Uncertainty in Teacher Education Futures: Sandy Schuck Peter Aubusson Kevin Burden Sue Brindley

Sandy Schuck · Peter Aubusson
Kevin Burden · Sue Brindley
Uncertainty
in Teacher
Education
Futures
Scenarios, Politics and STEM
Uncertainty in Teacher Education Futures
Sandy Schuck Peter Aubusson
•
Kevin Burden Sue Brindley

•
Uncertainty in Teacher
Education Futures
Scenarios, Politics and STEM
123
Sandy Schuck Kevin Burden
STEM Education Futures Research Centre Faculty of Arts, Culture and Education
University of Technology Sydney University of Hull
Broadway, NSW Yorkshire
Australia UK
Peter Aubusson Sue Brindley

STEM Education Futures Research Centre Faculty of Education
University of Technology Sydney University of Cambridge
Broadway, NSW Cambridge
Australia UK
ISBN 978-981-10-8245-0 ISBN 978-981-10-8246-7 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8246-7
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018930130
© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved 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, express 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.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature

Singapore Pte Ltd. part of Springer Nature
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East,
Singapore 189721, Singapore
Foreword: Challenging Times in Teacher
Education
This book is timely. The authors have thoughtfully captured some of the headline
issues that need to be addressed in teacher education in these challenging times.
Importantly, Schuck, Aubusson, Burden and Brindley establish a forward
focussed position that seeks to consider the possibilities, opportunities and tensions
associated with what might be, rather than reflecting on the past—or remaining
entrenched in the status quo.
There is little doubt that teacher education is under stress—or, as they have
noted—caught (perhaps even mired) in a state of conflict. The demands on teacher
education, the expectations and the superficiality of the shifting political landscape
do little to set teacher education on a footing of certainty in terms of sense of
purpose, policy and practice. It would be fair to say that amongst scholars of teacher
education, that confidence has been slowly eroding due to the constant state of
blame laid at the feet of teacher preparation programmes.
Just as the nature of teacher professionalism faces scrutiny, and as a conse-
quence, increasing compliance and accountability, so too the same applies to tea-
cher educators. Whatever perceived deficiencies are laid at the feet of teachers as a
consequence of the outcomes of such things as international testing regimes (e.g.
TIMMS, PISA), standardised tests (e.g. mandated high-stakes testing) and the need
to produce citizens for jobs that do not yet exist, the simple response seems to be
that teachers have not been properly prepared for such work. Hence, teacher edu-
cation is at fault.
Sadly, much of that situation quite predictably hinges on simplistic views of
teaching that largely involve an information dissemination process. Similarly,
assessment of such teaching is conceived as equally simple and straightforward as
propositional knowledge reigns supreme. The assumptions underpinning trans-
missive teaching inevitably lead to views of teachers and teacher education then as
suppliers of information. However, those assumptions are able to be challenged in
productive ways when teaching for understanding and learning for meaning take
pride of place. It is with that shift in emphasis (through practice), that the authors
offer their ideas and thinking about education for a different future.
v
vi Foreword: Challenging Times in Teacher Education
As a beginning point, educational technology and learning with new media

immediately creates new ways of conceptualising teaching and learning; new ways
that need to be grasped in both schools and through teacher education. There is little
point in the ‘drip feed’ information practices that tend to dominate an industrial
world view of schooling when information is readily available and at the fingertips
of anyone with an Internet connection. It is folly to think that a group of learners
can all be ‘moved along’ at the same pace to achieve the same end point at the same
time, when the world around them invites them to function as learners in their own
ways, in their own time, driven by their individual interests, needs and concerns.
Again, the authors pursue this shift in conceptualising learning as they contemplate
the purpose of schooling and the important pedagogic moves associated with the
‘how and why’ as opposed to the ‘what’ of information or subject matter content.
When scenarios for educational development are based on learning—as opposed
to the transmission of information (something that similarly haunts the nature and
shape of school curriculum)—then new ways of envisaging a pedagogically
meaningful future arise. The authors pursue the notion of backcasting as a way of
opening up new possibilities for creating alternative futures and for considering the
likely implications associated with different forms of educational exploration. Being
intellectually freed to reframe practice (Schön 1983, 1987) opens the mind to
different ways of seeing that become crucial in fostering future focussed thinking.
In many ways, teacher education then is an important catalyst for change, and as
the authors illustrate through their work with the Teacher Education Futures
Forum, new drivers for change offer different opportunities to conceptualise teacher
education and to respond to purposes, expectations and ideals in ways that too
easily are constrained by current structures, practices and assumptions. Clearly, to
develop teachers for a different educational landscape requires preparation and
planning that envisages (and accepts) that different educational landscapes can (and
should) exist.
It is interesting to note that the authors draw on science education and mathe-
matics education as curriculum areas through which change might be envisaged.
Harshly, school science and mathematics are often described as the least adven-
turous areas for pedagogic risk taking and development, yet here, in a book that
invites challenge, engages with learning and envisages scenarios that might foster
new and different outputs and products, these subjects are viewed as contexts to
support these very processes and products. In so doing, the authors thoughtfully
challenge the status quo and again confront long-held assumptions about teaching
and learning and about how these too can often be captured by perceptions that may
not match reality.
The title of this book Uncertainty in Teacher Education Futures: Scenarios,
Politics and STEM, invites the reader to rethink the nature of the relationships
between teaching and learning, teacher education and schooling and the context in
which they occur. Just as the development of expert teachers (Loughran 2010)
requires a framework to inform theory and practice in concert, so too envisaging
what is required in teacher education to offer a vision for what it means to be a
teaching professional equally depends on an articulation of a framework that can
Foreword: Challenging Times in Teacher Education vii
inform, shape and meaningfully influence the nature of practice. Through this book,
Schuck, Aubusson, Burden and Brindley have done just that.
As I stated at the outset, this manuscript is engaging, thoughtful,
forward-thinking and challenging. But beyond those laudable features, it also
comes with an expectation that the ideas are useful and applicable. I trust that is
exactly the outcome for you as a reader.
Melbourne, Australia Prof. John Loughran

Sir John Monash Distinguished Professor
Executive Dean, Faculty of Education
Monash University
References
Loughran, J. J. (2010). What expert teachers do: Teachers’ professional knowledge of classroom
practice. Sydney, London: Allen & Unwin, Routledge.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York:
Basic Books.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge a number of people who supported our writing of

this book and contributed to its production. Terry Fitzgerald worked tirelessly at
proofreading, checking references and formatting the chapters. Associate Professor
Matthew Kearney was a guest co-author for Chap. 11 and provided invaluable
insights and research data to the chapter. Associate Professor Debra Panizzon and
Prof. Deborah Corrigan provided valuable input to an article on which Chap. 12
was based. Teacher educators at the Association for Teacher Education in Europe
conferences and at UTS provided valuable feedback regarding different scenarios.
Thank you to all the participants in our research on teacher education futures. We
cannot name you but your thoughts, opinions and insights underpin much of the
discussion in this book. Lastly, thanks to Nick Melchior at Springer who was
always on hand to answer questions we posed about the book.
ix
Contents
1 Why the Future Is Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Why Study the Future in Teacher Education? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Exploring Possibilities for the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Our Previous Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Outline of This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2 Key Drivers of Teacher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
What Is Education for? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Who Is Education for? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Unknowability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Global Versus Local . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Who Owns Education? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Professionalism as Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Professionalism as Autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
What Should Education Teach? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
School Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Education and Self . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
How Can Education Be Taught? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Technology as Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Technology as Democratisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3 Politics of Education: Tensions and Paradoxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Meta-level: Control, Power and Politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Power and Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
xi
xii Contents
Managerialism and New Public Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Meso-level: Teacher Identity and Teacher Professionalism . . . . . . . . . 31
Teacher Professionalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Micro-level: Teachers and Teacher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Engagement with Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Managerialism and NPM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Teacher Identity and Teacher Professionalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Professionalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
So Where to Now for Teacher Educators? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4 Current Trends in Technology-Enhanced Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Current Technology Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
The Implication of Pervasive Computing for Learning . . . . . . . . . . 48
Implication of Data Analytics for Teachers
and Teacher Educators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Implications of AR/VR and Mixed Realities for Education . . . . . . 54
Implications for the Future Direction of Teacher Education . . . . . . . . . 57
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5 Changing Knowledge, Changing Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Stakeholders: Contexts and Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Teacher Educators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Changing Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Changing Knowledge: Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Kincheloe, Knowledge and Power in Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Changing Knowledge and Teacher Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Policy and Changing Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Professional Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
The Knowledge Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Trainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Changing Knowledge: Teacher Educators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
6 Futures Methodology: Approaches, Methods, Tools
and Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Alternatives Challenging Orthodoxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Predicting the Future: Degrees of Confidence and Certainty . . . . . . . . 78
Education Futures Foresight and Forecasting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Contents xiii
Why Use Futures Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Foresight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Horizon Scanning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Driver Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Identification of Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Consolidation of Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Prioritisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Delphi Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Backcasting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Scenario Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Generating Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Using the Two-Dimensional Technique in Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Completing the Quadrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Imagining Impossibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
7 Teacher Educators Working with Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Introducing the Teacher Education Futures Forum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Trends and Tensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Building Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Outputs of the Forum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
A Second Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
8 Backcasting: Testing the Feasibility of Alternative Futures . . . . . . . 115
Is the Impossible Possible? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Target-Oriented Backcasting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Backcasting Teacher Education with Teacher Educators . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Whither Next . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
9 Schooling Scenarios: Looking Back to Look Forward . . . . . . . . . . 131
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
The OECD 2001 Scenarios for Schooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Changing Direction in Teacher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Extrapolating the Scenarios to 2030–2035 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
10 Knowledge and Technology Challenging the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Big Data and Learning Analytics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
xiv Contents
Big Data and Learning Analytics in Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . 152

The Use of Big Data, Learning Analytics and Mobiles
in Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
How Might Teachers Use Big Data and Learning Analytics
in Schools? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Challenges and Issues Associated the Use of Big Data and Learning
Analytics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Methodology for Current Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
The Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
The Process of Selecting Technology Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Identification of Dilemmas and Creation of the Binaries . . . . . . . . 161
Student-Generated Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
The Student Experience of Creating Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Creating a Master Scenario Based on all Three Groups . . . . . . . . . 166
Descriptions of Each Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Feedback from Students About the Final Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
11 Mobile STEM Learning Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Mobile Pedagogy: Examples in STEM Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Learning STEM ‘Seamlessly’ Across Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Promoting Inquiry Across Authentic Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Use of Augmented Reality and Immersive Simulations . . . . . . . . . 183
Researching STEM Mobile Learning Futures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Participants and Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
What Teachers Say They Do: Agency and Collaboration in Mobile
Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Scenario Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
What Are Scenarios and How Are They Produced? . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Harnessing the Potential of Mobile Technologies: Producing
Alternative Futures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Scenario A: Guided and Scaffolded STEM Learning . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Scenario B: Simulatory and Autonomous STEM Learning . . . . . . . 195
Scenario C: Connective and Directed STEM Learning . . . . . . . . . . 195
Scenario D: Participatory STEM Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Implications of These Alternative Futures for STEM Educators . . . . . . 197
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Contents xv
12 Science Education: Past Crises, Potential Futures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

A Crisis in Science Education Demanding of Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Researching Science Education Futures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Constructing Scenarios 2011–2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
Refining the Scenarios 2014–2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
Delphi Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Science Education Future Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Likely or/and Desirable Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Key Themes and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Senior Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
Compromise or Consensus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Reflecting on the Scenario Creation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
Reflecting on Implications for Teacher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
13 Backcasting Mathematics Teaching: Preservice
Teachers’ Voices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Methods: Creating Scenarios and Conducting a Backcasting
Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Findings: Student Teachers’ Voices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
Responding to Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
Responses to the Backcasting Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
Implications for Teacher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
14 Future—Always Coming Never Comes: Embracing Imagination
and Learning from Uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
The Impossibilities of Grasping the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
Education. It’s About the Future. Or Is It? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
Why Bother? A Unicorn, a Dragon, a Scorpion and a Frog . . . . . . . . . 255
Anticipating the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
Challenging the Present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
Valuing Uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
Teacher Education—Paved with Good Intentions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
Wise Before the Event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
About the Authors
Prof. Dr. Sandy Schuck is Professor of Education and Director of Research

Training in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the University of Technology
Sydney. She is Co-director of the STEM Education Futures Research Centre at
UTS. Her research interests are all related to her interest in enhancing teacher
practice and preparation. They include teaching and teacher education futures,
teacher professional learning, learning and teaching with new media, the devel-
opment of mobile pedagogies, mentoring, retention and induction of early career
teachers, and beliefs and practices in mathematics education. She has authored or
co-authored over 60 publications, including the co-authoring or co-editing of four
scholarly academic books with Springer, over 10 book chapters and over 50 journal
articles in leading journals. Prof. Schuck has been awarded over two million dollars
in competitive research grants. She mentors early career researchers and collabo-
rates extensively with colleagues in multidisciplinary projects. She was awarded the
inaugural Researcher Developer award in the University of Technology Sydney
Excellence in Research Awards in 2010.
Prof. Dr. Peter Aubusson is Professor of Education at the University of
Technology Sydney. He has been President of the NSW Council of Deans of
Education, a member of the Australian Council of Deans of Education Executive
and Chair of the NSW Initial Teacher Education Committee. He is the inaugural
Director of the STEM Education Futures Research Centre at UTS. He is currently
President of the Australasian Science Education Research Association. His research
examines science education and teacher education futures. He has published over
60 articles. He has written and edited more than 10 books in teacher education,
teacher professional learning, initial teaching, science (biology) and science edu-
cation. He has been successful with many grants including national competitive
grants (Australian Research Council Grants). In 2013, he was awarded the
xvii
xviii About the Authors
University of Technology Sydney, Vice-Chancellor’s Medal for Research

Excellence in acknowledgement of his research achievements. He has judged the
Minister of Education Teaching Awards. He has also judged the prestigious
EUREKA award for the outstanding science teacher in Australia.
Prof. Dr. Kevin Burden is a Professor of Educational Technology in the Faculty
of Arts, Cultures and Education (FACE) at the University of Hull. In 2015, he was
awarded a National Teaching Fellowship by the Higher Education Academy in
recognition of his support for staff and students in using digital technologies to
support innovation and change. He is currently the convener of the Technology
Enhanced Learning (TEL) research group at the University of Hull where he leads a
team focusing on the interface between learning and digital technology and he is
particularly interested in exploring how educators use technologies to support and
augment their own learning and that of their students. His recent work focuses on
teacher education futures and the role of technology in these. He is currently leading
a number of STEM-related projects funded by the EU and the British Council to
investigate the impact of mobile technologies on learning, particularly for mar-
ginalised and difficult-to-reach communities.
Dr. Sue Brindley is an academic at the University of Cambridge Faculty of
Education. She is particularly interested in the legitimisation of professional
knowledge and the enhancement of professionalism through research. She initiated
and leads a network about 200 schools supporting teachers researching in schools,
which is associated with the UK Chartered College for Teachers. She is also widely
involved in researching dialogic learning, and produced an online PPD course as
part of a research grant from Esmee Fairbairn. Sue is involved with researching
digital technologies, teaching and learning with a particular interest in the exten-
sion, enhancement and transformation potentials of digital technologies for class-
room practitioners. She is interested in the ways in which digital technologies can
transform approaches to teaching and learning which allow teachers and students to
explore approaches to learning which move beyond the traditional. Sue is Editor of
Teacher Development and Co-editor of Technology, Pedagogy and Education. She
is also general editor of two series on teaching with Digital Technologies.
List of Figures
Fig. 6.1 Possible sequence of methods used in futures research . . . . . . .. 81

Fig. 6.2 Representation of backcasting method (with permission from
www.naturalstep.ca) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 87
Fig. 6.3 Scenario typology with three categories and six types (from
Börjeson et al. (2006), with permission from Elsevier) . . . . . . .. 89
Fig. 6.4 Four scenarios for the future of teacher education in Europe
(from Snoek, M. (2003). Copyright © Association for Teacher
Education in Europe, reprinted by permission of Taylor &
Francis Ltd, http://www.tandfonline.com on behalf of
Association for Teacher Education in Europe.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Fig. 6.5 Example of the four-scenario method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Fig. 7.1 Teacher education symposium invitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Fig. 7.2 The agenda for the 2-day meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Fig. 7.3 The two-dimensional quadrant model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Fig. 7.4 Call for proposal for special issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Fig. 8.1 Backcasting based on Scenario 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Fig. 8.2 Backcasting based on Scenario 4 (this backcast has been
reproduced for greater clarity in Fig. 8.3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Fig. 8.3 A recreation of the Scenario 4 backcast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Fig. 9.1 Table of CERI/OECD scenarios (taken from https://www.
oecd.org/edu/school/38988449.pdf page 3 of Section III) . . . . . . 133
Fig. 10.1 Scenarios generated by students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Fig. 10.2 Final scenarios created by tutors. Key: A mass customisation;
B one size fits one; C high-stakes accountability;
D individuality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Fig. 11.1 Framework comprising of three distinctive characteristics of
mobile learning experiences, with sub-scales (from Kearney,
Schuck, Burden, & Aubusson, 2012, p. 8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Fig. 11.2 Qualitative data plotted against twin variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
xix
xx List of Figures
Fig. 12.1 Two-dimensional matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

Fig. 12.2 Scenario 1: HS capacity building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
Fig. 12.3 Scenario 2: inquiry dispositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Fig. 12.4 Scenario 3: authentic diagnostics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Fig. 12.5 Scenario 4: collaborative multidisciplinarity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Fig. 13.1 Two-dimensional representation of drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Fig. 13.2 The four scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Fig. 13.3 Scenarios without labelled axes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
Fig. 13.4 The template for the scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
Chapter 1
Why the Future Is Important
Abstract We introduce our book on teacher education futures in this chapter.

Teacher education is currently facing many challenges, arising from the societal
changes and contexts in which it is embedded. These contexts include changes in
political arenas, in the nature of knowledge that is deemed important and in the
emergence of new technologies. The future is always uncertain but if we have a
sense of the drivers that will influence society, schooling and teacher education, we
can begin to imagine possibilities for teacher education futures and investigate the
trajectories that may lead to desirable futures. In this chapter, we outline the reasons
for investigating the future in teacher education, based on current trends and dri-
vers. The chapter outlines the ways in which we grapple with possibilities for the
future by focusing mainly on two futures methods, the development of scenarios
and the use of backcasting. Examples of previous research in this area are used to
illustrate the discussion, with a focus in these examples on STEM (Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) education, given the current discourse
on the importance of these areas for advancing society. Finally, the chapter provides
a description of the structure of this book.

Keywords Teacher education Futures research STEM education

Future scenarios Backcasting
Why Study the Future in Teacher Education?
Teacher education has undergone many changes, reviews and subsequent reforms.
Yet the basic structures of teacher education have remained largely unchanged over
the years. Numerous recommendations have arisen from reviews but the subsequent
imposition on teacher education of these recommendations for reform is usually
unsuccessful.
Currently, teacher education is attracting unprecedented attention from govern-
ments. Standards for teachers, accreditation and performance assessments are all
under discussion and in the process of being developed by policy groups that often
© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018 1

S. Schuck et al., Uncertainty in Teacher Education Futures,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8246-7_1
2 1 Why the Future Is Important
comprise governmental agencies and advocacy groups. Private concerns are con-
sulted concerning the various structures and sets of priorities for teacher education.
The numerous reviews of teacher education are often politically inspired and sel-
dom initiated by teacher educators themselves. Teacher educators in public insti-
tutions are often excluded from the debates about reform. Sometimes teachers and
teacher educators are seen as reactionary, and they have been described as ‘enemies
of promise’ (Gove, 2013, online). It is therefore important for teacher educators to
have the opportunity to discuss what futures they might want for teacher education,
and to investigate the drivers and trends that might move us to those futures. They
need a seat at the table at which such directions are being determined and they need
unity in vision to strengthen their voices.
A way of creating a space to consider and debate the current context and trends
and to imagine possible futures is through the use of futures methodologies. Such
methodologies allow us to imagine different possibilities for teacher education and
open these possibilities for discussion. This book provides such an opportunity for
readers to be provoked and to engage in thinking about what is attractive, what
scenarios might be sought after, and what should be avoided in teacher education.
Agreement on these issues might then lead to the development of strategies for how
we, as teacher educators, might go about getting what we want. The book seeks to
engage teacher educators, teachers and policymakers in thinking about what is
possible and desirable and to promote debate and discussion amongst all
stakeholders.
This book helps us think about possible trajectories and possible futures for
teacher education. It highlights current contexts, interrogates the drivers in these
contexts and imagines scenarios which may be logical extensions of today’s con-
texts given these trends and drivers. The chapters address changing contexts arising
from interactive, inquiry-based and collaborative pedagogies; mobile and dis-
tributed learning; ubiquitous and pervasive computing; and augmented reality. In
this book, we consider these changing contexts and their implications for education,
including discussion of designs for future schools and teacher education pro-
grammes; the development of alternative educational institutions outside and
beyond current systems; and new approaches to teaching and learning. The book
draws on international discussions and studies and focuses on research conducted
by the authors across two continents. We investigate sociopolitical, technological
and pedagogical changes and drivers and their implications for teacher education.
There is now a considerable body of literature, stemming from research into
Millennials (the school students of the twenty-first century), teacher education and
applications of technology in formal and informal learning settings, all of which
suggest frameworks to predict future developments. For example, much of the
discussion about twenty-first-century learning considers a framework that focuses
on the 4 Cs instead of the 3 Rs. There are many suggestions for what these 4 Cs
need to be, ranging from community to creativity. When learning and innovation
skills are discussed, the 4 Cs emphasised tend to be creativity, communication,
collaboration and critical thinking (see, for example, P21, 2007). There is a great
deal of rhetoric about the different learning and schooling that Millennials might
Why Study the Future in Teacher Education? 3
experience to achieve these 4 Cs. Understandings about these different ways of

learning ought to be harnessed to reshape teacher education if the next generation of
teachers are to lead our learning futures. This book offers the opportunity for
teachers, teacher educators and policymakers, amongst others, to pause and con-
template whether we are moving in directions that will take us where we want to go.
It brings together powerful ideas and new developments from internationally
recognised scholars to provide theoretical and practical knowledge to inform tea-
cher education.
Exploring Possibilities for the Future
To help us achieve our aims of shaping the future through changing the present, we
employ futures research using futures methodologies. Such methodologies are used
extensively in a variety of disciplines and areas. They are used to provide economic
forecasts and help with planning for population increases or decreases in a society.
Futures research seeks to provide insights that might help to change the present and
direct the future. These insights, gained from investigating the trends and drivers
that currently operate, may lead to the creation of possibilities that are either
enticing or terrifying, or they have elements of both. Futures research allows us to
develop understandings that provide guidance on how to achieve the futures we
want. When we understand these possibilities, we can use our understandings to
change actions, policies and practice.
In this book, we consider futures research in the educational context and focus
on teacher education for the reasons indicated in the first section of this chapter.
There are numerous futures research methods used to gain understandings of
possibilities in teacher education. Other futures methods help us to investigate how
to then use these understandings to modify practices and policies. We will focus in
this book on the use of five of these methods, specifically horizon scanning, driver
analysis, Delphi panels, scenario production and backcasting. The first three
methods—horizon scanning, driver analysis and Delphi panels—have been used in
our research to lead to scenario building or production, which involves us in
building visions of what teacher education may look like in ten or more years’ time.
The method of backcasting suggests ways of working out how to change policy and
practice to allow us to arrive at a particular future. It entails choosing a future
scenario and considering what needs to be modified to get from the present to the
future. Analysing the drivers that may need to change or may need to be
strengthened provides a possible trajectory to that future. There are many other
methods that are used in futures research, such as forecasting, but in this book, we
restrict our discussion to these methods, as these are ones we have employed in our
research in educational arenas.
No futures methods are easily executed. All require long-term thinking and a
capacity for accepting uncertainty. Consultation and sharing of ideas are essential.
Developing scenarios that are internally consistent and provocative is challenging.
Working out threats and opportunities is central to the process. We cannot provide
evidence for what has not yet happened so we have to accept that what is proposed
is speculative.
Futures methods often include extensive consultation, the presentation and
sharing of alternative futures, and discussion about the value of alternatives and
what might be done to transform the future. Futures research also includes specific
methods that are specifically designed to not just inform but also to bring about
specific changes in a system to alter the future.
As the methodologies for forward thinking in education remain underdeveloped,
there is much to be done in building up a ‘toolbox’ of such approaches to inform the
policymaking process. The methods discussed in this book assist us in doing this.
The aim of this work is to ensure that the present is not allowed to dictate the future.
Rather, we offer the opportunity for teachers, teacher educators and policymakers to
collaborate in developing the futures that we agree are most desirable.
Our Previous Research
One of the first groups to start using scenarios to open debate in education was the
Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) that is part of the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). In a publi-
cation titled Schooling for tomorrow: What schools for the future? (CERI/OECD,
2001), the group developed six scenarios for learning systems aimed at provoking
and disrupting teachers, teacher educators, policymakers and the public more
generally. This was followed by a special issue of the European Journal of Teacher
Education (2003), which was developed from the work of one of the Research and
Development Centres (RDCs) of the Association for Teacher Education in Europe
(ATEE). Under the leadership of Marco Snoek, RDC 19 concluded a 3-year project
on the future of teacher education in Europe with a special issue in which scenarios
were developed and discussed for teacher education in different European countries.
Our book has been highly influenced by both of these projects. Chapter 9
discusses the OECD project and provides an analysis of current thinking juxtaposed
against the scenarios presented in 2001. Chapter 7 describes how Snoek’s work
influenced our future work on scenario development. Prior to meeting Snoek and
learning about his methods for scenario creation, two of the authors of this book
prepared a conceptual study that built on the OECD scenarios and considered what
these scenarios might look like in a context in which use of the Internet was almost
ubiquitous and Web 2.0, with its heightened capacity for collaboration and inter-
activity, might be impacting learning. Subsequent to the discussion with Snoek, the
authors embarked on a programme of research that used Delphi methods to collect
the views of leaders in science education and in teacher education about how
teacher education might look in the future. Delphi methods typically involve the
establishment of expert panels whose views are collected on particular questions or
trends. The methods can be quantitative, or, as in these studies, qualitative.
Our Previous Research 5
Questions around technology, knowledge and forms of teacher education were

included in interviews with these leaders in projects focusing on different aspects.
The first project with teacher educator leaders, who were invited to participate from
eight countries, examined their views about teacher education drivers and then built
scenarios from the data (Aubusson & Schuck, 2013a). The subsequent project, with
teacher education leaders from Australia and England, examined areas that
appeared to be central to current teaching but on which the leaders in the previous
project had been largely silent. The two areas of focus were technology and
knowledge. Again, after data from the interviews had been analysed, a series of
scenarios were created, and these were presented at conferences and seminars to
gain feedback from the audience.
Conference forums in which we shared and discussed this futures work were: a
symposium ‘Creating and critiquing teacher education futures’, at the CAL 2011
conference in Manchester (convened by Burden, May, 2011); an invitation-only
forum of teacher educators, Teacher Education Futures Forum (TEFF), convened
by Schuck and Aubusson in Amsterdam in September 2011 (which is further
discussed in Chap. 7); and a symposium on Teacher Education Futures at the
European Conference on Educational Research (ECER) in Cadiz in September
2012, by selected members of the TEFF (convened by Schuck, 2012). Two pre-
sentations on scenarios in teacher education were also presented and workshopped
at annual conferences of ATEE in Halden, Norway (Aubusson & Schuck, 2013b)
and in Braga, Portugal (Aubusson, Schuck, Burden, & Brindley, August 2014) and
at the spring conference of ATEE in Riga, Latvia (Aubusson & Schuck, May 2017).
Finally, a science education futures workshop was convened by Aubusson in
February 2016 in Sydney. Each presentation dealt with similar themes, and each
was used as an opportunity to test findings from our research projects. Some of the
scenarios discussed are now coming into fruition whilst others have not changed
much.
The authors have also published in academic journals on topics related to futures
work. These articles include a focus on the impact of digital access on future school
learning (Schuck & Aubusson, 2010); a special issue on teacher education futures
edited by Schuck and Aubusson and including two articles on our research in this
area (Aubusson & Schuck, 2013a; Brindley, 2013); and a publication on the
authors’ ongoing research in this area (Burden, Aubusson, Brindley, & Schuck,
2016). As noted above, the scenarios presented in these articles had usually been
tested in conferences and then amended on the basis of the critique of audiences
largely comprised of teacher educators.
The research published and presented by the authors has developed our thinking
further, and this book is the culmination of this work. However, we would hesitate
to call this our final thoughts on the subject. We have learnt that the future is
unpredictable, constantly changing and surprising—a state of affairs that may well
stimulate further investigations. Our main purpose for this book, though, is to
stimulate and provoke discussion on this important topic. We have developed
futures narratives to present potential futures. We acknowledge, however, the dif-
ficulty of making clear that we are not favouring a particular prediction in this book,
but rather we are seeking to explore, imagine, and, by using those explorations and
imaginations, provoke our readers to call for action.
Outline of This Book
This book is divided into three sections. In the first section, Chaps. 2, 3, 4 and 5
discuss the various drivers and trends currently existing in education. Chapter 2
considers the key drivers of teacher education. Here, we examine some of the
tensions and paradoxes that exist within the field of education and the impact these
have on determining the future trajectories of teacher education. Chapter 3 concerns
the politics of teacher education. It examines the relationship between politics and
professionalism for teachers and teacher educators, particularly the micro-, meso-
and macro-levels of this relationship, and then interrogates their impact and
influence on teaching and teacher education. Chapter 4 investigates the trends in
technology-enhanced learning. We consider the 4 Cs mentioned above, with respect
to their connection to emerging technologies. We examine current trends in edu-
cational technology and affordances of emerging technologies for their effect on
teacher education, particularly with respect to the time and space continua in which
teacher education occurs. This chapter builds on the authors’ research on mobile
learning and associated constructs, such as the Mobile Pedagogical Framework
(Kearney, Schuck, Aubusson, & Burden, 2012) and mobile learning in the Third
Space (Schuck, Kearney, & Burden, 2017). Finally, Chap. 5 considers the way
knowledge is used, created and understood and how its changing nature might
influence changes in society. Knowing ‘how’ as opposed to knowing ‘what’ is
becoming more important in a knowledge society. Interdisciplinary knowledge and
knowledge of processes are in tension with subject content knowledge. Purposes of
schooling continue to change emphases.
The second section (Chaps. 6, 7 and 8) concerns the futures methods we used to
develop insights into teacher education and provide tools for shaping the directions
in which we might go. In Chap. 6, we discuss and explain the purpose of futures
research, the methods that are used in such research and the focus on the use of
scenarios and backcasting as tools for this book. The chapter uses examples of
scenarios within and outside education to elaborate on ways that scenarios provide
visions of alternative futures and then explores the implications of such futures.
Chapter 7 describes the work of the Teacher Education Futures Forum, the reasons
for the creation of this Forum and the ways that the Forum embarked on the journey
of scenario creation. Examples of how the scenario creation method was used at this
Forum are described and illustrated. In Chap. 8, we unpack the process of back-
casting and outline some cases in which we have used backcasting to promote
thinking to contemplate the feasibility of alternative futures in teacher education by
asking, what might have to occur to bring them about?
The third section (Chaps. 9–13) provides illustrations of our research and
thinking about the future, using a STEM perspective in most of these chapters.
Outline of This Book 7
There is an international interest in increasing uptake and engagement in STEM,

which is an acronym for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.
Governments in most Western countries view STEM as the building blocks for a
productive and future-oriented society and are concerned that students are insuffi-
ciently engaged with these disciplines. Three of the authors teach and research in
the STEM area. Consequently, given the interest of educators and policymakers and
our expertise in these disciplines, the examples of futures research chosen to
illustrate the futures work are taken mainly from STEM teacher education. In this
section, we tend to use the terms scenario production, scenario creation or scenario
building in preference to scenario planning because this is in keeping with our
projects. Scenario planning is often associated with the development of a specific
plan for or response to a potential future scenario. However, we acknowledge that
the distinction in the education futures literature is neither agreed nor clear. In order
to respect the modes of expression used by some sources, the term scenario plan-
ning does appear in some chapters.
Chapter 9 revisits the OECD scenarios of 2001 and interrogates them in the
current context. It examines the implications of the findings for teacher education
and proposes an updated version of the scenarios to continue the discussion initi-
ated by the OECD. Chapter 10 reports on the key concepts of knowledge and
technology and draws on the views and opinions of international postgraduate
students studying a module on educational technology as part of a full-time
Masters’ programme in the UK. Chapter 11 examines the implications for STEM
learning of the emerging influence of mobile learning. It reports on a study of
mobile learning in mathematics and science, considers the use of a pedagogical
framework for mobile learning as a scaffold for teaching with mobile devices, and
culminates in analysis and discussion of implications for teacher education, in areas
such as preparing teachers and upskilling teachers in maths and science. Chapter 12
examines science education futures to explore the ways in which a specific disci-
pline area seeks to shape its future(s). It first outlines some underlying challenges in
present and past science education and describes the ways in which experts have
proposed ideal or better ways to go about science education. The work reported
here draws on data from Australia but is located in an international context. Finally,
Chap. 13 describes how student teachers view the future of mathematics teacher
education, using scenarios and backcasting to gather their views. This chapter uses
the students’ voices to discuss possible futures, which allow us to revisit current
contexts and plan for the future. It suggests the use of new trajectories and pathways
rather than allowing our current experiences to dictate our future ones.
The final chapter of the book, Chap. 14, elaborates the benefits of building,
analysing and working with futures that might never come to be. Scenarios and
backcasting are used to inform us about the present and our journey to the future.
They identify critical points of potential change and test the viability of alternative
futures. Turning points are discussed to highlight key differences between futures
that might simply arise from current trajectories as opposed to futures we choose to
design. This chapter also serves as a conclusion to the book and highlights insights
that result from futures thinking.
Conclusion
This book will not only highlight successes and failures; hindrances and affor-
dances; and social, political, historical and economic dimensions that impinge upon
our teacher education futures, but also foreshadow exciting developments for fur-
ther research. Accordingly, we hope this book will instigate dialogue and expand
inquiry that will have significant impact shaping teacher education for the next
generation, and also speak to a wide audience of stakeholders in government,
higher education and education broadly. The chapters explore the strongly reflexive
relationship between what gets taught at school and societal mores, norms and
visions. We investigate this relationship and the kinds of teaching practices,
learning environments and alternative forms of schooling—and hence teacher
education—that might be appropriate now and in the future. We examine teacher
learning in changing environments and new approaches to educating young people
in ways that are relevant, equitable and sustainable. We provide insights into
learning and we critique current and new directions for schooling and teacher
education to test their alignment with and potential contribution to radical changes
in twenty-first-century societies.
We invite the reader to engage with the debates and questions that arise from this
book, consider ways of applying its new insights and suggest ways forward to a
strong and healthy future in teacher education.
References
Aubusson, P. J., & Schuck, S. R. (2013a). Teacher education futures: Today’s trends, tomorrow’s
expectations. Teacher Development, 17(3), 322–333.
Aubusson, P., & Schuck, S. (2013b). Implications of current trends for teacher education in the
future. In ATEE Conference on Education for the Future. Halden, Norway, 22–24 August.
Aubusson, P., & Schuck, S. (2017) Using backcasting to get there from here in teacher education.
In ATEE Spring Conference. Riga, Latvia, 12–13 May.
Aubusson, P., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Brindley, S. (2014). Transitioning to 21st century teacher
education: The potential of thinking with scenarios. In ATEE Conference Transitions in
Teacher Education and Professional Identities. Braga, Portugal, 25–27 August.
Brindley, S. (2013). Teacher education futures: Compliance, critique, or compromise? A UK
perspective. Teacher Development, 17(3), 393–408.
Burden, K. (2011). Creating and critiquing teacher education futures symposium. In CAL
Conference on Learning Futures: Education, Technology and Sustainability. Manchester, UK,
May 13–15.
Burden, K., Aubusson, P., Brindley, S., & Schuck, S. R. (2016). Changing knowledge, changing
technology: Implications for teacher education futures. Journal of Education for Teaching:
International Research and Pedagogy, 42(1), 4–16.
CERI/OECD. (2001). Scenarios for the future of schooling. In CERI/OECD Schooling for
tomorrow: What schools for the future? (Chapter 3, 77–98). Paris: OECD. Retrieved from
https://www.oecd.org/site/schoolingfortomorrowknowledgebase/futuresthinking/scenarios/
overviewofthesixsftscenarios.htm.
References 9
Gove, M. (2013). I refuse to surrender to the Marxist teachers hell-bent on destroying our schools.
Daily Mail, UK. 24 March 2013. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-
2298146/I-refuse-surrender-Marxist-teachers-hell-bent-destroying-schools-Education-
Secretary-berates-new-enemies-promise-opposing-plans.html.
Kearney, M. D., Schuck, S. R., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. J. (2012). Viewing mobile learning
from a pedagogical perspective. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 20(3), 1–17.
P21. (2007). Framework for 21st century learning. Partnership for 21st century learning. http://
www.p21.org/storage/documents/docs/P21_framework_0816.pdf.
Schuck, S., & Aubusson, P. (2010). Educational scenarios for digital futures. Learning Media and
Technology, 35(3), 293–305.
Schuck, S. R., Kearney, M., & Burden, K. J. (2017). Exploring mobile learning in the third space.
Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(2), 121–137.
Schuck, S. (2012). Teacher education futures. In Symposium at the European Conference on
Educational Research. Cádiz, Spain, 18–21 September.
Chapter 2
Key Drivers of Teacher Education
Abstract In this chapter, we explore the ways in which education and schooling
have been shaped by demands of policy and industry. These drivers of education
are often characterised by conflict with the values, beliefs and behaviours of
teachers and teacher educators. Through an investigation of contexts that allow
examination of some of the tensions present in education, we illustrate how pow-
erfully education is now constructed by forces outside of the schooling system
itself. However, the chapter ends by drawing attention to the place of teacher
educators to act as agents of change precisely through identification of existing
drivers, recognising this opportunity for the creation of new drivers which reflect
the values of the school system.
Keywords Globalisation Professionalism Knowledge Technology

Drivers of education
Introduction
Education is in conflict. Characterised by competing demands, beliefs and pur-

poses, education nevertheless is the means whereby future societies are shaped and
the economic success—or otherwise—of those societies are determined. In this
chapter, we examine some of the tensions and paradoxes that exist within the field
of education and the impact these have on determining the future trajectories of
teacher education.
What Is Education for?
The simplicity of the question belies the complexity of the issues that lie beneath.
Any response carries within it a set of ideologies, societal and individual values and
ambitions relating to purpose. Within purpose, there resides, whether articulated or

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8246-7_2
12 2 Key Drivers of Teacher Education
silent, beliefs about the legitimacy of an educational system relating to scope,

significance, teacher role, engagement with society and legitimate ownership of
educational outcomes. These variously place the global versus the local, autonomy
versus centralisation, knowing how versus knowing what, technology as
democratisation and technology as control, at opposite ends of a spectrum unde-
fined and unbounded, as the frenetic pace of current demands in education jostle
with attempts to read likely future policy imperatives. Within this, teachers and
teacher educators attempt to deal with both the extant and the possible, and yet
retain a sense of integrity about their working lives.
Unpicking any answer to what education is for therefore has to reveal a posi-
tioning on a range of issues, which we term drivers, serving to shape the needs and
actions of teachers and teacher educators. Exploring some of the drivers will enable
an understanding of the ways in which these stand alone and intersect one with
another to compound already complex sets of expectations, and illuminate the
decision processes which reside within these drivers.
Who Is Education for?
It would be unlikely to ask this question and not receive the answer ‘students’. Yet
students stand as a marker of the demands of a future society, as yet unknown and
to some extent unimaginable. What we do know however is that the reach of the
global is already a reality for students and the employment market is constructed to
reflect this. Education and educators have to anticipate the global—a construct
which requires a projection of future economic and societal needs, sensed rather
than secured. Two key concerns emerge in relation to the global imperatives. One,
outlined above, is the relative unknowability of future global needs; the second is
that education, in the Western world at least, is largely constructed as responsive to
individual needs and inevitably, therefore, has to be cast as ‘local’ rather than
global.
Unknowability
Unknowability does not mean that the future cannot be to some extent imagined.
Industry, and indeed society, projects and tests constructs which create possible
scenarios, and from there backcast systems and resource needs to answer those
scenarios. As these inevitably change and mutate, these systems are amended or
replaced to accommodate new events. Education is part of that wider system and
subject to the same shifting sands of response and change. However, there are also
differences. Industry has many outcomes but an overriding and shared expectation
in the capitalist world is that of profit. All other concerns are subservient to
profit-making and global needs are constructed around this imperative. Education,
Who Is Education for? 13
however, does not have such a shared expectation about outcome. Success, for
example, may refer to examinations but may also refer to a raft of other achieve-
ments including social, individual ambition, and learning steps so small as to be
unnoticed within an assessment system but highly significant to the individual.
Preparing students to be part of a global society through education is therefore
multidirectional. Globality has to be understood in terms of employment and
economic success, but this is part of, rather than the single outcome, for education.
However, the stridency of industry in claiming education as a service to its own
needs has been significant in driving education, since the generation of profit seems
at least to be a relatively certainty in an unknowability of the future. Similarly, in
projecting employability needs, the demands of industry for particular working
skills, e.g. team working, have come to preoccupy schools. Industry has been
effective in legitimising its needs for education on the basis of future global
demands and profit; teachers and teacher educators have been less vocal in artic-
ulating their own vision for future global needs in terms of education. There is a
sense, at least from policy, that education should be charged with developing
imprecise qualities such as ‘grit’ and ‘resilience’; even less clear are the curriculum
and knowledge needs for a global society. Instead, the curriculum is either variously
reduced to core skills, or as is current with examination syllabuses, overloaded with
possible, but unconfirmed, knowledge needs. Teachers and teacher educators are
caught in a cycle of dominant industry needs and knowledge of, but less easy to
articulate or action, needs of society. To invoke the famous Rumsfeld quote
regarding known unknowns and unknown unknowns, the known unknowns relate
to industry and education can respond to these; education could be powerfully
placed to respond to the unknown unknowns of societal needs but these do not have
the clear driver of capitalism. Who defines and who claims this aspect of globali-
sation remains unclear.
Global Versus Local
Associated with the global drivers are the concerns of the local in education. These
are manifested at the micro-level of individual students but also at school and
community level. Pedagogically, student needs inform teacher decisions relating to
pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986) and therefore planning and
assessment choices. The local is therefore not a subservient concern to the global
for teachers but essential to bringing about effective teaching and learning. Local
concerns relate too to parental expectations. The centrality of the home-school
relationship is well documented, but for most parents, the immediacy of their
child’s educational needs almost certainly overrides concerns with the longer-term
global demands. The microcosm is the driver, not the longer term and perhaps less
clear global vision. Neither are schools exempt from the imperative of the local
vision. Schools operate in and are a product of local demands, from the level of
reputation for student recruitment to the part schools play in the wider community,
both in community use of resource and buildings, and in representing community

concerns through outreach work. This is neither a whimsical nor an inconsequential
relationship. Schools cannot function effectively outside of a community. There is a
reciprocal shaping of identity which benefits both schools and the local community.
Dislocation from these environs leaves the school isolated and out of touch with its
‘clientele’, open even to community resentment and subversion. Similarly, parents
who choose not to engage with the school disadvantage their own child.
The question for educators is where to place themselves on the global/local
spectrum. Neither aspect can be ignored, and so both have to be addressed, even
where these competing demands appear to be irreconcilable. Teacher educators are
positioned with the task not only of anticipating future global and local demands
but also translating these into comprehensible actions for pre-service teachers.
Who Owns Education?
Drivers are not created acontextually. They are responsive to intellectual and
chronological framings which carry implications for agency. Within our focus, the
agency is that of teachers and teacher educators, and it follows that decision-making
and action are not simply expected, but built into the policy-generated standards
which define teacher responsibilities and qualities, categorised at least in part as
teacher professionalism. If professionalism carries a recognition that prescribed
behaviours are inadequate in responding to complex and possibly ethically chal-
lenging situations, then the defining quality of professionalism has to be autonomy.
However, in that teacher standards serve to act as boundaries both in terms of action
and attitudes associated with professionalism, autonomy is excised. A paradox is
thus created. Professionalism is both curtailed and required. Centralised policy,
with its emphasis on control, stands in opposition to the concomitant demand that
teacher and teacher educators respond to drivers in ways that are sensitive to the
uniqueness of any given situation. Professionalism simultaneously is and is not
owned by teachers and teacher educators, who are held accountable for enactment
and conformity to policy determinants of professional behaviour, yet expected to
exercise discrete judgment where necessary. Professionalism seems to be charac-
terised by contradiction and tension. And yet, it can also be argued that in the early
twenty-first century, complete assurance apparently exists on the notion of pro-
fessionalism and its appearance.
Historical drivers also play a part. For example, during the Cold War, scientific
superiority was entwined with military supremacy. Sputnik’s orbit of the earth sent
a shockwave through the USA, and Western science education. Post-Sputnik cur-
ricula emphasised the preparation and production of scientists to compete with
communist scientific advances (starting with the Physical Sciences Study
Committee Project in secondary school physics [PSSC] in 1957). The political and
military imperative for the production of highly capable scientists resulted in the
Who Owns Education? 15
appropriation of senior school curriculum to deliver scientific, military and eco-

nomic capability. It resulted in a curriculum which Ziman (1980) has called
research profession-oriented science education.
Professionalism as Compliance
Policy has little problem with notions of professionalism. It is constructed through

policy statements, and particularly, in the UK, through Teachers’ Standards
(Department for Education, 2012), the statements which define and are used to
measure teacher performance. In these, professionalism is defined within
Section Two Personal and Professional Conduct and refers to ‘behaviour and
attitudes which set the required standard for conduct throughout a teacher’s career’.
Notably, these focus on the responsibilities of teachers towards others, with the
notable absence of reference to teachers’ own rights. Instead, teachers are posi-
tioned as being told what it means to be professional through policy statements,
‘Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory
frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities’. In
Australia, where interestingly the Teachers’ Standards are referred to as ‘Australian
Professional Standards for Teachers’ (Australian Department of Education and
Training, 2015), professionalism is graded from graduate to lead and refers to the
responsibilities of teachers to maintain relevant knowledge, pedagogical develop-
ment and engage in professional learning. This includes using ‘comprehensive
knowledge of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers to plan and lead
the development of professional learning policies and programs that address the
professional learning needs of colleagues and pre-service teachers’, thus creating a
hermetically sealed version of professionalism and how teachers become
professionals.
In some ways, such constructions of professionalism—that is, as instrumental in
meeting policy standards—are unsurprising given the prevailing policy discourse of
compliance (Brindley, 2013) and the concomitant positioning of teachers as passive
receivers of directives designed to further a centralised agenda. Teachers’ Standards
are specifically designed to bring about agreement and thereby compliance (Sachs,
1999) and, indeed, complicity (Brindley, 2013). A compliance agenda however
does not serve to eliminate the contradictions noted earlier. The UK Teachers’
Standards, for example, require ‘Teachers [to] uphold public trust in the profes-
sion’, whilst simultaneously policy rhetoric concerns itself precisely with under-
mining the public trust in teachers (Ball, 2012). For teachers to actively ‘uphold
public trust’ they need to be recognised as autonomous professionals, evidently able
to engage with and critique policy, and with control over their own working lives.
The very existence of the Teachers’ Standards stand against that possibility.
Although policy seems to have control over professionalism, in reality, the paradox
remains unresolved.
Professionalism as Autonomy
In opposition to policy claims, professionalism as the subject of educational

research remains contentious. Debate continues as to whether teaching can be seen
as a profession (Sachs, 2014) and if it is, what professionalism might look like
(Hord & Tobia, 2015). Early discussions about types of professionalism—for
example, restricted and extended professionalism (Hoyle, 1974) explored what
might now be considered the gentle foothills of debates about professionalism.
Autonomy was unquestioned—it was the manifestation of autonomy that was of
scholarly interest. With the increasing politicisation of education, however, came
the parallel versions of teacher professionalism. The struggle located itself within
the spectrum of professionalism as subject to teacher control versus centralised
control. It is thus perhaps as revealing to consider what is not included in Teachers’
Standards as to reflect on the almost infinite demands on teachers legitimised
through the Standards. Criticality, for example (Kincheloe, 2003) is evident as a
key component of professional autonomy. Without critical engagement, there can
be no sense of ownership of knowledge by teachers. The Teachers’ Standards are
notable for their lack of reference to criticality. This is no small event. Without the
right to debate policy and indeed research claims over professionalism, the teacher
is stripped of the discourse needed to even take part in such debates. In
Durkheimian terms, what results is a discourse of the profane, that is, of the lan-
guage needed to deal with the instrumental and applied knowledges of education
and the subsequent excision of the discourse of the sacred, that is, of the profes-
sional debates which address values, beliefs and ideologies. Without the sacred
discourse, autonomy is rendered impotent. And when Bottery and Wright (2000)
drew our attention to teachers as a ‘directed profession’, the trajectory of centralised
control is precisely the outcome they predict:
The teaching profession, we suggest, is being de-professionalised through its increasing
lack of autonomy in how and what it teaches … whether the pressure comes from above (in
terms of government direction) or below (in terms of market forces) … wherever on a
spectrum from ‘market led’ to ‘government directed’ … the result is appears to be the same
– one in which governments control and direct the activities of the teaching profession, and
in which the teaching profession apparently acquiesces. (pp. 2–3)
Acquiescence is an inevitable result of a profession deprived of an appropriate

discourse to challenge centralised control and the demise of autonomy its corollary.
The tensions evident perhaps summarise the unenviable dilemma of teacher edu-
cators. Pre-service teachers, in order to be successful in their training, have to be
taught using the Teachers’ Standards and produce evidence against these criteria.
Institutions are inspected and graded against this and other, associated evidence. At
the same time, teacher educators are academics and researchers, and as such are
unlikely to hold a view on professionalism which excises critique and autonomy.
The message of success through compliance or integrity through autonomy is at the
very least a tough call for teacher educators to juggle, and whilst the context
discussed here is that of the UK, equal pressures are seen in Australia
Who Owns Education? 17
(Groundwater-Smith & Sachs, 2002). The position is quite possibly one that leaves
teachers open, ironically, to professional attack from policy centralists.
What Should Education Teach?
Associated with the question of who owns education is the issue of what education
should teach—the knowledge curriculum—and who defines that. The curriculum
was once the preserve of teachers and the place to exercise professional knowledge.
As Stenhouse (1975) pointed out:
Curriculum is the medium through which the teacher can learn his art. Curriculum is the
medium through which the teacher can learn knowledge. Curriculum is the medium
through which the teacher can learn about the nature of education. Curriculum is the
medium through which the teacher can learn about the nature of knowledge. (p. 4)
However, in the UK the Education Reform Act (1988) paved the way for a
national curriculum, introduced in 1992. Although originally described by the UK
Department of Education as a ‘selection from the knowledge’ the national cur-
riculum effectively came to be ‘the curricular knowledge’. Additionally, associated
assessment regimes were developed by policymakers, specifically by the quango
School Curriculum and Assessment Authority (SCAA), which only assessed
specific, measurable national curriculum content. Within this, knowledge then
became defined by what was testable, a criterion which privileges content-intensive
curriculum, but maps uneasily against ‘narrative knowledge’ (Lyotard, 1986) which
prioritise subjective response and argument. Teacher pragmatic response, given the
student need to succeed in high-stakes examinations, was to teach almost exclu-
sively that knowledge which was demanded by the assessment regimes. Teachers’
part in defining curricular knowledge was marginalised, and then effectively
excised. Recent moves to slim down an overloaded national curriculum and remove
its associated ‘level descriptors’—key descriptors of achievement—revealed a
generation of teachers who had no means of knowing about knowledge or
assessment outside of that prescribed by policy. It enacted Stenhouse’s description
of the interaction of teacher and curriculum, but in the negative. Removing
responsibility for curriculum removes teachers from engagement with the ‘nature of
education’ and thereby also removes them from professional debate about knowl-
edge. The vacuum thus produced served policymakers well in that curriculum
control equates accountability, and therefore with teacher control. Control of
knowledge by policy effectively removes from teachers access to a major area of
professional behaviours, that is, shaping the curriculum. Knowledge then becomes
whatever policy says it is, and policy, as discussed before, responds to external
global imperatives such as the economy. So we are left with two issues, the first
relating to school knowledge, and the second to knowledge and self.
School Knowledge
If school knowledge is required to respond to policy imperatives, and these relate to

the global economy, then those defining knowledge will, inevitably, be informed by
the needs of industry. Since industry itself has declared it needs workers with
specific skills relating particularly to literacy and numeracy (Hartley & Horne,
2006) and to science and ICT (Roberts, 2002), then school knowledge must engage
with these requirements. Indeed, if we accept that science is now the dominant and
global model of knowledge (Lyotard, 1986), these trends are inevitable. Much of
the focus for education is in producing a workforce ready to enter industry with the
skills and attributes that ensure success in a competitive global market. It is
therefore no accident that the focus on literacy and numeracy has dominated the
primary curriculum (Brown, Bibby, & Johnson, 2000; Masters, 2009), and that the
rise of the STEM curriculum dominates our current school knowledge landscape,
particularly at secondary level. This is echoed in other, funded initiatives. For
example, the Australian Department of Education and Training has initiated
P-TECH.
an innovative model of education-industry collaboration that provides students studying for
their Senior Secondary Certificate with an industry supported pathway to a … STEM
related diploma, advanced diploma or associate degree. (DET, 2015)
In the UK, initiatives such as Skills for Industry in Schools—a 5-month pro-
gramme which provides ‘a structured itinerary of training and coaching relevant to
the KS3 and GCSE curriculum … designed to enhance technical and employability
skills’ (Design and Technology Association, 2017) receive both government
attention and funding. The emphasis is on knowledge as functional and instru-
mentalist, with an outcome focused on a producing a workforce that contributes
positively through industry to a global economy. It is perhaps telling that the
Australian government department is called Education and Training, and the UK
government has variously gone through incarnations such as the Department for
Education and Science, and the Department of Education and Skills. Education
becomes translated to the language of business with training and skills, and with
clients and customers. Education is defined through use and through application.
Knowledge becomes the set of ‘know-hows’ needed to provide workers in the
global economy.
However, there are real problems associated with this position. First, the
assumption that policymakers can predict the needs of a world of work, or even the
needs of a global economy is not a secure position. The presumed ‘relevance’
curriculum for the ‘real world’ of the future is as enigmatic for policymakers as it is
for any other body in the business of prediction. Consider, for example, the ‘ed-
ucation for leisure’ movement of the 1980s. This was a huge initiative which
impacted on schools and adult education, on business and industry in order to
prepare people for a short working week which would be created by technology
taking over work areas traditionally occupied by people (Henry & Bramham, 1993).
What Should Education Teach? 19
Twenty-five years on, work is seen to be if anything more time-consuming with far
less opportunity for leisure than in the 1980s. This alone might cause us to think
that a knowledge curriculum which focuses on skills and training for the future is at
best short-sighted, at worst damaging.
Education and Self
The position held in opposition, that of ‘educere’—that education should be about

realising (‘drawing out’) the potential of the individual rather than answering the
needs of an economy—is not new (Ashton & Green, 1996; Drummond, 2003).
However, the arguments relating to education as belonging to exploration of the
values and beliefs of the self rather than the economy, with legitimised focus on the
arts and humanities rather than only the STEM curriculum, are now rarely heard.
Cast as a somewhat esoteric and elitist position, associated with a version of
education which focuses on training the mind rather than training for work, edu-
cation for self demands engagement with subjects such as philosophy, literature,
music, art, classics and so forth—subjects seen as either irrelevant or in some way
indulgent to retain in the curriculum. Classics has almost disappeared in State
schools and has a less high profile in independent schools than it once enjoyed. To
train to teach Classics in England, for example, means opting currently for one of
only three courses nationwide, itself a telling position. And if no teachers are being
trained, who will teach a Classics curriculum? Music has suffered a similarly
catastrophic decline. In 2010, the BBC News reported that ‘One in five music
services, which support schools, expect councils will completely axe their grants
and half fear cuts of up to 50%’ (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11796636).
In 2014, The Guardian Education reported: ‘Between 2005 and 2012, the number
of students taking GCSE English literature dropped by 18%. This is a shocking
change, which has been mirrored at A-level and in university applications’ (http://
www.newstatesman.com/culture/2014/05/michael-goves-provincial-syllabus-not-
issue-english-literature-gcse-slowly-being). In 2017, the Welsh government granted
schools in Wales £1.3 million to teach computer coding. The Education Secretary
for Wales stated:
Through this £1.3 m of new investment … learners aged 3-16 … can develop their skills
which will be a vital part of thriving in our increasingly digital economy.
In 2014 the then Education Secretary in the UK, Nicky Morgan, stated of the
selection of Arts subjects at examination level:
… if you didn’t know what you wanted to do, then the arts and humanities were what you
chose because they were useful for all kinds of jobs. Of course, we know now that couldn’t
be further from the truth – that the subjects that keep young people’s options open and
unlock the door to all sorts of careers are the STEM subjects. (http://www.independent.co.
uk/news/education/education-news/education-secretary-nicky-morgan-tells-teenagers-if-
you-want-a-job-drop-humanities-9852316.html)
The valuing of access to work above that of self by the highest level of policy
needs no explicating in terms of import. The message is clear: the world of work
must be prioritised and the key is through STEM. However, if we return to the
earlier case about the unpredictability of the future global market employment
needs, the same argument is extant. Ironically, however, what is predictable is that
to cope with the rapidly changing demands of any working environment, the skills
that will be prized will be those of self management, the ability to work indepen-
dently, the ability to be able to think both logically, and creatively—in reality, the
curriculum of education and self, not simply of knowing what but knowing why.
For teacher educators, the dilemma is multilayered. They must, inevitably,
prepare pre-service teachers to teach in schools where knowledge is defined and
owned by industry-facing policy directives. On the other hand, if pre-service
teachers are to be part of a wider professional dialogue, the construction of
knowledge and the framing values and beliefs, even, or perhaps particularly, where
these stand against policy have to be integral to their courses. The debates them-
selves might be intellectually engaging in a University setting, but the pre-service
teachers might then find themselves in a double bind in that schools are often
focused on the ‘what needs to get done’ agenda, where debate of this type is not
seen as central to any school training programme. In effect, a theory versus practice
environment is created which simply reinforces unhelpful stereotypes. Teacher
educators are presented with the task of both inducting pre-service teachers into a
professional understanding of knowledge and simultaneously of fitting in with a
culture at school which may be shaped by the relentless daily demands of
knowledge as given and assessed by policy. Pre-service teachers are not in a
position to question the directives of their schools; teacher educators are not in a
position to neglect the debate about who owns knowledge. The diametric opposi-
tion of knowledge as constructed and knowledge as given leaves teacher educators
in a position that has no resolution.
How Can Education Be Taught?
The final example of teacher educator drivers we want to explore is that of digital
technologies. The relatively recent introduction and use of digital technology in
both teacher educator settings and schools represent a useful microcosm of the ways
in which digital technologies are held in opposition one with another. The con-
servative forces inherent in teaching that serve to inhibit or at least restrain the
introduction of innovation are as powerful in digital technology use as any other
area. The potential of technology is still largely matched only by the lack of creative
uses in education. Teacher educators and pre-service teachers alike find that tech-
nology is most notably used in schools for bureaucratic purposes: record keeping,
registers, template completion, returning data required by University or school
administrators. Where it impacts on pedagogy, it is often with limited effect—using
YouTube to show poets reading their own work, or accessing online ‘research’
How Can Education Be Taught? 21
resources which students simply cut and paste, frequently bypassing any authentic
intellectual engagement with knowledge (Nichol & Watson, 2003). Where tech-
nology is used well, learning is transfigured, not only in pedagogical terms but in
ways which demonstrate how students can enhance, extend and transform their
learning identities. But this is rare—so much so that when it does occur, media
attention is frenzied (for example, Raspberry Pi). Digital technologies are simul-
taneously hailed as one of the greatest democratising forces in education (Hattangdi
& Ghosh, 2008) and yet widely used as a vehicle for centralised control. Teacher
educators are firmly tied to these opposing wild horses, with little sign of any
coordination of purpose from the two camps.
Technology as Control
In one sense, it was inevitable, given the origins of technology, that efficiency
should be a key principle. Enabling existing functions to be completed faster, and
with more accuracy, is an attractive proposition to those whose work is defined by
these boundaries. Large-scale data handling is often part of a wider drive to access
an overview of any given situation to facilitate centralised (‘efficient’) responses.
Most important therefore is that data be collected in a regularised and controlled
manner, so that results are assured in terms of consistency and reliability. In
schools, this type of technology use regularly reflects schools’ need to collect data
for the development of school improvement strategies, or for policy returns, or as a
repository of information for external bodies such as inspection teams (for example,
in the UK, Ofsted). In and of itself, this type of information storing is certainly
efficient and useful for the purpose. However, what also merges is a reification of
such centralised systems so that they become not functionally useful but rather an
end in themselves. Teachers are used as a mechanism for data collection and
efficiency of the system overrules all other considerations. The rise of administra-
tion powers is matched by the diminution of individual significance, and technology
with its seemingly power-neutral data needs is the rationale for this position. In
turn, administrative control has leached into both curricular and pedagogical control
(Tatnell & Pitman, 2003), impacting on teachers’ sense of professionalism and
professional identity (Beijaard, Verloop, & Vermunt, 2000). Managerialism—the
‘profane’ discourse (Durkheim, 1912)—demands information in order to be effi-
cient. Technology makes efficient the means of collating and organising informa-
tion which, in turn, framed within a technical rationalist model becomes
‘knowledge’. Thus, technology is the ideological apparatus which excises the
individual experience from knowledge construction (Alexander, 1990) and posi-
tions control as its major function. Within education, this is antithetical to the notion
of individual responsibility and response, and the centrality of the individual.
Technology becomes not a resource but a moloch.
Technology as Democratisation
If education is concerned with the individual, it also has to be concerned with

democracy. The discourse of education is here not profane but ‘sacred’ (Durkheim,
1912)—that is, relating to knowledge as self-realisation and thus as preparation for
citizenship and society. Technology is invoked not as exciser of individuality but as
the means by which collaboration is brought about, and concomitantly, knowledge
created. Technology facilitates access to readily given global knowledge across
every subject and area, and importantly, to the individuals active in constructing
that knowledge. Learning is relevant and authentic. It is possible to establish how
powerful technology is in democracy simply by noting that denial of Internet access
is one of the first moves made by any totalitarian regime.
Technology is used actively and consciously to promote huge steps in learning and
understanding through global collaboration that would otherwise be impossible to
achieve. Sharples and Spikol (2017), for example, cite the ability of technology to
become ‘a facilitator of conversations and interactions within and across locations …
[with] educational technology … embedded in locations, with ‘smart’ objects forming a
ubiquitous technology-enabled learning environment: for example, buildings that teach
about energy usage’ (p. 89), so that knowledge creation is not simply collaboration of
individuals with existing information, but wider critical engagement with ideas—a
dialogue with the horizon of the other (Lefstein, 2006). For teachers the potential of
knowledge democratisation is challenging. Knowledge content is no longer the pre-
serve of schools. Pedagogy is not just concerned with classroom teaching. Instead, the
skills needed are those of sourcing, analysing and evaluating knowledge presented
without the filter of teachers, policymakers or parents. In a post-truth environment, what
schools must offer are judgment skills.
For teacher educators, technology presents as a double-edged sword. Pre-service
teachers will have to learn to deal with the incessant demands of the data needs of
schools, and must be prepared to know how to collect and provide these in as
efficient way as possible, with minimal impact on their teaching time. But ironi-
cally, the quid pro quo is not at the level of equipping pre-service teachers to use
digital resource more effectively, but a recognition that the preparation for teaching
offered by any initial teacher education course, whether university or school-based,
is instantly a sabre tooth tiger curriculum, looking back on what was needed (note
though that in Chaps. 4 and especially 10 in this volume, we also look at the other
side and use of Big Data: as a tool by which learners could take control of their own
learning, and thus elaborate on the technology driver referenced here).
With technology comes the understanding that we cannot predict what schooling
should be for any future need. Instead, we look to qualities which enable knowledge
engagement—critical thinking, complex problem-solving, creativity, cognitive
flexibility. In effect, teacher educators are presented with the ultimate dilemma that,
however, they are preparing teachers currently will be wrong; but if they do not
prepare pre-service teachers in familiar ways, to teach familiar curriculums in tra-
ditional ways, new teachers will not be able to function in schools.
Conclusion 23
Conclusion
In some ways, as we began the chapter, with contradiction, tensions and paradoxes,
so it must end. Teacher educators are left with competing versions of what they are
told pre-service teachers require and what they believe should be offered to
pre-service teachers if teaching is not to descend into educational dystopia of
compliance and silence.
However, the chapter also begins with the title of drivers of teacher education.
We have explored a number of drivers relating to a variety of bodies’ needs: the
needs of industry; the global and the local; knowledge as policy and knowledge as
values; technology as democracy and technology as control. Teacher educators are
not passive units in an irresistible system. Rather in identifying drivers operated at
policy and industry level, teacher educators are placed powerfully at a nexus which
allows them both to identify and reveal the contradictions present in these drivers
and to position teachers to critically engage with these drivers in order either to
consolidate or act against these drivers, according to their own beliefs. The central
notion here is that teacher educators can exercise choice through understanding the
drivers, and to empower others to have the same option. Drivers are not simply
there to be reacted to—opportunity exists to engage and shape existing drivers, but
importantly the opportunity exists also to create drivers which reflect a wider
understanding of education. Teachers and teacher educators can use new drivers to
reclaim an agenda for schooling which speaks not simply to policy or even industry,
but to the individual, to education for humanity in all its senses.
References
Alexander, J. (1990). Between progress and apocalypse: Social theory and the dream of reason in
the twentieth century. In J. C. Alexander & P. Sztompka (Eds.), Rethinking progress:
Movements, forces, and ideas at the end of the 20th century (pp. 15–38). London: Routledge.
Ashton, D. N., & Green, F. (1996). Education, training and the global economy. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
Australian Department of Education and Training. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.education.
gov.au/pathways-in-technology-p-tech-pilot.
Ball, S. J. (2012). Politics and policy making in education explorations in policy sociology.
London: Routledge.
Beijaard, D., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. D. (2000). Teachers’ perceptions of professional identity:
An exploratory study from a personal knowledge perspective. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 16(7), 749–764.
Bottery, M., & Wright, N. (2000). Teachers and the state: Towards a directed profession. London:
Routledge.
Brown, M., Bibby, T., & Johnson, D. C. (2000). Turning our attention from the what to the how:
The National Numeracy Strategy. British Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 457–471.
Department for Education. (2012). Teachers’ standards. Retrieved from www.bcu.ac.uk/_media/
docs/Teachers-Standards%20-Guidance.pdf.
Design and Technology Association. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.data.org.uk/.
Durkheim, E. (1912). The elementary forms of the religious life. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
Education Reform Act. (1988). London: HMSO.
Drummond, J. (2003). Care of the self in a knowledge economy: Higher education, vocation and
the ethics of Michel Foucault. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 35(1), 57–69.
Groundwater-Smith, S., & Sachs, J. (2002). The activist professional and the reinstatement of trust.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(3), 341–358.
Hartley, R., & Horne, J. (2006). Social and economic benefits of improved adult literacy: Towards
a better understanding. National Centre for Vocational Education Research. Retrieved from
https://www.ncver.edu.au/publications/publications/all-publications/
social-and-economic-benefits-of-improved-adult-literacy-towards-a-better-understanding?
friendly=printable#.
Hattangdi, A., & Ghosh, A. (2008). Enhancing the quality and accessibility of higher education through
the use of Information and Communication Technologies. In International Conference on Emergent
Missions, Resources, and the Geographic Locus in Strategy as a part of the 11th Annual
Convention of the Strategic Management Forum (SMF), India 2008 (Vol. 2011, pp. 1–14).
Henry, I., & Bramham, P. (1993). Leisure policy in Britain (pp. 101–128).
Hord, S., & Tobia, E. F. (2015). Reclaiming our teaching profession: The power of educators
learning in community. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hoyle, E. (1974). Professionality, professionalism and control in teaching. London Educational
Review, 3(2).
Kincheloe, J. L. (2003). Teachers as researchers qualitative inquiry as a path to empowerment.
London: Routledge Falmer.
Lefstein, A. (2006). Dialogue in schools: Towards a pragmatic approach. Working articles in
urban literacies.
Lyotard, J-F. (1986). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (G. Bennington & B.
Massumi, Trans.). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Masters, G. N. (2009). A shared challenge: Improving literacy, numeracy and science learning in
Queensland primary schools. Camberwell, VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Retrieved from https://education.qld.gov.au/mastersreview/pdfs/final-report-masters.pdf.
Nichol, J., & Watson, K. (2003). Rhetoric and reality—the present and future of ICT in education.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(2), 131–136.
Roberts, G. G. (2002). SET for success: The supply of people with science, technology,
engineering and mathematics skills: The report of Sir Gareth Roberts’ review. London: UCL
Institute of Education. Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/4511/.
Sachs, J. (1999). Teacher professional identity: Competing discourses, competing outcomes. Paper
presented at the AARE Conference, Melbourne, November.
Sachs, J. (2014). An activist or a mature teaching profession? Reflections on progress. Melbourne:
Centre for Strategic Education.
Sharples, M., & Spikol, D. (2017). Mobile learning. In E. Duval, M. Sharples, & R. Suterlands
(Eds.), Technology enhanced learning. Berlin: Springer.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London:
Heinemann.
References 25
Tatnall, A., & Pitman, A. (2003). Information technology and control in educational management.
In I. D. Selwood, A. C. Fung, & C. D. O’Mahony (Eds.), Management of education in the
information age (pp. 73–82). Boston, MA: Springer.
Ziman, J. (1980). Teaching and learning about science and society. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Chapter 3
Politics of Education: Tensions
and Paradoxes
Abstract In this chapter, we explore how teacher education has been shaped by its
engagement with policy and government. We look at three levels—the meta-,
meso- and micro-levels of teacher education, and track through those the ways in
which education, teachers and teacher educators have been impacted in terms of
power hierarchies, professionalism and identity. Integral to this is a consideration of
the significance of access to a professional discourse. Finally, the implications of
the politicisation of education for career survival by established and early career
teachers is considered with particular reference to the dilemmas with which teacher
educators are faced, and ways in which they might respond to those.
Keywords Politics Power New public management Professionalism

Identity Discourse
Introduction
In 1969 Carol Hanisch wrote that ‘The Personal is Political’. In 2017, we could
safely add ‘And Education is Political’. The connections and discontinuities
between personal experience and the larger social and political structures are writ
large in the current socio-economic climate, and for education, the paradox is
evident: in schools, we are concerned with the individual; in education, we are
compelled to educate for the global economy. The personal position of both learner
and teacher is shaped by the ongoing avalanche of policy demands. It is a dis-
quieting position for anyone concerned with teaching and learning.
In this chapter, we will be examining three intersections of events which have
led to the domination of the political in education. In the first—the meta-level—we
look at the ways in which the nexus of control has shifted from the individual to
policy; the second—the meso-level—considers the ways in which professionalism
and teacher identity have been impacted by political constructions of education; and
the third—the micro-level—reflects on the new order and the implications that have
for teacher educators.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8246-7_3
28 3 Politics of Education: Tensions and Paradoxes
Meta-level: Control, Power and Politics
At a meta-level, education does not operate in isolation from the rest of society. The
ongoing arguments about whether education should shape or reflect society have
perhaps now been overtaken by an agenda which, in prioritising global economic
success as the sole item, has merged the debates about the future of both education
and society—and indeed business and industry—into one ‘related’ concern.
However, for education, the impact has been not to harmonise but rather to dis-
aggregate—to set education on a path which challenged and largely rendered as
irrelevant its belief in the individual. Education became the handmaid of business,
required to take on the values and beliefs, and indeed the language, of industry.
Pupils became clients, parents were customers, teachers ‘delivered’ lessons and
head teachers became senior managers. Aims and objectives, outcomes and
accountability, and value for money became mantras in schools.
The merging of education and business, however, had implications even beyond
that of adaptations of beliefs and language. What was being introduced was a
system of power and control which would not just impact on but rather serve to
change the whole of education.
Power and Control
Power … as Foucault points out, not only produces knowledge that distorts reality but also
produces a particular version of the “truth”. In other words, “Power is not merely
mystifying or distorting. Its most dangerous impact is its positive relation to truth, the
effects of truth that it produces” (Welch, 1985, p. 63, cited in Freire, 2000, p. xxxv)
Power and truth in education create a complex constellation of ideas. Values and
beliefs about teaching and learning, and about the place and function of education,
and about how those should be realised reside with a host of stakeholders: poli-
cymakers, those who operate the associated mechanisms around education such as
examination boards, and teachers, parents and students themselves. Between and
indeed within these sectors are conflicts, disagreements and tensions. Policy,
agencies and individuals would all lay claim to truth in the positions they espouse
about education. But each of these claims functions with an ideological carapace
overarching both thought and action. This carapace might be seen as the global
political driver. It defines the power context which shapes both thought and action
in human activity, and, for our concerns, education. This power context operates to
define the way in which action is legitimated, creates a (self-referential) discourse
which confirms its reality and its principles are acted out in arenas of human social
interaction. If any claim to truth might be made, it is that education and the global
ideology within which it operates are in a power relationship where education is the
critical mechanism for bringing about a society which conforms to the needs of that
Meta-level: Control, Power and Politics 29
ideology. As such, education is central to any realisation of the ideology of power

and truth.
Claims about global ideologies are manifold. But what is evident in education,
and particularly at policy level, is a repeated discourse that emphasises and pri-
oritises the place of education in achieving global economic success (Schleicher,
2006). Analysis of policymakers’ calls to ‘improve’ education carry a not unfa-
miliar litany of the need to raise standards with, for example, in the West, perceived
low achievement in mathematics and science being a particular stick with which to
beat schools. Far Eastern education carries a similar imperative to introduce cre-
ativity into teaching and learning. Such diverse manifestations of demand in edu-
cation can only make sense if we interrogate the notion of global policy for a
unified need—and that is, as we have seen, economic success. This imperative
drives policy and in turn practice in schools. It is relentless in demanding skills and
behaviours that will enhance this aim, and unyielding in its single-minded drive,
overruling all other considerations.
The realisation of this demand on education has to accord with the ways in
which the ideology of power and control construct and legitimise the very basis of
education—knowledge, and a claim to truth through knowledge. Lyotard (1986)
argues that the ideological metanarrative of knowledge is currently that of science,
and a version of science, it is important to note, that is positivistic, knowable and
measurable. The current emphasis in education on the STEM curriculum, on
quantitative data, on digital technology and on accountability through performa-
tivity is both a marker and product of a global ideology which constructs knowl-
edge as science, with certainty and truth accessible through the quantitative:
Knowledge … [can be] operational only if learning is translated into quantitites of infor-
mation … knowledge [is thus] in the form of an informational commodity indispensable to
productive power. (Lyotard, 1986, pp. 4–5)
Thus, as Usher and Edwards (1994, pp. 158–159) point out, ‘In the legitimation
of modern science, its status as a discourse of truth has been privileged’, and this is
played out in education as in all other spheres of activity. The concomitant
marginalisation of other forms of knowledge, including the narrative, is seen in a
school curriculum which has downgraded the humanities and arts as incidental to
‘real education’. The power position held by science as knowledge (and thus as
truth) is evident across all areas of education, from university research grants pri-
oritising the STEM areas for vital research funds to policy focusing primary edu-
cation on numeracy and literacy (that is, ability to access information). Power
reflects and accords status to the production of knowledge relevant for its own
agenda, and schools are positioned within that to provide a system of education
which will produce future workers who will take their place in securing the agenda
of science as knowledge.
However, as indicated earlier, constructing science as knowledge and as central
to global economic success is not limited to education. It draws into the arena all
human activity which contributes to that imperative. One central field is that of
business and industry, and foreshadowing the experience of education in being
redefined by a sole focus on economic success, the phenomenon of managerialism

emerged, a movement which would take hold of the business world, and in its
shared commitment to the imperative of the global economy, education.
Managerialism and New Public Management
One area of managerialism which carries particular significance for education is that
of New Public Management (NPM) which has as its first principles the twin
demigods of efficiency and effectiveness. NPM was introduced in the UK by the
Thatcher government as a mechanism for bringing about:
financial control, value for money, increasing efficiency … identifying and setting targets
and continuance monitoring of performance, handing over … power to the senior man-
agement … Performance … assessed with audits, benchmarks and performance evaluations
[using] private sector companies to deliver what were formerly public services.
(Management Study Guide, 2017, online)
Shaping education to meet these tenets of business required a reversioning of

schools. In particular, there needed to be a mid-level control mechanism invented.
This became the role of the manager. Ward (2011) traces the invention of the role of
manager thus:
The insertion of management as an integral part of the ordering of human affairs originated
in the mid- to late nineteenth century with the separation of capital ownership from
management and a shift from individual to corporate ownership of companies. This shift led
to the insertion of a third “special form of wage labor” between workers and owners for
whom, as Marx and Engels (1996) described them, “the work of supervision becomes their
established and exclusive function.” This third group would be responsible for the daily
workings of the company and the maximization of profit for the new shareholder owners.
(p. 205)
Whilst originally profit was not an assumed outcome of education, capital in the form of
emerging workers is. Managers took this outcome as their dictum, achievable through
efficiency and effectiveness. Indeed, by a process of lexical solipsism, managers became the
mechanism whereby efficiency and effectiveness were defined:
it was actually managerial rhetoric and practices that were responsible for defining and
delimiting what it meant to be “rational,” “productive,” “efficient” and “modern.” (Ward,
2011, p. 206)
This set of practices and the associated lexicon of NPM is evident in any senior
management (or leadership) meeting in schools and neither will be unfamiliar to
any who have worked in education in the last 20 years—indeed, many would argue
that the principles and language of NPM have come to dominate education (Ball,
2012; Biesta, 2007). More recently, the tenets of NPM can be seen permeating
education through the business model of schools being promoted. Farazmand
(2006), for example, states that NPM frequently looks to decentralise control in
order to give management maximum flexibility in bringing about the desired state
of compliance, and in particular where public services are to be given over to
Meta-level: Control, Power and Politics 31
external companies. It is not difficult to see that the recent introduction of acade-
mies, free schools and the panoply of other educational organisations are precisely a
realisation of such strategies. The imperative of ‘value added’ and efficient man-
agement of budgets is high on the list of desirable attributes of such schools. Thus,
we see a generation of schools whose modus operandi and core beliefs are predi-
cated on NPM.
However, it is not simply the practices of NPM which have impacted—some
might say damaged—education. Practices are usually of their time, so limited in
scope and ultimately reversible. NPM carried a far greater and potentially perma-
nent danger: the ability to change teacher identity through the dislocation of the
individual from their work.
Meso-level: Teacher Identity and Teacher Professionalism
Teacher identity has been a long-standing subject of research interest (Bernstein,

2000) but largely in terms of formation and models of self-imaging. Bernstein, for
example, suggests four potential types of identity which accord to external contexts.
Day et al. (2006) explored critical incidents which act to define a teacher’s sense of
self. However, what NPM brings about is erosion of the self and replaces it with
corporate identity. Individuality, once perceived as the essence of teaching (Sachs,
1999), is constructed as deviant, and instead what is valued is compliance
(Brindley, 2013a). Teachers are thus positioned as in need of direction and control
to achieve efficiency and effectiveness outcomes as defined by managers, or be
labelled as ‘failing’. Such charges of inefficiency or ineffectiveness bring with them
a language and a set of punitive actions, enforced both within schools and by
external control agencies such as inspections regimes (Ofsted in the UK, for
example) who have the power to close schools. Teachers became judged on per-
formance rather than teaching, and learning measured through test and examination
results. Such regimes disallowed individual constructions of teaching or learning
which might contradict the managerial positioning of schooling. NPM, through the
role of manager is thus designed to excise any sense of the individual from the
context of teaching. The introduction of the role of manager was in part to enable
the excision of any sense of ownership by individuals, and to replace it with the
corporate self in order, it is claimed, to bring about predictable and consistent
outcomes. In business, we see the ‘danger’ of individuality controlled through
NPM:
Autonomy was recast as irresponsibility … autonomy was the harbinger of the “unman-
aged” and hence the unproductive, undisciplined and unknown. “Unmanaged” people and
areas constituted an indeterminable risk to the organization and even at some level the
rationality of neoliberalism and NPM themselves. (Ward, 2011, pp. 210–211)
Similarly in education, teacher identity is defined by statements designed to

bring about conformity and excise autonomy, with devices such as Teachers’
Standards (2011) as mechanisms for both defining and measuring conformity, and
alignment to these being rewarded by promotion and thus continuation of the
managerialist system. Identity is prescribed, non-negotiable and corporate.
Teacher Professionalism
Professionalism in education is not a secure concept—indeed many would argue

that teaching is not a profession precisely because of a perceived lack of autonomy
(see, for example, Hayes & Hegarty, 2007). Using this criterion, it might be argued
that many profit-based organisations could be said to lay a more secure claim to
professionalism—lawyers, for example. It is therefore interesting to note how
professionalism in business is constructed under NPM and the implications this
might have for education. Certainly, accountability is a key driver in business:
The accountability systems introduced by NPM operated by reworking the profession’s
internal practices of self- and peer-review into the newly devised external accountability
systems. In these instances rather than self- and peer-review being used as a gate-keeping
device into or through the profession, it was used to rank and reward individuals,
departments or agencies. (Ward, 2011, p. 210)
In education, accountability also holds sway. As Ball (2012) notes:

The notion of being an educational ‘professional’ is … redefined with notions of ‘auton-
omy’ and the ‘right to be critical’ replaced by ‘disinterestedness’ and ‘accountability’.
(p. 162)
Accountability is significant as it is the mechanism which allows centralised control

to be realised. However, it is also unwieldy to operate as an external system. Rather,
Foucault (1979) claims, what is needed is that the individual is made to take respon-
sibility for monitoring their own actions—in Foucault’s terms, ‘self-disciplining’. In
business, Ward (2011) describes it thus:
In these systems, professionals monitored, reported on and disciplined themselves. Through
their evaluation reports, it was they who determined how much money and new positions
would be allotted to particular units. Managers simply carried out and enacted the already
embedded funding and performance formulas. Under these anonymous auditing systems,
the peer review processes remained unchanged, although it was often elaborated and
intensified, however, its implication and control was dramatically altered. (p. 210)
In an almost parallel description, Ball (2012) writes of education:

Teachers are trapped into taking responsibility for their own ‘disciplining’ through schemes
of self-appraisal, school improvement and institutional development. Indeed, teachers are
urged to believe that their commitment to such processes will make them more professional.
(p. 162, italics added)
Meso-level: Teacher Identity and Teacher Professionalism 33
NPM thus redefines professionalism as compliance which not only operates

through external systems but through self-monitoring by the individual.
Accountability ensures that not only compliance against externally defined pro-
fessional standards is achieved but also complicity in enforcing these. Individuals
are measured against sets of centralised standards which are rigid and insensitive to
local needs. Thus, a central tenet of professionalism—trust—is replaced by
accountability. The description that follows is applicable to both business and
education:
As a result of these changes trust in the profession’s ability “to do the right thing” was
replaced by assessment at a distance and autonomy was replaced by management from
above or even from within. Trust was no longer to be trusted as the central mechanism that
promoted adherence to the organization. (Ward, 2011, p. 210)
Education has thus followed business in shaping its practice to the tenets of
NPM. However, the foci on efficiency and effectiveness have only effected a quasi-
business model in that the product of these schools is not profit per se but the
production of workers who—as an expected outcome—will be units of profit
generation. Schools therefore have the trappings of business without either the
rewards (in a business sense, high salaries) or the necessary belief in profit as the
sole desired end point. Additionally, importing managerialism from business
guarantees nothing. As Ward (2011) points out, management is a not a necessary
condition to either effective or efficient working:
In the 1950s Peter Drucker (1954, p. 1) declared that management would “remain a basic
and dominant institution perhaps as long as Western Civilization itself survives.” By the
time of his remarks managers had clearly become the “new heroes of the economy” …
However, such a naturalistic and teleological description ignores the intricate antecedents
that created such a natural ordering of managerial authority. It leads us to forget that in most
times people managed to manage their affairs without management … Culturally, this did
not mean that people were necessarily more disorganized or unproductive when compared
to modernites but that they used less formal and more phenomenal and socially embedded
ways of coordinating their activities. (Ward, 2011, p. 205)
Nevertheless, NPM currently is in the ascendant in schooling, and its commit-

ment to centralised control still dominates the discourse of education. In the next
section, we examine how this impacts on teacher education.
Micro-level: Teachers and Teacher Education
The micro-level of education speaks to the immediacy of the situation where

teachers and teacher educators are required to position themselves within the
political construction of education. In order to do this, they have to understand the
landscape of global economic success, its concomitant commitment to the repre-
sentation and privileging of the model of science as knowledge, and the resultant
demands of accountability reinforced through managerialism. This in itself is no
small order. But at a further level, if professionalism and indeed a sense of ethical
integrity is to be retained, teachers and teacher educators have to both negotiate and
retain the ability to critique such systems. Demanding, as it does, both commitment
to developing intellectual freedom and criticality in teachers, and simultaneously
preparing teachers to not only cope with, but be successful in, a system which finds
both of these qualities anathema, the contradictions which exist for teachers and
teacher educators are profound in both in scope and mode.
If we take each of those elements which have been identified thus far in the
chapter, we can use these as lens to demonstrate how such tensions are played out at
micro-level. In this way, it will be possible to see where crises occur, and whether
resolution is possible, or simply identification and articulation of the issues.
Engagement with Power
Teacher educators occupy a precarious position. Their role in preparing new

teachers to enter the schooling system and support established teachers in updating
skills and knowledge carries a moral and professional obligation to engage and
promote the curriculum, pedagogical and behaviours prescribed by policy. This
may take the form of a legal demand (in the UK, for example, the national cur-
riculum), a policy requirement (as in the numeracy and literacy strategies), pro-
fessional obligations (preparation of data for centralised school records; meeting the
Teachers’ Standards). To do this successfully, teacher educators need to engage
fully with the policy demands, understand their application in a school context and
seek successful ways of implementing these strategies in schools as they stand.
Their ability to do this in ways that support teachers in achieving success in their
own careers is the cornerstone of their professional reputation, and indeed of their
own career success. Simultaneously, however, and particularly (although not
exclusively) where the teacher educator is employed as an academic in a University
with a contracted demand to publish, teacher educators are required to adopt a
research active, critically engaged perspective on the ideological contexts of edu-
cation and the policy demands concomitant with that context. Without such a stance
neither valuable research nor publications will emerge and the academic career of
any given teacher educator will suffer.
The competing demands are clear: teacher educators are required to work with
policy in ways which promote its claims and demands, and at the same time,
critically evaluate claims and impacts of that policy, but not to allow one set of
knowledge to bleed into another set. Additionally, the ethical position of actively
researching and writing in ways which may be highly critical of policy but not
making such knowledge a major part of any work with teachers brings a further
layer of complexity: not to share this is in effect dishonest; to share it in ways which
are likely to subvert the status quo in schools, especially with early career teachers
who are formulating their own professional identity and thus vulnerable in any
system, disruptive. Teacher educators are being asked to adopt an identity which
Micro-level: Teachers and Teacher Education 35
Bernstein (2000) terms a ‘schizoid position’ (p. 71). They are required to be both
compliant and critical but with a Chinese wall between the two. The effect on an
individual is invidious. But it is also telling. If policy represses research and aca-
demic criticality, in teacher educators, what is created is a teaching workforce
which is compliant and without autonomy—in other words, de-professionalised.
Equally concerning is the concomitant diminution of a critical discourse—in other
words, teachers will be left with a discourse of compliance but not of questioning.
Teachers too are trapped within the policy–power relationship. Their working
lives become dominated by time hungry policy and data demands; the response of
many teachers is to focus on ‘what is needed to survive’ (Brindley, 2013b).
Relevance becomes the keyword, and anything which is introduced in addition, no
matter how significant or interesting, is largely sidelined in the wake of the daily
demands they face. Foucault would see this as no accident:
Power-knowledge formations … operate through networks of discursive and material
practices that aim to produce ‘docile bodies’ and ‘obedient souls’. (Foucault, 1979, cited in
Usher & Edwards, 1994, p. 92)
The material practices of both teachers and teacher educators are defined and
bounded by policy. In positioning teacher educators and teachers thus, as uncritical
translators of policy demands, they become, however unwillingly, petite bour-
geoisie—transmitters of policy. Perfectly sealed in the vacuum of ideology, they
can only look through the glass darkly.
The link between managerialism and power is evident through the requirement
of both for ‘docile bodies’ and the discourse of power, though not criticality, that
emerges in NPM. The next section considers NPM through its discourse of control.
Managerialism and NPM
If managerialism is considered a corollary to power, then it is perhaps not surprising

that teachers and teacher educators will be well aware of this manifestation of
power in their own working lives. Many of the principles of power outlined above
apply to both teachers and teacher educators and managerialism, if only by virtue of
the notion of accountability, evident through the application of control through
measurement. Teachers and teacher educators will be expected to conform to
standards which are imposed from external agencies but enforced through
‘self-disciplining’, monitored by managers whose responsibility to conformity
allows them to both create and impose a version of reality which accords with
policy.
However, the most pernicious effects of managerialism in the form of NPM are
perhaps those relating to discourse. We have already indicated the impact of types
of discourse above, but the centrality of the notion for NPM warrants a closer
investigation. Discourse is not simply a means of communication. It is also a means
of creating a reality:
Discourse [is] a system of possibility which makes a field of knowledge possible. By doing
this, discourses ‘systematically form the object of which they speak … [they] are not about
objects; they constitute them. (Foucault, 1974, p. 49, cited in Usher & Edwards, 1994,
p. 90)
Durkheim, and later Bernstein, refer specifically to two types of discourse which
have particular relevance for education: sacred and profane (Durkheim, 1912). The
former, the sacred, refers to the teacher discourse which might be understood not
only to constitute the professional, but is the hallmark of the autonomous
professional:
the sacred … refers to knowledge for ‘intrinsic’ non-instrumental purposes, such knowl-
edge being accorded a higher legitimacy and authority than that tied to … instrumental
practices … [it is also however] the domain where it is possible to glimpse the fact that all
orderings of knowledge are in some measure provisional, where the secret of uncertainty is
disclosed. (Beck, 1999, p. 225, italics in original)
In contrast, the profane constitutes a discourse which speaks to and for the
principles of NPM. It is the language of the marketplace and of education as
commodity:
There is a new concept of knowledge and of its relation to those who create and use it …
Knowledge should flow like money to wherever it can create advantage and profit. Indeed,
knowledge is not like money, it is money. Knowledge is divorced from persons, their
commitments, their personal dedications. Once knowledge is separated from inwardness …
then people may be moved about, substituted for each other and excluded from the market.
(Bernstein, 2000, p. 87)
This changing concept of knowledge will be discussed in a later chapter but for
this chapter, what concerns us is the impact of these two discourses on teacher
educators. As NPM takes hold of education, the dominant discourse moves from
sacred (the autonomous professional) to that of the profane (the marketplace). The
concomitant positioning of the teacher as a unit of the workplace not only
de-professionalises the teacher but places the teacher in an inverse power rela-
tionship with the manager, that is, the manager controls and defines the work of the
teacher with the threat that, if non-compliance is evident, that teacher can be
replaced without any apparent disturbance to the school system. The discourse of
the profane creates the reality of knowledge as commodity and teacher as operative.
For teacher educators, the dilemma operates at two levels: at first level, it brings
with it an imperative that teachers are able to use the discourse of the profane.
Without access to this discourse, teachers are rendered unable to engage with the
workplace in ways which demonstrate competence in that given situation. For
teacher educators, this means not only being familiar with the discourse of the
profane but an ability to model its use in any workplace circumstance, whilst
knowing that the use of such a discourse devalues and de-professionalises teaching
and teachers. Second, teacher educators are in the business of shaping the next
generation of teachers as well as developing established teachers. They are aware
therefore that not only are they positioning teachers to be able to deal with and be
successful in a system of NPM managerialism, they are creating, through the use of
Micro-level: Teachers and Teacher Education 37
the profane discourse, the future of teaching in an image which excises the pro-
fessional—and the concomitant destruction of the sacred discourse. There is a
further level yet. If teacher educators attempt to subvert the system of NPM, which
is also present in their own teaching contexts, they themselves are likely to be
marginalised and replaced. Yet if they do not at least make evident the workings of
NPM to the teachers they work with, they are left with a sense that their academic
and critical knowledge is being hidden, and thus devalued. The moral and ethical
tensions present are irresolvable for the individual, and with the disappearance of
the discourse of the sacred, a new reality emerges—that of NPM and managerialism
as power and truth: ‘A discourse author-ises certain people to speak and corre-
spondingly silences others … a discourse is therefore exclusionary’ (Usher &
Edwards, 1994, p. 90).
Through the excision of the sacred discourse, what is under attack is the very
integrity of teachers and teaching, and the impact on both professionalism and
identity is profound.
Teacher Identity and Teacher Professionalism
If the power relationship of NPM operates through a discourse which serves to

create a reality, what is also at stake through that new reality is the meso-level
construction of teacher professionalism and identity.
Professionalism
As we have seen, there are significant tensions associated with NPM’s construction
of professionalism, which is largely defined as compliance, and the autonomous
positioning of the professional identified through the discourse of the sacred. The
contrast is illustrated when looking at illustrations of the discourse of two sets of
definitions of professionalism. For example, Tawney (1921) constructed the pro-
fessional as ‘commitment to duty, as opposed to pecuniary gain’; the DfES (2004)
constructed the professional as belonging to a ‘workforce’ which needed to be told
to ‘put the consumer first, to develop a passion for improving public services’.
These two positions sum up the dilemma facing teacher educators. The notion of
duty informs many of the values that teacher educators traditionally seek to impart
to trainee teachers especially. Emphasis is laid on commitment to others—to col-
leagues, to parents but most particularly to students. Translated into action, it means
there is an expectation on teachers to do what is necessary to secure student success
—whether that is unpaid preparation, additional teaching, or giving up personal
time for professional purposes. The sense of professional duty is built into teaching
and the satisfaction of the job is in its realisation of achievement in others. Without
this, teaching is a job, relatively poorly paid and with little status; with
professionalism, however, the ‘pecuniary gain’ becomes a secondary consideration

in the lives of teachers. However, NPM erodes any sense of personal commitment
through traditional professionalism and replaces it (in the UK Teachers’ Standards,
2012) with professionalism as compliance:
Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks
which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. (Part 2)
In this reconstruction of teaching, however, there is no move to recommend a

new level of salary—‘pecuniary gain’—but rather recourse to accountability and
potentially swingeing outcomes for those who do not meet the standards. Teacher
educators are therefore required to prepare trainee teachers to know and comply
with the standards, but to do so not with a sense of traditional professionalism and
commitment, but rather one of being accountable. From the start of their careers,
therefore, trainee teachers are to internalise the disciplining framing of self:
Discipline, in both a power and a knowledge sense, is manifest in the workings of insti-
tutions of modern social formations. They are co-implicated with one another so that, as
knowledge changes, so do practices aimed at framing behaviour. (Usher & Edwards, 1994,
p. 93)
For policy, teacher education has therefore to be shaped by as response to the

needs of, in our context, business and education. Power in education is thus
accorded to external agencies, and teacher educators relegated to the sidelines,
along with versions of professionalism that prioritise autonomy, albeit it autonomy
exercised for the good of others. Again, teacher educators are placed in a dilemma
which means they have to prepare teachers to engage with—and promote—policy
demands if they are to be successful in their careers—even when such preparation
runs in opposition to teacher educators’ own sets of beliefs and values.
Awareness of self and teacher identity is a corollary of professionalism. If
expected behaviours are defined by and regulated through policy, the sense of self
—identity—in teachers is similarly implicated in these ‘new’ constructions. In
parallel, teacher educators and established teachers, who may already have teacher
identities firmly rooted in traditional professionalism, are also required to recon-
struct their identity as purveyors of the values, beliefs and practices of policy and
business, even where this contradicts previously held versions of self. As Beijaard,
Meijer, and Verloop (2004) observed:
Professional identity is not a stable entity; it cannot be interpreted as fixed or unitary … It is
a complex and dynamic equilibrium where professional self-image is balanced with a
variety of roles teachers feel that they have to play. (p. 113)
The ‘variety of roles’ are those defined now through policy, clothed in the
discourse of the profane and reinforced through accountability and self-disciplining.
As policy demands shift so do versions of self; teachers who are able to be resistant
to these constructs are likely to be those who are established and whose identity
formation has been aligned with a different form of professionalism, but even these
teachers will have to adopt a new identity to fit in with—or be marginalised by—
policy. As this generation moves through the schooling system, their numbers will
Teacher Identity and Teacher Professionalism 39
become overwhelmed by new teachers with prescribed teacher identities, and

whose discourse is not that of the sacred, but the profane. Teacher educators, even if
they are able through research and critical engagement to retain a sense of identity
outside of that required by policy, will have no school-based context to exercise that
sense of self, and no context for their trainee teachers to explore anything beyond
the prescribed teacher identities.
So Where to Now for Teacher Educators?
If, as it seems, the meta- and meso-levels of analysis suggest that the quandary
teacher educators are placed in is inescapable, bounded by managerialism as the
exercise of power and truth and reality created through a discourse which is pro-
fane, there is a pessimism which infects education widely. However, there are
reasons to hope and these are rooted in the very conditions that we have been
exploring in this chapter. First, power and truth can be understood not simply as
repressive but rather as mechanisms which are open to claim by others:
Power must be analysed as … something which only functions in the form of a chain. It is
never localised here or these, never in anybody’s hands … [individuals] are always in the
position of simultaneously undergoing and exercising this power … they are the vehicles of
power, not its point of application. (Foucault, 1980, p. 98)
Teacher educators are therefore in a stronger position than at first appears. Aware
of the location of power in relation to education, they have a key role in maintaining
the balance of power so that it does not reside in one set of individuals. Although
certainly subject to policy, their research and critical engagement with policy are
given profile through publication, and thus, a chain of power is created through
those who read, engage and discuss the research. Actions changed as a result of this
engagement constitute a new set of behaviours which can subtly or more obviously
alter the policy trajectory. An example could be that of the UK policy for trainee
teachers which produced a subject knowledge national curriculum. So unwieldy
was it, and so ill-considered in demand that teacher educators could not fulfil its
demands, even if they so desired. The subsequent publications outlining the
problems were so vociferous that the subject curriculums were quietly dropped.
Power here clearly ran against a repressive act in the form of knowledge control.
Similarly, the discourse of the sacred is not lost; teacher educators retain both the
values and beliefs and the arena through research and publication to make explicit
the situation, and most importantly, to continue to demonstrate the significance of
the sacred discourse for the continuation of this at school level. This may be
through trainee teachers’ placements in schools, or through working with teachers
who are undertaking research themselves, either formalised through Masters or
doctoral work, or school-based practitioner research. Whilst the discourse of the
profane will continue whilst policy and professionalism through compliance con-
tinue to exist, nevertheless, teacher educators can model ways in which this can be
negotiated whilst retaining a sense of professionalism and self which is based in

traditional professionalism.
Perhaps ironically, one of the most optimistic areas is that of NPM. In its
emphasis on education adopting the models of business, it may have sowed its own
seeds of destruction. As we have seen, business is moving away from NPM as
recognition of its inadequacy in responding to current industry needs with, for
example, creativity and independent thinking. If we follow NPM’s own credence,
education should also therefore be actively moving away from this outmoded model
and seeking instead to emulate practices in industry which are less concerned with
the corporate and more with the potential of the individual, a position which
accords with that of education.
Teacher educators are uniquely placed in having access to both the historical
narrative which allows contextualisation and sense-making of the present situation,
and a necessary in-depth familiarity with the ways in which policy has operated
(including in terms of discourse). Teacher educators are thus able to identify and
critique the system, whilst retaining an intellectual standpoint which allows them to
articulate and reimagine those systems. Facing the future is a matter of projection of
possibilities. The role of teacher educators is to ensure those possibilities are more
than policy directives based on global economic needs but are visions of a fair and
just society. Through engagement with trainee and established teachers, teacher
educators can begin to create the conditions for criticality, and the reclaiming of the
professional voice:
… discourse can be both an instrument and an effect of power, but also a hindrance, a
stumbling block, a point of resistance and a starting point for an opposing strategy.
(Foucault, 1980, p. 101)
So this chapter ends as it began—the personal is the political—and so is edu-

cation, but now with the recognition that teacher educators must embody and enact
both if schooling is to be more than an outpost of the global economy.
References
Ball, S. J. (2012). Politics and policy making in education explorations in policy sociology.
London: Routledge.
Beck, J. (1999). Makeover or takeover? The strange death of educational autonomy in neo-liberal
England. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 223–238.
Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’
professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 107–128.
Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity theory: Research, critique.
Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield.
Biesta, G. (2007). Why ‘What Works’ won’t work: Evidence-based practice and the democratic
deficit. Educational Research Educational Theory, 57(1), 1–22.
Brindley, S. (2013a). Teacher education futures: Compliance, critique, or compromise? A UK
References 41
Brindley, S. (2013b). The policisation and politicisation of teacher knowledge. Interchange: A

Quarterly Review of Education (two-volume issue) Interchange May 2013, 43(3,) pp 187–228.
Day, C., Stobart, G., Sammons, P., Kington, A., Gu, Q., Smees, R., & Mujtaba, T. (2006).
Variations in teachers’ work, lives and effectiveness (VITAE). Research Brief DfES No:
RB743. Retrieved from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/https://
www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/RB743.pdf.
Department for Education (2012). Teachers’ standards. Retrieved from www.bcu.ac.uk/_media/
docs/Teachers-Standards%20-Guidance.pdf.
Department for Education and Skills [DFES]. (2004). Five year strategy for children and learners:
Putting people at the heart of public services. London: HMSO.
Drucker, P. F. (1954). The practice of management: A study of the most important function in
America society. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Durkheim, E. (1912, English translation by Joseph Swain: 1915). The Elementary Forms of the
Religious Life. The Free Press, 1965.
Farazmand, A. (2006). Global administrative reforms and transformatio of governance and public
administration. In A. Farazmand & J. Pinkowski, J. (Eds.) Handbook of globalization,
Governance and public administration (pp. 351–374). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Foucault, M. (1974) The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock.
Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. London: Penguin.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977.
Brighton: Harvester Press.
Hayes, A., & Hegarty, P. (2007). Why teaching is not a profession—and how it might become
one: A brief report of the findings of the APPLE project and some thoughts on the
professionalisation of teaching. International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years
Education, 30(1), 2002, (pp. 30–35) Taylor and Francis online.
Hanisch, C. (1969). The personal is political: The Women’s Liberation Movement classic with a
new explanatory introduction. Retrieved from http://www.carolhanisch.org/CHwritings/PIP.
html.
Lyotard, J. F. (1986). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Translation from the
French by G. Bennington & B. Massumi. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1996). Volume 35 of Karl Marx, Frederick Engels: Collected works.
Michigan: Lawrence and Wishart.
MSG Experts (2017). Management study guide. Retrieved from http://www.
managementstudyguide.com/new-public-management.htm.
Sachs, J. (1999, November). Teacher professional identity: Competing discourses, competing
outcomes. Paper presented at the AARE Conference, Melbourne.
Schleicher, A. (2006). The economics of knowledge: Why education is key for Europe’s success.
Lisbon: OECD. Retrieved from http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/71580.
Tawney, R. H. (1921). republished 1961). London: Collins: The acquisitive society.
Usher, R., & Edwards, R. (1994). Postmodernism and education. Oxford: Routledge.
Ward, S. C. (2011). The machinations of managerialism: New public management and the
diminishing power of professionals. Journal of Cultural Economy, 4(2), 205–215.
Welch, S. (1985) Communities of Resistance and Solidarity: A Feminist Theology of Liberation.
New York: Orbis Press.
Chapter 4
Current Trends in Technology-Enhanced
Learning
Abstract This chapter explores a range of technologies, both current and emerg-
ing, that are likely to impact significantly on schools, and therefore teacher edu-
cation, in the near and medium terms. These are described as ‘disruptive’
technologies since they challenge the underpinning infrastructure and principles
upon which education is currently predicated. The chapter identifies three specific
disruptive technologies that include ubiquitous and pervasive computing: Big Data
and Learning Analytics, and Augmented, Virtual and Mixed Realities. Each of
these technology drivers is examined in depth along with a variety of possible
implications for schooling and for teacher education. Taken together the chapter
demonstrates the significance and importance of technology as a driver of teacher
education futures, arguing the need for teacher educators to reconsider many of
their existing mindsets and practices in order to meet the challenges that technology
presents but also to grasp some of the opportunities to reframe traditional education
at this critical point in time.

Keywords Technology Drivers Ubiquitous Pervasive computing

Big data Learning Analytics Augmented Reality Virtual Reality
Mixed Realities
Introduction
One key driver of change in teacher education is likely to be the ongoing emer-
gence, development and uptake of new educational technologies. These technolo-
gies are already having a significant effect on schooling around the world and
therefore this cannot fail to impact on the way that teacher education is structured,
delivered and developed. This chapter explores various educational technologies
that are identified as having the potential to make a significant impact on education
in the mid- to long-term future, focusing particularly on those that promise to have
the greatest impact on how teaching and learning is conceptualised and instantiated
in practice. It considers the impact of educational technologies on the way teacher

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8246-7_4
44 4 Current Trends in Technology-Enhanced Learning
education is currently conducted and suggests ways that these technologies might
initiate and drive change in teacher education, a topic that is taken up in a later
chapter.
Currently, teacher educators are being exhorted to adopt and use educational
technologies in ways that will enhance their teaching and make teacher education
programmes more relevant to student teachers (Royle, Stager, & Traxler, 2014).
Royle et al. suggest that teacher education programmes run the risk of being
irrelevant to student teachers if they do not embrace the emerging technologies that
are increasingly pervasive and ubiquitous in these students’ personal lives.
Additionally, it is important to recognise the affordances that educational tech-
nologies offer as portals to information, expertise and collaboration, often beyond
the four walls of the classroom. However, taken collectively teacher education
appears to be slow in changing its mindset towards the wider adoption of tech-
nology and this is reflected in the current curricula and pedagogical approaches of
many institutions. Partly, such programmes are constrained by the curricula that
operate in schools and the perceived need to prepare teachers for such curricula.
Partly, change is constrained by the conservative nature of teacher educators who
were themselves educated in a pre-digital era and who often do not see the need to
change what is currently effective teaching without technologies so that their
teaching now embraces the use of new technologies.
There are a number of areas in which digital advances are currently impacting
teaching and learning but one development that can be considered to underpin all of
them is the near-ubiquitous access to digital networks accessed through the Internet.
This now forms the backbone for all of the social media activity, crowdsourcing
and digital conversations that make up the fabric of twenty-first century social life,
but it also offers a once in a lifetime opportunity to reconfigure the basic archi-
tecture of our existing educational systems. Such change could overcome many of
the barriers and constraints that have maintained our schools in an almost perpetual
time warp since the late industrial revolution, in particular, the inability of schools
to move learning beyond the formal boundaries of the school, or the exclusive
importance attached to educators as the sole source of expertise and knowledge.
The implications of near-ubiquitous network connectivity, even beyond the built
environment, are numerous but the topic of a teacher’s subject knowledge is an
informative one that serves to illustrate how pervasive networked connectivity has
become. The digitization of information and the expansion of digital networks (both
fixed and virtual) have combined to produce an unimaginable volume of infor-
mation that can be accessed from almost any personal device or computer almost
instantaneously. Knowledge, or to be more precise, access to knowledge, is no
longer a scarce commodity and the latest generation of ‘intelligent’ search engines
have simplified the process of identifying and accessing information, significantly
reducing the importance attached to memory and the need for individuals to retain a
vast subject knowledge base (Burden, 2010). These characteristics suggest that
there is no longer the imperative for teachers to retain a comprehensive body of
subject knowledge which they are expected to be able to access and regurgitate with
Introduction 45
immediacy and accuracy. The passive 3R’s (‘writing, reading and arithmetic’) are
being replaced by the more dynamic 3C’s of collaboration, creativity and com-
munication (Burden, 2010). Added to these is the important additional C, ‘critical
thinking’. These 4Cs challenge the traditional epistemological basis for teaching in
schools and therefore for teacher preparation and education. Whilst these 4 Cs have
been discussed with reference to twenty-first-century learning (see for example, P21
Framework for 21st Century Learning, 2007), separate to the emergence of new
technologies, recent digital developments highlight their importance and the need to
rethink teacher education. The traditional role of the expert—teachers and lecturers
—is also thrown into confusion and uncertainty as new opportunities arise to learn
something, such as the idea of crowdsourcing whereby individuals use the power of
the network to share knowledge about a particular topic of interest. Citizen science
projects epitomise this trend as members of the public use their mobile devices and
simple apps like iSpot (see Sharples et al., 2016) to collect and share data on
different topics like birdwatching or trees at a speed and scale that would be
impossible to match using analogue tools. Is this model of public knowledge cre-
ation one that could be transferred into schools, or more disruptively, is this a model
that challenges the role of schools and teachers as knowledge-givers? In many of
the citizen science projects that have adopted these approaches, the relationship
between learners and experts has been flipped with members of the public initiating
an investigation into a topic of personal interest, with the expert adopting a more
passive role, advising and facilitating, if required. Does this suggest teaching and
the role of schools is set to follow a similar role reversal with students using their
mobile interfaces and apps to initiative their own customised learning investiga-
tions, supported by their learning advisors (teachers) when necessary. The n-Quire
app, another citizen science project, suggests this model is at least feasible at the
present time, and there is no inherent reason that these projects should be limited to
science or even STEM disciplines. Therefore, to what extent does teacher education
demonstrate good practice in this respect and how far are we currently supporting or
preparing the next generation of teachers to become global teachers, working with
others beyond their own institutions and beyond formal education, per se?
Additionally, it needs to be noted how pervasive and ubiquitous technologies
such as mobile devices which include laptops, smartphones, tablet computers and a
plethora of other handheld and wearable devices are becoming more accessible and
are used extensively outside of school learning. Their attractiveness to student
teachers and school teachers indicates that they could well serve an important role
in teacher education. Indeed, Royle, Stager, and Traxler (2014) argue that teacher
education is in danger of becoming somewhat irrelevant if it does not exploit and
capitalise on the interest shown by student teachers in communicating, sharing and
collaborating social media.
With these developments in mind, this chapter articulates the current context,
developments in technology-enhanced learning that currently are driving theory and
practice and analyses the drivers created by emerging technologies.
Current Technology Trends
Many technologies and devices have the potential to challenge and change the
educational landscape of schools but it is not feasible to review all of them in the
space available here, and therefore this chapter focuses on those that might be
described as ‘disruptive’ technologies. First used in the context of marketing to
describe commercial innovations that create a new market and demand such as the
advent of mass-produced motor cars by Ford (Bower & Christenssen, 1996), the
term ‘disruptive technologies’ has since been used to capture the effect that personal
or non-corporate technologies can have on educational institutions (Conole, De
Laat, Dillon, & Darby, 2008; Hedberg, 2011; McCluskey & Winter, 2012). In his
critique of why many apparently well-managed and highly focused companies fail,
Christensen highlighted the apparently counter-intuitive focus these organisations
have on the need to stay close to the needs of their existing customers. In doing so,
they are sometimes undermined by more fleet-footed start-up businesses that are not
beholden to existing customer patterns or trends and can therefore embrace an
entirely new product line or direction. This kind of disruptive innovation has par-
allels in the education world where well-established institutions (e.g. schools and
institutions of teacher education) that appear to be doing well by meeting the needs
of their traditional ‘customer base’ may find themselves superseded or even surplus
to demands by the emergence of new technologies which support new and more
entrepreneurial forms of learning. The advent of the personal mobile device is a
good example and is illustrated in some detail below. This section therefore focuses
on a select number of technology innovations that might be considered disruptive in
the sense they challenge existing mindsets and behaviours associated with learning
and teaching in traditional educational contexts.
Three technology trends are explored in this section and collectively they all
raise serious questions that teacher education needs to address if it is to remain a
credible leader of educational innovation and change, rather than simply a follower.
These three trends are
A. The ubiquity of pervasive computing,
B. Big Data and Learning Analytics (LA), and
C. Augmented, Virtual and Mixed Realities.
A. The ubiquity of pervasive computing
In less than a generation, teaching and learning with computers in schools has
evolved through three distinct paradigms of usage, starting with fixed and
immovable PCs, through into personal mobile devices and more recently, pervasive
computing. However, until quite recently, most technologies used in schools for
educational purposes were ‘tethered’ in static spaces and institutional in nature,
purchased and owned by the school, not by students (Traxler, 2007, 2009; Maher,
Schuck, & Perry, 2017). This was largely the result of historic factors, brought
Current Technology Trends 47
about by the need to provide both a reliable source of power and fixed wired access
to the Internet, both of which involved the use of cables attached to walls, hence the
proliferation of dedicated computer rooms or labs. Although referred to as the
‘personal’ computer, the first generation of computers used for educational pur-
poses in schools was anything but ‘personal’, since due to their high price tag these
devices were invariably purchased, and therefore owned, by the institution rather
than the individual. Hence, until the advent of affordable and portable laptop
computer, the use of technology in school settings was episodic rather than regular
and was dominated by those subject disciplines, such as computing and IT, in
which access to a computer was deemed essential for the teaching of the subject.
Only recently, with the shift towards portable, networked technologies, such as
the laptop and more recently, the smartphone and the tablet computer, have schools
started to consider alternative paradigms for how to organise and utilise these
technologies as tools for learning across all subject disciplines, not just those tra-
ditionally associated with technology. Significantly, this shift has been driven by
the simultaneous fall in price and rise in the computational power of mobile
technologies, meaning that students often own at least one device, and often sev-
eral, that are both more powerful and more recent than those available to them in
school (Pew Research Center, 2017).
Despite the near ubiquity and high personal ownership of mobile technologies
amongst young people (Poushter, 2016), schools have been reticent about allowing
students to bring these devices into their institutions or to sanction their use for
learning purposes. Nonetheless, and despite this ambivalence, the use of mobile and
ubiquitous technologies, such as the tablet computer in schools, is proliferating,
evidenced by the growing number of schools that have converted their computer
suite and ICT labs into flexible open spaces, taking advantage of the affordances of
mobile devices. Hence, the use of educational technology in school is evolving
rapidly and with the flexibility afforded by mobile devices, teachers are beginning
to explore new patterns of teaching and learning that are not restricted by traditional
boundaries such as space and time (cf. Schuck, Kearney, & Burden, 2017). Space
precludes a more detailed description or analysis of the numerous initiatives
involving schools in the exploration of mobile learning that have seen teachers and
schools identify learning gains in many diverse areas including greater student
engagement, motivation and agency (Kearney, Schuck, Burden, & Aubusson,
2012; Pachler, Bachmair, & Cook, 2009), more collaboration, creation and sharing
(Sharples, Arnedillo-Sánchez, Milrad, & Vavoula, 2009), alongside evidence for
greater personalisation and customisation of learning (Kearney & Maher, 2013), all
situated in a variety of different contexts that include not only the formal classroom
but non-formal or Third Spaces such as museums, field trips, coffee shops, public
transport and other nexus where learners might be situated (Schuck et al., 2017).
Significant though these innovations are, their effect is set to be dwarfed by the
emerging saturation of sensors and microchips in the world, sometimes described as
The Internet of Things, or the era of ‘pervasive computing’ (McCullough, 2005,
p. 5). As far back as 2005 less than 25% of the microchips produced by Intel were
actually used in computer motherboards. Most were used in portable objects, in our
cars, our clothes and in the buildings or homes that make up our landscapes, and
this trend has increased exponentially since that time (McCullough, 2005). Fuelled
by the inexorable processes of miniaturisation, powerful digital microchips are
increasingly woven into the fabric of our environment and daily lives, invisible but
pervasive in their effect. They can be carried around on our person (e.g. our mobile
phones), worn on our person (e.g. Fitbits) and embedded into the physical struc-
tures that make up our daily lives (e.g. our roads, buildings and cars), thereby
ensuring we are always connected. Increasingly, these pervasive and embodied
technologies mediate our everyday experiences and are fundamentally challenging
how we interact with other people and non-sentient objects. None of this is entirely
new and we already experience some of the effects of The Internet of Things every
time we drive through a tokenless toll booth on our journey home, or arrive home to
find the house preheated by our smart thermostats that have received meteorological
data of an impending cold front (McCullough, 2005). But education and schools, in
particular, have remained largely immune to these technological developments and
the societal challenges they raise, so what might pervasive computing mean in
educational contexts and settings?
The Implication of Pervasive Computing for Learning
More than any other single effect, it is the growing empowerment of students as
autonomous, independent learners that promises to be the most significant impact of
pervasive computing on education. Pervasive computing offers students enhanced
agency or more choices over their learning, matching the freedoms and autonomy
they experience when using their mobile devices outside of school. Unlike previous
generations who needed to be granted permission and authorisation by the insti-
tution to access technology, often in a separate space or room away from where it
was actually required for learning, students today have the ability to access tech-
nology spontaneously, at the point and in the same space it is needed. In many
instances, these are also the students’ own personal devices, which they expect to be
able to use in the same seamless manner they experience outside of school. The
pressure on schools to facilitate this mode of use is set to increase as limited
resources force schools to embrace Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) initiatives
even if they are philosophically opposed to them. The net result means students
expect to enjoy considerable freedom to explore, select and identify their own
learning content and pathways, unimpeded by the need to follow predefined cur-
ricular routes dictated and directed by the teacher or the school. This is a significant
shift of emphasis for teachers working in schools, and therefore it is incumbent on
teacher education to prepare students for these evolving environments and contexts.
Since the personal device is also a personal portal and portfolio, it transcends
those boundaries that have hitherto demarcated how learning is segmented
according to constraints such as space and time. Students who start projects in one
location and time frame, such as the classroom during the school day, expect to
continue with their learning seamlessly during the journey home (e.g. on the
wireless-enabled bus) and when they get home. There is no need to leave behind or
carry unwieldy art folders, meaning students can continue with their individual
pursuits when and where they like. Just as previous generations came to consider
electricity and power as fundamental rights of twentieth-century life, so current
students expect Wi-Fi and seamless connectivity to be available anywhere and
anytime. In extrapolating from this position, we might anticipate that future gen-
erations of students equipped with their own personal, not institutional, computing
devices will expect to be able to exercise the same control and agency over them
inside the institution as they currently enjoy outside it. So what does this mean for
schools and for the role of teacher education in preparing the next generation of
teachers to work in these fluid settings?
Despite the Canute-like obduracy of some institutions that seem determined to
exclude any form of technological development, most schools will face a radically
altered landscape in which students control how, when and where they learn to an
extent that is unprecedented. Liberating students from the temporal and spatial
restrictions that have previously bounded learning, the major effect and impact of
pervasive computing will be to enhance the agency of students, which in turn
questions the existing role and purpose of teachers. This is already apparent for
many teachers who find themselves confronted by students who would rather
‘Google’ a piece of information or an answer than ask or wait for the teacher to
share that same knowledge and expertise. This poses an epistemological challenge
for educators that includes the place of knowledge, and perhaps more crucially, the
traditional hegemony of the expert, be that the university academic, the textbook
author, or the classroom sage.
In those systems where the curriculum is driven predominantly by the trans-
mission of knowledge, the role and importance of the teacher is likely to diminish
rapidly and in inverse proportion to the emergence of smart search engines and apps
that can retrieve information more quickly and more precisely. These trends are
well established both in schools that have prohibited the use of personal devices and
in those that have embraced them and there is little to indicate they will change.
However, this does not necessarily imply that the role of the teacher is redundant,
but it does suggest, as some have already noted, that the current role of the teacher
may be untenable and literally ‘incredible’ in the not so distance future (Royle et al.,
2014).
It implies that educators will need to reconsider their primary roles and identities
as knowledge-givers, and reconceptualise themselves as experts in facilitating,
curating, codifying and helping students to access knowledge. It challenges edu-
cators to reconceptualise the taken-for-granted structures and architectures of formal
schooling, such as the timetable, the artificiality of lesson lengths and the traditional
cycle and rhythm of the academic year which, to varying degrees, are rendered
redundant when students have the flexibility to learn in any geographical and
temporal setting, unimpeded by the need to be in a single space or time zone.
Indeed, the notion of learning in dedicated institutions such as schools becomes
problematic and somewhat archaic given the opportunities afforded through per-
vasive computing.
Finally, unfettered and abundant access to infinite resources and knowledge,
mediated through pervasive computing, raises many issues around guidance,
responsibility, safeguarding and privacy that are also likely to impact on how we
prepare teachers for this rapidly changing landscape. A considerable body of
research into how students handle the freedom and autonomy that technology
grants them also challenges the simplistic binaries that locate so-called ‘digital
natives’ as independent, self-contained and responsible users (Brown &
Czerniewicz, 2010; Wang, Myers, & Sundaram, 2012). The largely debunked
digital myth of the digital native suggests there is still a critical role for educators to
play in guiding and facilitating students to navigate these brave new worlds. If the
traditional epistemological role of teachers as knowledge-givers is set to diminish or
even disappear with the advent of pervasive computer, their roles as critical guides
seem set to increase.
B. Big Data and Learning Analytics
Teachers have always made use of the data produced by their students to enable
them to gauge and improve the effectiveness and impact of their teaching. Over the
course of an entire school career, teachers will have collected a mass of what
Mayer-Schönberger and Cukier (2014) refer to as ‘small data signals’ such as class
tests, assignments and attendance records (p. 25). However, this kind of data is only
a fraction of the data that might be collected over the course of an entire school
career and in many instances it may miss the data points that are really informative.
In addition, the collection and analysis of these separate small data signals is often
very subjective and variable, depending on the judgements and accuracy of the
individual teacher. This process is referred to as ‘small data’ in this chapter. By
contrast, ‘Big Data’ involves the collection and analysis of multiple data points
across the entire duration of a student’s school career, exploiting the affordances of
digital technologies to collect vast quantities of data that would be impossible for a
single classroom teacher and to analyse these and use them in ways that help
students to comprehend and improve their own performance. Cope and Kalanzis
(2016) define Big Data as
The purposeful or incidental recording of activity and interactions in digitally mediated,
network-interconnected learning environments—the volume of which is unprecedented in
large part because the data points are smaller and the recording is continuous (p. 2)
Digital tools and systems such as Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs),

developed originally for higher education, and a new generation of portable apps
that collect data on the go about the performance of users (Siemens & Long, 2011),
make it possible to scale the process of assessment undertaken by individual
teachers, whilst incorporating tools for the analysis of that data at a level of
granularity that has previously been impossible. Collectively, this is known as
Learning Analytics and it promises to be just as disruptive to current educational
practices, though in different ways, as the advent of pervasive computing that was
described in the section above.
Until recently, data analytics has been used primarily as a passive or reactive
summative tool by educators to measure the cognitive performance of learners. This
was developed initially in higher education where the use of Virtual Learning
Environments (VLE) automatically generates large quantities of electronic data
about students’ performance and learning habits. These kind of data which might
include test scores, final assessment grades but also patterns of usage, such as how
frequently they studied online, could easily be analysed and used by teachers to
better understand student performance, although it has most often been used in the
higher education context as a retention tool to identify and target individual learners
who are deemed to be most at risk of failing and dropping out of the course.
However, as the algorithms and tools have matured and become more sophis-
ticated, the use of data analytics has started to shift and increasingly the focus is
about formative analytics to support rather than simply measure learning. This is
often referred to as analytics for learning rather than analytics of learning (Sharples
et al., 2016, p. 32), and the implications for both students and teachers are profound.
Increasingly, for example, this form of analytics is used and also controlled by the
learner not the teacher, often mediated through their mobile personal device that is
used as the computing interface. In this type of use, formative analytics focuses on
how individual learners use data about their own learning as a tool for reflection and
to identify potential pathways forwards, rather than to provide a score or benchmark
for the teacher’s benefit alone (Sharples et al., 2016, p. 36).
Although these are still embryonic technologies their use, particularly in higher
education, promises to provide learners with more precise and reliable data about
their own performance then that they currently receive with traditional assessment
processes. This is why institutions such as the Open University in the United
Kingdom are pioneering the use of formative analytics to help students assess their
own performance vis-à-vis their peers. So, for example, using an application called
Analyse, students at the Open University in the United Kingdom are able to
compare their own strategies for learning with those of their peers (see https://
analyse.kmi.open.ac.uk). They do this by drawing upon data collected from the
application that analyse how individual learners have gone about a particular task
and with what level of success. This enables the application to identify trends and
correlations that students can consider when they tackle a similar task (see Rienties,
Cross, & Zdrahal, 2017). So, for example, the application might show that 90% of
students who passed a particular module read a particular article, and this may
induce a student to consider reading it themselves (Kuzilek, Hlosta, Herrmannova,
Zdrahal, & Wolff, 2015). This kind of practical strategy enabled through formative
analytics is proving to have a beneficial impact on learners in the pilot project and is
likely also to have a significant impact on the role of teachers who might also be
able to use these kinds of analytical data to improve the efficacy of their own
teaching strategies.
Although universities routinely collect these kinds of data about their students
through their corporate technologies like VLEs, there is no reason to expect these
kinds of developments will not filter down into schools, and indeed there is already
evidence to indicate this is happening, not just through VLEs but also through the
apps and tools students are increasingly using on the mobile devices. Whilst this
raises a number of ethical and privacy issues associated with who owns these data
and do they have permission to analyse them in this way, it is clear that technology
will play an increasingly important role in personalising and customising the
experience of students in the future and this has major implications for teachers and
how we prepare them to face these futures.
Implication of Data Analytics for Teachers and Teacher

Educators
If, as we argue in the section above, Big Data and Learning Analytics prove to be as
disruptive as we are claiming this will significantly change the practices of class-
room teachers, and as a result, trainee teachers. This is likely to be most evident in
respect to assessment where DiCerbo and Behrens (2014) predict a shift from an
item paradigm to an activity paradigm. In an item paradigm, the primary focus of
assessment is on the products of students’ labours since it is difficult or impossible
to trace the precise details of the cognitive processes involved in a particular task.
Therefore, the products of the assessment (e.g. an essay or an examination script)
are effectively proxies that teachers use to make inferences about the cognitive
outcomes and competences they are attempting to identify. Teachers are generally
confident and assured in the ‘item paradigm’ since this has been the norm in
assessment for many generations. Teacher education prepares newly entrants to the
profession for this paradigm very well, and although there has been a shift towards
more formative modes of assessment in recent years, this is still tempered by the
popularity and volume of summative assessment, which characterises the item
paradigm.
The activity paradigm, however, poses serious challenges to teachers’ concep-
tualisations and practices around assessment, but this goes much further and asks
fundamental questions about the role of teacher educators in preparing students for
this uncertain future. The activity paradigm captures the shift brought about by the
combination of digital technologies, Big Data and the science of Learning
Analytics. These enable teachers to follow the processes by which individual stu-
dents undertake an activity at a more granular level than has previously been
possible and include the individual mouse clicks on a screen (clickshare), the
annotations and notes students make as they read a document and the precise steps
in which they undertake the task. In other words, it is now feasible to assess the
individual artefacts of knowledge making, not just the product. So in the case of a
written task, for example, the teacher can track the various versions of the script,
including the sources of data that the students referenced, their mouse movements
and actions and any sources of external support (e.g. comments from peers) they
might have elicited. At this granular level, the teacher can start to make more
informed judgements about their student’s performance that approximate more
precisely to the cognitive processes in the student’s mind they are trying to
understand and develop. These developments, supported by the affordances of
technology, imply that teachers will need to be better prepared to access, analyse
and understand what these data mean both for the student and for them as teachers.
At an individual level, it could empower the teacher as a coach or mentor to support
an individual student, and at a global level when these individual records and data
points are combined across a full class or cohort it generates insights and data sets
that suggests teachers will need to be adept at data analysis, far beyond the current
understanding of this term. Indeed, teachers will need to be data literate (Twidale,
Blake, & Gant, 2013) in ways that are only beginning to be understood, and in turn
teacher education will need to understand how to prepare them for this role.
So in conclusion, it will be incumbent upon teacher educators to understand the
science of Learning Analytics in order that they can support and enable their
students—the next generation of teachers—to understand and use these tools in
classrooms where they are likely to be prevalent. In addition to preparing their
students to collect, analyse and draw inferences using instruments and data sets they
are unlikely to have experienced in their own schooling, there will also be a need to
support these trainee teachers in coaching the students they will teach to be data
analysts themselves.
C. Augmented, Virtual and Mixed Realities
Despite many false dawns, Augmented, Virtual and Mixed Reality technologies are
now emerging as amongst those most likely to transform current patterns of
learning, having previously demonstrated this capacity in both the entertainment
and military worlds (Adams Becker, Freeman, Hall, Cummins & Yuhnke, 2016).
Augmented Reality (AR), which uses a device such as the personal mobile phone to
add additional layers of information to what the user can already see or hear,
originated with the development of 3D glasses in cinemas in the 1950s and the
introduction of the first personal audio guide in 1952 at the Stedelijk Museum in
Amsterdam (Tsai & Sung, 2012). Today, AR is more often ported through a mobile
device and works through triggers such as QR codes that link to an external source
such as a website or YouTube video, and location-based triggers that overlay
information directly in front of the original view using apps such as Aurasma and
Layar (Connolly & Hoskins, 2014).
Virtual Reality (VR), on the other hand, works through the use of headsets and
visors that enable users to be immersed in computer-generated environments and
simulations (hence the term ‘virtual’) with a high degree of fidelity and sensory
stimulation (Adams Becker et al., 2016). AR and VR are sometimes differentiated
by the degree to which the experience is deemed to be an embodied one, although
these distinctions are beginning to blur with the latest generation of AR devices,
and this has led to the development of a hybrid format referred to as Mixed Realities
(Ohta & Tamura, 2014). Proponents of VR argue that the experience is so
immersive, almost cocooned, that it enables learners to focus on the subject matter
without the extraneous distractions normally associated with learning in class-
rooms. The latest generation of VR even incorporate haptic devices enabling users
to sense and feel experiences, not just see and hear them (Tse, Harwin, Barrow,
Quinn, & Cox, 2010). In this respect, VR is often referred to as a totally embodied
experience and this is frequently cited as one of the key reasons why schools and
education in general should seek to incorporate it more fully into mainstream
curricula where concentration and deep engagement is seen as a major barrier to
higher levels of achievement.
But this benefit comes at a price since to date the ability to undertake VR as a
collaborative activity has proven almost impossible. Unlike AR which is viewed on
a mobile device or other screen, VR has so far required users to wear a headset or
visor which has tended to shape the experience as an isolating one, restricting or
precluding many of the benefits associated with the networked society, such as
collaboration, group work and authentic problem-solving. Software and educational
developers are working hard to overcome this limitation of VR, and the next
generation of immersive technologies is predicted to feature far greater collabora-
tive opportunities than we have hitherto seen, which in turn opens up many more
opportunities for collaboration and cooperation between students and institutions
that transcend many of current barriers such as distance and nationality.
In the past, VR has mainly been the preserve of gamers and enthusiasts, and
whilst the cost of headsets and devices like Oculus Rift and HTC Vive have fallen
dramatically in recent years, this has still tended to preclude them from mainstream
education use where they are often seen as expensive ‘toys’ rather than tools for
learning. This is set to change dramatically with the shift to VR on a smartphone
brought about with cheap or free headsets such as Google Cardboard and the like.
These are no longer seen as expensive, exclusive toys for gamers alone and the
entertainment industry for one has recognised the potential value and importance of
this new market and is prepared to invest huge funds (Goldman Sachs estimate the
market for VR will be worth USD4.5 billion by 2025) to exploit it. More signifi-
cantly, these are technologies that young people already enjoy outside of school for
entertainment and social networking purposes and in ignoring them schools run the
risk of finding themselves playing catch up with young users—and their parents—
who are likely to be drawn to alternative providers of ‘edutainment’ such as the
entertainment giants.
Implications of AR/VR and Mixed Realities for Education
School-based learning has frequently faced the criticism that it is artificial and
inauthentic, divorced from what is seen as the ‘real’ world (Perkins, 2016). This
tendency to represent school education through the use of binaries (i.e.
school = artificial; real world = authentic) has been questioned as too simplistic by
some (see Burden & Kearney, 2016; Schuck et al., 2017) but there is little doubt
that teachers in schools struggle to make large parts of curriculum they are required
to cover relevant and concrete rather than theoretical and abstract in nature. This is
likely to be amongst the most significant contribution that AR/VR can offer
school-based education, and therefore it has many implications for how teachers
and schools adopt and use these technologies.
These issues are particularly pertinent in the science, technology, engineering
and mathematics (STEM) subject disciplines, where both AR and VR have been
used to make complex and theoretical concepts and topics more accessible and
easier to understand. So, for example, AR has been used to make complex astro-
nomical ideas such as the motion of the planets and stars easier to visualise and
understand in real time when students use an app on their mobile device that
overlays additional information against the night sky, such as the name of the
celestial bodies or their orbits through space and time (e.g. see Night Sky app:
https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/night-sky/id475772902?mt=8). Using a simple and
cheap headset such as Google Cardboard, students can explore the inner workings
of a complex piece of machinery or the sub-atomic structure of an atom to better
understand its complexity and internal architecture. These are often confusing
objects and concepts for learners to grasp from 2D representations alone and taught
in this way they frequently reinforce student misconceptions which are com-
pounded over time resulting in some alarming gaps and misunderstanding even at
advanced levels of study (see Schneps, Sadler, & Woll, 1989).
In revealing the hidden structures and underlying design of these objects, both
AR and VR can start to help students understand deeper patterns and correlations of
objects and ideas that characterise deep rather than superficial learning. However,
these technologies can go further than just revealing hidden patterns or representing
data and ideas in new forms that are easier to digest. They can also support learners
in constructing their understanding of a concept by enabling them to undertake
real-time virtual experiments and actions that would be impossible in the physical
environment. So, for example, Indiegogo are experimenting with AR apps that
enable chemistry students to combine different elements in real time, helping them
to understand the bonding and covalent properties of these elements and atoms in a
way that traditional textbooks and other instructional materials cannot match (see
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/happy-atoms-magnetic-molecular-modeling-
set-app-toys-science#/).
Teachers are also exploring how they can exploit the immersive qualities of VR
devices to undertake virtual field trips and visits in order to simulate the experience
and settings of places such as the Great Barrier Reef or the Antarctic ice shelf
(https://marketbrief.edweek.org/marketplace-k-12/virtual-reality-the-next-bigthing-
poised-to-transform-education/) that might otherwise be impossible for students to
visit. Google Expeditions offers these and many more opportunities to experience a
highly immersive journey into an entirely plausible, though simulated virtual setting
that challenges another traditional binary around formal and informal learning
(https://edu.google.com/expeditions/). As graphical representations are comple-
mented by other sensory experiences such as touch and smell, making the expe-
rience ever more lifelike, so the distinction between the material and virtual worlds
becomes harder to distinguish. It may remain impossible and undesirable to entirely
simulate first-hand experience of these sites of learning, but with cost and safety
concerns rising, for many students virtual immersive alternatives are as close as
they may ever get to some of these sites and experiences. Therefore are teachers
aware of these rich possibilities and do they understand the issues and challenges
associated with running a virtual visit?
The affordances and capabilities of AR and VR challenge many of the existing
resources such as textbooks and worksheets that teachers rely upon and are familiar
with using. They also force teachers to reconsider the instructional strategies and
teaching approaches they have traditionally relied upon to teach difficult concepts
and ideas like those described above. Previous research has shown how teachers are
surprised and shocked to discover that teaching a concept or difficult idea well does
not automatically mean students will understand and be able to apply it in a dif-
ferent context (see Meyer & Land, 2003; Thompson & Logue, 2006). If teaching
does not address the student’s own ‘naïve’ theories and ideas (often referred to as
private theories), it is likely these will continue to dominate a learner’s mindset no
matter how naïve and incorrect they may be. Technologies like AR and VR have
the potential to assist teachers in gaining a greater and more nuanced understanding
of how the student is actually thinking about a particular topic with the opportunity
to help them target their teaching strategies more precisely. But this implies a
significant shift in the role that teachers undertake in order to understand how best
to deploy these technologies as tools for diagnosis and analysis, not simply as a
means to transmit the same information in a slightly more attractive package.
Additionally, the increasing popularity and familiarity of AR and VR with
students raises another ‘wicked’ challenge for schools and teachers associated with
independent learning which may be even more intractable. Neither AR nor VR
applications require the direct mediation of a teacher or an adult and, indeed, many
of the apps currently in use are predicated on the basis that the user will be alone,
often outside of formal institutions such as schools. This is true for many of the
so-called citizen science apps that enable users to identify a wide variety of species
and flora outside of school, on their own without a teacher co-present (see Newman
et al., 2012). Many of these tap into a database of existing examples as reference
points and some point users towards real, but remote experts or communities of
practice in the subject discipline such as scientists or ornithologists. Teachers and
other traditional authority figures are noticeable by their absence in these virtual
settings and communities, and this invites speculation about the role and place of
teachers when technologies of this nature become prevalent or ubiquitous. Does it
imply, for example, that formal educators are redundant in these settings and if not
what should be their role? Could the principles that underpin apps that are used in
informal settings to identify and explain features of the natural world be extended
into the school curriculum enabling learners to identify ideas or explanations
without the need for external help or assistance? And if so, what again could and
should be the role of the teacher in this setting?
Finally, although AR/VR has until recently been dominated by and focused on
the entertainment industry where there is a voracious appetite for it, there are clear
signs that this is changing as many of the commercial interests that have hitherto
driven it, identify education and edutainment as a profitable new cash cow.
Compared to traditional educational resources high-end, top budget AR and VR
applications are incomparable and it is not impossible to imagine a scenario
whereby these commercial providers colonise and privatise significant segments of
the existing education sector, sweeping away many of the conventions and proto-
cols that currently characterise it. To date this has not happened, perhaps because
existing business models do not offer investors a sufficiently enticing return, but this
could change just as the medical world has been shaken by the arrival of com-
mercial conglomerates who recognise a good opportunity when they see it.
Implications for the Future Direction of Teacher Education
This chapter has reviewed three technology developments—pervasive computing,

Learning Analytics, and AR/VR—that are considered to be disruptive technologies
since they have significant implications for how school-based learning is, and could
be organised and experienced now and in the near future. Taken collectively, these
demolish old certainties that have bounded teaching in schools for so long,
unleashing complex challenges that can be viewed as both problems or opportu-
nities, depending on one’s mindset and perspective. Tasked with preparing the next
generation of teachers to work in these unpredictable settings and contexts, teacher
educators also face unprecedented challenges, which are summarised briefly in this
final section.
The first of these, and possibly the most disruptive, is the demise of the tradi-
tional binaries that have made school education seemingly predictable and simple to
categorise and organise. This was probably always a naïve and artificial way of
making sense of our educational systems but in a period of high certainty and
limited change it was understandable. These conditions are no longer prevalent, and
technology has itself played a major role in blurring the boundaries between these
old binaries. These binaries present themselves in numerous forms, and this chapter
has identified how developments in technology may force educators to reconsider
what they previously held to be universal truths. So, for example, the old binary of
formal and informal learning linked to place (e.g. school classroom as opposed to in
the field or museum) is clearly blurring as technologies such as those described
above invite serious questions about traditional notions of place and time. Students
are using personal devices to enable them to undertake their work seamlessly
between school, home and numerous other ‘Third Spaces’ which are emerging as
fruitful sites for learning (Schuck et al., 2017). Similarly, it may be inappropriate
and unhelpful to perpetuate the ‘real versus virtual’ binary when research studies
have revealed how engaged and embodied some learners feel in virtual spaces, such
as games like MineCraft that can be harnessed for clear educational purposes
(Nebel, Schneider, & Rey, 2016). Therefore, it is important that teachers and those
responsible for their education and preparation are cognisant of these changes and
are prepared to understand and exploit their affordances.
The second challenge that emerges from this review of selected technology
developments is the breakdown in monopolies that institutional learning once
enjoyed such as its client base, a fixed ‘one size fits all’ curricula, its knowledge
base and the unchallenged authority and expertise of its teaching force. These
‘bounded certainties’ are rapidly dissipating and technology has played, and will
continue to play, a major part in this shift. Formal school systems have enjoyed a
monopoly of educational provision for almost two hundred years since the first
industrial revolution, but this is unlikely to continue into the future and teacher
education is therefore presented with a formidable challenge in preparing trainee
teachers to work in settings that are unpredictable and difficult to plan or prepare
for. Indeed, many of these settings have not yet been invented but teachers who
may still be working in the 2050s will almost certainly find themselves engaged in
contexts and settings that are very different from those they experienced themselves
as student or work in at the present moment. As we have seen throughout this
chapter, technology is likely to become more personalised and customised to the
individual learner who will be given more opportunities to learn whenever and
however they wish, across both formal and informal spaces. Learning will be more
context-based and context sensitive as technologies become ever more cognizant of
one’s geospatial context. So how and where do we prepare the next generation of
teachers to manage learning in these complex, fluid contexts and what set of
competencies or dispositions will they need to demonstrate in order to be
credentialled?
Finally, it is clear already that traditional notions of knowledge and expertise are
rendered obsolete when learners have access to ubiquitous and pervasive computing
and this leads to a number of searching questions about the future role of teachers.
This topic is the focus of Chap. 10, but at this point it is evident that technology
will offer learners alternative sources of expertise and knowledge that may have a
more crowdsourced appearance, such as Wikipedia. Does this mean teachers will no
longer need to hold as much procedural knowledge in fixed memory and will
therefore have greater cognitive capacity to use it in other ways? In this sense, the
technological revolution we have described challenges the defining characteristic of
many teachers who have constructed their professional identifies on the basis of
subject knowledge and expertise. If these twin pillars of teacher identity are stripped
away, what replaces them? Pervasive network access provides the infrastructure for
learners to undertake highly authentic inquiries and investigations based on the
citizen science model where they use technology to tap into actual experts such as
scientists, politicians or social workers rather than relying on the second-hand
knowledge and expertise that teachers may increasingly be perceived as holding.
These questions challenge the traditional role of the teacher and point to various
futures that could see radical alternatives whereby teaching is less exclusively
Implications for the Future Direction of Teacher Education 59
rooted in the Academy and becomes more collaborative and community based with
opportunities for teachers to participate in authentic communities of practice where
they are themselves learners. If technologies can make these futures possible, there
is an urgent need for teacher education to explore alternative models and some of
the methods and approaches for doing so are laid out in the chapters that follow.
Conclusion
In the modern era, before the upheavals of two world wars, post-industrial decline
and the digital revolution, preparing the next generation of teachers was relatively
predictable and unproblematic, such were the certainties of the societies these new
teachers would enter. In the twenty-first century most, if not all of these certainties,
have disappeared and there is a danger teacher education is preparing a workforce
that will be singularly ill equipped to meet the challenges and wicked problems that
have replaced the old certainties. The rapid emergence and impact of digital
technologies are only one of many drivers that will shape teacher futures, and this
chapter has focused on only a small, albeit significant, selection of the many
technologies that will continue to emerge and challenge teachers and their educators
to reconsider their roles and futures. This chapter has raised a number of pertinent
questions and issues related to how technology might shape and mould some of
these futures. Taken collectively, the technologies that have been covered present
teacher educators with a stark choice but also a unique opportunity to reconcep-
tualise and reshape the educational landscape.
The choice is between preparing teacher graduates for a last stand in an ana-
logical world with its monopoly on bricks and mortar, traditions and academic
credentialing or equipping them for a disrupted, uncertain and largely unknowable
digital educational landscape, where they have agency to shape their own futures.
This is not posed as an abstract, theoretical challenge because the drivers that have
demonstrably disrupted established practices and conventions in commerce, busi-
ness and many aspects of the public sector are already encroaching on education.
The monolithic certainties that characterised many systems of schooling across the
world are no longer sustainable and it is incumbent on teacher education to embrace
a new worldview in order to equip the next generation of teachers to think differ-
ently so that in demolishing the present they do not destroy but create sustainable
futures. This chapter has outlined many of the challenges associated with the rise of
digital technologies, but equally it has illustrated many of the opportunities teachers
have to reinvent themselves as facilitators, coaches and data analysts, by exploiting
the affordances of these technologies.
References
Adams Becker, S., Freeman, A., Giesinger Hall, C., Cummins, M., & Yuhnke, B. (2016). NMC/
CoSN Horizon Report: 2016 K-12 Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C. M. (1996). Disruptive technologies: Catching the wave. The
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1(13), 75–76.
Brown, C., & Czerniewicz, L. (2010). Debunking the ‘digital native’: Beyond digital apartheid,
towards digital democracy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 357–369.
Burden, K. J. (2010). Conceptualising teachers’ professional learning with Web 2.0. Campus-Wide
Information Systems, 27(3), 148–161.
Burden, K., & Kearney, M. (2016). Conceptualising authentic mobile learning. In Mobile
Learning (Ed.), Design (pp. 27–42). Singapore: Springer.
Connolly, E., & Hoskins, J. (2014). Using iPads to teach year 7 Induction with Aurasma. The
School Librarian, 62(1), 6.
Conole, G., De Laat, M., Dillon, T., & Darby, J. (2008). ‘Disruptive technologies’, ‘pedagogical
innovation’: What’s new? Findings from an in-depth study of students’ use and perception of
technology. Computers & Education, 50(2), 511–524.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2016). Big data comes to school: Implications for learning, assessment,
and research. AERA Open, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858416641907.
DiCerbo, K. E., & Behrens, J. T. (2014). Impacts of the digital ocean on education. London, UK:
Pearson.
Hedberg, J. G. (2011). Towards a disruptive pedagogy: Changing classroom practice with
technologies and digital content. Educational Media International, 48(1), 1–16.
Kearney, M., & Maher, D. (2013). Mobile learning in maths teacher education: Using iPads to
support pre-service teachers’ professional development. Australian Educational Computing, 27
(3), 76–84.
Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012). Viewing mobile learning from a
pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology, 20(1), 14406.
Kuzilek, J., Hlosta, M., Herrmannova, D., Zdrahal, Z., & Wolff, A. (2015). OU nalyse: Analysing
at-risk students at The Open University. Learning Analytics Review, 1–16. Retrieved from oro.
open.ac.uk/42529/1/__userdata_documents5_ajj375_Desktop_.
Maher, D., Schuck, S., & Perry, R. (2017). Investigating knowledge exchange amongst school
teachers, university teacher educators and industry partners. Australian Journal of Teacher
Education (Online), 42(3), 73.
Mayer-Schönberger, V., & Cukier, K. (2014). Learning with big data: The future of education.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
McCluskey, F. B., & Winter, M. L. (2012). The idea of the digital university: Ancient traditions,
disruptive technologies and the battle for the soul of higher education. Washington, DC:
Westphalia Press.
McCullough, M. (2005). Digital ground: Architecture, pervasive computing and environmental
knowing. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Meyer, J., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways
of thinking and practising within the disciplines. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
Nebel, S., Schneider, S., & Rey, G. D. (2016). Mining learning and crafting scientific experiments:
A literature review on the use of minecraft in education and research. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society, 19(2), 355.
Newman, G., Wiggins, A., Crall, A., Graham, E., Newman, S., & Crowston, K. (2012). The future
of citizen science: Emerging technologies and shifting paradigms. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment, 10(6), 298–304.
Ohta, Y., & Tamura, H. (2014). Mixed reality: Merging real and virtual worlds. New York:
Springer Publishing Company.
P 21. (2007). Framework for 21st century learning. Partnership for 21st century learning. http://
www.p21.org/storage/documents/docs/P21_framework_0816.pdf.
References 61
Pachler, N., Bachmair, B., & Cook, J. (2009). Mobile learning: Structures, agency, practices.
Springer Science & Business Media.
Perkins, D. (2016). 5 barriers to more authentic teaching and learning. TeachThought PD. Retrieved
from http://wegrowteachers.com/5-barriers-to-more-authentic-teaching-and-learning/.
Pew Research Center. (2017). Mobile fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-
sheet/mobile/.
Poushter, J. (2016). Smartphone ownership and internet usage continues to climb in emerging
economies. Pew Research Center, 22.
Rienties B., Cross S., & Zdrahal, Z. (2017). Implementing a Learning Analytics Intervention and
Evaluation Framework: What works? In B. Kei Daniel & R. Butson (Eds.), Big data and
learning analytics in higher education: Current theory and practice. Retrieved from http://oro.
open.ac.uk/45023/.
Royle, K., Stager, S., & Traxler, J. (2014). Teacher development with mobiles: Comparative
critical factors. Prospects, 44(1), 29–42.
Schneps, M. H., Sadler, P. M., & Woll, S. (1989). A private universe. Astronomical Society of the
Pacific.
Schuck, S., Kearney, M., & Burden, K. (2017). Exploring mobile learning in the Third Space.
Sharples, M., Arnedillo-Sánchez, I., Milrad, M., & Vavoula, G. (2009). Mobile learning.
Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 233–249). Netherlands: Springer.
Sharples, M., de Roock, R., Ferguson, R., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C., Koh, E., … & Wong, L. H.
(2016). Innovating pedagogy 2016. Open University innovation report 5. Retrieved from http://
hdl.handle.net/10497/18319.
Siemens, G., & Long, P. (2011). Penetrating the fog: Analytics in learning and education.
EDUCAUSE review, 46(5), 30.
Thompson, F., & Logue, S. (2006). An exploration of common student misconceptions in science.
International Education Journal, 7(4), 553–559.
Traxler, J. (2007). Defining, discussing and evaluating mobile learning: The moving finger writes and
having writ … The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 8(2).
Traxler, J. (2009). Current state of mobile learning. Mobile Learning: Transforming the Delivery
of Education and Training, 1, 9–24.
Tsai, H., & Sung, K. (2012). Mobile applications and museum visitation. Computer, 45(4), 95–98.
Tse, B., Harwin, W., Barrow, A., Quinn, B., & Cox, M. (2010, July). Design and development of a
haptic dental training system-hapTEL. In International Conference on Human Haptic Sensing
and Touch Enabled Computer Applications (pp. 101–108). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Twidale, M. B., Blake, C., & Gant, J. (2013, February). Towards a data literate citizenry. Paper
Presented at the iConference 2013, Fort Worth, TX.
Wang, E., Myers, M. D., & Sundaram, D. (2012). Digital natives and digital immigrants: Towards
a model of digital fluency. ECIS 2012 Proceedings (p. 39). Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.
org/ecis2012/39/.
Chapter 5
Changing Knowledge, Changing
Education
Abstract This chapter considers how knowledge change impacts differently on

different stakeholders, specifically teachers, policymakers and teacher educators.
We consider how each group might lay claim to a particular dimension of
knowledge and how that might impact on professionalism and practice using a triad
of theorised lenses to explore some of the key areas. In particular, we are interested
here in the polarity of compliance and resistance evident in knowledge in education,
and the ways in which teacher educators are uniquely positioned in changing that to
a discourse of possibility, developing teachers as ‘transformative intellectuals’
(Giroux in Teachers as intellectuals: towards a critical pedagogy of learning.
Greenwood Publishing Group, London, 1988). Teacher educators are thus under-
stood as agents of knowledge change reflecting the shared values of all stakeholders
to democracy in education.

Keywords Stakeholders Teacher research Policy and professional knowledge

Discourse Change agents Transformative intellectuals
Introduction
The significance of knowledge in education is matched only by its complexity.

Knowledge debates in education are being played out globally and the implications
are far-reaching. It is clearly beyond the scope of any single chapter to investigate
the ways in which knowledge change and indeed knowledge contestation in teacher
education is being realised in a variety of contexts. Instead, this chapter uses the
context of England and Wales and looks at how we might consider knowledge
change acting out within the context of three stakeholder groups: teachers, poli-
cymakers and teacher educators, and then consider the implications for future
practice.
If the purpose of education is to generate and transmit knowledge, it follows that
the way in which knowledge is understood shapes education. By defining what
constitutes knowledge, ownership is created. Ownership creates control. The

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8246-7_5
64 5 Changing Knowledge, Changing Education
centrality of knowledge as a construct in education thus renders it particularly

powerful in the lexicon of educational discourse.
Knowledge is not, however, static. Further, it is subject to the same ideological
claims explored in earlier chapters (see Chap. 3 for example) and is equally resistant
to definition as professionalism or identity; similarly, diverse and plural ‘owners’ of
knowledge exist, and agreement on what constitutes knowledge in education is not
secure. Changing knowledge, the focus of this chapter, becomes therefore
multi-layered. For example, is the verb ‘changing’ in the title of this chapter
transitive or intransitive? Are we changing knowledge, purposefully and with
intent, or is knowledge simply changing with time and context? The interpretation
is significant: the first implies that there is a deliberate shaping of knowledge in
education and the questions by and for whom immediately present themselves. If
the latter, then the questions are of a different order: what forms of knowledge are
now the concern of schools—and how do teachers and teacher educators deal with
that?
Stakeholders—those involved in shaping and changing knowledge in education
—are therefore key to this debate, as they are the actors whose contexts and
demands serve to create the boundaries of definition. The actors whose concerns
shape this discussion are those of policy, teachers and teacher educators, each as
actualising knowledge in education in inter-related but frequently competing con-
texts: policymakers who seek to shape education for the economy; teachers, whose
working lives are driven by the need to ensure students’ success in learning; and
teacher educators whose role is to make sure that teachers are able to engage with
knowledge as defined by policy, but also to critically engage with the notion that
knowledge as represented in schooling is neither definitive nor final. In turn, each
stakeholder brings a particular interpretation of knowledge to the main components
of education: curriculum, assessment and pedagogy. The matrix that is formed by
the confluence of stakeholder and knowledge reveals a geography of competing
demands that impact on each stakeholder and thus in turn, on students.
Understanding the differing dimensions of knowledge therefore becomes an
imperative if education is to be productive for all learners.
Stakeholders: Contexts and Issues
Teachers
*Frances: Teacher knowledge, you see, I mean… to me it’s a… you see to me it’s a very
simple thing, er… teacher knowledge, there are two parts, well there are pro-… there are
more than two parts. And what you do in the classroom can be broken down to a lot of
different things. I thought I knew the answer to this.
(*pseudonym)
Teachers represent the site where knowledge demands meet. Teaching has at its
heart transformation of complex knowledge into a format accessible and
Stakeholders: Contexts and Issues 65
understandable by the students with whom they work—Shulman’s (1992) peda-

gogical content knowledge (PCK). The vast majority of teachers achieve this
transformation for their students with great success. It is curious therefore that
identifying what constitutes knowledge in education is seemingly problematic for
teachers. The quote above illustrates this point. During a research project Brindley
co-ordinated in 2014, we interviewed over 50 teachers and asked, ‘What do you
understand by teacher knowledge?’ The question proved almost impossible to
answer for this group of stakeholders. Frances, who gave the response quoted
above, was, for example, a highly successful and well-established teacher who
clearly initially thought that she should—and did—know ‘the answer’ to this very
difficult question. Frances’ last comment—‘I thought I knew the answer to this’—
was said with equal measures of frustration and bafflement. Other, equally well
regarded, teachers experienced the same phenomenon. For example, Emma said,
‘There’s something else there that’s quite … quite difficult to grasp. But just takes
you a step further erm and … I don’t know’. Ray similarly stated, ‘It’s about that …
teacher knowledge is quite an innate thing, is that the right word? I don’t know. But
it’s not in any curriculum’. Knowledge seems to be known but unsayable for this
stakeholder group. Not curriculum, nor pedagogy, nor assessment, yet touching on
each, the liminal nature of knowledge for teachers is felt but not articulated.
Understanding knowledge as a construct, malleable and open to differing claims is
essential for this group of stakeholders. The question here is, how is this to be
achieved?
Policy
Articulation of the concept of knowledge by policy seems to be less problematic.

Knowledge is both knowable and able to be represented in written terms. For
policy, knowledge is concrete. A major example of this is seen in England and
Wales, where the move in the late 1980s/early 1990s to develop a national cur-
riculum represented prescribed knowledge, measurable through assessment
regimes. The language of the time described the national curriculum as ‘a selection
from the knowledge’ thus neatly sidestepping accusations of hegemony in its
implication that there were other freely chosen ‘knowledges’ available to teachers.
There were indeed other knowledges but equally true was the fact that the national
curriculum content was detailed and overwhelming in demand, and associated with
such high stakes test events, that teachers only taught to the tests. A selection from
rapidly became the knowledge, complete and to the exclusion of all else. Defining
knowledge in this way becomes the mechanism that is used to select students
according to assessment successes and to cull the unsuccessful, and the means of
accountability judging teachers as responsible for that success. However, this
version of knowledge is not value free. The national curriculum is and was a
document which was shaped by committees of individuals with vested interests in
seeing particular versions of knowledge enshrined in law. For example, the national
curriculum of England and Wales in English encountered huge resistance and

opposition for its stance on the teaching of grammar (Cox, 1991); similarly, its
emphasis on British history brought strong responses (Lay, 2013). Nevertheless,
policy can lay claim to a version of knowledge which dominates many teachers’
thinking. Brindley has written elsewhere about a Masters student who asked how
teachers knew what to teach before the national curriculum: it is the perfect illus-
tration of ownership of knowledge by policy becoming the definitive version of
knowledge. The question is, however, whether policy, in holding this position, can
respond flexibly to the needs of industry and business.
Teacher Educators
Knowledge, for teacher educators, is multiple. Dictated by policy, created through

research, mediated through their own criticality and translated to both pre-service and
established teachers in ways which are designed to ensure relevance and yet encourage
teachers to retain an independence of judgment, knowledge is both given and contested.
The role of the teacher, predicated on this model, is far more than the passive deliverer
of one version of knowledge. Teacher educators thus have a unique position. They are
both translators of policy knowledge and positioners of teachers as enquirers into the
nature and claims of knowledge made by policy. Knowledge as prescribed vies with
knowledge as selected. Intellectual and professional integrity means that teacher edu-
cators can relinquish neither role nor give one precedence over another. Knowledge
about (that is, understanding context and construct) is held in balance with knowledge
of (information), knowledge how (instrumental) with knowledge why (reason).
Increasingly, however, as teacher education in the UK/England moved away from
university to school-based models, and academic research is thus de-centred in teacher
education, knowledge about and knowledge how have come to dominate the discourse
available to teachers. Teacher educators have a responsibility to ensure the of and why
are not lost to teachers, but the changing contexts mean that their work with teachers
has been curtailed and fewer opportunities exist to disseminate these ideas to teachers
now exist. The shift has to be for teacher educators to work with teachers as knowledge
producers, not simply knowledge consumers. For this group of stakeholders, the central
question is how is this to be achieved?
Changing Knowledge
Although realised differently, there is a common knowledge theme for each

stakeholder: how to deal with changing knowledge in education. For teachers, the
change is from passive to active knowledge; for policy, from static to responsive;
for teacher educators, creating a knowledge culture which is integral to research and
criticality.
Changing Knowledge 67
Changing Knowledge: Teachers
The national curriculum has positioned teachers as passive receivers of a version of

knowledge which has been given legal status (e.g. HMSO, 1988). It is not open to
debate or to criticality—or change. This knowledge forms the examination syllabuses
which define success—or failure—for students. As a result, teachers have become
compliant in meeting these knowledge demands (Brindley, 2013). However, the
implications of this have been far-ranging, not least in serving to excise teacher control
over knowledge and the associated discourse of criticality. This has re-positioned
teachers professionally (Sachs, 1999) and in terms of their identity (Beijaard, Verloop,
& Vermunt, 2000). In order to enact knowledge change, the demand on teachers is to
recreate a version of self and the profession which has knowledge as active and self as
agent of that creation. We might turn here to the work of Kincheloe (2003) as con-
cerned with translating teachers into active creators of knowledge. The claims he makes
for the significance of knowledge ownership, knowledge change and teacher critical
engagement are profound.
Kincheloe, Knowledge and Power in Education
For Kincheloe (2003), understanding the place knowledge occupies in education is

central. Indeed, the excision of teachers from the knowledge debate threatens
education as the very root of democracy:
My argument here is direct: reductionist ways of seeing, teaching, and learning pose a
direct threat to education as a practice of democracy. (2003, p. 9)
He argues that teachers are required by the state to occupy a professional role in an
educational world defined through such reductionist policies, and is concerned to
examine the means by which such positionings are secured. Kincheloe builds the case
that the competencies movement—that is, the production of explicit and extensive lists
of standards which are used to define and boundary professional knowledge under the
heading of school improvement—is itself a shield to mask deeper ideological intents
relating to the disempowerment and deskilling of teachers:
…the powerful dynamics that shape education … are typically hidden from everyday
experience … [but] create hierarchies which disempower teachers… (2003, p. 22)
Such hierarchies call on power structures to maintain control: power is present,

Kincheloe states, in ‘all educational visions, it is omnipresent in reform proposals, and
it is visible in the delineations of what constitutes as educated person’ (2003, p. 17). It is
Kincheloe’s (2003, p. 22) contention that one such power structure is knowledge itself,
‘The notion of knowledge has become a source of power’. If knowledge is itself
centrally implicated in the construction and maintenance of ideological control, then
ownership of that knowledge is key to dominance. Instead, teachers need to understand
knowledge as created, not given:
Just as we understand that the world is socially constructed, we understand that research of
any stripe creates a world – it does not reflect a world. … If knowledge is socially
constructed, then critical … researchers understand that the debate over what knowledge is
of most worth is never ending. … (2003, p. 4)
Key here is Kincheloe’s reference to researchers. His argument is that teachers

must be positioned as researchers in order to engage meaningfully with the argu-
ments surrounding knowledge ownership:
Thus teachers … must participate in the research act in education. They must help deter-
mine what is designated educational knowledge. (2003, p. 22)
The fundamental claim of Kincheloe is that teacher research is the means whereby
teachers can reclaim the autonomy of informed voice by exercising a conscious
awareness of the political and ideological in order to bring about change. But, as we
have seen, bringing about change through research also necessitates challenging ver-
sions of established knowledge, which have shaped both curriculum knowledge and
teacher (professional) knowledge. By positioning the epistemological within the ide-
ological, Kincheloe draws our attention to the varying constructs of knowledge with
which teacher research is involved. Certainly the aim is clear:
Teachers as researchers who are familiar with the philosophical, historical, and political
context in which inquiry takes place, will … be better able to understand their roles as
producers of knowledge … (2003, pp. 94-95)
For Kincheloe, control of knowledge is achievable by teachers through research.

Teacher research is therefore the key to changing knowledge.
Changing Knowledge and Teacher Research
In some ways in 2017, it might seem that Kincheloe’s argument has been realised in
that the teacher (or practitioner) research movement has become high profile in edu-
cation globally. However, just as knowledge is subject to ideological claims, so is the
notion of research. Policy has not been slow in seeing the potential—and dangers—of a
teacher research drive. In Kincheloe’s terms, teacher research is designed to be dis-
ruptive to the major narrative of ownership and control, and its purpose is not com-
pliance but subversion. In policy terms, this is a perilous path to allow. The response of
policy has been to co-opt both the research event and the language of research in ways
which convert research to an act of compliance (Bottery & Wright, 2002). Policy-based
teacher research seemingly has the accoutrements of research but is revealed as a
corrupted version of research by the rhetoric of practicality and relevance for the
classroom which accompanies it, with the notion of criticality notably absent. For
Kincheloe, criticality has to be central to teacher research for it to be meaningful,
however difficult and disruptive that might be:
Questioning the unquestionable has never been a picnic in the park. In this complex context
critical researchers analyse educational situations with the aim of improving the quality of
the activity connected to them. In the spirit of complexity, however, teacher researchers
move to a new conceptual terrain, as they raise questions about the situation itself … critical
teachers as researchers develop the capacity to expose the assumptions behind, the interests
served by, and the unarticulated purposes of particular forms of educational activity.
(Kincheloe, 2003, pp. 19-20)
For teachers (and policy makers) then, changing knowledge is itself high stakes. It
destabilises the policy status quo of knowledge without supplying a ready-made
substitute. Instead teachers are required to generate knowledge which serves to inform
their own practices, without certainty of action in terms of outcome. What is gained in
this version of changing knowledge though is immense: control over knowledge is
control over education, and a voice for teachers which is legitimised and powerful.
Policy and Changing Knowledge
Policy has, as we have seen, created a version of knowledge which has become the
dominant and indeed unquestioned curriculum in schools. It is perhaps not sur-
prising therefore that in 2017, debates about ‘teacher knowledge’ have largely
disappeared. Research published on teacher knowledge per se has diminished
significantly, and instead scholarly articles have moved towards a consideration of
subject or technology-based debates (Charalambous & Hill, 2012; Walshaw, 2012
—mathematics; Rohann, Taconis, & Jochems, 2012; Hughes, 2005—technology;
Nilsson & Loughran, 2012; Heller, Daehler, & Shinohara 2003—science; Gordon,
2012—English). The notion of teacher knowledge either as a debate or indeed
outside of a subject-based curriculum is less evident, though see Hashweh (2005).
In part, it may be argued that these are simply pragmatic responses to teachers’
current practices. But these practices have been generated by policy. In seeking to
own knowledge, policy defines what education is for. However, in securing this
control so comprehensively, policy is left with a dilemma. If, as it claims,
knowledge in education must be flexible and responsive to the needs of industry
and business (see for example Chap. 3), how does policy devise a curriculum and
indeed a teaching profession that can respond to those needs? Knowledge in
industry changes at exponential rates. Knowledge as represented in a legal docu-
ment cannot. Policy’s response is to create ‘professional knowledge’.
Professional Knowledge
Two markers of knowledge change characterise professional knowledge: The

context of knowledge in education as responsive to industry needs; and the will-
ingness of teachers to relinquish the traditional sense of teacher professional
development for those aligned with contemporary business needs. Hargreaves
(1998) neatly combines the two by developing a thesis which identifies changes in
society relating to new knowledge needs (serving the ‘Knowledge Society’), and
redefining professionalism as ‘creative’ in the sense of teachers as willing to

embrace short-term and transient training to meet industry demands.
The Knowledge Society
Hargreaves states clearly that knowledge change in education is beyond policy

drivers:
The drivers of educational change are not always those of governmental policy; rather, it is
rapid and continual change in the wider society that makes an impact on education. (1998,
p. 10)
A knowledge society requires an education system which aligns the curriculum

with industry and business, and dispenses with subjects which do not provide
knowledge workers. As such, knowledge in education becomes fluid and defined by
‘the authority of the market place’, where ‘market responsiveness’ is achieved
through the monitoring of changes in knowledge in education through educational
quangos. This definition of professional knowledge is, Bernstein claims, created by
those seeking to claim ownership of knowledge change:
There is a new concept of knowledge and of its relation to those who create and use it. …
Knowledge should flow like money to wherever it can create advantage and profit. Indeed,
knowledge is not like money, it is money. (2000, p. 87)
Professional knowledge becomes that which is demanded by a school system in

thrall to a global economy model of education. It is opportunist in essence,
unconcerned with long-term commitment or any model of knowledge which per-
tains to deep or sustained learning in one particular area. Instead, changing
knowledge takes its cue from profit, from commercialisation and from Hargreaves’
‘wider society’. Schools become apprentice institutions for the workplace, and
teachers suppliers of knowledge as commodity. What is left is the need to develop
opportunism in order to survive professionally—the quality of ‘trainability’, that is,
the ‘need … to profit from continuous pedagogic re-formations’ (2000, p. 72).
Trainability
If knowledge is changing in ways which are aligned to business and industry,

existing professional development practices become not just irrelevant but dan-
gerous in perpetuating a version of teacher professionalism predicated on knowl-
edge as autonomy. Hargreaves puts it thus:
… today’s dominant models for creating, disseminating and applying professional
knowledge are now
• almost entirely inappropriate and ineffective

• a serious waste of material and human resources
• adding to low morale and the serious shortage of teachers
The answer, I argue, lies in a new model of knowledge creation, one based on evidence of
success in other sectors of society. To be effective in education, this new model must be
adapted to support the continuous development and self-renewal of better teachers and
teaching. (1998, p. 13: italics in original text)
In order to meet these needs, teachers will have fundamentally to rethink their
position in society, the values and beliefs they hold, the purposes ascribed to them
by society and—critically—the values and purposes they themselves as profes-
sionals ascribe to the teacher role. Hargreaves sees the need to train teachers to
understand and implement these changes (become ‘better teachers’) as paramount:
… training better teachers for the knowledge society is a gigantic task, one that involves
finding out ‘what works’ in schools and classrooms. And this process of knowledge cre-
ation and application must be a continuous one, since society continues to change very fast,
constantly making new demands on the education service… Until teaching is perceived,
inter alia, as a profession in which creative and adventurous but hard-headed pioneers feel
at home, the negative image of the profession will persist. (1998, p. 13)
It is interesting, however, to note the ways in which the language itself begins to
confirm Hargreaves’ positioning of education: it is charged with being a ‘service’
which must respond to the ‘new demands’ made by society. Teachers need to be
‘trained’ in ‘what works’ (though see Biesta (2007) for a thorough refutation of this
position). This new version of professional knowledge marginalises the agency of
the teacher:
Knowledge is divorced from persons, their commitments, their personal dedications. Once
knowledge is separated from inwardness, from commitments, from personal dedication,
from the deep structures of the self … then people may be moved about, substituted for
each other and excluded from the market. (Bernstein, 2000, p. 87)
And herein lies the crux of changing knowledge for policy. Education as a
marketplace enables de-professionalisation. Teachers no longer own knowledge but
are rather placed as conduits of policy demand. Policy manages its own paradox of
ownership of knowledge as static by reconfiguring the national curriculum as skills
based, supporting a knowledge economy and a knowledge society which confirms
policy and industry as producers of the knowledge society, where ‘knowledge is not
like money, it is money’ (2000, p. 87). Changing knowledge is, for policy, com-
plete and watertight.
Changing Knowledge: Teacher Educators
The boundaries of knowledge for teacher educators carry neither the certainty,
however, contested, of policy nor the directed surety of teachers. Instead, teacher
educators are positioned as recognising knowledge as both a given and as
constructed; as contextualised by an economic need and by sociopolitical demands.

Knowledge in flux—changing knowledge—is, for teacher educators, the frame-
work in which they function on a day-to-day basis. Their discourse is not only
simply (though not straightforwardly) one of compliance or resistance; rather they
are the crucible where the two sets of knowledge claims meet, brokers of values and
beliefs, and arbitrators of both. As such, their role cannot be one of partisan
positioning, pitting one claim against another. They are compelled instead to
engage with versions of knowledge which are contradictory and conflicting,
responsive to different imperatives and shifting in focus. However, what is con-
sistent for knowledge in education is that it is predicated on the notion of
democracy. Inherent within democracy is the right to question and to bring about
change, and as such, teachers and policymakers alike are tasked with ensuring
students can become active in being part of, and sustaining, a democratic society:
Empower [ing] students by giving them the knowledge and social skills they will need to be
able to function in the larger society as critical agents … That means educating them to take
risks … to fight both against oppression and for democracy … [teachers are thus] con-
cerned with empowering students so they can read the world critically and change it where
necessary. (Giroux, 1988, pp. xxxiii/xxxiv/127)
In calling for this politicisation of education, however, Giroux’s positioning is

neither for the domination of policy nor radicalisation of teachers, which he
describes as having ‘serious flaws’, not least in the ways in which schools in this
model are seen as acting solely as agents of capitalist reproduction, with teachers:
… trapped in an apparatus of domination that works with all the certainty of a Swiss watch.
Radical educators have focused on the language of domination to such a degree that it
undercuts any viable hope for developing a progressive, political educational strategy…
(2000, pp. xxxi-xxxii)
Instead, what Giroux is calling for is creating a discourse of possibility:

For radical pedagogy to become a viable political project, it has to develop a discourse that
combines the language of critique with the language of possibility … (1988, pp. xxxi-xxxii)
Discourse, as we saw in earlier chapters, is a shaper of reality, a carrier of values

and beliefs and thus critical in creating an awareness of how knowledge is created
and changed. Without the discourse of possibility, knowledge remains moribund
and contested. However, achieving such a discourse calls for a fundamental shift in
the role policy allows of teachers and the ways in which teachers themselves
interpret that role. Instead of the tension of compliance and resistance, Giroux calls
for a role of transformation—to position teachers as intellectuals whose role is to
engage actively with knowledge. Change is thus both understood and wrought in
ways that accede to student need in society and sustains the right to question and
reversion that society:
[teachers must become] … transformative intellectual[s], charged with the responsibility of
‘interrogat[ing] the … nature of … schooling. (1988, pp. xxix)
The responsibility of teachers is to move beyond any entrenched position on

knowledge and instead consider how new ways of engaging with knowledge as
transformational might impact on them as practitioners and as a profession. For the
former, will classroom practice be enabled by teacher as transformative intellectual
—Giroux’s position is one which points to the enhancement of the classroom:
If what we mean by practice refers to a ‘cookbook’ of ‘how-to’s’ then the answer is a
resounding ‘No’. To understand practice in these terms is to be at the mercy of a
domesticating discourse which establishes a false dichotomy between theory and practice,
effectively collapsing its dialectical relation …. If, on the other hand, we mean practice to
refer to a daily engagement in a more empowering language by which to think and act
critically in the struggle for democratic social relations and human freedom, then ‘Yes’.
(McLaren, 1988, foreword to Giroux, 1988, pp. xx-xxi)
As such, any position other than that of transformational intellectual, ‘renounce

[s] … the critical intent of knowledge acquisition and education in general’ (Giroux,
quoted in Kincheloe, 2003, p. 103). Giroux’s positioning of teachers as transfor-
mative intellectuals has, as its concomitant positioning, a rejection of the instru-
mental, but within an agenda of change.
Equally, as transformative intellectuals, teachers stand to develop the profession.
The discourse of possibility extends to knowledge change with teachers as agents of
that change:
In order to function as intellectuals, teachers must create the ideological and structural
conditions necessary for them to write, research, and work with each other in producing
curricula and sharing power. In the final analysis, teachers need to develop a discourse and
set of assumptions that allow them to function more specifically as transformative intel-
lectuals. (Giroux, 1988, p. xxxiv)
The role of teacher educator similarly becomes transformed. The ‘structural

conditions’ which may, echoing Kincheloe earlier, refer to teachers as researchers
are now linked with the knowledge possessed by teacher educators. Practice is part
of knowledge change, rather than a result of change imposition; change is now not a
matter of response but rather of creation, and teacher educators are perfectly
positioned to both contribute to that and reflect back to participants the impact of
that approach.
Similarly, the teacher educator has access to both the discourse of policy and of
teacher resistance. The new discourse of possibility has to be developed and
negotiated, built on an understanding of knowledge as transcending dichotomies of
power. The teacher educator has a central place in developing this new language,
able to bring both policy and teachers into a context described by student needs,
both economic and social. Transformation here literally speaks of ownership of
knowledge as flexible and responsive, as fluid and intelligent. Teacher educators
function as, and support the development of, transformative intellectuals. Change
becomes the goal, and teacher educators the agents of that change.
Conclusion
In exploring the intersections between knowledge and stakeholders, the place of

knowledge as a power construct has emerged strongly. Teachers, policy and teacher
educators have different interests in knowledge in education, but equally these
ultimately connect through democracy and the rights of students as stakeholders
themselves in the future shaping of society. Knowledge in this chapter has been
contextualised largely through examples in the UK; however, the trends that have
played out are global in reach (Linguard, Martino, & Rezai-Rashti, 2013; Au &
Feffare, 2015). The current position of knowledge as entrenchment, discord and
conflict is ultimately unproductive. The role of teacher educators here is, as the last
section suggested, critical in enabling knowledge to be reconceptualized through
Giroux’s discourse of possibility. The role might be realised differently in different
contexts: for some, it will be the development of the transformative intellectual
through setting up teacher reading, writing and research networks; for others, the
emphasis for teachers on the democratic rights of students as stakeholders in the
knowledge debate. Whatever the route, it is clear that teacher educators are uniquely
positioned in being able to predict, articulate and shape the future of education
through changing knowledge.
References
Au, W., & Ferrare, J. J. (Eds.). (2015). Mapping corporate education reform: Power and policy
networks in the neoliberal state. London: Routledge.
Beijaard, D., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. D. (2000). Teachers’ perceptions of professional identity:
An exploratory study from a personal knowledge perspective. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 16(7), 749–764.
Bernstein, B. B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity: Theory, research, critique (Vol.
4). Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
Biesta, G. (2007). Why “what works” won’t work: Evidence-based practice and the democratic
deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57(1), 1–22.
Bottery, M., & Wright, N. (2002). Teachers and the state: Towards a directed profession. London:
Routledge.
Charalambous, C. Y., & Hill, H. C. (2012). Teacher knowledge, curriculum materials, and quality
of instruction: Unpacking a complex relationship. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(4), 443–
466.
Cox, B. (1991). Cox on cox: English curriculum for the 1990’s. London: Hodder.
Education Reform Act. (1988). Education Reform Act. London: HMSO.
Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. London:
Greenwood Publishing Group.
Gordon, J. (2012). More than canons: Teacher knowledge and the literary domain of the secondary
English curriculum. Educational Research, 54(4), 375–390.
Hargreaves, D. H. (1998). Creative professionalism: The role of teachers in the knowledge society
(Vol. 22). London: Demos.
References 75
Hashweh, M. Z. (2005). Teacher pedagogical constructions: A reconfiguration of pedagogical

content knowledge. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11(3), 273–292.
Heller, J. I., Daehler, K. R., & Shinohara, M. (2003). Connecting all the pieces. Journal of Staff
Development, 24(4), 36–41.
Hughes, J. E. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming
technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13, 277–302.
Kincheloe, J. (2003). Teachers as researchers: Qualitative inquiry as a path to empowerment.
London: Routledge Falmer.
Lay, P. (2013). History in school: The debate continues. http://www.historytoday.com/blog/2013/
05/history-school-debate-continues.
Lingard, B., Martino, W., & Rezai-Rashti, G. (2013). Testing regimes, accountabilities and
education policy: Commensurate global and national developments. Journal of Education
Policy, 28(5), 539–556.
Nilsson, P., & Loughran, J. (2012). Exploring the development of pre-service science elementary
teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(7), 699–
721.
Rohaan, E., Taconis, R., & Jochems, W. (2012). Analysing teacher knowledge for technology
education in primary schools. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22
(3), 271–280.
Sachs, J. (1999). Teacher professional identity: Competing discourses, competing outcomes. Paper
presented at the AARE Conference, Melbourne, November 1999.
Shulman, L. (1992). Ways of seeing, ways of knowing, ways of teaching, ways of learning about
teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28, 393–396.
Walshaw, M. (2012). Teacher knowledge as fundamental to effective teaching practice. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 15, 181–185.
Chapter 6
Futures Methodology: Approaches,
Methods, Tools and Techniques
Abstract We acknowledge that future research in education is in its early stages of

development and there is sometimes confusion about its methodologies. There are a
number of ways that predictions of, visions for and debates about the future can be
embedded in rigorous research. This chapter first considers the difference between
forecast research, which seeks to predict the future, and foresight research which seeks
to generate views of alternative futures. The chapter then describes futures methods
with reference to predictive, exploratory, normative approaches. The chapter empha-
sises exploratory methods as employed in foresight research in education including
scenario building, backcasting, horizon scanning, driver analysis and Delphi panels.
The focus of the chapter is on the ways in which these methods can contribute to the
creation of scenarios and backcasting for use as tools in researching teacher education
futures. Earlier research from the OECD futures project frames the discussion. We use
examples of scenarios within and outside education to elaborate on ways that scenarios
provide visions of alternative futures and we explore the implications of such futures.

Keywords Scenario Futures Teacher education Futures methods

Education futures Backcasting Horizon scanning Driver analysis and Delphi
panels
Alternatives Challenging Orthodoxy
In planning and policy analysis, the future is often used to enhance the probability of
achieving a certain policy. This is often phrased as ‘preparing for the future’, or ‘responding
to the challenge of the future’. The future thus described is singular and more often than not
it is a given. The future becomes an arena of economic conquest and time becomes the most
recent dimension to colonise, institutionalise and domesticate … (Futures research), is not
‘preparing for the future’, but by challenging the orthodox future, it opens up the possibility
of alternative futures. Once alternative futures are created, then futures studies as practice
seeks to develop individual and organizational capacity to invent the desired future.
(Inayatullah, 2013, p. 41)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8246-7_6
78 6 Futures Methodology: Approaches, Methods, Tools and Techniques
Futures work encompasses an extensive field, including sustainability and

environment research, government policy and planning, and business and industry.
There are many ways predictions of, visions for and debates about imagined futures
can be developed and communicated. Approaches to thinking about futures range
from highly speculative fiction to tightly focused systematic research of alternative
futures. A comprehensive review of the approaches to futures thinking is beyond
the scope of this chapter. This chapter is primarily about futures research, as
opposed to futures thinking or futures planning.
This work is distinguishable from futures thinking in education in that the
futures work discussed here concentrates on futures methods in educational
research, that is, the use of futures methods for systematic inquiry that is made
public (Stenhouse, 1975), including the gathering, analysis and interpretation of
evidence to communicate insights into matters of educational significance, such as
the future of teacher education. Whilst this chapter provides background on futures
methods, it primarily sets out to describe the ways in which they have been applied
in teacher education futures research. First, the chapter will briefly discuss general
approaches to futures work and outline broad approaches to futures thinking in
education. It then highlights the methodologies underpinning the research reported
in this book: horizon scanning, driver analysis, Delphi panels, scenario building and
backcasting.
Predicting the Future: Degrees of Confidence and Certainty
The future cannot be known with absolute certainty but, when we think about the
future, there are degrees of certainty and uncertainty. Some elements of the future
are predictable because they simply recreate a sequence of events that recur reg-
ularly. When we express certainty, we sometimes express extreme certainty with
reference to seemingly certain future events. We might say not to worry because
‘the sun will come up tomorrow’ or that ‘there are only two certainties in life, death
and taxes’. The first is a physical event based on celestial movements with such
inertia that it is inconceivable that the sun will not come up tomorrow or for
foreseeable tomorrows. Death is a biological event that has always occurred but it is
not beyond the realms of possibility that, in a not far distant future, death may no
longer be inevitable. Taxes on the other hand will be with us long after our sun has
died and humanity has distributed itself across the planets. Futures research
methods are not useful in studying near certain events.
More distant events are less predictable than close events. For example, we
routinely predict the weather using well-researched models. The certainty of pre-
dictions decreases as they extend further into the future. Predicting tomorrow’s
weather is complex, but accurate far more often than not. Predicting next week’s
weather is less certain, and few will attempt to predict next year’s weather on any
particular day. On the other hand, we can predict with confidence that the weather
in April, 3 years from now, is likely to be similar to that which has been
Predicting the Future: Degrees of Confidence and Certainty 79
experienced in April over the last 100 years. There may be great variability for any
particular day and the prediction may well prove wrong, but the level of confidence
in the prediction is high. We have confidence in the prediction because there is a
vast data set from the past that allows us to see ongoing patterns in the weather and
these data allow us to construct highly reliable models. It is unlikely that anything
will happen in a few years on a scale that is capable of vastly disturbing the system
and altering current trends. Even so, an unlikely event may occur which could
vastly alter our weather predictions. The dinosaurs probably did not see the asteroid
coming and even if they had considered a future cataclysm, few would have pre-
dicted it on their watch.
The predictability of the future thus depends on a variety of factors, including the
distance of the future from the present; the extent, validity and reliability of data
available on the phenomenon about which the prediction is being made; the con-
sistency of trends exhibited in data (some systems are inherently more variable than
others); the reliability of models based on past accuracy of predictions (models that
have consistently made successful predictions are likely to continue to do so); and
the probability of an extraordinary or catastrophic event. Whilst these factors are in
play in all futures studies, in this chapter our main interest lies in methods for
researching futures that are less readily predictable but still amenable to change,
leaving the future open to creation and invention (Garbor, 1963). The distinction
between predicting and opening up possibilities requires us to consider two forms
of futures research: forecasting and foresight.
Education Futures Foresight and Forecasting
In this chapter, we are concerned with education, a social system rather than a
physical or biological system. Social systems have a degree of inertia in that they
tend to remain whatever they have been for long periods of time. Yet, they are also
open to change and shaping by events and human intervention, and compared to
complex physical systems, they may undergo rapid change. Thus, social systems
are a paradox. They generally plod along, stable and unchanging, but may suddenly
shift before plodding along once more. Thus, education is both constant and
changeable. Whilst it is a conserving and stable system, it is also capable of
innovation and creativity (Holling, 2001).
Futures work in education is therefore challenging. At one level, we know that if
we just look at past trends we might predict the nature and outcomes of education
20 years out. At the same time, we also know that education is littered with
examples of change whose occurrence is unpredictable. Consequently, we need two
broad ways of thinking about our future. These are sometimes referred to as
forecasting and foresight (Codd et al. 2002).
The primary function of forecasting is prediction. Forecasting is predictive and
generates a future or futures based on current trends and trajectories. It frames likely
possible realities that may come to pass under a particular set of conditions. In
contrast, the primary function of foresight is to open up alternative futures that raise
questions about current trends and plans. Foresight frames unrealities that may
never come to pass. It imagines potentials that rouse sufficient critique to initiate
change. In this context, prediction and forecasting sit more comfortably with
education’s conservative role, as each generation seeks to reproduce itself as
effectively as possible, whereas foresight is more suited to exploring education’s
transformational role in shaping a new and different world.
Although typically presented as ways or approaches to thinking about the future,
forecast and foresight are perhaps better viewed as a continuum. That is, that some
problems lend themselves to prediction and tend to draw on investigative tools,
models and quantitative methodologies, whilst others lend themselves to foresight
and tend to draw more on imagination and utilise exploratory tools and qualitative,
interpretive methodologies. ‘In the interpretive, the goal is not prediction but insight
… to undefine the future … (to) assert that the present is fragile, merely the victory
of one particular discourse, way of knowing, over another’ (Inayatullah, 2013,
p. 44).
Why Use Futures Methods
Futures methods in education generally serve broad purposes:

• Planning for a defined future, where the aim is to predict a future situation to
allow appropriate preparation or change;
• Avoiding current trajectories, where the current prediction results in an unde-
sirable or less than optimal future to be modified or avoided;
• Opening alternative possibilities, where the aim is to provide a range of alter-
native futures to inform the shaping of a hitherto ill-defined or unlooked for
future;
• Understanding the present, where the aim is to draw on a predicted future or
proposed futures to reflect on and to understand the present environment; and
• Provocation, where the aim is to promote critique of ideology, plans, policies or
practices.
Forecasting is an essential feature of education and educational research. For
example, demographers routinely forecast (i.e. predict) the need for schools. They
draw on census and other data together that indicate patterns of human behaviour to
predict the type, number and size of schools required in each area. Recently in
Sydney, Australia, after many years of successfully predicting demand for public
schools in the inner city, the recent predictions have proved inadequate and resulted
in a shortage of supply. This long-term prediction became false because people
changed their behaviour. In the past, many people moved out of inner-city apart-
ments to raise families in outer suburbs. As more families now remain or stay in
Why Use Futures Methods 81
inner-city apartments—more than expected based on past trends—an unanticipated

number of inner-city schools need to be built.
Forecasting is also used to predict teacher supply and demand, and to allow teacher
education institutions to adjust student intakes to meet the predicted needs for teachers
of different disciplines and subjects (Weldon, 2015). For example, in some countries,
there is currently a predicted undersupply of STEM specialist teachers and a
sub-optimal uptake of STEM subjects at school and at universities. This is driving
initiatives to build STEM education capacity and actions to attract more students into
STEM school subjects, university STEM programmes and STEM teacher education
courses. Forecasting is therefore a strong and necessary approach to futures work
because it builds on what is known to predict the unknown. It describes the probable,
expected and anticipated future. It looks at the present, considers the past and predicts a
future based on current trends. This is also its weakness because the past and the
present can also narrow rather than broaden possibilities. Whilst forecasting of this kind
is essential in education, this chapter now turns to foresight, which is the approach
taken in the research discussed in this book.
Foresight
Foresight is imaginative and aims to generate illustrations of alternative futures and

invented, yet realistic, potentials—not realities. As noted above this does not simply
involve thinking grand thoughts about the future, it requires a rigorous consider-
ation of the past and present to inform descriptions of futures. Methods we have
used in our research and which are reported in this book include horizon scanning,
driver analysis, Delphi panels, scenario production and backcasting (see Fig. 6.1).
Fig. 6.1 Possible sequence of methods used in futures research

These methods will now be discussed. In futures research, these methods are often
combined, adding rigour to the consideration of alternative futures.
Horizon Scanning
The concept of horizon scanning is ill-defined and used differently by various actors. In a
narrow sense, it refers to a policy tool that systematically gathers a broad range of infor-
mation about emerging issues and trends in an organization’s political, economic, social,
technological, or ecological environment. (Habegger, 2009, p. 5)
Horizon scans are used to examine the past and present in order to anticipate the
future. They are often large in scale and sponsored by government agencies,
organisations or consortiums to inform their current decision-making and future
agendas. The New Media Consortium Horizon Report(s) (Johnson, Adams Becker,
Estrada, & Freeman, 2015), for example, regularly publish current trends in
emerging technology and report on implications for education planning, ranging
from infrastructure developments to curriculum and teacher professional learning.
Horizon scanning seeks to identify trends and issues. It has been defined as
the systematic examination of potential threats, opportunities and likely future develop-
ments which are at the margins of current thinking and planning … [it] may explore novel
and unexpected issues, as well as persistent problems or trends (Food and Rural Affairs,
2002, cited in Könnölä, Salo, Cagnin, Carabias, & Vilkkumaa, 2012, p. 222).
In our work, horizon scanning has taken the form of systematic reviews of
teacher education literature to identify issues that wax and wane and trends that
might impact on the field. These reviews have typically been followed by con-
sultations with experts to identify which trends, issues and policies may strengthen
or weaken their influence, as well as their longevity. Some of these may be con-
sidered passing fads, whilst others may be likely to shape education for another
20 years or more. In this context, ‘literature’ needs to be viewed broadly. Literature
reviews focus on credible academic evidence and may be limited to empirical
research published in refereed journals. Horizon scanning needs to take into account
influences with no evidentiary base, along with the misleading and false com-
mentaries of the influential and the ill-informed as well as the erudite. It may
include ‘sources, such as the Internet, government ministries and agencies,
non-governmental organisations, international organisations and companies,
research communities and on-line and off-line journals’ (OECD nd).
Consequently, horizon scanning requires examination beyond traditional
research that is typically the subject of systematic literature reviews. It goes beyond
the review and identification of past and current trends. It highlights and may
resolve ambiguity and produces knowledge about emerging, obvious and less
Horizon Scanning 83
obvious trends and their effects. Thus, horizon scanning moves beyond the analysis
of trending themes in varied sources by drawing on experts to interpret the sig-
nificance of trends, highlight their consequences, and predict what might be next.
According to Könnölä et al. (2012), it is impossible to separate horizon scanning
from sense-making
because the objective of horizon scanning is to create knowledge on the emergence of
issues that, by definition, lie beyond current horizons, there is often only scarce and
scattered evidence to support the collection of signals and the assessment of their signifi-
cance. (p. 222)
Because sense-making requires the researcher to draw on collective wisdom of

experts and stakeholders in collecting evidence and synthesising possibilities that
influence the future, horizon scanning inevitably overlaps with other futures
research methods such as driver analysis and Delphi panels (which are discussed
below). In our work, the initial research often begins with a small-scale horizon
scan involving a review of the literature and discussions with experts to identify
important trends, such as the changing views on the nature of knowledge, emerging
developments in technology, and teacher education policies and practices. These
are then further examined through driver analysis and Delphi panels.
Driver Analysis
Driver analysis is associated with horizon scanning and scenario building. The
primary function of driver analysis is to tease out from the many identified trends
those that may be critical and impactful in influencing the development of alter-
native futures.
Drivers are underlying issues or trends that share a common theme and will ‘drive’ future
change. Drivers can inform an overall outcome, such as a scenario. The technique of driver
analysis determines which of the drivers are most critical for consideration for a given [field
of investigation]. (HM Government, nd)
As the aim of foresight research is to shape futures and to generate possibilities,

it is important to decide which drivers are susceptible to change and have strongly
divergent variants, and which trends are likely to either remain constant and apply
across all potential futures or generate alternative futures. Our research has
invariably used driver analysis as a precursor to, or in an initial phase of, scenario
construction (scenario production is discussed below). Our research methods have
been much influenced by Iversen (2006), who recommended approaches for
determining and analysing drivers in collaborative scenario-building workshops. He
suggests three steps in driver analysis for scenario building, and here we elaborate
on how these have been adapted for research.
Identification of Trends
This requires an analysis of literature in the field as well as consultation with key
stakeholders to ensure coverage of trends that are particularly pertinent to policy-
makers and practitioners. For example, in Aubusson and Schuck (2013), the process
of identifying trends in teacher education included a literature analysis that was
extended and elaborated from a series of interviews with teacher educators.
Consolidation of Trends
This is achieved through descriptive data reduction conducted by the research team.
It involves synthesising succinct descriptions and categorising trends identified in
literature and from consultations with stakeholders. The expert community is typ-
ically included in this consolidation to either confirm or modify proposed trends
through Delphi panels, focus groups or workshops.
Prioritisation
Having identified and consolidated the trends, the final step is to prioritise them by
considering the most impactful, drivers and then shortlisting these to a set of agreed
drivers. These key drivers may then inform data gathering in further futures
research or they may be used in scenario creation. In Aubusson and Schuck (2013)
for example, emerging technologies and the changing nature of knowledge were
identified as key drivers but additional data were required and sought (Burden,
Aubusson, Brindley, & Schuck, 2016) in order to have confidence in determining
the teacher education futures they might shape.
These steps are presented above in sequence, but for us it has normally been an
iterative process, with conversations in focus groups or interviews highlighting
issues that require a revisiting of literature, and workshop feedback leading to
redefinitions and changes in the categories developed in the consolidation process.
Over a series of research projects, it is normal to move in and out of identification,
consolidation and prioritisation in a non-linear fashion.
Delphi Study
Delphi studies are aptly named after the Oracle of Delphi, where ambiguous pre-
dictions of the future were made in ancient Greece. Delphi studies were originally
limited to quantitative methods, usually enacted through cycles of surveys of expert
Delphi Study 85
panels rendering expert views accessible to statistical analysis (Gordon, 2011).

However, it has also been classified as a qualitative method (e.g. OECD, nd), and
the case has been made recently for qualitative Delphi studies involving interview
and verbatim records with interpretive analyses (Green, 2014). Anderson and
Rasmussen (2014) describe the Delphi technique as semi-quantitative, noting that it
is commonly practised as qualitative research with qualitative analysis of participant
data. However, they recommend that the qualitative phase should be followed by
further data collections and statistical analysis. Others distinguish original and more
recent use of Delphi panels, suggesting that Delphi studies may involve either or
both quantitative and qualitative techniques (Börjeson, Höjer, Dreborg, Ekvall, &
Finnveden, 2006).
Regardless of its overarching methodological paradigm, in education futures
research, the Delphi technique consistently establishes a panel of expert educators
who are invited to elaborate their perceptions of future trends of education through
an iterative process. Whilst the Delphi technique often seeks to find a consensus
(Börjeson et al., 2006, Gordon, 2011; Green, 2014; Iversen, 2006), agreement is a
problematical outcome because there are often powerfully competing views in
education and teacher education. Indeed, in our research, consensus is typically not
sought, and when some consensus is sought it is often better described as an uneasy
compromise with dissenting views. Rather than seeking agreement, multiple views
are often obtained and reported when using Delphi panels to explore alternative
futures.
‘The primary strength of Delphi is its ability to explore issues that require
judgment’ (Gordon, 1994, p. 10). The key feature of a Delphi panel is that it is
made up of people with expertise in the field and that it seeks insights into matters
that require professional wisdom. A Delphi panel is not asked, for example, to
predict the probable high school population or the demand for graduate teachers
10 years into the future. Such information is available by other means. Rather, in
the Delphi technique, the experts are asked about the threats, opportunities, pos-
sibilities and trends that have the potential to influence education futures in different
ways. Discerning the outcomes of these influences into the future requires the
expert judgment of actors well versed in the field.
The types of questions we have asked experts in Delphi studies are consistent
with those recommended by Gordon (2011) and Green (2014), including judge-
ments and reasons related to
• social, technological, political and economic changes or imperatives with
potential to influence education and teacher education;
• future education/teacher education development perceptions and their implica-
tions for the quality of teacher education;
• the desirability of future and emerging practices or trends; and
• the means for achieving, modifying, influencing or avoiding a future form of
education/teacher education.
In our research, we have used Delphi panels to explore broad trends such as the
future direction of teacher education and more tightly focussed developments such
as a particular change in curriculum (Aubusson, 2011). We have also used sets of
panels to explore views through sequences of studies to explore developments in
teacher education futures broadly (Aubusson & Schuck, 2013) and then to focus
more specifically on futures emanating from emerging technologies and different
curriculum emphases (Burden et al., 2016).
Backcasting
Robinson (1990) proposed backcasting as a means of using informed

decision-making to shape the future, and it is so named as a contrast to forecasting.
In forecasting, past and present trends together with predictable agreed actions are
used to look forward to predict the future. In backcasting, a future or alternative
futures are used to look back to propose actions emanating from the present that are
required to attain an approximation of a proposed future. Bishop, Hines and Collins
(2007) describe it in metaphorical terms as follows:
Jab a stake in the ground, and then work backward on how we might get there. The first
step then is to envision a future state at the time horizon. It can be plausible or fantastical,
preferred or catastrophic; but having established that state as a beachhead, it is easier to
“connect the dots” from the present to the future (or back again) than it is to imagine the
events leading to an unknown future. (p. 13)
Bishop et al. (2007) see the applicability of backcasting to different types of futures
research, both exploratory and normative. By contrast, Iversen (2006), Robinson
(1990); and van Notten, Rotmans, van Asselt, and Rothman (2003) describe back-
casting as normative in that a preferred or predicted future is identified and used to
determine what needs to be done to reach this future. Whilst we accept that backcasting
is typically associated with mapping a path towards a desired future, in our work we
aim to review and reshape the present through the consideration of alternative futures
and open up education and teacher education, not merely by doing something differ-
ently but by doing something different. Hence, we see backcasting as transformative.
Börjeson et al. (2006) argue that in backcasting, the starting point is a described,
advanced high priority ‘target’ that is unachievable if things were to proceed as they are
now. The changes required to reach the target are ‘not marginal’ and may require major
shifts in policy and actions. Consequently, backcasting is not about the future; rather,
the future is prioritised as a target, and the discussion is about the present and how to
bring about the actions and solutions required to shift from the current baseline tra-
jectory to transform the predicted future into a vision that has been established as the
goal. Figure 6.2 captures this idea graphically.
In our research, we have combined backcasting with scenario building, which
features typically in futures methods (Börjeson et al., 2006; Bishop et al., 2007;
Backcasting 87
Fig. 6.2 Representation of backcasting method (with permission from www.naturalstep.ca)
Robinson 1990), to explore and reveal stakeholders’ views on the critical changes
required to achieve a described teacher education future. Backcasting has occurred
in workshops with data gathered from discussions and through the analysis of the
backcasting diagrams produced. The future vision may be chosen by participants or
determined by researchers, but otherwise the process remains the same. Examples
of backcasting, with further details on the methods employed, are reported in
Chaps. 8 and 13.
Workshop participants are asked to consider a future vision of teacher education.
We have always worked with visions that were identified as desirable but radically
different from the current and predicted scenarios, and we asked whether the future
is a probable outcome of the current situation, what about the present makes this
future likely or unlikely (this includes identification of endogenous elements per-
taining to teacher education as well as broad exogenous contextual influences), and
what would need to change to approach the proposed future. Participants list the
changes that would be required (examples of backcasting in teacher education are
discussed in Chaps. 8 and 13), and are asked to place them in order on a plane,
represented by a large sheet of paper, with the bottom left diagonal representing the
present and the top right diagonal a representation the target future vision (see
Fig. 8.2).
Participants sort changes into two groups: those specific to teacher education and
those that are broader aspects of education, society and/or culture. The former
typically includes changes pertaining to teacher education policy, goals, curriculum,
personnel and practices. The latter often relate to the political environment and
societal expectations, as well as the nature of schooling, curriculum and learning.
The participants then arbitrarily label the half of the plane above the line for
changes addressing broad aspects of current and future environments, whilst the
lower triangle is set aside for aspects of change required of teacher education. The
division is arbitrary and the reason for distinguishing the two is to ensure that
participants consider both matters within the field of teacher education and critical
elements of the environment that impact on teacher education. The participants are
then asked to position the change events in sequence on the plane, placing the
changes that must take place first early on the timeline, that is, closer to the present,
and changes that come later in sequence progressively closer to the position of the
target future. The result is a diagram identifying the participants’ perceptions of
critical steps to produce change.
We are in the early stages of working with backcasting as a research tool. It is
apparent that it has the capacity to help people to consider an alternative future as a
possibility where previously it might have been considered unattainable. It seems
that identifying what needs to be changed raises new possibilities and frees people
from the hegemony of the present.
As a research tool, the plotted backcasts are idiosyncratic and sometimes lack the
clarity and completeness needed for confident interpretation by researchers.
However, the discussions that occur in the collaborative making of the backcasting
plots may reveal insights into participants’ views related to present and future
decision-making. Thus far, we have used backcasting methods in workshops, but
we intend to explore the possibility of researching with backcasting through Delphi
panels. The construction and sharing of backcasting diagrams seems to have
potential as stimuli to promote collective critical reflection and encourage the
reappraisal of the perceived fixed nature of current trends.
Scenario Building
Reviews of scenario building have outlined the purposes, methods and practices for
their production (Bishop et al., 2007; Börjeson et al., 2006; Bradfield et al., 2005;
van Notten et al., 2003). They all note that a range of scenario creating methods and
techniques exist, there is considerable confusion about their use and there is
inconsistency in the use of terminology. Bradfield et al. (2005) describe the
methodological state of scenario building as chaotic.
Each has sought to clarify the purposes and procedures in different ways. It is
beyond the scope of this chapter to resolve the inconsistencies, ‘chaos’ and con-
cerns regarding the misuse of scenarios (Bishop et al., 2007). Remembering that the
primary purpose of this chapter is to elaborate on the methodologies we have used
in our research, we will first locate our research according to the typology of
scenario creation proposed by Börjeson et al. (2006) and then outline the ways in
which scenario creation, as utilised in education, has influenced the methodology
and techniques we have employed.
There are three purposes of scenario creation derived from three central ques-
tions that futures studies may seek to answer: What will happen? What can happen?
and How can a specific target be reached? (Börjeson et al., 2006). Scenario plan-
ning may therefore be, respectively, predictive, exploratory or normative. Each of
these forms of scenarios includes further scenario types (see Fig. 6.3).
Scenario Building 89
Fig. 6.3 Scenario typology with three categories and six types (from Börjeson et al. (2006), with
permission from Elsevier)
A predictive scenario may be a forecast that predicts futures based on the

assumption that existing processes, trends and systems will continue to operate with
little change. It may also be a ‘what-if’ scenario; what-if scenarios are created on
the basis that an event or systemic change occurs and they ask: ‘If this happens,
then what future is likely’? Both are primarily used for planning purposes to ensure
preparedness for a potential future.
Normative scenarios, a term also used by van Notten et al., (2003), may be
transforming or preserving. A preserving scenario is useful if the target sought is
achievable with a continuation of the dominant prevailing environment. By con-
trast, a transforming scenario is required when significant changes to prevailing
systems are required to reach a future that is sought. Transforming scenario building
often includes backcasting (Börjeson et al., 2006). It is worth noting here that in our
use of futures methods we separate backcasting from the scenario-building process,
whilst others often discuss backcasting as part of or as a form of scenario building
(Robinson, 1990; van Notten et al., 2003).
The scenario-building approach that has dominated our work is exploratory
(again a term also used by van Notten et al., 2003). Exploratory scenario building is
appropriate where much is unknown or the aim is to develop and pose alternatives
to what will arise through the expected progression from the current status quo.
Exploratory scenarios may be strategic or external:
Strategic scenarios incorporate policy measures at the hand of the intended scenario user to
cope with the issue at stake. The aim of strategic scenarios is to describe a range of possible
consequences of strategic decisions … External scenarios focus only on factors beyond the
control of the relevant actors. They are typically used to inform strategy development of a
planning entity.” (Börjeson et al., 2006, p. 727)
Although we classify our work as exploratory, according to the typology, it

would be misleading to pretend that the characterisation is perfect. The scenario
research we report is clearly exploratory at the first level, but it is not readily
categorised as purely strategic or external. Our scenario creating almost always

involves experts in consultation with stakeholders pondering possibilities, current
trends and alternatives, as well as raising questions about the ways things can be
different. Our research often identifies some features of the educational landscape
that seem fixed and immovable in the view of expert participants, and require a
‘what if’ style of questioning. Consequently, the scenarios we create are exploratory
but have some elements consistent with both what-if and transforming scenario
creation. However, they are distinguishable from what-if scenarios in that they
usually draw on a range of possible changes and diverse views, rather than a single
change event. As a result, they lead to a greater range of futures situated at a more
distant horizon than is typical of what-if creations. Our scenario production also has
similarities to transforming scenario building but is distinguishable from trans-
forming scenarios in the depth and breadth of alternative possibilities considered
and in the variety of scenarios created.
Generating Scenarios
Our scenario-building methods have been considerably influenced by research

proposed by Iversen (2006), Linde (2003) and Snoek (2003). The basic first steps in
our scenario creation are adapted from Iversen (2006). These include delineation
and mapping, identification of critical trends and issues, driver identification, trend
consolidation, trend/driver prioritisation, and scenario structure. The processes that
Iversen outlines are designed to help participants develop and work with scenarios
in collaborative workshops. However, the processes are readily adapted for use with
scenarios in research as outlined below.
In delineation, the purpose is to clarify an appropriate procedure to gather data to
inform and then create the scenarios. This is followed by mapping, where a variety
of sources and literature is searched to identify patterns and trends in the field under
investigation, in this case teacher education. Delineation and mapping are akin to
horizon scanning described above. The varied trends are consolidated in a data
reduction process, bringing together like with like to establish a more clearly
defined set of drivers.
There are two main types of drivers: those that remain constant across a range of
futures and those that have divergent possibilities. For example, it may be that
political dissatisfaction with teacher education 20 years hence is a constant across
all futures, with its implications for the control and influence of ideology on
decision-making. By contrast, it may be that the primary purpose of education is
considered to have divergent possibilities, in terms of the type of knowledge that is
valued by society. Contrasting futures, one with an emphasis on discipline
knowledge and the other with an emphasis on the acquisition of general capabili-
ties, is then conceivable. So, the drivers need to be sorted into those that are held
Generating Scenarios 91
constant and those that portend distinguishable alternative future propositions.

Here, it is useful to note that the determination of which elements are held constant
and which elements are varied in the production of futures may be based on evi-
dence such that something which has been constant for a long period may be
considered to remain constant for the projected period; agreed on the basis that the
dominant view amongst those consulted is that the element will remain constant (or
vary); or influenced by the purpose of the future thinking. If the purpose is to be
transformative, in the consideration of alternatives futures, then drivers of education
or teacher education that have hitherto been unchallenged may be consciously and
provocatively varied. As a matter of convenience, using the two-dimensional
technique described below (Linde, 2003) requires the identification of a limited
number of drivers that vary and a limited number of drivers that are held constant.
Using the Two-Dimensional Technique in Research
Following Linde’s (2003) and Snoek’s (2003) advice, we routinely use

two-dimensional models in the creation of future scenarios. The dimensions consist
of continuums established by the identification of extremes positioned at the end of
each continuum. For example, in the creation of teacher education futures Snoek
(2003) describes the use of the following dimensions projected upon futures of
teacher education: Pragmatism–idealism and individualism–social coherence. Once
identified, dimensions are used to create four alternative futures (see Fig. 6.4).
Fig. 6.4 Four scenarios for the future of teacher education in Europe (from Snoek, M. (2003).
Copyright © Association for Teacher Education in Europe, reprinted by permission of Taylor &
Francis Ltd, http://www.tandfonline.com on behalf of Association for Teacher Education in
Europe.)
Setting the dimensions at right angles to each other establishes four quadrants
that provide the basis for representations of four alternative futures. Quadrant 1
leads to the production of future Scenario 1 which emphasises a highly pragmatic
form of teacher education that serves the prerogatives of a society that values
individualism over social coherence. Figure 6.5 shows an example of this method
in creating teacher education future scenarios based on two dimensions. The first is
a curriculum dimension with extremes ranging from a curriculum emphasis on
Social Capital/Bildung to a curriculum emphasis on Subject Content. The second
dimension is about locus of control ranging from an emphasis on University/
Teacher Education Institutional Independent Control to an emphasis on
Government Bureaucratic Control of teacher education.
Once these quadrants are established, the task is to describe alternative futures,
to complete the space delineated by the dimensions in each quadrant. Each quadrant
is elaborated in detail to describe alternative futures, which in this instance are
alternative teacher education futures. Thus, in Fig. 6.5, Quadrant 1 gives rise to a
future with an emphasis on strong government control and compliance together
with an emphasis on the acquisition of discipline-based, subject content knowledge.
For a detailed elaboration on the selection of drivers and the scenario, see Chap. 7.
The scenario creation process as noted above is similar to that which has been
described by Linde (2003) and Snoek (2003) and is well suited to scenarios created
in workshops of relevant stakeholders or by expert groups. It requires extensive
discussion and debate amongst participants, and it culminates in the sharing of
scenarios as the basis for reflection and critique. However, when scenarios are used
primarily for research purposes, the process may vary from the procedure described
for workshops.
Fig. 6.5 Example of the four-scenario method

Using the Two-Dimensional Technique in Research 93
Scenarios may be used for a range of purposes in research, including

• workshopping the creation of scenarios using the workshopping process
described above (see Chap. 7);
• presenting scenarios to participants to provoke responses and gathering data on
views expressed (see e.g. Chaps. 7 and 12);
• using scenarios to represent the views of experts based on data collected through
a Delphi panel, focus group or interviews (see e.g. Chaps. 7 and 12);
• for backcasting where a scenario is used to establish a target future, one pre-
ferred, ideal or achievable (vision) and backcasting is applied to determine steps
to be taken to bring it about (see e.g. Chaps. 8 and 13); and
• backcasting after identifying a future scenario that is fundamentally flawed and
planning steps to avoid it.
Throughout, the emphasis in research with futures scenarios is on the collection
and analysis of data to produce the scenarios or gather data that are triggered during
the production of scenarios or in response to scenarios that are presented. The data
collection and analysis follow typical education (social sciences) methodologies.
However, the scenario construction from data can present some challenges in the
use of the two-dimensional models to achieve the purposes described for
exploratory scenario creation. Some of these challenges are now discussed.
Completing the Quadrants
The first challenge in creating scenarios from data, rather than through work-
shopping, is that the data set may be incomplete when mapped against the four
quadrants. This makes it difficult to construct a scenario for each of four quadrants
from an equivalent evidence base. In workshopping, the participants create the
scenarios and can be encouraged to fill the gaps. In data-driven scenario creation,
the researcher(s) create the scenario based on evidence. This evidence may be
obtained through consultation, focus groups, interviews, surveys and Delphi panels.
Despite being asked and encouraged to comment on alternative trends, drivers and
future potentials, interviewees may comment more extensively on aspects related to
some quadrants than others. For example, when interviewing expert science edu-
cators on the future of science education arising from future curriculum develop-
ments, the data collection extensively described only two of the four quadrants.
Consequently, although four scenarios were drafted, only two scenarios were
published in the original report of the work (Aubusson, 2011).
The problem with this outcome is that it tends to leave more radical alternatives
unstated and favour the continuation of current trends. Even if these current trends
present two interesting alternatives, the absence of more radical scenarios tends to
leave assumptions about the present and future inadequately challenged. The full set
of scenarios was later published (Aubusson, 2013; see also Chap. 12) as a stimulus
for a workshop of experts in science education. However, it raises the question of

whether data-led scenario production in research ought to be entirely limited to the
data obtained from participants and horizon scanning in the production of alter-
native, provocative futures. We think this is a matter for a case-by-case decision for
researchers. However, where futures research fails to produce alternative scenarios
that challenge the way in which we think about alternatives and fails to question the
status quo, it is reasonable to ask whether the methodology is serving its purpose. It
may be productive to project four alternative future scenarios, where this is required
to raise questions of importance, but to note the extent to which each scenario is
based directly on evidence obtained through the data collection processes and
which elements relate to horizon scanning or other futures techniques. Where
scenarios are primarily being used in research to represent data, such as the
expression of the view of a group of stakeholders, it is appropriate to be restricted to
those for which there is a basis in the evidence obtained. However, when a scenario
is to be used to gather feedback and to stimulate diverse futures thinking, then the
development of multiple scenarios with significantly differing evidentiary bases
may be necessary to encourage participants to think laterally and creatively.
Imagining Impossibilities
A second major challenge we face in futures work relates to the essential difficulty
that exists in imagining new and different alternatives, including futures that may
never come to pass. Linde (2003) and Snoek (2003) acknowledge this problem in
the workshopping of alternative futures and have described the need to prime and
assist participants to think outside the box. This problem is not new in scenario
construction and a variety of techniques ranging from relaxation and brainstorming
to stream of consciousness and metaphorical thinking have been suggested (Bishop
et al. 2007; Iversen, 2006). In workshop environments, such techniques are
appropriate for diversifying perspectives and possibilities. However, such tech-
niques are less readily applicable in a research study where the aim is to gather the
knowledge and collective wisdom of experts; data are typically gathered through
survey, interview or focus groups.
The challenge lies with the researcher/interviewer functioning as a protagonist
pressing experts to project into the more distant futures and asking them to set aside
generally accepted propositions about current and future teacher education. This
often proves difficult. Experts, by their very nature, know a lot about their field. In
the case of teacher education, they often see trends and issues that would not, in
their view, undergo significant change even in the long term. The political agenda
for education broadly and teacher education particularly is often perceived to be
ideologically driven and particularly resistant to change. This has been evident in a
number of our studies in which the politics of education render the consideration of
more radical alternative futures difficult (Aubusson, 2013; Aubusson and Schuck,
2013; Aubusson et al., 2016).
Using the Two-Dimensional Technique in Research 95
In studies of teacher education, the politics of education make it difficult to

imagine teacher education futures that embrace new ways of teaching and learning
in an environment dominated by a back to the basics movement together with
prescribed teaching processes. In other words, participants in Delphi panels can be
(understandably) preoccupied with the present. In the study of science education
professors’ views of the future of science education (Aubusson et al., 2016), some
of the experts interviewed rejected the interviewer’s request to be expansive in the
consideration of alternative futures by setting aside their view of what future was
actually possible. They cited the impossibility of achieving some desirable futures
in the current and future political environment, an environment that they perceived
had limited potential to change. The willingness or possibility of imagining the
far-fetched and the impossible seems to be restricted by long-term experience with
education, its politics and its historically limited capacity for genuinely radical
change.
The challenge is that the very problem in education that futures thinking seeks to
address inhibits the futures thinking that is needed. Therefore, a challenge for
data-led methods of scenario production is that they may sometimes lead to rela-
tively conservative and less diverse future alternatives than other approaches, such a
workshopping. Nevertheless, persevering with data-led scenario creation is useful if
viewed as part of a long-term iterative process for futures research. We note that
when presented with some data-based scenarios teacher educators and science
educators have complained that some scenarios are too conservative, implying that
they want more radical futures. The scenarios still serve their purpose of chal-
lenging current thinking about the present and the future if by holding up a mirror
the community itself is dissatisfied with what it now sees.
Conclusion
There are two general approaches to research futures, forecasting and foresight.
Forecasting predicts with a view to informing actions policies and practices to deal
with, respond to, or shape predicted futures. Foresight imagines potentials to create
new ways of thinking about education, such as the direction education is taking and
the outcomes being sought. Foresight questions the basic assumptions that underpin
current ideology, policy and practice, making them problematic rather than
accepted. The intention is to scrutinise the past and present to entertain the possi-
bility for new futures.
Futures research in education is in its early stages of development and there is
some confusion, even chaos, in discussions of the methodologies. This chapter has
focussed on exploratory rather than predictive or normative methods, but it
acknowledges that the distinction is not clear, with grey ambiguity lying at areas
where these approaches overlap.
A variety of methods are often combined in futures research. There is no right or
wrong way to think about the future—although some methods are better than others
for different research purposes. Considering horizon scanning, driver analysis,

Delphi panels, backcasting and scenario production, each may be employed sepa-
rately and produce useful findings. However, in foresight future studies combining
a variety of methods adds to the confidence we can have in the research findings.
Foresight research may be a flawed process, but all methodologies have their
strengths and weaknesses. If the aim of exploratory futures research were to gen-
erate real futures, then the methodological challenges would leave them open to
much criticism. However, the descriptions and scenarios produced are not intended
to be a projected reality. The real methodological challenge does not so much lie in
the capacity to accurately render data gathered into scenarios or to analyse views
expressed in response to scenarios that are proposed. Rather, the great challenge of
exploratory futures research lies in embracing the flexibility of the thinking required
to set aside the predictable as it asks us to imagine something different, something
previously unconsidered. As Linde (2003) explains,
Models in scenario work do not depict the truth. They can be more or less effective as
illustrations of tendencies for evoking good discussions on what we want and do not want
to see in the future and what we can do about it ourselves. (p. 45)
No doubt foresight research may be false and misleading, but it is no more false
and misleading than a future constrained by and embedded in the present alone.
References
Andersen, P. D., & Rasmussen, B. (2014). Introduction to foresight and foresight processes in
practice: Note for the Ph.D. course Strategic Foresight in Engineering. Department of
Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark.
Aubusson, P. (2011). An Australian science curriculum: Competition, advances and retreats.
Australian Journal of Education, 55(3), 229–244.
Aubusson, P. (2013). Science in schools: Can we choose a better future. The Conversation.
Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/science-in-schools-can-we-choose-a-better-future-
12508.
Aubusson, P., Panizzon, D., & Corrigan, D. (2016). Science education futures: “Great Potential.
Could Do Better. Needs to Try Harder”. Research in Science Education, 46(2), 203–221.
Aubusson, P., & Schuck, S. (2013). Teacher education futures: Today’s trends, tomorrow’s
Bishop, P., Hines, A., & Collins, T. (2007). The current state of scenario development: An
overview of techniques. Foresight, 9(1), 5–25.
Börjeson, L., Höjer, M., Dreborg, K. H., Ekvall, T., & Finnveden, G. (2006). Scenario types and
techniques: Towards a user’s guide. Futures, 38(7), 723–739.
Bradfield, R., Wright, G., Burt, G., Cairns, G., & Van Der Heijden, K. (2005). The origins and
evolution of scenario techniques in long range business planning. Futures, 37, 795–812.
Burden, K., Aubusson, P., Brindley, S., & Schuck, S. (2016). Changing knowledge, changing
technology: Implications for teacher education futures. Journal of Education for Teaching, 42
(1), 4–16.
Codd, J. A., Brown, M., Clark, J., McPherson, H., O’Neill, J., O’Neill, H., et al. (2002). Review of
future-focused research on teaching and learning. Wellington: Ministry of Education New
Zealand.
References 97
Gabor, D. (1963). Inventing the future (Vol. 663). London: Secker & Warburg.
Gordon, T. J. (1994). The Delphi method. AC/UNU Millennium project. Futures Research
Methodology, 1–9.
Gordon, T. J. (2011). The Delphi method in futures research methodology-V3. 0. The Millennium
Project. Retrieved from http://millennium-project.org/FRMv3_0/04-Delphi.pdf.
Green, R. A. (2014). The Delphi technique in educational research. SAGE Open, 4(2),
2158244014529773.
HM Government (nd) The futures toolkit: Tools for strategic futures for policy-makers and
analysts. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_
data/file/328069/Futures_Toolkit_beta.pdf.
Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems.
Ecosystems, 4(5), 390–405.
Habegger, B. (2009). Horizon scanning in government: Concept, country experiences, and models
for Switzerland. Center for Security Studies (CSS), ETH Zurich.
Inayatullah, S. (2013). Futures studies: Theories and methods. There’s a Future: Visions for a
Better World, BBVA, Madrid. 36–66.
Iversen, J. S. (2006). Futures thinking methodologies and options for education. Centre for
Educational Research and Innovation, Schooling for Tomorrow: Think Scenarios, Rethink
Education. 107–122.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). The NMC Horizon Report:
2015 Museum Edition. Austin, TX: New Media Consortium.
Könnölä, T., Salo, A., Cagnin, C., Carabias, V., & Vilkkumaa, E. (2012). Facing the future:
Scanning, synthesizing and sense-making in horizon scanning. Science and Public Policy, 39
(2), 222–231.
Linde, G. (2003). The use of two-dimensional models in social science: An auto critical review.
European Journal of Teacher Education, 26(1), 37–45.
OECD (nd). Schooling for tomorrow knowledge bank: Overview of methodologies. Retrieved from
https://www.oecd.org/site/schoolingfortomorrowknowledgebase/futuresthinking/
overviewofmethodologies.htm.
Robinson, J. B. (1990). Futures under glass: A recipe for people who hate to predict. Futures, 22
(8), 820–842.
Snoek, M. (2003). The use and methodology of scenario making. European Journal of Teacher
Education, 26(1), 9–19.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London:
Heinemann.
van Notten, P. W. F., Rotmans, J., van Asselt, M. B. A., & Rothman, D. S. (2003). An updated
scenario typology. Futures, 35(5), 423–443.
Weldon, P. R. (2015). The teacher workforce in Australia: Supply, demand and data issues.
Camberwell (Vic): Australian Centre for Educational Research.
Chapter 7
Teacher Educators Working
with Scenarios
Abstract This chapter analyses the work of the Teacher Education Futures Forum
(TEFF), which was initiated and convened by the authors in 2011 to discuss the
future of teacher education across a range of countries. The TEFF comprised a
group of teacher educators from nine countries who had all expressed an interest in
considering future trajectories of teacher education and who were involved in
teacher education reform in their own countries. The group identified trends and
tensions that existed in each country regarding teacher education. These trends were
used to provide drivers of teacher education which were further analysed. The
chapter explains how the group was introduced to a process of scenario building by
one of its members and it provides illustrations of scenarios that were devised in the
first forum meeting. It expands on methodologies used by this group to create
scenarios. The outputs of this group of teacher educators included a special issue of
a journal on teacher education futures, and a programme of research in this area,
culminating in the publication of this book.

Keywords Futures forum Education futures Education drivers

Scenario building School reform Teacher education
Introducing the Teacher Education Futures Forum
This chapter illustrates the ways in which a group of teacher education researchers
investigated a range of teacher education futures using some of the methods dis-
cussed in Chap. 6. The group formed the Teacher Education Futures Forum
(TEFF), a forum of international teacher educators with a shared interest in teacher
education and its current and future directions. The group was started in 2011 by
two of the authors of this book, who wished to discuss the future of teacher
education in ways not suited to conventional conferences. Teacher educators from
nine different countries were invited, based on the convenors’ knowledge of their
work and their interests. The invitees were also encouraged to invite others who
might be interested. The idea was to collaboratively develop our thinking about

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8246-7_7
100 7 Teacher Educators Working with Scenarios
teacher education, now and in the future and consider ways of influencing devel-
opment of policy in this area. Figure 7.1 shows the initial invitation to the first
meeting of the group. The other two authors of this book were invited members of
the forum.
The aim of the group was manifold: first, to examine current international trends
and drivers of teacher education. Second, the group sought to investigate ways of
impacting those trends to influence the future of teacher education. Third, we
Fig. 7.1 Teacher education symposium invitation

Introducing the Teacher Education Futures Forum 101
sought to develop some publications (in the form of either books or special issues)
on teacher education futures to engage teacher educators and stakeholders more
generally in discussion on how to shape teacher education policy. Finally, we
familiarised ourselves with scenario methods for gaining a better understanding of
possible futures, based on trends and policies currently occurring.
Invitations were sent to a list of teacher educators who were highly active in
teacher education policy development and/or were key stakeholders in teacher
education programme development and coordination. As can be seen from the
invitation, attendees were also invited to nominate other teacher educators for
attendance. The original list of invitees comprised 18 teacher educators from nine
countries: Australia, Canada, Chile, the Netherlands, Singapore, Slovenia, Sweden,
the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Three of the invitees were
recommended by other invited teacher educators, but apart from these three, all
were known to one or both of the convenors of the forum. Of the 18 invited
educators, 14 were able to attend the forum. The others expressed interest in
keeping up with the events of the group and possibly attending a future forum. Four
others, from Israel, the UK and Canada expressed interest in the forum but were
unable to attend. All were senior teacher educators who were passionate about
teacher education and enhancing the teaching and learning of their students. Those
who attended quickly formed a strong bond with the others; most did not know
each other before the meeting, the common link being the two convenors.
As can be seen in the invitation (Fig. 7.1), the Vrije Universiteit (VU) University
in Amsterdam hosted the forum. Prior to the meeting, members of the forum shared
papers relevant to teacher education futures. The intention was to purposefully
avoid typical conference presentation formats to focus on meaningful conversations
arising from the suite of papers that participants had read in advance. The group
gathered over 2 days with a welcome dinner the night before the forum. During this
forum, the drivers and trends operating in the different countries were discussed,
and this led to a session on scenario building, which was led by Marco Snoek, the
editor of an earlier journal special issue on Teacher Education Futures (Snoek,
2003). The agenda is provided in Fig. 7.2.
Trends and Tensions
The group convened at the University and members of the group discussed current
tensions and current trends noted in the papers. The trends or tensions in teacher
education particular to each country were identified and highlighted as the group
went through each paper and discussed its content. These trends were noted on a
large poster size sheet of paper. After the trends and tensions had been identified
from all the papers and from the ensuing conversation, the differing emphases of
different countries were positioned as sets of continua. The following were the
initial continua identified:
Fig. 7.2 The agenda for the 2-day meeting
• Location of teacher education: in university, in schools.

Teacher education in different papers indicated the different trends in different
countries which located teacher education principally in universities or princi-
pally in schools.
• Internationalisation–localisation.
The influence of international mobility and the need to attract international
students is in juxtaposition to the often local flavour of the teacher education
programme.
• Devolution–centralisation.
Policy can be developed and administered within the institution or it can be
developed externally by the centralised system.
• Compliance–Independence.
For many, the control of the programmes, accreditation and content is held by
the university whilst others had little control over these matters.
• Standardisation–variation.
Signature pedagogies exist in different contexts. Some teacher education pro-
grammes privileged standardised pedagogies whilst others supported peda-
gogies that differed according to context.
Trends and Tensions 103
• Subject content matter–pedagogical content matter.

The emphasis in some contexts is on subject content matter only, whilst one
paper argued that emerging technologies encourage emphasis on pedagogical
content matter and process.
• Impact of technology–formal/informal.
Technology could be used through the institutions learning management sys-
tems or used as needed by the students and teacher educators.
• Marketplace model–department/district-controlled model.
Some programmes were openly competitive for students, whilst others were
controlled by the district.
• Shorter preparation–longer preparation.
Programmes varied from 6 weeks to 4 or 5 years.
• Profession–craft.
Teacher education is sometimes viewed as being one or the other. Some
countries had a professional body which provided standards for teachers and
teacher educators whilst others supported apprenticeship models.
• Assessment of completion–assessment of competence.
Some credentialed at end of the teacher education programme, whilst others had
ongoing assessments of competence as teachers worked in schools.
• Demarcation of pre- and post-initial teacher education–seamless transition from
pre- to post-initial teacher education.
• Teacher shortages–teacher oversupply.
• Demand-driven teacher education–needs-driven teacher education
Demand-driven teacher education provides places in teacher education courses
according to student demand, whereas in needs-driven teacher education places
are limited to produce number of teachers required in the teaching workforce.
• Theory first–practice first.
This was influenced by location of the programme, within universities, colleges
or schools.
The conversation then went on to discuss other trends and tensions apparent to
participants. The different positions on the continua tended to be particular to the
various contexts of participants. For example,
• The need for academic standards, practice and content versus pragmatic stan-
dards, practice and content;
• High standards entry–low standards entry;
• Low-level qualification–high-level qualification;
• Location of authority: Trust–control;
• Responsive universities–unresponsive universities;
• Curriculum-driven education–test-driven education;
• Teacher educators participating in the political debate–Teacher educators
excluded from debate;
• Teacher education institutions as leading, proactive, anticipating pressures/
change–teacher education as following, reactive, responding;
• Contested knowledge base–agreed knowledge base;

• High regard for profession–low regard for profession;
• Many small-scale disconnected research studies–few large-scale long-term
research studies;
• Location of teacher education in schools: In for-profit schools or government
funded or private schools;
• Teacher education seen as a government responsibility or government initiative;
• Teacher profile—academic, wisdom, toolkit and craft;
• Setting the curriculum or the outcomes. Quality control of these.
• Migration–mobility–communicative patterns changing;
• Technologies—being accepted or resisted; and
• Strive for certainty–tolerance of uncertainty.
Most participants felt that teacher education in their country was located in
particular positions concerning these continua above. These positions varied from
country to country but general trends seem to apply within each country. So for
example, when discussing participation of teacher educators in political debates,
teacher educators from the UK and Australia did not feel such participation was
strong, whereas teacher educators from the Netherlands did feel they had an active
role in these debates.
Discussion centred on the need to examine our own assumptions through critical
reflection and rational discourse, and to attempt to step outside our own assumptions.
Some voiced concerns that both teacher educators and teachers were unable to
articulate the theory behind their practice. It was felt that in many countries there was
a systematic disparagement of teacher education (for example, in the USA, UK and
Australia, but not The Netherlands). It was suggested that this was partially because
in the USA, UK, Australia or Chile, generally teacher educators do not hold unified
policy positions which can be presented to government. In contrast, in The
Netherlands, teacher educators and teacher associations contribute to policy debates.
It became clear that to influence directions, teacher educators need to work with the
system (as does The Netherlands) rather than resist (UK, USA and Australia).
The group agreed that there appeared to be an exceedingly thin research base on
teacher education policy—we noted that papers were often anecdotal with not much
methodology reported, a trend indicated by Cochran-Smith and Zeichner (2005) in
their edited report on teacher education and research. Members of the forum felt
that a weakness in the development of teacher education policy in some countries
was that teacher educators tried to answer policy debates with academic rather than
research-based responses. Universities in Europe appear to have succeeded in
setting academic standards for teacher education in consultation with governments.
The implication for teacher educators outside Europe is that they also need to have
the courage to participate in conversations around setting standards. All agreed that
teacher educators need to be clear in what we expect from our teachers in schools.
The conversation culminated in identifying a priority for teaching: We need to
change the status of teachers in the UK, USA and Australia—and the group agreed
that the quickest (but possibly least feasible) way is to change the salary and change
Trends and Tensions 105
the entry requirements to teacher education. We also need to articulate the com-
plexity of teaching.
Further challenges were then articulated:
• Do we prepare teachers for remote schools, tiny schools, large schools, etc. or
do we prepare them for a generic school? Or should preparation for diverse
contexts happen in post-initial education?
• Signature pedagogies—distinct pedagogies with cultural basis (for example,
using protocols, or Socratic seminar-based, or differentiation) are being sought
and developed in some schools, e.g. charter schools (USA). We need to prepare
our students for a number of signature pedagogies. They will need different ones
at different times.
• There is concern that so little has changed in teacher education. We need to
gather evidence that teacher use of toolkits is done in a theoretically inspired
way.
• There is a need for basic skills so we do need to look at how students do on
international tests. But we also need to look at outcomes that are difficult to
measure, for example, good citizenry.
• Teachers should be open to uncertainty but a tension then exists with appearing
confident to their students.
• International comparative data is needed on what is most important to teachers
to retain them in the profession.
The morning session ended with an articulation of implications of the above
issues for our preparation of our students. In particular, we felt the following areas
needed further examination:
• Resilience—how do we prepare our students to be resilient in a complex and
changing world?
• Scenarios—how might we gain an understanding of how to prepare for schools
of the future?
Building Scenarios
In the afternoon, the group turned to thinking about how scenarios might help us
develop understandings about current trends and the likely futures that could result
from the trajectories these trends suggested. One of the group members, Marco
Snoek, who had published extensively on use of scenarios in teacher education
(Snoek, 2003, 2005), outlined a set of principles underpinning scenario building
and proposed steps that we should use to develop scenarios. We used the
two-dimensional method for constructing the scenarios (Linde, 2003, see also
Chap. 6), in which we identified two key drivers of teacher education and set these
up as a vertical continuum from one extreme of the driver to an opposite one, and a
horizontal continuum from one extreme of the second driver to the other extreme of
this driver. The group is divided into four groups and each had to describe the
scenario that would arise from the particular quadrant in which they were working.
There were five major themes or drivers that had been identified from the
morning discussion and the group discussed these to come up with two themes/
drivers we could set up in the two-dimensional model. The five themes were as
follows:
1. Curriculum: Standardisation or pluralism—incorporates issues around one
standard curriculum, informal learning, ideas about uncertainty, supply- and
needs-driven teacher education;
2. Philosophy: Education belongs to all society versus specialist knowledge;
3. Curriculum: Social capital (Bildung) versus content knowledge (core
knowledge);
4. Curriculum: Subject content versus knowledge of children; and
5. Control of teacher education: Government control and compliance versus tea-
cher education institutions in control, with thinking, critical professionals.
We chose to work with the drivers noted in themes 3 and 5: social capital/Bildung
versus content knowledge and government control versus teacher education
(TE) institution control. Figure 7.3 shows the four quadrants (see also Chap. 6).
The drivers used in the forum were chosen as examples only. We chose them so
that the group could work on developing scenarios and become familiar with the
scenario method of future planning and researching. These drivers will be dis-
cussed, and examples of two of the consequent scenarios are provided to illustrate
the method of scenario building. The group followed a methodology suggested by
Fig. 7.3 The two-dimensional quadrant model

Building Scenarios 107
Snoek. He suggested that our individual feelings about the resultant scenario should
be kept distant from the work of scenario building. Whoever worked in a particular
quadrant needed to present the resulting scenario in the most positive and most
convincing terms possible. This allowed us all to see the possibilities of each
scenario, and challenged our preconceptions. The scenario also needed internal
consistency. For example, if one factor in the scenario concerned university inde-
pendence, then another part of the scenario should not involve compliance with an
external agency. Finally, we used extreme versions of the situation in each quadrant
to facilitate the emergence of characteristics of each context. We set up the sce-
narios and then asked the question ‘how does … affect the scenario?’ We used a
10–15-year time span, that is, we looked at how teacher education may look in 10–
15 years’ time in that particular scenario.
The four groups each discussed what teacher education might look like with the
pair of drivers relevant to their scenario. Quadrant one considered teacher education
in a climate of strong government control and emphasis on subject content
knowledge. Quadrant two looked at government control of teacher education and an
emphasis on Bildung. Quadrant three looked at university control of teacher edu-
cation and an emphasis on subject content. Quadrant four looked at university
control of teacher education and an emphasis on Bildung. Each group developed a
scenario for their given quadrant that presented a positive and coherent picture of
teacher education with the drivers operating in that scenario.
Two scenarios, those located in quadrant 1 and quadrant 3, are now presented as
they were developed in the discussions at the forum. As noted in Chap. 6, use of
this method often can result in some scenarios being more complete than others.
This was the case here, and the two under discussion are the more complete ones.
These are presented, not as a stimulus to discuss the particular issues raised by these
drivers, but rather to illustrate how this particular scenario-building process was
done. The usual aim of stimulating debate about the implications of the scenarios is
considered in more detail in later chapters of the book where scenarios are presented
in a number of different contexts to provoke debate about teacher education in those
areas.
Quadrant 1: Teacher education in a climate of strong government control and
emphasis on subject content knowledge.
Education is too important for economic success to be left to educators and teacher
educators. People interested in a teaching career know exactly what to expect from
teaching. Every teacher knows what is expected based on highly detailed set of
teacher education standards. Every teacher knows what is taught, a set of traditional
subject knowledge which forms a foundation for all learning. Teacher educators
know exactly what to teach. A common high-quality teacher education curriculum
has been designed by economic experts with interests in education who are working
as advisors to the government, for implementation in all teacher education insti-
tutions. No time is wasted on designing a teacher education curriculum.
Consequently, teachers and teacher educators can spend time on pedagogy and
improving teaching practices.
The uniformity caters for a mobile and global workforce because the curriculum
and teacher preparation is identical in all jurisdictions. Testing and assessment are
efficient and centralised with a high degree of validity and reliability. Teacher
graduates are tested on the teacher education curriculum ensuring that only able
teachers enter the profession. The national and international tests of school students
are used to compare school and teacher performance. This enables targeting of
resources to sites of need and reward for achievement. The data from school student
tests of common curriculum facilitate the identification of effective teaching prac-
tices which can be shared and used to underpin the design of teacher education
programmes.
Professional development of all teachers is productive and effective as it targets a
common curriculum. The pooling of resources from jurisdictions allows the
development of sophisticated professional learning packages that have been
extensively tested and tried and are rolled out for all teachers.
Powerful online teacher professional development packages provide opportu-
nities for access by all teachers enabling flexible ‘just in time’ learning from home
and workplaces. The shared focus in curriculum has facilitated a rich research
programme creating knowledge informing teaching of specific curriculum content,
curriculum development and implementation. Teachers are encouraged to develop
content knowledge and become highly expert in their discipline field. Citizens have
access to the same core knowledge and the employment opportunities it underpins.
Technology is exploited to produce elegant engaging learning packages based on
sophisticated resource-intensive gaming principles. Integration of theory and
practice is facilitated because the same set of theories and practices are universally
employed. There is enhanced regard for quality of education and perceptions of
international competitiveness because the curriculum is designed to ensure high
achievement on international tests.
Government controls supply and all those who enter and successfully complete
teacher education are ensured employment. They gain experience in and are mat-
ched to the culture of their prospective school ensuring a good cultural fit and
evidence of their readiness to be genuine team players.
Inspection procedures close down poorly performing schools and ensure
high-quality schooling for all. Funding is tied to core standards.
Funding of universities is tied to employment needs, ensuring precise matches
between student numbers and employer demand, thus allowing resources to be used
only for those who actually become teachers.
There is ample funding of educational research that fits with the prevailing
political ideology.
Building Scenarios 109
Quadrant 3: University control of teacher education and an emphasis on

subject content knowledge.
Teacher educators are responsive to the needs of society and account for quality.
Teacher education is clinical in terms of diagnosis and remediation. The programme
diagnoses weaknesses of teacher education students and provides them with
remediation programmes that allow high-quality teachers to graduate. The aim is to
get students to excel at basic skills. There is differentiation in remediation and
emphasis on subject disciplines. These disciplines are prerequisite for under-
standing society, so we need to train teachers in these. We need experts in subject
areas because the other aspects of teaching come naturally, that is are intuitive, or
are provided by or supported by parents and others in society. Core subjects of
teacher education programmes are focused on discipline content and
subject-specific pedagogy. Curriculum is locally developed and is contextually
responsive. University certification includes subject and pedagogical content
knowledge. Teacher educators are in partnerships with schools, and work collab-
oratively with schools to teach the teacher education curriculum. Teacher education
institutions develop professional codes of conduct. The quality of teachers is
determined locally by each institution through assessments of student teachers’
subject matter knowledge and by their meeting of professional standards for teacher
education that have been developed by the individual institutions. The teacher
education institute is sensitive to local needs—it emphasises networks and
engagement in the community.
However, there are also set international standards for teacher education, and an
international set of standards leading to an international accreditation—the teacher
education baccalaureate. This is developed by teacher educators from a number of
key countries who form an international body which sets standards informed from a
research basis. Local groups represent their countries in the international arena in
developing the standards. Teacher educators are supported to rise through the ranks
by working with their supervisors. Teacher education is self-regulated, and insti-
tutions need to demonstrate evidence that this is done to a national council of
teacher educators. There is a need for national input to indicate how the standards
are sensitive to national contexts and needs—this is overseen by this overarching
council in each country. Teachers graduate with strong subject matter knowledge
and a great sense of the discipline’s value in the local community. Teacher edu-
cation institutions both work independently in graduating quality teachers and also
collaborate nationally and internationally through representative bodies which
ensure quality overall in teacher education.
These two scenarios illustrate the process the group developed. The group
learned much about scenario building. A major understanding concerned the need
to be positive about the scenario. Reasons for this are that if a scenario is presented
with negative elements, it allows that scenario to be dismissed. The need for
positivity also provides another lens with which to view that scenario, which allows
the scenario builders to step outside their existing world views during the process.
Having to argue passionately for a case that one does not believe in was an effective
way of enabling these teacher educators to understand the perspectives, beliefs and
values of other stakeholders in teacher education. This seems essential if teacher
educators are to influence and bring about better futures that can be embraced by
all, or at least most.
The task charged us to come up with credible scenarios. In doing so, it resulted
in consideration of important transactions and features of the environment that had
not come up in the previous discussions. Despite the fact that participants had
engaged in extensive reading and discussion previously, their views were chal-
lenged more by the scenario activity as the demand to make the scenario authentic
made members look at the future in fresh ways.
Outputs of the Forum
These examples of scenarios were the initial outputs of the forum. Subsequent to
this meeting, a number of the attendees started developing similar scenarios for
discussion in research and in their teacher education courses. Examples of research
in which scenarios were developed are discussed in Chaps. 8–13.
It is interesting to note that by the conclusion of the afternoon of scenario
development, most of the group were agreed that this was a very worthwhile way to
develop our thinking about the future of teacher education. However, there was one
dissenter who felt that a focus on the future did not help us solve the problems of
today. This point was raised the following day in the morning discussion. The point
gained agreement from one other teacher educator and then the discussion turned to
the expectations of the group and the reasons they had accepted the invitation to
attend. A robust discussion occurred in which most indicated their concern with
teacher education and the issues that had been raised the previous day and they
noted that this concern had led to their interest in the forum. Whilst most were
convinced of the value of scenario building in creating debates and discussion about
the future of teacher education, one person remained unconvinced of the value of
this method.
The final session of the second day concerned discussion of outputs from the
forum. It was agreed that members should try to meet again the following year to
continue the discussions. Discussion about books and articles centred around the
matters arising in the forum included a suggestion that a special issue on Teacher
Education Futures be developed by members of the group. As well, a book on
teacher education futures was suggested—this book is the product of that discus-
sion. Finally, a symposium of the group was proposed for a European conference
the following year.
The next output of the group was the production of a special issue on teacher
education futures, co-edited by two of this book’s authors. A call was put out to
Outputs of the Forum 111
members of the forum to provide an expression of interest in writing a paper for the
special issue. The paper needed to be about teacher education and it needed to be
future-oriented (see Fig. 7.4 for the expression of interest).
Fig. 7.4 Call for proposal for special issue

The articles in the special issue discussed a number of the themes noted above.
Authors used their own teacher education contexts to highlight issues and decon-
struct themes. The compilation of these articles allowed us to investigate if the
issues discussed locally had international implications. The idea of the special issue
was to provoke debate about the future of teacher education both in local contexts
and globally. In all the papers, a key question was ‘What do these practices, policies
or research findings mean for teacher education futures?’ (Schuck & Aubusson,
2013). Many of the papers used scenarios to discuss this question. Snoek (2013)
highlighted the value of scenarios for planning for the future in teacher education
and for influencing current policies and practices. Aubusson and Schuck (2013)
developed scenarios from research with a group of expert teacher educators with
their data contributing to the development of the scenarios which then acted as a
tool for stimulating discussion. Goodwin and Kosnik (2013) investigated how best
to prepare student teachers for classrooms of the future and Zgaga (2013) consid-
ered how political contexts could influence the future of teacher education in
Europe. Kane and Francis (2013) suggested that teacher education be re-imagined
in terms of professional learning of early career teachers. Widodo and Riandi
(2013) focused on online professional development of teachers in Indonesia. The
special issue concluded with Brindley’s (2013) article which discussed the con-
tested nature of teacher knowledge.
Each paper underwent a double-blind review process by two international
reviewers. The special issue was published in 2013. It has provided an opportunity
for debate in the teacher education community internationally.
A Second Meeting
In 2012, a subgroup of the forum members gathered together prior to the European
Conference on Educational Research (ECER), in Cadiz, Spain. The group met to
discuss current developments in the area of teacher education and to further develop
their ideas on how to have impact. It was agreed that some would present at the
Teacher Education Policy in Europe conference the following year. Meanwhile, the
group presented a symposium on teacher education futures at the ECER conference.
Robust debate occurred about the current trends and how to influence what happens
in the future in teacher education.
Subsequent to the symposium and the publication of the special issue, the work
of the group was continued by a small number of the original participants. Others
withdrew from this work or used the newly created networks to further other
projects. Many have kept in contact since the two forums.
The authors of this book continued to use scenarios to develop their thinking
about teacher education futures, subsequent to the publication of the special issue.
We constructed scenarios from data collected in research projects with leading
teacher educators from the UK and from Australia. We discussed the work through
A Second Meeting 113
electronic group discussions and met in Cambridge to complete work on a publi-

cation on the scenarios (Burden, Aubusson, Brindley, & Schuck, 2016).
Conclusion
The work of the TEFF was very helpful in developing our understandings of how
futures methodologies could assist us in conceptualising potential futures. The
authors of this book had held a longstanding interest in educational futures (see, for
example, Schuck & Aubusson, 2010). However, we had not explored the potential
of scenario building at that point. The establishment of the forum and the session on
scenario building helped developed our understandings. We note, however, that we
are still learning about futures methods and each time we use them, we learn about a
different aspect of this methodology.
The value of working with the members of the forum was that we were from
diverse countries with different educational traditions and different ways of doing
teacher education. This meant that to make meaning of others’ experiences required
each person to step outside of our current assumptions and paradigms. We also had
to go beyond our country’s ways of offering teacher education programmes. We
saw with new eyes, the challenges of our programmes and the challenges of other
programmes as well as the benefits of various practices in teacher education.
The forum highlighted the value of the international collaboration, particularly
where different cultural ways and mindsets exist. In future work, we would like to
work with a greater variety of countries with diverse cultural understandings of
education.
Finally, we note the value of the futures processes, and, in particular, of scenario
building. This was beneficial for thinking about both the future and the present. It
provided us with tools for challenging accepted practices and for contemplating the
unknown future.
References
Brindley, S. (2013). Teacher education futures: Compliance, critique or compromise? A UK
(1), 4–16.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA
panel on research and teacher education. Washington, USA: AERA.
Goodwin, A. L., & Kosnik, C. (2013). Quality teacher educators = quality teachers?
Conceptualizing essential domains of knowledge for those who teach teachers. Teacher
Development, 17(3), 334–346.
Kane, R., & Francis, A. (2013). Preparing teachers for professional learning: Is there a future for
teacher education in new teacher induction? Teacher Development, 17(3), 362–379.
Linde, G. (2003). The use of two-dimensional models in social science: An autocritical review.
Schuck, S., & Aubusson, P. (2010). Educational scenarios for digital futures. Learning, Media and
Technology, 35(3), 293–305.
Schuck, S., & Aubusson, P. (2013). Teacher education futures. Teacher Development, 17(3),
305–306.
Education, 26(1), 9–19.
Snoek, M. (2005). Scenario writing in education. Teaching guidelines for an in-service course for
teachers and teacher educators. Brussels: ATEE.
Snoek, M. (2013). From splendid isolation to crossed boundaries? The futures of teacher education
in the light of activity theory. Teacher Development, 17(3), 307–321.
Widodo, A., & Riandi, (2013). Dual-mode teacher professional development: Challenges and
revisioning future TPD in Indonesia. Teacher Development, 17(3), 380–392.
Zgaga, P. (2013). The future of European teacher education in the heavy seas of higher education.
Teacher Development, 17(3), 347–361.
Chapter 8
Backcasting: Testing the Feasibility
of Alternative Futures
Abstract One of the challenges of futures research is to ensure that it has some
impact. Whilst we value the knowledge that it produces, a key imperative of futures
research is that it seeks to provide insights to change the present, to change actions
and policies and practice. In short, if futures research only yields knowledge and
fails to influence the systems that are being investigated then it falls short of
achieving its overarching goal. Extending our vision to the future ten or more years
out is in itself challenging. Working out how to arrive at a particular future requires
long-term thinking and problem-solving that anticipates opportunities and threats
even before they manifest themselves. Backcasting is a form of problem-solving. It
asks how do we get there from here? Yet, it acknowledges that whilst it produces a
sequence of changes to be enacted, these are produced as much to test the feasibility
of a future as to guide actions to be taken. At best, a backcast plan is a hypothetical
plan and not a prescriptive blueprint. In this chapter, we outline some cases in
which we have used backcasting to promote thinking to contemplate the feasibility
of alternative futures in teacher education by asking what might have to occur to
bring them about.

Keywords Backcasting Futures research Education futures

Teacher education futures Futures methods Futures planning
Scenario
Is the Impossible Possible?
Futures methods often include extensive consultation, the presentation and sharing
of alternative futures and the discussion about the value of alternatives and what
might be done to transform the future. Futures research also includes methods that
are specifically designed to not just inform but also to bring about specific changes

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8246-7_8
116 8 Backcasting: Testing the Feasibility of Alternative Futures
in a system to alter the future. Backcasting is such a method. Backcasting is

typically conducted so that the process itself influences the thinking of participants
and the actions people take. In seeking the views of stakeholders, backcasting
research causes participants in the research, who are often key players in the system
or field under investigation, to reflect on current trends, projected futures and
possible alternatives. It is not intended to merely gather data on the views of
participants as these exist prior to the backcasting process. Backcasting is designed
not primarily to elicit existing views and perceptions but to generate new contri-
butions amongst and from participants in response to their considering a future and
reviewing the present.
Backcasting has been used extensively in energy futures and sustainability
research (Holmberg & Robèrt, 2000; Quist, Thissen, & Vergragt, 2011; Robinson,
Burch, Talwar, O’Shea, & Walsh, 2011; Vergragt & Quist, 2011) and in higher
education in these fields as a teaching tool or pedagogical strategy (Ishihara &
Valls, 2017; Kordas, Pereverza, Pasichnyi, & Nikiforovich, 2015). However, it has
rarely been used in or applied to teacher education (Király, Gnérig, Köves, Csillag,
& Kováts, 2016). In this chapter, we outline some cases in which we used back-
casting to promote thinking beyond alternative futures and to contemplate their
feasibility by asking, What might have to occur to bring them about?
Backcasting is often associated with scenario creation and vision statements
(Bishop, Hines, & Collins, 2007). In backcasting, a particular future is identified as
desirable but not likely if an enterprise, industry, society or system continues on its
current trajectory. The aim is to consider the changes and actions that are required
in order to bring about or to draw closer to the desirable future (Börjeson, Höjer,
Dreborg, Ekvall, & Finnveden, 2006). Backcasting begins with a view of the future,
looks back to the present and then attempts to map a pathway from the present
towards the future. It identifies particular steps that need to be taken and the order in
which these need to be enacted. It is a pragmatic process that may allow the
seemingly unattainable to seem achievable.
It is pragmatic in that it takes a distant target and makes its attainment possible
by breaking down the large gulf between the present and future into small steps. We
have only begun working with backcasting in the last few years but it is not
uncommon for participants in the process to comment that a future that seemed
irresistible and inevitable becomes malleable and open to change. In backcasting
workshops, we have observed that a future scenario that participants initially
considered impossibly beyond reach, and for this reason alone not worth consid-
ering despite its desirability, can become a potential reality to be approximated.
Thus, backcasting serves futures research first by eliminating resigned acceptance
of inevitable, forecasted futures and second by examining the feasibility of
alternatives.
Target-Oriented Backcasting 117
Target-Oriented Backcasting
We have emphasised target-oriented backcasting in participatory workshops with

teacher education and education stakeholders. Target-orientated backcasting con-
centrates on what will or needs to change to achieve a specified future (Wangel,
2011). Target-oriented backcasting is distinguishable from pathway-oriented
backcasting, which emphasises the consideration of how the changes could take
place, and what we will call agency-oriented backcasting, which emphasises who
enacts change.
The workshop discussion may be recorded or field notes taken to capture the
expressed views and perceptions of participants that provide insights into their
thinking about teacher education futures and how we might get there. This often
generates discussion, elicits views on how changes might be brought about and
identifies key players who need to be involved in influencing change, for example,
ministers of education. However, these details on how the changes might be enacted
and who will act to bring about the changes are not typically shown on the
backcasting diagrams that participants produce.
In workshops, small groups of participants are asked to consider a future sce-
nario or vision of teacher education. We have usually worked with scenarios that
were identified as desirable but radically different from the current and predicted
scenario. We asked
• whether the future is a probable outcome of the current situation,
• what is it about the present that makes this future likely or unlikely (this includes
identification of teacher education specific elements as well as broad exogenous
contextual influences) and
• what would need to change to approach the proposed future?
The backcasting works primarily with their responses to the last question.
Participants sort changes into two groups: those that are specific to teacher edu-
cation (endogenous) and those that are broader aspects of education, society and/or
culture (exogenous). The endogenous group typically includes changes pertaining
to teacher education policy, goals practices, curriculum, personnel and practices.
The exogenous changes often relate to the political environment and societal
expectations, as well as the nature of schooling, curriculum and learning. The
participants then arbitrarily label the top half of the plane above the line as being for
changes that address broad aspects of current and future environments, whilst the
lower triangle is set aside for aspects of change required of teacher education (see
the figures below). The division is arbitrary, and the reason for distinguishing the
two is to ensure that participants consider both matters within the field of teacher
education and critical elements of the environment that impact on teacher educa-
tion. The participants are then asked to position the change events in sequence on
the plane, placing the changes that must take place first early on the timeline, i.e. are
closer to the present and changes that come later in sequence progressively closer to
the position of the target future. The result is a diagram identifying the participants’
perceptions of critical steps to produce change. This is then shared with others
within and beyond the workshop to promote discussion of change initiatives.
The backcasting process can be represented as a general sequence:
1. The participants are presented with a general sketch of a progression from
present to the future represented. They are asked to think of the page as a plane
onto which the steps required to bring about a change from the present will be
positioned (see Figs. 8.2 and 8.3 in next section for examples).
2. Participants brainstorm all the changes that might be required to bring about the
desired future (including exogenous influences such as societal expectations of
education and endogenous elements such as features of teacher education itself
that impact on its nature and orientation).
3. Participants discuss the changes and identify those which are critical to
achieving the target (high priority) and set aside those that are either of minor
importance or little relevance (low priority). This leaves a list of ‘critical’ change
elements or episodes.
4. Participants then consider which change elements are mutually independent of
and which are dependent on others. That is, some changes are only likely or
possible if another change has taken place first and some may be implemented
without consideration of others.
5. Participants then consider the order in which the proposed changes need to
occur. These become the sequenced steps to be plotted on the backcasting
diagram.
6. Participants are asked to place them in order on a backcasting plot, the blank
plot being represented by a line on a large piece of paper extending from the
present to the future as noted in step 1 (see Fig. 8.1 in next section).
7. The participants discuss the plotted steps and refine the backcast until they are
satisfied that it provides a sequence with the potential to take education/teacher
education from the present towards the target future.
8. Groups then present their backcast plots to the other workshop participants,
explaining the reasoning behind their decisions.
Throughout the above, there are opportunities for data gathering, including
capturing conversations, taking images of plots and recording field notes indicating,
for example, arguments for and against plotted sequences as well as records of
conversations and presentations. Figures 8.1 and 8.2 in next section show examples
of backcasting diagrams.
Target-Oriented Backcasting 119
We are in the early stages of working with backcasting as a research tool. The
first thing we have learnt is that backcasting is time-consuming. We first used
backcasting in a workshop with science education researchers as a follow up to the
Australasian Science Education Research Association futures workshop that has
been described in Chap. 5. At the backcasting workshop, we moved through the
steps of driver analysis and scenario creation to culminate in a backcasting activity.
This process proved time-consuming and whilst the participants expressed high
levels of satisfaction with the workshop, in promoting diverse thinking about sci-
ence education futures, the backcasting diagrams were incomplete and sketchy.
Backcasting Teacher Education with Teacher Educators
We have also used backcasting in a workshop with teacher educators. On this

occasion, we discussed drivers that had been identified in workshops with other
groups of teacher educators before presenting the participants with a set of existing
alternative future scenarios (drawn from Burden, Aubusson, Brindley & Schuck,
2016). This meant that the participants were working with existing scenarios rather
than having to construct them as a precursor to the development of their
backcasting.
The participants were presented with the following set of four teacher education
scenarios. The process that we had used in creating the scenarios was explained to
ensure that they were accepted as credible representations of the views of at least
some teacher educators.
Scenario 1
Teacher education content knowledge is clearly defined and prescribed in terms of
large key ideas that everyone should know. Pedagogical knowledge is moderated
by technology-enhanced learning approaches. Valued knowledge is the under-
standing of how technology interacts with pedagogy to deliver prescribed out-
comes. Technology allows discipline knowledge to be communicated by teacher
education programmes, with individualised pathways to curriculum-prescribed
knowledge outcomes. Secondary and primary teacher preparations both require a
long time to develop teachers’ technological pedagogical design capabilities.
Teacher education candidates learn to use technologies to assess pupils’ learning
using data analytics, and learn to develop targeted computer-based personalised
learning programmes for their pupils. Teacher education aims to produce teachers
as designers, overseers and managers of technology-embedded learning by their
students. Vocational education plays a key role. Governments concentrate on
reliable measures of teacher education output to assure quality teacher education.
Consequently, ongoing employment is subject to satisfactory performance on

national tests of teacher education graduates’ knowledge. There is considerable
diversity regarding pedagogy, which is determined by initial teacher education
providers.
Scenario 2
Content knowledge of teacher education is the canonical core discipline knowl-
edge, as prescribed in a national curriculum. Extensive time is required for the
development of canonical knowledge. Pedagogical knowledge prescribes models of
teaching and practices to achieve predetermined learning outcomes for the majority.
A relatively short time is required to acquire pedagogical knowledge. Technology is
used to access specialised sites loaded with curriculum content, provide down-
loadable lessons that facilitate high-fidelity treatment of the curriculum, and manage
and share teaching/learning resources. Secondary school teacher preparation
requires at least the equivalent to an undergraduate degree in the discipline to be
taught and focuses on subject knowledge. Primary teacher preparation requires
extensive study of all curriculum subjects to be taught with an emphasis on
mathematics, literacy and the official national language(s). Teacher education
knowledge and pedagogical inputs are highly regulated and controlled by gov-
ernment instrumentalities. National boards of study or equivalent government
quangos manage knowledge input in teacher education. Quality is assured against
centralised standards.
Scenario 3
The nature of teacher education content knowledge is determined by and valued in
the local community-based partnerships. Teacher education draws heavily on local
philosophies or traditions of education that inform judgements teachers will make
about which curriculums count in the different school contexts in which they may
operate. The curriculum is determined locally but is influenced by global trends and
perspectives. These trends are explored through networked technologies. Teacher
education explores a diverse range of pedagogical models, and student teachers are
expected to make judgements about when and where different models may be
employed. Technology is primarily used to communicate and exchange ideas as
well as to access information. Secondary and primary teacher preparation involves
learning on the job, in the school context, from teacher mentors, over relatively
short periods of time. Teacher education is the responsibility of the community and
is driven by perceived local needs. Teacher education equips candidates to design
learning outcomes and curriculums appropriate to students in the contexts in which
they will teach. Teacher education develops teachers’ skills in encouraging students
to curate knowledge appropriate to the community. Teacher education emphasises
the need to judge the veracity and applicability to relevant contexts of information
accessed through the internet and other sources. Government intervention is
Backcasting Teacher Education with Teacher Educators 121
minimal, and quality assurance is determined by the community. Assessment

products are typically text-based analyses of and reflections on local teaching
experiences, productions of teaching materials, essays and reports.
Scenario 4
The ambiguity and changing nature of content knowledge is emphasised in teacher
education. Teacher education students are required to develop a deep understanding
of the ways in which people within their main discipline work with and produce
knowledge. Valued knowledge is collaboratively constructed and provisional. It
provides a frame for engaging with diverse perspectives. Teacher education equips
teachers with curiosity-driven pedagogies that rely on collaborative problem-based
learning approaches. Technology provides a portal to global understandings, cri-
tiques and diverse discourses. Teacher education prepares and supports teachers in
the use of creative, social and interactive technologies to capture events and create
digitally rich products that raise awareness and communicate ideas to authentic
audiences. Secondary and primary teacher preparations are post-graduate pro-
grammes and involve analysis of current trends, big ideas in education, societal
issues and critiques of practice. Teacher education preparation encourages the
critique of knowledge and its production. The philosophy of education is important
too, as is the philosophy underpinning relevant discipline specialisations. Teacher
education assessment is of portfolios presented in varied forms that draw on diverse
pedagogical and technological artefacts. Government influence and control of
teacher education as the solution to societal and economic problems has waned.
Universities and their partner schools drive the assessment and quality control of
teacher education instrumentalities. National boards of study or equivalent quangos
manage knowledge input in teacher education. Quality is assured against centralised
standards.
The participants were asked to identify a future scenario that was both desirable
and radically different from the future that they might anticipate based on the
current trajectory for teacher education. They formed groups based on the scenario
they had chosen to work towards in their backcasting and then followed the process
for backcasting outlined above. One of the scenarios the participants used for
backcasting described a teacher education future in which knowledge is contested
and technology is used extensively for collaborative creative and productive pur-
poses (see Scenario 4). Another scenario that a group of participants used described
a teacher education future in which knowledge is contested and technology is used
primarily for communication and access (see Scenario 3). Examples of backcasting
representations produced by two of the groups when considering Scenarios 3 and 4,
respectively, are shown in Figs. 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3.
Fig. 8.1 Backcasting based on Scenario 3

Fig. 8.2 Backcasting based on Scenario 4 (this backcast has been reproduced for greater clarity in
Fig. 8.3)
The backcast produced for Scenario 3 made no reference to developments in

technology. This may be because the demands for digital technologies were merely
an extension of existing functions for communication and access to information—
capacities that are commonplace in the present. The shift in knowledge emphasis
and the local control of schools was of more interest to the group, as too was the
global influence on the nature of local education.
In the backcasting, the need for a workforce with core knowledge, including
problem-solving, analytical skills and metacognitive capability, was linked to
schools emphasising the development of similar attributes. This in turn required a
shift in teacher education to emphasise student development of reasoning,
problem-solving and the ability to apply knowledge. This would place high intel-
lectual demands on graduates from teacher education programmes. A first step in
bringing about a highly intellectual teaching workforce capable of leading teaching
and learning in this future with its increasing cognitive demands was a rise in entry
standards for teacher education programmes. In short, the production of a
high-quality teaching workforce, able to meet the demands of this future, requires
an intake of high achieving students into initial teacher education programmes.
Local community and school control of educational funds was seen as critical to
achieving localised control of schooling. The realisation of the chosen future
required school and local community financial independence. Consequently, funds
Fig. 8.3 A recreation of the Scenario 4 backcast

were to be distributed away from large centralised departments to communities and

schools. There was a perceived tension between local leaders overseeing their
school(s) and shaping them to meet the expectation of their communities whilst at
the same time embracing global and international perspectives. This would require
reflection on and perhaps change in local identity to prevent the local becoming
parochial. For teacher education, the central expectation was that teacher education
itself, although preparing teachers for local contexts, would have to be much
influenced by global and international perspectives. A continuous re-accreditation
of teacher education programmes was a means for ensuring that teacher education
programmes served the needs of local communities and produced teachers with the
highly specialised knowledge that Scenario 3 entailed.
The backcast is incomplete but identifies some changes viewed as essential. With
regard to technology-enhanced learning features in the targeted future, the group
noted that investment in broadband technology (NBN refers to the National
Broadband Network that is being rolled out in Australia) and educational tech-
nologies would be required early in the transformation. Then, periodic investment
would be required in further improvements over the next 20 years to keep pace with
needs as demand for bandwidth speed and access in education continues to grow.
Discussions in the group on this matter indicated that whilst the precise nature of
emerging and future technologies was not known, the assumption was that there
would continue to be radical changes in technology. These radical changes would
have educational applications and implications for preparing students for the world to
come. The group implicitly recognised the technical–physical–social connectedness
of the system. The implication for teacher education was that teacher education
would at least need to try to anticipate developments in technology, society and in
schools to prepare graduates to function effectively in the schools they enter as well as
be ready to adapt in schools that will come to be during their careers. The group also
expressed the view that without a commitment to an ongoing investment in education
and the technological capability of future teachers, schools could not serve the
expectations of their communities. The group took the view that keeping pace with
technological innovation was possible and achievable but that an early start on
meeting the challenge was critical to realising the long-term target.
The knowledge agenda was considered to require a more fundamental shift in
policy as well as changes in notions about the purpose of schooling held by society.
These changes were seen to be more difficult to achieve but essential if the selected
future was to become a reality. The change from an emphasis on ‘know what’
education agenda to a ‘know how’ was perceived as being more difficult than the
multibillion-dollar task of rolling out a national broadband system to provide rapid
and reliable access to the internet across a Australia, a country with many remote
communities in vast sparsely populated areas. There may be two reasons for this.
One is that the improvements to internet access are already in progress with con-
siderable investment; consequently, it is viewed as a continuation of a current trend.
The other may be that access to the internet is a physical or technological devel-
opment requiring a physical solution. By contrast, the change to knowledge valued
in the system requires curriculum and assessment change, which in turn requires
political and social change about what schools are for, what is worth learning and
what is worth teaching. According to members of the group who produced the
backcast, this would be difficult to achieve in a ‘back to the basics’ era dominated
by powerful vested interests in present structures and an environment where there is
‘much hand wringing’ whenever ‘old knowledge’ international test results are
announced. In a democracy organised according to a Westminster system, with a
government and opposition, the group took the view that the necessary educational
changes would only occur if both opposition and government could be convinced to
share a similar education policy, as noted by the reference in the backcast to
‘bipartisan public agreement’.
Discussion in the group indicated that the backcasting had been useful in
allowing them to consider a future possible that they had thought to be impossible if
a set of steps could be taken. Breaking the pathway to the future down into small
steps meant that a different, more desirable, future seemed feasible. On the other
hand, it also brought into sharp focus that it would remain difficult. They com-
mented that over the last 10 to 15 years much had changed in that teacher educators
themselves could not determine the future of teacher education and that they now
had more limited capacity to shape the future of their own field. As has been noted
in Chap. 2, currently the control and design of initial teacher education has been
vested in government instrumentalities answerable not to the teacher education or
teaching profession but to the Minister. The changes specified in the backcasting
highlighted the need for teacher educators to be active through professional asso-
ciations if these representative organisations were to have more political influence.
They also discussed the possibility of employing professional lobbyists to help to
pursue an agenda. On the other hand, they commented that teacher educators were
often divided on many issues. This lack of cohesion makes it difficult for them to
have a strong and unified voice in the ‘marketplace of ideas’, reducing their
capacity to influence on the education political agenda.
Interestingly, there was little discussion during the backcasting about research
required to inform future developments other than some comments that the research
that is done would need to ‘speak’ to government and the broader population rather
than primarily sharing and building knowledge within the teacher education
research community where it was too readily isolated from the more powerful
influences that currently impact on the design of teacher education, and are likely to
continue to do so. This suggested both a need to change the kind of research that is
done as well as a need for communication strategies beyond traditional conferences,
academic publications and the occasional forum. The future that had been proposed
requires a much deeper engagement with all stakeholders, not only for knowledge
exchange but to build greater mutual respect and trust amongst stakeholders in
teacher education.
Whither Next 127
Whither Next
Scenario backcasting has important implications for teacher education futures

research. It also has a strong, if implied, criticism of the way in which teacher
education has gone about its business. Until now, we had been refining our
application of futures methods research with participants who mainly consisted of
expert teacher educators/researchers, STEM education/researchers, and teacher
education and STEM education university students. This was in part a function of
convenience sampling of selected stakeholder groups with knowledge of the field
under investigation. Teacher education futures research needs to expand its par-
ticipating populations to include a more diverse range of actors.
Education and teaching/teacher quality are now seen as underpinning the
knowledge society that is essential to economic competitiveness. Teacher education
has attracted increasing attention and has come under increasing control because it
is considered critical to the supply of high-quality teachers/teaching. The stake-
holders in teacher education include teachers, principals and school executives,
departments of education, curriculum/syllabus boards, teacher accrediting authori-
ties, politicians and their advisors, industry leaders, and members of the commu-
nity. Futures research needs to engage this diverse group in backcasting, as well as
comprehensive driver analysis, Delphi panels and scenario building if it is to
generate the knowledge and shared understanding required to impact on and shape
the future. A first step may be to work with teacher education and education
scenarios that have been developed and to approach the challenge of stakeholder
engagement by seeking their reactions. It seems likely, however, that a more
comprehensive involvement in a cycle of futures methods research is necessary to
inform how a better future can be found and approached.
There is prima facie case for using backcasting to enable stakeholders to reflect
on possible alternative futures and to ponder, if not determine, futures planning. It is
also apparent that backcasting may be a useful tool in promoting discussion that
provides insights into the way in which key players in teacher education are
thinking. Backcasting operates at two levels. At one level it is pragmatic, as
described above, in mapping out a pathway to a desirable future. However, it also
operates at another level in making more radical education futures (such as those
described in some education and teacher education future scenarios) seem possible,
attainable and worthy of sociopolitical investment in realising them.
Our backcasting research has been limited to target-oriented backcasting, iden-
tifying what changes need to occur and the sequence in which these changes need
to take place. Analysis of the discussion amongst participants in the backcasting
and our reflection on their backcast plots indicates that much more needs to be
done. In particular, mapping what needs to be done in the backcast without plotting
how it is to be done (pathway-backcasting) leaves the backcast well short of being
an effective plan of action. The complex sociopolitical system in which teacher
education resides is populated with people who wield great influence either as
individuals, e.g. Ministers of Education or as representatives of organisations, e.g.
leaders of unions, principal associations, teaching professional bodies, departments

of education and teaching registration/accrediting authorities, to name a few.
Incomplete backcasting results from not dealing with the sociopolitical complexi-
ties of how change is to be promoted and which stakeholders need to exert influence
engage in the process.
Backcasting has rarely been used in education, and there is much we can learn
from research in energy futures and sustainability. It is worth noting that the
challenges we have identified for backcasting in education also exist in these fields.
Wangel (2011) has argued that backcasting, although a much-used technique, does
not adequately address the social structures integral to futures planning. Based on
work in energy and sustainability, Wangel asks a set of questions for futures
research that have relevance for teacher education, STEM education and education
futures.
These questions of objects (what), measures (how) and agency (who) can be
further defined as follows:
• What can change, rather than developing these as according to the status quo?
Does the study include only physical/technical or also social objects of change?
What kinds of social structures are included, e.g. social innovations, behaviour,
norms and values, taxes, the temporal organisation of society? Does the study
use a sociotechnical approach in which social and technical/physical structures
are seen as interwoven or are these kept separate?
• How could change take place? Does the study include any discussion or analysis
of how change could take place, and is this approached in an explorative way, or
does it adhere to existing structures and status quo? Furthermore, through what
kinds of measures is change assumed to take place? Are measures top-down,
bottom-up or multi-levelled? Are they technical/physical, social or
sociotechnical?
• Who could change? Does the study include the question of who could change
and if so, is this done through an explorative approach or are the agents
determined in advance (as when developing an action plan for a determined set
of agents) or in other ways based on existing structures? Furthermore, how are
the agents represented in the resulting scenario? Are they compiled into
dimensions such as public/collective? Or are they presented as agents of change
in the scenario narrative? If so, are they then seen as separate agents or are they
related to each other through e.g. collaboration or conflict? Are they organised
into structures and processes of governance? (Wangel, 2011, p. 875).
This leaves teacher education backcasting research with much to do.
Conclusion 129
Conclusion
Chapter 13 describes the conduct of backcasting research with mathematics teacher

education students. This chapter has dealt with backcasting amongst groups of
teacher educators. From this research, it is apparent that backcasting has the
capacity to help people consider an alternative future as a possibility that might
have previously been considered unattainable. It seems that identifying what needs
to be changed raises new possibilities freeing people from the hegemony of the
present. However, as a research tool, the plotted backcasts are idiosyncratic and
sometimes lack the clarity and completeness needed for confident interpretation by
researchers. The discussions that occur in the collaborative making of the back-
casting plots may reveal insights into participants’ views of both present and future
decision-making. Thus far, we have used backcasting methods in workshops but we
intend to explore the possibility of researching with backcasting through Delphi
panels. The construction and sharing of backcasting diagrams seems to have
potential as stimuli to promote collective critical reflection and encourage the
reappraisal of the perceived fixed nature of current trends.
So far we have only scratched the surface in the use of backcasting for teacher
education and STEM education futures research. We began thinking of backcasting
in terms of providing a plan, a way forward that would take us towards a new and
intended target. We have realised that long-term backcasting does not provide a
plan to actually enact a sequence of steps to achieve a future in a field or endeavour
as complex as teacher education. What backcasting does is precisely what Quist and
Vergragt (2006, p. 1029) argue it can do in the researching and determining of
energy futures: the purpose is ‘not to produce blueprints, but to indicate relative
feasibility and implications of different [Education] futures’.
References
Bishop, P., Hines, A., & Collins, T. (2007). The current state of scenario development: An
overview of techniques. Foresight, 9(1), 5–25.
Börjeson, L., Höjer, M., Dreborg, K. H., Ekvall, T., & Finnveden, G. (2006). Scenario types and
techniques: Towards a user’s guide. Futures, 38(7), 723–739.
(1), 4–16.
Holmberg, J., & Robèrt, K. H. (2000). Backcasting: A framework for strategic planning.
International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 7(4), 291–308.
Ishihara, S., & Valls, A. M. (2017). Back from the future we want: Backcasting as a pedagogical
practice towards sustainable futures. In P. B. Corcoran, J. P. Weakland, & A. E. J. Wals (Eds.),
Envisioning futures for environmental and sustainability education (pp. 333–344).
Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Király, G., Géring, Z., Köves, A., Csillag, S., & Kováts, G. (2016). Constructing future visions
about higher education with participatory methods. In J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory
and method in higher education research (pp. 95–114). Bingley (UK): Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
Kordas, O., Pereverza, K., Pasichnyi, O., & Nikiforovich, E. (2015). Developing skills for
sustainability. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Engineering Education
for Sustainable Development. Vancouver, Canada. https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0064755.
Quist, J., & Vergragt, P. (2006). Past and future of backcasting: the shift to stakeholder
participation and a proposal for a methodological framework. Futures, 38(9), 1027–1045.
Quist, J., Thissen, W., & Vergragt, P. J. (2011). The impact and spin-off of participatory
backcasting: From vision to niche. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(5), 883–
897.
Robinson, J., Burch, S., Talwar, S., O’Shea, M., & Walsh, M. (2011). Envisioning sustainability:
Recent progress in the use of participatory backcasting approaches for sustainability research.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(5), 756–768.
Vergragt, P. J., & Quist, J. (2011). Backcasting for sustainability: Introduction to the special issue.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(5), 747–755.
Wangel, J. (2011). Change by whom? Four ways of adding actors and governance in backcasting
studies. Futures, 43(8), 880–889.
Chapter 9
Schooling Scenarios: Looking Back
to Look Forward
Abstract This chapter revisits the CERI/OECD school education scenarios pub-
lished in 2001. Given that the scenarios were developed to imagine learning sys-
tems 15–20 years from the date of their development, it is of interest to consider
how they align with current conditions. The chapter considers the question, ‘What
do learning systems look like in 2018, the period in which the OECD scenarios
were positioned?’ Each of the original scenarios is examined to see if there are any
features in their original descriptions that align with current contexts. The impli-
cations for teacher education are subsequently discussed. The chapter continues
with a consideration of the current drivers prevalent in society. A new set of
scenarios on schooling is developed, based on the original OECD scenarios. These
scenarios take into account current and future drivers to imagine a new set of
scenarios. The intention of these scenarios is to provoke debate about schooling and
teacher education.

Keywords OECD scenarios Learning systems Schooling scenarios

Teacher education Futures research Educational drivers
Introduction
A starting point for our investigation of education through scenarios was a set of
scenarios for schooling proposed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development’s Centre for Educational Research and Innovation in their book
What schools for the Future? (CERI/OECD, 2001, 77–98). The book analysed the
social, economic and educational trends that were influential in directing the nature
of schooling and extrapolated from these trends or drivers to imagine a set of six
scenarios projected to describe schooling in 15–20 years from the time of their
development. These scenarios encompassed different ideas about schooling that the
CERI/OECD (2001) group developed as a stimulus to start discussions and
encourage debate and discussion about the directions of schooling. The authors of
the scenarios noted that they are presented as extremes that are deliberately

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8246-7_9
132 9 Schooling Scenarios: Looking Back to Look …
provocative and often uncomfortable, to gain attention and stimulate discussion. It

is noteworthy that these scenarios were not necessarily presented as positive but
often portrayed a negative and sometimes shocking picture. This is in contrast to the
methodology used in this book in all other chapters (see, for example, Chap. 7),
where one of the criteria for scenario development was that the future events in
scenarios were portrayed as positive and as having a benefit to that scenario’s
stakeholders.
Schuck and Aubusson (2010) discussed the OECD scenarios a decade after they
were developed, to see how they might align with trends in a digital world dom-
inated by Web 2.0 applications and use. They considered each of the scenarios and
contemplated what the possible impact of a world in which social media was
thriving might have on each of them. An alternative set of scenarios was developed
that considered how learning might be impacted by the dominance of Web 2.0, a
development of the World Wide Web that encouraged interactivity and
collaboration.
Given that we are now in the period in which the original OECD scenarios were
supposed to be located, it may be instructive to see how our current present aligns
with the futures outlined in these scenarios. In this chapter, we revisit these sce-
narios and consider their use as descriptions of school in the late years of the second
decade of the twenty-first century, that is, approximately 17 years after they were
first developed. Given that the scenarios were speculations about how schooling
might be in about 20 years’ time, it is interesting to see what we recognise in them
of schooling today. The current context is then examined for the implications of
these scenarios for teacher education. Finally, we look at how the OECD scenarios
might be modified to act as scenarios of schooling in the 2030s, using some of the
drivers that exist in the current context to construct the new versions.
The OECD 2001 Scenarios for Schooling
The OECD scenarios were not meant to be predictions of future schooling. Rather,
they were thought exercises designed to provoke debate and discussion about what
was important in schooling and what was likely. It is noteworthy that the team
developing these scenarios used the term ‘learning systems’ to avoid the limitations
of locating them in schools. The decision to use the term learning systems was to
avoid conceptions of schools as the only sites for student learning, a conception
stemming from the formal learning organisations that schools were at the time of
the scenario development. From the perspective of the present time, this choice of
term was particularly prescient, given the possibilities for learning that have
emerged from the affordances of mobile devices, devices which today are almost
ubiquitous in developed countries and offer pervasive connectivity, thus enabling
learning anywhere and at any time (Schuck, Kearney, & Burden, 2017). We note
too that the OECD scenarios were not ideal versions of what schooling should be.
The OECD 2001 Scenarios for Schooling 133
They were simply offered as alternative futures for learning systems 15–20 years
from the starting point of 2001, given the trends of the time.
The scenarios comprised six narratives, grouped into four systems. These sce-
narios are provided in Fig. 9.1. These can be accessed in greater detail from
https://www.oecd.org/site/schoolingfortomorrowknowledgebase/futuresthinking/
scenarios/theschoolingfortomorrowscenarios.htm.
Fig. 9.1 Table of CERI/OECD scenarios (taken from https://www.oecd.org/edu/school/

38988449.pdf page 3 of Section III)
We now consider each of these scenarios to interrogate where we are located

currently.
Scenario 1: Back to the Future Bureaucratic
The first scenario, titled Back to the Future Bureaucratic Systems describes a
system that was largely similar to the existing systems of 2001, and shows resis-
tance to change. In a study done in 2006 (Ninomiya & Mutch, 2008), surveys were
conducted across six regions of the Asia-Pacific to assess the applicability of the
OECD scenarios beyond the European confines of the OECD. The six regions
comprised Oceania, Southeast Asia, East Asia, North East Asia and North America.
Policymakers in these regions were identified and provided with the survey. Despite
some minor differences in responses, there was strong agreement on the desirability
and likelihood of the different scenarios. Of interest, here, is the finding that the
scenario identified most often as the most likely scenario was Scenario 1, the
Bureaucratic Scenario. Interestingly, this scenario was not identified as being the
most desirable scenario by any of the respondents. Indeed, it was viewed as the
most problematic (aside from the Crisis Scenario).
When considering this scenario in 2018, it is clear that evidence of this scenario
is present in Australian and UK schooling today (we used the term schooling
advisedly as we do not see evidence of a learning system independent of schooling
as yet). Areas that appear to show little change at present from 20 years ago are the
status of teachers, the location of learning in schools, much of the curriculum and
methods of assessment. In many schools, ‘business as usual’ continues with
practices that would be recognised by teachers and policymakers as little different
from those occurring in 2001. Classes in many schools still tend to work in isolated
fashion, and teachers in these schools often work individually and do not collab-
orate with their colleagues. The tsunami of emerging digital technologies, so pro-
found in every other aspect of life, does not seem to have reached within these
classrooms (Schuck, Kearney & Burden, 2017). This description of schooling does
not apply to all schools but elements of it are still pervasive.
Given that the respondents to the 2006 survey agreed that this scenario was the
most problematic and many felt this one would be the most likely, it is interesting to
speculate on why the seduction of business, as usual, is so much stronger than the
identification of the problematic nature of the scenario.
Scenario 2: Focused Learning Organisations
The second set of scenarios fits into a Re-schooling group. Within this re-schooling
group of scenarios are two different scenarios: Scenario 2 presents schools as
focused learning organisations, and Scenario 3 presents schools as core social
systems. It is interesting to note that both scenarios see the learning still taking place
substantially in the school. In Scenario 2, the school is ‘revitalised around a
knowledge agenda in cultures of experimentation, diversity, and innovation’
(OECD, 2001, p. xx). Teachers enjoy a high status and good working conditions,
there is considerable investment in the education system and disadvantaged com-
munities are a focus of attention.
The high status of teachers noted in this scenario is apparent in certain societies
today. Finland is often singled out as noteworthy for its acknowledgement of the
high status of teachers. Other countries where teachers enjoy a high status are
Singapore, Hong Kong and South Korea (Masters, 2016). The countries under
particular examination in this book, Australia and the UK, do not enjoy a similar
status for their teachers. Certainly, in Australia, the federal government is seeking to
address this problem by looking for strategies to encourage the most able students
to enter the teaching profession. Using a measure of their scores in final school
exams, admittedly a fairly crude measure (Masters, 2016), it is proposed that tea-
cher education programs accept only the top 30% of high-school graduates into
their programs. However, until pay and conditions are increased for beginning
teachers so that they are at least equivalent to that of other similarly educated
professionals, and until public discourse about teaching changes to acknowledge
teaching as a highly respected and high-status profession, the profession is unlikely
to attract a sufficient intake of high-quality graduates. It seems that education itself
needs to be highly respected in a society, before its teachers can enjoy high status
(Sahlberg, 2011).
The description of school as having cultures of ‘experimentation, diversity and
innovation’ (OECD, 2001) is strongly linked to the view of teachers as profes-
sionals capable of autonomous decision-making. In countries where high status is
enjoyed, teachers have more say in curriculum and pedagogy development, thus
encouraging such innovation and experimentation. In Finland, for example teachers
are given full autonomy in their work (Sahlberg, 2011). The other aspect of this
scenario that can be identified in the Finnish system is the attention paid to equity in
education: ‘Equity in education is a principle that aims at guaranteeing high quality
education for all in different places and circumstances’ (Sahlberg, 2011, p. 45).
Systems that adhere to this principle and actively ensure that all students are
educated in ways that support them are exemplars of this second scenario. It is clear
that there are a few societies in which this scenario is the norm, and there are others
in which it is observed in pockets of schools but not across society as a whole.
Scenario 3: Schools as Core Social Centres
In Scenario 3 the school is part of the community, ‘the walls around schools come
down’ (CERI/OECD, 2001) and non-formal learning and intergenerational learning
takes place. Again, teachers enjoy high status and schools are quality-learning
environments.
Some elements of schools in this scenario can be seen in charter schools in the
USA and free schools in the UK. In both these cases, the schools are set up by the
community and serve community aims, values and missions. In some of these
schools, teachers enjoy high status, but in many others, teachers do not have to be
certified or are able to gain their certification whilst teaching in the school. The
curriculum is often decided by the community, and project-based learning occurs in
some schools. In Australia, there are few examples of such community schools, but
independent schools do exist that stem from a particular culture (such as the
Japanese school) or are faith-based schools (such as Catholic systemic schools or
Jewish schools), and these do occupy a role as a community school in which some
intergenerational learning takes place. In Canada, many state schools are embedded
within communities and are centres of learning for various sectors of their
communities.
A key feature of countries such as Finland and Canada, which is characteristic of
both of these re-schooling scenarios, is the high trust that teachers experience from
their policymakers, the trust teachers accord each other and the relative freedom
they enjoy to innovate and experiment with their practice to provide good learning
outcomes for their pupils.
It must be noted, however, that the landscape in which schools, as core social
centres, are located is a complex one, as there are diverse practices, and often the
school is sponsored by industry. Aspects of Scenario 3 are often merged with
aspects of Scenario 4.
Scenario 4: Extended Market Model
The third set of scenarios is a de-schooling group. Scenario 4 describes an extended
market system in which students are clients and corporations own, sponsor or drive
education. Governments are not involved in the schooling enterprise.
This appears to be quite a radical departure from schooling as we know it today
and as we knew it at the time of the OECD scenario development. However, aspects
of this model can be clearly seen today in some countries. For example, links
between the market and schools can be seen in some of the Charter Schools in the
USA. Schools of interest here are those belonging to a charter school association
that is run by a private enterprise. The enterprise may pay for the education and
dictate the curriculum and assessment or may drive the curriculum in schools that
are paid for by the government. Problems with this extended market model can be
seen in some of the charter schools, where, as described in the scenario, inequity
flourishes. Ravitch (2014) explains how the very students that charter schools were
initially developed to support became excluded:
The charter movement began with high hopes in the early 1990s. Charter schools were
supposed to enrol the neediest students. But in the era of NCLB [No Child Left Behind Act,
2002], it was dangerous to enrol the students who had a hard time sitting still, those with
disabilities, and those who couldn’t speak or read English. They might pull down the
school’s test scores. Few charters want the students for whom charters were first invented.
(p. 178)
One driver of this extended market system today is a widespread dissatisfaction

with public education in both the USA and the UK. Although there is no evidence
that the market systems replacing public schools are achieving better outcomes for
students, such systems are proliferating (Dinham, 2015; Ellis, 2017). The free
market and privatisation are deemed to be solutions to a wide variety of educational
problems (Dinham, 2015).
Whilst not replacing public schooling, and instead being run as supplementary to
schooling, external coaching schools illustrate one way in which education is ‘big
business’ in Australia and the UK. Public schooling is deemed by parents to be
insufficient to provide students with the certainty of high levels of attainment in
high-stakes testing. Hence, parents seek alternatives for their children. One such
alternative is the provision of out-of-school coaching by private enterprises, who
gain a foothold in the education market by exploiting the fears of parents that their
children will be left behind by their formal schooling systems and will be shut out
from the best opportunities. Therefore, to be competitive they will need to attend
coaching schools in their out-of-school time. Interestingly, this same fear of less
competitive outcomes from schooling is also present in Korea and has created an
extensive and highly profitable out-of-school coaching enterprise in that country.
A less radical example of the extended market model can be seen in countries
such as Australia and the UK, where the belief that giving schools autonomy with
funding, budgets and curriculum will lead to greater flexibility and innovation.
Given the discussion above regarding trust of teachers as professionals, this belief
would seem to be consistent with a greater acknowledgement of the professional-
isation of teachers. However, Dinham (2015) critiques this notion and suggests that
the decentralisation of schools leading to better student outcomes is a myth. Whilst
autonomy is granted in certain areas of school management, less autonomy occurs
in other areas, and is often accompanied by less funding and less governmental
support. Schools are left to manage their offerings by needing to do more with less.
It is apparent in examining schools and other educational institutions today that
corporatisation of education is occurring in many countries to a greater or lesser
degree. The existence of such corporatisation and the lack of faith in the public
school system are clearly linked. However, there is a lack of evidence that this
extended market system is delivering any improved outcomes as compared to the
public school system (Ellis, 2017).
Scenario 5: Learning in Networks
The second scenario in this de-schooling group concerns learning in networks. The
connected society means that schools are no longer necessary and the intensive use
of digital technologies allows formations of a large variety of networks that support
diverse interests. Given that this scenario was developed in 2000 prior to wide-
spread use of connected technologies, it is surprisingly prescient.
As our current society is highly connected through the accessibility and avail-
ability of digital technologies, it may be assumed that this scenario would be very
much present in current learning systems. There are a number of examples of
networked learning communities in credentialed education systems around the
world. Students are able to gain an education from working in virtual schools and
studying in networked communities. For rural and remote regions, networked

classrooms exist and students can participate in the learning through their access to
the Internet. Similar virtual facilities are available for students with accessibility
needs (Rice & Carter, 2016). Philanthropic organisations like the Kahn Academy
offer classes to students through virtual access, free of charge. However, these
remain as virtual examples of traditional schools and are not true to the scenario
vision in which schools are no longer the core educational institutions and networks
of interest exist instead, as the sites of learning.
Many informal learning interest groups do exist in cyberspace, however. These
are self-initiated by interested learners and take advantage of the numerous tech-
nologies that exist to connect learners to each other and that provide resources for
learning. These interest groups are open to learners of all ages and backgrounds.
The uniting factor is their interest in the focus of the network.
These networks are currently complementary to institutional education systems
as, at time of writing, all school-age children in developed countries are required to
attend a school (either virtual or physical) until they reach that country’s exit-level
age. The exception to this is the home-schooling cohort of students, who are
schooled at home and take advantage of educational technologies to do so.
Scenario 6: System Meltdown
The final, somewhat bleak scenario is called Crisis. It describes the meltdown of
learning systems caused by teachers moving out of the system, disillusioned by the
treatment they have received in the system and attracted by more enticing working
conditions in other professions and careers.
Fortunately, whilst this scenario appears to be becoming more likely, it is not
strongly in evidence at present in developed countries. Warning signs, though, of
this possibility do exist. For example, teacher retention rates in some countries
remain an ongoing concern, and in both the UK and Australia they remain low.
Unions claim this is because of poor working conditions, low pay and over-
whelming workloads. The attrition of teachers seems to be an enduring problem
(Schuck, Aubusson, Buchanan, Varadharajan, & Burke, 2017). The average age of
teachers in the educational system is increasing and the existence of this older
workforce is likely to lead to a widespread shortage of teachers in the next few
years, as this cohort retires. A crisis point could arise as these older teachers retire if
new cohorts do not replace them. Given the continuing lack of status of teachers
and the increasing amount of accountability being imposed on the profession, it is
possible that a major shortage of teachers could occur within the next 5 years or so.
It is interesting to note how aspects of each scenario described by the OECD
(2001) are apparent in learning systems today. This suggests that it would be
valuable to identify the scenarios that appear most attractive now out of this set and
to identify the drivers that might help us to move forward with that scenario so that
we can influence the future of learning and progress towards our favoured scenario.
Noting which scenarios are concerning to us and how aspects of them have become
real in 2018 might help us to avoid going further down those trajectories.
Highlighting the most attractive scenarios and extrapolating from them will guide
our choices in schooling and in teacher education. Importantly, the insights from
this examination of drivers and scenarios should illuminate possible implications
and future trajectories for teacher education.
Changing Direction in Teacher Education
Aspects of each scenario are seen in learning systems today, as discussed in the
previous section. These aspects lead to questions about teacher education. We
explore these further in this section. We do not attempt to answer these questions
but pose them in the hope that they will be taken up by teacher education stake-
holders and will help to drive change in our teacher education programs and
institutions towards positive visions for learning in the future.
Scenario 1: Business as Usual, the Bureaucratic System
As noted above, the view in 2006 was that this scenario would be most likely yet
was viewed as most problematic, aside from Scenario 6: Crisis. Today, this scenario
might be seen to exist in many systems, but it is probably not the most common
scenario. Problematic aspects of this scenario that are seen in learning systems
today are the compartmentalisation of learning and the isolation of schools, teachers
and classes. The lack of collaboration in many schools stifles innovation and
engagement. The lack of change in assessment, particularly in high-stakes assess-
ment is resulting in school graduates, who are unprepared for the uncertainties of a
rapidly changing world in which jobs are also changing rapidly. Many careers for
which students have been prepared are on their way to becoming obsolete. The
curriculum is stable and not responsive to the needs of contemporary society.
Governments are striving to address this problem by introducing policies for
reform and for increased accountability of teacher education (Pullin, 2017). Policy
is being developed informed by ‘Big Data’. Pullin draws attention to the role of
teacher education in improving school education and asks if there currently is a
‘window of opportunity’ (p. 11) for new policies that can lead to meaningful
change. She suggests that change can only occur if teacher education programs
embrace ‘the challenges of change’.
This discussion leads to the following questions for teacher education that arise
from this scenario as played out today:
1. How can teacher education programs and teacher educators play a role in the
development of policies to reform schooling?
2. How can teacher education develop stronger links between ‘research evidence,
policy and practice’ (Pullin, 2017, p. 11)?
3. How do we prepare teachers to be more collaborative and connected?
4. How do we become more agentic in changing school curriculum and assess-

ments and then prepare our students to be agents for this change?
5. What is the role of educational technology in helping to support learning that is
more appropriate for this time?
6. How can Big Data support teacher education efforts to implement meaningful
reform?
This scenario has many attractive features. Teachers enjoy positions of high trust,
and entry into the teaching profession is very attractive and competitive. Teachers
are empowered to experiment and enact innovative teaching and there is an
emphasis on bringing all students into the fold. The concept of revitalisation is
attractive and alluring. It is noteworthy that this scenario is based on the provision
of a substantial investment of funds and attention from governments. As noted in
the discussion about this scenario, in those countries where education is highly
valued and, as a result, there is adequate investment in teacher education and in
schools, learning outcomes on standardised tests are higher. Whilst such outcomes
do not necessarily imply a more harmonious or well-balanced society, they do
imply that teaching is a highly respected and, therefore, highly sought after pro-
fession (Sahlberg, 2011), which allows the entry of teachers into teacher education
to be more competitive and selective.
Questions we should ask of teacher education here are:
1. How do we make teaching an attractive profession in countries where education
is not highly valued by its society?
This is a question about changing cultural values, and not necessarily something
that teacher education can influence.
2. How do we change the status of teachers in countries where they are not highly
respected?
This entails changing the entry requirements into teacher education programs
and also entails the provision of teacher performance assessments at the end of
the teacher education candidature, to ensure high-quality graduates.
3. How do we support student teachers to become expert at differentiation so that
they can support all students?
This is an important question in any scenario about teacher education, not just
here.
4. How do teacher education programs encourage a spirit of experimentation and
risk-taking with student welfare and learning at the heart of any change?
Scenario 3: Core Social Centres
In their purest sense, learning systems that are core social centres align well with
ideas of twenty-first-century learning, that is, learning that encourages creativity,
collaboration and communication (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014; Mongon &
Leadbeater, 2012). At present, there are predictions that 65% of primary school
children will be engaged in jobs that do not exist today (Hallett & Hutt, 2016).
Changing Direction in Teacher Education 141
At the same time, 30% of current jobs are anticipated to no longer exist by 2030
(PwC, 2017). Given the difficulties that schools will have in preparing students for
careers that might not yet exist, it is likely that community bodies will share the task
of providing relevant education by jointly offering ongoing education that addresses
learning needs in informal ways and across generations. This situation aligns well
with schools as core social centres. In this scenario, high public support is given to
these learning systems and with such support comes high status for teachers.
There are implications for teacher education in this scenario that are very rele-
vant for learning systems now and in the future. Relationships with communities
become central to successful learning, and flexibility and collaboration are
important. However, care must be taken that communities continue to value their
teachers and that corporatisation does not drive the process.
Questions for teacher education in this scenario include:
1. How should teacher educators negotiate the school curriculum with the com-
munities in which they are located?
2. What should a teacher education program comprise to meet the needs of student
teachers, who will teach their students skills and understandings that might not
be known yet?
3. Should teacher education programs still focus on content knowledge or should
they focus on new areas that are more suitable for uncertain futures, such as
ethical behaviour, problem solving and creativity?
4. How should teacher educators be prepared to support student teachers for an
unknown future?
From the discussion about this scenario, it is clear that there are strong elements of
this scenario already existing. Further, the current discourse in many countries is
critical of public schooling and by extrapolation of teachers and teacher educators
(Ellis, 2017). In these contexts, teachers and teacher educators do not enjoy strong
impact on policy formation and the influential voices are those of corporations and
special interest groups. Some businesses work with and advise governments to
ensure that they are able to prepare students to be the workers that corporations are
likely to want (for example, Teach for Norway is sponsored by Statoil to ensure
workers for the oilfields). Others set up profit-making education enterprises (such as
the UK Institute for Teaching, which trains teachers). Whilst there is little evidence
that their models of education provide better outcomes for school students, it is also
true that the models of education espoused by many not-for-profit public teacher
education institutions also do not demonstrate such outcomes or, if they do, their
data on outcomes are rejected by policymakers (Ellis, 2017).
Coaching schools are a third model of privately owned education, which unlike
the examples above, are supplementary to the public education that students
experience. These companies benefit from the public discourse that is critical of
public education and which emphasises the so-called STEM crisis in the developed
world. These corporations offer solutions to this crisis, allay fears of parents and
promise success for students in high-stakes testing. Teacher educators and teachers
often find the presence of corporations in these multiple educational contexts to be
daunting and de-professionalising.
So the questions relevant for teacher education here are:
1. How do teacher education institutions form a common and agreed under-
standing of what comprises effective learning and teaching?
2. How can we collect evidence and use Big Data to indicate achievement of
student–teacher outcomes?
3. How do we build relationships with policymakers to increase our influence on
policy development?
4. How do teacher educators work as a collective to have a greater voice in public
debate?
This scenario, whilst seemingly very attractive in terms of learning, also presents a
picture in which schools become irrelevant as sites of learning. As a result, teacher
education programs also diminish rapidly in numbers and influence. Learning
occurs with intensive use of digital technologies, and groups or learning networks
are initiated and led by passionate individuals. The networks attract members based
on common interests, which could be cultural, religious or some other grouping.
Students are multigenerational, and can learn anywhere and at any time.
The learning of these networked students is heavily technology dependent.
Questions arise as to where the content for learning is developed, who the producers
of the content are, and what the motivation is for generation of content. Learning is
heavily collaborative across networks. Curriculum is dynamic and responsive to
interests of those in the networks. Schools as institutions of learning are outdated in
this scenario, and, therefore, the role of teacher and teacher educator become open
to re-definition and invention.
As a result, in this scenario, the following are important questions for teacher
education:
1. What might be the new role of teacher educators in this highly digital world?
Teacher educators might now need to take the role of the ethical arbitrators of
learning, they might need to support teachers to teach through the networks,
they might work with teachers to ensure that content has integrity and benefi-
cence and is of value to the learner, network participants and society in general.
2. How can teacher educators help design learning experiences in diverse networks
that are interesting, valuable and useful for the network participants?
3. How do teacher educators play a role in ensuring that learning is accessible to all
and that diverse interests are met?
4. How do teacher educators support the development of teachers in this demo-
cratic and diverse environment?
Changing Direction in Teacher Education 143
Scenario 6: Crisis
Teacher educators have a role to play in preventing the system meltdown from
occurring in this scenario. Part of this role is to participate in negotiations with
governments and policymakers to ensure that teaching is perceived as an attractive
and rewarding profession. Attracting high-quality students into teacher education
programs is essential, so attention needs to be paid to the detractors and enablers of
this profession.
The second aspect of the teacher education role is to be aware of the needs of
student teacher candidates and make the teacher education program an attractive
and stimulating one for all students. One aspect of the program needs to be about
teaching resilience, another about how to negotiate with policymakers. Discussions
about discipline content and pedagogical content are also important.
So to avoid this crisis, the questions for teacher education are the following:
1. What are the factors that will encourage passionate, skilled and intelligent
candidates to enter the profession?
2. How can the barriers to entering the profession be understood and minimised by
teacher educators?
3. How do we teach resilience, innovation and negotiation skills to our candidates?
4. How do we inspire the population to want to be effective teachers?
For each of the scenarios as they exist today, there are challenges that teacher
education must address. These include becoming facile with Big Data (such as data
on individual student’s progress in learning) so that evidence can be collected,
analysed and used to enhance teacher education and to show that this is occurring.
We need to become better negotiators and less reactionary and combative in our
work with governments and big business. We should look at how we can work
together and gain power as a collective that has a voice in the education debate.
Finally, we need to show the flexibility, imagination, innovation and ability to align
with the new world that our scenarios indicate is likely.
Extrapolating the Scenarios to 2030–2035
To consider how the scenarios might be modified we need to look at current trends
and extrapolate from those current trends to define drivers that are likely to be
important in 15–20 years’ time. As discussed, current trends and drivers today
include trends concerned with digital media, the rise of big business in education,
the use of Big Data and the status of teachers and teacher educators. These trends
have had an effect on our choice of governments, on the way we work, and on how
we spend our leisure time.
At this point in time, we see the rise of ‘fake news’ as a way of describing
reports that do not fit with our conceptions of the world. The Oxford Dictionary’s
(2017) word of the year for 2016 was ‘post-truth’—there is a strong sentiment that
we currently live in a post-truth world, where formerly we appeared to have a
greater regard for so-called facts. All of these assumptions can be challenged but it
does appear that experts are no longer as valued today for their expertise as they
were in earlier decades and that opinions are regarded as of equal value, regardless
of how they are derived. The democratisation of knowledge has led to the privi-
leging of opinions over scientific methods and processes.
The ubiquity of mobile technologies and of connectedness changes the nature of
essential knowledge and of interactions. Automation is on the increase and artificial
intelligence is promoting machine learning. These trends are likely to have a great
impact on employment in the future. These drivers, therefore, must surely have an
effect on schooling—in terms of how we both prepare students for this post-truth
digital world and ensure they are engaged by what occurs in school.
Based on these current trends and drivers we suggest updated versions of the six
scenarios for learning systems that were proposed by the OECD in 2001. These
scenarios are based on current drivers and emerging phenomena and suggest pos-
sibilities for future learning systems that might exist in 2030 and beyond. Whilst we
normally use the scenario building methodology proposed by Snoek, in which we
put aside our assumptions and endeavour to portray each scenario in a positive
light, we do not use this methodology in these scenarios, but rather remain true to
the methodology used by the OECD. In the same spirit that the OECD proposed the
original scenarios for learning systems in an attempt to provoke and disrupt, we
offer these scenarios. They are not proposed as likely or possible but simply as
logical outcomes of the current trends and drivers. We hope they will lead to as
much debate and thought as the OECD scenarios have provoked. We also consider
these scenarios for what they might suggest as implications for teacher education.
Scenario 1: Back to the Future Systems
This scenario is a portrait of business as usual. In Australia, the USA and the UK, it
is likely to look very much like many schools in our current context. In this
scenario, public schooling is in crisis and market forces dominate education.
Various education models are offered that are available depending on how much
students and their families can afford to pay. Opportunities to succeed are plentiful
for the already successful. Inequity has grown enormously and those who cannot
afford high-quality private education are taught basic skills in public institutions and
then left to develop their own pathways and life experiences, as there is not a
requirement for all to play a productive part in society. Those institutions whose
students perform well in high-stakes testing use the results of such testing to pro-
duce credentialing for those students. Those students who are not included in these
cohorts are accepted by public schools, which mainly serve as child-minding ser-
vices where little investment occurs due to the low return on this investment.
Extrapolating the Scenarios to 2030–2035 145
A core feature of the teacher education program, laid down by governments in

association with influential industry advocates, is data analytics so that teachers in
the private education sector are able to test students continuously and provide
evidence of outcome achievement. Teacher education tends to be technical, and
emphasises behaviour management and skills development, particularly in the use
of and interpretation of data analytics. Teacher educators also focus on preparing
their students to be effective practitioners in delivering the required outcomes for
schooling in public schools: basic reading, writing and numeracy skills, the 3Rs of
decades earlier. Teacher education programs also need to ensure that student
teachers have the ability to prepare school students to be productive work units.
In this scenario, schools function as places where students learn how to enjoy
hobbies and to learn skills that will be useful for leisure activities. Many enterprises
are fully automated and few opportunities exist for earning wages. Therefore
engagement in leisure activities is essential for an engaged and stable society.
Students are also taught how to be critical thinkers who can contribute as members
of a democratic society.
Where there are positions available they either require high order and very
specialised academic skills or high emotional quotients and social skills. Therefore,
some streams within the learning organisation encourage the development of these
skills and traits. Entrepreneurial clubs exist in schools and help students to develop
their innovative and creative traits.
The curriculum incorporates development of resilience, problem solving skills
and negotiation skills. A minority of students is selected to study disciplines at high
levels, but all are affirmed in the learning that they engage with. Students are
encouraged to pursue their areas of interest and equity is high. Teachers are highly
regarded and are responsible for guiding students to create new knowledge or to
gain highly developed social skills. Teacher educators are leaders in innovation and
guide their student teachers to develop their creative skills and to facilitate har-
monious interactions in schools.
Scenario 3: Core Social Centres
Similar to the other re-schooling scenario, schools operate mainly as systems that
develop social skills and human relationships rather than focus on discipline
knowledge. They are intergenerational and seen as sites of collaboration and of
social gatherings. Students gather to pursue common interests in making or
designing creative artefacts or to participate in team ventures that are either intel-
lectual or sporting. The goal of these social centres is to focus on individual and
societal fulfilment. Many centres prepare their students to be volunteers who can
support those in need and develop skills for humanitarian work. As wealth gen-
erated by automation is distributed through society based on an equitable formula,
those in need tend to be people in poor health, of older ages or living alone, rather
than those who are poverty stricken. Equity is high. Robots take care of most tasks
and are able to repair themselves and develop further, bringing the amount of
human intervention in their functioning to a minimum.
Teacher education systems support teachers in learning how to set up commu-
nity organisations, develop skills in craft making, and teach leadership skills.
A central feature of all teacher education is the development of moral and ethical
traits and behaviours in their students. Collaborative skills are also stressed.
The extended market model is an elite model. Corporations set up institutes to
nurture the best individuals and prepare them to be leaders in selected fields, either
of sport, intellectual endeavour or social dominance. The elder elites dictate who
should become their successors, decide on the required curriculum and a subgroup
of the ruling elites is charged with looking after the education of the new generation
of elites.
Society is highly inequitable, and the major purpose of the education of these
elites is to generate wealth for them and their corporations. The system is author-
itarian and policy is entirely dictated by the ruling elites. Selection takes place at an
early age and is largely based on selecting the next generation of elites from
families that are deemed to be successful at meeting corporation needs.
Corporations induct future employees and provide learning development that tar-
gets these employees’ needs. If employees do not meet corporation performance
indicators, they are expelled from the corporate institutes. Those not selected gain
little education and are usually poverty stricken. Exclusion and inequity are rife.
This de-schooling model has no need for teacher education because the existing
elites are deemed sufficiently able to develop the next generation of elites.
This scenario is the second de-schooling model. In this scenario, learners do not
gather in social centres as in Scenario 3. The use of networks enabled by social
media and ubiquitous connectivity allows individuals to build global networks.
Learners can pursue any interest with a large number of others who are based in
diverse locations. Jobs are done by machines and there is no need for learners to
engage in wealth generation. Students learn about topics that are of interest to them
through interactions with automated learning systems that hold knowledge and
build on students’ individual learning outcomes to generate modules for further
learning. Learning is intergenerational and highly valued as a means of having a
fulfilling life. Teaching is completely automated and intelligent machines develop
modules that teach different discipline knowledge and skills. Teacher education
takes on a new form.
Teacher educators no longer work with human teachers but teacher education
comprises learning system designers who create systems with the flexibility to
respond to people as they interact with the system. Few teacher educators are
needed as the learning systems become increasingly smart and machine learning
operates at a high level.
Extrapolating the Scenarios to 2030–2035 147
Scenario 6: Crisis and System Meltdown

This scenario does not exist as there is no need for teachers and machines provide
effective learning in unemotional, cost-effective and dispassionate ways.
Conclusion
It is worth contemplating these scenarios and doing some backcasting from each of
them to help us develop a trajectory to the scenario which portrays a desired future
for us. Given that elements of each of the original OECD (2001) scenarios appear in
current learning systems, despite having been developed 15–20 years ago, it is
likely that elements of the proposed new scenarios will exist as a result of the
current drivers influencing the future. How should teacher education react now if a
particular future appears more appealing than others? What are our responsibilities
to ensure an equitable and just society? How can we select from the drivers of
education to strengthen those that will provide positive change and eliminate those
drivers that will lead to great inequity and unhappiness? As people charged with
developing the teachers of the future, our responsibility is great.
References
CERI/OECD. (2001). Scenarios for the future of schooling. In CERI/OECD Schooling for
tomorrow: What schools for the future? (Chap. 3, pp. 77–98). Paris: OECD. Retrieved from
https://www.oecd.org/site/schoolingfortomorrowknowledgebase/futuresthinking/scenarios/
overviewofthesixsftscenarios.htm.
Dinham, S. (2015). The worst of both worlds: How the U.S. and The U.K. are influencing
education in Australia. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(49). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/
epaa.v23.1865.
Ellis, V. (2017, July). Reforming/transforming teacher education: The construction of impact in
times of evidence-free policy. Keynote address. In Teacher Education Policy and Practice:
ATEA Annual Conference. Brisbane.
Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning.
London: Pearson.
Hallett, R., & Hutt, R. (2016). 10 jobs that didnt exist 10 years’ ago. World Economic Forum.
Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/06/10-jobs-that-didn-t-exist-10-years-
ago/.
Masters, G. (2016). Five challenges in Australian school education. Policy insight, May 1, 2016.
Camberwell, VIC: Australian Council of Educational Research. Retrieved from http://research.
acer.edu.au.ezproxy.lib.uts.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=policyinsights.
Mongon, D., & Leadbeater, C. (2012). School leadership for public value: Understanding
valuable outcomes for children, families and communities. London: Institute of Education.
Ninomiya, A., & Mutch, C. (2008). Visioning scenarios for schooling for tomorrow. Journal of
International Cooperation in Education, 11(1), 7–22.
Oxford Dictionary. (2017). Word of the year. Retrieved from http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/
word-of-the-year/word-of-the-year-2016.
Pullin, D. (2017). What counts? Who is counting? Teacher education improvement and
accountability in a data-driven era. In J. Nuttall, A. Kostogriz, M. Jones, & J. Martin (Eds.),
Teacher education policy and practice: Evidence of impact, impact of evidence (pp. 3–16).
Singapore: Springer.
PwC. (2017). Press release. Retrieved from http://pwc.blogs.com/press_room/2017/03/up-to-30-
of-existing-uk-jobs-could-be-impacted-by-automation-by-early-2030s-but-this-should-be-
offse.html .
Ravitch, D. (2014). Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to
America’s public schools. New York, NY: Knopf.
Rice, M. F., & Carter, R. A., Jr. (2016). Online teacher work to support self-regulation of learning
in students with disabilities at a fully online state virtual school. Online Learning, 20(4),
118–135.
Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in
Finland?. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Schuck, S., & Aubusson, P. (2010). Educational scenarios for digital futures. Learning Media and
Technology, 35(3), 293–305.
Schuck, S., Kearney, M., & Burden, K. (2017). Exploring mobile learning in the third space.
Schuck, S., Aubusson, P., Buchanan, J., Varadharajan, M., & Burke, P. F. (2017). The experiences
of early career teachers: New initiatives and old problems. Professional Development in
Education, 1–13.
Chapter 10
Knowledge and Technology Challenging
the Future
Abstract This chapter draws upon the views and opinions of international post-
graduate students studying a module about educational technology as part of a
full-time Masters’ program in the UK. These students are all teachers working in
various parts of the Middle East and Africa, and many are senior leaders in their
own schools. The narrative of the chapter describes how these postgraduate stu-
dents used the process of future scenario thinking to explore the phenomena of ‘Big
Data’ and data analytics, which they identified as a significant technology driver for
their own institutions and contexts. The first part of the chapter sets the context for
these scenarios, expanding upon the technology discussion covered in Chap. 4. We
outline the processes through which these students explored and created their own
scenarios around the topic of Big Data Learning Analytics and provide the actual
scenarios they devised, before considering the implications of these scenarios, and
the process itself, for teacher education.
Keywords Big Data Learning Analytics Future scenarios Feedback

Assessment
Introduction
In previous chapters (see Chaps. 4 and 5), it was noted how technology and
knowledge are both significant drivers of teacher education that require educators to
reassess and reconsider both their existing mindsets and practices. In particular,
these chapters highlighted how advances in technology are challenging many of the
previously taken-for-granted assumptions about education such as the importance
of subject knowledge, the role of teachers and teacher educators in this shifting
landscape, the balance between formal and informal learning, and the impact of the
Big Data, both public and personal, that can be used to predict possible futures for
learners. This amounts to a continuing erosion in many of the traditional certainties
that educators have previously embraced, along with growing signs of frustration

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8246-7_10
150 10 Knowledge and Technology Challenging the Future
and even Luddism on the part of some who sense their world’s zeitgeist is frac-
turing or disappearing altogether.
With the growth and near ubiquity of networked connectivity across all aspects
of our lives, both public and private, educators are faced with the realisation that
maintaining the status quo as epitomised in a largely modernist, industrialised
curriculum model, is no longer an option. The traditional reliance on a narrowly
defined set of privileged subject knowledge, often referred to as the 3 Rs, is giving
way to a broader conceptualisation of what learning might look like in the
twenty-first century and technology is increasingly seen to be integral to these new
visions. The 4 Cs—collaboration, creativity, communication and ‘critical think-
ing’—are requisite skills for the digital era and digital technologies amplify the
opportunities to practice and develop these skills in authentic, global and inter-
cultural contexts that would otherwise be impossible. But as was pointed out in
Chap. 4, teachers and teacher educators still have a critical role to play if these
affordances of technologies such as mobile devices are to have the impact on
learning their promoters promise (Burden & Hopkins, 2017).
Numerous technologies have been developed for, or appropriated by, educators
to enhance and transform learning but only a small fraction of these have any
lasting significance and even fewer have resulted in genuinely ‘disruptive’ chal-
lenges to the status quo (Cuban, 2009; Selwyn, 2016). In Chap. 4, three of these
technologies considered to be the most ‘disruptive’ were examined and their
implications for teaching and for the preparation of new teachers through initial
teacher education (ITE) were considered. These included pervasive and ubiquitous
computing; Augmented and Virtual Reality, and Big Data and Learning Analytics.
It is the last of these that we now explore further to examine what this technological
development actually means for teachers and students and how the techniques and
methodologies promoted throughout this book can support practitioners in making
sense of their own role within this complex and rapidly evolving landscape.
This chapter explores in detail the potential impact and value of Big Data and
Learning Analytics through the eyes of a group of teachers and school leaders who
used a futures thinking methodology to help them consider their own roles and the
challenges they were likely to face in their institutions, as greater volumes of data
and more sophisticated analytics become commonplace. This chapter focuses,
therefore, on the following question: How useful do school leaders find this
methodology for considering the role of Big Data and Learning Analytics in their
own schools?
Big Data and Learning Analytics
In his book, The end of average (2016), Todd Rose explains how in the late 1940s
the United States Air Force (USAF) faced a serious crisis as it struggled to account
for the sudden and inexplicable increase in pilot fatalities following the recent
introduction of jet fighters. At first, pilot error was suspected and then technical
Big Data and Learning Analytics 151
problems associated with the increased speed of jet fighters. Despite extensive tests
and investigations neither was identified as the cause of these mysterious and
unsolved incidents. Eventually, attention focused on the shape and size of the
cockpit itself and it was discovered these had been designed to a standardized
format based on the standardised measurements of pilots (all male) undertaken three
decades earlier in the 1920s. It was assumed that the dimensions of US pilots had
altered over this period of time and to test this hypothesis the Air Force undertook a
detailed study of over 4000 pilots, based on 140 different parameters of size. If their
hypothesis was correct it was assumed that a newly designed cockpit based on the
average dimensions for these pilots would solve the crisis. But then something
strange and entirely unexpected occurred. Once the new average dimensions for
parameters such as height, chest circumference and sleeve length had been calcu-
lated, they were applied to a new sample of just over 4000 pilots. Based on 10
standardised dimensions, not one of the entire samples fitted within the average
range on all 10 dimensions. Indeed if as few as any three of the ten dimensions were
selected, only 3.5% of the entire sample would be average on all three. The con-
clusion was clear. There was no such thing as an average pilot and if a cockpit was
designed to fit one, it would fit no one.
The implications of this anecdote for education and learning are significant, but
are only just beginning to be fully appreciated as the implications of Big Data and
Learning Analytics are starting to be comprehended. Faced with the revelation that
there was no such thing as an average pilot, the USAF abandoned its previous
philosophy which was based on fitting the individual to the system, and replaced it
with what they called ‘individual fit’. They insisted that manufacturers design a
customised cockpit which included adjustable seats, foot pedals, helmet straps and
flight suits, all developments that the aeronautical industry had previously refused
to contemplate as too expensive.
It could be argued that education is also blinded, like the USAF, by its obsession
with averages and its attempt to fit individuals into a system rather than customise
the system to suit the individual learner. There are many parallels in these two
examples and since the introduction of mass education following the industrial
revolution, learning and schooling have largely ceased to follow the customised,
individualised approach that pre-industrial models were based upon. Of course in
pre-industrial times education was an elite undertaking involving small numbers
who could afford individual tuition, often on a one-to-one basis. This model is no
longer feasible and the subsequent industrialised model of mass education depen-
ded on the notion of average as it ‘delivered’ learning to students on such a large
scale that customised learning was impossible to countenance.
Until recently this mass model has persisted and education has remained largely
impersonal even whilst other sections of public life such as commerce, manufac-
turing and catering have embraced the opportunities afforded by technology to
individualise the customer experience whilst still producing for a mass market, a
phenomenon described as ‘mass customisation’ (Davis, 1989). These trends have
been driven by the use of Big Data and data analytics and they also offer an
opportunity for schools and educators to customise the experience of the learner
within the framework of a mass education system. The following section explores
how this might work.
Big Data and Learning Analytics in Higher Education

‘Big Data’ refers to enormous amounts of unstructured data produced by high performance
applications falling in a wide and heterogeneous family of application scenarios: from
scientific computing applications to social networks, from e-government applications to
medical information systems, and so forth. (Cuzzocrea, Song, & Davis, 2011, p. 101)
The adoption and use of ‘Big Data’ alongside sophisticated data analytical soft-
ware, has transformed the world of commerce and marketing (Manyika et al., 2011)
but it has yet to have even a remotely similar impact on education. This is due to the
increasingly digitised and networked nature of the commercial world where cus-
tomer interactions (e.g. online browsing habits for goods) and purchase histories
can be instantly tracked and monitored, enabling businesses to target different
demographics with highly customised offerings at a granular level that would be
impossible in the analogue world. These digital interactions generate a vast volume
of data about the behaviours and actions of individual consumers and with the use
of smart algorithms, they can be used to identify patterns and correlations that
would otherwise be invisible or difficult to discern. Combined with increasingly
sophisticated visual representations that simplify and explain this complexity (e.g.
infographics), the use of ‘Big Data’ and data analytics has revolutionised how
commerce and business operate, enabling them to customise their products and
services whilst retaining the efficiencies and benefits of mass production, a process
that Davis (1989) refers to as ‘mass customisation’.
By comparison, the use of Big Data in education remains in its infancy but there
are signs this is changing. Until recently, the use of Big Data and Learning
Analytics in educational contexts—or ‘data science methods’ as some institutions
prefer to call it (cf. Curtin University)—has been pioneered by the higher education
sector who routinely collect and analyse vast quantities of data about student
actions and behaviours through automated procedures using learning management
systems (LMSs) and virtual learning environments (VLEs). In 2013, the New Media
Consortium Horizon Report (Johnson et al., 2013) identified these activities as
amongst the most likely technology trends to impact on the higher education sector
within the coming 5 years (2013–2018).
For higher education, collecting data in this manner is akin to the data collected
by the commercial world about the individual customer’s purchasing behaviours
and habits. When these raw data from students are ‘mined’ and parsed using
Learning Analytics, which consists of advanced algorithms to identify patterns and
correlations about how students learn, institutions are able to detect nuanced
patterns, correlations and trends that can be used in a wide variety of different ways
for both formative and summative purposes.
However, from an educational perspective, it is not only the volume of data that
is important, but also the type. It is now possible to collect types of data about
learners that would be unimaginable and impossible in the analogue world:
It is not just more streams of data, but entirely new ones [read: types of data]. For example,
there are now countless digital sensors worldwide in industrial equipment, automobiles,
electrical meters and shipping crates. (Lohr, 2012, n.p)
This shift, brought about by the emergence of ‘pervasive computing’ (see

Chap. 4), where any object or item can be linked to a digital sensor to enable it to
communicate to and with the network—‘The Internet of Things’—represents a
potential watershed in how we measure and capture a learner’s performance and
achievements since it negates the need to base such judgements on single points of
data (e.g. tests and examinations) and replaces them with continuous points of data
that might include a learner’s interaction through their social media channels,
through their online activity and, at a highly granular level, through their mouse
clicks referred to as Clickstream data. With the development of ever more
sophisticated, seemingly sentient, algorithms and software this process will become
even more granular as machine learning, automated inferences and self-organising
clusters of data help users to detect ever more granular and individualised patterns
of learning behaviour (Manyika et al., 2011).
Some higher education institutions around the world have already identified
these affordances as the means to customise their students’ experience of university
life, before, during and after completion of their studies. Curtin University in
Australia, uses Big Data and Learning Analytics to target particular groups for
recruitment purposes and prior to enrolment to ensure they arrive at the university
ready to begin their chosen degree. Data collected during their time at the university
enable the institution to customise their learning pathways by identifying particular
patterns of learning, the learning resources they use (e.g. reading materials), and the
students and social groups with whom they interact. The use of Big Data continues
after students leave the university with alumni tracked into employment and post
university life. Similar trends are followed by the University of Las Vegas, Nevada,
where Big Data and Learning Analytics are used to improve student progress and
retention rates by tracking how different populations of students react to different
instructional approaches and the use of different resources. This is particularly
effective in helping to match students to particular learning approaches and
strategies in online and blended learning environments where their behaviours,
actions and intents are more easily captured.
Until recently universities have used Big Data and Learning Analytics princi-
pally as a retention and monitoring tool to identify those students deemed to be ‘at
risk’ such as students with learning difficulties or those at greatest risk of ‘dropping
out’. This focus is now shifting as institutions start to understand how Learning
Analytics can be used to personalise learning for all students, not just those at risk,
and how this has the potential to customise the experience of university by creating
highly personal learning pathways for every individual (Ferguson, 2012; Shum &
Ferguson, 2012). Although this is not yet imminent, some have described this shift
as the Uber moment for the university sector in terms of disruptive technologies
since, if taken to its logical conclusion, this places the learner, not the institution or
lecturers, in the ultimate position of control and ultimately questions what the role
for universities might be if students are capable of making informed learning
choices based on this evidence base (Johnson et al., 2013).
The Use of Big Data, Learning Analytics and Mobiles

in Schools
At the present moment, however, this disruption to higher education is still some
time away and in other sectors of education, such as schools, the potential value of
Big Data and Learning Analytics is only just beginning to be realised. This is
because schools have not previously collected digitised data about their students’
learning behaviors and actions (let alone intentions) through the use of LMSs or
VLEs in the way that universities have. But this is also starting to change as schools
start to adopt both LMSs and VLEs, generating ever greater volumes of data about
their students’ learning behaviours that would not have been collected as easily or
as comprehensively before. As schools start to become data rich, like universities,
much of this data can be mined and parsed to identify patterns of behavior and
correlations between different teaching approaches and student progress. This
promises to be a significant opportunity and challenge for schools, but before they
even start to consider the full ramifications of these developments, it is likely that
the current institutional focus and use of Big Data and Learning Analytics will be
superseded by a personal one that is owned and controlled by the individual stu-
dent, not the institution.
As mobile computing becomes more prevalent in and outside of schools, stu-
dents are likely to use their personal devices rather than institutional computers as
their primary learning tools and portals. This usage of personal devices suggests
that unlike the university examples cited above, it is the individual, not the insti-
tution who will be the main recipient of the data, a shift that is likely to carry
significant ramifications. Mobile applications like Duolingo already illustrate how
Big Data collected from millions of users daily can be used to customise the
learning pathways for learners, via their personal device, bypassing the need for
institutional contact or support. There is no reason to believe this trend in the
development of highly customised apps that utilise Learning Analytics and Big
Data will decrease and indeed there is every indication that this is the preferred
direction for many app developers who seek to place the locus of control firmly in
the hands of the end user. The implications for schools and teachers are likely to be
considerable.
Additionally, with a shift to personal mobile devices as the primary point of

contact to the network, there is also an implied change related to the latency or
delay experienced by a learner in receiving feedback about their own work.
Feedback is dealt with in more detail below, but it is necessary to note how the use
of Big Data and Learning Analytics, mediated through personal devices owned by
the student, alters the dynamics and rhythms associated with feedback. Traditional
approaches to assessment and the collection of data generated by learners are one
dimensional and marked by a time-lag, referred to as ‘latency’. This is the gap that
occurs between the completion of a learning task or activity, its collection by the
teacher and any feedback that is subsequently provided to the learner. These
approaches are one dimensional in the sense they are controlled and organized
mainly by the teacher, not the learner, and with analogue approaches there is
inevitably a degree of latency between the learner undertaking an activity and
receiving any meaningful feedback about their performance which they can act
upon. The advent of Big Data and the use of Learning Analytics does not neces-
sarily alter these imbalances and some observers have identified this as a looming
problem with current approaches that harvest this data exclusively for the benefit of
teachers and institutions, not learners (Madhaven & Richey, 2016). However, if the
data and their subsequent analysis are made available, or owned by the student this
becomes a significant shift in the dynamics of assessment and the power rela-
tionships that exist between teachers and learners. It could be construed to be a
highly disruptive technology since it implies learners could be empowered to make
better-informed judgements and choices about their own learning pathways, inde-
pendently of a teacher.
How Might Teachers Use Big Data and Learning Analytics

in Schools?
In practice the implications of Big Data and Learning Analytics for teachers are still
uncertain but it is likely they will include more student orientated feedback, as
suggested above; more opportunities to customise and individualise the learning
experience beyond what is currently possible, and a greater use of probabilistic
predictions upon which educators and learners alike can have greater confidence.
Student-Oriented Feedback
Despite the recognised importance of formative feedback, such as feedback for

learning, many forms of assessment remain summative in nature, undertaken too
late in the learning process to enable the learner to act upon them in any meaningful
manner. This is likely to be one of the most significant changes experienced by
teachers and learners as Big Data and Learning Analytics enable real-time analysis
of learning whilst the process of learning is still underway (Siemens, 2012). In

computer-assisted language learning (CALL), for example, this affordance is
already evident in apps such as Duolingo which routinely collect vast quantities of
detailed data about the learner’s performance and interactions with the app, as they
develop their language skills. In one example of real-time feedback, this time to the
app developer rather than directly to the student, data captured by the Duolingo app
revealed how the best way to teach a language differed according to the learner’s
native tongue and the language they were learning. In the case of Spaniards learning
to speak English, for example, the data revealed how they struggled to handle
personal pronouns such as ‘it’ which has no equivalence in Spanish. By studying
the patterns revealed through the underlying algorithm the designers of Duolingo
were able, in real time, to delay the lessons on pronouns by a few weeks, revealing
a significant improvement in understanding by Spanish speakers
(Mayer-Schönberger & Cukier, 2014). This level of analysis, undertaken whilst the
app is in actual use relies on the volume of data generated by applications like this,
but also the ability to analyse the data and suggest alternative pathways for learning
in real time, along with a probabilistic prediction of how likely it is to be effective.
This example illustrates how the use of Big Data and Learning Analytics in real
time will enable teachers to focus less on the results of learning (e.g. standardised
tests or examinations) and more on the process of learning with data used to
overcome common misconceptions or learning problems that might otherwise
remain invisible and seemingly intractable. Indeed, this nuanced degree of under-
standing about a learner’s performance in undertaking a particular task invites
speculation about the continued value of summative or terminal tests and assess-
ments, if it is already evident how proficient an individual might be at a particular
task or activity.
The next generation of eBooks is likely to incorporate similar affordances to
those described above that enable teachers to gain a more nuanced understanding
and appreciation of the reading habits and comprehension levels of their students.
In a traditional book it is almost impossible for the teacher to know which pages or
sections of a book readers find difficult to read or understand, but in an eBook it is
now conceivable that eye-tracking software, mouse clicks and other sensory data
like this could be used to identify those sections of a book the reader had to re-read.
Similarly, it is possible to track the notes students make in the margins of a digital
book and these can be analyzed and shared with other readers. Collectively they
provide more feedback for the teacher to understand the reading habits and com-
prehension skills of students in ways that were not possible previously.
Customisation and Individualisation of Learning
Whilst the shift to mass education models in the nineteenth century brought about
unparalleled access to knowledge and learning for a growing percentage of the
population, it did so at a price. Individualised teaching approaches and the
infrastructure to support them were compromised with a one-size-fits-all mentality
that has persisted in schools ever since, whilst other walks of life, such as manu-
facturing and fashion, have learned how to customise their products for individuals
without abandoning the cost benefits and efficiencies of mass production. Like the
USAF anecdote referred to above, education still benchmarks the individual to a
standardised mean or average that matches no single individual. Most students are
treated as cohorts, not individuals, progressing through their school careers at a
pace based on their birth date not necessarily their capabilities (Cowen, 2013). Big
Data, harnessed effectively with Learning Analytics, offers the opportunity for
schools to achieve ‘mass customisation’ that retains the efficiency and benefits of
large-scale education whilst attending to learners as individuals, as the following
narratives illustrates.
Discerning the root causes of student misconceptions or misunderstandings can
tax even the most experienced and conscientious teacher even when such problems
are common, repeating themselves annually. Amongst the many difficulties facing
teachers in this complex undertaking is the ability to identify the specific learning
difficulty faced by each and every student, even though the misconception may be
experienced widely. This is where the accumulation of data collected at many
different points along the learning journey is proving invaluable in assisting edu-
cators to identify the particular learning barrier that may be preventing progress and
to address it with a solution customised to the individual, rather than the entire
group. Mayer-Schönberger & Cukier illustrate this in their book Learning with Big
Data (2014) with an example from an online course where the tutor is able to track
the precise interactions students make when they are watching a series of video
lectures produced by the tutor. Collecting the data as students watch a series of
YouTube screencasts, the tutor is able to analyse at which point students pause or
fast forward each segment, how long and how many times they watch each part,
when they review the material and at what point in each video they disengage and
stop watching. This level of micro-data provides invaluable feedback for the tutor,
enabling him or her to judge how well the entire cohort has progressed through the
material, whilst also allowing the tutor to identify particular barriers or difficulties
experienced by each individual. So in the case of one student in their example, it
became evident that she was struggling to understand a particular formulae in linear
algebra which occurred at the end of lesson seven, since she kept returning to lesson
three which had touched on this subject. Not only was the tutor able to identify the
particular point in the learning sequence where this student struggled, it was also
possible to remedy this problem by creating a refresher video (video eight) at the
precise point this and many other students began to struggle with the topic. This
demonstrates the benefits of using this kind of data to diagnose and remedy a
learning hurdle before it becomes intractable. The popularity of social media
amongst students offers similar opportunities.
The use of social media by students to tackle difficult questions or problems is
growing rapidly, as question and answer forums and blogs attract more students
searching for a bespoke solution to a particular problem or issue they cannot answer
alone. Crowdsourced data of this nature can be seen as a more immediate and
customised form of support and feedback than might otherwise be available but
there is a question mark over their accuracy and reliability. Star rating systems
awarded by the user might give the impression of how useful, and by implication
how accurate, these postings have been but this can be misleading. With machine
reading and learning analytics, however, it is becoming easier for learners to judge
the accuracy and usefulness of these posts. Initial findings by the founders of the
online system, Coursera, for example reveal how tutors and students alike can now
see for themselves what percentage of users who read a particular post prior to
undertaking a related task got the answer correct or incorrect. Armed with such
probabilistic predictions, students and teachers are able to customise their choices
and tasks with a greater certainty of success than was previously possible
(Mayer-Schönberger & Cukier, 2014).
Challenges and Issues Associated the Use of Big Data

and Learning Analytics
As the volume of data related to a learner’s performance increases, the need for
educators to understand and apply these data becomes more critical and it is likely
teachers will need to develop and refine new skills such as data analysis that is only
seen as marginally important at the current moment. By definition, teachers will
need to understand how to extract meaning about their students’ learning prefer-
ences and approaches from a far more diverse range of data sets than they have
previously been accustomed to using, such as social media profiles, online activity
such as gaming preferences in addition to a plethora of test results and scores that
are routinely generated by widgets and apps learners use on a daily basis.
Ultimately, if responsibility for owning and using these data shifts to become
learner centred, rather than teacher centred, this will also require teachers to support
their students in acquiring and using these skills responsibly (Clarke & Nelson,
2013; Ferguson, 2012) and this is likely to need a shift of mindset that will chal-
lenge how teachers measure and judge the efficacy of their teaching interventions
and the approaches they put in place to ensure students are capable of following the
personal preferences their data sets suggest are likely to be most suitable for them.
Additionally, there are privacy and ethical concerns associated with the rise of
Big Data in education that is not yet fully understood or comprehended. Whilst a
thorough explanation of these issues is beyond the scope or purpose of this chapter,
it is worth noting growing concerns associated with who owns data generated about
learners and what security exists to protect the data. Attention has understandably
tended to focus on the volume of data available about learners to third parties such
as Internet giants like Google, and how this digital footprint will be managed in
order to ensure these data are not stolen or used inappropriately. In the longer term,
however, it may be the legacy implications of Big Data that raise the most
intractable concerns as they generate an identity that shackles learners to a single
past that fails to recognise how individuals might have grown or changed.
Methodology for Current Research 159
Methodology for Current Research
This chapter showcases how postgraduate students studying for a Masters’ degree
in digital technologies at a university in the north of England undertook the process
of scenario building to explore possible futures for their own institutions––futures
related to educational technology. Nine postgraduate students took part in the
exercise (eight men and one woman) and eight of them came from Africa and the
Middle East including South Africa, Ghana, Nigeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and
Kuwait. Six were middle or senior managers working in schools, studying full time
to gain a better understanding of how technology can be used more effectively for
teaching and learning. The module these students were studying focused on future
technology trends in education, and this exercise was of the existing curriculum,
although most participants described themselves as technology novices upon
starting the module.
In a previous session, the students implemented a horizon scan in which they
investigated a number of technology trends in education that were predicted to have
a disruptive impact on teaching and learning in schools. These were identified from
a number of different research-based sources and reports including the annual New
Media Consortium Horizon Reports that identify technology trends over the short,
medium and longer terms (Johnson et al., 2013). On this occasion, the trends
included social networking; Big Data and Learning Analytics; Augmented Reality;
open-source software and licensing; Virtual Reality; simulations; virtual learning
environments (VLEs); artificial intelligence (AI) and accessibility and inclusion
software. During this session, students were also introduced to the principles and
ideas behind the process of constructing future scenarios leading to a general debate
about the value and validity of creating such scenarios at the present time, given
many of the constraints and limitations facing schools that often restrict their ability
to think independently about future directions.
In the next session, one week later, students were asked to reflect upon the
technology trends they had studied the previous week and asked to rank them in
order of their disruptive potential in schools. Once this task had been undertaken
individually, students were placed in three small groups and asked to merge their
individual lists to identify what they considered to be the four most significant
technology trends. At this point, the tutor demonstrated how each of these tech-
nology trends could be considered to be technology drivers leading to change and
disruption in existing approaches to teaching and learning. Next, the tutor explained
the process of identifying dilemmas or contentious issues associated with each
technology driver and students were set the task to identify dilemmas for each of the
four technology trends they had prioritised.
Using one dilemma as an exemplar, the tutor demonstrated how to create two
binaries that captured the extreme opposites for this dilemma. These were illustrated
in the form of a continuum and students were asked to position themselves along
this continuum depending on their individual perspectives. Finally, the tutor indi-
cated how, by combining two of these technology dilemmas and their
accompanying binaries, it was possible to create a matrix with four different

quadrants (see Chaps. 6 and 7 for more discussion of the two-dimensional matrix).
Armed with this information and understanding, students were then asked to work
in groups of three to identify a single technology driver from their list of four that
would be the focus of the scenario building exercise. Working independently and
without communication, all three groups selected Big Data and Learning Analytics
as their principal technology driver, possibly reflecting the growing importance and
significance of this trend in education. Following on from this exercise, the groups
were set the task of identifying dilemmas associated with the technology driver they
had selected. Combined from all three groups these included:
• Privacy issues: who owns the data? (the individual, the institution or a
third-party vendor?)
• Who has access to the data? (nobody or the entire public)
• Ethical issues associated with one’s digital footprint forever haunting you
• Scarcity of data
• Customisation and individualisation
• Multimodality associated with Big Data
• Transparency of data/visibility of learning
• Purpose of assessment: external and institutional (i.e. summative and for benefit
of institution, possibly teacher) or internal and for benefit of individual learner
• Latency of feedback
• Feedback itself.
At this point, the groups were asked to focus on each dilemma and identify
extreme binaries for each. Finally, each group was now encouraged to select two
dilemmas and set them out as intersecting axes in order to form a matrix with four
quadrants. These four quadrants formed the basis of each scenario as described
below.
During this entire process, observational data were collected (with permissions)
from the small-group discussions and the input of the tutor. After the session, a
focus group was conducted with all nine students and subsequently, five students
agreed to be interviewed in depth about the process of creating scenarios. This data
forms the empirical basis of the remaining chapter.
The Scenarios
The Process of Selecting Technology Drivers
As explained previously each group was asked to consider the technology drivers
that had been reviewed in the previous week’s seminar and asked to identify those
they considered to be the most ‘disruptive’ technologies facing school education
over the next two to five years. In this context, the term ‘disruptive’ was used to
The Scenarios 161
encourage participants to differentiate between those technologies that might have a

superficial or negligible impact upon schools and those that would challenge or
change the fundamental tenets and philosophies of schools. These include the role
and place of teachers, the nature of the curriculum and what should be taught, and
the structures of schooling including the balance between formal and informal
learning.
Rather surprisingly, given the wide range of technology drivers available to
choose from, all three groups decided upon the same driver. This focused on the
issue of Big Data and in particular the ‘disruptive’ potentiality of Learning
Analytics. When asked to explain their selection of the same topic these are some of
their comments:
All of the technology drivers that we studied last week were interesting and made us really
think hard about the impact of technology in schools, like my own where we are just
starting to use some of these technologies. However, some of them [the technologies]
seemed too fanciful to ever happen, and some seemed likely to have more impact than
others. Big Data was one of these and we decided it might be the most important. As a
group we all felt the way Big Data was described in the seminar could lead to really major
changes in our schools. Not all of them good! (Group 1)
We were torn between selecting Big Data and mobile computing since we all agreed these
two were the technologies that are most likely to disrupt the way we teach and organise our
schools in the near future. We thought mobile technologies were already here so in the end
we chose Big Data because we saw it as a pervasive trend that would continue long after the
fad for mobile technologies has come and gone. (Group 2)
At first we rejected Big Data from the list of trends because we thought it was just another
way of collecting evidence for assessment. Actually we didn’t get it at first. Then Damian
explained to us how he was using a maths programme with students in his primary school
(on their mobile phones) that gave them instant feedback on their results, much quicker
than the teacher could. It even pointed them in the right direction to begin a new task,
depending on how they answered the last one, and this excited us because it seemed to give
the learner more control over their learning. (Group 3)
Identification of Dilemmas and Creation of the Binaries
Once each group had selected their main driver for the study they were asked to
consider the dilemmas or potential issues associated with their chosen technology
driver. In response to this challenge, they identified an extensive list of issues or
dilemmas and then in keeping with the principles for building future scenarios (see
Chaps. 6 and 7 for further details) they were encouraged to represent each dilemma
as a continuum, deliberately seeking extreme binary positions to place at each end.
Since many of these were similar or identical for each group a summary of the main
dilemmas and their binaries is included below.
After completing this stage of the exercise, students were encouraged to artic-
ulate their choices and to explain how they determined the binaries for each con-
tinuum. This was undertaken as a focus group exercise with all the students together
and comments from the group are woven into the narrative below to illustrate their
choices and thinking. A recurring theme, and one that caused considerable con-
sternation, centred on ownership and privacy issues associated with the collection
of Big Data and its use in Learning Analytics. Students were concerned that data
they had created for private use would be obtainable by the institution or worse, by
third parties such as Google and other Internet giants:
What happens if the system mines my mouse clicks and shows I have a problem with
spelling, or something like dyslexia? It might be used by my tutors to help me but then what
happens to it? Is it kept on record for ever, and what if that fact is on Google for anybody
else to find? It might not help me in an interview if they knew I was dyslexic. I should have
that choice, not Google!
This and similar comments about the ownership of data were common in the
focus group discussion, occupying more than half of the discussion time, and was
subsequently identified as one of the most important dilemmas. The binaries at each
end of this continuum relate to the ownership of this data. Is it owned and controlled
by the individual or is it the property of the institution (e.g. a university) or even a
third-party organisation such as an Internet company?
Another popular topic emerging from the focus group discussion concerned the
benefits and advantages that might stem from the use of Learning Analytics and the
opportunity afforded by this use to move away from the strong tendency of edu-
cational systems to treat students as groups or cohorts rather than individuals. This
resulted in a number of separate but related continua such as ‘attitude to learners’
and ‘purpose of using learning analytics’ and ‘who uses the data in class’ (see
Table 10.1). In the first and second of these, the binaries describe how the insti-
tution (e.g. school, university) treat students when they have data available to
understand and respond to the micro-nuances that differentiate individuals from
groups and cohorts. In both, the emphasis centres on the purpose of collecting and
analysing Big Data. At one extreme this is considered to be an institutional purpose
(e.g. to construct more accurate league tables) whilst at the other, it is to enable the
student to make more informed choices and decisions about their own future
learning pathways. As one student commented:
Sometimes I think the university just sees me as a statistic. I got a 2:2 in my degree but it
could have been much better, I was on the edge of a 2:1 but just needed that little bit more
help. I think this kind of approach [Learning Analytics] would have given me the incentive
to find out more and go that little bit extra to get a better degree. As it is, I think the
university were happy to leave me to get a 2:2. At least I passed and didn’t drop out which
is what they really worry about.
Closely associated with these dilemmas and issues was the potential offered by
Big Data and Learning Analytics to broaden the range of measure and metrics used
to assess student progress. This was welcomed by the students who considered
traditional assessment measures to be unfairly narrow and biased towards those
with high literary skills. One student—a mathematician—articulated this more
eloquently than he could write it:
The Scenarios 163
As a mathematician we don’t get a lot of practice writing long narratives or stories, like the
English teachers in the group, but once I started training to be a teacher this was the main
way we were assessed. Everything was written, even our reflective journals which disad-
vantaged those of us who were not used to this style of assessment. With Big Data it seems
to me the systems we use every day could capture data and tell our tutors what they needed
to know without us having to write an essay about it. Wouldn’t that be liberating!
This discussion is reflected in the ‘sources of data’ continuum which captures

how the use of Big Data offers the potential to make judgments about learners using
a vast range of metrics and measures such as social media profiles, mouse move-
ments, eye tracking in addition to the existing range of traditional measures (e.g.
exams and assignments) rather than simply the latter alone.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, discussion turned to the individual
learner in the classroom and the extent to which the use of emerging Learning
Analytic systems, including those already available to students via their mobile
devices, transfers the control of learning from the teacher to the individual. The
spontaneous, real-time availability of data about one’s own learning performance
was seen as a fundamental game changer in terms of the relationship between
teacher and student:
At the moment if I am teaching a group of 35 students – or more! – I cannot physically give
every one of them immediate feedback when they need it. Even when I use a technique like
‘pair-share’, students are often left waiting for me to get round to them if they have a
problem or want to move faster. If they could get an instant answer to their questions that
would save a lot of time and give them more freedom.
This was a dilemma that stirred strong emotions and sometimes diametrically
opposed viewpoints as some members of the group saw this as a direct threat to
their livelihood—‘why would they need us if they could get the answers imme-
diately?’—whilst others saw it as liberating and an opportunity to empower learners
with greater freedom in their learning. Hence this continuum was a popular one to
include and it, therefore, forms the basis of one of the scenarios below.
Student-Generated Scenarios
Each of the three groups created a set of scenarios based on their selected tech-
nology driver—in this case, all of these were Big Data and Learning Analytics—
and the dilemmas or issues that were associated with this. A variety of different
dilemmas were selected (see Table 10.1 for a summary of these) and these were
then used to produce separate scenarios. Since all three groups selected the same
technology driver and similar dilemmas, the process, along with feedback from
students, is illustrated below from just one group (see Fig. 10.1).
Table 10.1 Summary of dilemmas identified about Big Data and Learning Analytics
Privacy concerns (who owns the data?)
The individual Corporate/third parties
Attitude to learners
Treated as ‘average’ Treated as individuals
Sources of data used to assess learners
One dimension (e.g. test results) Multi-dimension (all aspects of learning)
Purpose of using Big Data and learning analytics
To construct institutional data (e.g. league For the learner to guide own learning
tables)
Who uses the data in class?
Teacher Learner
Use of data for feedback
Second hand Real time/immediate
Assessment using Big Data
Focus on result of learning (e.g. test) Focus on process of learning (e.g. mouse
clicks)
Fig. 10.1 Scenarios generated by students

The Scenarios 165
The Student Experience of Creating Scenarios
In selecting two dilemmas to form the axes for their matrix, two of the three groups
identified concerns associated with accessibility of Big Data (i.e. is it public or
private) and its ownership (i.e. is it owned by the individual or the institution/
corporation?). These issues generated considerable debate and polarised positions
in the earlier stages of the exercise and therefore it is understandable that they were
selected for this exercise. However, in creating the actual scenarios students began
to recognise how similar the dilemmas were to each other and the effect this had on
the creation of differentiated scenarios:
We all thought our dilemmas were important so we agreed on their inclusion in the exercise
almost immediately. Once we started to write our scenarios, however, it was obvious we
had chosen dilemmas that were too similar. They all dealt with privacy issues and the
ownership of Big Data, but it was hard to separate some of them out and often we were not
sure if it was accessibility issues or ownership we were talking about. If I did this again I
would give the selection of dilemmas more attention and time. We rushed it!
This is not an uncommon issue experienced by the creators of scenarios like this
one and these comments highlight the importance of selecting the dilemmas care-
fully in order to ensure they are capable of generating genuinely different scenarios
in all four quadrants.
Another issue which generated comments and feedback from students were the
difficulties associated with the production of four equally positive and appealing
scenarios. In the focus group interview, most students expressed the same kind of
comment about this that is reflected in the following extract:
It is almost intuitive to see quadrant C [bottom left-hand corner as the least desirable
position and quadrant B [top right-hand corner] as the most desirable. It’s almost human
nature. You cannot stop yourself seeing it like that so we had real problems trying to write a
scenario there [in quadrant C] that was still attractive and believable.
This problem was possibly exacerbated by the choice of two very similar
dilemmas, reducing the scope to create identifiably distinct scenarios, but it is a
common problem faced by anybody who attempts this kind of exercise. One
quadrant is often equated with the status quo or the existing mindset and it can be
very demanding to generate a positive and attractive scenario for this quadrant if the
exercise is deemed to be futures oriented as this one was.
Finally, although the exercise was described as demanding and challenging by
most of the students, it was also identified as one of the most thought-provoking
and creative sessions they had experienced in the entire module. Students enjoyed
the opportunity to apply their previous learning about technology in an unknown
and unfamiliar setting and some considered this to be a more authentic assessment
of their learning and understanding than the normal end-of-module assignment:
It’s not often you have a chance to work like this, creatively thinking outside of the box
about a complex problem which has no correct or incorrect answer. This is an exercise I
will use with my own colleagues when we are problem solving. Giving us an opportunity to
create our own scenarios was better than anything we have been required to write or hand in
for the university. Could this be used as an alternative to the traditional written assignments
we produce all the time?
Creating a Master Scenario Based on all Three Groups
After the session we, the tutors, decided to use the scenarios created by the three
groups to devise an entirely new set of scenarios, based upon some of the themes
explored by the group (e.g. privacy and ownership of data) but extending this to
include more focus on the potential role of the individual learner when they have
access to more accurate and real-time data about their own performance, enabling
them to exercise greater agency and informed choice about their future learning
intentions. Hence in this final exercise we created a set of scenarios (see Fig. 10.2)
based upon two dilemmas or issues that had arisen in earlier discussions and
teaching sessions with the students. These were the following:
• What is the purpose of using Big Data and learning analytics? (to focus on the
result or the process of learning?)
• In what format are data made available to learners? (spontaneously, real time or
second hand provided by the teacher after the event?)
Fig. 10.2 Final scenarios created by tutors. Key: A mass customisation; B one size fits one;
C high-stakes accountability; D individuality
The Scenarios 167
Although the issue of privacy and ownership of data, which was the main focus
of the students’ own work, had generated considerable discussion and many
valuable insights that were not immediately apparent before the exercise, the value
of Learning Analytics from the perspective of the individual learner was felt to have
been lost in this exercise. Therefore the amalgamation that is described in this final
section was deliberately pitched at another set of dilemmas that had also arisen from
the students but had tended to get lost in the previous exercises.
Descriptions of Each Scenario
Scenario A: Mass Customisation
In this scenario, large volumes of data about learners are collected automatically by
the institution through the use of the institutional learning management system
(LMS) and through more traditional academic sources, such as coursework, sub-
mission of assignments and examinations, all of which are electronic in format.
This data is used by the institution and by teachers to measure student progress at
the macro level and to compare results for students on different pathways across
different subject disciplines, enabling the institution to target and identify those
students in need of remedial support or in danger of dropping out of school. The
main purpose of collecting data and Learning Analytics in this way is to provide an
institutional profile of learners’ progress for use by external agencies such as
monitoring and funding agencies. The large volume of data available to the insti-
tution and to individual teachers is turned into visual representations, enabling them
to identify trends and patterns that would otherwise remain obscure or invisible,
although these data are seen primarily as the school’s property, not the learners. In
some schools these kinds of data are used throughout the lifecycle of a student,
helping the school to profile and recruit students who fit their preferred ‘profile’,
supporting the school in matching students to course (and teachers) and enabling
the school to identify added value as a result of the course. Additionally, it enables
the school to track the future employment record of the student and make proba-
bilistic predictions about their chances of success in particular professions. The
institution is able to use these kinds of data to modify and improve the courses and
modules offered to students (although this tends to be undertaken annually rather
than in real time) and thus the experience is to some extent customised to the
individual. For example, module tutors are provided with data that show how
students have progressed through a module and identify correlations between scores
and success rates and individual learning pathways. Based on these data, the
module tutor may be encouraged to modify or change the module structure to
ensure students are more likely to succeed. This system draws only upon data the
institution consider it owns or has the right to mine such as data produced from the
LMS and student test scores. It does not include any of the personal data sources
students use such as their social media footprints and other activities outside of the
institution.
Scenario B: One Size Fits One
In this scenario Big Data and Learning Analytics are owned and used for the benefit
of the learner and most of the collection of these data is undertaken through the
agency and decision-making of the individual student, mediated by the affordances
of Big Data and sophisticated Learning Analytics that have been customised for
each learner. Data are collected extensively on the student’s own personal device,
rather than the institutional VLE or LMS and, therefore, it is immediately available
and owned by the student, removing some of the possible ownership and privacy
issues associated with Big Data.
The purpose of collating these data is not to generate institutional profiles or
league tables but to enable the individual learner to recognise the efficacy of their
own learning strategies and choices, in real time, and to offer them tools to enable
them to make better informed probabilistic choices about their future learning
pathways. The system is characterised by a wide variety of assessment modes that
extends well beyond traditional tests and assessment methods. It includes extensive
data collection through Clickstream data in which the movements and choices
learners make through the mouse is recorded and analysed and these data are used
to make probabilistic predictions about learner’s intentions and behaviours. Using
these data and a wide variety of other data collected through the learner’s inter-
action with social media and numerous other apps and sensors (e.g. their mobile
device), data analytics is able to make informed extrapolations about how the
learner might make further progress. So for example, whilst studying a modern
foreign language, the system will identify that the learner is struggling to master the
concept of personal pronouns, and based on the data collected from millions of
similar interventions by other learners using the same system, it will recommend a
series of new strategies based on probabilistic predictions which the learner can
adopt or reject. The system constantly offers the learner feedback on their progress
and choices about how they might maximise their future learning, effectively
offering them a personalised learning pathway forwards. Assessment is therefore
not an event but an ongoing series of data points collected automatically through
the lifetime of the student. The focus is on the learning process, not the learning
result which was the chief characteristic of the Mass Customisation scenario.
Additionally, data analytics and the monitoring of learning is constant and extends
beyond the institution. In this sense institutional learning and assessment are
decoupled and the learner is able to present a portfolio of learning success based on
highly authentic, real-life activities and undertakings. In this scenario, the concept
The Scenarios 169
of customers is fully realised as the learner knows almost immediately whether a

particular learning approach or strategy (e.g. if their tutor recommends a particular
textbook or article) is actually suitable for them. It offers them a much greater
degree of confidence in selecting those lessons, seminars, reading materials that are
most likely to be effective for them and this means they are unlikely to want to
purchase an entire course or programme from one institution or provider. Rather,
like iTunes music, they are likely to select those elements of the programme that
best match their profiles for learning, making them genuine consumers. In this
scenario, therefore, the learner uses data analytics to design their own learning
pathway, across multiple learning providers and sites.
Scenario C: High Stakes Accountability
In Scenario C the primary focus is on accountability and the institution, not the
individual learner, is held responsible for this by external stakeholders such as
governments, civil servants and governing bodies. High stake, summative tests and
examinations are common although digital technology is seldom used in this pro-
cess which still relies heavily on written scripts since these are deemed to be secure
and impossible for hackers to access or corrupt. Where digital data are generated
they are entirely for the benefit and use of the institution and there is no culture of
formative feedback or feedback for learning. Memorisation and rote learning are
highly valued. All assessment data are collected from work undertaken by students
in the institutions in order to assure its originality and to avoid plagiarism.
Assessments generated during the course are rare and evidence of achievement
generated by students themselves (e.g. clubs and social activities) is not considered
acceptable. The institution prepares carefully designed but highly prescriptive
learning pathways based on cohorts, not individuals.
Scenario D: Individuality
As with Scenario B (One Size Fits One), assessment is an ongoing process with a
focus on process not the outcome. However, digital technologies are not used in a
systematic manner to support or collect data about the learner in this scenario and it
is left to the individual to choose how much or how little technology is used to
support them. In practice, this means there is little or no way in which the institution
can collect reliable data at scale about individuals or cohorts but this is seen as a
strength of the system that values individuality and privacy. Since digital tech-
nologies are only used by some students, feedback, though formative and thorough,
is delayed and students can only act upon it after the event. There is no opportunity
for tutors to identify patterns of student behaviours at a level that would enable
them to intervene across a cohort, but instead students work closely with individual
mentors and coaches to provide one-to-one support and feedback. This is more
costly than the feedback offered in scenarios A and B but it is regarded as more
personal and less dehumanised. Students are able to access learning across different
sites but this is dependent on them physically moving about and in practice, they
remain at one institution
Feedback from Students About the Final Scenarios
As a final exercise, students were asked to consider the four new scenarios
described above (see Fig. 10.2) and score them according to which were most/least
likely to occur in the near future (2 to 5 years) and which were the most desirable/
least desirable. The results are shown below in Table 10.2.
Despite attempts to describe Scenario C in positive terms, and its strong
resemblance to many high-stakes education regimes around the world, this scenario
proved the least desirable (eight out of nine) to the students by a considerable
margin. Its similarity to many existing systems, with which students were familiar,
was one of the most prominent criticisms:
This scenario [C] is just the same as what we have now. Nothing has changed. How are we
supposed to use our marks and feedback from assignments when we don’t get them back
until the middle of the next semester? In Scenarios A and B we would have this information
at our fingertips.
I can easily imagine how universities, and even schools, with all the pressures they are
under to perform, and the inspection regimes might see Big Data as just a better way to
collect together evidence to push them further up the league tables so that is why I think this
[Scenario C] is the least desirable scenario. This might benefit the institution but not me
personally, although I also think this is the most likely scenario!
Some students also noted the incongruence between the kind of feedback
learners were already accustomed to via their mobile devices, outside of school, and
what they would experience in Scenario C:
If students are coming to school and university having used apps like Duolingo, which we
saw demonstrated, I don’t see them being very impressed by not getting any immediate
feedback, especially if they know this is possible. The next generation of students will be
used to instant feedback like when they play a video game and unlock the secrets of how to
progress. They don’t wait for the teacher to tell them. The app gives them help immediately.
This scenario wastes the main reasons for going with Big Data.
Table 10.2 Likelihood and desirability of final scenarios

Most Likely Least Likely Most Desirable Least Desirable
A 2 1 6 0
B 0 8 2 1
C 6 0 0 8
D 1 0 1 0
The Scenarios 171
But one student found Scenario B to be least desirable:

In this scenario [B] a lot of independence is expected of the student. What if they cannot
handle this or don’t know what they want to do. In my country students would see this as
the role of the teacher, to make good choices for them. If we had this scenario you could do
away with teachers altogether and I am not sure that would be popular.
And privacy, or the lack of it, was again evident as a reason behind the rejection
of Scenario B by this student:
I get the feeling that Scenario B would become repetitive after a time. A little bit like ‘Big
Brother’. Everything you do would be monitored, even your private things like FaceBook
or Instagram. I don’t think people always want to be monitored like this, even if it could
improve how you learn.
Although Scenario A was not considered the most radical of the four by the
tutors of this module who wrote it (Scenario B was), it was easily the most desirable
with this particular group and this reflects some understandable caution on their part
about the extent to which Scenario B was achievable in their particular contexts:
I liked the feel of Scenario A. It seemed to be the best of both worlds, what we have now
and what we might have in the future. In Scenario B, I think too much is left to the student
but in Scenario A Big Data is still used to identify how you might learn something best but
it is left to the judgement of the teacher how this is used.
If our tutor knows more about how we tackled a question or responded to a test, like it is
described in Scenario A, then they would be best placed to make changes so that the
experience got better next time around. This would help me and others like me so I think
this is a good scenario. In Scenario B the individual student benefits but would all students
enjoy this benefit?
I think it is impossible to imagine a scenario where the institution does not gather data for
its own benefit. We do this in my school and it allows us to show parents and others how
we are doing. The use of Big Data would make this more accurate and it does help the
individual student. As it says, the system becomes ‘mass customisation’ so this must benefit
everybody. It just means the system or the teachers make the choices more, not the student.
As a teacher I don’t think this is a bad thing.
How would you differentiate between students in Scenario B if there were not external tests
or assessments that were done independently of the student? The process of learning is
important and that why I think Scenario A is so good, but it is not more important than the
results. We have to have a fixed benchmark against which to measure what students have
done over their time in school. Scenario B just would not work.
The current role and centrality of the teacher at the heart of current approaches to
learning convinced some that Scenario B would be a retrograde step:
In many of the schools in my country the teacher is still a revered and respected person. The
teacher is who the students look up to. In Scenario B the teacher has been entirely removed
from the picture. The computer does everything and the student is in charge. This is not
what parents expect from school so I see this is highly unlikely
However, two students did consider Scenario B to be the most desirable, and
radical:
In my country boys and girls are educated separately by a teacher of their own sex. If you
are a woman you are always judged alongside your peers – more women. Scenario B might
change this. The data could be collected from boys and girls and used anonymously. In that
way we would be able to see how we compared to boys and also you could use the data to
see if our current system of separateness is actually better. I don’t think this solution is
likely – at least not in my country – but I think it would be better.
Discussion
In this final section, we return to the original purpose of the chapter, which is to
consider how useful school leaders find this methodology for understanding the
role of Big Data and Learning Analytics in their own schools? All but one member
of the group were middle or senior school leaders working in the context of schools
in Africa and the Middle East. None of these participants had previously been
aware of the impact Big Data and Learning Analytics was already having in certain
educational institutions or its potential for their own schools. The empirical data
collected from this study suggests participants found the methodology unfamiliar
and challenging but they recognised its value for thinking about complex and
unpredictable topics that they were likely to encounter on an increasing level in
their role as leaders. In the feedback they provided, they indicated how the
methodology had enabled them to start considering a complex issue that had
considerable importance for them as both individual educators and school leaders.
They compared this open-ended, student-generated methodology to more didactic
approaches they had experienced in traditional professional development pro-
grammes designed to encourage them to plan for change and the transformation of
traditional pedagogical approaches in their institutions. Most noted how the process
itself had raised many more issues and uncertainties than traditional didactic
approaches they had experienced which tended to be results oriented. They wel-
comed the opportunity to consider alternatives and view multiple perspectives
rather than simplistic or unrealistic solutions and hoped to adopt the methodology
themselves to support professional development in their own institutions.
In our final discussions with participants, most considered that the methodology
had not necessarily helped them to solve any of the issues associated with the
possible implementation of Big Data and Learning Analytics but it had provided a
useful lens to help them to frame the issues and challenges they would need to
consider further when they returned to school. These included the following:
• How to ensure teachers did not become irrelevant and unnecessary in this digital
future
• How to tackle some of the ethical and privacy issues associated with Big Data
• The future role of schools and technology as places for socialisation and/or
learning.
Discussion 173
As shown by their preferences when asked to identify the most desirable sce-
nario, most participants in this study opted for a scenario that embraced most of the
benefits of Big Data and Learning Analytics, such as greater customisation and
individualisation of learning, whilst stopping short of a more fully student-oriented
scenario in which the role of the teacher became, at best, problematic. Although
Scenario B does not explicitly advocate for the removal of the teacher from the
assessment loop it does imply this may be a possible future and this group of
teachers and senior leaders understandably found this scenario personally
unpalatable. Scenarios such as this actually invite speculation about how the
workforce in schools might reconsider and reinvent itself to exploit the changing
landscape, but the future scenario methodology still appears to fall short of
encouraging an open minded or unimpassioned consideration of these possibilities,
as indeed do most other methodologies which have attempted to ask teachers
similar existentialist questions about their futures.
Privacy issues about the ownership and use of personal data, including Big Data
sets that were suitably anonymised, dominated many of the group discussions, to an
extent that the tutors felt it necessary to offer alternative perspectives for consid-
eration in the subsequent teaching session. This intensity and focus suggests pri-
vacy and ethical concerns will run parallel with those that promote the benefits of
Big Data in schools and these will not be easily answered. Many of the comments
reported in the focus groups and individual interviews focused on the security of
personal data collected through data harvesting even when the data was ostensibly
anonymised. Few of the participants referred to any existing policies or procedures
they or their institutions had put in place to handle this looming issue although most
considered it would be essential to implement such strategies. Privacy issues
associated with the ownership of data about an individual student’s learning pat-
terns also raised questions about the ownership of these data which most of the
participants seem not to have recognised. Scenario B, in particular, describes a
significant shift in schools whereby the data about a student’s own performance
would primarily be owned by the student who might or might not chose to release
these to their teacher. In this respect, participants’ concerns about privacy issues
might need to be recast as ownership concerns that might be even more complex
and intractable.
The final, and possibly the most intriguing issue that emerged from this exercise,
was a discussion about the future role of schools when digital technologies, like Big
Data and Learning Analytics, are capable of complementing and even replacing the
traditional role that teachers play at the centre of the assessment and feedback
process. This was intriguing since the group had clearly articulated a moderate to a
radical collective position with regard to their preferred model for future schools
(i.e. Scenario A) but then engaged in a far more radical and far-reaching exploration
of possible roles for schools in a data-rich, analytical education set up. Nobody
suggested schools would be redundant in this hypothetical context but many agreed
that the role of schools could well be reconsidered as essentially a site for social-
isation rather than cognitive development. Schools have always played a sociali-
sation role, of course, but to suggest the cognitive and learning role that they
currently play might be better undertaken by technology was surprising. It might

indicate that the impact of this future scenario methodology was more subtle and
forceful than earlier descriptions suggest, with a latency required (the data collec-
tion process covered three teacher sessions over three weeks) before some partic-
ipants’ more transformational thinking becomes evident.
Conclusion
The use and application of Big Data and data analytics in education remains far
behind what is occurring in the commercial world, but change is evident and this
chapter has outlined how a futures oriented methodology can be utilised to enable
educators to start considering some of the possible ramifications of these technol-
ogy drivers in their school-based contexts. It reveals many of the current mindsets
and attitudes of school leaders towards technology and change but as a method-
ology it also encounters some residual resistance on the part of this particular group
of teachers to think entirely beyond their current perspectives with a tendency to
pursue issues like privacy and ownership of data to the exclusion of other
possibilities.
Whilst participants’ concentration with privacy issues was obvious, reflecting
many of their current concerns and ways of viewing the world, the exercise also
brought into focus challenges and issues that are likely to be ever more pressing in
the future. Principal amongst these was the gradual shift away from institutional
collection and ownership of data about learners as the personal ownership and use
of mobile and pervasive computing becomes more common. This may not yet be
associated with the kind of disruptive technologies described elsewhere in this
volume (see Chap. 4 for other examples) but it invites fundamental questions about
learners and the power imbalances that have traditionally characterised relationships
between learners and teachers in formal educational settings. This leads us to
reconsider again the role of teacher education and its current validity as a mecha-
nism for preparing and nurturing the next generation of educators for these volatile
and uncertain futures
References
Burden, K., & Hopkins, P. (2017). Barriers and challenges facing pre-service teachers use of
mobile technologies for teaching and learning. In Blended learning: Concepts, methodologies,
tools, and applications (pp. 1665–1686). IGI Global.
Clarke, J., & Nelson, K. (2013). Perspectives on learning analytics: Issues and challenges.
Observations from Shane Dawson and Phil Long [Electronic version]. The International
Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 4(1), 1–8.
Cowen, T. (2013). Average is over: Powering America beyond the age of the great stagnation.
New York: E P Dutton & Co Inc.
References 175
Cuban, L. (2009). Oversold and underused. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cuzzocrea, A., Song, I.-Y., & Davis, K. C. (2011). Analytics over large-scale multidimensional
data: The big data revolution! Paper presented at the ACM 14th International Workshop on
Data Warehousing and OLAP, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
Davis, S. M. (1989). From “future perfect”: Mass customizing. Planning Review, 17(2), 16–21.
Ferguson, R. (2012). Learning analytics: Drivers, developments and challenges. International
Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(5/6), 304–317.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H. (2013).
The NMC horizon report: 2013 (Higher Education edn.). Austin, TX: The New Media
Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2013-horizon-report-HE.pdf.
Lohr, S. (2012, February 11). The age of big data. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.
nytimes.com/2012/02/12/sunday-review/big-datas-impact-in-the-world.html?_
r51&scp51&sq5BigData&st5cse.
Madhavan, K., & Richey, M. C. (2016). Problems in Big Data analytics in learning. Journal of
Engineering Education, 105(1), 6–14.
Manyika, J., Chui, M., Brown, B., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Roxburgh, C., & Byers, A. H. (2011). Big
data: The next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity. Retrieved from http://www.
mckinsey.com/insights/business_technology/big_data_the_next_frontier_for_innovation.
Mayer-Schönberger, V., & Cukier, K. (2014). Learning with Big Data: The future of education.
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Rose, T. (2016). The end of average: How to succeed in a world that values sameness. UK:
Penguin.
Selwyn, N. (2016). Education and technology: Key issues and debates. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Shum, S. B., & Ferguson, R. (2012). Social learning analytics. Journal of Educational Technology
& Society, 15(3), 3.
Siemens, G. (2012, April). Learning analytics: envisioning a research discipline and a domain of
practice. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and
Knowledge (pp. 4–8). ACM. SoLAR, (n.d.). Society for learning analytics research. Retrieved
from http://www.solaresearch.org/mission/about/.
Chapter 11
Mobile STEM Learning Scenarios
Abstract In both the professional rhetoric and academic literature, mobile learning
is frequently positioned to realise the aspirations of STEM educators who seek to
implement inquiry-based learning within authentic and collaborative contexts,
mimicking the processes and settings real STEM practitioners experience. The
reality maybe somewhat different, as this study demonstrates, with students often
shackled by the physical boundaries of the classroom and limited degrees of choice
granted to them as independent agents in the learning process. Rather than medi-
ating access to external expertise and collaborative know-how, data derived from a
recent international online survey of STEM educators, suggests mobile technolo-
gies are only rarely used to support the sharing and exchange of data between
students or to engage in ‘conversations’ and dialogue with ‘outsiders’ in the way
real STEM practitioners commonly behave. This conundrum forms the basis of this
chapter, which adopts scenario production and analysis as a methodological
approach to help STEM educators reconceptualise their use of mobile technologies
across various different futures. These ‘futures’ are set out neither as predictions nor
as prognoses but rather as stimuli to encourage greater discussion and reflection
around the use of mobile technologies in STEM education. In considering four
alternative futures for STEM education we conclude that ‘seamless learning’,
whereby students are empowered to use their mobile technologies to negotiate
across boundaries (e.g. between school and out-of-school activities), may be the
most significant factor in encouraging educators to rethink their existing peda-
gogical patterns, thereby realizing some of the aspirations which have yet to be
achieved in inquiry-based STEM education. The chapter concludes with an analysis
of the ways in which teacher education might respond to future challenges and
opportunities emerging from recent research in mobile learning.
Matthew Kearney of the University of Technology Sydney is a guest co-author of this chapter.
This chapter is an adaptation of an article on science education futures published in Research in
Science Education, Burden, K., & Kearney, M. (2016). Future scenarios for mobile science
learning. Research in Science Education, 46(2), 287–308.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8246-7_11
178 11 Mobile STEM Learning Scenarios

Keywords Scenario planning Mobile learning STEM learning

Collaborative learning Inquiry-based learning Scenario building
Introduction
This chapter illustrates the processes and challenges associated with the construc-
tion of STEM-oriented future scenarios to support teacher educators. It focuses on
how teacher educators and teachers currently exploit the affordances of mobile
devices to support their students’ STEM learning, and expands upon the discussion
and implications of pervasive computing covered in Chap. 4. Mobile learning
(m-learning) considers the process of learning mediated by handheld devices such
as smartphones, tablet computers and game consoles (Schuler, Winters, & West,
2012). The ubiquity, flexibility and increasingly diverse capabilities of these
technologies have created considerable interest amongst STEM educators
(Aubusson, Griffin, & Kearney, 2012; Burden & Kearney, 2016; Cheng & Tsai,
2013; Foley & Reveles, 2014; Johnson, Adams Becker, Estrada & Martín, 2013;
Marty et al., 2013; Schuck, 2016; Song, 2014) who have begun to investigate their
application for learning ‘on the move’ (Sharples, 2013) across a variety of formal
and increasingly informal contexts, particularly supporting inquiry-based teaching
approaches (Zhang et al., 2010). Claims of enhanced collaboration, social inter-
activity, in situ data collection and sharing, communication between peers, teachers
and experts, and customisation of individuals' learning have been reported (Mifsud,
2014). However, as new mobile technologies continue to proliferate and diversify
in their potential pedagogical affordances, there has been a tendency for teachers to
default to traditional teaching approaches in formal classroom or virtual settings,
focusing on teacher-directed approaches and content delivery (Rushby, 2012). The
challenge is to find ways to explore more diverse pedagogical opportunities, and
this chapter addresses this challenge in two ways.
First, it draws upon a recent international study (Kearney, Burden, & Rai, 2015)
investigating how educators are currently using distinctive pedagogical features of
mobile learning, which include collaboration, personalisation and authenticity.
These three constructs provide a renewed focus on important aspects of
socio-cultural theory for educators and researchers working in and examining
mobile learning contexts (Kearney, Schuck, Burden, & Aubusson, 2012). The
recent study developed and validated a survey instrument based on these three
established constructs to interrogate current mobile learning practices amongst 195
teachers in school and university education. This chapter focuses specifically on
data from teachers of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)
subjects (n = 69) to report on self-perceptions of their own mobile learning prac-
tices in STEM education, including aspects of online collaborative networking and
student agency.
Second, using this data source the chapter extrapolates to predict and analyse
prospective scenarios in STEM education using future scenario thinking as a
Introduction 179
conceptual framework and methodology (Schuck & Aubusson, 2010; Snoek, 2013;
Snoek et al., 2003: see also Chap. 6). Using the twin variables of collaborative
networking and student agency which have been identified in both the m-learning
literature (e.g. Traxler, 2008) and our own empirical data, the chapter will propose
four possible futures for STEM education, based on the adoption and exploitation
of the pedagogical affordances of mobile devices. Explicated through the use of rich
vignettes, these scenarios inform a subsequent discussion foregrounding various
futures for STEM education in traditional and emerging learning spaces, with a
particular focus on these signature mobile pedagogies, to highlight opportunities for
contextualised, participatory STEM inquiry-based learning.
Mobile Pedagogy: Examples in STEM Education
Research studies have examined m-learning through various theoretical perspectives

and frameworks such as activity-based approaches, authentic learning, action learn-
ing and experiential learning (Sharples, Taylor, & Vavoula, 2007). More recently,
Kearney et al. (2012) developed a pedagogical framework of mobile learning, which
draws on socio-cultural understandings. This framework privileges three distinctive
features of m-learning: personalisation, authenticity and collaboration (see Fig. 11.1).
The rationale behind these scales is provided through the use of subsidiary themes
under each of the central features, which pinpoints the critical features of m-learning
from a pedagogical perspective. How learners ultimately experience these peda-
gogical characteristics is influenced by the ‘time-space’ configuration of the learning
context (Ling & Donner, 2009): the organisation of the temporal (scheduled/flexible;
synchronous/asynchronous) and spatial (e.g. formal/informal, physical/virtual)
aspects of the m-learning environment (Traxler, 2009) as depicted in Fig. 11.1. This
configuration is often described in the literature through words such as ‘anywhere,
anytime’, ‘on the move’ and ‘multiple contexts’ (Mifsud 2014).
First, the personalisation feature has strong implications for ownership, agency
and autonomous learning. It consists of the sub-themes of agency and customisa-
tion. High levels of personalisation would mean the learner is able to enjoy a high
degree of agency in appropriately designed m-learning experiences (Pachler,
Bachmair, & Cook, 2009) together with the ability to customise and tailor both
tools and activities, leading to a strong sense of ownership. Second, the collabo-
ration feature captures the oft-reported conversational, connected aspects of mobile
learning. It consists of conversation and data sharing sub-themes, as learners engage
in negotiating meaning, forging networked connections and interactions with other
people and the environment, sharing information and resources across time and
space through rich collaborative tasks (Wang & Shen, 2012). Finally, the authen-
ticity feature highlights opportunities for contextualised, participatory, situated
learning. Radinsky, Bouillion, Lento and Gomez (2001) espoused two models of
authentic learning environments: a simulation model and participation model.
Tasks that fit a simulation model of authenticity use the learning space (e.g.
Fig. 11.1 Framework comprising of three distinctive characteristics of mobile learning experi-
ences, with sub-scales (from Kearney, Schuck, Burden, & Aubusson, 2012, p. 8)
classroom) as a ‘practice field’ (separate from the ‘real community’) but still pro-
viding contexts where learners can practice the kind of activities they might
encounter outside of formal learning settings. Alternatively, under a participation
model of authenticity, students participate in the actual work of a professional
community, engaging directly in the target community itself. Hence, the sub-themes
of contextualisation and situatedness bring to bear the significance of learners’
involvement in rich, contextualised tasks (e.g. realistic setting and use of tools),
involving participation in real-life, in situ practices.
This framework has recently been used to inform research on m-learning in
school education (Burden, Hopkins, Male, Martin, & Trala, 2012; Kearney,
Burden, & Rai, 2015), teacher education (Burden & Kearney, 2017; Kearney &
Maher, 2013; Schuck, 2016), and other areas of higher education (Kinash, Brand, &
Mathew, 2012). For example, Green, Hechter, Tysinger, and Chassereau (2014)
used the framework to inform the development of their own instrument—the
‘Mobile App Selection for Science’ (MASS) rubric—to aid teachers’ rigorous
selection and evaluation of K–12 science applications (or ‘apps’). In this study, the
two constructs of personalisation and collaboration are examined in light of an
Mobile Pedagogy: Examples in STEM Education 181
international survey of teachers, before extrapolating on these results to explore

how handheld technologies might influence future STEM learning.
Learning STEM ‘Seamlessly’ Across Contexts
Mobile learning in STEM education studies has typically focused on informal

learning contexts (Aubusson et al., 2012; Schuck, 2016), promoting science and
mathematics ‘on the move’. The portable, flexible nature of mobile devices is well
suited to these contexts and can facilitate location-based (or place-based) learning
(Jones, Scanlon, & Clough, 2013). However, given the ongoing physical realities of
formal schooling and higher education, recent studies have focussed on the notion of
using handheld devices to provide ‘seamless learning’ tasks (Rushby, 2012; Toh, So,
Seow, Chen, & Looi, 2013), supporting a continuity of learning across contexts and
devices, and transitions between episodes of formal and informal learning. Examples
of such seamless learning are connecting learning in/out of class, in/out of school,
between curricular/co-curricular, social/personal or academic/recreational bound-
aries between physical/virtual contexts and across times and locations (Wong &
Looi, 2011). In science education, ‘seamless’ learning might connect learning in
classrooms and science museums; provide a bridge between lab-based inquiry to be
continued in a more realistic setting; or connect an ‘in-situ’ learning episode (pos-
sibly personal and informal) to be used as a resource for formal learning at school. In
mathematics education, investigations and calculations required in a project can be
completed anywhere of convenience making the learning seamless. Mobile devices
might mediate this ‘flow of learning’ between formal and informal contexts, for
example using microblogging, social networking platforms, specific science tools,
mathematical simulations or games (Lai, Khaddage, & Knezek, 2013).
Promoting Inquiry Across Authentic Contexts
Digital technologies have typically been promoted in STEM for many purposes,
from tools for instructional delivery to student research, communication and pre-
sentations. Recent studies have focused on digital learning environments that
‘emulate the activities of practising scientists’ (DeGennaro, 2012, p. 1319), where
learners’ use of technology becomes an integral part of their task. For example,
visualisations, animations, participatory simulations and multiuser virtual envi-
ronments have been used to actively immerse students in realistic scientist and
mathematician roles. In response, m-learning studies in STEM education have
advocated a more participatory authenticity (Radinsky et al., 2001), whereby tasks
are embedded in real-life, connected, community-based projects (e.g. Jones et al.,
2013; Scanlon, Woods, & Clow, 2014). In the same way, as real scientists are
‘connected to a broad community of other scientists who share information and
co-construct knowledge and ideas’ (DeGennaro 2012, p. 1321), such m-learning

tasks allow students to participate in authentic ways in real-life, project-based
pursuits.
The importance of student inquiry and student-driven questions has long been
advocated in science education (Krajcik, Blumenfeld, Marx, & Soloway, 2000) and
to a slightly lesser extent in mathematics education, where an emphasis on authentic
and rich tasks has been suggested (Schuck, 2016). Consequently, there has been a
burgeoning interest in exploiting mobile devices to mediate inquiry-based learning,
mirroring the types of investigative processes carried out by real scientists. These
include support of question generation, planning and implementing investigations,
data collection, observation, analysing and interpreting data, constructing
evidence-based explanations and arguments (Herodotou, Villasclaras-Fernández, &
Sharples, 2014; Wilson, Goodman, Bradbury, & Gross, 2013). Mobile devices are
ideal tools for supporting the inquiry process, with their ability to support multi-
media access and collection, communication, representation, information sharing,
knowledge construction, connectivity, reference and analysis (Song, 2014).
However, they are not yet used to their full potential in STEM education for
inquiry, particularly in support of measuring and investigating real-world phe-
nomena (Herodotou et al., 2014). Also, many STEM students currently carry out
inquiry tasks in relative isolation (individual or pairs, small groups) and in a
minimal number of locations (classrooms, excursions, etc.). Lui et al. (2014) argue
a need for expanding these typical inquiry experiences, with less abstract, contrived
forms of interactions, for example through digitally augmented physical spaces
(mixed-reality environments).
For example, Herodotou et al. (2014) presented a toolkit (the sense-it app) to
support measuring and investigating real-world phenomena. It combines and cus-
tomises data from a full range of sensors into new or existing citizen STEM
projects. Non-professional members of the public can use these toolkits to col-
laborate with professional engineers, mathematicians and scientists contributing to
observation and measurement data in science projects such as species identification
and air/water pollution monitoring. The app allows users to create their own per-
sonally relevant STEM investigations and offers instant feedback on how their own
sensor recordings relate to other users’ data.
Jones et al. (2013) compared two case studies to explore the different ways
mobile devices can support inquiry learning in semiformal and formal settings. One
study explored the science learning by students aged 14–15 years using web-based
software in a semiformal context. The other study looked at informal adult learners
using their own devices to learn about the landscape. Looking at these studies
together allowed the researchers to focus on both the use of mobile devices in situ
and how the devices supported choice and learner control. In the first case of
semiformal learning, Jones et al. (2013) found that mobile devices with dedicated
software supported the science students to choose and take personal responsibility
for their inquiries without adult help. These inquiries were engaging and personally
relevant. They also discussed their nQuire software tool and how it was used to
support the inquiry process seamlessly across different contexts (an afterschool club
and home). They found the tool used location-based awareness facilities to support
the inquiry process, including information sharing and collaborative activities,
communication between learners, other observers and experts. They illustrate ways
of supporting personal inquiry learning with m-devices (location-based inquiries),
accessing resources and information in situ. As nQuire is an open software
resource, it is also developing a strong community of users.
Scanlon et al. (2014) presented a similar tool, the iSpot application, allowing
users to participate in location-based activities akin to real scientific pursuits, in
informal settings. This UK initiative also uses an inquiry learning approach, and
aims to create and inspire a new generation of nature lovers to explore, enjoy and
protect their local environment. Members of the public can use this tool to work in
combination with science researchers. For example, their (location-based) obser-
vations of animals and plants became ‘shared, social objects amongst associated
groups, networks and collectives’ (p. 60). Indeed, selected observations are used in
biodiversity monitoring and research, essentially enabling learners to actively
contribute to knowledge building as a community activity.
Finally, Song (2014) completed a 1-year case study in a primary school science
inquiry context using BYOD devices. Students developed a positive attitude to
science inquiry and demonstrated improved understandings of the topic (the anat-
omy of a fish). Song (2014) emphasised ‘affordance networks’ (p. 60) as a key
aspect to making optimal use of m-devices for knowledge construction across
constantly changing contexts such as digital and physical environments at home,
school and other spaces. Another example of seamless learning in primary school
science contexts was reported by Marty et al. (2013). Their project aimed to
develop inquiry skills and digital literacies using an app called Habitat Tracker.
These m-learning experiences provided a link between formal and informal con-
texts, including the classroom and excursions to science museums and wildlife
centres.
Use of Augmented Reality and Immersive Simulations
Augmented reality (AR) is an emerging technology that ‘utilizes mobile,

context-aware devices (e.g., smartphones, tablets), which enable participants to
interact with digital information embedded within the physical environment’
(Dunleavy & Dede, 2014, p. 735). Cheng and Tsai (2013) distinguish two types of
AR: image-based and location-based. Through a scan of existing studies, they
found image-based AR was beneficial to students’ spatial abilities, practical skills
and conceptual understanding; while location-based AR was beneficial to scientific
inquiry learning. Location-based AR is usually underpinned by a situated learning
perspective, emphasising authentic contexts, inquiry with real-time data and other
virtual information in a real context. Students may also communicate with avatars
and peers to collaboratively hypothesise, reason and solve problems.
AR-based tasks typically take the form of participative simulations, using fic-
tional scenarios added to a local setting, allowing learners to connect STEM ideas to
community-based experiences. For example, Wong and Looi (2011) report on
games played in a physical environment but augmented by virtual artefacts (what
they called ‘mixed reality learning’). Mobile devices with location-based sensors
allowed users in the study to interact with explorations, experiments and challenges
for inquiry and games-based learning. Another example is Kamarainen et al. (2013)
pilot study for the EcoMobile (Ecosystems Mobile Outdoor Blended Immersive
Learning Environment) project (http://ecomobile.gse.harvard.edu), exploring chil-
dren’s use of a smartphone AR application (FreshAiR) for blended learning across
virtual and natural (pond) ecosystems. Combining this application with environ-
mental probeware allowed students to take samples of pond water, gain an
increased understanding of the ecosystem, and interact with each other in
student-centred ways that resembled scientific practice.
Immersive and participative simulations have been used as platforms to engage
learners in inquiry-based approaches. Lui et al. (2014) described an immersive,
cave-like rainforest simulation (called EvoRoom) and a mobile inquiry platform
(called Zyeco) that enabled users to collect and share data. Students are co-located
in an immersive and physical digital space, collecting observational data from both
the classroom itself (Evoroom) and out-of-class settings (such as such as parks or
museums), and exploring peers’ data using large visualisations displayed at front of
room. This arrangement allows students to pose questions, collect observation data,
review and share data, and use it to form evidence-based arguments. Foley and
Reveles (2014) presented a ‘connected classroom’ that used online resources to
engage students in inquiry, creating authentic science learning experiences. They
emphasised the connection between students’ handhelds and the Internet to ‘share
information instantly and enable computer supported collaborative learning’ (p. 4).
Students’ data from experiments and simulations was pooled across classes or
schools, allowing them to compare and analyse across larger data sets and col-
laboratively identify trends as a community of science learners. Collaborative tools
such as Google Moderator then allowed for further discussion and feedback on
ideas and consensus building.
Location awareness is an aspect of AR that Zimmerman and Land (2014) use to
explore the principles of place-based education (PBE) for teaching science in an era
of mobile devices. For a decade, PBE has provided a way of engaging out-of-school
students with the issues, artefacts, cultural practices and natural histories of their
local communities. To accommodate the location-awareness features of mobile
devices in PBE, Zimmerman and Land developed empirically derived guidelines
for research and design for outdoor informal mobile computing (p. 82), empha-
sising participation in disciplinary conversations and practices within personally
relevant places; amplification of observations, in liaison with experts, to understand
the disciplinary-relevant aspects of a place. Students gain value from experts who
can illustrate aspects of a place; and capturing, sharing and reflecting on knowledge
artefacts found in local settings to explore new perspectives.
In summary, the contemporary m-learning literature in STEM education mainly

comprises case studies of innovative mobile applications exploiting authentic,
connected, participative inquiry-based approaches. Research has explored the
possibilities for STEM learning across formal and informal contexts, making
seamless links between virtual and physical environments, particularly using par-
ticipatory simulations and augmented reality technologies. Informed by an estab-
lished framework of mobile learning, and mindful of these current research
directions, this chapter focuses on how mobile technologies might influence the
future of STEM learning.
Researching STEM Mobile Learning Futures
First, we describe the international survey used to interrogate STEM teachers’

exploitation of distinctive m-learning pedagogies, in particular examining aspects of
agency and networked collaboration (from items relating to the personalisation and
collaboration constructs in Fig. 11.1). Second, we extrapolate from the data source
to predict and analyse prospective scenarios in STEM education using future sce-
nario thinking as a conceptual framework (Snoek, 2013).
Survey Instrument
This study draws upon data collected in an international survey on m-learning

identifying how educators use the distinctive mobile pedagogical features (Kearney
et al., 2015). One hundred and ninety-five educators from around the world com-
pleted the custom designed 30-item online survey instrument. The items were
informed by our theoretical framework of mobile learning (Kearney et al., 2012)
focusing on the three themes of personalisation, collaboration and authenticity.
Participants were asked to identify a specific learning task or activities in which
they had recently used mobile technologies and the survey instrument provided
opportunities for both closed and open-text responses. A reliability analysis of the
entire questionnaire (n = 195), and separately for each of the three constructs, was
carried out using Cronbach’s alpha (Kearney et al. 2015). Internal consistency of
the whole questionnaire (with all three scales combined) was excellent (a = 0.828).
Table 11.1 Internal Construct #items Cronbach’s alpha (n = 195)

consistency for each of the
three constructs from the Collaboration 6 0.715
theoretical framework Personalisation 5 0.711
Authenticity 3 0.775
When considered separately, the internal consistency was in the acceptable range
for each of the three constructs, as shown in Table 11.1.
Although the entire data set in the previous study consisted of 195 participants,
this study draws upon only those educators who identified themselves as working in
STEM subjects (n = 69), since these discipline areas were considered to be most
relevant for our future scenarios development.
Participants and Contexts
The 69 teacher participants were mainly from Australasia (51%) and Europe (23%),
where the researchers’ institutions were located. Of these participants, 22% taught
in primary/elementary school contexts, 39% taught in secondary school contexts
and 35% in tertiary education; while 45% were science educators, 30% were
mathematics educators and 25% were from engineering/IT contexts. Participation in
the survey was voluntary and there was a diverse range of experience levels
identified in the participants’ background data. Sixty-four percent of the survey
participants had been teaching for more than 10 years, while 17% had been
teaching for less than 2 years. Similarly, 46% of participants perceived themselves
as experienced users of mobile devices in their teaching—defined as more than 2
years’ experience—while 22% said this was their first attempt at implementing a
mobile learning task.
Participants chose a range of task contexts. Ninety percent of the STEM teachers
described a formal task that was classroom-based. Only 7% of teachers reported on
a task that was situated in an ‘extra-mural’ context (school playground, excursion
site, museum, home) and no tasks were set in a totally informal location such as a
cafe or public transport (3% reported a combination of locations). Most tasks
involved the use of an iPad (38%), laptop (26%) or mobile phone (12%), with 19%
of tasks integrating a mixture of devices. Forty-eight percent of tasks involved the
use of school-owned devices (33% restricted to on-campus use only) while only
23% of tasks involved student-owned, ‘bring-your-own’ devices (BYOD).
What Teachers Say They Do: Agency and Collaboration

in Mobile Learning
This section is divided into two parts. First, we report on the quantitative data from
the online survey relating to the two dimensions, agency and collaborative net-
working, upon which the scenarios have been constructed. Second, we present
sample qualitative data from the survey, with a selection of learning tasks from the
study to illustrate how STEM educators are currently using mobile technologies. To
illustrate the utility of these two dimensions, these examples are then plotted against
What Teachers Say They Do: Agency and Collaboration in Mobile Learning 187
these two variables of networking and agency. On the basis of this empirical data,
we then present four scenarios in the form of persuasive narratives or stories.
In selecting the two drivers of student agency and collaborative networking, as
explained in the previous section, we returned to those questions in the survey
which were most closely aligned with these two constructs. The following data is
presented to represent the types of statistical responses made to these questions.
Each question usually contained three response options that corresponded to ‘low’
or ‘none’, depending on the context of the item, ‘medium’ and ‘high’ ratings for a
particular construct. Most items offered an ‘other’ option but this small portion of
responses was not included in Tables 11.2 and 11.3.
The flexible, autonomous learning affordances of m-learning environments were
not evident in survey responses from STEM teachers, with only one-quarter of tasks
giving full control to students for task pacing and only 17% of tasks allowing
students full autonomy where and when the activity was implemented (see
Table 11.2. Just over one-quarter of teachers perceived their task as lending
absolutely no student control over aspects such as the learning context—where and
when the activity occurs (35% of teachers), task pacing (26% of teachers), task
content and learning goals (28% of teachers).
The STEM teachers in the survey did not design learning episodes which grant
their students high, or even moderate levels of decision-making with regard to the
context of their learning (e.g. where or when it occurs). This lack of opportunities
for students to enjoy autonomous learning tasks is particularly surprising given the
general commentary around enhanced agency in m-learning environments (see, for
example Burden et al., 2012). Also, given the high level of formal tasks in the data
set (90%), these results support the contention that many of the characteristics of
Table 11.2 Results for sample items relating to student autonomy and agency (n = 69)
Sample items L (%) M (%) H (%)
To what extent does the mobile learning task allow students 35 48 17
to control the context (e.g. where and when the activity occurs)?
Who determines the ‘pacing’ of the mobile learning task 26 48 25
To what extent does the mobile learning task allow students 28 59 13
to control the content and learning goals of the activity?
Table 11.3 Results for sample items relating to collaborative networking (n = 69)
Sample items L (%) M (%) H (%)
Does your task encourage student (peer) face-to-face (f2f) discussion 23 58 12
AT the device?
Does your task encourage online discussion THROUGH the device? 68 7 20
E.g. e-mail, SMS, Skype, Twitter or Facebook ‘conversation’
To what extent are online interactions (discussions and/or data 41 22 38
sharing) THROUGH the mobile device ‘networked’?
m-learning are foreign to traditional classroom-based learning (Mifsud, 2014;

Traxler, 2009).
Most activities described by the STEM teachers were highly social and col-
laborative in nature, albeit within a traditional face-to-face context rather than a
remote virtual one (see Table 11.3). The majority of m-learning tasks involved a
high level of face-to-face conversation at the device, usually in the classroom. Most
teachers prioritised students working in small groups around their device, with 70%
ranking their task as ‘medium’ or ‘high’ for face-to-face collaboration. Whole-class
discussions were frequently mentioned, with teachers using the ‘mirroring’ feature
of the iPad, for example to display students’ work on a large screen. However,
levels of online conversation through the device (Crooks, 1999) were generally
ranked low (68%). In tasks that included online discussion, communications were
mainly between class peers (38%) or between students and their teachers (20%).
Only 4% of tasks involved ‘extra-mural’ communications with participants outside
their immediate peer/teacher class network.
Indeed, there was a low rate of networked, synchronous interactions in the
STEM tasks. Although student generation of digital content was a feature of
teachers’ chosen tasks, there was a distinct lack of networked interactions. Only
38% of tasks involved a networked exchange of digital data and information, or
networked interactions (e.g. via the blogosphere, Twitter, multi-layer games, etc.).
Most online interactions were asynchronous (30%), compared to a much lower rate
(17%) of ‘live’ synchronous communications.
In conclusion, using the two drivers we have selected, the overall picture from
STEM participants is one in which students are entrusted with or granted relatively
limited autonomy or choice when they use mobile technologies and are restricted to
largely face-to-face interactions within their own classroom or with their teachers,
almost exclusively on an asynchronous basis with limited opportunities to exploit
any of the real-time benefits afforded by mobile technologies for communication
and networking. In light of our pedagogical model and informed by the survey data,
we deemed these variables, agency and collaborative networking, as being most
useful to form the two dimensions of our scenario forecast.
Scenario Building
Scenarios have been described as ‘presentations of multiple possible futures’

(Snoek, 2013, p. 311), which are widely used in businesses (e.g. Shell, 2003) and
the military (Cann, 2010) but until recently, less common in education. This may be
changing with some high profile scenario planning exercises commissioned by
organisations like the OECD (2001) and teacher futures special editions in inter-
national education journals (e.g. Aubusson & Schuck, 2013). This recent surge of
interest amongst educators is not surprising given the complexity and unpre-
dictability of the environments within which they operate, since scenario planning
is seen as a more suitable alternative to traditional prediction methods, which
depend on greater levels of stability and more predictable contexts (Snoek, 2013).
Indeed Snoek identifies this as one of two major problems associated with tradi-
tional approaches to planning and predicting the future, pointing out how this has a
tendency to produce a single future prediction when in fact there are likely to be
many. To compound this tendency, policymakers and governments are also guilty
of believing they can realise a single prediction of the future by mandating change
ignoring the ‘fundamental unpredictability of the future and the possibility of dif-
ferent futures[that] need to be taken into account’ (Snoek, 2013, p. 308).
Scenario planning is positioned as a viable alternative to the traditional
‘rational-central-rule’ approach (Van Gunsteren, 1976) since it accepts the inherent
unpredictability and complexity of modern society and seeks to identify multiple
possible futures enabling greater scope for discussion and alternative perspectives.
Put another way, traditional approaches are akin to ‘forecasting’, which leads to
future predictions, compared to ‘foresighting’, which leads to alternative scenarios
for the future (Codd et al., 2002).
What Are Scenarios and How Are They Produced?
Scenarios are often described as narratives or stories about multiple futures which
help their creators to consider and conceptualise alternatives along with the choices
associated with them. Rather than rushing forwards into foreshortened perspectives,
scenarios encourage a longer term outlook (Schwartz, 1997). The first stage in the
production of scenarios involves the identification of key trends or ‘drivers’, which
shape the development of society, such as environmental change, social inequality,
demographic shifts and technology itself, which is the focus of this study. Although
these trends are recognised as important drivers of change it is only those defined as
‘unpredictable’ which are selected since these serve as vectors inviting debate,
discussion, difference and ultimately polarities. Technology meets these criteria
well as it generates considerable debate and difference at both the micro- and
macro-level.
However, this study is not primarily driven by an exploration of technology per
se as we have pointed out in previous papers (Kearney et al., 2012) but rather by a
socio-cultural investigation of the signature pedagogical affordances associated with
the use of mobile technologies and their particular relevance for STEM educators in
the future. Therefore, our first task was to re-examine our existing data set from our
international survey to identify sub-drivers within the field of mobile learning
which meet the criteria for scenarios. Table 11.4 identifies the main themes which
were investigated and validated through the online survey (Kearney et al., 2015).
All of them are capable of generating dichotomous positions, as illustrated below,
but some of are more unpredictable in the sense that the educational community is
divided or unclear about how these themes might be applied in practice.
We, therefore, followed the recommendations in the literature on working with
scenarios to scrutinise the data set in order to identify those drivers considered to be
Table 11.4 Potential ‘drivers’ identified in a previous study of m-learning (Kearney et al., 2015)
Constructs/drivers Dichotomous positions
Personalisation
Agency/student External control (teacher Internal control (negotiated by
autonomy directed) student)
Customisation ‘One size fits all’ Tailored fit (‘customised to me’)
Authenticity
Contextualisation Contrived Realistic
Situated Simulated Embedded in real practice
Collaborative networking
Conversational Solitary (disconnected) Rich (networked)
Data sharing Content consumption (alone—no Content/context building (in
sharing) communities)
amongst the most impactful and unpredictable (Van der Heijden, 2005). The
sub-elements of ‘conversational’ and ‘data sharing’ were originally part of a
broader category termed ‘collaboration’ which described those pedagogical affor-
dances which enable individuals to engage in greater levels of networked sharing,
exchange and collaborative discussion mediated through the mobile technologies.
This notion of networking is similar to what Park (2011) refers to as the ‘social
nature of learning’, which measures the degrees to which learning is an entirely
independent or entirely social enterprise. Although participants described tasks or
activities that were ranked relatively high for face-to-face conversations and dis-
cussion they ranked online networking and data sharing as relatively low. We,
therefore, identified this as one of the drivers to adopt in this exercise, since it
offered considerable scope for alternative practices and thinking in STEM education
around virtual and multiple conversations and collaborative data exchange.
We selected student autonomy/agency as a second driver or variable, since this
had also emerged as a significant finding from the previous study, where partici-
pants reported surprisingly low levels of student autonomy and choice (goals,
content, etc.) given the dominant discourse in the literature which portray digital
technologies as vehicles for greater learner agency (Burden et al., 2012; Pachler,
Bachmair, & Cook, 2009). Since the purpose of the scenario building methodology
(for details see Chap. 6) is to stimulate discussion and thinking about possible
futures in STEM education, we identified these two drivers as ideal candidates and
followed the recommendations of others who have adopted this approach (Schuck
& Aubusson, 2010) to generate a two-dimensional model with four separate
quadrants (see Fig. 11.2).
For each of the four quadrants, we generate distinct narratives paying particular
attention to ground them in the concrete data generated by participants in both the
closed and open-text responses collected in our study. The scenarios (see Findings
section) are deliberately written in a compelling and persuasive fashion and all four
are written with a positive perspective since scenario building is designed to
Fig. 11.2 Qualitative data plotted against twin variables
encourage consideration of alternatives that might not otherwise appeal. For pur-
poses of transparency and trustworthiness, a selection of these data are illustrated in
Fig. 11.2 and Tables 11.3 and 11.4. In this sense, our methodology is firmly
grounded in the existing data set we have collected and validated in previous
studies, and we use it to extrapolate four equally valid alternative futures, rather
than a single future prediction. It is acknowledged that this methodology has its
limitations and is not particularly valuable in explaining how to mobilise change
towards any of these possible futures. However, this is beyond the scope of the
chapter, although it is further examined in some of the more recent literature on
boundary objects and activity theory (see Snoek, 2013).
We conclude this section by identifying the research questions that form the
focus of the chapter:
1. What possible futures might present themselves to STEM educators interested in
harnessing the potential of mobile technologies?
2. What are the implications of these possible futures for STEM educators?
Harnessing the Potential of Mobile Technologies: Producing

Alternative Futures
To demonstrate the utility of the two chosen dimensions of agency and collabo-
rative networking, sample qualitative data were analysed according to their match
with the polarities of these two variables. The online survey did not mandate
participants to provide an actual example of their m-learning task but 43 of the 69
STEM participants did so in the optional open-ended survey questions. Table 11.5
illustrates a selection of these tasks, providing a snapshot of qualitative data relating
to the following questions:
• What was the topic of your learning task/activity?
• What were the objectives of the topic associated with the task you have
described?
• What did the students do during the task using mobile technologies?
• What was your role as the teacher during the task?
The seven examples from Table 11.5 (shown with small numbered boxes in
Fig. 11.2) were analysed by the researchers using the two scales of agency and
collaborative networking to rate these critical features of the m-learning activities.
They were then plotted according to their rankings along each axis, with lower
ratings at the bottom of the vertical axis or left-hand side of horizontal axis, and
higher ratings towards the top or right-hand side of each axis. When researchers’
ratings differed, differences were resolved through group consensus. From this
analysis, each of the seven examples was plotted into one of the four quadrants (see
Fig. 11.2), labelled according to their agency and collaborative networking char-
acteristics: Quadrant A: guided and scaffolded; quadrant B: simulatory and
autonomous; quadrant C: connective and directed; quadrant D: participative.
Most of the data captured in this exercise is contained and can be described by a
relatively small footprint (illustrated with the dotted rectangle) in the lower two
quadrants of the diagram. Despite two outliers (examples 3 and 5), the other
qualitative examples (2, 4, 6 and 7) were plotted within a consistent pattern,
showing limited interactions beyond the physical boundaries of the classroom and
essentially solitary in nature, with little opportunity for students to share data or
engage in conversations.
In what follows we describe four narrative scenarios developed for STEM
education, as depicted in the quadrants of Fig. 11.2. These present alternative
possible futures for mobile technology-enhanced STEM learning. Each scenario is
rooted and grounded in the data we have described previously but these are not
intended to be mere descriptions of the data. Rather they use the data as starting
points to extrapolate possible futures. Each scenario has been developed in a way
that is consistent and recognisable with the data set to ensure it is plausible yet
sufficiently challenging to encourage new patterns of thinking. Following the
methodology recommended by Snoek (2005) each scenario is described in an
extreme manner in order to differentiate them.
Harnessing the Potential of Mobile Technologies … 193
Table 11.5 Sample m-learning tasks from study: snapshot of responses to open-ended questions
Background Student/Teacher roles
1 Objective: To apply knowledge on Students asked to use mind map and apply
everyday items using mind maps terms. Students and teachers walked
Video cameras were used to take notes of around the school and applied these terms.
mind maps drawn on the whiteboard of Teacher as guide
content (about programming) from both
the classroom and real-world contexts,
then discussed amongst themselves on
Edmodo. (Engineering/technology)
2 Objective: To explain a concept in Students used their phones and digital
elementary science through video. Also, to cameras to take pictures. Teacher helped
learn skills such as storyboarding and with technical issues, and helped students
animation to think about the science concepts they
Elementary science education concepts. had chosen and how to represent them
The students used mobile phones and
digital cameras to take pictures to create
Slowmation movies. (Science teacher
education)
3 Objective: To enhance engagement/ Students took pictures, provided advice
ownership of the laboratory practical. and responded to others’ examples.
Placing the practical in a larger scientific Teacher leads by example and
context. Network building occasionally moderates
Students use mobile phones to live tweet
findings of their laboratory practicals.
(Secondary school science)
4 Objective: To display appropriate stages Students dissected kidneys and brains
of dissection Identification of various (from sheep) in groups. Teacher acted as
specified parts of the kidney/brain demonstrator, supervisor, observer
Laboratory-based session dissecting
kidneys/brains. Students used their phone
cameras to record various stages in the
dissection processes. Photos became an
integral part of their notes and provided
evidence of exploratory investigation of
structures, as decided by the students.
(Secondary school science)
5 Objective: To understand the causes and Students watched and listened to lectures
effects of global warming, and identify and photos via Skype. Teacher introduced
ways of controlling it. Global warming. the lesson, set up laptop and Internet
(Secondary school science) connectivity and mediated Skype call with
expert
6 Objective: To plan and write a script; Students created short videos, including
create a storyboard and edit and present sound
the multimedia presentation Teacher helped to facilitate use of device,
The life and habitat of an animal. Students allowing students to explore and learn as
used their device to make a movie to help they created their short video clip
explain their chosen animal. (Primary/
elementary school science)
(continued)
Table 11.5 (continued)

Background Student/Teacher roles
7 Objective: To identify real-life acute, Students included all the photos that they
obtuse and right angles. The Year 4 had taken in the playground to produce a
mathematics class was learning about collage. They used functions of the iPad to
angles. The students used their iPad crop, colour, add text and amend layouts.
devices to take photos of angles in the Teacher assisted students in finding the
playground. (Primary/elementary school angles in the playground and encouraged
mathematics) them to present their photos to the class
Scenario A: Guided and Scaffolded STEM Learning
In this scenario, mobile technologies are used by STEM educators to underpin and
reinforce traditional practices of STEM education (i.e. the status quo), where STEM
subjects are taught as formal, curriculum-based subjects and technology is
employed to make teaching and learning more effective and efficient. The main
emphasis lies with the transmission of accepted STEM principles and knowledge
and this is undertaken most effectively through teacher-directed access to infor-
mation sources such as YouTube video demonstrations, podcasts, e-textbooks and
the use of ‘skill and drill’ apps such as science quiz apps. Mobile devices are used
extensively in the classroom and laboratory to free students from traditional
note-taking and drawing exercises and these are replaced by digital annotation
tools, usually used individually or in pairs, such as stand-alone mind maps, elec-
tronic worksheets and e-books. Teachers control the content, objective and pace of
lessons, including tightly scaffolded, recipe-style investigations. They administer
live polls to students to test their immediate understanding of a concept (e.g.
through an app like Socrative) and to gain feedback about what students know or
need to know better. Teachers present and explain key ideas and principles using
whole-class presentation apps such as ShowMe, Explain Everything and Nearpod
which enables them to scaffold the content delivery, ensuring all of the class are
working at the same pace. Students work mainly with the teacher and their class-
room peers, only using the Internet to access information or to e-mail the teacher
their work. Mobile technologies are seen as a highly effective and efficient way to
better prepare students for high-stake testing. In class, students are encouraged to
use their mobile device to capture and annotate notes made by the teacher on the
interactive whiteboard or examples of experiments or demonstrations which cannot
be undertaken by the students for reasons of efficiencies of time, or health and
safety. In this way, students can return to their personal store of notes for revision
purposes after the lesson is complete.
Harnessing the Potential of Mobile Technologies … 195
Scenario B: Simulatory and Autonomous STEM Learning
In this scenario, mobile technologies are appropriated by STEM educators to

mediate autonomous but largely isolated learning by students whereby the device
acts as an ‘intellectual partner’ and cognitive tool for the students (Jonassen, Carr,
& Yueh, 1998). Students typically use mobile technologies to mediate relevant
STEM processes and tasks, depicting a simulation model of authenticity (Radinsky
et al., 2001), making use of class-based investigations and fieldwork as a ‘practice
field’, albeit separate from the real STEM community. Use of the mobile device
gives students the ability to control tools such as the ability to manipulate a range of
scientific variables and make predictions, thus encouraging them to think and
behave like real scientists. Students are given varying degrees of freedom and
choice to explore a STEM-related problem or issue, and the teacher adopts the role
of facilitator or guide. Rather than scaffolding the learning of STEM to the entire
class, the teacher allows students to use their mobile device to explore simulations
and other resources (depending on the problem), such as animal dissection apps to
3D views of the periodic table. In this way, students work more at their own pace on
a challenging, self-selected problem or issue. They use a wide range of apps and
tools to observe phenomena and collect and analyse data in and outside of the
classroom, for example to measure sunlight, gauge sound levels, observe the night
sky using location-based AR apps such as Skyview (http://tinyurl.com/lonln3j).
Many experiments and processes which cannot be undertaken physically are sim-
ulated using mobile apps such as Wind Tunnel Pro in engineering (http://tinyurl.
com/p3ohqmh), to gain a more accurate understanding of how engineers think and
behave. Students typically work in small groups to tackle a STEM-based problem
and are encouraged to use a range of generic media capture and editing tools such
as the camera, the audio recorder and the video editing and animation apps to
produce high-quality representations of their current understandings. Assessment is
based on these authentic demonstrations, rather than simple tests.
Scenario C: Connective and Directed STEM Learning
In this scenario teachers use mobile technologies to liberate students from the
physical confines of the formal classroom, enabling them to work and interact with
peers and experts beyond the classroom, using teacher controlled sites such as class
blogs and wikis, discussion forums and microblogging services such as
Todaysmeet, to ask questions, receive responses and exchange ideas. The teacher
uses the technology as a starter to carefully scaffold and monitor realistic explo-
rations, often based outside of the classroom. Students use their devices to collect
data and to analyse it, often in situ and under the careful guidance of the teacher or
an expert. Students behave like STEM practitioners to the extent that they are
working collaboratively, undertaking problem-solving activities and real-time data
exercises, such as the use of Bluetooth-enabled data collection tools to undertake a

beach survey. Data and findings are shared with peers and teachers in externally
controlled cloud-based documents. However, projects are carefully selected and
externally designed to ensure students cover curriculum content. Although collected
data may be shared beyond the class, it does not contribute to any wider STEM
community projects. Most of the activities undertaken are likely to be highly
scaffolded inquiry projects, or tightly controlled multiplayer games or simulations,
making greater use of the networking features of mobiles and the ability to tap into
real-time data.
Scenario D: Participatory STEM Learning
In this scenario, mobile technologies are a dynamic and reciprocal conduit to live
time data, expertise and a community of real STEM practitioners, which enable
students to think and behave as part of the real STEM community (e.g. as citizen
scientists). This is not simulated and the students are seen as equal status and
co-constructors with their teachers in the process of producing new STEM
knowledge, akin to the notion of participative authenticity espoused by Radinsky
et al. (2001). STEM subjects are unlikely to be taught as separate subjects in this
scenario and indeed formal school curricula may not be recognisable. Students are
immersed in real STEM areas of interest (e.g. a nature reserve), where they
undertake an extended work experience using the technology to share, analyse and
interpret their own and others’ data, maintain contacts with their peers and with
experts in the real world, who validate and credential the learning. Students are
asked to think and behave as STEM practitioners and their findings are used and
valued by the scientific community (e.g. in collecting real-time data as citizen
scientists). Students in this scenario use networking tools and social media apps like
Facebook, Instagram and Twitter to pose questions and share their predictions and
interpretations with peers (in and beyond their own cohort) and with other STEM
experts. Teachers may use data analytics to monitor students’ activities in these
spaces and assess their progress and development in real time. Connective,
Augmented Reality apps, multiplayer games and immersive learning tools enable
students to understand complex ideas and concepts at their own pace and in many
cases these act to mediate students’ learning, independently of the teacher.
Examples include use of the previously discussed sense-it app (Herodotou et al.,
2014), nQuire app (Jones et al., 2013) and iSpot app (Scanlon et al., 2014).
Implications of These Alternative Futures for STEM Educators 197
Implications of These Alternative Futures for STEM

Educators
The previous section presented four radically different alternatives for the use of
mobile technologies in STEM education and, therefore, addressed the first of our
two research questions: What futures might present themselves to STEM educators
interested in harnessing the potential of mobile technologies? In this final part of
the chapter, we return to the second of our research questions: What are the
implications of these possible futures for STEM educators?
The low rates of networked data collected from STEM teachers in this study
(n = 69) follow the same pattern as the entire data set (n = 195) (Kearney et al.,
2015), which run contrary to much of the m-learning literature around ‘real-time’
spontaneity and extensive connections (or ‘hyperconnectivity’) enabled by
m-learning environments (Norris & Soloway, 2011; Parry, 2011; Peluso, 2012).
Only two of the exemplars cited from the STEM data set appear to have been
deliberately designed by teachers to engage students in STEM learning tasks that
connected them more widely with peers or subject experts, despite many of the
obvious benefits associated with this approach in terms of inquiry-based learning.
In these cases, students exploited the affordances of their mobile devices to tweet
live findings from their experimental work to other students and experts outside of
the classroom and to receive the assistance of an external science expert via Skype
(cases 3 and 5). Many more networked and collaborative examples might have been
expected in the survey, and with relatively simple adjustments to the learning
design of their lessons teachers might have ‘brokered’ more opportunities for stu-
dents to cross the boundary between their digital worlds and the (analogue) arena
and physical realities of formal education (Royle & Hadfield, 2012). This point also
picks up on the ‘seamless’ learning theme covered in the literature which indicates
how mobile technologies have the potential to assist teachers and students in
crossing boundaries between various settings and contexts to extend and continue
their STEM learning beyond the formal, physical classroom (Toh et al., 2013). For
example, by empowering the students to use an interactive app or social media tool,
in example 5, students would enter the more collaborative Quadrant D by posting
real questions and problems for real scientists to respond to, rather than simply
consuming their expertise in a passive manner. Indeed, many of the examples from
the STEM data set had a similar potentiality to be shifted from the lower two
quadrants to the upper two quadrants (i.e. the boundaries are permeable), usually by
considering opportunities to collaborate and network, and by thinking about
learning tasks as multi-staged events to be completed in more than one place or time
(for example, ‘seamlessly’ linking an in situ field investigation with networked
sharing of data and follow-up learning conversations).
There was an identified trend of STEM teachers in the study designing relatively
solitary m-learning STEM activities. This raises the question of how educators can
better leverage ‘massive social networking’ (UNESCO, 2011), for example via
social media, to allow learners to better connect with and participate in communities
outside their immediate class context (Parry, 2011). In this way, teachers can extend
the inquiry model of STEM teaching, allowing students to more widely share
predictions, data and findings, encourage collaborative analysis and interpretations,
and promote more diverse feedback and exchange of ideas within a legitimate and
diverse community of learners. Furthermore, the rich networking and strong digital
footprints characteristic of Quadrants C and D scenarios, brings to bear the pos-
sibility of using Learning Analytics to assess learners’ needs and development. For
example, participation in iSpot activities (Scanlon et al., 2014) enabled the use of
Learning Analytics to gauge participants’ identification knowledge and proficiency
using the iSpot app (p. 69).
The flexible, negotiated nature of learners’ use of time and space is a
well-documented feature of mobile learning environments (Traxler, 2009), partic-
ularly in the malleable spatial–temporal contexts of less formal learning spaces.
However, 90% of the m-learning tasks reported in the survey by STEM teachers
were based in formal institutional contexts, making use of traditional, rigid con-
figurations of time and place. We know that mobile technologies enable learning to
occur in a multiplicity of more informal (physical and virtual) settings situated in
the context about which the learning is occurring. For example, the opportunities
for in situ inquiry projects, in learner-generated contexts using real-time data and
immediate feedback mechanisms, are well reported, with documented benefits for
learning science (Zhang et al., 2010). We trust that whatever features of the four
scenarios eventuate in the future, more teachers will exploit the affordances of
mobile technologies to leverage more diverse, inquiry-based pedagogies in these
less formal ‘test-beds’ for STEM learning.
This study did not explore causal relationships between time/space configura-
tions and the twin dimensions of agency and networking. Indeed, we propose that
flexible time/space configurations could be applied to any of the four scenarios,
particularly multistaged tasks across a blend of contexts. For example, teachers
following a flipped learning pedagogy (Herreid & Schiller, 2013) might encourage
students to view their instructional podcast (Quadrant A features) using a negotiated
time/space configuration, ‘at their own time, pace and place’ before class. The
rationale for this type of pre-class task is to reduce the need for instruction in
subsequent classes, allowing for precious, formalised ‘class time’ to be used for
more active, autonomous, inquiry-based work (e.g. Quadrants B or D). In other
words, a higher rating of agency and networking does not necessarily align with
flexible, negotiated use of time and space, nor do low ratings of these dimensions
correlate with more traditional formal arrangements.
Conclusion
We acknowledge that other emerging technologies may well have a profound

influence on STEM learning in the future, for example Learning Analytics (see
Chaps. 4 and 10), 3D printing, games-based learning and wearable technologies
Conclusion 199
(Johnson et al., 2013). However, given the current interest and investment in mobile
technologies, it is timely to explore the future of STEM learning in light of the
distinctive features of mobile-intensive pedagogies. Previous research demonstrates
how teachers have a strong tendency to design tasks that use mobile technologies to
‘fit’ into traditional notions of formal, scheduled, institution-based learning
(Rushby, 2012; Kearney et al., 2015), and recent studies undertaken by the authors
of this volume suggest that teacher educators adopt broadly similar approaches (e.g.
Burden & Kearney, 2017). In some ways, this default position has been influenced
by the large majority of educational apps that are underpinned by an information
transmission model of learning, or behaviourist, drill and practice approaches
(Murray & Olcese, 2011). Indeed, Mifsud (2014) and Traxler (2009) argue that
many of the features of m-learning are in conflict with traditional classroom-based
learning, making the effective use of m-learning a challenge for educators and
teacher educators in particular.
In this study, we meet this challenge by rationalising and developing four future
scenarios that help STEM educators project how they might choose to exploit two
distinctive pedagogical aspects of m-learning: student agency and collaborative
networking. Unlike some macro-level driving forces that cannot be easily influ-
enced by teachers or teacher educators (e.g. national policy or global trends), each
of these two micro-level variables falls within the locus of control of individual
teachers and teacher educators. The scenarios reveal a range of pedagogical
affordances for STEM education, highlighting the connection between peers and the
STEM community, participative authenticity and student autonomy.
If, as this study suggests, the current generation of STEM teachers are not yet
exploiting the authentic and collaborative affordances of mobile learning that have
been shown to align so well with many of the principles underpinning the current
drive for STEM learning, it will be incumbent on teacher education and individual
teacher educators to grasp this opportunity in order to ensure the next generation of
teachers are better prepared and more disposed to do so. No single action alone is
likely to achieve this but role modelling the use of mobile technologies to join,
network and work in partnership with real-life STEM practitioners must be con-
sidered amongst the top priorities for teacher educators if they are to engage their
trainee students in the same kind of work. This study has revealed how few teachers
set their students tasks located outside of formal classrooms and seldom grant them
freedom to select their own activities or negotiate their own learning objectives,
despite the wealth of research literature that illustrates how effective mobile tech-
nologies can be in supporting these activities. Therefore, if teacher educators are to
model the effective use of mobile technologies in STEM-related contexts it is
imperative that they review the current contexts they set students to work within
and the degrees of agency that grant them to negotiate their own learning outcomes.
This may involve teacher educators moving beyond the safety and security of their
university-based teaching contexts to sometimes work in other settings such as
museums, real-life laboratories, heritage centres, engineering workplaces and
field-sites. Additionally, they will need to demonstrate the seamless affordances of
mobile technologies by designing tasks and settings that enable their trainees to
work across boundaries, both virtual and physical, such as a virtual laboratory or a
3D immersive setting where they can learn how to undertake a task as a simulation
before undertaking it in a physical setting. By modelling these mixed settings and
offering students opportunities to cross boundaries between them seamlessly, it is
more likely they will encourage their trainees to use these same techniques and
affordances when they start work in schools.
However, possibly the most powerful and effective lever that teacher educators
could use to accelerate these shifts in schools, and encourage both their pre-service
and in-service teachers to buy into these approaches, would be to establish authentic
and meaningful partnerships with different STEM practitioners that mirror the way
citizen science projects currently work, often through a mobile app. In these pro-
jects members of the public can participate in authentic science inquiries and
projects, collecting and analysing scientific data alongside real scientists and other
experts. In the best of these projects, there is little in the way of power imbalance
that has blighted some projects, and both parties benefit equally, though in different
ways. The challenge for teacher educators is to conceptualise similar projects that
would work across the STEM disciplines, enabling their trainee teachers, and
ultimately school students, to benefit in the same way as members of the public
enjoy in citizen science. Citizen science projects probably work well because there
is a mutual benefit to both parties (the public and science experts) in participating in
these projects. In particular, the professionals (in this case scientists) benefit by
gaining access in real time to vast quantities of data collected by volunteers they
could not expect to access by themselves. Are there comparable benefits to be had
for technologists, engineers and mathematicians that would induce them to take a
more active role in the networks we are proposing here? We are not currently in a
position to answer this question in a definitive manner, but we suggest it would be a
fruitful one for teacher educators to discuss alongside STEM practitioners and see
this as an urgent priority in order to make progress in this respect. NASA has
demonstrated how to harness public interest in space and astronomy to help them
discover new planetary systems hidden amongst the data they have collected
through the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) (see www.DiskDetective.
org). Similar challenges and problems might be identified by mathematicians,
engineers and technology specialists, and be precipitated with the encouragement
and partnership of teacher educators. It requires a proactive stance on their part and
a recognition that they need to develop symbiotic relationships outside of the
university that could facilitate the benefits we have outlined above. This chapter
advocates further studies into how informal STEM-based learning can complement
formal STEM learning, the changing nature of teacher roles in these blended
environments, and use of emerging mobile technologies to engender agency and
networking of STEM learners.
References 201
References
Aubusson, P., Griffin, J., & Kearney, M. (2012). Learning beyond the classroom: Implications for
school science. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), The second international
handbook of science education (pp. 1123–1134). Netherlands: Springer.
expectations. Teacher Development, 17(3), 322–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2013.
813768.
Burden, K., Hopkins, P., Male, T., Martin, S., & Trala, C. (2012). iPad Scotland evaluation.
Faculty of Education, The University of Hull, UK. Retrieved from http://www2.hull.ac.uk/ifl/
ipadresearchinschools.aspx.
Burden, K., & Kearney, M. (2016). Future scenarios for mobile science learning. Research in
Science Education, 1–22.
Burden, K., & Kearney, M. (2017). Investigating and critiquing teacher educators’ mobile learning
practices. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 14(2), 110–125.
Cann, A. (2010). Scenario based strategic planning in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil
Works Program. IWR White Paper. Retrieved from http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Portals/70/
docs/iwrreports/Scenario-BasedStrategicPlanning.pdf.
Cheng, K. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Affordances of augmented reality in science learning:
suggestions for future research. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(4), 449–462.
Codd, J. A., Brown, M., Clark, J., Mcpherson, H., O’Neill, J., O’Neill, H., Waitere-Ang, & Zepke,
N. (2002). Review of future-focused research on teaching and learning. Wellington: Ministry
of Education New Zealand.
Crooks, C. (1999). Computers in the community of classrooms. In K. Littleton & P. Light (Eds.),
Learning with computers. Analysing productive interaction (pp. 102–117). London: Routledge.
DeGennaro, D. (2012). Evolving learning designs and emerging technologies. In B. Fraser, K.
Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), The second international handbook of science education
(pp. 1319–1331). Netherlands: Springer.
Dunleavy, M., & Dede, C. (2014). Augmented reality teaching and learning. In J. M. Spector, M.
D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational
communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 735–745). New York: Springer.
Foley, B. J., & Reveles, J. M. (2014). Pedagogy for the connected science classroom: Computer
supported collaborative science and the next generation science standards. Contemporary
Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 14(4). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.
org/vol14/iss4/science/article1.cfm.
Green, L., Hechter, R., Tysinger, P., & Chassereau, K. (2014). Mobile app selection for 5th
through 12th grade science: The development of the MASS rubric. Computers & Education,
75, 65–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.007.
Herodotou, C., Villasclaras-Fernández, E., & Sharples, M. (2014). The design and evaluation of a
sensor-based mobile application for citizen inquiry science investigations. In Open Learning
and Teaching in Educational Communities (pp. 434–439). Springer International Publishing.
Herreid, C. F., & Schiller, N. A. (2013). Case studies and the flipped classroom. Journal of
College Science Teaching, 42(5), 62–66.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Martín, S. (2013). Technology outlook for STEM+
education 2013–2018: An NMC horizon project sector analysis. Austin, Texas: The New
Media Consortium.
Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C., & Yueh, H. P. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in
critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 24–32.
Jones, A. C., Scanlon, E., & Clough, G. (2013). Mobile learning: Two case studies of supporting
inquiry learning in informal and semiformal settings. Computers & Education, 61, 21–32.
Kamarainen, A. M., Metcalf, S., Grotzer, T., Browne, A., Mazzuca, D., Tutwiler, M. S., et al.
(2013). EcoMOBILE: Integrating augmented reality and probeware with environmental
education field trips. Computers & Education, 68, 545–556.
Kearney, M., Burden, K., & Rai, T. (2015). Investigating teachers’ adoption of signature mobile
pedagogies. Computers & Education, 80, 48–57.
Kearney, M., & Maher, D. (2013). Mobile learning in maths teacher education: Driving pre-service
teachers’ professional development. Australian Educational Computing, 27(3), 76–84.
Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012). Viewing mobile learning from a
pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology, 2. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.
v20i0/14406.
Kinash, S., Brand, J., & Mathew, T. (2012). Challenging mobile learning discourse through
research: Student perceptions of Blackboard Mobile Learn and iPads. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 28(4). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.832.
Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2000). Instructional, curricular, and
technological supports for inquiry in science classrooms. In J. Minstrell & E. H. van Zee (Eds.),
Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 283–315). Washington, DC:
American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Lai, K. W., Khaddage, F., & Knezek, G. (2013). Blending student technology experiences in
formal and informal learning. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 29(5), 414–425.
Ling, R., & Donner, J. (2009). Mobile communications. London: Polity.
Lui, M., Kuhn, A., Acosta, A., Niño-Soto, M. I., Quintana, C., & Slotta, J. D. (2014). Using
mobile tools in immersive environments to support science inquiry. In CHI’14 Extended
Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 403–406). ACM.
Marty, P. F., Alemanne, N. D., Mendenhall, A., Maurya, M., Southerland, S. A., Sampson, V.,
et al. (2013). Scientific inquiry, digital literacy, and mobile computing in informal learning
environments. Learning, Media and Technology, 38(4), 407–428.
Mifsud, L. (2014). Mobile learning and the socio-materiality of classroom practices. Learning,
Media and Technology, 39(1), 142–149.
Murray, O., & Olcese, N. (2011). Teaching and learning with iPads: Ready or not? TechTrends, 55
(6), 42–48.
Norris, C. A., & Soloway, E. (2011). Learning and schooling in the age of mobilism. Educational
Technology, 51(6), 3–12.
OECD. (2001). Schooling for tomorrow. Paris, OECD): What schools for the future.
Pachler, N., Bachmair, B., & Cook, J. (2009). Mobile learning: Structures, agency, practices. New
York: Springer.
Park, Y. (2011). A pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing educational
applications of mobile technologies into four types. International Review of Research in Open
and Distance Learning, 12(2), 78–102.
Parry, D. (2011). Mobile perspectives: On teaching mobile literacy. Educause Review, 46, 14–18.
Peluso, D. (2012). The fast-paced iPad revolution: Can educators stay up to date and relevant
about these ubiquitous devices? British Journal of Educational Technology, 43. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01310.x.
Radinsky, J., Bouillion, L., Lento, E., & Gomez, L. (2001). Mutual benefit partnership: A
curricular design for authenticity. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(4), 405–430.
Royle, K., & Hadfield, M. (2012). From ‘posh pen & pad’ to participatory pedagogies: One story
of a netbook implementation project with 108 pupils in two primary schools. International
Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 4(1), 1–17.
Rushby, N. (2012). Editorial: An agenda for mobile learning. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 43(3), 355–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01313.x.
Scanlon, E., Woods, W., & Clow, D. (2014). Informal participation in science in the UK:
Identification, location and mobility with iSpot. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,
17(2), 58–71.
Technology, 35(3), 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2010.509351.
Schuck, S. (2016). Enhancing teacher education in primary mathematics with mobile technologies.
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 126–139.
References 203
Schuler, C., Winters, N., & West, M. (2012). The future of mobile learning: Implications for policy
makers and planners. Paris: UNESCO.
Schwartz, P. (1997). The art of the long vie. Chichester: Wiley.
Sharples, M. (2013). Mobile learning: Research, practice and challenges. Distance Education in
China, 3(5), 5–11.
Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2007). A theory of learning for the mobile age. In R.
Andrews & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of e-learning research (pp. 221–
224). London: Sage.
Shell, (2003). Scenarios: An explorer’s guide. London: Shell.
Snoek, M. (2005). Scenario writing in education: Teaching guidelines for an in-service course for
teachers and teacher educators. Brussels/Amsterdam: Association for Teacher Education. in
Europe.
Snoek, M. (2013). From splendid isolation to crossed boundaries? The futures of teacher education
in the light of activity theory. Teacher Development, 17(3), 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13664530.2013.813758.
Snoek, M., Baldwin, G., Cautreels, P., Enemaerke, T., Halstead, V., Hilton, G., et al. (2003).
Scenarios for the future of teacher education in Europe. European Journal of Teacher
Education, 26(1), 21–36.
Song, Y. (2014). “Bring your own device (BYOD)” for seamless science inquiry in a primary
school. Computers & Education, 74, 50–60.
Toh, Y., So, H. J., Seow, P., Chen, W., & Looi, C. K. (2013). Seamless learning in the mobile age:
a theoretical and methodological discussion on using cooperative inquiry to study digital kids
on-the-move. Learning, Media and Technology, 38(3), 301–318.
Traxler, J. (2008). Current state of mobile learning. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile learning transforming
the delivery of education and training. Athabasca: University of Athabasca Press.
Traxler, J. (2009). Learning in a mobile age. International Journal of Mobile and Blended
Learning, 1(1), 1–12.
UNESCO. (2011). UNESCO mobile learning week report. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/
new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/ED/ICT/pdf/UNESCO%20MLW%20report%20final%
2019jan.pdf.
Van Der Heijden, K. (2005). Scenarios: The art of strategic conversation. London: Wiley.
Van Gunsteren, H. R. (1976). The quest for control exemplar scenarios from science, engineering
and maths. London: Wiley.
Wang, M., & Shen, R. (2012). Message design for mobile learning: Learning theories, human
cognition and design principles. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 561–575.
Wilson, R., Goodman, J., Bradbury, L., & Gross, L. (2013). Exploring the use of iPads to
investigate forces and motion in an elementary science methods course. Contemporary Issues
in Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/
vol13/iss2/science/article1.cfm.
Wong, L. H., & Looi, C. K. (2011). What seams do we remove in mobile-assisted seamless
learning? A critical review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2364–2381.
Zhang, B. H., Looi, C. K., Seow, P., Chia, G., Wong, L. H., Chen, W., et al. (2010).
Deconstructing and reconstructing: Transforming primary science learning via a mobilized
curriculum. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1504–1523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.
2010.06.016.
Zimmerman, H. T., & Land, S. M. (2014). Facilitating place-based learning in outdoor informal
environments with mobile computers. TechTrends, 58(1), 77–83.
Chapter 12
Science Education: Past Crises, Potential
Futures
Abstract This chapter examines science education futures to explore the ways in
which a specific discipline area seeks to shape its future(s). It first outlines some
underlying challenges in present and past science education and describes the way
in which experts have proposed ideal or better ways to go about science education.
The work reported here draws on data from Australia but is located in an inter-
national context. The chapter describes an extended research and consultation
process undertaken to explore alternative science education futures with experts.
A series of education futures are described ranging from relatively radical to rel-
atively conservative forms of science education and an attempt to come to con-
sensus on a science education future is elaborated. The chapter concludes with
discussion of the implications of the work for teacher education and for education
futures research.

Keywords STEM Science education futures Science education

Crisis Delphi study Futures scenario
A Crisis in Science Education Demanding of Action
The plethora of changes taking place in science and technology and in society and in the
economy have led efforts by nearly all developed countries worldwide to transform edu-
cation in the sciences (Hurd, 2000, p. 1).
Is there a decade in the last 70 years when a statement such as this has not been
made by a leader in science education? Such statements are enduring assessments
of the role of science education in society and, although hackneyed, they remain a
This chapter is adapted from: Aubusson, P., Panizzon, D., & Corrigan, D. (2016). Science
education futures: ‘Great potential. Could do better. Needs to try harder’, Research in Science
Education, 46(2), 203–221.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8246-7_12
206 12 Science Education: Past Crises, Potential Futures
persistent, provocative challenge to politicians, science education researchers,

curriculum designers and teachers.
In Australia, like many countries, it is difficult to read reviews and commentaries
on science education without drawing the conclusion that the current state of sci-
ence education is causing concern and, on occasion, is in crisis (e.g. Kennedy,
Lyons, & Quinn, 2014; King, Winner, & Ginns, 2010; Office of the Chief Scientist,
2012; Tytler, 2007; Venville, 2008). Dissatisfaction with the status quo has raised
questions about what might be possible and the directions science education might
take as we are regularly invited to consider changes to science education and to
imagine alternatives (Batterham, 2000; Fensham, 1985; Goodrum, Rennie, &
Hackling, 2001; Office of the Chief Scientist, 2012; Tytler, 2007). Without
exception, and despite the present frustrations, reports are intrinsically optimistic in
proposing attainable and positive science education futures. Broadly, there is an
agreed call for ‘Tomorrow’s science for tomorrow’s generation in tomorrow’s
world’. Globally, however, there is much debate about what tomorrow’s generation
may need and what an appropriate science education might look like (Brown, 2009;
Bybee & Fuchs, 2006; Hazen & Trefil, 2009; Hurd, 2000; van Eijck & Roth, 2012).
In this context, science educators need to consider the current state of play, the
needs of generations to come and the desirable characteristics of future science
education.
Regardless of whether one accepts the argument that crises in science education
are real (Venville, 2008), misdirected (Gibbs & Fox, 1999) or manufactured to
stimulate change (Aubusson, 2011), it is clear that science education, despite its
achievements, faces many challenges. The science educators’ report card for 2015
might read: ‘Has great potential; could do better; needs to try harder’. There are
concerns about curriculum, pedagogy, student interest in and engagement with
science; the quality and quantity of science teachers; the scientific literacy of
society; and scientific capability for industry, discovery and innovation (Ainley,
Kos, & Nicholas, 2008; Batterham, 2000; Goodrum et al., 2001; Kennedy et al.,
2014; Office of the Chief Scientist, 2012; Tytler, 2007). These problems not only
relate to scientific, industrial and technological competitiveness and the workforce
needs of modern post-industrial societies, but also to ensuring collective wisdom of
a democracy facing critical decisions that depend on science knowledge, ranging
from parents’ decisions about childhood immunisation to a government’s decision
on whether or not to reduce humankind’s production of greenhouse gases. The
particular science knowledge required and the nature of these issues change over
time but the principle that science education is critical to the formation and success
of a modern society is perennial (Cohen, 1952; Yager & Penick, 1987). In this
chapter, we do not review the extensive literature on the value and need for science
education; we take the view that readers who are not already convinced of this
proposition should read no further. Rather, we want to concentrate on the case for
futures thinking in science education as a way of systematically considering pos-
sibilities, drawing on the collective expertise of a science education research
community to light paths to alternative future science education destinations.
A Crisis in Science Education Demanding of Action 207
Significant impetus was given to systematically and formally considering edu-

cation futures when the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) project launched
the Schooling for Tomorrow project in 1997. An early phase of this project pro-
duced six future scenarios (OECD, 2001). In publishing the scenarios, the OECD
stressed both what they were and what they were not. Specifically, the scenarios
were intended to explore future schooling possibilities in order to influence deci-
sions and debates amongst policymakers and communities. The scenarios were
• not intended as predictions of actual futures of schooling;
• intended to describe multiple futures and alternative pathways;
• proposed to emphasise that multiple futures and pathways are possible and
• intended to be plausible but purposefully provocative in order to serve as
thinking tools, stimulating discussion and consideration of alternatives.
Formalised futures thinking, including scenarios, has become increasingly
prevalent and accepted as a means of considering trends, developments and their
implications for future education. This is particularly evident in work that examines
the potential implications of current developments in educational technologies and
social media, despite recognition of the unpredictability of ICT intervention (e.g.
Daanen & Facer; 2007; Facer & Sandford, 2010; Schuck & Aubusson, 2010;
Selwyn & Cooper, 2015; Williams, 2005). Teacher education research has also
been an early adopter of futures thinking, including formal use of alternative sce-
narios, to explore trends and policies and their implications for divergent futures
(e.g. Aubusson & Schuck, 2013; Bates, 2005; Halstead, 2003; Jasman, 2009;
Snoek, 2003; Williams, 2005).
In contrast to research into areas such as the future of schooling, the implications
of technological change and the nature of teacher education, the systematic use of
diverse alternative future scenarios to ponder science education has been relatively
rare (Aubusson, 2011). Nevertheless, futures thinking is a ‘natural disposition’ for
humans; a routine act in the present where past experiences are intuitively used to
construct anticipated futures (Lloyd & Wallace, 2004, p. 149). Therefore, it is
unsurprising that the extensive consideration of science education futures has been
normal in the literature of school science education; although, it is rarely labelled as
such.
Science education has had no shortage of proposed reforms, with most either
explicitly or implicitly describing and outlining cases for alternatives to present
forms of science education. Others have recently reviewed past developments in
science education in order to inform visions of future science education (e.g.
American Association for Advancement of Science Project [AAAS], 1989;
Aubusson, 2011; Goodrum et al. 2001; Millar & Osborne,1998; Osborne, Collins,
Ratcliffe, Millar, & Duschl, 2003; Osborne & Dillon, 2008; Tytler 2007).
The project titles are sometimes clearly futuristic, such as the AAAS Project 2061
(AAAS, 1989) and the Nuffield Foundation’s, Beyond 2000: Science education for
the future (Millar & Osborne, 1998). Others are implicitly future oriented as they
transform, frame, reframe, re-image or reimagine a science education different from

that which exists in the present, e.g. National science curriculum framing paper
(National Curriculum Board, 2008) and Re-imagining science education: Engaging
students in science for Australia’s future (Tytler, 2007). Still others, from the title,
appear to be entirely embedded in the present. One could hardly produce a more
present-centric title than The status and quality of science teaching and learning
(Goodrum et al., 2001). Yet the analysis of this work reveals a future orientation no
less palpable than works which scream future in their very titles. Specifically,
Goodrum et al. (2001) not only describe the present but also recommend a different
future. This is perhaps most evident in their contrasting of the ‘actual’ state of
science education with an ‘ideal’ state (Goodrum et al., 2001; Goodrum, Druhan, &
Abbs, 2012). It is clear in their description of the characteristics of an ideal state that
they are considering a desirable and potentially attainable future state. In the later
work, which focussed on science in the senior years of school, the research team
was very explicit:
The first picture captures the best of what we want for our science students; the ideal. This
ideal picture should embrace our high but realistic aspirations for Year 11 and 12 students.
The other picture is a clear appraisal of what is actually happening in Year 11 and 12
science classrooms at the present time throughout Australia. With the two pictures clearly
described on the available data the study then provides an analysis of the issues by which
we pragmatically move from the present actual to the attainable ideal. (Goodrum et al.,
2012, p. 5)
In other words, they and others (Bybee, 1993; Hodson, 2003; Hurd, 1997) have
routinely described future scenarios of science education to facilitate a shift from
where we are to where we would like to be. Arguably major reforms in science
began with societies imagining the future. In 1957, as Sputnik orbited the globe, the
Western world considered a future. Sputnik portended an immediate and risky
future where East outpaced West in science and science education (Wissehr,
Concannon, & Barrow, 2011). In a Cold War world, it was a visceral threat to the
military dominance that was imagined, with the consequences for the future per-
ceived as dire. The events of the present precipitated a rethinking of science edu-
cation and a demand for a new (future) in science education.
The crises of imagined futures have continued to influence science education
periodically for almost 70 years. Most recently, there are parallels with the Sputnik
period, though not in terms of military capability. Rather, science and therefore
science education must again serve nations by providing the clever workforce and
innovation underpinned by scientific and technological capability to compete with
other leading economies (e.g. Batterham, 2000; Office of the Chief Scientist, 2012).
The fears relate not to military domination or oblivion but to falling behind others in
the global race for education success and the prosperity and quality of life that it
underpins (Chubb & Moe, 2011). It is therefore unsurprising that imagined futures
emphasising the egalitarian and equity ideals of Science for all and a scientifically
literate citizenry are competing with futures proposing relatively elite education in
‘enabling sciences’, with an emphasis on mathematics, physics and chemistry
A Crisis in Science Education Demanding of Action 209
(Batterham, 2000), as this is critical to ‘building our future through science and
innovation’ (Australian Government, 2001).
Throughout these times, science education has been reviewed, changes have
been proposed and futures contemplated, but rarely have a variety of alternative
futures been proposed. Rather, in most instances there has been an emphasis on
proposing one particular desirable curriculum and pedagogy for science education
—sometimes accompanied by rich modes of teacher professional development and
teacher preparation (e.g. Goodrum et al., 2001). By contrast, futures thinking in
education has often sought to propose a variety of alternative futures as thinking
tools to inform change and progress. Hence, the guiding research questions in this
study were: What science education futures might be anticipated by science edu-
cation researchers? and What provocative, plausible future scenarios of science
education might be constructed from these views?
Researching Science Education Futures
This chapter reports the most recent phase of research into science education futures
that began in 2011. The research developed through a sequence of methods typi-
cally associated with futures studies by using horizon scanning, driver analysis,
Delphi panels and scenario creation. Here, we briefly elaborate the methods as
applied to the final phase, i.e. Delphi study and scenario construction, before
elaborating on the overall research process. An extensive analysis of these
methodological approaches is provided in Chap. 5.
A Delphi technique as described by Gordon (1994) and modified by Green
(2014) was employed. Specifically, a panel of expert educators was established and
invited to elaborate their perceptions of future trends of education through an
extended iterative process. The study welcomed reports on diverse views from the
panel and other experts whose views were sought. It then used simple quantitative
analysis to describe one potential future derived from the perceived views of these
experts.
The design of this study used data gathering and analysis techniques consistent
with exploratory scenario building (Iverson, 2006). This involved a combination of
qualitative and quantitative methods; inclusive rather than exclusive participation,
with many opportunities for many experts to provide feedback and to comment on
scenarios in a variety of ways; and analysis that sought to elaborate both convergent
and divergent views. The aim was to develop scenarios that provided positive,
successful views of science education with characteristics recommended by Iverson
(2006), that is a set of scenarios that are
• plausible: logical, consistent and believable;
• relevant: highlight key challenges and dynamics of the future;
• divergent: differ from one another in strategically significant ways and
• challenging: challenge fundamental beliefs and assumptions. (p. 3)
Constructing Scenarios 2011–2013
The first phase of the research was an exploration of science education curriculum
futures arising from a new national science curriculum in Australia (Aubusson,
2011). Leading science education researchers were interviewed and invited to
elaborate their ideas on how science education curriculum might develop over the
coming decade and how it might influence school science. The focus of the research
was curriculum change, but developments in related aspects of school education
were also emphasised by participants in the study, such as assessment and teacher
professional learning. Data from the interviews were analysed and four future
science education scenarios were drafted. However, only two were published and
reported by Aubusson (2011), who had concerns about the internal consistency of
the other two scenarios, which were more radical in their vision. The research and
the first two scenarios were presented in a paper session at an Australasian Science
Education Research Association (ASERA) conference in 2012. During the pre-
sentations, questions and comments were made regarding the missing scenarios.
These were briefly described, together with concerns regarding them. The partici-
pants in the sessions provided feedback on the scenarios. The scenarios were dis-
cussed informally, in the Third Space or Hybrid space (Zeichner, 2010), with
science education researchers during and after the conference. The comments
resulted in minor changes to the initial two scenarios but major revision of the
hitherto unsatisfactory and unpublished two draft scenarios. These four scenarios
were presented in a research seminar at the University of Technology Sydney in
2013, where further feedback was provided.
The four scenarios at this stage had the following titles: Compliance, Trusting,
Competitive edge and Anarchy:
Compliance Scenario
In this scenario, the new curriculum improves school science through standardis-
ation, surveillance and control. Support for professional development and school
science within states is reduced because the work of curriculum development has
been done centrally. Prescriptive resources are produced with activity sequences
which classes follow. There is a national curriculum but some states introduce a
syllabus. This restricts variations in schools within these states and prevents effi-
cient sharing of resources across state boundaries. High-stakes national tests, based
primarily on the easy-to-assess Science Understanding strand, are used as indicators
of state, territory and national science achievement. Results are published and
ranking tables appear in the media. The science curriculum becomes narrowly
focussed on the acquisition of readily testable science information. Student
engagement decreases and disenchantment with science increases but a small
population of devoted science students thrive. Senior science becomes entrenched
Researching Science Education Futures 211
as a field for the elite but fewer students study senior science. National capability
needs are met by a few very able graduates from science degrees who pursue
careers in science.
Trusting Scenario
The national curriculum provides a framework for consistency in science education

across all states and territories. Students learn about the same key concepts and big
science ideas within relevant contexts. There is an equal emphasis on Science as
Inquiry, Science as a Human Endeavour and Science Understanding, which are
integrated. Science proves attractive and engaging for many students. The shared
curriculum across states promotes the sharing of science pedagogy. There is no net
increase in support for science curriculum implementation but it is targeted at
professional learning and provision of nationally applicable resources. National
testing reflects the aims of the national curriculum, providing data on achievement
as well as science dispositions. This data is used for diagnostic purposes to enhance
science teaching and learning. A renewed interest in science in Years K-10 leads to
high participation in science in the senior years. In turn, university science degrees
attract more students with a vast range of interest and abilities. Some of these
students pursue a variety of career paths as researchers, in industry and education.
The short-term future probably lies somewhere in between these but in a slightly
more distant future, things may change when the next crisis in science education
achievement demands that we improve our international competitiveness.
Competitive Edge Scenario
The new curriculum prescribes a list of science knowledge all students must acquire.
The government produces tests that assign students to advanced or general science
streams each year. Within these streams, students complete diagnostic tests during
small lesson sequences on science concepts. Responses are used to assign students to
appropriate lesson sequences. All lessons and testing are completed online. Online
activities exploit avatars in virtual worlds and reward systems derived from gaming.
Engagement with science increases. Teachers monitor progress and only meet stu-
dents when they stall or to invest in our talented students. Most practicals are
replaced by virtual demonstrations and video. Students work in small teams on
research projects assigned by teachers. Face-to-face attendance at school is limited to
coaching sessions, social interactions, practical skill development and lab work.
Teacher professional development is limited and focussed on monitoring learning
and targeting direct instruction. Students enter university science courses when
testing indicates achievement of specified standards. Private coaching in science
thrives. The gap in achievement between high and low socio-economic background
students is large compared to international benchmarks.
Anarchy Scenario
In this scenario, a new curriculum becomes a short accessible analysis of what we

want to achieve through school science. No state syllabuses or curriculums are
produced. Discipline subjects (except mathematics) are eliminated in schools.
Schools move from age-based to topic-based streams with students choosing and
building a timetable from multidisciplinary units (mixes of history, science, English
economics, geography, art, well-being, etc.). Topics vary across schools.
A repository for teachers to share their school-based programmes, teaching ideas
and activities is established with incentives to encourage contributions. In schools,
teams of teachers with discipline expertise (including science) design and support
learning. Learning is driven by student questions that are explored. Learning is
anarchical in its exploitation of web-based resources. National testing is replaced by
schools publishing reports on student learning and student learning portfolios.
National surveys gather evidence of student engagement with science. School
league tables based on science engagement scores are published. Topics are ranked
according to student interest scores. Senior science is framed around students
collaboratively investigating problems, questions and issues. Students share the
knowledge produced and get feedback through online networks. They present their
work publicly and encourage community responses. Entry into university science is
based on school recommendation informed by moderation of student portfolios.
The gap in achievement between high and low socio-economic background stu-
dents is the largest in the OECD.
These scenarios were then presented at the ASERA Science Education Futures
Symposium in 2013, where they generated considerable interest and comment.
With minor changes, the four scenarios were published in an online mainstream
journal, The Conversation (Aubusson, 2013), which facilitated further online
feedback from the broad community.
Refining the Scenarios 2014–2015
Following the publication in The Conversation, the scenarios’ author, Aubusson,

and one of the symposium convenors met to consider the feedback from the
symposium and modified the scenarios accordingly. These scenarios were then
discussed in a presentation at the ASERA conference in 2014.
An overarching theme that was evident in the scenarios but had not been
explored in detail was, in broad terms, related to what does and should count as
worthwhile knowledge in science education, e.g. knowing how or knowing that, big
ideas or general dispositions, etc. A second element that has been prominent in
many discussions of education futures was educational technology development
and its implications for future science teaching and learning (Johnson, Adams
Becker, Estrada, & Freeman, 2014; Martin et al., 2011). However, this rarely came
to the fore in the scenario building discussions that had been conducted to date.
Researching Science Education Futures 213
Fig. 12.1 Two-dimensional matrix
Consequently, the research team sought to fill this gap by seeking insights from a
new panel of experts to investigate their views of the implications of these broad
themes, along with their knowledge of the worth and implications of educational
technologies for the future of science education.
To provide a basis for the interpretation of futures, the research team constructed
four revised scenarios using a two-dimensional matrix (van Notten, 2006). The
dimensions were based on variations on the two-targeted factors in science edu-
cation futures: technology-enhanced learning and science knowledge of worth (see
Fig. 12.1). The modifications were based on comments on the ASERA 2014 paper
and as a result of discussions in the Third Space during and after the ASERA 2012
conference.
Delphi Study
Professors who were Australian members of ASERA were identified as a group of

experts from whom we could seek further input. We set a target of seven to ten
professors to be invited to comment on the scenarios. The number was considered
sufficient to allow a breadth of views to be canvassed. A few ASERA professorial
members were not included if they had already been extensively consulted on the
scenarios.
The panel of 11 members was invited to participate by commenting on the
scenarios. All but two agreed. Two agreed to participate but scheduling a time for
interviews was not possible. One of these commented extensively by email and in
annotations on the scenarios. The participants were sent copies of the four
scenarios. They were asked to consider whether they could identify a most likely
and most unlikely scenario, as well as a most desirable and most undesirable
scenario. These categories were not mutually exclusive in that the same scenario
could be, for example, both most unlikely and least desirable. They were also asked
to highlight (using shading) specific elements within the scenarios that they con-
sidered ‘highly desirable’ and ‘highly likely’. The annotated documents were
returned to the research team prior to an interview. Each expert then participated in
a 30–40-min semi-structured interview/conversation where they were asked about
their annotations and the reasoning behind their comments about science education
futures. Interviews were conducted face-to-face or using video chat systems. One
interview was audio only. Interviews were recorded and transcribed.
There were two forms of analysis. First, content analysis was used with each
scenario statement considered as a textual construct in terms of ‘likely’ (shaded
yellow by participants) and ‘desirable’ (shaded pink by participants). The number
of participants selecting each statement was identified with the frequency recorded
in a spreadsheet. These results were collated in graphical form for ease of discus-
sion (see Figs. 12.2, 12.3, 12.4 and 12.5). Second, the interview transcription for
each participant was read by the research team to identify key themes emerging
from each of the transcripts. When there was disagreement in the codes or themes
identified by the researchers, these were resolved in discussion. Any data coding on
which agreement was not reached was considered too ambiguous to inform the
Fig. 12.2 Scenario 1: HS capacity building

Delphi Study 215
Fig. 12.3 Scenario 2: inquiry dispositions
Fig. 12.4 Scenario 3: authentic diagnostics

Fig. 12.5 Scenario 4: collaborative multidisciplinarity
research and was discarded. During the interviews, many of the participants sug-
gested or identified important themes that were evident in the future scenarios. The
coding and identification of themes was not limited to these but these suggestions
were included in the analysis. The desirable, undesirable, likely and unlikely ele-
ments identified by participants were analysed to explore both diversity and con-
sensus views regarding science education futures. Results from these analyses are
presented and discussed in the next section.
Science Education Future Scenarios
The science education future scenarios shown below were presented to the par-
ticipants to stimulate comment and discussion. The scenarios provided to partici-
pants were numbered simply Scenario 1, 2, 3 and 4. The scenario titles were added
after the discussion with participants.
Scenario 1: High-Stakes Capacity Building
In this scenario, a national curriculum provides a basis for quality school science.
Standardisation, accountability measures and control provide quality assurance.
Science Education Research Associations (e.g. ASERA) and professional
Delphi Study 217
associations (e.g. ASTA) together with science organisations (e.g. Australian

Council of Deans of Science [ACDS]) have collaborated to lobby government and
been funded to produce materials to promote Science as Inquiry. Resources are
produced with easy-to-follow activity sequences, which many schools adopt. PISA
is the dominant international comparative measure. High-stakes external assessment
emphasises science inquiry. National tests are used as indicators of state, territory
and national science achievement. These tests are computer-based using multimedia
to provide dynamic environments open to student manipulation. Results are pub-
lished and ranking tables appear in the media. Student engagement is relatively high
in a school environment rich in science inquiry activities. Senior science is divided
into two broad strands: one in traditional disciplines as university preparation; the
other strand addresses socio-scientific issues important for a scientifically literate
citizenry. National capability needs are met by a few with very able graduates with
science degrees pursuing careers in science.
Scenario 2: Inquiry Dispositions

across all states and territories. Students learn about key concepts and big science
ideas within relevant contexts. There is an equal emphasis on Science as Inquiry,
Science as a Human Endeavour and Science Understanding, which are integrated.
PISA and TIMSS are of equal significance as international comparative measures.
Students investigating their own questions have become a substantial part of sci-
ence teaching and learning, with 50% of class time devoted to these investigations.
Science educators and professional associations draw on their own funds to provide
a programme of ongoing professional development for teachers. This program
builds teacher PCK and equips them to promote student questioning and student-led
investigations. Science proves attractive and engaging for many students. National
testing reflects the aims of the national curriculum, providing data on achievement
as well as the science dispositions of students. These data are used by schools and
science teachers for diagnostic purposes to improve science teaching and learning.
A renewed interest in science in Years K–10 leads to high participation in science in
the senior years. In turn, university science degrees attract more students with a vast
range of interest and abilities. Some of these students pursue a variety of career
paths as researchers, in industry and education.
Scenario 3: Authentic Diagnostics
A national syllabus outlines a fine-grained science knowledge that all students

should aspire to acquire. The government produces tests that assign students to
advanced or general science streams each year. Within these streams, students
complete diagnostic tests during small lesson sequences on foundational scientific
concepts. Responses are used to assign students to appropriate lesson sequences.
All lessons and testing are completed online. Online activities exploit avatars in
virtual worlds and reward systems derived from gaming. Private coaching in sci-
ence thrives. Engagement with science increases. Teachers monitor progress and
only meet students when they stall in their learning or to challenge them to progress
further. Most investigations are carried out as virtual simulations in authentic set-
tings, e.g. momentum using car crash sequences. ASERA, ASTA and ACDS have
invested in a collaborative research initiative to investigate teacher pedagogies and
student learning to ensure ongoing improvement of the virtual learning environ-
ments. Students work in small teams on research projects assigned by teachers.
Face-to-face attendance at school is limited to coaching sessions, social interac-
tions, practical skill development and research project work in laboratories.
Students enter university science courses when testing indicates achievement of
specified standards.
Scenario 4: Collaborative Multidisciplinarity
Governments have lost interest in international comparison and Australia does not
participate in PISA or TIMSS. The curriculum consists of a short analysis of what
we want to achieve through school science. ACDS has lost the ear of government.
Discipline subjects are eliminated. Schools move from age-based to topic-based
streams with students choosing and building a timetable from units of multidisci-
plinary studies. Topics vary across schools. Examples include: ‘When things go
wrong’, ‘Let’s go to the movies’, etc. ASTA provides a repository for teachers to
share their school-based programmes, teaching ideas and activities. Incentives are
provided to encourage contributions. In schools, teams of teachers with discipline
expertise (including science) design and support learning. Learning is driven by
student questions that are explored. Learning is anarchical in its exploitation of
web-based resources. National testing is replaced by schools providing reports on
analyses of student learning and sample student learning portfolios. ASERA con-
ducts national surveys to monitor student attitudes towards science. Senior science
is framed around students investigating a series of co-generated problems, questions
and issues. Students share the knowledge produced and get feedback through online
networks. Students present their work publicly to local communities. Entry into
university science is based on school recommendation informed by moderation of
science portfolios.
Likely or/and Desirable Scenarios
For each scenario, the individual statements and the numbers of participants
selecting each of these were tabulated and summarised in Figs. 12.2 12.3, 12.4 and
12.5.
Delphi Study 219
Generally, Scenario 2 was perceived as more desirable, with a great deal of

agreement across the eight participant responses analysed, whereas Scenario 1 was
considered as more likely. However, there was greater spread of likely responses
across the four scenarios, which was not as pronounced for the desirable responses.
To determine the combined most likely and most desirable elements, the scores
for desirable and likely were added together. The elements with the highest, or
equal highest, three total scores were
1. Students learn about key concepts and big science ideas within relevant
contexts.
2. There is an equal emphasis on Science as Inquiry, Science as a Human
Endeavour and Science Understanding, which are integrated.
3. Programme of International Student Assessment (PISA) and Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) are of equal significance
as international comparative measures.
4. Science proves attractive and engaging for many students.
5. National testing reflects the aims of the national curriculum, providing data on
achievement as well as the science dispositions of students.
6. These data are used by schools and science teachers for diagnostic purposes to
improve science teaching and learning.
7. A renewed interest in science in years K–10 leads to high participation in
science in the senior years.
8. In turn, university science degrees attract more students with a vast range of
interest and abilities.
Within this group of likely and desirable elements, most statements were
included because of the high level of agreement of these statements (Statements 1,
2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8) as desirable. The one exception is Statement 3 relating to
international comparative measures, which was seen as more likely than desirable;
although, there was also an element of this being desirable. Included in the list
above are some responses to what should be learnt and the emphasis on different
areas of science. The role of national testing is related to the aims of the national
curriculum and is to be used for diagnostic purposes rather than summative state-
ments of achievement. The need to engage with science and appreciate a vast range
of interests and abilities is also apparent both in school and in further studies.
Across the range of statements in each scenario, there are some obvious omis-
sions. There is, for example, little agreement regarding the role of
technology-enhanced learning or the role of professional bodies in supporting
science education in the future. Additionally, in the quantitative data, there was
little agreement about the national curriculum role in providing some consistency of
expectation in science education; although, this matter was addressed at length in
comments during interviews.
Key Themes and Trends
The analysis between likely and desirable scenarios for individual participants
identified a number of common key themes. In order to explore these in greater
detail, interviews were conducted so that the researchers could probe each partic-
ipant for the reasoning underpinning their selections in order to gain a clearer
insight into the futures thinking of science education. It should be noted that whilst
these are discussed as distinct entities, interviewees often moved seamlessly from
discussing one theme of the scenarios to another demonstrating the level of con-
nectivity existing between these aspects of science education. Pseudonyms are used
in the following discussion when presenting direct responses from the interviewees.
Testing and Accountability
For each of the interviewees, there was an expectation that international tests, such
as PISA and TIMSS, would continue to generate the same comparisons across
countries by governments and other educational stakeholders as we are already
experiencing. However, there was a view that in order to move forward, these tests
would need to go online, and this was perceived as a potentially positive outcome in
that it might help to provide students with more authentic science experiences. In
addition, the move away from traditional pen and paper would enable the inclusion
of interactive simulations and so allow students to demonstrate a broader array of
scientific understandings and skills than currently available in these static items.
An important point raised in relation to these tests was their purpose and the
ways in which governments have used the results to negatively impact students,
teachers and schools. There was a common view that access to these data sets had
shifted accountability to teachers and schools, where it should be placed on the
system, given that it merely provides a snapshot of achievement at a very narrow
point in time. Unfortunately, participants considered that the high degree of
accountability already in place was problematic but unlikely to change in the future.
Interestingly, most of the participants were not opposed to PISA and TIMSS
because only samples of Australian students were included, although some were
especially critical of Australia’s National Assessment Program Literacy and
Numeracy [NAPLAN], given that all students are expected to complete this test.
Some participants argued that accountability, as evidenced by the government’s
need for quantitative measures, had to change so that it incorporated qualitative
aspects that research demonstrates impact student learning and achievement in the
science classroom. This latter point was explored in greater detail with a number of
the participants who distinguished between testing, which has become intrinsically
linked to accountability, and assessment, which is embedded in the teaching and
learning process and is often more diagnostic in nature.
Delphi Study 221
Technology
As identified above, the main focus for most of the discussions during the inter-
views was around information and communication technologies (ICT) and
technology-enhanced learning, rather than on technology more broadly and its
relationship with science. There was a prevailing negative view of ICTs as being
about encouraging students to utilise their individual laptops or iPads in science
classrooms to access large amounts of information, i.e. scientific content or
watching YouTube clips. Implementation of these devices in classrooms to enhance
students’ experiences in science was considered applicable but it needed to move
beyond mere delivery of information by encouraging students to learn to reason and
become more creative in applying their scientific understandings. As articulated by
Evan:
We risk moving to delivery of content without thorough discussion of ideas that students
collect online and so run the risk of having a semblance of knowledge without real rea-
soning. The challenge is to use technologies for more creative purposes.
The majority of participants shared these concerns around ICTs, explaining that
many of the classrooms they had visited over time have shown little depth in the
way science teachers are incorporating these ICTs into their teaching to enhance the
learning opportunities for students. A few interviewees went further, sharing con-
cerns about the push in some quarters to incorporate more online or virtual teaching
and so move away from substantive face-to-face teaching (e.g. as is evident in
university teaching). So, in general, there was not a high degree of favour for the
ways that ICTs are currently being implemented, with few perceiving that this was
likely to change significantly in the future. Furthermore, for the group as a col-
lective, there appeared to be a sense of reticence and scepticism about the use and
impacts of ICTs in science education in the future; whilst there was a place for
them, implementing them across the board without careful thought, as evidenced in
various government and department initiatives, was considered unlikely to enhance
the learning and teaching of science.
When asked to consider technology more broadly during the interviews, there
was recognition of the critical relationship between science and technology that
could provide meaningful contexts for teaching science. As explained by Ben,
‘Biodegradable plastics made from blood is a relevant context for teaching lots of
science because students learn and understand science through the technology’.
Whilst there appears considerable opportunity here, it was acknowledged by a
number of the interviewees that teaching by contexts has proven to be difficult for
science teachers even in the junior years of secondary schooling. Using a contextual
approach for teaching science was identified by a number of interviewees as
desirable for the future, but it was recognised that it would require considerable
support for science teachers.
The mixed views of both technology in school science and of

technology-enhanced pedagogy prompted the research team to ask, during a pre-
sentation at the ASERA 2015: ‘Has science education been caught with its tech-
nological pants down?’ Responses from participants indicated that science
education must find ways to draw technology and science together if it is to serve a
modern society and that the intimate connection between science and technology
had been allowed to wane in the organisation of the curriculum. With regard to
technology-enhanced learning, it was argued that the sampling for the Delphi study
may have influenced the outcome because there may be few in the professoriate
who focussed on technology-enhanced learning in science as a field of research.
However, it was also noted that there tends to be a subtle separation in that
technology-enhanced learning in school science research tended to be published in
a different set of research journals (e.g. ICT education, computer education, and
mobile learning research journals) rather than the established science education
journals. As a consequence, the two fields of knowledge tend to be separated.
Involvement of Professional Associations
Links between professional associations did not score highly in the scoring of the
scenario statements, but did feature in the qualitative data. Collaborations between
associations were considered potentially productive for future science education
developments, but participants recognised these had been somewhat ‘hit and miss’
to date. In particular, mention was made of increased future collaboration between
the Australian Science Teachers’ Association (ASTA) and the Australasian Science
Education Research Association (ASERA), given that both are keen to support
teachers to enhance student learning and opportunities in science. With a clear and
shared goal already identified, it was viewed that collaboration around projects
might help resolve some of the tension that currently exists between the priorities of
educators and those in government and industry. With a more unified science
education front, philanthropic funding could be sought to support these projects,
given that many professional associations are struggling with membership and
funding to provide teachers with appropriate and ongoing levels of professional
support. As explained by Claire, ‘working collaboratively means that more notice
will be taken’ by government and other stakeholders. An emphasis around shared
projects was deemed preferable because it would promote consistency across sci-
ence education initiatives as well as allow teachers and researchers to work together
in overcoming difficulties, such providing adequate professional learning oppor-
tunities and resources.
I am not a keen fan of professional development [PD] because I have difficulties with
structured PD rather than coming from clients themselves. I am very keen for ASTA and
ASERA working with teachers and schools as the need arises. For me the best PD is where
teachers commit through their practice whether through informal or formal research, and
ASERA is best placed for this. (Rob)
Delphi Study 223
Learning
In responding to the four scenarios, most interviewees picked up on inquiry as a

model for teaching in science. Whilst the majority were positive about the notion of
its potential for enhancing the learning experience for students, many of them
articulated concerns about it being perceived as the ‘holy grail’ by teachers and
educational stakeholders. There was a view that inquiry has become adopted as a
stylised model of teaching and learning more generally resulting in a range of very
different perceptions about what inquiry actually encompasses in science. For
example, Brian explained that for many teachers, inquiry is what is captured by
‘discovery learning’, where students are provided with little guidance and do not
have the necessary understanding or skills to really explore a scientific question to
the degree that might be anticipated. Students emerge from this experience ‘having
fun’ but with limited enhancement of their scientific understanding or skills. Others
suggested that it was too readily misunderstood as implementing a simplistic or
routine scientific process with little resemblance to genuine inquiry. All participants
considered that there was a place for inquiry but that there needed to be a balance
between it and other models of teaching.
What was evident from these discussions were some essential elements that
should be part of science education to ensure that it is authentic and meaningful,
regardless of whether students intend to become future scientists or not; it is about
ensuring they have the opportunity to become informed citizens. Pivotal to the
thinking of these experts around learning was that it be focused on supporting
students to become more scientific rather than ensuring they just know their science
(i.e. content accumulation). As articulated in the following quotes:
There must be an opportunity for students to pose questions, design investigations, collect
evidence, actively reason with observations and evidence and draw evidence-based con-
clusions and the evidence based conclusions have some knowledge claims supported by the
evidence base. This requires sophisticated reasoning. (Travis)
It is about mystery and creativity. (Claire)
They need higher order and flexible thinking. They need to have a chance to try out ideas
on things that are broader ranging that link with things that citizens need to be thinking
about. (Evan)
A number of the interviewees considered that the current Australian Curriculum:

Science (ACARA, 2012), with the inclusion of three strands around Science
Understanding, Science Inquiry Skills and Science as a Human Endeavour, pro-
vided a balance to allow teachers to encourage the kinds of opportunities identified
in these quotes. There was a real chance for teachers to discuss the issues or
contexts (as mentioned earlier with technology) prevalent in the local community
for teaching science. The dilemma expressed by participants was that increased
accountability in relation to testing ultimately influences whether a junior secondary
teacher allocates 1 week for students to engage in an open investigation when they
might just as easily cover the essentials through direct instruction in one or two
lessons. Science is also affected by testing in other areas, such as NAPLAN. Even
though this is not a science test, the high degree of accountability of the results of
this test ‘often reduces the amount of time allocated to teaching science in primary
schools’ (Travis).
Senior Science
Linked to the learning discussion were comments in relation to senior science, since
in the majority of states and territories in Australia there is a Year 12 externally
prepared and marked examination that impacts a student’s entry to university
through the Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR). There was a view that
senior science still must be accountable to a wide range of careers options for
students but that there also needs to be provision for those students who require a
more applied scientific approach to ensure responsible science
citizenship. Historically, this has been challenging, with the more applied science
subjects being construed negatively as ‘science for the less able’, when it is more
about the approach and learning foci of the subjects involved. Whilst considered
critical to maintain, there were no suggestions as to how this might develop or be
restructured in terms of the future.
National Curriculum
The future will have a National Curriculum, with all interviewees recognising that
the newly implemented curriculum provides a degree of consistency across schools,
states and territories in Australia. Additionally, the inclusion of the three strands of
Science Understanding, Science Inquiry Skills, and Science as a Human Endeavour
ensured the balance required if students are to learn and understand the processes
and ways of doing science in contrast to just knowing science. In particular,
interviewees were very positive about the promotion of Human Endeavour as
central to science given that it picks up on the nature of science and the key
components that research in science education identifies as making a difference to
the ways students come to understand and appreciate science.
However, an interesting point that emanated from the conversations was that the
way the curriculum will be actually implemented in the future is likely to vary quite
significantly depending on which political party is in government. To put this in
context, Australia has a dual system of government National and Federal (states and
territories). Whilst the current national science curriculum has been designed by
ACARA, which is a national body, the implementation of this curriculum is in the
portfolio of the Minister of Education in each Australian state and/or territory.
Hence, there is clear differentiation between the intended and implemented cur-
riculum, depending on varying degrees of commitment across states to a national
agenda. The other issue identified by the interviewees was that it is likely to be the
key educational agendas of a political party at the time (whether at a national or
Delphi Study 225
state level) that will ultimately impact what is actually taught by teachers in their
classrooms. This point links back to the testing and accountability issue discussed
earlier.
Compromise or Consensus
Snoek (2005) suggests:

[With scenarios] the uncertainty of the future is taken into account by describing different
possible futures. The realization of each of these futures is dependent on several variables.
By describing the scenarios, these variables can be identified, thus giving clues on how to
influence them. (p. 10)
The imperative of this type of research is that it enables us to envisage alternative

futures rather than reproduce past and present cultural expectations. Here then, we
conclude with a compromise scenario combining desirable and likely elements
identified by the ASERA professoriate, and we ask whether the ideal set of vari-
ables has been identified and whether this compromise takes us where we ought to
go.
A Compromise Scenario
Students learn about key concepts and big science ideas within relevant contexts.
across all states and territories. There is an equal emphasis on Science as Inquiry,
Science as a Human Endeavour and Science Understanding, which are integrated.
Students investigate their own questions, with 50% of class time devoted to these
investigations. PISA and TIMSS are of equal significance as international com-
parative measures. National testing reflects the aims of the national curriculum,
providing data on achievement as well as the science dispositions of students.
National tests are used as indicators of state, territory and national science
achievement. These test data are used by schools and science teachers for diagnostic
purposes to improve science teaching and learning. Science proves attractive and
engaging for many students. A renewed interest in science in Years K–10 leads to
high participation in science in the senior years. In turn, university science degrees
attract more students with a vast range of interest and abilities. Some of these
students pursue a variety of career paths as researchers in industry and education.
This scenario is a product of our research but should not be an end in itself. The
scenario has been outlined to challenge thinking about science education futures so
that key stakeholders (including researchers, teachers, curriculum makers and
politicians) may carefully consider what sort of science education we want and need
for future generations. It raises questions about internal consistency, for example: Is
the science content most associated with TIMSS the same as that which is most
likely to inspire learners to study and embrace science? and, Is the balance of
accountability ideal? Current and future systems appear to be making teachers
accountable to the system rather than the students, therefore, might schools need to
be accountable to the system, but teachers need accountability to their students? If
the balance emphasises accountability to the system, then politics is driving the
agenda. Conversely, if it emphasises accountability to the students, then education
is driving the agenda.
Another important question is: Does the scenario present an aspirational view of
the future or merely an inevitable or acceptable destination? The name ‘compromise
scenario’ reflects the view expressed by the majority of the experts who were
interviewed. It reflects a balancing of different criteria, the desirable and the likely.
The future that they could imagine was limited by perceptions of what is possible
and tempered by the politics of science education. The compromise scenario, along
with the other scenarios, is intended to provoke a response.
They have already done so. When presented at the 2015 European Science
Education Research Association (ESERA) Conference, a conference delegate
described all the scenarios as disappointingly ‘conservative’. One of the anonymous
reviewers stated that he/she ‘wanted more’. This is exactly what the scenarios
should do. They should generate debate and argument about what we want more
(and less) of. They should encourage people to argue for more radical visions, if
these are needed. The compromise scenario is a product of research and the
interpretation of data. We do not claim that it is good or bad. If it is excessively
conservative or unpalatable, we should ask why this is so. It is perhaps useful to
reflect on the process by which the scenarios were produced and then ask how they
might be used to shift thinking about the future.
Reflecting on the Scenario Creation Process
The scenarios were produced over a number of years through a consultation process
with many science education researchers. It is clear to the research team that the
scenarios began as highly varied representations of science education futures. The
original versions included much more radical possibilities. As each phase of the
consultation proceeded, there was a progressive removal of radical elements in the
proposed futures. This very often occurred as people were influenced by their
consideration of what they thought might actually be possible.
It may be that a conservative outcome is an inevitable consequence of extensive
consultation. Yet, it seems paradoxical that a process that seeks to reconcile the
views of many may simply result in a future that is acceptable to few. It is possible
that the many consultations involved in the scenario production process in this
study may be doing the equivalent of what Aesop describes in his fable, The Miller,
His Son and The Donkey. As in the fable, the scenarios should help humans to
avoid mistakes and folly. They do not provide an answer. They are intended to help
us to ask the right questions.
Reflecting on the Scenario Creation Process 227
If the product of the process—the compromise scenario—is unsatisfactory then

the next step in futures research ought to be to look back, reconsider the present and
ask: What barriers or features of the present are creating this unsatisfactory future?
Are these features immutable or might they be influenced and altered? If the
political conditions are inimical to a desirable future then, how might these con-
ditions be changed? Indeed, might the rendering of logically derived, science
education futures, which are based on current trajectories, allow stakeholders to
rethink and change the current settings for science education?
Reflecting on Implications for Teacher Education
In general, the interviewees found the scenarios useful to structure their thinking
around the futures in science education. However, two important points were raised
about these scenarios. The first was that opportunities for learning beyond the
science classroom were important for science education. The view was that there is
a strong focus on school-based learning whilst the opportunities for students to
learn science through broader life experiences and across a range of sites was
equally valuable and possibly ‘more desirable’ in thinking about the future. The
second was that the science as presented in the scenarios seemed ‘old-fashioned’,
based on a traditional view of science with a conservative representation of what it
means to learn science. As Brian stated, ‘In 10 years time I can’t see many changes
to be honest!’ Ben went on to explain:
but this is not surprising as teachers, parents, and politicians are all conservative thinkers as
the goal is often about cultural replication. In New Zealand and Australia the fundamentals
of teaching and education have not really changed.
Brian’s point, whilst initially surprising to the researchers, really summed up

what appeared to be a consensus amongst the interviewees that science education in
Australasia will involve minimal change over the next 10–20 years and will be
more about maintaining the status quo. In short, there is an interesting comparison
between the scenarios, Compliance, Competitive edge, Trusting and Anarchy,
which started our science education futures exploration, and the interviews that
concluded it. Some of the scenarios could be construed as a ‘pie in the sky’
perspective of the future, whilst others are very grounded around what is actually
probable. They present considerable diversity. The interviews on the other hand
seem to suggest that whilst there is potential for a different form of science edu-
cation from that which dominates the present, the possibility of realising this
potential is very limited.
The limitation on science education, particularly cast in terms of political and
social conservatism, is a pertinent point given that the interviewees were experi-
enced science educators who had worked with teachers and government institutions
over many years on various projects whilst being highly respected researchers in the
field. As such, they had witnessed various curriculum reforms and strategic
initiatives instigated around science education in the past. Thus, they are well
placed to consider the futures of science education in terms of a science education
history, a history where radical change has proved difficult. What became especially
critical from the comments made from this group was the perception that the
politics of science education would be the key driver for the future, with all aspects
of science education likely to be influenced by the agendas and ideology of the
political parties rather than evidence and research.
This futures study highlights an interesting finding: the experts in the field of
science education ‘know’ that science education could be very different and much
better than it is, but they also ‘know’ that it will continue to be what it is, which is
much less than it could be. If in the foreseeable future the key drivers of science
education are likely to be ideological, political and primarily subjected to the test of
societal ‘common sense’, the implications for teacher education and the preparation
of science teachers are significant.
Historically, given the lengthy careers of many in the teaching profession, there
has been an attempt to strike a balance in preparing teacher graduates for the present
whilst equipping them to shape and adapt to the future. The general argument has
been that, as the future is unknown, graduates need to be perpetual learners,
learning from experience and updating their knowledge and skills for whatever is to
come. The long-term stagnation that is foreseen in this study suggests that teacher
education might be better placed focussing on past and present practices and
policies rather than educational designs and processes based on teaching and
learning research and theory. Such a preparation might favour apprenticeship
training models of teacher education that are located in schools and effectively
shape and socialise teachers to replicate that which already is.
An alternative form of teacher education might invest in developing cohorts of
politically astute teacher education graduates. If a different and better future is to be
realised then a critical mass of teacher graduate needs the will and skills of agency.
They need strategies to connect with, lead and strengthen the political influence of
their profession. They require an understanding of sociopolitical capital and the
ways these operate to form the educational system, within which teaching and
learning takes place. And, they need to create and consider alternative futures to
broaden their views of the possibilities lying beyond the existing trajectory.
Conclusion
It is important to acknowledge a sense of frustration amongst those interviewed, a

sense that science education could be so much better but making the possible real
remains beyond our grasp. The ASERA professoriate understands that the politics
of science education is an integral part of current and future STEM imperatives and
is the art of compromise. Nevertheless, the scenarios presented here as part of a
larger process are aimed at approaching a better future by design. The alternative is
a compromise that arises by default.
Conclusion 229
The research reported in this chapter is limited in what it can do. It has con-
centrated on science education researchers and focussed on knowledge of worth and
technology-enhanced learning in science education. This research has not, for
example, examined the purpose of science education. Yet, this is fundamental to
futures thinking. By concentrating on the views of science education researchers,
the futures represented are manifestations of researchers’ ideas, concerns, issues,
opportunities, emphases and perceived impediments. There is a need to think in
terms of alternative futures that might be desirable for politicians, teachers, stu-
dents, communities and nations, as well as leaders in business and industry, to
mention just a few.
For teacher education, this work offers a choice to be controlled by the present or
to influence the future; either accept things as they are and prepare teachers for the
status quo, or work with the community and stakeholders to consider different
futures and equip the profession to shape them.
References
Ainley, J., Kos, J., & Nicholas, M. (2008). Participation in science, mathematics and technology
in Australian education (No. 63). Camberwell, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational
Research. Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/acer_monograph/4/.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Science for all
Americans. Retrieved from http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/sfaatoc.htm.
Aubusson, P. (2011). An Australian science curriculum: Competition, advances and retreats.
Australian Journal of Education, 55(3), 229–244.
Aubusson, P. (2013). Science in schools: Can we choose a better future? The Conversation.
Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/science-in-schools-can-we-choose-a-better-future-
12508.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2012). The Australian
curriculum: Science version 3.0. Resource document: Australian Curriculum, Assessment and
Reporting Authority. Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Science/
Rationale.
Australian Government. (2001). Backing Australia’s ability: Building our future through science
and innovation. Canberra: Australian Government.
Bates, R. (2005). On the future of teacher education: Challenges, context and content. Journal of
Education for Teaching, 31(4), 301–305.
Batterham, R. (2000) The chance to change: Final report by the chief scientist. Canberra:
Department of Industry, Science and Resources.
Brown, M. B. (2009). Science in democracy: Expertise, institutions, and representation.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bybee, W. (1993). Reforming science education: Social perspectives and personal reflections.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Bybee, R. W., & Fuchs, B. (2006). Preparing the 21st century workforce: A new reform in science
and technology education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 349–352.
Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (2011). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Washington:
Brookings Institution Press.
Cohen, I. B. (1952). The education of the public in science. Impact of Science on Society, 3,
67–101.
Daanen, H., & Facer, K. L. (2007). 2020 and beyond: Future scenarios for education in the age of
new technologies. Futurelab.
Facer, K., & Sandford, R. (2010). The next 25 years? Future scenarios and future directions for
education and technology. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 26(1), 74–93.
Fensham, P. J. (1985). Science for all: A reflective essay. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17(4),
415–435.
Gibbs, W. W., & Fox, D. (1999). The false crisis in science education. Scientific American, 281(4),
86–93.
Goodrum, D., Druhan, A., & Abbs, J. (2012). The status and quality of Year 11 and 12 Science in
Australian schools. Canberra: Australian Academy of Science.
Goodrum, D., Rennie, L. J., & Hackling, M. W. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and
learning of science in Australian schools. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and
Youth Affairs.
Gordon, T. J. (1994). The Delphi Method. AC/UNU Millennium Project. Futures Research
Methodology, 1–9.
Green, R. A. (2014). The Delphi technique in educational research. SAGE Open, 4(2),
2158244014529773. Retrieved from http://sgo.sagepub.com/content/4/2/2158244014529773.
Halstead, V. (2003). Teacher education in England: Analysing change through scenario thinking.
Hazen, R. M., & Trefil, J. (2009). Science matters: Achieving scientific literacy. New York:
Anchor.
Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International
Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645–670.
Hurd, P. D. (1997). Inventing science education for the new millennium. Ways of knowing in
science series. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hurd, P. D. (2000). Science education for the 21st century. School Science and Mathematics, 100
(6), 282–288.
Iversen, J. (2006). Futures thinking methodologies and options for education. In OECD, Think
Scenarios, Rethink Education. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.
1787/9789264023642-8-en.
Jasman, A. M. (2009). A critical analysis of initial teacher education policy in Australia and
England: Past, present and possible futures. Teacher Development, 13(4), 321–333.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). NMC Horizon Report:
2014 K–12 Edition. Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Kennedy, J., Lyons, T., & Quinn, F. (2014). The continuing decline of science and mathematics
enrolments in Australian high schools. Teaching Science, 60(2), 34–46.
King, D., Winner, E., & Ginns, I. (2010). Engaging middle school students in context-based
science: One teacher’s approach. In STEM 2010, STEM—Science, Technology, Engineering
and Mathematics in Education. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland University of Technology.
Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/46288/.
Lloyd, D., & Wallace, J. (2004). Imagining the future of science education: The case for making
futures studies explicit in student learning. Studies in Science Education, 40(1), 139–178.
Martin, S., Diaz, G., Sancristobal, E., Gil, R., Castro, M., & Peire, J. (2011). New technology
trends in education: Seven years of forecasts and convergence. Computers & Education, 57(3),
1893–1906.
Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. The report of a
seminar series funded by the Nuffield Foundation. London: King’s College London, School of
Education.
National Curriculum Board (2008). National science curriculum framing paper. Melbourne:
ACARA. Retrieved from http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Science_
Curriculum-Framing_paper.pdf.
References 231
OECD. (2001). What schools for the Future? Schooling for tomorrow. Paris: OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264195004-en.
Office of the Chief Scientist. (2012). Health of Australian science. Canberra: Australian
Government.
Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What ‘ideas-about-science’
should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.
Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections (Vol. 13).
London: The Nuffield Foundation. Retrieved from http://efepereth.wdfiles.com/local–files/
science-education/Sci_Ed_in_Europe_Report_Final.pdf.
Technology, 35(3), 293–305.
Selwyn, N., & Cooper, R. (2015). The potential of digital technology for science learning and
teaching: The learners’ perspective. In D. Corrigan, C. Buntting, J. Dillon, A. Jones, & R.
Gunstone (Eds.), The future in learning science: What’s in it for the learner? (pp. 263–277).
Dordrecht: Springer.
Education, 26(1), 9–19.
Snoek, M. (2005). Scenario writing in education: Teaching guidelines for an in-service course for
teachers and teacher educators. Brussels/Amsterdam: ATEE/HvA.
Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australia’s
future. Australian Education Review No. 51. Melbourne: Australian Council for Education
Research press.
van Eijck, M., & Roth, W. M. (2012). Imagination of science in education: From epics to
novelization. Dordrecht: Springer.
van Notten, P. (2006). Scenario development: A typology of approaches. In OECD, Think
scenarios, rethink education. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.
1787/9789264023642-6-en.
Venville, G. (2008). Is the crisis in science education continuing? Current senior secondary science
enrolment and tertiary entrance trends in Western Australia. Teaching Science, 54(2), 41–46.
Williams, P. (2005). Lessons from the future: ICT scenarios and the education of teachers. Journal
of Education for Teaching, 31(4), 319–339.
Wissehr, C., Concannon, J., & Barrow, L. H. (2011). Looking back at the Sputnik era and its
impact on science education. School Science and Mathematics, 111(7), 368–375.
Yager, R. E., & Penick, J. E. (1987). Resolving the crisis in science education: Understanding
before resolution. Science Education, 71(1), 49–55.
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.
Chapter 13
Backcasting Mathematics Teaching:
Preservice Teachers’ Voices
Abstract Using the context of mathematics education, voices of student teachers

are shared in this chapter. We describe a small research project investigating how a
cohort of student secondary mathematics teachers view the future of mathematics
teacher education using scenarios and backcasting to gather the students’ views.
First, we introduce the drivers that currently exist in mathematics education. Then,
we develop scenarios that reflect selected drivers and investigate students’ views of
the influence of these scenarios on teacher education futures in mathematics edu-
cation. The ways in which the views of different stakeholders combine to generate
alternative futures is discussed. Student teachers’ perspectives of desirable and
likely scenarios are collected and examined. Then, students are introduced to the
backcasting method and they speculate on what might need to change to reach a
desirable vision of the future. This chapter uses scenario analysis and backcasting to
discuss possible futures that allow us to revisit current contexts and plan for the
future using new trajectories and pathways rather than allowing our current expe-
riences to dictate our future ones.

Keywords Mathematics education Preservice teachers Teacher education

futures Mathematical scenarios Backcasting Secondary mathematics
Introduction
Mathematics education continues to be central in discussions about schooling and

teaching, given current debates about mathematics uptake and lack of engagement
in senior years (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2014). The concerns are not new, they
have existed for at least the last four decades. In the 1980s and 1990s, a so-called
Reform Movement in mathematics education developed, which had aims of making
mathematics more accessible and relevant to a larger group of students, in order to
expand its reach and encourage students to study mathematics at higher levels
(Curriculum Corporation for the Australian Education Council, 1991; National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1980). Girls and minority groups were

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8246-7_13
234 13 Backcasting Mathematics Teaching: Preservice Teachers’ Voices
targeted in the new curricula (Bishop, 1988; Forgasz, 1994). Educators emphasised
the human nature of mathematics and downplayed the procedural and algorithmic
aspects, which had been shown to turn many students away from the studies of
mathematics (Goos, 2014; NCTM, 1980; Schuck, 1996). Attention was paid to
teacher education programmes in mathematics, and mathematics teacher educators
considered how best to prepare student teachers to teach mathematics effectively
and inclusively and how to help them develop capacity and capability in mathe-
matics in their future school students (NCTM, 2000; Schuck, 2002). Mathematics
teacher education programmes were developed that emphasised collaborative work,
problem-solving and attention to the relevancy and value of mathematics in
everyday life.
Nearly 40 years after the initial mathematics reform movement started, attention
has again focused on mathematics education as part of the discussion about the
so-called STEM crisis (Marginson, Tytler, Freeman, & Roberts, 2013). STEM is an
acronym for science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Many Western
countries are currently claiming that there is a STEM crisis (Blackley & Howell,
2015; Office of the Chief Scientist, 2014), resulting in low uptake of STEM subjects
at university level, and senior school levels, poor numeracy and digital skills across
society, and limited engagement in these areas at school levels (Eacott & Holmes,
2010). The current discourse emphasises these factors and suggests that teacher
education needs to change to address and resolve these issues (Blackley & Howell,
2015; Office of the Chief Scientist, 2014). Accordingly, it is valuable to consider
how mathematics teacher education courses might respond to these calls to ensure
capacity and capability building in mathematics. Given the seeming lack of pro-
gress in building capability in mathematics over the last few decades despite the
best efforts of the mathematics reform movement, it is interesting to consider why
this is so. An understanding of the barriers and enablers that might exist in the
future could suggest possibilities for mathematics education that have not yet been
attempted.
Mathematics underpins the other disciplines in STEM and it is possible that
building confidence and competence in mathematics is part of the process that
might lead to greater engagement in, and uptake of, the other STEM disciplines.
Clearly, mathematical competence and engagement is not the only factor that will
support STEM capacity and capability building, but it is likely to have a role in
doing so.
Two separate challenges have been found in the preparation of teachers for
mathematics education. One regards primary school teachers: many student
teachers who choose to be primary school teachers choose this career because of
their love for children, rather than for mathematics. Many are not confident in the
mathematical areas and this influences the pedagogies that they use: they often
avoid unscripted teaching in mathematics classes, follow a textbook closely and are
nervous about students in the class who show keen mathematical abilities (Ren,
Green, & Smith, 2016; Schuck, 2016; 1996). For secondary school teachers of
mathematics, the challenges may be different although some have not got the
proficiency in the secondary school mathematics they will need to teach
Introduction 235
(Wasserman & Ham, 2013). Some students might be confident mathematicians but
may lack the interpersonal skills and pedagogical content knowledge (Wasserman
& Ham, 2013) that are required to inspire and enthuse their students.
In this chapter, we focus on prospective secondary school teachers in mathe-
matics. Given the current impetus to improve STEM education and the importance
of mathematics as a building block in other STEM areas, it is important to give a
voice to student teachers in teacher education programmes to understand how they
see the future of mathematics education and to get their insights into what such
futures might mean for secondary teacher education in mathematics. We set out to
investigate the following question: how do secondary student teachers in mathe-
matics see the future of mathematics education, given the trends and drivers that
currently exist? What are the implications of such futures for teacher education in
mathematics? The chapter uses scenarios and the process of backcasting to
understand the views of a group of secondary school student teachers in
mathematics.
Context
At this point in the chapter, it is useful to identify the various drivers in mathematics
education that are currently in play. We can then select from these drivers to
develop scenarios on mathematics education. A search of the literature on mathe-
matics education indicates that the drivers can be grouped in a number of ways: one
such group would include the different pedagogical approaches suggested to
increase engagement in mathematics (for example, see Clark, 2015; Warren, Harris,
& Mill, 2014), another group would include the content in the curriculum (for
example, see Dietiker, 2015; Krupa & Confrey, 2017), a third group might include
the capacity of the teachers and their level of mathematical knowledge (for
example, see Lowrie & Jorgensen, 2016; Tchoshanov et al., 2017). A fourth group
could entail technology use in mathematics (for example, see Muir & Geiger, 2016;
Schuck, 2016). A final group might include teacher and student teacher beliefs
(Schuck, 1996; Zacharos, 2014). These are by no means the complete set of drivers
in mathematics education but the five groups do cover the most fundamental drivers
in operation currently.
Pedagogical approaches that are often discussed in the literature include con-
structivist vs transmissive approaches (Duit & Confrey, 1996; Tobin & Tippins,
1993), where the latter is often characterised as ‘traditional’ teaching and is very
much based on the teacher explaining the work and passing on the information to
the passive students. The metaphor of ‘filling the empty vessel’ is often used here.
In contrast, teacher educators often talk about constructivist approaches as being
based on the understanding that each individual actively constructs their own
knowledge and this understanding leads to approaches that support student meaning
making. It goes without saying that often the same approach is used both by
teachers who are constructivist-oriented or those who are transmissionist-oriented,

but their underlying beliefs about learning and the teacher’s role are likely to differ.
A second and related debate is about the learning rather than the teaching. Often
educators see the role of the teacher as a mediator of the learning or someone who
scaffolds the learning. In this case, the emphasis is all on the learning, and not on
the teaching itself. This view aligns with the constructivist approach. Nevertheless,
such teachers are also likely to need to explain, transmit information or ‘tell’
students what to do at appropriate times, and need to have sufficient mathematical
knowledge for teaching (MKT) to know what approach is useful for the student to
gain understanding (Charalambous, Hill, & Ball, 2011; Hill, Ball, & Schilling,
2008).
Another pedagogical approach considers where the activity is situated, that is,
whether the learning is student-led and student-initiated or whether it is teacher-led
and teacher-directed. Again, many teacher educators use a blend of student and
teacher-led approaches.
Another group of drivers concern the nature of the mathematical content that is
emphasised. This could include an emphasis on abstract mathematics, procedural
mathematics (including algorithmic processes), mathematics that is relevant for
daily life such as statistics or data analytics and mathematics that incorporates rich
tasks, that is tasks that often have ill-defined parameters, require high-order
problem-solving skills, and that are often open-ended. Other characteristics of rich
tasks include the need for multiple strategies and solutions, the opportunity to work
collaboratively with others and tasks that hold importance and are of high relevance
to the student’s context (Slavit et al., 2009). Rich tasks build on learners’ knowl-
edge, connect different mathematical topics and use digital technologies as
appropriate (Griffin, 2009).
A fourth group of drivers concerns technology. This group would include
technology-enhanced learning, learning in and out of school in seamless ways
(Schuck, Kearney, & Burden, 2017), use of mobile technologies for learning
mathematics anywhere and at any time (Schuck, 2016) and the use of technology to
modify curriculum, for example, to include coding and managing Big Data.
Finally, we have identified a group of drivers that concern teacher beliefs.
Teacher beliefs are a major influence on teaching and learning. Teacher beliefs
might concern the reasons for studying mathematics, considering its value in
‘stretching the mind’ or in being a competent member of society (Pereira, 2011).
The beliefs may concern the pedagogical approaches that the teacher believes are
most effective—from being a very effective presenter to being a mediator of dis-
cussions and investigations. Finally, the beliefs may concern the nature of mathe-
matics, from seeing mathematics as a Human Endeavour to seeing it as a range of
disconnected but important formulae and algorithms. Teachers’ beliefs are funda-
mental to what happens in their classrooms (Garegae, 2016; Schuck &
Grootenboer, 2004).
From the group of drivers discussed here, we selected two drivers that appear to
be central in much of the literature on mathematics education today. The first driver
comes from the group of drivers on the nature of content: it regards the tasks that
Context 237
are taught. We set this driver up as a continuum from high authenticity tasks to low
authenticity tasks. By authentic tasks, we mean tasks that use mathematics in the
way that it would be used either by mathematicians in their work, or by others to
solve problems arising in their lives, or to clarify or provide evidence for a position.
Authentic tasks are highly related to rich tasks as rich tasks will usually have the
characteristic of authenticity associated with them. Consequently, a mathematical
task with high authenticity would be likely to have relevance for the student in
some way and would be meaningful in their context. A mathematical task with low
relevance would be one which is either presented without a context or is contrived
or artificial in some way.
The second driver we selected was from the group on pedagogical approaches. It
concerned agency. At the one end of the continuum was teacher agency and at the
other end was student agency. By teacher agency we meant that the lesson was
directed by the teacher, who took a major role in choosing what to present, how to
present it to the students, together with directing when and how the students would
work with the material. On the student agency side of the continuum, we were
looking at the choices students would make about their learning; where, when and
what to engage within their studies of mathematics.
We chose these two drivers because there is much discussion about both of these
within the nominated groups of drivers. Mathematics curriculum for student
teachers will often have aims of modelling authentic mathematical experiences to
our students, and will also talk about student autonomy as a goal of the course.
However, most student secondary teachers will have had experiences in their own
schooling which are teacher-driven and are not authentic, so they are very familiar
with these models of pedagogy and dealing with content. Further, given the
common occurrence of the latter learning experiences in our students’ schooling,
these students are likely to have been the students for whom these methods worked;
they are the ones who have been sufficiently successful in that system to continue to
study mathematics and ultimately to teach it at the secondary level. Consequently,
we felt secure in the knowledge that the student teachers would be familiar with
these ideas from both sides of the continuum, have had a balance of experiences,
both positive and negative and be able to react to them. We then set about creating
the scenarios.
Methods: Creating Scenarios and Conducting

a Backcasting Exercise
Given the nature of scenario building, we took the most extreme position for each
end of the continuum. We then set up four quadrants as in the two-dimensional
model used by Linde (2003) so that the quadrants appeared as in Fig. 13.1.
The next step was to develop scenarios that were the logical outcome of having
the drivers at the extremes of each quadrant. We ensured that they were couched in
Fig. 13.1 Two-dimensional representation of drivers
Fig. 13.2 The four scenarios
positive terms and were internally consistent. Once we had developed them (see
Fig. 13.2), we sent them to two mathematics educators and one PhD student in
mathematics education and asked them the following:
Methods: Creating Scenarios and Conducting … 239
We are developing a set of scenarios for a book we are doing. We would really appreciate it
if you could look at the attached diagram, and tell us
a. if you think the scenarios in quadrants 1 and 2 are examples of authentic maths learning
b. if you think the scenarios in quadrants 3 and 4 are examples of inauthentic maths
learning
c. if you think the scenarios in quadrants 1 and 4 are examples of student agency
d. if you think the scenarios in quadrants 2 and 3 are examples of teacher agency.
The responses we received were useful in challenging some of our thinking. In

particular, one respondent (the doctoral student in mathematics education) chal-
lenged our use of labels for the ends of the continua. She noted:
While I think I understand the purpose of the categorisation, I think the word “inauthentic”
might be replaceable with something that sounds more positive. It is a bit like the difference
between pure and applied maths. The inauthentic maths seems to be the stuff that is stripped
of real-world context (and so if we think of it like that, it really is not authentic) but I’m
getting a sense that it is the inauthentic maths that has explicit links to conceptual and
abstract thinking. If you like, the inauthentic maths is just not authentic *yet* – but if that
kind of maths was not valued then we wouldn’t have public key cryptography.
Given that we did not want to have any negative connotations for any of the
words used, we decided to leave the labels off the axes (see Fig. 13.3). Other
comments from the three respondents were not as useful as they did not really
respond to the questions we had posed. Figure 13.3 shows the final version of the
four scenarios that we used with the teacher education students.
The next step was to send the scenarios in Fig. 13.3 to the mathematics educator
who taught the secondary education M. Teach (Masters of Teaching) students at our
institution and ask her to place the scenarios on the online learning system that the
class used, together with the template shown in Fig. 13.4. We requested that the
students consider this before their class the following week and respond on the
template to say which scenario was most likely, which was most desirable, which
was least likely and which was least desirable. We agreed to collect the responses
from the class members the following week as we had gained permission to do a
backcasting exercise with the group at that class, using one of the scenarios in
Fig. 13.3.
The students in the class were in their second year of a 2-year full-time Masters
of Teaching degree. This degree qualifies candidates who have already completed
an undergraduate degree in a relevant discipline to teach in secondary schools in the
Australian state of New South Wales (NSW). At time of the scenario exercise, we
were near the start of the academic year so students were in their second week of the
academic year.
At the class, the following week we introduced ourselves and the work we were
doing on futures planning. We highlighted the value of thinking in this way. We
explained the scenario process and then collected the responses on likely and
desirable scenarios from those students in the group who had engaged with this
exercise before the class. Ten responses were received from the class of 20 students.
We then turned our attention to articulating the backcasting method to the stu-
dents. We had previously decided in our discussions amongst the authors that
Fig. 13.3 Scenarios without labelled axes

Methods: Creating Scenarios and Conducting … 241
Fig. 13.4 The template for the scenarios
Scenario A was the most radical of the scenarios. We came to this decision through
our knowledge of current teaching contexts in mathematics classrooms. We con-
sidered which scenario was furthest away from current practice based on our
knowledge of practice and research in the area. In fact, this decision was supported
in our later analysis of the student feedback on all the scenarios (see next section).
Given the constraints of time, we realised that we would not be able to do a
backcasting exercise with more than one scenario and thought that choosing the
most radical one would help students to think more openly and broadly about the
way forward.
Accordingly, we selected Scenario A for our focus in the class. We explained the
backcasting method to the students. The students were sitting in groups of four or
five at each table. We asked each group to develop a backcasting diagram as
discussed in Chap. 8, looking at the time period 2017–2027. Our key questions to
the student teachers were: what would need to happen in teacher education and
more broadly for mathematics education in secondary schools to look like
Scenario A. What external factors would need to change, for example what policies,
funding sources, etc. and how would teacher education programmes need to change
to support student teachers to become teachers who were comfortable and equipped
to teach as indicated in Scenario A?
We drew a backcasting diagram on the board as a model for the student teachers
and asked them to put teacher education barriers and enablers below the line and
wider societal changes above the line. We also asked the students to indicate
approximate timelines for the changes that would culminate in teaching as per
Scenario A by 2027, that is, in 10 years’ time.
The students worked in groups discussing what was needed to get to Scenario A.
Some drew on the writable walls of the classroom and then transferred the results to
the poster-size sheets of paper we had provided. Some listed the constraints they
would be facing to get to the position of teaching as per Scenario A. The discussion
in all groups was extremely animated and in many cases continued after the class
was over.
We collected the large sheets of paper with the backcasting diagrams from the
students and then analysed these by looking at common suggestions and outriders.
We prepared a summary sheet with a backcasting diagram on it, and added all the
factors to the one diagram, with teacher education factors below the line and
broader societal issues above the line. We also tallied up the scores for each of the
scenarios from the templates we had collected at the start of the class with regard to
whether they were most/least likely and/or desirable and collated the comments
made by students on the template form. The next section considers these findings.
Findings: Student Teachers’ Voices
Responding to Scenarios
We start with a discussion of the template forms and students’ thoughts about the
likely and desirable nature of each of the four scenarios. Some students chose two
scenarios rather than one for most/least likely or desirable. This choice of two
scenarios occurred least frequently for least desirable where only one person chose
two scenarios (B and C), the other responses for this context were all for one
Findings: Student Teachers’ Voices 243
Table 13.1 Likelihood and Most Least Most Least

desirability of scenarios Likely Likely Desirable Desirable
A 0 5 8 0
B 6 0 1 2
C 6 1 0 9
D 2 6 6 0
scenario only. Four students chose two scenarios for most likely, and in each case
this was a choice of B and C. Three students chose both A and D as least likely and
five students chose both A and D as most desirable. No other combinations of
scenarios were made. Table 13.1 shows the total student choices for each scenario
in each of the contexts (most/least likely and most/least desirable).
It is interesting to note, that virtually all students were agreed that Scenario C
(see Fig. 13.4) was least desirable (only one student did not choose C for Least
Desirable). Some of the reasons for seeing C as least desirable are now provided.
They included concerns about critical thinking, use of technology and role of the
teacher, as well as relevance and meaning for students:
Giving students problems that are similar or that are in exactly the same mold as the exam
will not encourage mathematical thinking. It will only produce students who are able to
reproduce. It doesn’t stimulate critical thinking or lateral problem solving.
It is least desirable because the only thing that might have changed after ten years is the use
of technology to simulate data from past exam papers. Students won’t be able to clearly
connect maths and real life issues and won’t therefore see the point of studying maths.
This scenario is very much teacher-centric. Here students do not appear to have any real
involvement during the decision-making process as the teacher makes all the calls. We need
student involvement throughout the process.
The only other scenario appearing as least desirable was B and B had only two
votes for being least desirable. The one student choosing B as least desirable stated:
‘lot of work involving teacher does this, that and the other. No mention of what
students are capable/can be responsible for’. Clearly, it was the lack of student
choice and student regulation which led to this scenario being seen as undesirable.
The other student who chose B as least desirable also chose C as least desirable and
did not give much explanation of the choice, other than to say that caution was
needed––no expansion of this statement occurred.
Whilst B also appeared in the most desirable context, there was only one vote for
it here. The student who chose B did so because ‘it incorporates many of the AITSL
components of quality teaching in the Domain of Professional Practice, including
challenging learning goals, structured learning programs, teaching strategies to
develop knowledge, skills, problem-solving and critical and creative thinking, use
of ICT to engage students in their learning and assessment and evaluation of
teaching to improve student learning. The scenario also encompasses the QTF
[Quality Teaching Framework] Dimensions [of] Intellectual quality, supportive
learning environment and significance beyond the classroom’. This student referred
to the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) which is
the professional institute for teachers and lays down professional standards for
teachers (see https://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-for-
teachers/standards/list) and in particular, was referring to Standard 3 concerning
Professional Practice. The student also referred to the Quality Teaching Framework
(see https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/proflearn/docs/pdf/qtinprog.pdf), which the NSW
Department of Education uses to guide quality teaching. These references indicate
that the student is basing the choice of B on the general requirements for teachers
indicated by these two sets of requirements. Given this student’s argument for B as
most desirable, it is interesting that no other student viewed this option as most
desirable. On the other hand, as noted earlier this scenario did not appear often as
least desirable, only doing so twice.
Neither of the Scenarios A and D appeared as the least desirable choice which
indicates that the students viewed student self-regulation as highly desirable given
that the two Scenarios A and D were on the student-directed part of the continuum.
Student choice appeared to be more important than the authenticity and relevance of
the context. This is an interesting point because it reflects the feedback we obtained
from the mathematics education doctoral student when requesting feedback on the
scenarios, which highlighted that the concept of inauthenticity was limited in its
scope. She had noted that mathematicians will use mathematics in ways that might
not have direct meaning or relevance for students but this work might lead to the
development of mathematics that is important to society in the future, and is highly
authentic as a practice done by practitioners in the area.
There was also a clear trend towards A and D being most desirable with A
leading D by two votes. Some of the comments regarding the desirability of A
follow. They focus on the value of relevant and contextual contexts and mathe-
matics, the engagement of students and student choice of topics.
It is desirable because students select topics that are of interest to them. Hence, it will
motivate them to learn about the maths behind these topics and its applications outside of
the classroom. The results of these maths investigations could have a possible impact on
current issues.
Students discover and use maths to solve real world problems/issues they are interested in
by their choosing. Students have an outlet to interact with the community. Opportunity for
self-reflection.
Student-centred. Engagement and choice. Relevance of maths and how to apply it in real
life scenarios. Development of: ability to work mathematically and research independently,
problem solving skills, positive attitude toward maths. Inspire desire for life-long learning.
For Scenario D, which was also on the student-centred side of the continuum but
discussed mathematics that was more curriculum based than contextually based,
there was also a strong expression of choice for this scenario. Students noted that
they liked the independence shown by students in this scenario, and highlighted the
collaboration with other students as a desirable factor.
Students being able to recognise where they are going wrong and discuss it with other
students to work through the problems is a level of understanding that is enviable. I really
hope that students can be developed to have this kind of work ethic and rational under-
standing of problem solving.
Students are working independently and analysing their work. Students develop skills on
their own with input from teachers.
Students review. Students discuss. They make their thinking visible. Students can assist
[one another].
We next review student choices for Most Likely and Least Likely. Given the
strong preference for Scenarios A and D as the most desirable scenarios, it is
interesting to note that the least likely scenarios were these two scenarios. Whilst
student teachers saw them as ones to aspire to, they did not see them as likely to
evolve into mathematics practice in schools in ten years’ time. Reasons for this
unlikelihood were based on views of assessment, ability of students to self-regulate
their own learning and current status quo of mathematics teaching and learning in
schools.
Scenario D was viewed as the least likely by the most students (six in all).
Reasons included:
I’d love this to be the case but only students really interested in mathematics might be
invested enough to dissect their own work to such a degree. At the moment this is the
teacher’s job and it’s unlikely to change much in the next ten years.
D requires the whole class culture to be self-actualised independent learners. May be
possible if students and teachers start this way of learning very early on. Hard to change an
existing culture.
Another five students chose Scenario A as the least likely. Some of the quota-
tions explaining this choice include:
Though Scenario A covers many elements of the QTF and AITSL components quite
effectively, including Students’ self-regulation, connectedness, knowledge integration,
student direction and engagement, I think this is the least likely scenario because it will
require changes that society will not be ready for even in ten years. For example, ‘sites
away from school’ is not defined and I can’t see schools and the teachers’ union agreeing to
any scenario where their control over students is weakened, as it would lead to a break up of
schools as institutions of learning, and possibly the loss of classroom teaching jobs.
Challenges of facilitating such style of learning while making sure every student learns
what they need for work and higher education.
The first quotation is interesting as it seems to indicate that the chief constraint to
Scenario A occurring concerns issues of regulation and control. Self-interest of
teachers and schools seems to be a major barrier.
There was only one person who chose Scenario C as least likely. However, on
reading the reason for this choice, it was not clear why this person felt this was least
likely. The reason is presented so that the reader can interpret for themselves what
was possibly meant here.
The methods of assessment are based on exactly the same as now. The content that student
teachers are being taught, there should be a move away from a big concentration on
periodic assessments.
The team found it hard to interpret this comment and did not see how it
explained why C was least likely.
Moving to most likely scenarios, Scenarios B and C were selected most often by
the students (at six votes each) and two people indicated that D was most likely. No
one thought that Scenario A was most likely, which when juxtaposed against its
high desirability argues for a focus on how to achieve A through the backcasting
exercise. Similarly, given the view that C was most likely and also least desirable, a
strong argument emerges that to be able to achieve the future we want, there is a
need to disrupt current practices and actively negotiate a different future.
Some of the reasons for B being the most likely scenario follow.
The teacher still has control by ensuring all activities are managed by the teacher. Students
are provided with the processes, questions, data and methodologies for solving the problem.
Teacher also utilises methods for assessment of students. Students are still dependent on the
teacher for guidance.
There is a strong leaning towards teaching students with real life examples (more applied
approach where traditionally a ‘pure’ approach has been taken.) This is the direction I think
the department will take in the future.
And from those who chose both B and C as most likely:

I was in the real world teaching (practicum); what books say about future teaching is
difficult to achieve: movies, robotics, independent research.
Books and educational theories do not reflect what happens in the real world. Teachers
don’t have time for robotics, students’ independent research or movies designed by students
(lack of time). Teachers need more support. Educational systems need adjustment.
An example of why one respondent thought C was most likely was, ‘past and
current trends in education and politics. Lack of resources and support for positive
changes’.
There were two votes for D as most likely, one talking about how similar it was
to current practice (this was by the same person who noted that C was least likely,
and it is possible that this person did not fully understand the exercise). The other
voter for D as most likely scenario noted:
The most likely is D because it addresses skills required to perform well in standardized test
(HSC) [High School Certificate – the high stakes exit exams in NSW]. The NSW
Government is showing no signs that it is contemplating reducing the importance of the
HSC and this would suggest that the HSC will be just as important in ten years’ time.
Students will be focused on past test problems and this is covered in this scenario. It also
focuses on Substantive Communication (collaboration), which is a priority. It seems like a
good balance between teaching to a test and incorporating QTF Dimension Elements.
This well-reasoned and referenced argument is a convincing one. It can be seen

that this group of student teachers perceived that there is a schism between the most
likely and the most desirable scenarios. The backcasting exercise helped to identify
ways of closing this gap in the case of the scenario many found attractive—
Scenario A.
Responses to the Backcasting Exercise
As discussed above, we chose Scenario A as the scenario to use in the backcasting

exercise. We did this as we felt it was the most radical of the scenarios, that is the
one that was likely to be hardest to achieve. This decision was affirmed by the
findings regarding the scenarios just discussed. Most of the students felt that
Scenario A was most desirable and yet was one of the least likely to occur (Scenario
D had one more vote for Least Likely, but together these two scenarios were chosen
as least likely more often than the other two scenarios). This independently indi-
cated that it would be worthwhile to consider how to move from current practice to
practice outlined in Scenario A.
Some of the barriers identified by the students in the backcasting exercise were
• The need for and therefore the cost of staff retraining for teaching and learning
as in Scenario A;
• The political and social resistance to this scenario;
• Existing practice and
• The need to balance what teachers and students like and need.
It was clear that whilst students mainly thought this scenario was most desirable,
they felt that staff in schools would not necessarily feel this way and would need
retraining. They also felt that parents and political leaders would not like aspects of
the scenario, such as autonomy granted to students in where and how they learned.
The amelioration of these barriers was the impetus for many of the steps that
students believed needed to occur in the wider political and social milieu. A number
of steps were outlined but it was not clear if they needed to be in a particular date
order. We aggregated like responses together. These responses included
• The need to shift these pedagogical changes to start in primary school, as
students develop learning habits in primary school, so would need to be
accustomed to self-regulated learning by the time they came to secondary
school.
• Technology needs to be accessible and also needs to be reliable. However, the
type of technology under consideration was not articulated in the discussions.
• Additional funding is needed for education. There needs to be more teachers
even though fewer face-to-face hours are required.
• Parents should be involved so that they can see the value of the new approaches
and have confidence in these new methods.
• There is a need for a systems or cultural change. Risk promotion encouraged
rather than conservative methods. Student-centred methods valued by policy
stakeholders rather than teacher-centred methods. Student autonomy needs to be
regarded as highly beneficial by stakeholders of policymakers, politicians and
parents.
• A research base should be established to inform the community and stake-
holders about the value of such methods. Research should occur in schools.
• Syllabus needed to change to become more practice-based, open-ended, per-

taining to real-life skills needed out of school.
• Examinations should be fewer and change in nature as per the scenario.
Actions that students proposed as necessary in teacher education programmes
were to
• Ensure student teachers know how to provide technology-enhanced learning in
mathematics.
• Integrate subjects to get interdisciplinary content.
• Move away from teacher education as credentialing to teacher education as
education.
• Change the pedagogy in teacher education to help graduate teachers to function
as facilitators rather than instructors and to emphasise more real-world con-
nections and authenticity.
• Support students to learn how to provide different assessments to the ones
currently used. Student teachers also need to learn how to encourage collabo-
rative learning in the classroom, how to develop self-regulation in their students
and need to learn how to implement technology-enhanced learning.
• Improve teacher education quality by encouraging teacher education students in
the pursuit of ideas and to think beyond current boundaries, in a similar way to
that initiated by the backcasting process.
• Modify programme entry selection processes to recruit students who are open to
change and innovation.
Barriers on the teacher education side concerned the professional experience.
Students felt that more professional experience was needed, even though this was
likely to place students in more conservative contexts and work against achieving
the goals outlined above.
Implications for Teacher Education
In some ways, this exercise was simply meant to start promoting discussion about
different possibilities for the future in mathematics teacher education. Clearly in one
2-h session, we could only get a sense of what a group of students perceived as
necessary actions to get to the desired scenario. Some of the suggestions for actions
that were needed would need political will to occur. Parents are voters and therefore
very influential in pushing for change. So perhaps, the starting point should be for
teacher educators and student teachers to consider how they can encourage parents
to share the vision outlined, if they see this vision as desirable.
Whether this scenario or another is deemed to be a scenario worth aiming for,
there are several actions that are essential to influence current directions and effect
Implications for Teacher Education 249
change. These include sharing the vision with as much of the community as pos-
sible to get their input and promote the advantages of the vision. Before this can be
done, it is essential to collect evidence on the value of proceeding in the ways
suggested by the vision. This leads to a dilemma—how do we collect evidence
before we adopt a particular way forward? For this, we must look to the leaders and
innovators in schools who are prepared to try new ways of schooling and expand
the boundaries of learning for their students in mathematics education. Teacher
educators and other researchers need to collaborate with such school leaders to
collect strong data on the success or otherwise of the initiative. Only once such
evidence is available, is there a chance of bringing the community along, and
subsequently the policymakers and politicians, in the vision.
It is interesting to note that the mathematics reform movement of the 1980s
proposed similar changes to the ones above. Perhaps, the only difference is in the
way that digital technologies might contribute to these changes. The question then
arises as to why so little change has occurred in mathematics education? The nature
of teacher education has changed quite substantially in encouraging collaboration,
rich tasks and student autonomy—why then has so little changed in schools over
the last two or three decades? Perhaps change has been stymied by the inability to
imagine and to describe an alternative to convince the wider community of its
benefits.
Conclusion
Student teachers who participated certainly expressed their gratitude for being
involved in this exercise as it had given them much food for thought. Additionally,
it had provided them with a chance to express their views. This suggests that
perhaps it would be beneficial to periodically conduct backcasting exercises to
allow students to think in ways unbounded from the tyranny of the present and its
stifling conventions.
This exercise highlighted some actions that should occur regardless of what
future looks desirable to us in mathematics education. These actions include:
ensuring that teachers get opportunities to refresh and rethink their approaches, that
technology-enhanced learning is supported both in teacher education institutions
and in schools and that common digital technologies are accessible and work
reliably. Other actions include bringing community and parents along on the
educational journey, which means that educators both in universities and schools
need to be able to provide evidence for the success of their new ways of working.
They also need to be able to promote their new methods and talk about them in
accessible ways. Finally, it is clear that without a strong partnership among teacher
education leaders, researchers and politicians and policymakers, little change will
occur.
References
Bishop, A. J. (1988). Mathematical enculturation: A cultural perspective on mathematics

education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Blackley, S., & Howell, J. (2015). A STEM narrative; 15 years in the making. Australian Journal
of Teacher Education, 40(7).
Charalambous, C. Y., Hill, H. C., & Ball, D. L. (2011). Prospective teachers’ learning to provide
instructional explanations: How does it look and what might it take? Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, 14(6), 441–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-011-9182-z.
Clark, K. R. (2015). The effects of the flipped model of instruction on student engagement and
performance in the secondary mathematics classroom. Journal of Educators Online, 12(1),
91–115.
Curriculum Corporation for the Australian Education Council. (1991). A national statement on
mathematics for Australian schools. Carlton, Victoria: Curriculum Corp for the Australian
Education Council.
Dietiker, L. (2015). Mathematical story: A metaphor for mathematics curriculum. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 90(3), 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-015-9627-x.
Duit, R., & Confrey, J. (1996). Reorganising the curriculum and teaching to improve learning in
science and mathematics. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching
and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 79–93). New York: Teachers College Press.
Eacott, S., & Holmes, K. (2010). Leading reform in mathematics education: Solving a complex
equation. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 12(2), 84–97.
Forgasz, H. (1994). Society and gender equity in mathematics education. Geelong, Vic: Deakin
University.
Garegae, K. G. (2016). Teachers’ professed beliefs about the nature of mathematics, its teaching
and learning: Inconsistencies among data from different instruments. Philosophy of
Mathematics Education Journal, 30, 1–18.
Goos, M. (2014). Creating opportunities to learn in mathematics education: A sociocultural
perspective. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26(3), 439–457. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s13394-013-0102-7.
Griffin, P. (2009). What makes a rich task? Mathematics Teaching, 212, 32–34.
Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge:
Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 372–400.
Krupa, E. E., & Confrey, J. (2017). Effects of a reform high school mathematics curriculum on
student achievement: Whom does it benefit? Journal Of Curriculum Studies, 49(2), 191–215.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2015.1065911.
Linde, G. (2003). The Use of Two-dimensional Models in Social Science: An autocritical review.
Lowrie, T., & Jorgensen, R. (2016). Pre-service teachers’ mathematics content knowledge:
Implications for how mathematics is taught in higher education. Teaching Mathematics & Its
Applications, 35(4), 202–215. https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/hrv008.
Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: Country comparisons:
International comparisons of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)
education. Final report. Australian Council of Learned Academies: Melbourne.
Muir, T., & Geiger, V. (2016). The affordances of using a flipped classroom approach in the
teaching of mathematics: A case study of a grade 10 mathematics class. Mathematics
Education Research Journal, 28(1), 149–172.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (1980). An agenda for action:
Recommendations for school mathematics of the l980s. Reston, VA: NCTM.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for
school mathematics. VA, USA: NCTM.
References 251
Office of the Chief Scientist. (2014). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics:
Australia’s future. Canberra: Australian Government.
Pereira, P. (2011). Reconstructing teachers of mathematics. In S. Schuck & P. Pereira (Eds.), What
counts in teaching mathematics: Adding value to self and content (pp. 145–159). New York:
Springer.
Ren, L., Green, J. L., & Smith, W. M. (2016). Using the Fennema-Sherman mathematics attitude
scales with lower-primary teachers. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28(2), 303–326.
Schuck, S. (1996). Chains in primary teacher mathematics education courses: An analysis of
powerful constraints. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 8(2), 119–136.
Schuck, S. R. (2002). Using self-study to challenge my teaching practice in mathematics
education. Reflective Practice, 3(3), 327–337.
Schuck, S. R. (2016). Enhancing teacher education in primary mathematics with mobile
technologies. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 126–139.
Schuck, S. R., & Grootenboer, P. (2004). Affective issues in mathematics education. In B. Perry,
G. Anthony, & C. Diezmann (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australia
2000-2003 (pp. 53–74). Queensland: MERGA.
Schuck, S., Kearney, M., & Burden, K. (2017). Exploring mobile learning in the third space.
Slavit, D., Bornemann, G., Haur, S., Knott, L., & Evitts, T. (2009). Collaborative teacher inquiry
through the use of rich mathematics tasks. The Mathematics Teacher, 102(7), 546–552.
Tchoshanov, M., Cruz, M., Huereca, K., Shakirova, K., Shakirova, L., & Ibragimova, E. (2017).
Examination of lower secondary mathematics teachers’ content knowledge and its connection
to students’ performance. International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 15(4),
683–702. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9703-9.
Tobin, K., & Tippins, D. (1993). Constructivism as a referent for teaching and learning. In K.
Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 3–21). Hilldale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Warren, E., Harris, K., & Miller, J. (2014). Supporting young ESL students from disadvantaged
contexts in their engagement with mathematics: Teachers’ pedagogical challenges.
International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 9(1), 10–25.
Wasserman, N. H., & Ham, E. (2013). Beginning teachers’ perspectives on attributes for teaching
secondary mathematics: Reflections on teacher education. Mathematics Teacher Education and
Development, 15(2).
Zacharos, K. (2014). Trends in mathematics education: Editorial. Review of Science, Mathematics
& ICT Education, 8(1), 3–5.
Chapter 14
Future—Always Coming Never Comes:
Embracing Imagination and Learning
from Uncertainty
Abstract This chapter elaborates the benefits of building, analysing and working
with futures that will never come to be. The future is always unknowable and
uncertain but, if we are to design and plan for what is to come rather than accept and
adapt to what arrives, we need to use futures thinking tools effectively in teacher
education. We can batten down our hatches and be tossed about upon an angry sea
or consider options, plan and set sail for a destination; never arriving but always
approaching something better. Futures research informs us about the present and
our journey. It identifies critical points of potential change and tests the viability of
alternative futures. The value of alternative futures is discussed to highlight key
differences between futures that might simply arise from current trajectories as
opposed to futures we choose to design. The chapter serves as a conclusion to the
book Uncertainty in teacher education futures: Scenarios, politics and STEM. It
highlights insights that result from futures research.

Keywords Futures research Education futures STEM Teacher education

Education policy Uncertainty
The Impossibilities of Grasping the Future
“What day is always coming but never comes?” the child asks.
“I don’t know,” her friend replies.
With a smile and a chuckle the child bursts out, “Tomorrow.”
In this story, an essence of the challenge in conceptualising futures research is

captured. A future is coming. The story works at two levels when we think about
the future. At one level, the future of education is never here because if it were
present now, it is no longer the future. Yet we can speculate about it, try to predict it
and plan for it but it is never here, never now. Therefore, in doing futures research,
we are seeking to understand and gather evidence about something that is unknown
and uncertain because it is separated from us by the critical dimension of time.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8246-7_14
254 14 Future—Always Coming Never Comes: Embracing …
Consequently, it cannot be studied directly but must be investigated, drawing on

experiences of the past and present, through the analyses of trends, speculations,
possibilities and potentials.
This is the best we have. There are risks and advantages in attempting to study
the future. The first risk is that we may be excessively limited by current and past
experience making it difficult to realise a future very different from what we now
know. The advantage is that a future emerging from such an approach would
not require accommodation by us and allow us to continue much as we have. An
alternative future requires boldness and review of our past and present to suggest
something different. That too is risky, a step into the unknown. There are many
challenges in trying to conceptualise, understand or achieve a future which does not
fit into our existing frames of reference. However, the advantage of imagining this
future is that it broadens our possibilities and provides an opportunity to debate,
speculate and envision something different.
Education. It’s About the Future. Or Is It?
Futures research is particularly challenging in education. Education must be fun-

damentally optimistic, preparing for something that is always inaccessible in the
present. It must seek to make things better to enhance the lot of humanity, gen-
eration upon generation. Isn’t this the fundamental goal of education? Education is
fundamentally about the future, about preparing for and shaping the future by
developing knowledge, skills, capabilities and dispositions that enable humanity to
shape itself, its culture and its environment. Yet this future seems to be always
coming. It seems that education is littered with what might have been. Nowhere is
this more evident than in the hopes, dreams and potentials expressed for a digital
age of learning, which over the past decade might be described as over-hyped,
under-utilised, ill-used or all three (Amiel & Reeves, 2008; Selwyn, 2016).
The paradox of education is that one of its important aims is to prepare learners
for the future in a rapidly changing world. Yet education systems tend by their very
natures to be slow-moving and reactionary. The following anecdote is often used in
education: if a surgeon from the nineteenth century was transported into the
twenty-first century, he would be completely confounded by the changes in tech-
nologies being used and processes being implemented. However, a teacher making
the same time journey would be relatively comfortable in the classroom of today.
Children may spend 12–13 years in school education. Yet, it is normal for students
to study a curriculum laid down 10 or more years in the past. It seems acceptable,
indeed a requirement, in teacher education to prepare future teachers to teach this
curriculum, despite the possibility that it may be 15 or more years old by the time
they graduate and they might spend another 30–40 years in the profession.
Education and teacher education are at risk of failing to serve the purpose for which
they exist.
Education. It’s About the Future. or Is It? 255
The current situation mirrors the story told in the Sabre-tooth curriculum. This
story provides a salient lesson on the risk we face if education fails to adapt. The
following is an extract from the Sabre-tooth curriculum (Benjamin, 1939):
“But, damn it,” exploded one of the radicals, “how can any person with good sense be
interested in such useless activities? What is the point of trying to catch fish with the bare
hands when it just can’t be done any more? How can a boy learn to club horses when there
are no horses left to club? And why in hell should children try to scare tigers with fire when
the tigers are dead and gone?”
“Don’t be foolish,” said the wise old men, smiling most kindly smiles. “We don’t teach
fish‐grabbing to grab fish; we teach it to develop a generalized agility which can never be
developed by mere training. We don’t teach horse‐clubbing to club horses; we teach it to
develop a generalized strength in the learner which he can never get from so prosaic and
specialized a thing as antelope‐snaring. We don’t teach tiger‐scaring to scare tigers; we
teach it for the purpose of giving that noble courage which carries over into all the affairs of
life and which can never come from so base an activity as bear‐killing.”
All the radicals were silenced by this statement, all except the one who was most radical of
all. He felt abashed, it is true, but he was so radical that he made one last protest.
“But … but anyway,” he suggested, “you will have to admit that times have changed.
Couldn’t you please try these other more up‐to‐date activities? Maybe they have some
educational value after all?”
Even the man’s fellow radicals felt that this was going a little too far.
The wise old men were indignant. Their kindly smiles faded.
“If you had any education yourself,” they said severely, “you would know that the essence
of true education is timelessness. It is something that endures through changing conditions
like a solid rock standing squarely and firmly in the middle of a raging torrent. You must
know that there are some eternal verities, and the saber‐tooth curriculum is one of them!”
Why Bother? A Unicorn, a Dragon, a Scorpion and a Frog
We are left with a dilemma in futures research. We are researching the temporally
distant, unknown and inaccessible, the always to be but never being (or actually to
be). One might reasonably ask, ‘Why bother?’ Indeed some have asked us just that.
In general terms, there are two answers. The first is because we must. It is human
nature to think about and consider the future (Paige & Lloyd, 2016). In the fable of
the Scorpion and the frog, the scorpion could not change its innate needs and had to
sting the frog midstream, killing both itself and the frog who was carrying it. So too,
we are helpless to resist our compulsion to consider the future. Let us also hope that
the compulsion ends better for us than it did for the scorpion and the frog. If we are
to avoid an unfortunate end, it is incumbent on us to seek to do so in rigorous and
systematic ways. Education is about the future and teacher education needs to
produce teachers who are equipped to embrace, understand and enact education
demanded in the future, not that needed in the present or the past. More specifically,
one might ask, ‘Why research that which does not and will never be?’ If we accept
that the education and teacher education future cannot be known, then why would
one seek to understand it? This brings us to considering how something that is
non-existent might still contribute to knowledge in useful and fruitful ways. The
next story considers this problem.
This story is about a unicorn and a dragon—two fictitious creatures that have
never existed and will never exist. To understand and explain the chemistry of
benzene, chemists use two models. Chemists know that neither exists and that both
are fundamentally wrong. Yet, they are powerfully explanatory in understanding
the chemistry of benzene. It is a story often told in organic chemistry books (e.g.
Boikess, 2014). The analogy goes like this. Imagine that you are trying to describe a
rhinoceros to someone who has never seen one. You say that it is a bit like a
unicorn, it has a horn on its head, and, it is a bit like a dragon, being large and
having a tough thick hide. So it is with futures. We know they do not exist, but
together they can help us to understand the present as well as what might come
next. Future scenarios serve a function similar to the unicorn and the dragon.
Indeed, we have used four stories. All of these stories are imagined. There is no
child telling the joke. There may have been, and the story is based on past expe-
rience but the story is made up. The scorpion and the frog is fiction. There never
was a scorpion being carried by the frog across the river. Time travel does not exist
and surgeons and teachers are bound to their contexts and times. Unicorns and
dragons do not run free on this earth or any other as far as we know. Yet the
analysis of such imaginations contributes to our understanding and they influence
our thinking. Futures thinking could remain in the fictitious story telling and still be
valuable.
The function of futures research is to embed the compulsive need to understand
the future in the collection and analysis of data to ensure that it is underpinned not
only by a philosophical or theoretical base but also builds on a strong foundation of
evidence. It is useful to recall the distinction between forecast and foresight in
futures research (for a more extensive discussion of the distinction see Chap. 6).
The former privileges history, using past experience and past trends to predict the
future. It is a captive of what has been. Such an approach is critically important but
only deals with half of the work that is essential to futures research. The other half,
foresight research, finds ways to explore human insights into the future, blending
both the expected and the speculated to invent imagined, diverging potentialities.
As the future is nonexistent, it must be constructed in the present based on conclusions from
transformations of the past. To reveal “the hidden pulse of history” is the core of futures
studies. Yet, historical analysis alone is not sufficient. The future is continually constructed
as the result of insights, perspectives, and strategic interests among more or less influential
actors. (Westholm, 2015, p. 13)
The evidence we collect draws on projecting trends for the past and present as
well as informed conjectures. The methods and tools used to manage this blending
of past, present and future trends are described as futures research methods.
Through driver analysis, we identify trends from the past and in the present that
influence future directions. We consider possibilities and potential developments
Why Bother? a Unicorn, a Dragon, a Scorpion and a Frog 257
based on what we already see occurring, using horizon scanning. With Delphi
studies, we gather ideas and views of experts best equipped to provide their
understandings of what a phenomenon, such as teacher education, might look like
in the future. These tools contribute knowledge in their own right when they are
utilised to construct futures.
These future scenarios are open to scrutiny and can be tested against our values
to determine their merit. They should provoke and challenge policy and actions.
They can provide imagined futures that can be examined through backcasting to
investigate their feasibility. This may then shape a vision to inform policy, planning
and actions to bring about or shape the future of teacher education. This book has
explained how we use these methods and provided illustrative examples of projects
in which these methods have been used to suggest possibilities, questions or actions
that might shape the future.
Anticipating the Future
Teacher education futures research questions the status quo and the current tra-
jectory. It is supposed to open up possibilities and challenge current policy. In
teacher education, it ought to make stakeholders uncomfortable about current policy
settings and practices.
The futures work reported in this book has been dominated by themes in current
and proposed teacher education development. We revisit these themes briefly here.
For convenience, we separate them into six distinct themes but it is important to
remember that they are entwined and confounded in their influence, demands and
expectations.
In the present and recent past, an overarching and dominant theme has become
clear, the imperative to compete internationally or perish. For both nations and
industry, this is linked to economic success and international competitiveness. In this
context, education has become the servant of industry and economic progress. Its
primary function is to provide human capital that underpins a successful economy.
Teacher education is expected to serve the national economic imperative; with gov-
ernment, as shareholders of education systems, demanding a return on investment.
A second and related theme is the rise and rise of STEM (science, technology,
engineering and mathematics). STEM is viewed as the powerhouse of scientific and
technological development that is synonymous with a world leading modern
economy and society. With the exception of literacy learning, STEM curriculum
and its teaching dominate the educational landscape. One consequence is that
‘improving’ STEM teacher education has become an imperative for government
and teacher education institutions. Another has been that other fields of education
have been de-emphasised and diminished both in the school curriculum and in
teacher education.
A third theme is manifested in control, compliance and accountability. Education
is now considered to be a matter of high stakes in any society. Previously, it was
high stakes for the individual, where a good education might succeed in opening up
options for university study, entry into the professions and a high income. Now it is
high stakes for societies as a whole. The collective is poorer or weaker as a result of
the performance of its education system. In the longer term, success or failure can
be measured by the adequate supply of a ‘clever’ workforce for highly skilled
industries. In the shorter term, success is measured by a nation’s performance in
international tests, such as the Program of International Student Assessment (PISA),
with league tables as matters of national pride akin to performance at the Olympic
Games or a World Cup.
A fourth theme relates to developments in digital technology that have perme-
ated life and work in a digital age. It is anticipated that digital technologies can and
will transform education and teaching. Yet education has been relatively slow in its
technological reshaping relative to other parts of society and the economy. The
slow and inadequate response has inevitably raised concerns about teacher edu-
cation and its contribution to technology-enhanced pedagogies in schools.
A fifth theme relates to changes in what knowledge is of value. There is a change
from knowledge that is acquired, stored and drawn upon by humans to knowledge
viewed in terms of capabilities to invent and create, to use and contribute information
stored digitally and to collaborate and innovate. The knowledge age, which is already
upon us, requires an education system with a new and fresh approach to curriculum
and pedagogy. And, the teachers in this system will be the product of teacher edu-
cation that needs to prepare graduates for the present and future knowledge agenda
where the two are markedly different in the teaching know-how required.
A final theme is related to the previous one; it considers the goals of education
and therefore of teacher education. Given that the majority of students currently in
primary school will be engaged in jobs that currently do not yet exist (Hallett &
Hutt, 2016), and a large number of the jobs for which secondary school students are
being prepared through the current curriculum will also no longer exist (PwC,
2017), the nature of the curriculum for schooling is being challenged. It is possible
that the widespread automation that is inevitable will mean we need to prepare
students for leisure rather than work. If we do prepare for work, different work skills
will be needed. The use of diagnostic and search tools in areas such as medicine and
law indicate that a valued skill will be data analysis, that is, making sense of the
data that computers can search for, collate and provide. Teacher education is
charged with engaging in the discussion about what a twenty-first-century cur-
riculum for schooling should look like, and therefore how it can prepare student
teachers to teach this new curriculum.
Challenging the Present
Each of these themes has inherent challenges. Each raises questions about alter-
natives, and asks ‘what if …?’ These questions can be readily addressed through
futures research. These themes are by no means consistent in their implications for
Challenging the Present 259
teacher education. Nevertheless, one could imagine a future where they are entirely
compatible: a highly successful economy underpinned by STEM capability that
ensures education embraces digital technologies and foregrounds new knowledge
and new curricula. The reality is very different. We can see from the analysis of
futures research reported in this book that the first three themes are associated with a
conservative agenda whilst the last three might be more disruptive.
Government priorities in education are often associated with a back to basics
education agenda. STEM education is similarly constrained by a political envi-
ronment that science education experts argue limits the capacity to deliver the
STEM education that is actually needed to supply a workforce with the intellectual
agency to create entrepreneurial opportunities. Accountability by teachers, schools
and teacher education institutions is currently to government rather than to their
students and the community they serve. By contrast, the rapid changes in tech-
nology, together with a shift in the nature of knowledge and curriculum that coming
generations need, are inherently radical and at odds with the orientation of the
conservative themes.
Viewing these themes together, it is evident that they could operate in synergy;
yet, they sit in entrenched opposition. At one level, it is obvious that the world is
rapidly changing and disruption is the new normal. Education and teacher education
are charged with providing new and radical ways for people to think about current
and emerging problems so they can create fresh solutions. The tendency has been to
look back to embrace past curriculum and practices. This is unsurprising. It is
normal and proper, when confronted with a problem, to first consider past attempts
at finding a solution. However, past education solutions were developed for a
different age, a more local world, with clearer boundaries without rampant devel-
opments in technology that have profoundly changed the worth of different forms of
human knowledge. Past solutions were barely adequate for education in the second
half of twentieth century; they are anachronistic in the present, let alone the future.
We need tools to allow us to break out of our current limited thinking about
education; tools that allow us to explore possibilities where conflicting education
priorities may be resolved to provide education served by teacher education that
delivers on our broad needs rather than emphasising some at the expense of others.
The teacher education scenarios described in this book outline a variety of
imagined futures. Some are similar to an extension of the status quo and pose
alternatives to government control of education and teacher education. These
alternatives highlight some paradoxes and limitations of a future guided by policy
dominated by a drive for global competitiveness (see Chap. 3). An alternative future
emphasising the professionalism of teachers and teacher educators might deliver
more broadly on educational goals. Raising the status of the profession by relin-
quishing government control and by building the capacity of the system to
self-regulate may allow the profession to balance the varied purposes of education.
These alternatives are not presented as a solution to current educational needs and
demands but as topics for consideration where potential benefits can be assessed
against the current trajectory. They challenge stakeholders to reflect on the future
that is coming about and to consider something different, something better.
Valuing Uncertainty
One of the major characteristics of futures research is its uncertainty. We are not
describing phenomena that have occurred. We are not even describing phenomena
that are likely to occur. We are simply imagining possibilities for the future that
might occur, have aspects that might occur, or might not occur at all. And by the
time we are able to assess if they have occurred, the future will be looking quite
different and this discussion is irrelevant. As noted at the start of this chapter, we are
never in the future.
Uncertainty therefore is the hallmark of futures work. Futures research is based
on using trends from today to speculate on what might be in the future. It is
important to be able to embrace this uncertainty so that we can engage in futures
research. Wanting to know the ‘right answer’ restricts our capacity to imagine—and
there is no ‘right answer’. We need to be able to ask ‘what if…’ and get a myriad of
replies. In earlier work, there has been an argument for the value of doubt in teacher
education (Schuck & Buchanan, 2012). We suggested that an indicator of success
for graduates in teacher education programmes should be doubt rather than confi-
dence. Doubt suggests that our graduates understand the complexity of the tasks
ahead of them, have realistic expectations and have grasped that there is no one way
to teach, that there are a variety of pathways, each with their own advantages and
disadvantages.
So too, with the task of being a teacher educator, particularly if we are looking
forward to the future. We must accept the ambiguities and uncertainties that exist in
our quest to prepare student teachers for teaching in a time period that might span
the next 4–40 years. This is the first step towards understanding the challenges of
the future. It provides us with the insight that there is no single form of knowledge
or learning (O’Neill, Bourke, & Kearney, 2009). Through our acknowledgement of
uncertainty in what we should teach, how we should teach it, who we should teach
it to and why we should teach it, we become more open to the range of possibilities
that might exist in the future. It has been argued that to reform our practices, we
need to experience a ‘substantial disequilibrium’ (Wheatley, 2002, p. 9) in these
practices. This disequilibrium is one of the benefits of embarking on futures
research. If we are settled and complacent in our views of what works best now and
in the future, we will not be able to contemplate the unknown future, one that is
likely to be very different to the present. We will not be able to prepare our student
teachers for this future if we are mired in the past or present. Futures research
encourages us to value uncertainty and to use it as a tool to motivate our thinking
about different ways forward. Uncertainty allows us to stop and reflect, to challenge
and debate. If we are sure that we are preparing our student teachers appropriately
when we do not know what the future holds, our confidence is ill-founded. We
therefore argue for an appreciation of the value of uncertainty, as this will
encourage the challenge of working on conceptualising the future.
Teacher Education—Paved with Good Intentions 261
Teacher Education—Paved with Good Intentions
The research in teacher education futures presents a dilemma for teacher education.
The scenarios proposed in this book provide images of the future. However, are
these what we want? Is something better possible? The varied alternatives discussed
all have varying degrees of feasibility. Any assessment as to which alternative is
more or less desirable depends on the values of the assessor and the community that
teacher education serves. Which futures are likely falls more into the realm of
forecasting than foresight, but such an assessment has implications for students,
teachers, teacher educators and policymakers. Alternative teacher education futures
challenge the status quo but, of themselves, they do not reject it. They may appear
utopian or dystopian; like beauty, such a perception is in the eye of the beholder.
They provide alternatives for consideration and an opportunity to work towards a
better future. A vision or target future may emerge through the work in futures, but
this only comes after an investment in futures research.
The futures work in this book points to a central immediate problem in teacher
education. In teacher education, there will always be different emphases on the
teacher-technician and the teacher-professional. Both are important.
A consideration of the immediate future suggests that we may not have this balance
right, the result being that teacher education is not preparing teachers for a digital
age. Teacher education seems embedded in an instrumental, mechanistic environ-
ment which acknowledges teacher professionalism, whilst at the same time,
ever-increasing external controls, measures and standards de-professionalise
teaching and teacher education in some parts of the world. The alternative
futures discussed in this book show that it does not have to be this way.
It is as if a perceived problem in teaching, and therefore teacher education, has
been identified and we have been quick to impose well-intentioned but limiting,
mechanistic solutions. This is pushing the teaching profession and teacher educa-
tion towards instrumentalism. It is manifesting as delivery of requirements to meet
externally imposed teaching standards and the production of teacher-technicians
able to do what is required of them to supply a curriculum of learning, now.
An alternative is available: the development of professionals, technically able
but also clever and adaptable, with the agility to meet different needs in different
contexts as well the know-how to contribute to ongoing enhancement and devel-
opment of education—in other words, teacher educators who are not merely
technicians and implementers of external demands but are partners in a modern
creative enterprise that is valued for the capabilities it engenders in each generation.
Viewed as an industry, teacher education needs to provide teachers who can con-
tribute to the production of people whose primary virtue is not limited to and
measured in terms of the ability to perform on tests.
The same principle of balance applies to other challenges. The balance between
preparation for work and preparation for life has seen an increasing emphasis on
work. The work/life balance in school curriculum and in teacher education
preparation is out of kilter. We may not have forgotten that humans are more than
future workers, but the rhetoric of teacher education policy seems to have set aside
the preparation of humans as social beings, members of families, citizens in
democracies who need to make informed decisions, as well as individuals who
think and ponder matters for no purpose other than because that is what people do.
This is strikingly problematic because education as a preparation for business and
the workforce is typically for past labour, passing careers and passing occupations.
We know the future will be very different, but we have not adjusted adequately to
the challenges and opportunities that are to come. Knowing that workforce
demands will change and being attentive to the need to compete, we respond out of
fear, which is often not conducive to the most rational of actions. We emphasise
preparation for work over life. We seek to insure ourselves against the future by
making sure that our students are taught well and learn all they need to know—for
the present that we know—not the future that we must anticipate.
Similarly, the dominance of STEM as a privileged way of knowing has brought
an ever-increasing emphasis on STEM in school and teacher education. The
problem is not that STEM is over-valued. The problem is that it is difficult to deal
with the other relatively de-emphasised areas of education such as music, literature,
wellbeing, health and art, to name but a few. With the STEM emphasis, education
and teacher education are struggling to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Government policies and imperatives are consistently aimed at strengthening
teaching capacity in STEM. The unfortunate consequence is that with limited
resources, the STEM imperative draws attention away from and unintentionally
de-emphases other ways of knowing, other curriculums, other knowledges and
other ways of preparing for the future.
A further problem is that STEM is poorly conceptualised. It is the sum of parts:
science, technology engineering and mathematics. It tells no story beyond bits. It is
as if a home is described by a pile of bricks, glass, timber and nails. Contrast STEM
as science, technology engineering and mathematics with the term used for a piano
in Vanuatu Pidgin English.
Wan bigfala blak bokis hemi gat waet tut mo hemi gat blak tut, sipos yu kilim smol, hemi
singaot gud.
Literal translation: One big fella black box, him he got white tooth and (or more/in addition
to) him he got black tooth, suppose you kill him small (strike or hit lightly) him he sing out
good.
(source: https://www.tripadvisor.com.au/Travel-g294143-s604/Vanuatu:Important.Phrases.
html)
STEM needs to take a leaf from Vanuatu Pidgin English and tell the story that is
not just more than but also different from the sum of its parts. It could be con-
ceptualised differently. It could be a transdisciplinary adventure with a narrative to
greet and design the world to come. However, as we have seen in earlier chapters,
despite high-minded rhetoric amongst leading researchers and their students in
STEM education, it seems trapped in politics, restricting it to views embedded in a
Teacher Education—Paved with Good Intentions 263
conservative restating of traditional goals, practices and knowledge. As well, the

high-minded images are lost in translation when STEM education is implemented
on a large scale.
In education, imbalances in work/life and STEM/other are the result of good
intentions, but they misdirect us in determining what it means to be an educated
person. It is time to review the nature of what we prepare our teachers to teach; time
to reappraise what students in school learn; time to re-emphasise learning for life
and a broad education—not to the detriment of work preparation or STEM but to
find a new balance. The clear message of futures research is that we need to
reimagine what we mean by a comprehensive education. We need to design teacher
education to provide teachers who can critique and modify this comprehensive
education as we move into tomorrow because a truly comprehensive education will
always be a moving target.
The more distant future is less clear and less predictable. The global, digital,
knowledge age is upon us. What next? At the very least it is evident that techno-
logical advances will continue to change life experiences and the world of work.
We cannot know exactly what the future will be but we can be confident that
teacher education that operates much as it has done and is doing will not provide
what we need. Preparing for the unknown is a challenge but it is possible. It may be
that futures work and futures thinking should become a feature of teacher education
programmes.
Teacher education candidates could construct scenarios, use these to scrutinise
the present and determine actions that could shape a better system, better pedagogy
and better curriculum. Such futures thinking could equip them with agency to
influence the education contexts in which they find themselves. Futures thinking
might then become integral to schools, as normal practice in planning and in
designing learning. It could help to equip teachers and students with tools to think
about, plan for and to shape their futures. In this way, they may be able to con-
tribute to a future rather than simply enter it.
Wise Before the Event
Teacher education faces deep challenges. The challenges identified here are not
new. Much is expected, much is demanded, constraints and controls are in place
and accountability is growing. Every pressure is well-intentioned. Teacher educa-
tion is frozen in the glare of headlights. Alternative future scenarios present alter-
natives that open up opportunities to do something different and then reasonably
expect different results. Futures research provides us with ways to reflect on and
review the long-term consequences of current actions. Normally, we wait until we
are in the future before we reflect upon past actions, at which point we wish we had
done something different. Futures research allows us to be wise before the event. It
allows us to consider events before we have to live through them. Futures research
is like hindsight but without having to make all the mistakes.
It’s so difficult, isn’t it? To see what’s going on when you’re in the absolute middle of
something? It’s only with hindsight we can see things for what they are. (Watson, 2011,
p. 266)
Futures research helps to overcome the problem of being in the ‘absolute mid-
dle’ of teacher education with all its complexities distractions, pressures, pleasures
and immediacy. With foresight research ‘we can see things for what they are’—and
might be.
References
Amiel, T., & Reeves, T. C. (2008). Design-based research and educational technology: Rethinking
technology and the research agenda. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 29.
Benjamin, H. R. W. (1939). Saber‐tooth curriculum, including other lectures in the history of
paleolithic education. New York: McGraw‐Hill. Retrieved from https://ideasourceschool.
wordpress.com/the-saber%E2%80%90tooth-curriculum/.
Boikess, R. (2014). Chemical principles of organic chemistry. Stamford: Cengage Learning.
Hallett, R., & Hutt, R. (2016). 10 jobs that didn’t exist 10 years’ ago. World Economic Forum.
Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/06/10-jobs-that-didn-t-exist-10-years-
ago/.
O’Neill, J., Bourke, R., & Kearney, A. (2009). Discourses of inclusion in initial teacher education:
Unravelling a New Zealand number eight wire’ knot. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25,
588–593.
Paige, K., & Lloyd, D. (2016). Use of future scenarios as a pedagogical approach for science
teacher education. Research in Science Education, 46(2), 263–285.
PwC. (2017). Press release. Retrieved from http://pwc.blogs.com/press_room/2017/03/up-to-
30-of-existing-uk-jobs-could-be-impacted-by-automation-by-early-2030s-but-this-should-
be-offse.html.
Schuck, S. R., & Buchanan, J. D. (2012). Dead certainty? The case for doubt in teacher education.
The Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(8), 1–11.
Selwyn, N. (2016). Is technology good for education? Wiley.
Watson, S. J. (2011). Before I go to sleep. Melbourne: Text Publishing Company.
Westholm, E. (2015). Futures studies in the field of natural resources. In E. Westholm,
K. B. Lindahl, & F. Kraxner (Eds.), The future use of Nordic forests (pp. 11–24). Dordrecht:
Springer International Publishing.
Wheatley, K. (2002). The potential benefits of teacher efficacy doubts for educational reform.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 5–22.

Uncertainty in Teacher Education Futures: Sandy Schuck Peter Aubusson Kevin Burden Sue Brindley

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Uncertainty in Teacher Education Futures: Sandy Schuck Peter Aubusson Kevin Burden Sue Brindley

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sandy Schuck · Peter Aubusson

Kevin Burden Sue Brindley

Peter Aubusson Sue Brindley

ISBN 978-981-10-8245-0 ISBN 978-981-10-8246-7 (eBook)

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature

As a beginning point, educational technology and learning with new media

Melbourne, Australia Prof. John Loughran

We would like to acknowledge a number of people who supported our writing of

1 Why the Future Is Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Managerialism and New Public Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Why Use Futures Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Big Data and Learning Analytics in Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . 152

12 Science Education: Past Crises, Potential Futures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

Prof. Dr. Sandy Schuck is Professor of Education and Director of Research

University of Technology Sydney, Vice-Chancellor’s Medal for Research

Fig. 6.1 Possible sequence of methods used in futures research . . . . . . .. 81

Fig. 12.1 Two-dimensional matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

Abstract We introduce our book on teacher education futures in this chapter.

Why Study the Future in Teacher Education?

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018 1

experience to achieve these 4 Cs. Understandings about these different ways of

Exploring Possibilities for the Future

Our Previous Research

Questions around technology, knowledge and forms of teacher education were

Outline of This Book

There is an international interest in increasing uptake and engagement in STEM,

Keywords Globalisation Professionalism Knowledge Technology

Education is in conflict. Characterised by competing demands, beliefs and pur-

What Is Education for?

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018 11

silent, beliefs about the legitimacy of an educational system relating to scope,

Who Is Education for?

Global Versus Local

both in community use of resource and buildings, and in representing community

Who Owns Education?

appropriation of senior school curriculum to deliver scientiﬁc, military and eco-

Policy has little problem with notions of professionalism. It is constructed through

In opposition to policy claims, professionalism as the subject of educational

Acquiescence is an inevitable result of a profession deprived of an appropriate

What Should Education Teach?

If school knowledge is required to respond to policy imperatives, and these relate to

Education and Self

The position held in opposition, that of ‘educere’—that education should be about

How Can Education Be Taught?

If education is concerned with the individual, it also has to be concerned with

Keywords Politics Power New public management Professionalism

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018 27

Meta-level: Control, Power and Politics

Power and Control

ideology. As such, education is central to any realisation of the ideology of power

redeﬁned by a sole focus on economic success, the phenomenon of managerialism

Managerialism and New Public Management

Shaping education to meet these tenets of business required a reversioning of

Meso-level: Teacher Identity and Teacher Professionalism

Teacher identity has been a long-standing subject of research interest (Bernstein,

Similarly in education, teacher identity is deﬁned by statements designed to

Professionalism in education is not a secure concept—indeed many would argue

In education, accountability also holds sway. As Ball (2012) notes:

Accountability is signiﬁcant as it is the mechanism which allows centralised control

In an almost parallel description, Ball (2012) writes of education:

NPM thus redeﬁnes professionalism as compliance which not only operates