Developing Innovative TEL Practice in Teacher Education

This interactive symposium will focus on the use of different technologies in developing innovative practice in teacher education at one university in England. Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) is a field of educational policy and practice that has the power to ignite diametrically opposing views and reactions amongst teachers and teacher educators, ranging across a spectrum from immense enthusiasm to untold terror. In a field where the skills and experience of individuals vary from those of digital natives (Prensky 2001) to lags and lurkers in digital spaces, the challenges of harnessing the potential of TEL are complex. The challenges include developing the IT skills of trainees and educators and the creative application of these skills to pedagogy in all areas of the curriculum. The symposium draws on examples from primary, secondary and post-compulsory teacher education to discuss issues and approaches to developing research capacity and innovative practice using different etools, many of which are freely available. The first paper offers theoretical and policy perspectives on finding spaces in busy professional lives to engage in research and develop research-informed practice. It draws on notions of teachers as researchers, practitioner research and evidenc-ebased practice to argue that engagement in research is integral to teacher education and an empowering source of creative professional learning for teachers and teacher educators. Whilst acknowledging the challenges of this stance, examples from our own research practice illustrate how e-tools can assist us in building the capacity and confidence of staff and students in researching and enhancing teaching, learning and assessment practice. The second paper discusses IT skills development through the TEL pathway for trainee teachers in secondary education across different curriculum subjects. The lead tutor for the TEL pathway will use examples of activities developed with trainee teachers and university subject tutors to enhance their skills in using e-tools, such as QR codes, Kahoot, Padlet, Pinterest and cloud based learning. The paper will also focus on how these skills and tools can be used for action Discussant - the wider use of technologies in a university centre for teacher education; course management, recruitment and mentor training. research, evaluation and feedback and for marking and administrative tasks. The discussion will finish with thoughts on widening trainee teachers’ horizons into the future direction of educational technology. The third paper considers institutional policies and strategies for promoting and embedding TEL, including an initiative called ‘The Learning Conversation’, which aims ‘to share, highlight, celebrate, discuss, problematise, find things out...’ about TEL through an online space. The lead for ‘The Learning Conversation’ will offer reflections on this and other initiatives across the institution involving trainee teachers, university subject tutors, librarians and staff in student support services who are using TEL to engage, enthuse and support students on campus and during placements in schools. The fourth paper reflects on the use of TEL to engage with trainee teachers in post-compulsory education. This sector of education and training is more fragmented than primary and secondary schools sectors and so the challenges of building a community of practice that can support the development of innovative practice are greater.

Improving Patients’ Experience and Outcome of Total Joint Replacement: the RESTORE Programme

BACKGROUND: Total hip replacements (THRs) and total knee replacements (TKRs) are common elective procedures. In the REsearch STudies into the ORthopaedic Experience (RESTORE) programme, we explored the care and experiences of patients with osteoarthritis after being listed for THR and TKR up to the time when an optimal outcome should be expected. OBJECTIVE: To undertake a programme of research studies to work towards improving patient outcomes after THR and TKR. METHODS: We used methodologies appropriate to research questions: systematic reviews, qualitative studies, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), feasibility studies, cohort studies and a survey. Research was supported by patient and public involvement. RESULTS: Systematic review of longitudinal studies showed that moderate to severe long-term pain affects about 7–23% of patients after THR and 10–34% after TKR. In our cohort study, 10% of patients with hip replacement and 30% with knee replacement showed no clinically or statistically significant functional improvement. In our review of pain assessment few research studies used measures to capture the incidence, character and impact of long-term pain. Qualitative studies highlighted the importance of support by health and social professionals for patients at different stages of the joint replacement pathway. Our review of longitudinal studies suggested that patients with poorer psychological health, physical function or pain before surgery had poorer long-term outcomes and may benefit from pre-surgical interventions. However, uptake of a pre-operative pain management intervention was low. Although evidence relating to patient outcomes was limited, comorbidities are common and may lead to an increased risk of adverse events, suggesting the possible value of optimising pre-operative management. The evidence base on clinical effectiveness of pre-surgical interventions, occupational therapy and physiotherapy-based rehabilitation relied on small RCTs but suggested short-term benefit. Our feasibility studies showed that definitive trials of occupational therapy before surgery and post-discharge group-based physiotherapy exercise are feasible and acceptable to patients. Randomised trial results and systematic review suggest that patients with THR should receive local anaesthetic infiltration for the management of long-term pain, but in patients receiving TKR it may not provide additional benefit to femoral nerve block. From a NHS and Personal Social Services perspective, local anaesthetic infiltration was a cost-effective treatment in primary THR. In qualitative interviews, patients and health-care professionals recognised the importance of participating in the RCTs. To support future interventions and their evaluation, we conducted a study comparing outcome measures and analysed the RCTs as cohort studies. Analyses highlighted the importance of different methods in treating and assessing hip and knee osteoarthritis. There was an inverse association between radiographic severity of osteoarthritis and pain and function in patients waiting for TKR but no association in THR. Different pain characteristics predicted long-term pain in THR and TKR. Outcomes after joint replacement should be assessed with a patient-reported outcome and a functional test. CONCLUSIONS: The RESTORE programme provides important information to guide the development of interventions to improve long-term outcomes for patients with osteoarthritis receiving THR and TKR. Issues relating to their evaluation and the assessment of patient outcomes are highlighted. Potential interventions at key times in the patient pathway were identified and deserve further study, ultimately in the context of a complex intervention.