and Nedelová (2017), an argument can be made for the formal training of pre-service teachers in CDS thinking. The importance of doing so is that the ITE programs rarely prepare or develop pre-service teachers in thinking (Fonseca, 2021). Exposing pre-service teachers to the CDS thinking skills set would arguably improve the ability of teachers to then develop the creativity and innovation capabilities of their students. A second rationale, through the eyes of the pre-service teachers themselves is the lack of preparedness they feel upon entering a classroom for the first time (Turner et al., 2004). Brown et al. (2015) noted that while there remains a lack of research in pre-service teacher preparedness, “feelings of preparedness and sense of teaching efficacy are both important indicators of how well [pre-service teachers] will be able to meet the challenges of the teaching profession and to be successful in their teaching careers” (p. 88). The evolving nature of transformative technologies adds to the complexity of teaching in the classroom for pre-service teachers, which already includes curriculum and content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and to which

7 Incorporating Technologies-Based Thinking Skills in Initial Teacher …

87

notions of differentiation and issues of classroom management demand of the preservice teacher to in essence become problem solvers in their own classroom. As such, pre-service teachers would benefit from developing problem-solving capabilities that are increasingly reliant on CDS thinking to survive and thrive in the classroom. In the classroom, the pre-service teachers become problem solvers in a complex ecosystem which includes any number of actors (e.g. students, pre-service teacher, mentor, school leadership) and resources/tools (e.g. technology, pedagogy, curriculum, assessment).

7.2 Problem Solving and the Trinity of Thinking Skills The problems that students are often asked to solve are typically those that can be completed within a lesson. For instance, in the science and mathematics classrooms, problem solving may involve completing a set of questions from a textbook. In economics or business studies, students might be asked to solve a problem such as how to manage over-indebtedness (ACARA, n.d.). However, with the availability of transformative technologies in classrooms, the scope of problem solving can be expanded beyond the immediate boundaries of any subject area, and into inter-disciplinary learning opportunities. Embracing a problem-solving task that is inter-disciplinary and which extends beyond a single lesson subsequently raises questions around teacher experience and capabilities. Moreover, the importance of doing so is noted by the OECD’s shift with introducing a new metric for measuring students’ problem-solving capabilities. The PISA 2015 Collaborative Problem-Solving assessment incorporated the growing focus on those crucial industry skills of collaboration, communication, creative and critical thinking, teamwork, project management (including organising the team), conflict management, and perspective taking. PISA’s world-first focus on collaborative problem-solving highlighted the growing consensus among industry, business, and government leaders that workplaces are becoming increasingly more dynamic environments, driven by technological innovation, which will continue to demand of its workers the capability to adapt and address complex challenges collaboratively (Mumford et al., 1999; National Research Council, 2010). Consequently, employees will be expected to possess “complex performance skills and [be prepared to accept that] ongoing skill development” will be a necessary aspect of their work (Mumford et al., 1999, p. 49). To ensure that our students are ready to face these challenges, the obvious question, originally posited by Mumford et al. (1999), is what “do these job skill requirements … tell us about how we should go about preparing” students for the “jobs of the future” (p. 49). However, teaching problem-solving requires teachers to “support and help develop the knowledge that students need as they solve problems” (Kale & Yuan, 2021, p. 621). Problem solving which goes beyond a single learning area requires a “bundle of skills, knowledge and abilities that are required to deal effectively with complex non-routine situations in different domains” (Funke et al., 2018, p. 41). These skills

88

M. Cerovac and T. Keane

should also include computational, design and systems thinking skills. All three are deemed transferable skills, not only useful for solving complex problems, but also allowing individuals to “move between jobs and occupations during their [future] careers” (Brüning & Mangeol, 2020, p. 10).

7.2.1 Computational Thinking Computational thinking (CT) originated from Papert’s (1980) work in constructionism, and his view of the child as a builder, though the term CT was popularised by Wing (2006) in her seminal paper. While CT is often associated with the field of computer science, it has been garnering significant interest from other teaching disciplines (Ching et al., 2018; Croff, 2017). Arguably, one factor behind the growth in awareness of CT, is that computational thinking patterns can be found more broadly, beyond just the computer science discipline (Croff, 2017). The rapidly changing landscape that is synonymous with transformative technologies in education classrooms is likely exacerbating this growing awareness of CT more broadly across both primary and secondary education systems. Not surprisingly, the science and mathematics disciplines have been quick to adopt CT as part of their curriculum across both primary and secondary school systems, as evident with the inclusion of CT in the US’s Next Generation Science Standards (National Research Council, 2013) and in Australia, with the national curriculum in the Digital Technologies learning area. A significant early push from science and mathematics in embracing CT, stems from the argument that the rapidly changing nature of science and mathematics, has been driven largely by how these two disciplines in the professional world, are reliant upon CT practices (Weintrop et al., 2016). However, computational thinking skills are equally applicable to solving those complex pervasive issues in the social sciences, while also “providing foundational tools for the nascent study of the digital humanities” (Jacob et al., 2018, p. 13). Weintrop et al. (2016) proffer several examples which have realised the importance of computational thinking across discipline areas, including the growth of bioinformatics, computational statistics, and neuroinformatics. In other domains of learning, such as English language learning, CT has been integrated into digital storytelling learning activities as a way of improving student learning performance and motivation (Parsazadeh et al., 2021). Defining the term CT appears somewhat problematic. Lodi and Martini (2021) point out that CT is “one of the most abused buzzwords” (p. 883), as its definition depends upon the stakeholder’s interpretation and their agenda (e.g. teacher vs politician). Weintrop et al. (2016) take the pragmatic approach with their definition, which draws upon the ways that scientists and mathematicians use CT as part of their professional practice. For the purpose of this paper, the authors defer to that definition offered by Wing (2006), in that CT involves “reformulating a seemingly difficult problem into one we know how to solve” (p. 33). This can be achieved by deconstructing (or decomposing) the complex problem into smaller, more familiar, and manageable problems (Wing, 2006). Solutions can then be developed through

7 Incorporating Technologies-Based Thinking Skills in Initial Teacher …

89

using a set of rules (i.e. an algorithm), and abstractions applied to generalise those solutions to similar problems (Wing, 2006). While there remains no uniform definition of the term CT, there is general agreement that CT includes a broad range of mental tools and concepts, borrowed from computer science, that allows individuals to solve problems (Pearson et al., 2017). Not surprisingly, CT is seen as a twenty-first century skill that students will require to develop their problem-solving capabilities (Wing, 2008; Yadav et al., 2014, 2017). For pre-service teachers, being exposed to CT allows them to improve upon their own problem-solving capabilities and their questioning skills (Uzumcu & Bay, 2020). Since teachers are pivotal to developing CT skills in their students, it stands to reason that pre-service teachers should understand CT themselves (Butler & Leahy, 2021). A further benefit argued by Butler and Leahy (2021) stems from those pre-service teachers having a deep understanding of CT also “demonstrated a high level of pedagogical knowledge” (p. 1060).

7.2.1.1

Four Elements of Computational Thinking

Computational thinking involves four main steps, as shown in Fig. 7.1. Decomposition involves the process of breaking up a complex problem into smaller parts, that are easier to work with, and consequently, simpler to understand and solve. Decomposition can be used by the pre-service teacher when dealing with complex classroom problems such as EAL (English as an Additional Language) students struggling with science. Applying the process of decomposition, the preservice teacher can identify where the EAL students’ struggles are, such as, the linguistic demands of science, which impact on understanding and communicating the key ideas and concepts. Pattern recognition involves identifying patterns (or trends) within the smaller decomposed problems. In analysing the smaller problems, consideration can be given to how similar problems have been previously solved. For instance, the use of multisensory strategies, literature circles, annotating in first language, and PowerPoint flash cards to develop students’ vocabulary (Fernando & Cooper, 2017). Abstraction involves focusing on the important information only, which removes any irrelevant detail (Ch’ng et al., 2019). This could be achieved by using inductive logic to draw conclusions, possibly based on observations and/or experiences. Algorithm design involves creating the step-by-step instructions or procedures that are executed/implemented to arrive at the solution. This process of algorithm design can be adapted and reframed for use across all learning areas, as instructions

Fig. 7.1 The four main steps (or elements) of computational thinking (image created by M. Cerovac)

90

M. Cerovac and T. Keane

and procedures are key elements in any learning area. As an example, the EAL students struggling with the linguistic demands of the scientific language, might be placed in a separate learning cycle of three phases, which Case (2002) identified as consisting of: concept exploration, concept introduction, and concept elaboration. The initial concept exploration phase would make use of computer simulations and/ or virtual reality software/hardware to assist the EAL students in visualising the content objectives, resources and tools.

7.2.2 Design Thinking Design is a natural human activity (Razzouk & Shute, 2012) that places an emphasis on iterative problem-solving as part of design thinking (Hennessey & Mueller, 2020), though Vande Zande (2007) adds the qualifier of creative problem-solving, through directly relating ‘thought’ and ‘action’. Thought relates to abstract, which is often how ITE providers train their teachers, when what is needed is action, where preservice teachers are able to practically apply their theoretical knowledge and skills (Orchard & Winch, 2015). Design thinking should therefore be considered a complex and creative process that involves problem analysis, generating potential design ideas, creating prototype models, and gathering feedback as part of evaluating the preferred design solution (Razzouk & Shute, 2012). A problem-based learning approach is ideally suited to students developing design thinking (Dym et al., 2005). However, design thinking should not be taught as a silo-based skill in schools (Gachago et al., 2017). Careful planning is needed for integrating design thinking into teaching and learning programs that allow for interdisciplinary and authentic learning opportunities that will engage the pre-service teachers’ students and the curriculum. As design thinking places a focus on collaborative group work (Hennessey & Mueller, 2020; Vande Zande, 2007), by including clear and practical design thinking tasks within ITE courses, pre-service teachers are provided the means by which they can develop their capability of working collaboratively and cooperatively with their peers, in a similar fashion that professional learning networks provide in-service teachers with a forum to continue to develop their professional practice. The design thinking process shown in Fig. 7.2 is one such framework that could be exploited by ITE providers to develop their pre-service teachers design thinking capabilities. While the five-stage design thinking process shown in Fig. 7.2 may give the impression of being a linear process, in fact it is a circular process, as each stage can be re-visited multiple times to develop a preferred innovative solution (Dawbin et al., 2021). With the iterative design thinking process students are immersed in a cyclic process of improving their solution to a problem.

7 Incorporating Technologies-Based Thinking Skills in Initial Teacher …

91

Fig. 7.2 The five-stage design thinking process (image created by M. Cerovac)

7.2.2.1

Five Stages of Design Thinking

Design thinking is an iterative process that begins with empathy and understanding the target user’s needs (Dawbin et al., 2021). Empathy as the starting point for problem solving Empathy “involves the cognitive ability to comprehend what another person is feeling, have an emotional resonance with those feelings, and a willingness to respond appropriately to the person’s needs” (Dawbin et al., 2021, p. 440). Warren (2018) offers a similar view with empathy best understood as “both emotional (empathic concern) and cognitive (perspective taking)” (p. 171). As design thinking values a human-centric design approach, empathy is crucial to truly understand the needs of the target (or end) user by allowing the designer (e.g. pre-service teacher, student) to place themselves in the perspective of the end user, thereby learning about their background and personal life experiences (Lyu et al., 2021). As noted by McDonagh and Thomas (2010), to develop empathy with the end user, the designer needs to “engage, listen, and understand the outlook of” the end user, which means “involving actual people in the design process” (p. 460). Consequently, the designer can understand the problem experienced by the user as well as uncovering hidden issues that are either contributing to the problem or creating a confounding situation. Defining the problem Defining the problem statement is a crucial step in the design thinking process, as it sets the tone that will help guide the subsequent stages. In formulating the problem statement, the how might we stem, allows the pre-service teachers to realise that they do not yet have a solution to their problem. By synthesising and analysing the findings from the empathy stage, the pre-service teachers work towards establishing their problem statement, which then drives their project (Dawbin et al., 2021). For example, the pre-service teacher might posit the question, how might we motivate literacy practices in the secondary English classroom? Ideation and the divergent-convergent approach to developing a preferred design solution Ideation, best undertaken as a group task, allows brainstorming and capturing the greatest number of possible ideas (Paulus et al., 2018). The emphasis on this stage is

92

M. Cerovac and T. Keane

quantity of ideas and not quality, in what is very much a divergent approach to listing all possible solutions, with the more creative ‘far-fetched’ ideas being deemed of greater value (Hollett & Cassalia, 2022; Runco, 1990). By prioritising the features offered by each design idea, the group converges on their preferred design option (i.e. most appropriate idea), with the preferred design option selected for further development and testing (Dawbin et al., 2021). For instance, gamifying the English classroom through immersing students in the Minecraft technology platform might be identified as the preferred design option to addressing the issue of motivation in the English classroom. Prototyping the design solution During the prototyping stage, the designer (e.g. pre-service teacher, students) creates a representation or model of their preferred design idea, in the form of a storyboard or prototype built from recycled/re-purposed materials, such as paper and cardboard (Dawbin et al., 2021). This step is important for pre-service teachers given the range of tools available that can be applied to the subjects they teach. For instance, Canva for creating infographics and data visualisations, Google Docs/Sheets for engaging students in collaborative learning, and Tinkercad for having students design potential prototypes that can be 3D printed. Testing the design solution When the solution is complete, it is imperative to test and seek feedback to improve the final product. This feedback could come from experts such as: teachers, students, psychologists, and mentors (Dawbin et al., 2021). The feedback from experts should be seen as an opportunity to address deficiencies to the solution. In the case of the Minecraft example provided earlier (address the issue of motivation in the English classroom), the use of expressive language, ability to work collaboratively, negotiating design grammar, creativity and problem-solving strategies can be captured by the teacher as part of the testing process (Marcon & Faulkner, 2016).

7.2.3 Systems Thinking Richmond (1994), who is generally credited with coining the term systems thinking, likens it to the idiom, ‘cannot see the forest for the trees’. Systems thinking requires the individual (or organisation) to keep one eye on the big picture (or forest), and the other eye on the specific details (or individual trees) of a problem (Richmond, 1994, p.140). The National Research Council (2010) adopts a similar reference to a big picture view by defining systems thinking as the “ability to understand how an entire system works, [including] how an action, change, or malfunction in one part of the system affects the rest of the system, [by] adopting a big-picture perspective” of the system (p. 3). Funke et al. (2018) acknowledge the importance of systems thinking as a twentyfirst century competency, largely driven by the “increasing complexity in many areas

7 Incorporating Technologies-Based Thinking Skills in Initial Teacher …

93

of life”, which demand a “new type of problem solving that involves a high degree of systems thinking” (p. 41). For the pre-service teacher the complexity referred to by Funke et al. (2018) is the school classroom. The classroom is a complex system, consisting of many components that are interconnected. The individuals in the classroom are the teacher and students, referred to as ‘actors’ as they are the living components that think and control the other components within the system. The classroom also consists of many other components, such as pedagogy, technology, the social interactions between the students. One simplified visual representation of the classroom as an interconnected system is shown in Fig. 7.3, with some of the myriad of potential interactions shown. For the pre-service teacher, the complexity within the classroom extends beyond the physical space, with school management (e.g. Principal, Year Level Coordinator, Learning Area Leader), other teachers, family and friends interacting with one or more of the components inside the classroom, and all with the potential to influence the pre-service teacher’s lesson and unit planning, classroom management, and use of technology. While the pre-service teacher may incorporate a student-centred approach, as noted by the positioning of the student in the middle of the circle (see Fig. 7.3), the use of technology and the pedagogical approaches that the pre-service teacher applies, all impact on student learning and the overall health of the classroom as an ecosystem. As an example, a pre-service teacher may adopt a problem-based

Fig. 7.3 Simplistic view of systems thinking within a secondary school classroom (image created by M. Cerovac)

94

M. Cerovac and T. Keane

learning approach that involves students working collaboratively in groups to solve a problem, such as, having a Year 9 Geography class investigate how Australia is connected globally through collecting and analysing data, and creating a visualisation using digital technologies (e.g. Canva). However, without explicit instruction on how to work collaboratively in groups, the students may fail to engage fully in meaningful learning (Wieselmann et al., 2020). By being grounded in the systems thinking skills set, and being aware of the complexity of the classroom, resulting from the many intricate connections, preservice teachers are more likely to create a healthy classroom ecosystem that supports every student. The intricate connections between the different components of the classroom system can be considered fragile (Funke et al., 2018), as a small change to one of the components, can adversely impact other components, in particular the actors. Although systems thinking has typically been the domain of the STEM disciplines, as Fanta et al. (2020) observe, with the rising consciousness around climate action, natural resources, and biodiversity, the realisation that these complex problems involve the “integration of many different [learning] domains” (p. 226), is only just being valued by the teaching community. For instance, conserving natural resources draws upon the STEM disciplines of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, however, it also includes addressing the problem from the perspectives of the humanities subjects such as Business Studies, Economics, Politics, and Geography (Fanta et al., 2020; Palmberg et al., 2017).

7.3 Applying the Skills of Computational, Design and Systems Thinking Gonski et al. (2018) noted that the Australian education system is ineffective and based on a twentieth century industrial-era model. A similar view is shared by Van den Broek (2015), who provided a downbeat observation from European and US employers fretting that their respective education systems are teaching “yesterday’s skills to tomorrow’s graduates” (p. 82). The extent of learning problems is not surprising given that Gonski et al. (2018) highlight the situation that “the most advanced students in a year [are] typically five to six years ahead of the least advanced students” (p. ix). This issue is not unique to Australia, as the average classroom in the USA’s public school system is reported to contain students with academic abilities that can stretch five-year levels (Freedberg et al., 2019; Latz et al., 2008). Based on these observations, there is an urgent need for teachers, and in particular, pre-service teachers, to embed the CDS thinking skills set as part of their professional practice, to better prepare students for living and working in the twenty-first century. Computational thinking, design thinking and systems thinking were originally highlighted as the three skills that form the Australian Curriculum Technologies, as

7 Incorporating Technologies-Based Thinking Skills in Initial Teacher …

95

shown in Fig. 7.4, with students immersed in creating designed and/or digital solutions (ACARA, n.d.-c). The Technologies curriculum, however, encourages teachers and students to cross subject-boundaries, and thus there is little surprise in seeing the uptake of the CDS thinking skills set more broadly across other discipline areas. It should be noted that while these three modes of thinking are distinct, often their use overlaps. For instance, students assigned a problem to solve as part of the problembased learning pedagogical approach may draw upon computational thinking (to better understand the problem at hand) and then embrace design thinking as part of developing the solution to the problem identified. Should the problem be sufficiently complex with a number of inter-dependent components that can result in “unpredictable effects”, then students may need to draw upon systems thinking as part of developing their solution (Arnold & Wade, 2015).

Fig. 7.4 The three thinking skills underpinning the Australian Curriculum Technologies (ACARA, n.d.-c)

96

M. Cerovac and T. Keane

7.3.1 When to Use Computational Thinking Computational thinking (CT) involves identifying and understanding a problem, and then creating a solution in the form of an algorithm, or a set of procedural steps, to solve the said problem. Therefore, any situation where a problem exists can likely benefit from applying a CT approach. For pre-service teachers using the CT approach to problem solving, there is the complementary benefit of developing their technological fluency, given the role that transformative technologies play as part of the problem-solving process (Butler & Leahy, 2021). As an example, the pre-service teacher upon navigating through the four main steps of the CT process (see Fig. 7.1) determines that by immersing a group of students with limited reading or writing ability, in the block-based visual programming language Scratch, helps improve the students’ metalinguistic awareness (Peppler & Warschauer, 2011). Scratch, a programming environment designed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, specifically for students aged 8 to 16 (Durak, 2018), when used in an English classroom can provide one approach to help students “better understand the structure and function of language”, so that they can become more confident and skilled readers and/or writers (Peppler & Warschauer, 2011, p. 15). For the pre-service mathematics teacher, a good mathematics student suddenly experiences a problem in the geometry topic. Rather than encouraging the student to study harder for the geometry topic, by gaining a deeper understanding of the student’s issue through the CT process, the pre-service teacher may arrive at the conclusion that the student’s spatial awareness capability is poorly developed. As spatial awareness can influence students’ perceptions and performance in mathematics, providing learning experiences which allows the student to “manipulate virtual and physical 3D shapes” using the Tinkercad computer-aided design (CAD) software tool can help address students’ spatial awareness capabilities (O’Reilly & Barry, 2021, p. 1).

7.3.2 When to Use Design Thinking Design thinking (DT), and the associated design thinking process shown in Fig. 7.2, overlaps to some extent with CT, as both involve problem-solving. However, design thinking is considered an explorative process which is best applied to those complex problems for which a good solution does not currently exist, and for which a collaborative effort is required (Meinel & Leifer, 2015). Design thinking involves developing innovative solutions based on the needs of people, discovering and learning (Meinel & Leifer, 2015), with empathy as the starting point. Pre-service teachers developing their experience in pedagogical approaches to teaching can use elements of design thinking to engage students more deeply with the subject content. As an example, a History teacher can use Minecraft (Education

7 Incorporating Technologies-Based Thinking Skills in Initial Teacher …

97

Edition) as a way to immerse their students (Years 7–10) in an exploration of significant historical events, such as the first contact of the Aboriginal people of Kamay Botany Bay with the British arrival of HMB Endeavour in 1770. While this was a past event, students are still able to establish empathy with the significant participants (i.e. the local indigenous group) of the Kamay Botany Bay landing, through in-depth research. By researching and establishing a connection with their significant person/group (i.e. empathy) the students can create Non-Player Characters (NPCs) in Minecraft to represent the historical person/people (Mojang, 2022), and re-tell the perspective of the indigenous community of the significance of contact with the HMB Endeavour. This re-telling of the story from the perspective of the indigenous community is achieved by students adding dialog to their NPCs. Each group might be assigned to a different character (or group of characters) and then at the end of the unit the class comes together to learn about the different perspectives of that event, and the feelings of each historical person.

7.3.3 When to Use Systems Thinking The main feature of systems thinking is its holistic approach to solving problems by identifying and analysing the different components that form the system, and in particular the interconnectedness of these components (Han, 2021, p. 504). As such, systems thinking requires the incorporation of multiple perspectives (Arnold & Wade, 2015). This contrasts to the design thinking process where primarily there is the one perspective, that of, the target or end user for which a solution is needed. In an educational context, systems thinking offers the pre-service teacher with an approach to better understand the relationships between the different components of their classroom, such as: the curriculum (i.e. key knowledge and key skills to be taught/developed), pedagogical approaches to teaching, assessment and use of transformative technologies. By doing so, the pre-service teachers might be better placed to address the issues raised by Gonski et al. (2018) of the Australian education system being an ineffective, twentieth century industrial-era model. One such approach could involve the pre-service teachers framing their teaching in a way that can move beyond subject boundaries that currently typifies the Australian Curriculum, and which inevitably limits the “learning potential” of students (Spain, 2019, p. 142). Systems thinking can therefore encourage teachers to work collaboratively, across disciplines, rather than work in isolation in their subject areas. Pre-service science teachers having an understanding of systems thinking can then model this skill for their students through use of computer simulations. For instance, “multi-cellular organisms rely on coordinated and interdependent internal systems to respond to changes to their environment” (ACARA, n.d.). These internal systems are inherently complex, but the use of computer simulations can be utilised in the classroom to aide students in visualising the complex interdependencies of these related systems.

98

M. Cerovac and T. Keane

7.4 Conclusion Initial teacher education programs are essential in preparing pre-service teachers for the crucial job of developing the knowledge and skills that students will need in their future lives, as informed citizens, contributing to an increasingly inter-connected world, and a fast-changing technological landscape. While critical thinking is regularly mentioned as an essential twenty-first century skill, whether within the curriculum documentation, government policies, or expectations espoused by business leaders and other organisations, there is arguably a lack of clarity around what this skill should actually look like, with research present that identifies pre-service teachers as lagging behind their university peers, in their critical thinking capabilities. This can be attributed to the lack of explicit instruction around developing the pre-service teachers’ critical thinking skills as part of initial teacher education programs. Given the increasing role that technologies are playing in society, and the growing body of research literature on applying computational, design and systems thinking approaches more broadly across the school curricular, the authors assert the need that this trinity of thinking skills should be explicitly taught as part of initial teacher education programs. Doing so, would provide pre-service teachers with the skills that they would need to address the growing complexity of their own pedagogical practice within the school and classroom environments, as well as being more capable of modelling the very skills that their students would need to contribute in an increasingly complex and inter-connected world.

References ACARA. (n.d.-a). Economics and business (Version 8.1). Retrieved from https://www.australiancu rriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/humanities-and-social-sciences/economics-and-business/ ACARA. (n.d.-b). Science (Version 8.4). Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/ f-10-curriculum/science/ ACARA. (n.d.-c). Structure. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curric ulum/technologies/structure/ Arnold, R. D., & Wade, J. P. (2015). A definition of systems thinking: A systems approach. Procedia Computer Science, 44, 669–678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.03.050 Baek, Y., Min, E., & Yun, S. (2020). Mining educational implications of minecraft. Computers in the Schools, 37(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2020.1719802 Bement Jr, A., Dutta, D., & Patil, L. (2015). Educate to innovate: Factors that influence innovation: based on input from innovators and stakeholders. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10. 17226/21698 Brown, A. L., Lee, J., & Collins, D. (2015). Does student teaching matter? Investigating pre-service teachers’ sense of efficacy and preparedness. Teaching Education, 26(1), 77–93. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10476210.2014.957666 Brüning, N., & Mangeol, P. (2020). What skills do employers seek in graduates?: Using online job posting data to support policy and practice in higher education. OECD Education Working Papers. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/paper/bf533d35-en

7 Incorporating Technologies-Based Thinking Skills in Initial Teacher …

99

Butler, D., & Leahy, M. (2021). Developing preservice teachers’ understanding of computational thinking: A constructionist approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(3), 1060– 1077. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13090 Case, R. E. (2002). The intersection of language, education, and content: Science instruction for ESL students. The Clearing House, 76(2), 71–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650209604952 Ch’ng, S. I., Low, Y. C., Lee, Y. L. , Chia, W. C., & Yeong, L. S. (2019). Video games: A potential vehicle for teaching computational thinking. In S.-C. Kong & H. Abelson (Eds.), Computational thinking education (pp. 247–260). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-981-13-6528-7_14 Ching, Y.-H., Hsu, Y.-C., & Baldwin, S. (2018). Developing computational thinking with educational technologies for young learners. TechTrends, 62(6), 563–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11 528-018-0292-7 Croff, C. H. (2017). Teaching computational thinking patterns in rural communities. In P. J. Rich & C. B. Hodges (Eds.), Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking (pp. 175– 188). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52691-1_11 Dawbin, B., Sherwen, M., Dean, S., Donnelly, S., & Cant, R. (2021). Building empathy through a design thinking project: A case study with middle secondary schoolboys. Issues in Educational Research, 31(2), 440–457. https://doi.org/10.3316/aeipt.228964 Durak, H. Y. (2018). Digital story design activities used for teaching programming effect on learning of programming concepts, programming self-efficacy, and participation and analysis of student experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(6), 740–752. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jcal.12281 Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103–120. https:// doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.x Fanta, D., Braeutigam, J., & Riess, W. (2020). Fostering systems thinking in student teachers of biology and geography—An intervention study. Journal of Biological Education, 54(3), 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2019.1569083 Fernando, P., & Cooper, R. (2017). Teaching strategies: Supporting EAL students in learning biology terminology. Teaching Science, 63(1), 34–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/aeipt.215172 Fonseca, K. (2021). Self-reported mathematical problem-solving skills of future mathematics teachers. South African Journal of Childhood Education, 11(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.4102/ sajce.v11i1.1011 Freedberg, S., Bondie, R., Zusho, A., & Allison, C. (2019). Challenging students with high abilities in inclusive math and science classrooms. High Ability Studies, 30(1–2), 237–254. https://doi. org/10.1080/13598139.2019.1568185 Funke, J., Fischer, A., & Holt, D. V. (2018). Competencies for complexity: Problem solving in the twenty-first century. In E. Care, P. Griffin, & M. Wilson (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills: Research and application (pp. 41–53). Springer International Publishing. https:/ /doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65368-6_3 Gachago, D., Morkel, J., Hitge, L., van Zyl, I., & Ivala, E. (2017). Developing eLearning champions: A design thinking approach. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0068-8 Gonski, D., Arcus, T., Boston, K., Gould, V., Johnson, W., O’Brien, L., Perry, L.-A., & Roberts, M. (2018). Through growth to achievement: Report of the review to achieve educational excellence in Australian schools. Han, Z. (2021). Usage-based instruction, systems thinking, and the role of language mining in second language development. Language Teaching, 54(4), 502–517. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0261444820000282 Hennessey, E., & Mueller, J. (2020). Teaching and learning design thinking: How do educators see design thinking fitting into the classroom? Canadian Journal of Education, 43(2), 498–521. Hollett, E., & Cassalia, A. (2022). Divergent thinking for advanced learners, grades 3–5. Taylor & Francis Group.

100

M. Cerovac and T. Keane

Hung, W. (2008). Enhancing systems-thinking skills with modelling. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1099–1120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00791.x Jacob, S., Nguyen, H., Tofel-Grehl, C., Richardson, D., & Warschauer, M. (2018). Teaching computational thinking to English learners. NYS TESOL Journal, 5(2), 12–24. Kale, U., & Yuan, J. (2021). Still a new kid on the block? Computational thinking as problem solving in code.org. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(4), 620–644. https://doi. org/10.1177/0735633120972050 Kaye, M., & Hager, P. (1991). A study of the critical thinking skills of vocational teachers. Australian Journal of TAFE Research and Development, 6(2), 19–29. Koziko˘glu, ˙I. (2019). Investigating critical thinking in prospective teachers: Metacognitive skills, problem solving skills and academic self-efficacy. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 10(2), 111–130. Latz, A. O., Speirs Neumeister, K. L., Adams, C. M., & Pierce, R. L. (2008). Peer coaching to improve classroom differentiation: Perspectives from project CLUE. Roeper Review, 31(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190802527356 Lodi, M., & Martini, S. (2021). Computational thinking, between Papert and Wing. Science & Education, 30(4), 883–908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00202-5 Lyu, Y., Wang, X., Zhang, B., Wang, Y., Jiang, M., Zhang, Q., Zhang, Y., & Liu, W. (2021). Teaching practice in the “empathy design thinking” course for elementary school students grounded in project-based learning. In M. M. Soares, E. Rosenzweig, & A. Marcus (Eds.), Design, user experience, and usability: UX research and design (pp. 544–555). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78221-4_37 Marcon, N., & Faulkner, J. (2016). Exploring minecraft as a pedagogy to motivate girls’ literacy practices in the secondary English classroom. English in Australia, 51(1), 63–69. McDonagh, D., & Thomas, J. (2010). Rethinking design thinking: Empathy supporting innovation. Australasian Medical Journal, 458–464,. https://doi.org/10.4066/AMJ.2010.391 Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (2015). Introduction—Design thinking is mainly about building innovators. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research: Building innovators (pp. 1–11). Springer International Publishing. Michelot, F., Béland, S., & Poellhuber, B. (2022). A transnational comparative study of preservice teachers’ critical thinking skills and metaliteracy self-efficacy. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 12(5), 866–883. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-10-2021-0191 Mojang. (2022). Meet and greet! Retrieved from https://education.minecraft.net/en-us/lessons/ meet-and-greet. Mumford, M. D., Peterson, N. G., & Childs, R. A. (1999). Basic and cross-functional skills. In N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman, P. R. Jeanneret, & E. A. Fleishman (Eds.), An occupational information system for the 21st century: The development of O*NET (pp. 49–69). American Psychological Association. National Research Council. (2010). Exploring the intersection of science education and 21st century skills: A workshop summary. The National Academies Press. National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290 Orchard, J., & Winch, C. (2015). What training do teachers need?: Why theory is necessary to good teaching. Impact, 22, 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/2048-416X.2015.12002.x O’Reilly, J., & Barry, B. (2021). The effect of the use of computer-aided design (CAD) and a 3D printer on the child’s competence in mathematics. Irish Educational Studies, 1–24. https://doi. org/10.1080/03323315.2021.1964561 Palmberg, I., Hofman-Bergholm, M., Jeronen, E., & Yli-Panula, E. (2017). Systems thinking for understanding sustainability? Nordic student teachers’ views on the relationship between species identification, biodiversity and sustainable development. Education Sciences, 7(3), 72. https:// doi.org/10.3390/educsci7030072 Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.

7 Incorporating Technologies-Based Thinking Skills in Initial Teacher …

101

Parsazadeh, N., Cheng, P.-Y., Wu, T.-T., & Huang, Y.-M. (2021). Integrating computational thinking concept into digital storytelling to improve learners’ motivation and performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(3), 470–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120967315 Paulus, P. B., Baruah, J., & Kenworthy, J. B. (2018). Enhancing collaborative ideation in organizations. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2024–2024. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018. 02024 Pearson, K., Pulimood, M., & Bates, D. (2017). Collaborating across boundaries to engage journalism students in computational thinking. Teaching Journalism & Mass Communication, 7(1), 77–91. Peppler, K. A., & Warschauer, M. (2011). Uncovering literacies, disrupting stereotypes: Examining the (dis)abilities of a child learning to computer program and read. International Journal of Learning and Media, 3(3), 15–41. https://doi.org/10.1162/IJLM_a_00073 Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What Is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457429 Richmond, B. (1994). System dynamics/systems thinking: Let’s just get on with it. System Dynamics Review, 10(2–3), 135–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.4260100204 Runco, M. A. (1990). The divergent thinking of young children: Implications of the research. The Gifted Child Today, 13(4), 37–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/107621759001300411 Spain, S. (2019). Systems thinking applied to curriculum and pedagogy: A review of the literature. Curriculum Perspectives, 39(2), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-019-00085-1 Šukolová, D., & Nedelová, M. (2017). Critical thinking in initial teacher education: Secondary data analysis from Ahelo GS feasibility study in Slovakia. The New Educational Review, 49(3), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.2017.49.3.01 Turner, K., Jones, E., Davies, M., & Ramsay, S. (2004). Student teacher perceptions of preparedness for teaching. International Conference on Cognition, Language, and Special Education Research, Nathan, Queensland. Uzumcu, O., & Bay, E. (2020). The effect of computational thinking skill program design developed according to interest driven creator theory on prospective teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 26(1), 565–583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10268-3 Van den Broek, J. (2015). We must teach tomorrow’s skills today. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. The OECD Observer, 82. Vande Zande, R. (2007). Design education as community outreach and interdisciplinary study. Journal for Learning through the Arts, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.21977/D93110053 Warren, C. A. (2018). Empathy, teacher dispositions, and preparation for culturally responsive pedagogy. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(2), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248711 7712487 Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5 Wieselmann, J. R., Dare, E. A., Ring-Whalen, E. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2020). “I just do what the boys tell me”: Exploring small group student interactions in an integrated STEM unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(1), 112–144. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21587 Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0118 Yadav, A., Gretter, S., Good, J., & McLean, T. (2017). Computational thinking in teacher education. In P. J. Rich & C. B. Hodges (Eds.), Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking (pp. 205–220). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-31952691-1_13 Yadav, A., Mayfield, C., Zhou, N., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2014). Computational thinking in elementary and secondary teacher education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 14(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/2576872

102

M. Cerovac and T. Keane

Milorad Cerovac is a Lecturer in Pedagogy and Education Futures at La Trobe University. In addition he had 17 years of experience in the Information Technology field, as a Software Programmer and Database Specialist, before moving into teaching, where he has taught Physics, Systems Engineering, and Software Development. Milorad’s research interests include the innovation capabilities of students in the Technologies curriculum. Milorad has been heavily involved with the FIRST LEGO League in Victoria and was co-founder/lead mentor for the RoboCats—a school girl only robotics team that participated in the FIRST Robotics Competition from 20142020. Therese Keane is Professor in STEM Education and has been a champion for empowering girls in STEM. She is currently the Associate Dean of Research and Industry Engagement in the School of Education at La Trobe University. Her passion has been acknowledged by her peers receiving numerous international, national and state awards. She has worked in a variety of school settings where she has taught IT and lead in K-12 education as the Director of ICT. Therese is Deputy Editor for “Education and Information Technologies”—the official journal of the IFIP Technical Committee on Education covering the complex relationship between information and communication technologies and education.

Chapter 8

Analysis of Entrepreneurial Education in Secondary Schools: Teaching the Next Generation of Innovators Liz Jackson , Therese Keane , and Susanne Garvis

Abstract Australia lags globally in equipping youth with enterprise skills. Enterprise Education (eE) is seen as having potential value to every student, being transformative in nature providing students an opportunity to develop a range of entrepreneurial competencies such as self-efficacy, creativity, problem-solving, confidence and lifelong learning habits deemed important for the world of work (Foundation for Young Australians in The new work order. Ensuring young Australians have skills and experience for the jobs of the future, not the past. https:/ /www.fya.org.au/app/uploads/2021/09/new-work-order-2015.pdf, 2017; Jones in How to teach entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019). In recent years there has been a significant push for entrepreneurial skills to be taught in Australian schools to prepare students for life and contribute to the future of work. Moreover, there is no mandated policy to recognise the place and value of the positioning of Entrepreneurial Education (EE) in the Australian school curriculum. Additionally, the formal assessment process for determining whether students achieve the capabilities associated with the development of entrepreneurial skills is also absent. Given that these skills are not formally developed or assessed in schools, the focus should be directed at teaching all children the enterprising capabilities from an early age, today, to prepare them for action tomorrow and to help capitalise on the new ecosystem of entrepreneurs and innovators that the nation is building in order to remain competitive and enable young people to thrive in a dynamic and ever-changing world. This chapter shares findings from a study designed to develop a baseline understanding of enterprise programs in Australia.

L. Jackson (B) Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia e-mail: [email protected] T. Keane La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] S. Garvis Griffith University, Mount Gravatt, QLD, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. Garvis and T. Keane (eds.), Technological Innovations in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2785-2_8

103

104

L. Jackson et al.

Keywords Entrepreneurial education · Enterprise education · Capabilities · Initial teacher education · K-12 education

8.1 Introduction Entrepreneurial Education (EE) is a term with no globally agreed definition. In this instance EE is referred to as an umbrella term that includes two distinct areas: the first enterprise Education (eE) which specifically refers to the development of an entrepreneurial mindset and capabilities through the generation and application of ideas and the second area Entrepreneurship education (Ee) entrepreneurial endeavours through the application of entrepreneurial capabilities in a business or organisational context to create value and or venture creation’ (Jones, 2019; Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, 2018, The University of Queensland, Institute for Teaching and Learning, 2019). During the last decade, much has been learned globally about the benefits of Entrepreneurship education (Ee) and enterprise Education (eE) to encourage young people to think innovatively about their future career or employment options as well as how they can contribute directly to solving local and global issues (International Labour Organisation, 2019). Countries such as Scotland, Denmark and Wales have well established national EE strategies supporting students from kindergarten through to Year 12 and beyond. Each of these countries have also developed robust professional learning resources to assist teachers to develop entrepreneurial skills such as teaching through real-world contexts, creating an empowering learning environment for their students and encouraging self-awareness to support teachers with the skills and capabilities to design and deliver effective eE in their classrooms. In the Australian Curriculum (Australian Curriculum Assessment Reporting Authority (ACARA), 2022); a national compulsory curriculum from Foundation— Year 10 (chronological ages of 5–16 years), the terms enterprising, enterprise, entrepreneurial and entrepreneur collectively appear over 200 times. Most of the references are typically found in the secondary schooling curriculum areas such as Economics and Business; Design and Technology, Work Studies, and Digital Technologies most of which are delivered as elective options to students in Years 9 and 10 (chronological ages of 14–16). Despite the terms explicitly appearing in the referenced curriculum areas eE the extent to which these areas are taught and assessed is yet to be known and understood. Additionally, eE in full is not officially embedded across the Australian Curriculum (Versions 1–8), therefore it is not mandated and is overlooked in the school curriculum. The importance of this cannot be underestimated, given the close synergies between Enterprise, technology and innovation. Beyond the national curriculum, there are emerging eE curriculum initiatives currently underway in states and territories some of which are more advanced in their implementation stage than others including in South Australia and Victoria. Each of these state-based curriculum initiatives have been developed through joint

8 Analysis of Entrepreneurial Education in Secondary Schools: Teaching …

105

ministerial goals. Little to no public information is available to understand the scale of eE in other states and territories across Australia. Outcomes of state-based eE initiatives focus on developing entrepreneurial capabilities, knowledge and attitudes that will enable young people to contribute to the global economy. The Australian Government, like all governments globally, play a key role in setting the vision for the future of a nation by establishing policies that allow the country to succeed and prosper. To ensure alignment, cohesion and high impact, many ministries within governments work collaboratively to achieve these agendas. One such example is the 2019 Alice Springs (Mpartwe) Declaration for Educational Goals (Education Council, 2019) where Education Ministers across all states and territories in Australia agreed on a new national Declaration on education goals for all Australian children. The Declaration is important as it acknowledges the changing nature of education, the economy and work, and articulates the knowledge and skills students require in the twenty-first century. Whilst these are ambitious goals set out by the Ministers of Education, the Declaration is important to develop Australia’s ongoing economic prosperity by recognising that students need to develop their flexibility, resilience, creativity and the ability and drive to keep on learning throughout their lives which are attributes of Enterprise Education. The Declaration sets out the vision for Education and herein lies the opportunity to integrate and embed EE more formally into the curriculum given the explicit statements that specifically refer to developing practical skills such as ICT, critical and creative thinking, intercultural understanding, and problem solving. Additionally, it is also acknowledged that these skills support imagination, discovery, innovation, empathy and developing creative solutions to complex problems and are a crucial component of contributing to Australia’s knowledge-based economy. In this chapter, the case is made why eE is important to be taught in secondary schools and how the necessity for quality and effective teacher education from Initial Teacher Education (ITE) to ongoing Teacher Professional Learning (TPL) is needed to ensure students can fully engage with EE.

8.2 Overview of Literature 8.2.1 What Is Enterprise Education? Enterprise Education (eE) is a subset of Entrepreneurial Education (EE) and aims to develop students’ awareness, mindset and capability as students identify needs, problems and opportunities and take action to make a difference to society (Lackéus, 2013, 2015) Entrepreneurial learning is seen as a signature pedagogy that could cultivate student capabilities with a major focus on problem solving, collaboration, value creation and teamwork (Lackéus, 2015; Zhao, 2012). It is seen as a complex phenomena made up of multiple skills which require teachers to have expertise in curriculum development, assessment design and pedagogical approach (Zhao, 2012).

106

L. Jackson et al.

eE is seen as being interdisciplinary in nature with many benefits leading to the infusion of value creation experiences across the entire curriculum which Lackéus (2015) described as being one of the most important contributions EE can make to education in the future. eE requires the application of learning where connections are made beyond theory to authentic real-world problems where students require more than just skills (Jones et al., 2019) and typically involve technology. Approaches to the teaching, learning and assessment of eE must be known and understood. Teachers must consider the outcomes of EE and whether learning will be delivered through entrepreneurship, about entrepreneurship or for entrepreneurship each of which is important to be able to move students from ‘knowledge to action’ (Jones et al., 2019). The ability to change thinking cannot be forced on students hence the importance of heutagogy in EE where students are triggered by personal experiences and connections to the world around them. This approach can be challenging for teachings as it requires a high level of student autonomy in driving the learning process.

8.2.2 Enterprise Education Globally As far back as 2006, the European Commission identified entrepreneurship as a key competency necessary for a knowledge-based society highlighting the knowledge, skills and attitudes that would be essential for European citizens. Ten years later in 2016 the European Entrepreneurship Competence Framework (EntreComp) was delivered and is to date the most comprehensive entrepreneurship framework developed worldwide to embed entrepreneurial competencies into teaching and learning. Since its launch, EntreComp has been used in both policy and practice to support active citizenship, innovation, employability and learning through entrepreneurial thinking and action. The EntreComp framework was developed as a reference for both the design of curricular in formal education settings and non-formal education and training settings (Bacigalupo et al., 2016). Much can be learnt from the EntreComp initiative to support Australian teachers to be innovative and embed eE in their teaching and learning using available resources such as the Entrepreneurship Teaching Toolkit developed in alignment with the EntreComp framework with the aim of developing, testing and comparing innovative teaching methodologies in order to widen the knowledge and improve skills of teachers. The toolkit consists of 23 single modules being realised through a problem-based learning approach including learning by doing, real-life examples, case studies, role-plays, simulations and interaction (Bacigalupo et al., 2016). The EntreComp Framework has been adapted by many countries beyond the European Union however, European Countries more prominently than other countries have been extremely active in developing national strategies to embed EE at all levels of education.

8 Analysis of Entrepreneurial Education in Secondary Schools: Teaching …

107

Nordic countries such as Denmark (2009), Norway (2009–2014), Sweden (2009) and Finland (2009) have each introduced a national strategy for EE. Each of the countries have demonstrated a range of initiatives, measures, curriculum and achievement standards and teacher professional development strategies to implement EE commonly grouped through five dimensions. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Developing a national strategy framework; Support to educational institutions; Teacher education and training; Developing an active role of local and regional authorities; Engaging with business and private associations and organisation.

It is importance to note however, the pace of EE implementation strategies is not the same. The Finnish Development Plan for Education and Research emphasised that EE should be developed at all levels of school education (Ministry of Education & Culture, 2012). Entrepreneurial skills and competencies are explicitly recognised as a cross-curricular theme and embedded in the ‘participatory citizenship and entrepreneurship’ education theme at primary and lower secondary level and the ‘active citizenship and entrepreneurship’ theme at upper secondary level (Ministry of Education & Culture, 2012). A comprehensive set of guidelines have been published by the Ministry of Education to help support embedding entrepreneurial skills across the curriculum. In 2011 the Measurement Tool for Entrepreneurship Education (MTEE) was launched nationally for Finnish basic and upper secondary school teachers providing teachers with personalised feedback concerning their current EE practices and providing ideas on how to develop as an entrepreneurship educator with the design of EE activities, pedagogical solutions and implementation (Komarkova et al., 2015). In 2012, the Danish Government implemented a new innovation strategy ‘Denmark a Nation of Solutions’ which had a set goal for the innovation capacity of education (Danish Government, 2012). As a result, in 2013 entrepreneurship became a compulsory element of primary school in a new school subject called ‘Craft and Design’ which is placed in 4th–7th grade. In addition, entrepreneurship is part of the Common Objectives for all school subjects (Moberg et al., 2014). In upper-secondary EE is included as an element in compulsory subjects, as optional or separate modules or as a project (Moberg et al., 2014). In upper secondary EE is both theoretical and practical with the theoretical component placing emphasis on the acquisition of knowledge about prevailing theories, concepts and methods that refers to the teaching about entrepreneurship (Moberg et al., 2014). The earliest adopters of EE are Wales where the Welsh Government’s impetus to create an entrepreneurial culture within curriculum and assessment and teacher education was realised. The development of the Welsh Youth Entrepreneurship Strategy (YES) shows a strong commitment to EE within the schooling years. The strategy was originally launched in 2004–2009 with the new 2010–2015 YES Action Plan providing a ‘structure and focus on entrepreneurship education in Wales viewing entrepreneurship in a holistic way to build skills and prepare young people

108

L. Jackson et al.

for the future (Furlong et al., 2006). In addition, there is a strong focus on Initial Teacher Training and continuous teacher training aimed to educate teachers within the schooling system to strengthen their capacity in the area of EE (Furlong, 2015; Furlong et al., 2006). In 2021, the Scottish Government committed to doubling the financial support for the phased implementation of eE to reach every school in Scotland building on a ten-year strategy demonstrating the vital role social enterprises play in addressing complex social and environmental issues. Social enterprises demonstrate how Scotland’s businesses can help us work towards a modern wellbeing economy through prioritising sustainable growth, environmental responsibility, promoting fair work, inclusion and opportunities for all.

8.3 Teaching Entrepreneurship Education Globally in Schools (Initial Teaching Education (ITE) Continuing Professional Development (CPD) for Current Teachers 8.3.1 Teaching Enterprise Education in Initial Teacher Education (ITE) Teachers are often referred to as the catalysts for change and successful implementation of EE will always require a teacher to be equipped with pedagogical knowledge and skills to deliver entrepreneurial learning through their teaching (Subrahmanyam, 2019). The availability of EE in schools is often a result of an individual teacher and in most cases, they are attributed to be the critical factor for success (European Union, 2011), however they cannot do it alone. In many countries including Europe, EE is not an integral or compulsory component within ITE, rather an optional aspect of teachers’ continuing professional development. An important feature of EE in schools is a connection to external actors in the ecosystem such as local business, government, tertiary education providers and external EE program providers. Whilst it is critical to develop a coordinated and collaborative approach to teacher education, specific strategies focussed on embedding learning during ITE and CPD must be considered as paramount rather than remaining an option of study. It may require legislative action to ensure that entrepreneurship becomes a mandatory part of student teachers’ initial education similar to countries in the European Union. It is said that teachers face considerable challenges, not only in identifying appropriate content and delivery methods for EE but also to respond to the remit of national and international strategies (Ruskovaara & Pihkala, 2013; Ruskovaara et al., 2011). To tackle these challenges faced by teachers a number of initiatives have been developed throughout Europe to better support teachers in ITE as well as CPD.

8 Analysis of Entrepreneurial Education in Secondary Schools: Teaching …

109

The European Commission has long supported the development of entrepreneurship education. In its 2012 Communication Rethinking education: Investing in skills for better socio-economic outcomes, it emphasises transversal skills and particularly entrepreneurial skills and recommends that: “All young people should benefit from at least one practical entrepreneurial experience before leaving compulsory education” (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2016, p. 17). There are currently no definitive pedagogical guidelines for EE within schools in Australia. Nor is there any guidance similar to the UK’s University Quality Assurance Guidance (Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, 2018). It is therefore up to each individual country to embed strategies to ensure effective and quality EE is delivered to students. Entrepreneurship in Initial Primary Teacher Education (EIPTE) is a strategic partnership between eight European Institutions established to encourage higher education institutions to implement EE and or enhance the quality of EE in initial primary teacher education. The initiative produced a toolkit made freely available to teachers including learning activity samples, self-evaluation resources for teachers, profiles of universities experienced in EE for ITE. In addition an EE framework was created for 2018–2021 by the newly formed Partnership for Initial Entrepreneurship Teacher Education (PIETE) initiative through the Erasmus + Project to guide higher education institutions through best practice implementation and to contribute to a new generation of entrepreneurial teachers in Europe. Beyond ITE, The Europass Teacher Academy supports CPD and has developed courses such as ‘Entrepreneurial Tools and Competencies for Teachers and their Students’ for primary and secondary teachers to develop EE skills as well as equipping them to develop these same skills in their students. Organised monthly and delivered online or in person as a one-week intensive experience. Another European wide initiative is the EntrecompEdu project facilitated by a consortium of non-profit associations, schools networks, higher education institutions, businesses and an EU business network. The project aims to support teachers to develop the knowledge, skills and confidence to develop the EntreComp competences through their own teaching. The project targets practising teachers in its aim to inform and transform teaching in the field of entrepreneurial education. EntreCompEdu’s training modules include practical ideas and suggestions for teachers. The modules are free to be accessed online, so that teachers can have accessible resources to develop their entrepreneurial education skills. Professional Skills Framework which details how teachers can make their teaching more entrepreneurial and innovative. The framework touches on teachers’ professional knowledge and understanding of entrepreneurial education, planning, teaching and training, assessment and professional learning.

110

L. Jackson et al.

8.3.2 Case Study—Denmark In 2010 the Strategy for Education and Training in Entrepreneurship was launched by the government in Denmark to develop student knowledge about entrepreneurship and the ability for students to act entrepreneurially in addition to supporting significantly more students to receive education and training in entrepreneurship. As a result of the strategy an inter-ministerial partnership was developed between four Ministries including the Ministry of Education to form the Danish Foundation for Entrepreneurship set up as the centre and focal point for the development of entrepreneurship in teaching at all levels of education in Denmark. Outcomes of the Foundation include a network for entrepreneurship teachers across subjects, year levels and educations (primary, secondary, higher education) to acquire new knowledge, ideas and find supporting partnerships. With the membership to the network being free it reduces the barrier for educators to access knowledge and share resources and learning materials. In 2013, entrepreneurship became part of a compulsory element of the curriculum reform ‘craft and design’ embedded in the primary and lower secondary school years. Entrepreneurship is also a part of the common objectives for all subjects meaning students must participate in innovation and entrepreneurship education as part of their formal learning. In upper secondary school entrepreneurship forms part of compulsory subjects, as an optional or separate unit or embedded as a project. In the upper years entrepreneurship is described as being theoretical as well as practiceoriented with a focus on the acquisition of knowledge and theories, concepts and methods (Vestergaard et al., 2012).

8.4 Enterprising Capability Frameworks Global Context Over the last decade educational frameworks worldwide have shifted to include a range of competencies and capabilities demonstrating the increasing value of noncognitive skills. International frameworks including UNESCO’s transversal competencies, OECD 2030 Learning Compass and the International Baccalaureate (IB) affirm the relevance of competencies and capabilities required for students to navigate uncertain futures and be equipped with the practical nous to solve complex problems now and in the future which are underlying principles of EE. Each of these frameworks identify similar competencies and capabilities demonstrating the significant relationship between capability frameworks and EE.

8 Analysis of Entrepreneurial Education in Secondary Schools: Teaching …

111

8.4.1 Entrecomp Framework The EntreComp Framework is equally divided across three areas: Ideas and Opportunities; Resources; and. The three areas Into Action Into Action; Ideas and Opportunties; and Resources then expand to 15 competencies mapped across eight levels of progressions from beginner to expert (see Table 8.1). Whilst there is limited knowledge as to the use of the EntreComp Framework in the Australian education system many similarities can be seen through the Australian Curriculum General Capabilities and other EE frameworks. Although there is a growing trend in the assessment of capabilities, there is still a lack of research regarding assessment of outcomes in relation to entrepreneurship education. This is due to its complexity and transversal nature of entrepreneurship competencies where the need to assess entrepreneurship education from an integrated and holistic perspective is necessary. The European Entrepreneurship Competence Framework reinforces this notion as entrepreneurship is defined as ‘a transversal key competence applicable to all spheres of life; from nurturing personal development, to actively participating in society, to re-entering the job market as an employee or a self-employed person and startups cultural, social or commercial’ (Bacigalupo et al., 2016). The assessment of entrepreneurial learning needs to be understood in a broader context of assessing experience, skills and knowledge that encompasses individuals and groups’ achievements that may be difficult to quantify. Qualitative issues such as mindset, empathy, leadership, enthusiasm, creative ability, commitment and interests, should also be included throughout formal and non-formal entrepreneurial learning processes. Table 8.1 The EntreComp competencies (Bacigalupo et al., 2016) Into action

Ideas and opportunities

Resources

• Taking the initiative

• Spotting opportunties

• Self awareness and self efficacy

• Planning and management

• Creativity

• Motivation and perseverance

• Coping with ambiguity; uncertainty and risk

• Vision

• Mobilising resources

• Working with others

• Valuing ideas

• Financial and economic literacy

• Learning Through experience

• Ethical and sustainable thinking

• Mobilising others

112

L. Jackson et al.

8.4.2 Where Is EE in Australian Schools? An analysis of EE offerings indicates that there are approximately 200 programs in schools across Australia. These offerings were categorised into 16 areas based on characteristics, features and themes emerging. Most notable was the frequency of school entrepreneur/STEAM programs identified to develop entrepreneurial skills in young people through schools representing 143 (62%) of a total 233 EE offerings. Of the 143 programs, all made reference to one or more entrepreneurial capabilities in addition to references made to programs being mapped and aligned to the Australian Curriculum to support educators integrate entrepreneurial skills and learning into classrooms in areas such as: Humanities and Social Science; Technologies (Digital and Design); English; Health and Physical Education from as early as Year 4 (Stage 3) to Year 10 (Stage 5) in addition to alignment with the general capabilities. The emergence of entrepreneurial skills has in recent years been driven by the notion that for Australia to be globally competitive it needs to develop through innovation. As education in Australia is driven by state jurisdictions there is evidence of entrepreneurial strategies in some states from school-based decision making on the inclusion of EE, to more formalised strategic approaches such as the South Australian Ministry for Innovation and Skills commitment to supporting the South Australian Department of Education to develop and deliver an entrepreneurship curriculum in all South Australian Schools (Future Industries eXchange for Entrepreneurship (FIXIE), 2019). In 2018, the New South Wales Government announced a comprehensive review of the school curriculum from Kindergarten to Year 12 to ensure that the NSW education system is properly preparing students for the challenges and opportunities of the twenty-first century (Masters, 2020). Findings from an Australian study into EE in schools conducted by Anderson et al. (2017) provided several recommendations for schools to prioritise inclusive of opportunities for students to develop authentic products that provide value to others; ensure teachers are equipped to support students’ entrepreneurial learning by effectively planning and; development of strategic partnerships with external stakeholders such as industry to drive change in addition to promoting the benefits and value of entrepreneurial learning, risk taking and innovation to position students for success. Equipping students with capabilities is echoed globally to promote students’ understanding of the world around them with the aim of preparing students to participate in society and manage uncertainty (OECD, 2020).

8.4.3 Teaching Enterprise Education in Australian Schools The Australian Curriculum states what needs to be taught to school students from Foundation (age 5) to Year 10 (age 16). The Australian Curriculum has not kept up pace with other countries in regard to embedding eE in all aspects of the curriculum.

8 Analysis of Entrepreneurial Education in Secondary Schools: Teaching …

113

Australian teachers face a dilemma in deciding appropriate pedagogy as schools and systems remain largely resistant to innovation in pedagogical approaches and changes to curriculum. What is common across the world is the inclusion of capabilities within the curriculum which point towards certain kinds of pedagogy and provide alternative starting points for learning design of eE to naturally find its way into other areas of the curriculum. It is becoming more evident that capabilities are becoming more valuable predictors of employment success such as communication, innovation, critical thinking and problem solving which will account for two-thirds of all jobs by 2030 (Deloitte Access Economics, 2017). What Australia can learn is how other countries assess and measure eE outcomes. To reiterate the research, eE must be embedded in and across the learning experience. Taking into consideration the current curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment in Australia being informed by hard technical skills such as Information Communication Technology (ICT) and Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM), it is therefore important to draw on the value of non-technical skills and the benefits of learning these skills. EE is currently not embedded in and across the learning experience as it only appears explicitly in elective curriculum offerings such as Work Education or in traditional Business curriculum and is a key inquiry question across Years 7–10. There is evidence of slight variations in key areas of inquiry looking into entrepreneurial behaviours and their impact on business success and economic impact across the globe with specific references to key characteristics of entrepreneurs and their contribution to the labour market.

8.5 Conclusion The noticeable gap in Entrepreneurship Education in Australian schools is impacted by the lack of a national strategy unlike the European Education Commission where entrepreneurial capabilities are valued and seen to equip young people with the skills, they need to thrive in the ever-changing world. The challenge facing education in Australia is that there is general consensus of the capabilities developed as a result of EE and no formal embedded process for the assessment of those capabilities. A systems thinking perspective could assist in the unification of approaches for the teaching, learning and assessment of EE to further inform and shape the future thinking of EE in the Australian K-12 education system. A systems thinking approach is required as there are many well-recognized indicators of a successful entrepreneurial curriculum that is inclusive of formative assessment, application of capabilities and authentic real-world experiences delivered through practical pedagogical approaches. Robust and systematic evaluation of EE programs is essential to learn and share what works, what does not and why in the K-12 Education sector. Effective evaluation of EE programs will help pre-service teachers, in-service teachers and more broadly schools ascertain whether or not the program is achieving intended outcomes

114

L. Jackson et al.

and objectives and whether the program should continue, expand, be modified or discontinued. At present there is no comprehensive and coherent strategic approach to implementing and teaching EE across all levels of education at a national level; it is therefore difficult for K-12 Education institutions to align with broader strategic direction and understand the value and impact they have in this space and the impact it makes on technological innovations. K-12 Education institutions are left to their own devices to see the value EE has as students navigate the complexities of the world of work. The extent of schools teaching and assessing EE in these programs is also unclear. Further research is needed in this space to provide richer insights into the nature of EE in and across the Australian schooling systems and how it supports innovation. Research into the capabilities of EE will further assist in the creation of relevant assessment resources that will support teachers and aid students in the development of entrepreneurial capabilities. Further research is also required to fully understand the current EE goals of Australia and the role of the K-12 education sector including initial teacher education in achieving entrepreneurial learning outcomes. Once a national agenda is set, education institutions, governments and program providers can then build programs and initiatives that align with the defined EE goals. To ensure sustainability of EE programs and initiatives there must be ongoing monitoring and evaluation of impact strategies and action. This evaluation will form the basis of making a strong case for the need to teach EE in schools to all students rather than to some students. This will however require both pre-service teachers and in-service teachers to have the necessary skill set and understanding to be able to confidently deliver this important component that underlies technological innovation.

References Australian Curriculum Assessment Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2022). ACARA. Retrieved 16 November 2022 from http://www.acara.edu.au Anderson, M., Hinz, B., & Matus, H. (2017). The paradigm shifters: Entrepreneurial learning in schools (Mitchell Institute Report No. 04/2017). https://vuir.vu.edu.au/38687/1/Paradigm-Shi fters_entrepreneurial-learning-in-schools.pdf Bacigalupo, M., Kampylis, P., Punie, Y., & Van den Brande, G. (2016). EntreComp: The entrepreneurship competence framework. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union, 10, 593884. Deloitte Access Economics. (2017). Soft skills for business success. https://www2.deloitte.com/ content/dam/Deloitte/au/Documents/Economics/deloitte-au-economics-deakin-soft-skills-bus iness-success-170517.pdf Danish Government. (2012). Denmark—A nation of solutions. Enhanced cooperation and improved frameworks for innovation in enterprises. Ministry of Science Innovation and Higher Education. https://ufm.dk/en/publications/2012/files-2012/innovation-strategy.pdf Education Council. (2019). Alice springs (Mparntwe) education declaration. https://www.educat ion.gov.au/alice-springs-mparntwe-education-declaration/resources/alice-springs-mparntweeducation-declaration

8 Analysis of Entrepreneurial Education in Secondary Schools: Teaching …

115

European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. (2016). Entrepreneurship education at school in Europe. Publications Office of the European Union. https://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/74a 7d356-dc53-11e5-8fea-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1 European Union. (2011). Entrepreneurship education enabling teachers as a critical success factor (A report on Teacher Education and Training to prepare teachers for the challenge of entrepreneurship education. https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/9272/attachments/1/tra nslations Foundation for Young Australians. (2017). The new work order. Ensuring young Australians have skills and experience for the jobs of the future, not the past. https://www.fya.org.au/app/uploads/ 2021/09/new-work-order-2015.pdf Furlong, J. (2015). Teaching tomorrow’s teachers, options for the future of initial teacher Education in Wales (A Report to Huw Lewis, AM, Minister for Education and Skills). https://www.cscjes-cronfa.co.uk/api/storage/4b992f03-a649-4b64-9615-baf4fea3d252/ 150309-teaching-tomorrows-teachers-final.pdf Furlong, J., Hagger, H., Butcher, C., & Howson, J. (2006). Review of initial teacher training provision in Wales. In A report to the welsh assembly government (the Furlong Report). University of Oxford Department of Education. Future Industries eXchange for Entrepreneurship (FIXIE). (2019). Entrepreneurship and startup strategy. https://fixe.org.au/assets/downloads/fixe_ACTION_PLAN.pdf?mtime=202 00910154720&focal=none International Labour Organization. (2019). Work for a brighter future—Global commission on the future of work. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---cabinet/documents/ publication/wcms_662410.pdf Jones, C. (2019). How to teach entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar Publishing. Jones, C., Penaluna, K., & Penaluna, A. (2019). The promise of andragogy, heutagogy and academagogy to enterprise and entrepreneurship education pedagogy. Education + Training, 61(9), 1170–1186. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-10-2018-0211 Komarkova, I., Gagliardi, D., Conrads, J., & Collado, A. (2015). Entrepreneurship competence: An overview of existing concepts, policies and initiatives. Final Report. Publications Office of the European Union. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC96531 Lackéus, M. (2013). Developing Entrepreneurial Competencies An action-based approach and classification in entrepreneurial education. Chalmers University of Technology. Gothenburg. http://vcplist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Lackeus-Licentiate-Thesis-2013-Develo ping-Entrepreneurial-Competencies.pdf Lackéus, M. (2015). Entrepreneurship in education: What, why, when, how. Background paper for OECD-LEED. Masters, G. N. (2020). Nurturing wonder and igniting passion, designs for a new school curriculum: NSW curriculum review. https://research.acer.edu.au/nswcurriculumreview/6 Ministry of Education and Culture. (2012). Education and research 2011–2016. http://ncee.org/ wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Fin-non-AV-5-Finnish-Ministry-of-Education-and-Culture-Edu cation-and-Research-development-plan-2011-2016.pdf Moberg, K., Vestergaard, L., Fayolle, A., Redford, D., Cooney, T., Singer, S., Sailer, K., & Filip, D. (2014). How to assess and evaluate the influence of entrepreneurship education: A report of the ASTEE project with a user guide to the tools (879038606X). The Danish Foundation for Entrepreneurship—Young Enterprise OECD. (2020). What students learn matters. https://doi.org/10.1787/d86d4d9a-en Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2018). Enterprise and entrepreneurship education: Guidance for UK higher education providers. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaas/enhanc ement-and-development/enterprise-and-entrpreneurship-education-2018.pdf?sfvrsn=15f1f9 81_8 Ruskovaara, E., & Pihkala, T. (2013). Teachers implementing entrepreneurship education: classroom practices. Education + Training, 55(2), 204–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/004009113113 04832

116

L. Jackson et al.

Ruskovaara, E., Pihkala, T., Rytkölä, T., & Seikkula-Leino, J. (2011). Entrepreneurship in entrepreneurship education-practices in Finnish basic and secondary education level. 56th ICSB World Conference, Stockholm. Subrahmanyam, G. (2019, October 7–14). Virtual conference on the future of TVET teaching and learning: Virtual conference report. UNESCO-UNEVOC TVeT Forum. UNESCO-UNEVOC International Centre for Technical and Vocational Education and Training, Issue. https://files. eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED604749.pdf The University of Queensland, Institute for Teaching and Learning Innovation. (2019). Entrepreneurial education. Retrieved 16 November 2022 from https://itali.uq.edu.au/tea ching-guidance/curriculum-design-and-review/transforming-curriculum/employability/entrep reneurial-education Vestergaard, L., Moberg, K., & Jørgensen, C. (2012). Impact of entrepreneurship education in Denmark–2011. The Danish Foundation for Entrepreneurship-Young Enterprise. https://eng. ffeye.dk/media/202248/impact_of_entrepreneurship_education_in_denmark_2011.pdf Zhao, Y. (2012). World class learners: Educating creative and entrepreneurial students. Corwin Press.

Liz Jackson has experience both in and beyond the school system in the design and delivery of innovative education initiatives. Liz is currently her PhD at Queensland University of Technology in entrepreneurship. Liz has mapped the K-12 entrepreneurship ecosystem to build a sustainable roadmap for entrepreneurship education to change the narrative of entrepreneurship to be seen as an equally valid career pathway. Therese Keane is a Professor in STEM Education and has been a champion for empowering girls in STEM. She is currently the Associate Dean of Research and Industry Engagement in the School of Education at La Trobe University. Her passion and many achievements have been acknowledged by her peers in her receiving numerous international, national and state awards. She has worked in a variety of school settings where she has taught IT and lead in K-12 education as the Director of ICT. Therese is Deputy Editor for “Education and Information Technologies”—the official journal of the IFIP Technical Committee on Education covering the complex relationship between information and communication technologies and education. Susanne Garvis is a Professor of Early Childhood Education at Griffith University, Australia. She has extensive experience within quality, learning and policy development within early childhood education and has worked with various government agencies, NGOs and professional organisations within Australia and across the world. Her work has informed early childhood teacher education in a number of different countries. She has published numerous articles, books and regularly provides professional learning for early childhood teachers.