View
214
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Pertti KansanenProfessor Emeritus of Education
University of HelsinkiDepartment of Teacher
Education
Tutkimusperustainen opettajankoulutus – suomalainen opettajuus
Mikä on erityistä suomalaisessa opettajankoulutuksessa?Miten suomalainen opettajankoulutus erottuu kansainvälisesti?
Onko opettajankoulutuksella ja oppilaiden koulumenestyksellä yhteys?Onko PISA-menestys opettajien ansiota?Selittääkö koulutusjärjestelmä menestyksen opettajista huolimatta?Voidaanko puhua suomalaisesta opettajuudesta?
Historiaa, traditiota, taustaa
Important landmarks in Finnish teacher education
Åbo Akademi 1640 > University of HelsinkiFirst Finnish chair of education 1852 (Stenbäck)
– Pedagogik och didaktik– Uppfostringslära & Allmänt didaktiska öfningar– Closely connected with teacher education– University practice schools 1864 and 1873– ”... a unique development in the Europe of that time.”
(Iisalo, 1979, p. 38)Mikael Soininen > special university courses for elementary school teachersJyväskylä Teacher Training College 1863 (Cygnaeus)The University College of Jyväskylä 1934
First Chairs of Education
First chair at Halle 1779 (Trapp)England, Scotland, USA in the 1870s-------------------------------------------------Finland: Helsinki 1852 (Stenbäck)Sweden: Uppsala 1908 (Hammer)Norway: Oslo 1909 (Anderssen)Denmark: Copenhagen 1955 (Grue-Sørensen)
Integrated teacher education in the universities
• To universities 1974; Kindergarten t. 1995• All teachers in the comprehensive schools are
Masters 1979• Universities autonomous in their teaching• The unity of research and teaching• Master´s thesis (Research Master)• Research-based teacher education• Aiming at a reflective teacher
All teachers are Masters
Finnish Teacher Education
Class Teacher Model• To teacher education• Education as a major• Studies at the
Department of Teacher Education
• How to get competence to a subject teacher?
Subject Teacher Model• To subject studies• A subject as a major• Studies at the Subject
Department• Teacher´s pedagogical
studies at the Dept of Ed• How to get competence
to a class teacher?
SELECTION
PRACTICE
SUBJECTMATTERTHEOR
Y
TEACHER EDUCATION PROCESS
COMPETENCE
CURRICULUM
INTERACTION TEACHER STUDENTS
EDUCATIONALAIMS AND GOALS
PRODUCTS ofEDUCATION
TEACHING PROCESS
EV
ALU
ATIO
N
TEACHER PERSONALITY
POPULAR OCCUPATIONS
2004 2007 2010
Surgeon 01/380 01/381 01/380Fireman 05/380 02/381 04/380Nurse 09/380 06/381 10/380Special needs teacher 23/380 21/381 22/380Speech teacher 27/380 28/381 37/380Psychologist 31/380 33/381 26/380Professor 33/380 41/381 39/380Kindergarten teacher34/380 22/381 31/380Class teacher 46/380 40/381 42/380Subject teacher 72/380 66/381 62/380Salesman door-to-door 380/380 381/381 380/380
Basic level of teacher education
• Studies in education• Subject matter studies• Student teaching and practice
Aiming atCompetencies in everyday teaching
Conceptual level of teacher education
• Main organising principle:Research-based approach
• Continuous courses of research methods• Overall competence of research methods• Teachers as practitioner researchers
Aiming atTeachers’ pedagogical thinking
Research-based teacher education & Pedagogical
thinking
Two faces of research-based teacher education
Evidence-based teaching
• Based on research results• Literature research reviews• Meta analyses
• Hattie, J.A.C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.
Practitioner research
• Based on one's own research
• Metacognitive approaches:reflection, purposiveness
• Pedagogical thinking
• Kansanen, P., Tirri, K., Meri, M., Krokfors, L., Husu, J., & Jyrhämä, R. (2000). Teachers´ pedagogical thinking. Theoretical landscapes, practical challenges. New York: Peter Lang.
Hattie, J.A.C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.
• Over 50 000 studies, many millions of students• Effects of each study are converted to a common measure
(an effect size)
• ES = [Meantreatment – Meancontrol]/SD or
• ES = [Meanend of treatment – Meanbeginning of treatment]/SD
• ES = d = 1.0 > students receiving treatment would exceed 84 % of students not receiving that treatment
• ES = d = 1.0 is like the difference between 1.60 cm and 183 cm; d = 0.29 is like 180 cm – 182 cm; d = 0.0 > no change
• ES = d = 0.40 > average for teachers > standard for judgments
Average effect for major contributors to learning
------------------------------------------------------------------Contribution d CLE (common language effect)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Student 0.40 29%Home 0.31 22%School 0.23 16%Teacher 0.49 35%Curricula 0.45 32%Teaching 0.42 30%------------------------------------------------------------------Average 0.40 28%
-0.0
-0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4-0.3 0.5
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.2
-0.1
Zone ofdesired effects
Reverse effects
Developmental effects
Teacher effects
Medium
Nega
tive
LowHigh
-0.0
-0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4-0.3 0.5
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.2
-0.1
Zone ofdesired effects
Reverse effects
Developmental effects
Teacher effects
Medium
Nega
tive
LowHigh
-0.0
-0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4-0.3 0.5
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.2
-0.1
Zone ofdesired effects
Reverse effects
Developmental effects
Teacher effects
Medium
Nega
tive
LowHigh
-0.0
-0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4-0.3 0.5
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.2
-0.1
Zone ofdesired effects
Reverse effects
Developmental effects
Teacher effects
Medium
Nega
tive
LowHigh
-0.0
-0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4-0.3 0.5
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.2
-0.1
Zone ofdesired effects
Reverse effects
Developmental effects
Teacher effects
Medium
Nega
tive
LowHigh
-0.0
-0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4-0.3 0.5
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.2
-0.1
Zone ofdesired effects
Reverse effects
Developmental effects
Teacher effects
Medium
Nega
tive
LowHigh
-0.0
-0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4-0.3 0.5
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.2
-0.1
Zone ofdesired effects
Reverse effects
Developmental effects
Teacher effects
Medium
Nega
tive
LowHigh
-0.0
-0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4-0.3 0.5
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.2
-0.1
Zone ofdesired effects
Reverse effects
Developmental effects
Teacher effects
Medium
Nega
tive
LowHigh
-0.0
-0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4-0.3 0.5
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.2
-0.1
Zone ofdesired effects
Reverse effects
Developmental effects
Teacher effects
Medium
Nega
tive
LowHigh
-0.0
-0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4-0.3 0.5
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.2
-0.1
Zone ofdesired effects
Reverse effects
Developmental effects
Teacher effects
Medium
Nega
tive
LowHigh
-0.0
-0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4-0.3 0.5
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.2
-0.1
Zone ofdesired effects
Reverse effects
Developmental effects
Teacher effects
Medium
Nega
tive
LowHigh
-0.0
-0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4-0.3 0.5
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.2
-0.1
Zone ofdesired effects
Reverse effects
Developmental effects
Teacher effects
Medium
Nega
tive
LowHigh
-0.0
-0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4-0.3 0.5
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.2
-0.1
Zone ofdesired effects
Reverse effects
Developmental effects
Teacher effects
Medium
Nega
tive
LowHigh
Effect sizes from teaching or working conditions
Teaching d
•Quality of teaching 0.77•Reciprocal teaching 0.74•Teacher-student relationships 0.72•Providing feedback 0.72•Teaching students
self-verbalisation 0.67•Meta-cognition strategies 0.67•Direct instruction 0.59•Mastery learning 0.57
Average 0.68
Working Conditionsd
•Within-class grouping 0.28•Adding more finances 0.23•Reducing class size 0.21•Ability grouping 0.11•Multi-grade/age classes 0.04•Open vs. traditional classes 0.01•Summer vacation classes -0.09•Retention -0.16
Average 0.08
Teacher as activator and teacher as facilitator
Teacher as activatord
•Reciprocal teaching 0.74•Feedback 0.72•Teaching students
self-verbalisation 0.67•Meta-cognition strategies 0.67•Direct instruction 0.59•Mastery learning 0.57•Goals – challenging 0.56•Frequent/effects testing 0.46•Behavioral organizers 0.41
•Average activator 0.60
Teacher as facilitator d
•Simulations and gaming 0.32•Inquiry-based teaching 0.31•Smaller class sizes 0.21•Individualized instruction 0.20•Problem-based learning 0.15•Different t. for boys and girls 0.12•Web-based learning 0.09•Whole language – reading 0.06•Inductive teaching 0.06
•Average facilitator 0.17
DEDUCTIVE
INDUCTIVE
INTU
ITIV
E
RA
TIO
NA
L
Research-based
Problem-basedCase approach
School-based
ExperientialPersonal
Pedagogical thinking
The
way
to o
rgan
ise
the
activ
ities
DEDUCTIVE
INDUCTIVE
INTUITIVE
RATIONAL
Problem based,case approach
School based
Experiential,personal
Pedagogical thinking
T
he m
odel
of
str
uctu
ring
actio
n
Research-basedTE
ACH
ING
CONCEPTUAL LEVELmetacognitionreflectionpedagogical thinking
thinkingskills-based teachingrecipesroutines, tips
adaptationconsumingknowledge- based
producingexpertise
Teac
her
e
duca
tion
P r a c t i c i n g
BASIC LEVEL
RESEARCHIN
G
CONCEPTUAL LEVEL
BASIC LEVEL
TEACHING
RESEARCHINGPRACTITIONER
consumer adaptation of knowledge- based practice
PERSONAL-PRACTICAL THEORY (rational)pedagogical thinkingreflectionmetacognition
PERSONAL-PRACTICAL THEORY (intuitive)everyday thinkingskill-based teachingrecipes, tips, routines
PRACTITIONER RESEARCHER producerexpert
P r a c t i c i n g
Tea
cher
edu
catio
n
University practice schools
University practice schools
• University practice schools belong to universities
• Supervisors experienced and educated mentors
• Safe and peaceful context for practising• Practice integrated to the totality; to the
theory and research• Practice also in the field schools (one third)
PRACTISING TEACHING PRACTISING RESEARCHING
everyday thinkingskills-based teachingteaching recipes, routines, tips
GENERAL LEVEL
metacognitionreflectionpedagogical thinking
producing researchexpertise
Making pedagogical decisions Inquiring one’s own work
RESEARCH-BASED TEACHER EDUCATION
adaptationconsuming researchknowledge-based
Two levels of teacher education- the characteristics of twofold
practice
BASIC LEVEL
Jyrhämä
Self-studies in teacher education
• Teacher research by teacher educators• The researcher and the practitioner are one and
the same• Improvement of teaching practice• Practitioner research
action researchself-study
• Becoming public; becoming an object of critical review; and developing the ideas brought out
Structure of teacher education inside the university
Departments of teacher education research departments
• All departments at universities are research departments (evaluated in the same way)
• All have responsibility to do research– Professors, university lecturers, doctoral
students
• Subject didactics (Fachdidaktik) inside departments of teacher education
• Professor chairs also in subject didactics
Structure of teacher education
Integrated model
Asymmetricmatrix model
Matrix model
Unit of TeacherEducation
Unitof TE
CoordinatingUnit of TE
Teacher education in a separate and integrated unit
Part of teacher education in a unitPart of the programoutside the unit
Teacher education decentralized todifferent departments
Integrated model
• Teacher education in a separate and integrated unit
• Strong, independent organisation• Complex multi-disciplinary organisation• Problems with high competence in different
subject areas• Strong competence in education and
fachdidaktik (professors of education & professors of fachdidaktik in the same
department)
Asymmetric matrix model
• Part of teacher education in a unit• Part of the program outside the unit• Weaker own identity • Possibilities to utilize the subject
matter competence outside the unit• Risk for fragmentation of teacher
education
Matrix model
• Teacher education decentralized to different departments
• Strong subject matter competence• Teacher education - an
administrative centre• Pedagogy fragmented• Teacher education – weak position in
the higher education institution
Comparison at the basic level
• Recruitment• Length• Basic curriculum (theory, fachdidaktik, practice)• Contents of the practicum• Analyses of the curriculum content
– Similar courses, different courses, number of credits, etc.
• Competence of teacher educators
• University – College - Vocational high school ---------------------Conclusion: Quite similar programmes
Comparison at the conceptual level
• Structure (integrated, asymmetric matrix, matrix)• University practice schools (Finland)• Teacher educators (professors, doctors, doctorands)• Unity of research and teaching (Humboldt ideal)• Autonomy of teacher education vs. policy• Level of qualification (BA > MA)• To doctoral studies• Continuous evaluation of teacher education
– evaluation of research (publications, congresses, etc.)– evaluation of teaching (quality of teaching)– self-study of teacher education
Recommended