An online community designed to support future makers in educational reform

Australian education is undergoing national reform at many levels. The school sector, where preservice teachers will be employed, are adjusting to the demands of the National Curriculum and improving teacher quality through the National Professional Standards for Teachers. In addition, the university sector, where pre-service teachers are prepared, is undergoing its own education reform through the introduction of a demand-driven system and ensuring quality for tertiary education interns through the Higher Education Standards Framework. In moving to prepare preservice teachers for the school system; universities are grappling with the double-barreled approach to teacher quality; quality within the university course and quality within the student teachers being prepared. Through a collaborative partnership including university lecturers, Department of Education central administration staff, school principals, school coordinators, practicum supervisors, mentor teachers and pre-service teachers; the stakeholders have formed an online community of learners engaging in reflective practice who are committed to improving teacher quality. This online community not only links the key stakeholders within the project, it facilitates the nexus between theory and practice often missing in our pre-service teacher placements. This paper reports preliminary data about an initiative to ensure final year pre-service teachers are aspiring to meet the graduate professional standards through the use of an innovative online community.

Transforming higher education and student engagement through collaborative review to inform educational design

This paper reports on staff perceptions arising from a review process designed to assist staff in making informed decisions regarding educational design, approaches to engage students in learning, and the technology to support engagement in the classroom and across multiple locations and delivery modes. The aim of the review process was to transform the level of student engagement in the business faculty of an Australian university. The process took a collaborative approach through consultation with academic staff involved in the design and delivery of the units under review, and included targeted professional development as necessary. An institutional framework that characterises engagement indicator contexts and their attributes facilitated dialog during the review process. This paper reports on a mixed method study that included a survey of participants, and purposeful interviews to evaluate the effectiveness of the process. Although the study identified factors that hindered implementation and operationalization of review recommendations in some instances, study participants were generally of the view that recommendations would enhance student engagement. It is demonstrated that the bottom-up approach described in this paper is consistent with theoretical frameworks for transformational change in teaching and learning and the adoption of innovations.

The pedagogic prosthetic: Augmented learning as content-in-motion in hybrid educational spheres

This article draws on the design and implementation of three mobile learning projects introduced by Flanagan in 2011, 2012 and 2014 engaging a total of 206 participants. The latest of these projects is highlighted in this article. Two other projects provide additional examples of innovative strategies to engage mobile and cloud systems describing how electronic and mobile technology can help facilitate teaching and learning, assessment for learning and assessment as learning, and support communities of practice. The second section explains the theoretical premise supporting the implementation of technology and promulgates a hermeneutic phenomenological approach. The third section discusses mobility, both in terms of the exploration of wearable technology in the prototypes developed as a result of the projects, and the affordances of mobility within pedagogy. Finally the quantitative and qualitative methods in place to evaluate m-learning are explained.