The purpose of ITELab is to address an issue noted repeatedly in the literature – that the capability and confidence of student teachers to engage in pedagogical practices reflecting rapidly shifting social and technical contexts is often problematic (EC 2013; Healey, Flint, and Harrington, 2014; Korthagen, 2017). Essentially, student-teachers are often not as willing or well-informed as they perhaps should be about the affordances (Conole, 2015) and impacts of good usage (Herrera-Sosa et al., 2018 ) of technology and ICT in teaching and learning settings. From the outset, all partners in the ITELab consortium agreed that there needs to be better understanding of this issue and a systematic, research informed approach to finding possible ways forward. We started with a comprehensive literature study (Blamire, 2017) and from this identified the idea of innovative, technology-informed pedagogy as our start point. In order to progress this the consortium agreed a project approach that centred on co-designing, jointly developing, and rigorously testing a series of module frameworks and a MOOC through a pre-pilot, pilot, and validation process that required input and contributions from all partners, university and industry, across the full life of the project. To this end we structured the work around a series of highly democratised (Cronin, 2017), real-world design workshops. These brought all stakeholders together on a regular basis; university partners, student teachers, industry and EC. The workshops acted as both a springboard and a clearing-house for ideas, activities, resource identification / development, and validation. What emerged was a set of module frameworks ‘owned’ by all partners and reflective of core ITELab values of being Innovative & pedagogy-focused; staying activity-driven, collaborative & connected; and, embedded with a pan-European vision of what it is to become a teaching professional. This paper traces the evolution of the ITELab process through the workshops and discusses various decisions made around purposive design (Conole 2015; Kelly 2013), activity based learning (Korthagen, 2017), and embedding opportunity to build pedagogical competence (DigCompEdu 2018; TPACK 2016) into project activities and product. It also outlines the iterative nature of the co-development and testing aspects of the project – focussing here on our online hubs and monthly forum, as well as the systematic efforts to draw-in and draw value from all project partners. Given the pan-European nature of the project and the critically discursive nature of its activities, we feel this will be of interest to ECER and especially Network 10 participants.

Blamire, R (2017) OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH ON THE INTEGRATION OF ICT IN INITIAL TEACHER EDUCATION. ITELab: Brussels. MIMEO. From: http://itelab.eun.org/documents/452109/470959/ITELab_D2.1+Literature+Review+Report+vMarch2017.pdf/87819aa1-052b-4fb4-ac6d-60176465c3b5 Conole, G. (2015) Slow and fast learning with contemporary digital technologies. Keynote AECT. Indianapolis. From: http://www.slideshare.net/GrainneConole/conole-aectkeynotefinal Cronin, C. (2017) Openness and Praxis: Exploring the Use of Open Educational Practices in Higher Education. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, Vol.18, No 5, August 2017. From: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3096/4301 Herrera-Sosa, Katia; Hoftijzer, Margo; Gortazar, Lucas; Ruiz, Miguel. 2018. Education in the EU : Diverging Learning Opportunities? World Bank, Washington, DC. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/30007 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO Kelly, F. (2013) The Professional Enquiry Process / A Short Guide for Teachers in Scotland. Edinburgh: GTC Scotland. (Mimeo) Korthagen, F. (2017) ‘Inconvenient truths about teacher learning: towards professional development 3.0.’ Teachers and Teaching Theory & Practice, Vol.23(4), 387-405