What do beginning English teachers want from professional development?

This qualitative, interpretive case study allows insights into the reflective emerging teacher practitioner as it explores pre-service and beginning teachers’ preparedness to deal with curriculum change and the demands of the classroom and school community. Five beginning teachers were asked what they want from professional development in a period of rapid curriculum change. The study aligns with emerging local and national agendas for teacher professional development and accreditation in Australia. The data analysis, based on “community of practice” perspectives, shows that new teachers have clear ideas about the professional development they need and want. Professional development is seen as integral to their developing professional identities. The paper has implications for the way leadership teams offer and how new teachers take up professional development opportunities, upon which registration is contingent.

Training clinical psychologists : The current situation and a way forward [Guest Editorial]

In the past, training in clinical psychology in Australia and overseas has been dominated by definitions of input— hours of classes or supervision and of specific components. While prospective practitioners have been required to demonstrate the acquisition of generic competencies, satisfaction of these input driven criteria has been required for both accreditation and registration. Ironically, for a discipline that prides itself on requiring empirical bases for practice and communicating those to students (Calhoun, Moras, Pilkonis, & Rehm, 1998), training criteria have been primarily derived from accepted wisdom, rather than from a sound body of data. The situation has been remarkably like that of a treatment establishing standards of fidelity before its effective components are known—an action our profession has correctly criticised in the past (Herbert & Mueser, 1992).

Communities of practice : building organisational capability through an undergraduate assurance of learning program

This study explores academic perceptions of organizational capability and culture following a project to develop a quality assurance of learning program in a business school. In the project a community of practice structure was established to include academics in the development of an embedded, direct assurance of learning program affecting more than 5000 undergraduate students and 250 academics from nine different disciplines across four discipline based departments. The primary outcome from the newly developed and implemented assurance of learning program was the five year accreditation of the business school’s programs by two international accrediting bodies, EQUIS and AACSB. This study explores a different outcome, namely perceptions of organizational culture and individual capabilities as academics worked together in teaching teams and communities. This study uses a survey and interviews with academics involved, through a retrospective panel design consisting of an experimental group and a control group. Results offer insights into communities of practice as a means of encouraging new individual and organizational capability and strategic culture adaptation.

Transferring knowledge through peer-reviewed assessment : the creation of a community of practice and the threats to its survival

While it is generally accepted in the learning and teaching literature that assessment is the single biggest influence on how students approach their learning, assessment methods within higher education are generally conservative and inflexible. Constrained by policy and accreditation requirements and the need for the explicit articulation of assessment standards for public accountability purposes, assessment tasks can fail to engage students or reflect the tasks students will face in the world of practice. Innovative assessment design can simultaneously deliver program objectives and active learning through a knowledge transfer process which increases student participation. This social constructivist view highlights that acquiring an understanding of assessment processes, criteria and standards needs active student participation. Within this context, a peer-assessed, weekly, assessment task was introduced in the first “serious” accounting subject offered as part of an undergraduate degree. The positive outcomes of this assessment innovation was that student failure rates declined 15%, tutorial participation increased fourfold, tutorial engagement increased six-fold and there was a 100% approval rating for the retention of the assessment task. In contributing to the core conference theme of “seismic” shifts within higher education, in stark contrast to the positive student response, staff-related issues of assessment conservatism and the necessity of meeting increasing research commitments, threatened the assessment task’s survival. These opposing forces to change have the potential to weaken the ability of higher education assessment arrangements to adequately serve either a new generation of students or the sector's community stakeholders.

Transferring knowledge through peer-reviewed assessment : the creation of a community of practice and the threats to its survival

While it is generally accepted in the learning and teaching literature that assessment is the single biggest influence on how students approach their learning, assessment methods within higher education are generally conservative and inflexible. Constrained by policy and accreditation requirements and the need for the explicit articulation of assessment standards for public accountability purposes, assessment tasks can fail to engage students or reflect the tasks students will face in the world of practice. Innovative assessment design can simultaneously deliver program objectives and active learning through a knowledge transfer process which increases student participation. This social constructivist view highlights that acquiring an understanding of assessment processes, criteria and standards needs active student participation. Within this context, a peer-assessed, weekly, assessment task was introduced in the first “serious” accounting subject offered as part of an undergraduate degree. The positive outcomes of this assessment innovation was that student failure rates declined 15%, tutorial participation increased fourfold, tutorial engagement increased six-fold and there was a 100% approval rating for the retention of the assessment task. In contributing to the core conference theme of “seismic” shifts within higher education, in stark contrast to the positive student response, staff-related issues of assessment conservatism and the necessity of meeting increasing research commitments, threatened the assessment task’s survival. These opposing forces to change have the potential to weaken the ability of higher education assessment arrangements to adequately serve either a new generation of students or the sector's community stakeholders.

Helping undergraduate students across disciplines and cultures actively engage and collaborate as equal members of a community of scholars : peer review within an e-learning environment

At the international level, the higher education sector is currently being subjected to increased calls for public accountability and the current move by the OECD to rank universities based on the quality of their teaching and learning outcomes. At the national level, Australian universities and their teaching staff face numerous challenges including financial restrictions, increasing student numbers and the reality of an increasingly diverse student population. The Australian higher education response to these competing policy and accreditation demands focuses on precise explicit systems and procedures which are inflexible and conservative and which ignore the fact that assessment is the single biggest influence on how students approach their learning. By seriously neglecting the quality of student learning outcomes, assessment tasks are often failing to engage students or reflect the tasks students will face in the world of practice. Innovative assessment design, which includes new paradigms of student engagement and learning and pedagogically based technologies have the capacity to provide some measure of relief from these internal and external tensions by significantly enhancing the learning experience for an increasingly time-poor population of students. That is, the assessment process has the ability to deliver program objectives and active learning through a knowledge transfer process which increases student participation and engagement. This social constructivist view highlights the importance of peer review in assisting students to participate and collaborate as equal members of a community of scholars with both their peers and academic staff members. As a result of increasing the student’s desire to learn, peer review leads to more confident, independent and reflective learners who also become more skilled at making independent judgements of their own and others' work. Within this context, in Case Study One of this project, a summative, peer-assessed, weekly, assessment task was introduced in the first “serious” accounting subject offered as part of an undergraduate degree. The positive outcomes achieved included: student failure rates declined 15%; tutorial participation increased fourfold; tutorial engagement increased six-fold; and there was a 100% student-based approval rating for the retention of the assessment task. However, in stark contrast to the positive student response, staff issues related to the loss of research time associated with the administration of the peer-review process threatened its survival. This paper contributes to the core conference topics of new trends and experiences in undergraduate assessment education and in terms of innovative, on-line, learning and teaching practices, by elaborating the Case Study Two “solution” generated to this dilemma. At the heart of the resolution is an e-Learning, peer-review process conducted in conjunction with the University of Melbourne which seeks to both create a virtual sense of belonging and to efficiently and effectively meet academic learning objectives with minimum staff involvement. In outlining the significant level of success achieved, student-based qualitative and quantitative data will be highlighted along with staff views in a comparative analysis of the advantages and disadvantages to both students and staff of the staff-led, peer review process versus its on-line counterpart.

Emerging themes in dietetic competency

Determining entry level competency of new graduates, as they transition from university to practice is not always black and white. Holistic competency emerges as acculturation and experience develops in the workplace. This project, funded by the Dietitians Association Australia (DAA), aimed to develop tools to guide the assessment process. Range variable statements and evidence guides were developed to inform the assessment of DAA Entry Level Competency Standards (ELCS) at university and to define the core fields of study required in Australian university curricula for university accreditation and international benchmarking purposes. Range variables contextualise competency by defining the boundaries for competency and the associated performance criteria. Evidence guides provide the range of contexts and critical aspects of competency which would usually be assessed together. Core fields of study defi ne the underpinning knowledge and skills required in the curriculum to achieve competency. Draft range variable statements and evidence guides were developed against each of the units and elements of the ELCS. Two rounds of consultation occurred with the fourteen Australian universities undertaking dietetic education and the project management committee, via teleconference and email. Core fi elds of study were informed by these consultations, as well as interviews of new graduates about core activities undertaken in their workplace. The final versions of these documents were presented to the project management committee, the Australian Dietetic Council and the DAA Board to be integrated into the DAA Accreditation Manual and website information.

Australian Learning and Teaching Council, Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Statement for Architecture

The development of the Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Statement for Architecture (the Statement) centred on requirements for the Master of Architecture and proceeded alongside similar developments in the building and construction discipline under the guidance and support of the Australian Deans of Built Environment and Design (ADBED). Through their representation of Australian architecture programs, ADBED have provided high-level leadership for the Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Project in Architecture (LTAS Architecture). The threshold learning outcomes (TLOs), the description of the nature and extent of the discipline, and accompanying notes were developed through wide consultation with the discipline and profession nationally. They have been considered and debated by ADBED on a number of occasions and have, in their fi nal form, been strongly endorsed by the Deans. ADBED formed the core of the Architecture Reference Group (chaired by an ADBED member) that drew together representatives of every peak organisation for the profession and discipline in Australia. The views of the architectural education community and profession have been provided both through individual submissions and the voices of a number of peak bodies. Over two hundred individuals from the practising profession, the academic workforce and the student cohort have worked together to build consensus about the capabilities expected of a graduate of an Australian Master of Architecture degree. It was critical from the outset that the Statement should embrace the wisdom of the greater ‘tribe’, should ensure that graduates of the Australian Master of Architecture were eligible for professional registration and, at the same time, should allow for scope and diversity in the shape of Australian architectural education. A consultation strategy adopted by the Discipline Scholar involved meetings and workshops in Perth, Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra and Brisbane. Stakeholders from all jurisdictions and most universities participated in the early phases of consultation through a series of workshops that concluded late in October 2010. The Draft Architecture Standards Statement was formed from these early meetings and consultation in respect of that document continued through early 2011. This publication represents the outcomes of work to establish an agreed standards statement for the Master of Architecture. Significant further work remains to ensure the alignment of professional accreditation and recognition procedures with emerging regulatory frameworks cascading from the establishment of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). The Australian architecture community hopes that mechanisms can be found to integrate TEQSA’s quality assurance purpose with well-established and understood systems of professional accreditation to ensure the good standing of Australian architectural education into the future. The work to build renewed and integrated quality assurance processes and to foster the interests of this project will continue, for at least the next eighteen months, under the auspices of Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC)-funded Architecture Discipline Network (ADN), led by ADBED and Queensland University of Technology. The Discipline Scholar gratefully acknowledges the generous contributions given by those in stakeholder communities to the formulation of the Statement. Professional and academic colleagues have travelled and gathered to shape the Standards Statement. Debate has been vigorous and spirited and the Statement is rich with the purpose, critical thinking and good judgement of the Australian architectural education community. The commitments made to the processes that have produced this Statement reflect a deep and abiding interest by the constituency in architectural education. This commitment bodes well for the vibrancy and productivity of the emergent Architecture Discipline Network (ADN). Endorsement, in writing, was received from the Australian Institute of Architects National Education Committee (AIA NEC): The National Education Committee (NEC) of the Australian Institute of Architects thank you for your work thus far in developing the Learning and Teaching Academic Standards for Architecture In particular, we acknowledge your close consultation with the NEC on the project along with a comprehensive cross-section of the professional and academic communities in architecture. The TLOs with the nuanced levels of capacities – to identify, develop, explain, demonstrate etc – are described at an appropriate level to be understood as minimum expectations for a Master of Architecture graduate. The Architects Accreditation Council of Australia (AACA) has noted: There is a clear correlation between the current processes for accreditation and what may be the procedures in the future following the current review. The requirement of the outcomes as outlined in the draft paper to demonstrate capability is an appropriate way of expressing the measure of whether the learning outcomes have been achieved. The measure of capability as described in the outcome statements is enhanced with explanatory descriptions in the accompanying notes.

Australian higher education evaluation through assurance of learning

A collaborative research project conducted by five Australian universities inquired into the philosophy and motivation for Assurance of Learning (AoL) as a process of education evaluation. Associate Deans Teaching and Learning representing Business schools from twenty-five universities across Australia participated in telephone interviews. Data was analysed using NVIVO9. Results indicated that articulated rationale for AoL was both ensuring that students had acquired the attributes and skills the universities claimed they had, and the philosophy of continuous improvement. AoL was motivated both by ritualistic objectives to satisfy accreditation requirements and virtuous agendas for quality improvement. Closing-the-loop was emphasised, but was mostly wishful thinking for next steps beyond data collection and reporting. AoL was conceptualised as one element within the larger context of quality review, but there was no evidence of comprehensive frameworks or strategic plans.

Assurance of learning – are academics and senior management singing from the same hymn sheet?

Assurance of learning (AoL) is an important process in quality education, designed to measure the accomplishment of educational aims at the core of an institution’s programs, whilst encouraging faculty to continuously develop and improve the programs and courses. This paper reports on a study of Australian business schools to investigate current AoL practices through semi structured interviews with senior faculty leaders followed by focus group interviews with groups of senior program leaders and groups of academic teaching staff. Initial findings indicate there are significant challenges in encouraging academic staff to commit to the process and recognise the benefits of assuring learning. The differences in understanding between the various leaders and the academics were highlighted through the different focus groups. Leaders’ stressed strategic issues such as staff engagement and change, while academics focussed on process issues such as teaching graduate attributes and external accreditation. Understanding the differences in the perspectives of leaders and faculty is important, as without a shared understanding between the two groups, there is likely to be limited engagement, which creates difficulties in developing effective assurance of learning processes. Findings indicate that successful strategies developed to foster shared values on assurance of learning include: strong senior leaders’ commitment; developing champions among program and unit level staff; providing professional development opportunities; promoting and celebrating success and effectiveness; and ensuring an inclusive process with academics of all levels collaborating in the development and implementation of the process.

Strategies to engage academics in assuring graduate attributes

Assurance of learning (AoL) is a predominant feature in both quality assurance and quality enhancement in higher education. The process may be used for program development, and to inform external accreditation and evaluation bodies. However, there is an obvious challenge in trying to get academic staff to buy into the benefits of the AoL process. This project conducted an audit across 25 Australian Business Schools. The majority of those interviewed stated that academic staff considered AoL to be extra work and viewed the process as a box ticking exercise for external bodies rather than sound educational practice. A change management process is required to promote the necessary cultural change to embed AoL into practice. This paper showcases some of the educational leadership strategies that have been successfully implemented across Australia to foster staff engagement in the AoL process. These include: strong senior management commitment and leadership demonstrating a constant and high level drive for staff engagement until AoL becomes an institutional norm; developing leadership and champions among unit and program level staff, to share practices and promote the benefits that come from engaging in the process; providing professional development opportunities to discuss and resolve difficulties and tensions around AoL; demonstrating success and effectiveness by selling staff on the evidence that AoL makes a difference; and making the process inclusive with academics collaborating in the development and implementation of the process.

Moving beyond transition pedagogy: Maturity models and student engagement

Australian higher education institutions (HEIs) have entered a new phase of regulation and accreditation which includes performance-based funding relating to the participation and retention of students from social and cultural groups previously underrepresented in higher education. However, in addressing these priorities, it is critical that HEIs do not further disadvantage students from certain groups by identifying them for attention because of their social or cultural backgrounds, circumstances which are largely beyond the control of students. In response, many HEIs are focusing effort on university-wide approaches to enhancing the student experience because such approaches will enhance the engagement, success and retention of all students, and in doing so, particularly benefit those students who come from underrepresented groups. Measuring and benchmarking student experiences and engagement that arise from these efforts is well supported by extensive collections of student experience survey data. However no comparable instrument exists that measures the capability of institutions to influence and/or enhance student experiences where capability is an indication of how well an organisational process does what it is designed to do (Rosemann & de Bruin, 2005). This paper proposes that the concept of a maturity model (Marshall, 2010; Paulk, 1999) may be useful as a way of assessing the capability of HEIs to provide and implement student engagement, success and retention activities. We will describe the Student Engagement, Success and Retention Maturity Model (SESR-MM), (Clarke, Nelson & Stoodley, 2012; Nelson, Clarke & Stoodley, 2012) we are currently investigating. We will discuss if our research may address the current gap by facilitating the development of an SESR-MM instrument that aims (i) to enable institutions to assess the capability of their current student engagement and retention programs and strategies to influence and respond to student experiences within the institution; and (ii) to provide institutions with the opportunity to understand various practices across the sector with a view to further improving programs and practices relevant to their context. The first aim of our research is to extend the generational approach which has been useful in considering the evolutionary nature of the first year experience (FYE) (Wilson, 2009). Three generations have been identified and explored: First generation approaches that focus on co-curricular strategies (e.g. orientation and peer programs); Second generation approaches that focus on curriculum (e.g. pedagogy, curriculum design, and learning and teaching practice); and third generation approaches—also referred to as transition pedagogy—that focus on the production of an institution-wide integrated holistic intentional blend of curricular and co-curricular activities (Kift, Nelson & Clarke, 2010). The second aim of this research is to move beyond assessments of students’ experiences to focus on assessing institutional processes and their capability to influence student engagement. In essence, we propose to develop and use the maturity model concept to produce an instrument that will indicate the capability of HEIs to manage and improve student engagement, success and retention programs and strategies. References Australian Council for Educational Research. (n.d.). Australasian Survey of Student Engagement. Retrieved from http://www.acer.edu.au/research/ausse/background Clarke, J., Nelson, K., & Stoodley, I. (2012, July). The Maturity Model concept as framework for assessing the capability of higher education institutions to address student engagement, success and retention: New horizon or false dawn? A Nuts & Bolts presentation at the 15th International Conference on the First Year in Higher Education, “New Horizons,” Brisbane, Australia. Kift, S., Nelson, K., & Clarke, J. (2010) Transition pedagogy - a third generation approach to FYE: A case study of policy and practice for the higher education sector. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 1(1), pp. 1-20. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (n.d.). The University Experience Survey. Advancing quality in higher education information sheet. Retrieved from http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Policy/Documents/University_Experience_Survey.pdf Marshall, S. (2010). A quality framework for continuous improvement of e-Learning: The e-Learning Maturity Model. Journal of Distance Education, 24(1), 143-166. Nelson, K., Clarke, J., & Stoodley, I. (2012). An exploration of the Maturity Model concept as a vehicle for higher education institutions to assess their capability to address student engagement. A work in progress. Submitted for publication. Paulk, M. (1999). Using the Software CMM with good judgment, ASQ Software Quality Professional, 1(3), 19-29. Wilson, K. (2009, June–July). The impact of institutional, programmatic and personal interventions on an effective and sustainable first-year student experience. Keynote address presented at the 12th Pacific Rim First Year in Higher Education Conference, “Preparing for Tomorrow Today: The First Year as Foundation,” Townsville, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.fyhe.com.au/past_papers/papers09/ppts/Keithia_Wilson_paper.pdf

Verifying a Student Engagement, Success and Retention Maturity Model (SESR-MM): A reality check of the model using data derived from three universities

Australian higher education institutions (HEIs) have entered a new phase of regulation and accreditation which includes performance-based funding relating to the participation and retention of students from social and cultural groups previously underrepresented in higher education. However, in addressing these priorities, it is critical that HEIs do not further disadvantage students from certain groups by identifying them for attention because of their social or cultural backgrounds, circumstances which are largely beyond the control of students. In response, many HEIs are focusing effort on university-wide approaches to enhancing the student experience because such approaches will enhance the engagement, success and retention of all students, and in doing so, particularly benefit those students who come from underrepresented groups. Measuring and benchmarking student experiences and engagement that arise from these efforts is well supported by extensive collections of student experience survey data. However no comparable instrument exists that measures the capability of institutions to influence and/or enhance student experiences where capability is an indication of how well an organisational process does what it is designed to do (Rosemann & de Bruin, 2005). We have proposed that the concept of a maturity model (Marshall, 2010; Paulk, 1999) may be useful as a way of assessing the capability of HEIs to provide and implement student engagement, success and retention activities and we are currently articulating a Student Engagement, Success and Retention Maturity Model (SESR-MM), (Clarke, Nelson & Stoodley, 2012; Nelson, Clarke & Stoodley, 2012). Our research aims to address the current gap by facilitating the development of an SESR-MM instrument that aims (i) to enable institutions to assess the capability of their current student engagement and retention programs and strategies to influence and respond to student experiences within the institution; and (ii) to provide institutions with the opportunity to understand various practices across the sector with a view to further improving programs and practices relevant to their context. Our research extends the generational approach which has been useful in considering the evolutionary nature of the first year experience (FYE) (Wilson, 2009). Three generations have been identified and explored: First generation approaches that focus on co-curricular strategies (e.g. orientation and peer programs); Second generation approaches that focus on curriculum (e.g. pedagogy, curriculum design, and learning and teaching practice); and third generation approaches—also referred to as transition pedagogy—that focus on the production of an institution-wide integrated holistic intentional blend of curricular and co-curricular activities (Kift, Nelson & Clarke, 2010). Our research also moves beyond assessments of students’ experiences to focus on assessing institutional processes and their capability to influence student engagement. In essence, we propose to develop and use the maturity model concept to produce an instrument that will indicate the capability of HEIs to manage and improve student engagement, success and retention programs and strategies. The issues explored in this workshop are (i) whether the maturity model concept can be usefully applied to provide a measure of institutional capability for SESR; (ii) whether the SESR-MM can be used to assess the maturity of a particular set of institutional practices; and (iii) whether a collective assessment of an institution’s SESR capabilities can provide an indication of the maturity of the institution’s SESR activities. The workshop will be approached in three stages. Firstly, participants will be introduced to the key characteristics of maturity models, followed by a discussion of the SESR-MM and the processes involved in its development. Secondly, participants will be provided with resources to facilitate the development of a maturity model and an assessment instrument for a range of institutional processes and related practices. In the final stage of the workshop, participants will “assess” the capability of these practices to provide a collective assessment of the maturity of these processes. References Australian Council for Educational Research. (n.d.). Australasian Survey of Student Engagement. Retrieved from http://www.acer.edu.au/research/ausse/background Clarke, J., Nelson, K., & Stoodley, I. (2012, July). The Maturity Model concept as framework for assessing the capability of higher education institutions to address student engagement, success and retention: New horizon or false dawn? A Nuts & Bolts presentation at the 15th International Conference on the First Year in Higher Education, “New Horizons,” Brisbane, Australia. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (n.d.). The University Experience Survey. Advancing quality in higher education information sheet. Retrieved from http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Policy/Documents/University_Experience_Survey.pdf Kift, S., Nelson, K., & Clarke, J. (2010) Transition pedagogy - a third generation approach to FYE: A case study of policy and practice for the higher education sector. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 1(1), pp. 1-20. Marshall, S. (2010). A quality framework for continuous improvement of e-Learning: The e-Learning Maturity Model. Journal of Distance Education, 24(1), 143-166. Nelson, K., Clarke, J., & Stoodley, I. (2012). An exploration of the Maturity Model concept as a vehicle for higher education institutions to assess their capability to address student engagement. A work in progress. Submitted for publication. Paulk, M. (1999). Using the Software CMM with good judgment, ASQ Software Quality Professional, 1(3), 19-29. Wilson, K. (2009, June–July). The impact of institutional, programmatic and personal interventions on an effective and sustainable first-year student experience. Keynote address presented at the 12th Pacific Rim First Year in Higher Education Conference, “Preparing for Tomorrow Today: The First Year as Foundation,” Townsville, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.fyhe.com.au/past_papers/papers09/ppts/Keithia_Wilson_paper.pdf

The use of computerised simulators for training of transthoracic and transoesophageal echocardiography. The future of echocardiographic training?

Echocardiography is the commonest form of non-invasive cardiac imaging and is fundamental to patient management. However, due to its methodology, it is also operator dependent. There are well defined pathways in training and ongoing accreditation to achieve and maintain competency. To satisfy these requirements, significant time has to be dedicated to scanning patients, often in the time pressured clinical environment. Alternative, computer based training methods are being considered to augment echocardiographic training. Numerous advances in technology have resulted in the development of interactive programmes and simulators to teach trainees the skills to perform particular procedures, including transthoracic and transoesophageal echocardiography. 82 sonographers and TOE proceduralists utilised an echocardiographic simulator and assessed its utility using defined criteria. 40 trainee sonographers assessed the simulator and were taught how to obtain an apical 2 chamber (A2C) view and image the superior vena cava (SVC). 100% and 88% found the simulator useful in obtaining the SVC or A2C view respectively. All users found it easy to use and the majority found it helped with image acquisition and interpretation. 42 attendees of a TOE training day utilising the simulator assessed the simulator with 100% finding it easy to use, as well as the augmented reality graphics benefiting image acquisition. 90% felt that it was realistic. This study revealed that both trainee sonographers and TOE proceduralists found the simulation process was realistic, helped in image acquisition and improved assessment of spatial relationships. Echocardiographic simulators may play an important role in the future training of echocardiographic skills.