Transitioning to University: A Personal Learning Experience

  • Mellita Jones
  • Karen McLean


In this chapter, all four tenets of personalising learning were targeted in a programme that was written to assist pre-service teachers’ transition to university in a first year, first semester, core unit in a Bachelor of Education (primary) degree. The chapter describes how student diversity in ICT ability and learning needs were used to frame an approach to teaching and learning the content of the unit, which was focussed on human development and different contexts for learning. The approach is described and demonstrates how ICT can become a vehicle for learning that caters for student diversity and how a seemingly rigid university timetable structure can be used creatively and with flexibility. The notion of value-added assessment is also highlighted.


  1. Barber, M. (1999). Taking the tide at the flood: Transforming the middle years of schooling. In National middle years of schooling conference redesigning the middle years. Melbourne: Zbar & Schapper Consulting.Google Scholar
  2. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). New York: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bloom, B. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Book I: The cognitive domain. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  4. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32(7), 513–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (2015). Academic achievement motivation, development of. In D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 20–25). Elsevier.Google Scholar
  7. Foundation for Young Australians (FYA). (2016). The new basics: Big data reveals the skills young people need for the new work order. Report prepared for FYA by AlphaBeta. Retrieved from
  8. Froese, P. (2017). The benefits of choice in education: A Canadian perspective. In M. Etherington (Ed.), What teachers need to know: Topics in diversity and inclusion (pp. 121–140). Eugene: Wipf & Stock.Google Scholar
  9. Fuller, A. (2007). Critiquing theories of learning and communities of practice. In J. Hughes, N. Jewson, & L. Unwin (Eds.), Communities of practice: Critical perspectives (pp. 17–29). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching, 15(2), 273–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hughes, J., Jewson, N., & Unwin, L. (Eds.). (2007). Communities of practice: Critical perspectives. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Jones, M., & McLean, K. J. (2012). Personalising learning in teacher education through the use of technology. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1).
  13. Keamy, K., Nicholas, H., Mahar, S., & Herrrick, C. (2007). Personalising education: From research to policy and practice. Melbourne: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.Google Scholar
  14. Knapper, C., & Cropley, A. J. (2000). Lifelong learning in higher education. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  15. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (learning in doing: Social, cognitive and computational perspectives). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lyons, T., Cooksey, R., Panizzon, D., Parnell, A., & Pegg, J. (2006). Science, ICT and mathematics education in rural and regional Australia the SiMERR national survey: A research report prepared for the Department of Education, Science and Training, National Centre of Science, ICT and Mathematics Education for Rural and Regional Australia, University of New England.Google Scholar
  17. Manyika, J. (2016). Technology, jobs and the future of work. Briefing Note prepared for the Fortune Vatican Forum December 2016. McKinsey Global Institute.Google Scholar
  18. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2006). Schooling for tomorrow: Personalising education. Paris: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, OECD.Google Scholar
  19. Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  20. Rouse, M. (2017). A role for teachers and teacher education in developing inclusive practice. In M. Etherington (Ed.), What teachers need to know: Topics in diversity and inclusion (pp. 19–35). Eugene: Wipf & Stock.Google Scholar
  21. Saribas, D. (2015). Investigating the relationship between pre-service teachers’ scientific literacy, environmental literacy and life-long learning tendency. Science Education International, 26(1), 80–100.Google Scholar
  22. Schwartz, D., Lindgren, R., & Lewis, S. (2009). Constructivism in an age of non-constructivist assessments. In S. Tobias & T. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 34–61). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mellita Jones
    • 1
  • Karen McLean
    • 1
  1. 1.Australian Catholic UniversityBallaratAustralia

Personalised recommendations