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