This paper reports on a case study in which pre-service teachers tested a new learning design tool as part of a teacher education course on technology-supported student active learning. The study is guided by the research question:

How does (digital) feedback from school mentors and university supervisors support pre-service teachers’ when learning to plan lessons?

Researchers have promoted the learning potential of technology in education for years (Tondeur et al., 2017) and argued that formative assessment benefit students’ active learning (Yan et al., 2021). Despite this, using technology to support formative assessment and active learning is challenging and requires tools that align pedagogy and technology (Børte et al., 2023).

This study contributes insight into how feedback from university supervisors and school mentors provided in a digital learning design tool, supports pre-service teachers when working inquiry-based with lesson planning. Pre-service teachers’ lesson planning and use of the ILUKS learning design tool during practicum placement serves as the empirical context.

Lesson planning is an important task for teachers, and a key competence pre-service teachers must learn during training as it is where important decisions about teaching and students’ learning are made (Mutton et al, 2011). While experienced teachers can plan for the unforeseen and be flexible in adapting plans, pre-service teachers do not have experience or context knowledge to do this (Koni & Krull, 2018). Often lesson planning for pre-service teachers is regarded  a technical endeavour to ensure effective classroom management (Rusznyak & Walton, 2011). However, little is known about how pre-service teachers learn to plan lessons (König et al., 2020). There is also little use of digital technologies in teacher education that supports pre-service teachers when learning how to plan lessons (Amhag et al., 2019). Moreover, the use of technology in formative assessment practices has proven to be difficult as teachers adapt technology to existing teaching practices and fail to utilize the interactive potential inherent in technology (Børte et al., 2023). The rapid development of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GENAI) that allows automatic generation of lesson plans, tasks and activities makes pre-service teachers’ professional knowledge in lesson planning even more important as they must be able to evaluate and tailor such lesson plans to cater to students’ diverse needs (Lammert et al., 2024).

For decades, researchers have agreed on the importance of feedback to improve students’ learning. If used formatively, feedback can support students’ learning by bridging the gap between their current level and their desired learning objective (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Hattie & Timperley, 2007). However, most of the research is conducted in compulsory education, and research on feedback practices in higher education is limited (Morris et al., 2021). In the current study,written feedback was provided by university supervisors and school mentors using the ILUKS learning design tool in which pre-service teachers shared their learning design. Feedback was provided before and after students’ teaching during practicum placement.

An ongoing debate in teacher education research is the lack of coherence between theoretical and practical approaches (Morrison-Love & Patrick, 2022). While teacher education programmes provide learning opportunities both on-campus and in-school, it is challenging for pre-service teachers to integrate research-based and experience-based knowledge (Lillejord & Børte, 2016). The present study contribute insight into this by testing and evaluating a digital tool in which pre-service teachers can relate to different types of knowledge and feedback at the same time.

This paper reports on one trial in the design-based research project ILUKS. The trial was conducted in Norwegian teacher education and set up as a case study. The ILUKS project aimed at developing innovative digital tools and teaching seminars enhancing student active learning in teacher education. This paper presents results from the pre-service teachers’ use and evaluation of the digital tool in practice when learning to plan lessons. Participants in the study are eight third-year pre-service teachers enrolled in a five-year integrated master’s programme in teacher education. The pre-service teachers voluntarily signed up to participate in a series of teaching seminars called “Learning design for student active learning” and to evaluate the digital tool, the ILUKS planner during fall semester in 2022. The ILUKS planner is a learning design tool aligned with principles of student active learning, and provides a framework for lesson planning, with the possibility of storing, sharing and receiving feedback on learning designs from in-school mentors, university supervisors and peers. To document how feedback supports pre-service teachers’ lesson planning, qualitative data was collected through 1) semi-structured individual interviews with the pre-service teachers, and 2) pre-service teachers’ learning designs created in ILUKS with written feedback from in-school mentors and university supervisors. The semi-structured interviews were conducted by the first author via the digital platform, Zoom. The interviews were recorded on a digital voice recorder before transcribed verbatim. The pre-service teachers’ learning designs were shared with the researchers via the ILUKS tool’s sharing functionality. A thematic analysis Braun and Clarke (2006) was conducted. First, the interview transcripts and the provided feedback were coded separately identifying themes and subthemes, using NVivo qualitative data analysis software. Second, the coding of the learning design feedback was compared and contrasted to the interview data to disclose students’ meta perspectives on the received feedback and how it supported their learning process. Ethical aspects were carefully considered. All informants signed a written, informed consent form to participate in the research. The study is approved by the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research (SIKT) and follows the European Union’s general data protection regulation (GDPR).

Preliminary findings show that the digital learning design tool provides a space where pre-service teachers can relate to feedback from both school mentors and university supervisors at the same time. Thus, an opportunity to integrate and act upon theoretical research-based knowledge and experience-based knowledge. Pre-service teachers appreciated receiving feedback directly in the tool and reported that it improved collaboration with the school mentor: as they could receive feedback multiple times, at any time, and that the feedback was written in one place attached to a design. The pre-service teachers expressed that the digital feedback made them reflect more on their teaching and consider planning an iterative inquiry-based process. They used the feedback actively by adapting their lesson to contextual factors, making minor adjustments to the order of activities, time spent on activities, and how they move around (or not move) in the classroom. The analysis of the digital feedback revealed school mentors’ and university supervisors’ differences in types of feedback. School mentors mostly provide feedback on organizational aspects related to 1) students’ pre-requisites and 2) the activities planned. They provide contextual information about i.e. students’ level or previous knowledge about a topic, time to spend on activities, relevant for the pre-service teachers’ teaching. Additionally, the school mentors gave supportive feedback to the pre-service teachers, assuring them that the activities planned were interesting and included tips on how to solve specific activities. The university supervisors gave feedback in a different way as they asked questions making the pre-service teachers reflect on i.e. their role as teachers, how different didactical aspects are related, and how to facilitate activities during class. Research on pre-service teachers’ professional learning and collaboration between stakeholders in teacher education aligns with ongoing efforts to enhance the quality of teacher preparation across diverse educational systems.

Amhag, L., Hellström, L., & Stigmar, M. (2019). Teacher Educators' Use of Digital Tools and Needs for Digital Competence in Higher Education. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2019.1646169 Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Børte, K., Lillejord, S., Chan, J., Wasson, B., & Greiff, S. (2023). Prerequisites for teachers’ technology use in formative assessment practices: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 41, 100568. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100568 Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487 Koni, I., & Krull, E. (2018). Differences in novice and experienced teachers’ perceptions of planning activities in terms of primary instructional tasks. Teacher Development, 22(4), 464-480. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2018.1442876 König, J., Bremerich-Vos, A., Buchholtz, C., Fladung, I., & Glutsch, N. (2020). Pre–service teachers’ generic and subject-specific lesson-planning skills: On learning adaptive teaching during initial teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(2), 131-150. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2019.1679115 Lammert, C., Dejulio, S., Grote-Garcia, S., & Fraga, L. (2024). Better than Nothing? An Analysis of AI-Generated Lesson Plans Using the Universal Design for Learning & Transition Frameworks. 97, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2024.2427332 Lillejord, S., & Børte, K. (2016). Partnership in teacher education – a research mapping. European Journal of Teacher Education, 39(5), 550-563. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2016.1252911 Morris, R., Perry, T., & Wardle, L. (2021). Formative assessment and feedback for learning in higher education: A systematic review. Review of Education, 9(3), e3292. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3292 Morrison-Love, D., & Patrick, F. (2022). Supporting student teachers to integrate theory, research, and practice: developing the Adaptive Subject Pedagogy Model. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2022.2116422 Rusznyak, L., & Walton, E. (2011). Lesson planning guidelines for student teachers: A scaffold for the development of pedagogical content knowledge. Education as Change, 15(2), 271-285. https://doi.org/10.1080/16823206.2011.619141 Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65, 555-575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2 Yan, Z., Li, Z., Panadero, E., Yang, M., Yang, L., & Lao, H. (2021). A systematic review on factors influencing teachers’ intentions and implementations regarding formative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 28(3), 228-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2021.1884042