Pre-service Teacher ICT Tool-kit

The Role of the Setting

Kathy Jordan and Jennifer Elsden-Clifton

School of Education, RMIT University, Bundorra, Australia

Keywords: ICT, Teacher Education, Pre-service Teacher.

Abstract: For some time, Teacher Education policy and research has consistently argued that graduates are ill-

prepared to use ICT in their practice (TEMAG, 2015). In Australia, an increasing regulatory environment

means that Teacher Education providers need to meet national accreditation demands as well as design

programs that address professional standards for graduates where an effective ICT use is a requirement. In

an effort to have greater understanding of how to design Teacher Education programs that meet these

challenges, this small scale study investigated where 69 pre-service teachers learned how to use a number of

ICT resources commonly used in primary and secondary schools. Findings suggest that they learned how to

use many resources (particularly general-type resources) in their everyday life prior to undertaking their

teaching qualification and that they learned how to use a lesser number in university coursework or

practicum in schools. A number of implications for Teacher Education conclude this paper.

1 INTRODUCTION

Teacher Education has an important role in

supporting the next generation of future educators to

have the knowledge and skills to integrate ICT in

their teaching practice. It is through these

experiences that pre-service teachers can shape their

knowledge and beliefs about teaching and learning

with ICT, and ultimately impact on what happens in

their future practice (Bakir, 2015; Haydn, 2015,

Tondeur, et al. 2012). However, it has proved more

difficult than people thought (Haydn, 2015). A

number of factors are often identified in the

literature that act as obstacles, or enablers, and help

explain why pre-service teachers feel inadequately

prepared (Haydn, 2015; Tondeur, et al. 2012).

Mirzajani et al., (2015) categorise obstacles into

three types: Resource-related obstacles, Institutional

obstacles and Attitudinal obstacles. Resource-related

obstacles include lack of access to ICT hardware and

software, lack of training and support to use ICT,

lack of knowledge and skills and lack of leadership.

Institutional obstacles include lack of financial

commitment, lack of time, and lack of incentives and

commitment. Attitudinal obstacles include resistance

to change, negative attitudes and self-efficacy.

Research also suggests that teacher educators

play a significant role in supporting pre-service

teachers develop the required skill-set (Albion &

Redmond, 2008). This can involve routinely using

ICT, so that pre-service teachers can see it being

modelled. Haydn (2015) suggests that the

competence of teacher educator staff is one of the

most defining factors in whether teachers in their

first year of practice use ICT or not. Research has

shown however that not all teacher educators have

the capability to provide this support (Albion &

Redmond, 2008), with many courses being taught by

enthusiastic individuals, rather than mainstream

practitioners. Sometimes it is insinuated that the lack

of teacher educator uptake is because they are

‘digital immigrants’ (Prensky, 2001). According to

the view made popular by Prensky (2001) and

others, the so called ‘digital immigrants’, have come

later to using ICT, and find using these tools foreign.

This is contrasted with the ‘digital natives’, those

who have grown up with technology, and are

accustomed to using these technologies throughout

their day to day lives. While this view has been

debated and many of its claims rejected (Bennett et

al., 2008; Selwyn, 2009), it still has considerable

traction.

Research clearly shows that educating the next

generation of educators is a complex undertaking

(Haydn 2015). However the role that pre-service

teachers play in their education and professional

learning has perhaps been underplayed. Research

has shown that pre-service teachers have access to

Jordan, K. and Elsden-Clifton, J.

Pre-service Teacher ICT Tool-kit - The Role of the Setting.

In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2016) - Volume 2, pages 31-39

ISBN: 978-989-758-179-3

an increasing number of technologies. A recent

study by Delaney et al. (2014) of some 220 science

pre-service teachers in their first semester of study at

two Australian Universities, found that many were

familiar with the listed 50 types of technologies.

However, knowing about, or having access to

technologies, does not necessarily mean that pre-

service teachers are able to transfer this knowledge

to classroom settings, as this study proposed.

Nevertheless, it does raise the broader question of to

what extent providers and teacher educators should

be responsible for developing the skill-set of the

next generation of educators and to what extent pre-

service teachers should assume responsibility.

In the next section we explore further how

Teacher Education providers have faced this

challenge in the past. We then move on to describing

the Australian context, which forms the backdrop to

this specific study, and the changing regulatory

environment, which is impacting on Teacher

Education. The findings of this study are discussed

in relation to how pre-service teachers ICT toolkit

may be considered in the design of Teacher

Education program.

2 APPROACHES TO TEACHING

ICT

Teacher Education programs in Australia, involve

both theoretical knowledge and practical teaching

and learning strategies. Often these two components

are separated, with university coursework concerned

with theoretical pursuits and practicum, or

professional experience in schools, concerned with

the more practical aspects of teaching (TEMAG,

2016). Both components are seen in the literature as

important in developing pre-service teacher capacity

to integrate ICT. Yet it is university coursework that

has been given most attention in the literature.

In the past, it was often assumed that pre-service

teachers only needed to have technical-know how to

be able to integrate ICT into their practice. Teacher

Education providers often met this challenge, by

designing skills-based courses that focused on

teaching pre-service teacher how to operate and

use

technologies. Bakir (2015) cites a survey of 1439

United States institutions which revealed that 85%

of programs offered an educational technology

course that focused on basic technical skills. Skills-

based courses have been criticised for their

limitations in teaching pre-service teachers to apply

ICT in practice (Bakir, 2015; Steketee, 2005). It is

now taken as a given, that because of the speed of

introduction of new technologies, that it is

impossible to keep up to date with new technologies.

In response, Mishra and Koehler (2006) argue for

another way of thinking about technology

knowledge. They suggest that while it does involve

having the technical know-how to operate particular

technologies, it also involves recognition that

technologies are not neutral and that their designs

and capacities can both enable and constrain

particular practice. Mishra and Koehler argue that

teachers need a deeper understanding of technology

knowledge that continues to evolve and develop.

They suggest that pre-service teachers need a

complex knowledge set, one that enables them to

interconnect their knowledge of technology,

pedagogy and content.

How Teacher Education providers should

structure and design their programs to achieve this

skill-set is also highly contested (Bakir, 2015; Kay,

2007; Tondeur, et al, 2012). Steketee’s (2005)

review, while conducted some time ago, suggests

that Teacher Education providers have used four

main approaches. The first approach is the ‘ICT

skills development approach’, in which a specific

unit or course is used to upskill pre-service teachers

to use ICT. While acknowledging that having skills

is important, Steketee comments that this approach

does not mean that pre-service teachers can apply

these skills in practice. The second approach, the

‘ICT pedagogy approach’ aims to do just this, by

using a specific unit or course to teach pre-service

teachers how to incorporate ICT. While she suggests

that this is a strength of this approach, she identifies

transference into classroom practice again as an

issue. The third approach, the ‘Subject-specific

approach’, moves away from the discrete course

approach, to embed ICT into specific subjects or

disciplines. She suggests that this approach does

enable pre-service teachers to develop practical

knowledge of integrating ICT, but suggests that

being able to use in practice, such as on practicum is

again hindered. The fourth approach, the ‘Practice

driven approach’ is intended to do just this.

Commenting favourably on the authenticity of this

approach, she suggests it is weakened by the need to

have shared commitment to use ICT by university

teachers, pre-service teachers, and mentor teachers

in schools.

Tondeur, et al. (2012) suggest that, “Teacher

education programmes have struggled with selecting

and implementing the most effective strategies” (p.

135). This has become more complex given the

current context of Teacher Education in Australia.

CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

As such where does this leave providers who seek to

develop programs that prepare effective future

educators?

3 CONTEXT OF THE STUDY

Recently in Australia, the Report of the Teacher

Education Ministerial Advisory Group (TEMAG)

Action Now: Classroom Ready Teachers, the latest

in a long line of government reports and inquiries

into Teacher Education in Australia, was released.

This group was established in 2014 to provide

advice on the quality of teacher training in Australia

and identify recommendations to better prepare

teachers with the practical skills needed for the

classroom. The report identified a number of

directions, proposals and recommendations around

the importance of the practicum (practical

experience in schools), forming partnerships

between Teacher Education providers and schools

and the need to integrate theory and practice.

The teaching practicum is generally

acknowledged as important for the development of

practical skills in teaching and as a foundation of

quality Teacher Education (Ure, Gough & Newton,

2009). Practicum is also identified as an important

way for pre-service teachers to develop skills in

using ICT, as it is through these experiences they

can build their knowledge and learn how to integrate

ICT and future potential practice (Bakir, 2015).

Grove (2008, n.p) comments that,

The student teaching field experience is a critical

component in the preparation of student teachers

as a means of establishing ICT practices they

will use in future settings. The experience

provides a hands-on opportunity for student

teachers to put what they know into action as

they transfer, apply and refine the theory they

have learned into lessons for their students. It is

in this critical period that they construct their

understanding of teacher practice.

The TEMAG report suggested ways that ICT

could be used in Teacher Education programs. For

example, it suggested that online technology could

be used to enable pre-service teachers to become

more familiar with teaching techniques and ideas

from experienced teachers; that they could then

discuss them, and reflect on them in relation to their

own practice. The report paid attention to practicum,

stating that ICT, “could be used to

better prepare

pre-service teachers to get most benefit from their

professional experience and assist in integrating

theory and practice,” (2015, p. 49). It commented

that ICT could be used to complement face-to-face

practicum by enabling pre-service teachers to

explore teaching scenarios without being physically

present in schools.

The TEMAG report and resulting discussion

papers, are having significant impact on Teacher

Education in Australia, so too is national

accreditation (Henderson et al., 2013). In 2011, the

Australian Government introduced a national

approach to accreditation for Teacher Education

regulated by the Australian Institute for Teaching

and School Leadership (AITSL). Teacher Education

providers are required to meet a number of program

standards as well as a set of national professional

standards for graduates. These standards stipulate

what teachers should know and be able to do. In

relation to ICT, graduate teachers need to meet three

standards, these being: to use ICT to expand

curriculum opportunities, to know a range of ICT

resources, and to support safe, responsible and

ethical use of ICT (AITSL, 2011).

This direction towards greater accountability is

not confined to Australia, as recent endeavours in

the United States such as the development of ISTE

Standards attest. Yet as Lemon and Garvis (2016, p.

2) suggest,

There is however emerging evidence that

identifies gaps between teaching standards,

policy and curriculum documentation and the

reality of teachers’ (both in- and pre-service)

own skills, knowledge and motivation (p. 2).

This paper responds to specific calls to ensure

that upon graduation, graduates are confident and

competent users in ICT. To date though Teacher

Education providers (through their provision of

coursework and practicum) are perceived as

responsible for developing these standards and the

role that pre-service teacher prior knowledge gained

through work, study and personal and social lives

has not been fully considered. Given that pre-service

teachers do not come to their Teacher Education

programs as blank slates, what is the impact on

program designers? Armed with this knowledge, what

influence could this have on our program designs?

This paper then is essentially concerned with

where do pre-service teachers develop their ICT

tool-kit? To what extent do they bring this

knowledge with them to their Teacher Education

programs, and to what extent do they learn this

knowledge via the coursework and the practicum

components of these programs? This paper was

guided by the following research questions:

Pre-service Teacher ICT Tool-kit - The Role of the Setting

1 Where do pre-service teachers learn how to use

listed ICT resources? Do they learn how to use

these listed resources in one setting more so

than others? If so, which setting was more often

used? Which setting was least often used?

2 Is there a relationship between the setting and

type of resource?

3 As a result of these findings, what are some

implications for Teacher Education programs

and in particular practice based courses?

4 METHODOLOGY

This paper draws on findings from a self-assessed

survey completed by 69 pre-service teachers

enrolled in primary or secondary Teacher Education

programs at RMIT University, Victoria Australia.

This survey had various sections, with one section

asking pre-service teachers to indicate whether they

knew what each of the listed ICT resources was and

what it did (using a yes / no scale), and another

section asking them to report their level of skill in

using these resources (using a four-point scale: not

at all, a little, some, a lot). The results of these two

aspects of the survey have been reported previously

(Jordan & Compton, 2015). A third section of the

survey, and the focus of this paper, asked the pre-

service teachers to indicate where they had learned

to use these ICT resources. The pre-service teachers

were presented with five options and asked to

choose one: Coursework, Practicum, Prior Study,

Prior Work, or Personal / Social Life.

The survey instrument used for this study was

adapted from a larger instrument, used by practising

teachers as a professional learning tool to benchmark

their ICT confidence and skill (DEECD, 2014). It is

a commonly used instrument and has been used for a

number of years in various iterations. It includes a

list of ICT resources, that can be categorised as both

General-type resources (those that could be used in

everyday lives, such as Twitter), as well as

Education-type resources (those more particular to

the classroom such as Interactive Whiteboards). This

list was reviewed, with those not considered

particularly relevant to pre-service teachers

removed, resulting in some 32 items being included

in the adapted instrument. It is to be noted, however,

that while we considered that these resources may be

relevant to pre-service teachers, we did not assume

that they would know them all. The survey

instrument was administered online using Qualtrics

software via a link sent by email.

5 FINDINGS

In the web-based survey, the pre-service teachers

indicated the setting where they learned how to use

the listed ICT resources, choosing from five options

(Coursework, Practicum, Prior work, Prior Study,

Personal / Social Life). Survey results were then

presented as percentage data as shown in Table 1. In

the following discussion, we begin by reporting on

the setting or location of their learning. We then turn

to report on the specific resources learned in these

locations. Finally, in the third section we report on

the relationship between setting and the type of

resource (General-type resource or Education-type

resource).

Site of Learning

As seen in the table, pre-service teachers largely

learned how to use listed ICT resources in their

Personal / Social Life. They indicated higher

percentages in this setting in relation to some 22 of

the 32 resources, but this varied by resource.

Participants indicated higher percentages in

learning to use resources during Coursework on five

occasions. When it came to learning how to use

resources on Practicum, participants recorded higher

percentages in relation to three resources.

Participants did not record a higher percentage in

relation to any of the resources in their Prior Work.

They indicated a higher percentage in a Prior Study

setting on one occasion.

Coursework and Personal / Social Life were

selected as the site for learning each of the listed

resources. However, this was not the case with the

other three settings, with Practicum not being

selected on seven occasions, Prior Study on nine

occasions, and Prior Work on three. Thus, the order

of the setting where students learned to use different

ICT resources was Personal / Social Lives, then

Coursework, followed by Practicum, Prior Work and

then Prior Study.

ICT Resources

As stated in the previous section, a higher

percentage of participants learned how to use the

listed resources in their Personal / Social Lives

compared to the other settings or spaces. The

following section focuses on reporting which ICT

resources were learned in this setting, as well as the

other settings.

The participants reported learning how to use

some 22 of the 32 listed resources in their Personal /

CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

Social Lives. This ranged from 31% who learned

how to use Smart Pens in this setting, to 94% who

learned how to use Gaming Consoles as well as

Social Networking Website. 80% or more of the

participants learned how to use nine resources in this

setting rather than other settings. These were:

Gaming Consoles (94%), Social Networking

Website (94%), Digital Cameras (93%), Intelligent

Maps (90%), GPS (90%), VoIP (88%), iPod, itouch

or other MPs player (87%), Tablet (82%) and eBook

Reader (80%). Around 60 to 70% of participants

indicated they learned how to use four main

resources in this setting. These were: Voice

Recognition Software (66%), Netbooks (67%),

Social Bookmarking (67%) and Blogs (71%).

Around 40 to 50% reported learning eight resources.

These being: Robotics Equipment (42%), Wireless

Internet Access (45%), Digital Learning Resources

(49%), Mobile Phones (53%), and Video

Conferencing (55%), with Video Sharing,

Discussion Forums and Microblogging all recorded

by some 58% of pre-service teachers.

A higher percentage of participants reported they

had learned how to use five resources in their

Coursework, rather than other settings. These were:

The DEECD Website (77%), NING (69%), Online

Conferences (63%), Wikis (57%), and Online

Surveys (35%), and Digital Learning Portfolio (26%).

Participants reported higher percentage rates in

learning three resources during Practicum. These

were: Edustar (64%), and FUSE (50%) (both being

websites designed by the government to support

teachers), and Interactive WhiteBoards (IWB) (47%).

A higher percentage of participants reported

learning how to use one resource in their Prior Study

and this was in relation to Learner Response Devices

(30%).

Relationship between Location of

Learning and Type of Resource

In this third section we analyse and report on the

relationship between the setting of learning

Coursework, Practicum, Prior Study, Prior Work, or

Personal / Social Life and the type of resource,

whether General-type resource or Education-type

resource.

Predictably, participants learned how to use

General-type resources, that is, those that are

accessible in every-day Personal / Social lives, such

as GPS, and Social Networking, Digital Learning

Resources. They reported less learning of Education-

type resources, those more applicable to specific

education settings. These were, Wireless Internet

Access for Learning and Teaching, Netbooks (mini

tablets funded by the Department of Education) and

Mobile Phones for Educational Use.

In Coursework, participants reported learning

how to use Education-type resources such as

department of education and government websites

and Digital Learning Portfolio. They also reported

learning how to use General-type resources including

Online Conferences, Wikis and Online Surveys.

In Practicum, participants reported learning

about three Education-type resources, Edustar,

FUSE and IWBs. In Prior Study they reported

learning about one resource, Learner Response

Devices, a General-type resource.

As a general trend, participants were more likely

to report learning to use resource in one of the listed

locations, rather than across the five locations. This

is shown in patterns in their rating of resources,

particularly the differences between the highest rated

location and the second highest. There was at least a

70% difference between the highest rated resource

and second highest resource in relation to some 9

resources. For example, Social Networking Website

was learned by some 94% of participants in their

Personal / Social Life, with only 3% indicating they

learned in either Coursework or Prior Work. Gaming

Consoles, was learned by 94% of participants in

their Personal / Social Life and only 4% in Prior

Study. A final example is iPod, iTouch or other MP3

player, which 87% indicated they had learned in

their Personal / Social Life compared to 3% who

indicated they had learned how to use this resource

in each of the other four locations. However, there

were some exceptions to this pattern. For example,

35% of the participants indicated they learned how

to use Online Surveys in Coursework and 33%

indicated they did so in Personal / Social Life.

Another example is Robotics Equipment with 42%

of participants reporting they learned how to use in

their Personal / Social Life, along with 33% who

reported learning in Prior Study.

There were a few occasions when the

participants did indicate that they learned how to use

a resource in multiple locations. For example,

Learner Response Devices, was reported being

learned by 20% of participants in three locations

(Personal / Social Life, Coursework and Prior

Work), Smart Pens was reported being learned by

31% in Personal / Social Life, 23% in Prior Study

and 19% both in Coursework and Practicum. Digital

Learning Portfolio was learned by 26% of

participants both in Coursework and Practicum and

21% in Personal / Social Life.

This general trend of learning to use a resource

Pre-service Teacher ICT Tool-kit - The Role of the Setting

in one location (rather than multiple locations) can

also be shown by patterns of non-selection of a

location. This was the case in relation to some 14 of

the listed resources. For example, Practicum, as a

setting was not selected on seven occasions, in

relation to Discussion Forums, Intelligent Maps,

Social Networking Website, VOIP, Robotics

Equipment, Gaming Consoles and Digital Cameras.

Prior Work, as a setting was not selected on three

occasions, in relation to FUSE, Blogs, and

Microblogging. Prior Study was not selected on

eight occasions, in relation to Edustar, Ning,

Intelligent Maps, Social Bookmarking, Social

Networking Websites, VOIP, Gaming Consoles, and

GPS. This pattern is also shown by very low rates of

selection of a setting (2%, 3% or 4%) in relation to

some 22 resources.

6 DISCUSSION

Teacher Education providers are often criticised for

not preparing practice-ready graduates. In Australia,

Teacher Education providers are facing increasing

pressure, as evidenced by the recent TEMAG report

(2015) and its recommendations around achieving

greater consistency across providers and the better

integration of in class experience and learning at

university. As well, national accreditation

requirements are now having considerable impact on

the design, and delivery of programs (AITSL, 2011).

For some time, this pressure on Teacher

Education providers has also included the

expectation to prepare future educators with an ICT

toolkit. In Australia, the development of national

professional standards, which stipulate what

graduates should know and be able to do, has turned

this expectation into a requirement for all providers.

Yet in the past, Teacher Education providers have

been found wanting when it comes to preparing pre-

service teachers to use ICT in their teaching practice.

In particular, the often-used approach of a stand-

alone educational technology course has been the

source of contention (Kay, 2007; Tondeur et al.

2012), so too the skill level of teaching staff. Thus as

Henderson et al. (2013) suggest, providers are likely

to be challenged to meet the demands of the current

regulatory environment.

Against this background of increasing pressure,

greater accountability and criticism of past efforts, a

considerable body of research has shown that

achieving this ICT expectation is complex. Research

has shown for example that a range of factors act as

barriers or enablers (Ertmer, 1999; Ertmer,

Ottenbreit-Leftwich, & York, 2006–2007) to pre-

service teacher appropriation of ICT. There is also

increasing recognition in research that technical

know-how, while necessary, does not accurately

define the complex knowledge set required (Mishra

& Koehler 2006).

This study suggests that rather than learning how

to use particular resources in their Teacher

Education programs, pre-service teachers primarily

learned to use them in their Personal / Social Lives.

For the most part these resources were General-type

resources. Pre-service teachers were also likely to

learn how to use a given resource in one location,

rather than across multiple locations. As such, the

results of this small-scale study could have bearing

on how Teacher Education programs are designed

and delivered. For example, it suggests that Teacher

Education could focus more on how to incorporate

prior knowledge of resources to the school context,

and what knowledge (pedagogy, content and

technology) pre-service teachers then require.

Responsibility for pre-service teacher capacity to

meet these requirements continues to rest with

providers. There has been little consideration that

pre-service teachers can bring knowledge and skills

with them to their Teacher Education Program. This

is not to suggest that pre-service teachers are digital

natives, as this view has been successfully

challenged and rendered a myth by a number of

researchers (see for example, Selwyn, 2009;

Bennett, Maton, and Kervin, 2008). Rather it is to

suggest that we appropriate the tools that we have

available to us, and for many pre-service teachers in

Australia ICT tools are readily accessible. As a

result of the rapid development of technologies

including social technologies and mobile

technologies, and their increasing availability and

relatively low cost, it is likely that many pre-service

teachers have learned how to use a range of

resources in their own lives prior to their enrolment

in a Teacher Education program. Nor has there been

much consideration that pre-service teachers should

have some accountability for their own development

of knowledge and skills.

This study reveals a number of tensions. On the

one hand Teacher Education providers are expected

to prepare graduates who have the knowledge and

skills to teach in schools, including having an ICT

skill-set. Reports such as TEMAG (2015), advise

providers to make more use of school settings, so as

to facilitate more practical skills. Yet, very few of

the pre-service teachers in this study, reported that

they learned how to use ICT resources during

Practicum in schools. Thus Practicum may not have

CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

provided these particular pre-service teachers with

many ICT learning experiences. As such this study

could reinforce what we already know about

practising teacher use of ICT, that as with pre-

service teachers, it is not simple. As well it suggests

a mismatch between the rhetoric around ICT

expectations and practice reported in research.

This study highlights that pre-service teachers

can learn how to use ICT resources in a range of

locations, not just in a Teacher Education program.

This is not to suggest that having this knowledge is

all that is required to integrate into practice. Rather

to the contrary research has shown that a complex set

of knowledge is required, that Mishra and Koehler

(2006) argue involves the complex interplay of three

sets of knowledge technology, pedagogy and content.

This study shows that General-type resources are

most known by these participants, whereas

Education-type resources were not. Therefore, this

raises the question of where will pre-service teachers

learn how to use them? Recommendations for

Teacher Education in reports such as TEMAG

(2015) highlight the need for greater connections

with schools. Underpinning these recommendations

is the view that schools are sites of practice and that

practice is valued. Conversely then, one could argue

that university settings, perceived as theoretically

orientated are not as valued. This study suggests that

the perceived benefits when in a Practicum setting

may not be readily achieved. Indeed, it could be

argued that this study challenges the implicit

assumption in reports that greater connection with

schools will lead to greater practice.

This study raises further questions about how

ICT can be embedded into both components of

Teacher Education programs. Given that it is

assumed that knowledge and skills are taught in both

these locations it is interesting that these settings

were not utilised to any great extent as the source of

pre-service teacher knowledge. Teacher Education

providers perhaps need to move away from seeing

themselves as the provider of all knowledge

regarding how to use ICT in teaching practice, and

have a greater acknowledgement that this knowledge

and skill can be learned in a range of settings. We

recommend further investigation into how Teacher

Education providers can best design programs to

take advantage of the multiple locations in which

this knowledge can be learned.

7 LIMITATIONS

It is important to note that this study has a number of

limitations. First it is only a small scale study

involving a small number of participants. Therefore,

a study with more participants could be of value.

The selection of participants was also based on

volunteers and those who had undertaken at least

one practicum which would enable them to comment

on their learning in this location. However

secondary pre-service teachers only had a four week

practicum block and primary pre-service teachers

had twice this amount, two blocks of four weeks

each time. Thus there was a difference in the amount

of practicum experience that could have influenced

results. As well, the amount of time spent on

Practicum was not equitable with that spent on

Coursework. Furthermore, these participants were

drawn from two different programs, but data did not

differentiate by program.

Another limitation in this study is the

trustworthiness of self-report data, as participants

may have over-stated, or indeed under-stated, where

they learned how to use these resources. There are

also a number of possible limitations to the survey

question which asked, ‘Where I developed this skill’

which could have been interpreted as referring to

‘first learned’ or ‘most learned’ which may have

skewed results. In addition, as participants could

only select one of the five listed locations, they

could therefore not rank locations.

8 CONCLUSIONS

This paper contributes to the ongoing debate around

how Teacher Education providers can educate the

future educators. Having knowledge of where

participants learn how to use ICT resources is an

important consideration in the framing of Teacher

Education programs, particularly in regards to

targeting professional standards around ICT.

This small scale study has a number of

implications for Teacher Education providers. First,

given that pre-service teachers gain considerable

knowledge of General-type resources in their

Personal / Social Lives, Teacher Educator providers

could concentrate more on embedding Education-

type resources into Coursework. This embedding

could be across the lifespan of a program, so as to

enable progression in learning and consistency in

approach, a strategy advocated in research by Bakir

(2015) and Tondeur et al. (2012). Second, while

research has suggested that the Practicum can be a

site for learning how to use ICT resources, this study

revealed limited use of this setting. As such further

opportunities to explore the use of this setting

Pre-service Teacher ICT Tool-kit - The Role of the Setting

could be undertaken.

This study provides evidence that pre-service

teachers can learn how to use ICT resources from a

range of locations and that they can learn how to use

resources prior to their commencement of their

program. Indeed it suggests that considerable benefit

to learning can be lost if due acknowledgement of

the importance of pre-service teacher personal and

social lives are not taken into consideration when

planning and designing Teacher Education

programs.

This study while small and exploratory is

important for future Teacher Education programs in

Australia as understanding where pre-service

teachers learn how to use ICT resources is a

consideration in program design and also can be

beneficial in complying with national professional

standards and accreditation requirements.

Table 1: Where pre-service teachers learned to use the resource as percentages.

Coursework %

Practicum %

rior Study %

Prior Work %

Personal /

Social Life %

Digital Learning Resources (websites, interactives, movies, images)

21 10 10 10 49

The DEECD website (Department of Education website)

77 7 2 9 5

FUSE (Department of Education repository for teachers)

25 50 13 0 13

EduSTAR (Department of Education suite of ICT applications pre-loaded

onto teacher notebooks)

29 64 0 4 4

Discussion Forums, Chat and RSS Feeds

29 0 4 8 58

Blogs

24 2 3 0 71

Wikis

57 2 4 7 30

Microblogging e.g. Twitter

39 3 0 0 58

Ning

69 6 0 6 19

Intelligent maps e.g. Google Maps

6 0 0 3 90

Online Surveys and Polls e.g. Survey Monkey

35 4 10 18 33

Social Bookmarking e.g. delicious, Pinterest, symbaloo

26 5 0 2 67

Social Networking Website e.g. Facebook

3 0 0 3 94

Video Sharing e.g. Teacher Tube

25 10 2 4 58

Online Conferences e.g. Blackboard Collaborate, Google hangout

63 3 16 8 11

Video Conferencing

15 5 5 20 55

Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) e.g. Skype

4 0 0 9 88

Wireless Internet Access for Learning and Teaching

15 24 7 9 45

Interactive Whiteboard (IWB)

26 47 10 12 5

Robotics Equipment e.g. Lego robotics

17 0 33 8 42

Gaming Consoles

2 0 0 4 94

Digital Cameras - still/video

2 0 2 3 93

GPS (Global Positioning Software)

2 2 0 6 90

Netbooks (mini tablets funded by the Department of Education)

6 22 2 3 67

Mobile Phones for Educational Use

28 11 2 6 53

iPod, iTouch or other MP3 players

3 3 3 3 87

Tablet e.g. iPad

8 7 2 2 82

eBook Reader e.g. Amazon Kindle

2 10 2 6 80

Learner Response Devices e.g. Quiz Dom

20 10 30 20 20

Smart Pens or Digital Pens

19 19 23 8 31

Digital Learning Portfolio

26 26 11 16 21

Voice Recognition Software

9 3 13 9 66

CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

REFERENCES

Albion, P., & Redmond, P. (2008, September). Teaching

by example? Integrating ICT in teacher education. In

Proceedings of the 2008 Australian Computers in

Education Conference (ACEC 2008). Australian

Council for Computers in Education.

Australian Government. Department of Education and

Training (2015). Action Now, Classroom Ready

Teachers - Report of the Teacher Education

Ministerial Advisory Group(TEMAG).

http://www.studentsfirst.gov.au/teacher-education-

ministerial-advisory-group.

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership

(AITSL). (2011). Accreditation of Initial Teacher

Education Programs in Australia. Standards and

Procedures. April 2011. Education Services Australia.

http://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/initial-

teacher-education-

resources/accreditation_of_initial_teacher_education_f

ile.pdfEducation Services Australia 2011.

Bakir, N. (2015). An exploration of contemporary realities

of technology and teacher education: Lessons learned.

Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education,

31(3), 117-130.

Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital

natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence.

British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5)

775–786. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x.

Delaney, S., Trapani, F., Chandler, P., & Redman, C.

(2014). Contemporary practices of technology and its

affordances: Perceptions of pre-service teachers on

the utilization of technology in teaching and learning

practice. EDULEARN14 Proceedings, 2472-2481.

Department of Education and Early Childhood

Development (DEECD) ePotential user guides survey

questions. Accessed 1 May, 2014 from

http://epotential.education.vic.gov.au/webdata/ePotenti

al%20User%20Guides%20Survey%20Questions.pdf.

Ertmer, P.A. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order

barriers to change: Strategies for technology

integration. Education Technology Research and

Development, 47(4), 46-61.

Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. & York, C. S.

(2006-2007). Exemplary technology-using teachers:

Perceptions of factors influencing success. Journal of

Computing in Teacher Education, 23(2), 55-61.

Grove, K. J. (2008). Student teacher ICT use: Field

experience placements and mentor teacher influences.

Prepared for the OECD ICT and Teacher Training

Expert Meeting, Paris, France, October 2008.

http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/41674583.pdf.

Haydn, T. (2014). How do you get pre-service teachers to

become ‘good at ICT’ in their subject teaching? The

views of expert practitioners, Technology, Pedagogy

and Education, 23(4), 455-469, DOI:

10.1080/1475939X.2014.892898.

Henderson, M., Bellis, N., Cerovac, M., & Lancaster, G.

(2013). Collaborative inquiry: building pre-service

teachers’ capacity for ICT pedagogical integration.

Australian Educational Computing, 27(3), 69-75.

Jordan, K., & Compton, L. (2015). Pre-service teacher

ICT skill-set: Not a simple issue In:Proceedings of

EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media

and Technology 2015, Kona, Hawaii, 19-22 October

2015.

Kay, R. (2007). A formative analysis of how preservice

teachers learn to use ICT. Journal of Computer-

Assisted Learning, 23(5), 366-383.

Lemon, N & Garvis, S. (2016). Pre-service teacher self-

efficacy in digital technology. Teachers and Teaching,

1-22/ DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2015.1058594.

Mirzajani, H., Mahmud, R., Ayub, A. F. M., & Luan, W.

S. (2015). A review of research literature on obstacles

that prevent use of ICT in pre-service teachers’

educational courses. International journal of

Education and Literary Studies, 3(2).

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological

Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A framework for

teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6),

1017-1054.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants.

On the Horizon, (9)5, 1–6.

Selwyn, N. (2009). The digital native – myth and reality.

ASLIB Proceedings: New Information Perspectives

61(4), 2009 pp. 364-379. Emerald Group Publishing

Limited 0001-253X DOI

10.1108/00012530910973776.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge

growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-

14.

Steketee, C. (2005). Integrating ICT as an integral

teaching and learning tool into pre-service teacher

training courses. Issues In Educational Research,

15(1), 101-113.

Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P.,

& Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Preparing pre-

service teachers to integrate technology in education:

A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers &

Education, 59(1), 134-144.

Pre-service Teacher ICT Tool-kit - The Role of the Setting