1

Evaluation for improvements in Finnish Teacher Education Hannele Niemi & Jari Lavonen, University of Helsinki Abstract The evaluation policy in Finland is enhancement-led, meaning that evaluation is a tool for improvements. This is also the leading principle in Higher Education. Finnish higher education Quality Assurance (QA) has three main levels: National audits and other national level external evaluations, institutional level QA methods and department level QA processes. Further, research focusing on QA issues is conducted at all levels. The article presents the main structures and processes by which quality in Teacher Education (TE) has been assessed at the national, institutional and even department and single programme levels in Finland. It also outlines the main results of recent QA activities and, as examples, the research outcomes of national and departmental level research projects. QA in TE is a complex system that allows freedom for different actors. The Finnish model is based on a certain level of trust where all partners in teacher education retain a high quality level in their processes. This works as long as all levels of QA take their responsibility seriously. It also means that continuous interaction is needed between different partners.

1.

Three levels of Quality Assurance in Finnish Teacher Education

In Finland, the national evaluation policy, and quality assurance as part of it, is enhancement-led, meaning that evaluation is a tool for improvements. This is also the leading principle in Higher Education. In Finnish Higher Education (HE) there are three main levels of Quality Assurance (QA): (1) at the national level there are audits and other external reviews. QA in teacher education (TE) follows the national common frameworks for higher education. It is mainly based on audits in six-year cycles organized by the Finnish Higher Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) and strategic negotiations of accountability with the Ministry of Culture and Education (MCE). The first round of audits in all Finnish HE institutions will be completed by 2011. In addition, TE has also been a special interest area of the MCE and it has initiated or supported several national evaluations or reviews during the last few years. (2) The second level of QA is at the institutional level. The main responsibility for the quality of TE lies with individual universities. TE is part of higher education. All primary and secondary school teacher education is carried out in universities. This means that teacher education is also part of universities’ own QA policy. Each university has its own strategic plans for the development of teaching and research. Universities set up their own QA methods and TE must follow these common guidelines. TE is assessed as all other university disciplines or programmes in the reference frame of their own discipline criteria.

2

FINHEEC (as an independent agency): • National responsibility • Audits of QA systems • Other evaluations

Ministry of Education • Steering • Decision--making • Evaluation by authorities (accountability negotiations and reports)

National level

systems Quality assurance at HEIs

-

Main responsibility for quality and improvement of education

University level

•Establishment of QA system •Participation in external evaluations and audits of FINHEEC •HE institutions’ own internal and external evaluation of teaching and research •Institutional feedback systems

Strategic planning at faculties and departments TE

Maths &

Education

Science

Humanities

Social

Arts

Sport

Other

Faculty, department and programme level

Sciences

Curriculum development, feedback systems, staff development

Figure 1. The Quality Assurance System in Teacher Education in Finnish Higher Education

(3) Finally, at the department and programme level there are processes at the grassroots level for improving the quality of student learning. These QA methods are the closest to the students and teachers in TE. Faculty staff members running teacher education programmes use several QA tools and practices, like collaborative planning of the programme together with staff members and societal stakeholders. The systematic collection of student feedback and collaborative analysis of this feedback is another example of the QA method at the department level. This article presents the main structures and processes by which quality in TE has been assessed at the national, institutional and even programme levels in Finland. It also introduces the main results of recent evaluations and research outcomes of a national-level QA-related research project. 2.

The Finnish evaluation policy in Higher Education – an enhancement-led approach at the national level

The Finnish evaluation policy and quality assurance are based on improvement-led principles. This kind of an approach is also frequently called an enhancement-led policy. The

3

main aim is to use evaluations as tools for raising quality in operational processes and seeking efficient and effective ways to achieve high outcomes in teaching and learning in different higher education institutions. These principles have laid the grounds for FINHEEC since its establishment in 1996. The Council says the following about its work (Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council, 2011): The FINHEEC evaluations use an enhancement-led approach. The aim is to help higher education institutions to identify the strengths and good practices in their operations as well as development targets. Enhancement-led evaluation supports the institutions in realizing their own strategic aims and targeting their future development and also engenders constant development. The key procedures in enhancement-led evaluation are varied, inclusive evaluation methods and the incorporation of external evaluation into the everyday work and normal development of the higher education institutions. The enhancement-led approach is used in all the phases of the FINHEEC evaluation process: as part of planning, implementation, reporting and follow-up. Scotland also has enhancement-led institutional reviews (ELIR) as one component of its Quality Enhancement Framework (QEF). Introduced in 2003, it is seen there as a radical approach to quality assurance and enhancement in higher education. The main focus of the ELIR method is to review an institution's approach to improving the student learning experience. It also examines an institution's ability to secure the academic standards of its awards and to manage the quality of the learning opportunities it provides to its students. In the Finnish system auditing covers all university operations including teaching, research, interaction with society, infrastructure and administration. The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council conducts an auditing process for each higher education institution every sixth year. FINHEEC is an independent expert body assisting higher education institutions and the Ministry of Education and Culture in matters relating to evaluation. The Council members represent universities, universities of applied sciences, students and working life. Decisions made by the Council are prepared and implemented by a Secretariat, led by a Secretary General (Government Decree on the Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council 794/2009). In the Finnish HE the audits only focus on the QA methods and procedures that universities are using. It does not assess outcomes. They are universities’ own responsibility and their QA methods should ensure high quality outcomes. Every audit has an external review team and an external evaluation process starts with an internal self-evaluation or a kind of SWOT analysis made by the institution’s staff members. The staff members present their objectives, recognize strengths and weaknesses in their self-evaluation and present evidence which supports the findings. The external evaluators or an evaluation panel become familiar with the self-evaluation documents and prepare questions for the next step, interviews and discussions. Finally, the panel prepares an external evaluation report based on the self-evaluation report and interviews. Even though the main focus is on the institutions’ own aims and activities, the Finnish auditing model is based on the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ENQA, 2011)) Self-evaluation plays a very important role in the audits. The external panel frequently only

4

reinforces the results that emerge already in self-evaluations when universities are preparing themselves for the audits. The feedback that has been received about audits from universities emphasizes that the audit process has forced institutions to document their own work, hold more discussions among staff members, and made many quality assurance processes more visible than they were before. However, educational faculties in which teacher education is located have given feedback that they have already documented their processes before because they are accountable to society as a whole for their outcomes. The same feedback has emerged from those involved in medicine as it also has a very close relationship with employers and the health care sector (Haapakorpi,2011.) 3.

Audits in teacher education

There is no accreditation system in Finnish higher education. This means that universities which have a legal right to award degrees are responsible for the quality of those degrees. This also concerns teacher education. By being part of higher education, teacher education follows the same common guidelines as all tertiary education in Finland. The main QA method at the national level is auditing which means assessing the methods by which higher education institutions assure their own quality. All primary and secondary school teachers have received their education in eight universities since the 1970s. Vocational teachers have received their education in one of five teacher education higher education units since 1995 which are closely related with universities of applied sciences (polytechnics). According to teacher education decrees issued in 1995 and 2005, all teachers must attain a master’s degree to receive a teacher qualification1. In Finland there is neither a Teacher Council nor any other external agency that awards certificates or licences to teach in schools after graduation. The Decree on Teacher Qualifications defines what is required for teaching posts at different levels and sectors of the education system, while the Teacher Education Decree regulates how the BA and MA degrees must be composed if someone wants to become a teacher. When hiring a new teacher employers check that the applicant has these studies in their academic degree. We found very few remarks when looking for comments that deal with teacher education in the reports of external panels (FINHEEC 2005-2010). They are at a very general level and make some QA procedures visible as a good practice: „The Faculty of Education and teacher education is a good example of an interactive feedback system where feedback is analysed in teachers‟ and students‟ dialogue ... In teacher education there is a close relationship with professional practices.‟ „ ... teacher education students have been actively involved in preparation of the department’s self-evaluation report and that has also added to interaction in genera. The University has appointed stakeholders and working life partners with whom it 1

As part of the Bologna Process, on 1 August 2005 teacher education in Finland moved to a two-tier degree system. In terms of the Bologna Process, the degree of qualified teachers is equivalent to a second-cycle degree in the European higher education area. Teacher qualification requires BA 180 + MA 120 = 300 ECTS credits ( 1 ECTS credit is about 27 hours work).

5 aims to develop teacher education, social work education and legal education ... For teacher education the university has developed its own “...model”‟. „Teacher education is one of the focus areas in the university‟. „The feedback systems of studies provide information about students‟ views and this has consequences in practice‟.

The audits ensure that the general structures are relevant and well functioning in teacher education in Finland; but it cannot assure what happens in teaching and learning in a local context. This means that we also need other methods for ensuring quality in teacher education. Auditing allows universities a high degree of freedom to create their own methods for quality assurance and particularly for providing a quality culture. Teacher education includes very complex study programmes which need collaboration with many disciplines as well as many university departments. Programmes also consist of teaching practice in university teacher training schools or local schools. Promoting a quality culture means that the relevance of studies, structure of degrees and quality of leaning outcomes must be assessed with methods other than just audits. National evaluations of TE and research projects on TE are important sources to be used in the further development of TE.

National evaluations, research and networks for promoting QA in teacher education During the last twenty years, Finnish teacher education has been evaluated systematically in many national and international external evaluations. Further, many research projects and doctoral dissertations have provided important knowledge for further development. The following major evaluation processes have been carried out during this time: 1989 National Committee for Developing Teacher Education 1993–94 National and international evaluation of educational sciences and teacher education (The Committee Report, 1994; Buchberger et al., 1994; Niemi & Kohonen, 1995) 1995–1998 Research project ‘Effectiveness of Teacher Education" as part of a large national research programme ‘Effectiveness of Education’ (Niemi, 1996; Niemi & Kemmis, 1999; Niemi 2002) 1998 National evaluation of ICT in teacher education (Niemi, 1999) 1998–99 National evaluation of teacher education (Jussila & Saari, 1999) 1999 Evaluation of the quality of research in the teacher education departments (University of Helsinki 2000 and 2005, and University of Jyväskylä 2006) Teacher education 2020 (Ministry of Education, 2007) Auditing of all Finnish universities 2005–2011 (Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council, 2011) Some of the national level evaluations have focused on structural and higher education policy issues and some have concentrated on themes of teachers’ professional development in TE. The evaluations have revealed many positive outcomes of TE in Finland. Elementary teacher education has remained one of the most popular study options already for many years. TE has succeeded in recruiting high quality students. Graduated teachers have good classroom skills and content knowledge. There has not been a real problem of dropouts from the teacher-education programmes and teachers do not usually change from their teaching job to another profession. Teachers are committed to their work in schools after graduation. Only 10–15% of teachers have thought of changing to another career even though their academic MA level qualification would

6 make them competent for a large range of different career options. Young teachers see their profession as lifelong learning and they have a very positive attitude to developing their job skills. Although teacher education has succeeded in many respects, there are still many problems which need to be taken seriously. Many evaluations have pointed out that the lack of co-operation between different partners decreases the quality of teacher education. Co-operation should have been much better organized, more oriented towards common purposes and more intensive. These needs are apparent between academic disciplines and educational departments, teacher training schools and teacher education departments, local schools and university schools, teacher education institutions and local communities. Multicultural issues set new demands for Finnish schools as do the increasing numbers of children with special needs. These challenges should be more seriously addressed in TE.

Informal benchmarking between universities provides one form of QA and also provides platforms to share urgent challenges as well as best practices. Regular national meetings among deans and heads of departments that are responsible for TE are important quality assurance tools. Since 1987 it has also been a tradition that researchers of different subject matters hold national annual seminars, mostly organized in Helsinki. These forums provide researchers interested in subject didactics an opportunity to discuss and interact with other researchers and create research-based knowledge for the development of teacher education (e.g. Meisalo, 2007, p. 174). National co-operation has also been typical in reform processes that have brought about changes in the major structures or contents of TE. When Finnish universities

prepared (2003–2005) the new curricula for Bologna Process degrees they had much national co-operation. All universities responsible for teacher education established a national network for educational sciences and teacher education (Niemi & Jakku-Sihvonen, 2006; Jakku-Sihvonen & Niemi, 2006; Vokke Project, 2005). It created a joint forum to analyse and develop the TE curriculum, taking new challenges in Finnish society and the global world into account.

3. TE as parts of universities’ own quality assurance Finnish teacher education has received much attention because of the high learning outcomes of Finnish 15-year-old students in the international Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). The students achieved the highest or second highest scores in reading, mathematics and scientific literacy assessment among students in OECD countries in the years 2000, 2003, 2006 and 20092. Many researchers as well as Finnish policymakers regard high quality teacher and teacher education as one of the major factors in good learning outcomes (e.g., Lavonen, 2008). Universities have a high degree of autonomy in designing their curricula. Therefore, no detailed ‘curriculum of teacher education’ covering all universities in Finland can be presented (Niemi & Jakku-Sihvonen, 2011). However, as described in the previous chapter some guidelines and general outlines are followed by all institutions of teacher education. Based on the Decree of Teacher Education (2005), the main elements of all teacher education curricula consist of studies in the following: Academic disciplines. These can be whatever disciplines are taught in schools or educational institutions or in science of education. Academic studies can be a major 2

For more information about the PISA, visit the web page of the Finnish MCE: http://www.minedu.fi/pisa/index.html?lang=en

7

or minor subject depending on the qualification being sought. Class teachers have a major in educational sciences and minors in other disciplines. Class teachers also have a module ‘Multidisciplinary Studies’ (60 ECTS credits) which is a combination of different school subjects and their pedagogics. Research studies. These consist of methodological studies, a BA thesis and a MA thesis. Pedagogical studies (min. 60 ECTS credits). These are obligatory for all teachers. They also include teaching practice. Communication, language and ICT studies. These are obligatory. The preparation of a personal study plan is a new element introduced in 2005 in university studies in Finland. Its main function is to guide students to develop their own effective programmes and career plans, and to tutor them in achieving their goals. Optional studies. These may cover a variety of different courses through which students seek to profile their studies and qualifications. These elements can be integrated in several different ways depending on students’ career choices. Even though the traditional distinction between class teachers and subject teachers has been retained, the structures of the respective degree programmes allow them to take very flexible routes to include both in the same programme or permit later qualification in either direction.

Class teacher education programme Students in the class teacher education programmes take a higher academic degree (300 ECTS credits: BA 180 ECTS credits + 120 MA ECTS credits) which normally takes five years to complete. From the 140 ECTS credits allocated for the education as a major, 50 ECTS credits can be considered as studies of the actual knowledge base like understanding of the cultural, psychological and pedagogical features of teaching and instruction. As much as 70 ECTS credits are used for the research methodology studies. It is important that student teachers study quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods to create a proper understanding of methodological issues in behavioural sciences. A class teacher student carries out a master’s thesis of 40 ECTS credits during these studies. Conducting a research process of one’s own improves the relationship between the theoretical knowledge-base and practice as well as gives a possibility to develop an orientation of a reflective practitioner-researcher to teachers’ every day work. Besides the major studies in education described above, multidisciplinary studies (60 ECTS credits) as the first minor subject give a prominent knowledge-base to a class teacher. Multidisciplinary studies are also an educational subject which consists of pedagogy of all primary school subjects as well as the cross-curricular themes to be implemented in varied school subjects. In Figure 2, a typical structure of a master’s degree for a primary teacher and how credit points are allocated for studies at the master’s and bachelor’s levels are illustrated.

8 Table. 1. Main components of the teacher education programs for primary and secondary school teachers (class teachers) (Niemi & Jakku-Sihvonen, 2006). Primary school

Bachelor’s

Master’s

teacher education program

degree

degree

180 ECTS

120 ECTS

Class teacher‟s pedagogical studies (as a part of major in education)

25 (including supervised teaching practice)

Other studies in a major in education

35 (including a BA Thesis, 610) 60

35 (including a minimum of 15 ETCS supervised teaching practice) 45 (including a MA Thesis, 20-40)

Subject matter studies for comprehensive school Academic studies in a different discipline, minor Language and communication studies including ICT, optional studies

TOTAL

60

80

60

25

0-35

25-60

35

5-40

40-75

Secondary school

Bachelor’s

Master’s

TOTAL

teacher education program

degree

degree

180 ECTS

120 ECTS

Subject teacher‟s pedagogical studies (minor)

25-30 (including supervised teaching practice)

60

Academic studies in different disciplines (major)

60 (including a BA Thesis, 610)

Academic studies in different disciplines (1-2 minors)

25-60

30-35 (including a minimum of 15 ETCS supervised teaching practice) 60-90 (including a MA Thesis, 20-40) 0-30

Language and communication studies including ICT, optional studies

35-40

0-30

35-70

120-150

25-90

9 Bachelor ’s level (180 cr)

Master ’s level (120 cr )

180 160 140

Master thesis

120 100 80 ECTS

BSc/BA

60

Pedagogical studies

40 20 0 Major Subject: Education

Multi disciplinary studies

Minor Subject

Communication and language studies

Figure 2. A Typical Structure of a Master’s Degree of a Primary Teacher Subject teacher education programme Subject teachers teach different subjects in secondary school. Their education requires cooperation between academic subject faculties or departments and teacher education departments. For instance, at the University of Helsinki the subject teacher education is organized in co-operation with six faculties and the Department of Teacher Education. Studies are divided into two parts: the subject is studied at the department of the particular subject (e.g. Physics), while the pedagogical studies are undertaken at the Department of Teacher Education and in two Teacher Training Schools. These pedagogical studies give the students the qualification necessary for teaching positions in all types of schools in their major and minor subject. Students in the subject teacher education programme take a major and a minor in the subjects they intend to teach in school. Typical combinations in so-called mathematical subjects are mathematics – physics, mathematics – chemistry, mathematics – computer science, physics – chemistry and chemistry – biology. However, the students are also free to choose other combinations of subjects, like mathematics – home economics. In Figure 3, a typical structure of a master’s degree for a subject teacher is illustrated as is how credit points are allocated for studies at the master’s and bachelor’s levels.

10

Bachelor’s level (180 cr)

Master’s level (120 cr)

180 160 140 120

Master

thesisima g…

100 ECTS

80

BSc /BA thesis

60

Ped . thesis

40

Teaching T… Practice

20 0

Major

Minor

Pedagogical

Communication

Subject

Subject

studies

and language

studies

Figure 3. Typical Structure of a Master’s Degree of a Subject Teacher

The subject teacher students carry out their master’s thesis (40 ECTS credits) in the subject. For their master’s thesis, they can choose either a pedagogical orientation or a subject orientation and prepare the thesis under the guidance of a professor or in a research group. Subject departments organize thesis seminars for students. The aim of a pedagogically oriented thesis is to train students to find and analyse problems they may face in their future work. Research studies give an opportunity to do a real project in which students have to formulate a problem, seek information and data for a problem independently, elaborate it with the latest research and make a synthesis as a written thesis.

Pedagogical studies The pedagogical studies (60 ECTS credits) are obligatory for qualification as a teacher and are approximately the same for both primary and secondary teachers as well as vocational and adult education teachers. These studies give a formal pedagogical qualification to teachers of all levels in the Finnish education system regardless of the programme in which they are provided. According to the legislation, pedagogical studies must be studies in the science of education with an emphasis on didactics. The pedagogical studies can be part of the degree studies or they can be taken separately after completion of the master’s degree.

11

The goal of pedagogical studies is to create opportunities to learn pedagogical interaction, to learn how to develop one’s own teaching skills, and to learn how to plan, teach and evaluate teaching in terms of the curriculum, the school community, and the age and learning capacity of the pupils. Students should also learn how to co-operate with other teachers, parents and other stakeholders and representatives of the welfare society. Teachers’ pedagogical studies also include guided teaching practice (approx. 20 ECTS credits). The aim of guided practical studies is to support students in their efforts to acquire professional skills in teaching, developing and evaluating teaching and learning processes. In addition, students should be able to reflect critically on their own practices and social skills in teaching and learning situations. During guided practical studies, students should meet pupils and students from various different social backgrounds and psychological orientations and have opportunities to teach them according to the curriculum.

What does it look like? – A 2010 survey To promote quality in teacher education there has also been a need to collect feedback from student teachers in different universities. Web-based surveys were sent to all student teachers at the University of Oulu and the University of Helsinki at the beginning of May 2010. The survey consisted of the following scales (Niemi, 2011): Student teachers (n=545) in two universities assessed how teacher education had provided them with the competencies they need in a high standard profession, which kinds of active learning experiences they had had in their TE studies, and how research studies of teacher education had contributed in their professional development. There were also questions about how well they were learning to use ICT and social media in teaching and learning. Figure X shows that the study participants assessed they had achieved good skills in planning teaching and curriculum. They were capable of using different teaching methods. They were aware of their own teaching philosophy and the ethical grounds of teaching. They knew their responsibilities as professionals and lifelong learners. Table 1. How well has the teacher education you have so far participated in prepared you for the teaching profession? (1 = very badly, 2 = badly, 3 = fairly, 4 = well, 5 =very well) The best competencies Professional competence

M (n=455)

SD

Differences between class and subject teachers df = 454

Correlation with active learning

12

n= 317 – 345 1. Designing of instruction

3.92

.856

F=6.95 +++

2. Critical reflection on own work 3.76

.894

.37 +++

3. Becoming aware of the ethical basis of the teaching profession 4. Lifelong professional growth

3.71

.914

.21 ++

3.69

.896

.23 ++

5. Self-evaluating own teaching

3.67

.934

.25 +++

6. Using teaching methods

3.54

.764

.32 +++

7. Development of own educational philosophy 8. Mastering academic contents of curriculum 9. Independent management of teachers' tasks 10. Commitment to teaching profession

3.46

.977

3.44

.926

3.39

.926

3.39

.948

F=9.84 +++

.14 ++

.29 +++ .11 +

F=6.66 +++

.17 ++ .24 +++

The survey reveals that, although Finnish teacher education has been successful in many respects, there are also problems that need to be considered seriously. They also need much more supervision and guidance about how to collaborate with parents and other stakeholders outside the school such as representatives of working life as well as partners in business life and culture. Student teachers also need more supervision for facing students’ behavioural problems. The same study also reveals that student teachers need more skills in using new ICT environments and social media in education. The students had many active learning experiences. The study also provides evidence that there is a strong relationship between active learning and high-level professional competencies: the more active the learning, the higher the professional skills and vice versa. The best active learning experiences emerge in a collaborative working and study culture. Students appreciate having the freedom to experiment and design their own applications of active learning. The research component in teacher education is important to the majority of the students but there are also student teachers who are critical of those studies. Students had an opportunity to describe their own experiences with research studies. Some students felt the studies had been superficial and would like to connect them more closely with practice. In contrast, some students valued research studies very highly but at the same time those students may have thought that research studies took up too much time in relation to the whole programme. Research studies should be developed in such a way that students can see their relevance to teachers’ professional work.

13

4. Department and programme level QA: Examples of planning and evaluating the subject teacher education programme at the University of Helsinki In this section two examples of continuing QA processes are presented in the context of subject teacher education at the departmental level. The first example analyses the typical procedures in programme development. In this process several stakeholders, like representatives of local schools and students, participate in a collaborative planning process. The second example illustrates the procedure of how student evaluations are systemically collected and analysed with teachers teaching in the programme and students. Co-operative designing of the teacher education programme As an example, a design process of a study programme of the secondary teachers’ pedagogical studies is described. The framework for designing this study programme at the University of Helsinki is presented in Figure 4. Collaboration between different actors, like staff members from the various subject departments, school teachers and students, is an important feature of the design process of the programme. For example, actors responsible for developing pedagogical studies for the mathematics, physics and chemistry teacher education programme are representatives of three Subject Departments, Department of Teacher Education, University Training Schools and municipality schools, and representatives of teacher students. Altogether, these 40 partners typically have three meetings during the academic year. The focus of the collaboration is on a common vision of the study programme of secondary teachers’ pedagogical studies, evaluation of the study programme based on the students’ evaluations and continuous development of the programme and, moreover, on research considering secondary teacher education (see e.g., Aksela, 2005; Koponen, Mantyla & Lavonen, 2004). The development of the programme is guided by national and university level strategies, research findings on teacher education and teaching and learning, and student evaluations of the programme (Figure 4).

14

Research on teacher education - Structure of teacher knowledge - Forms of knowledge: professional … practical

Research on subject and Research on teaching and learning

Internat . and n ational strategies + school curriculum

Student evaluations of the programme

Co-operative planning of the programme: Teachers from the subject departments, Department of teacher education, school teachers and the student teachers

Subject teacher education programme Own research on teacher education

Collection of students’ evaluations

Figure 4. Framework for Designing and Implementing the Teacher Education Programme at the University of Helsinki The co-planning of pedagogical studies as part of this collaboration is especially important because the studies aim to support the integration of subject knowledge, knowledge about teaching and learning, studies in research methodology and school practice into the student teachers’ professional knowledge. Consequently, co-planning ensures that different domains of teacher knowledge, such as subject matter knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and general pedagogical knowledge as well as the distinctions between these separate domains are included in a balanced way in the whole master’s level programme (Grossman, 1990; Carlsen, 1999). Consequently, collaboration not only concerns practical issues regarding implementation of the teacher education programme, but also involves general-level visions of teacher education. Some concrete outcomes of the collaboration in relation to programme development are now described. Firstly, it is important that the programme’s structure is easy to perceive for the students with a process-orientation in order to avoid fragmentation. According to the student teachers’ course evaluations they do not always understand the relevance of different parts of the programme. Further, the teacher students compare educational studies with their view of mathematics and science as disciplines that appear more exact and scientific to the students (also see, 2007). The various starting levels of the students should be taken into consideration when implementing pedagogical studies to help students find the pedagogical way of thinking (Younger, Brindley, Pedder & Hagger, 2004). Secondly, it is appropriate to balance the theoretical and practical parts of the studies as well as to build up links between the different parts. Practical viewpoints are considered important by the students, especially the teaching practice. Thirdly, the behavioural problems of pupils should be discussed more during the programme. There should be enough time for thinking over these issues in relation to the theoretical educational studies.

15

Student teachers’ evaluations of the pedagogical studies As an example of procedures student evaluations are systemically collected through student questionnaires and feedback discussions about the programme. The themes discussed and asked about are the quality of teaching, relevance of the pedagogical studies for personal professional development, how well the programme’s goals are being achieved, and general study arrangements. It is also typical that discussions take place between teacher educators. This is considered an important part of the continuous planning and implementation of the pedagogical studies. As a detailed example, physics and chemistry student teachers’ evaluations of the pedagogical studies are analysed. The evaluations were gathered by questionnaires during the 2004 – 2005, 2005 – 2006, and 2006 – 2007 academic years. The questionnaires included several open and closed questions regarding the courses of the pedagogical studies. The evaluations were collected during a small group session. The average number of responses was: N2004-2005 = 51; N2005-2006 = 75; N2006-2007 = 80. Typically, 70% to 80% of the students (median age 26) answered the questionnaires. The number of students participating in different courses varied to some extent because of the different personal study plans (Lavonen & Krzywacki-Vainio, 2008). The students were asked to evaluate each course from the viewpoint of learning the knowledge and competencies needed in the teacher profession on a five-point Likert scale (1 - little significance … 5 - great significance). Moreover, there were open questions considering implementation of the courses and some general questions considering the programme. Students’ evaluations of the pedagogical courses are presented in Figure 5. The courses are grouped in three sections in accordance with the structure of the programme: courses in education, courses in pedagogy and teaching practice. Students’ evaluations on reflective thinking and the significance of reflective activities are included in the section on teaching practice periods.

16

Education

Psychology of development and learning (4 cp.)

06 -07 05 -06 04 -05

Special needs education (4 cp.) Social, historical, and philosophical basis of education (5 cp.) Pedagogy Psychological basis related to teaching and learning science (10 cp.) Curriculum work and evaluation of science learning and teaching (7 cp.) Research Methodology and making of pedagogical research (10 cp.) Teaching practice

Basic Teaching Practice in a Teacher Training School (7 cp.) Master’s Level Teaching Practice in a Teacher Training School (8 cp.) Portfolio assessment 1

2

Little significance of the course for development of the teaching profession

3

4

5

Great significance of the course for development of the teaching profession

Figure 5. Students’ Evaluation of the Significance of Each Pedagogical Course from the Viewpoint of Development of the Teaching Profession Evaluations of the course Psychology of Development and Learning (4 ECTS credits) demonstrate that it is possible to develop a course. There is positive progress in the students’ evaluations. Teachers of the course carefully read the students’ evaluations and have developed the course based on that feedback. The open answers give more information about the students’ evaluations. About 13% of the students described in a positive way and only 7% in a negative way how the course ‘Psychology of Development and Learning’ supported knowledge construction. Most of the negative comments focused on practical arrangements. Students who wrote positive comments explained that the course introduced the basis of learning and development: ‘The issues discussed during the course were interesting.’ The negative comments were about the focus of the course: ‘Since I am becoming a secondary teacher, knowledge about the development of a small child is not necessary information for me.’ Negative evaluations of the course ‘Special Needs Education (4 ECTS credits)’ in year 05–06 are because the teacher was changed just before the course started and the new teacher did not have enough time to prepare for the course. However, even if most students evaluated teaching practice very positively from the point

17

of view of support for the construction of teacher knowledge, 41% of the students’ comments were negative when it came to the content or structure of the teaching practice. They typically complained about the quality of supervision by the mentor teacher, the topics selected for group discussions and portfolio assessment work: ‘My mentor teacher had a totally different philosophy to teaching and this made our collaboration difficult.’ ‘The small group discussions during the “school as a community seminar” were unnecessary.’ ‘The portfolio assessment did not support my reflection.’ Altogether, 39% of the statements were positive in nature. The most common comment was as follows: ‘The Basic Teaching Practice was the most important period during the autumn term.’ According to the quantitative data, the students evaluated that they were learning teacher knowledge the least through reflective thinking. However, the qualitative data yield more information about this. In fact, the students are not against reflective thinking but they have strong doubts about the portfolio assessment work as a tool for enhancing reflective thinking. This was clearly stated in the open answers, as shown in the following: ‘Reflection is ok – but why does one have to write everything down?’ and ‘What is the purpose of completing the portfolio?’ Different types of evaluation data gathered through students’ evaluations and staff members’ self-evaluations should be discussed collaboratively. These discussions should happen at different kinds of meetings, for example in meetings of the curriculum committee and meetings of the department board. Based on our experience, it is important that teachers in teacher training schools and students and, moreover, staff members from various subject departments participate in these discussions. The school teachers and students are frequently able to clarify the details in evaluations and also generate novel ideas when the new curriculum or implementation of the curriculum is discussed.

Discussion It is important to recognize the different levels in Quality Assurance (QA) and the role of QA at each level and, moreover, the interaction between levels. At the national level, the audits and other external reviews offer feedback on national-level planning and allocation of resources as well as an external input to the continuous development of Teacher Education (TE) at the institutional, department and programme levels. QA at the institutional level offers information for the development of co-operation and structures of TE. At the department and programme level, QA is important for the continuous development of the programmes. Vice-versa, also grass-roots level feedback is needs for institutional and national level reforms.

18

The Finnish evaluation and quality assurance policy emphasizes improvement-led approaches. The purpose of all the evaluations is to enhance quality in teaching, learning and research in higher education. In TE this requires systematic feedback loops and intensive co-operation with many actors and partners in TE. Teacher education has very ambitious aims. For decades the Finnish orientation toward TE has committed itself to the development of a research-based professional culture (Niemi & Jakku-Sihvonen, 2006). The aim of TE studies is to train students to find and analyse problems they may expect to face in their future work. In Finnish TE the aim is that teachers can work as independent professionals in schools and make their active contribution on educational issues including development of the school curriculum as well as formative and summative assessments of students’ learning. To achieve these objectives holistic QA and interactive processes between all levels of QA are needed. High quality TE requires that national, institutional, departmental and programme level actors continuously co-operate with regard to diagnosing, discussing and making decisions about the development of structures, contents and methods. It is also important that staff members at the institutional and department level and relevant stakeholders are aware of the role of the different levels and the role of QA at each level. Ehlers writes (2009) referring to Wolff (2004) that we are entering a new era in quality management of higher education. Much attention has been paid to mastering instruments of quality control or accreditation in the past decade. The focus is turning more and more to mastering change, allowing ownership for individual development, promoting champions in organizations and enabling professionals in higher education contexts. Ehlers (2009) continues: ‘… A main problem which is addressed is that even though sometimes effective organizational processes have been implemented, the educational quality (e.g. answering the question “what is good learning?”) is still lagging behind, and teaching strategies of educators or learning strategies of students have not been improved.’ In teacher education we need methods and practices that get deeper into organizations and closer to the teachers and learners. In Europe many countries agree that the general idea of transforming national teacher education aims into the form of standards or learning outcomes is to enhance learning and to make learning explicit and accountable and, moreover, to increase the quality of learning (Spady, 2003). Defining learning outcomes has been emphasized as an important basis for the quality of education in educational policy papers in Europe. However, this approach is not without its problems, especially in terms of QA at the local level. The roots of defining the learning outcomes could be argued to come close to the behaviouristic tradition of teaching and learning where the main idea is to define the ‘end behaviour’ in precise terms in order to create a basis for optimal instructional treatment. This kind of straightforward idea of teaching could be harmful to understanding learning and the development of TE programmes as a process. Finland has not followed the standardization tradition as it has been pursued in many other countries by harmonising TE programmes, organising centralized assessment in TE and a heavy national-level QA policy. In Finland, the role of different levels and autonomy at each level in QA has been emphasized. For example, the role of QA at the department level is mainly for the continuous and collaborative development of TE programmes. Finland approaches QA by understanding quality in a broad way: quality in education leads to the intended learning outcomes either indicated in national-level documents or, like in the

19

Finnish system, is decided on in a department and at the programme level in particular situations. The Finnish model is based on a level of trust where all partners involved in TE make sure their processes are kept at a high level. It has so far worked since all levels of QA take their responsibility seriously. It also means that continuous interaction is needed between different partners. Trust is not a status quo, it requires continuous work.

References Aksela, M. Supporting Meaningful Chemistry Learning and Higher-Order Thinking in Chemistry through Computer-Assisted Inquiry: A Design Research Approach. PhD thesis (2005) Buchberger, F., De Corte, E., Groombridge, B. & Kennedy, M. Educational Studies and Teacher Education in Finnish Universities: A Commentary by an International Review Team p. 14. Helsinki, 1994: Ministry of Education, Division of Educational and Research Policy. Carlsen, W. ‘Domains of Teacher Knowledge’, in J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman, eds, Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The Construct and Its Implications for Science Education (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999), 133–144. The Committee Report. Educational Sciences Towards the Future: Final report of the Committee for the Evaluation and Development of Educational Sciences (p. 16). Helsinki: Ministry of Education, Division of Educational and Research Policy, 16. Helsinki, 1994) (in Finnish, abstract in English). Ehlers, U. D. ‘Understanding quality culture’, Quality Assurance in Education, 17/4, 2009, 343– 363. ENQA (2011) The European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education)www.enqa.eu/files/BergenReport 210205.pdf.Retrieved Feb.12, 2012. Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council. Accessed 14 March 2011. Grossman, P. The Making of a Teacher. Teacher Knowledge and Teacher Education. (New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1990). Haapakorpi, A. ‘Quality Assurance Processes in Finnish Universities: Direct and Indirect Outcomes and Organisational Conditions’, Quality in Higher Education, 17/1, 2011, 69–81. Jakku-Sihvonen, R. & Niemi, H. ‘The Bologna Process and its Implementation in Teacher Education’, in R. Jakku-Sihvonen, R. and & H. Niemi, eds, Research-Based Teacher Education in Finland: Reflections by Finnish Teacher Educators. (Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association, 2006), 17–33.

20

Jussila, J. & Saari, S. Opettajankoulutus tulevaisuuden tekijänä (Teacher education as an agency for the future). Publications of the Finnish Higher Education Council, 11.Helsinki, 1999: Edita. Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvoston julkaisuja 11. Edita: Helsinki. Koponen, I., T., Mäntylä, T. & Lavonen, J., ‘The Role of Physics Departments in Developing Student Teachers' Expertise in Teaching Physics’, European Journal of Physics 25 (2004), 645–653. Lavonen, J. & Krzywacki-Vainio, H. ‘Research-Based Approach in Pedagogical Studies within Finnish Science Teacher Education: Student Teachers’ Experiences and Evaluation’, in B. Cavas, ed., Proceedings of the XIII IOSTE Symposium on the Use of Science and Technology Education for Peace and Sustainable Development September 21–26, 2008, Kuşadası/Turkey, 2008. Izmir: Dokuz Eylul University, 89–95. Lavonen, J. ‘Finland in PISA 2006 Scientific Literacy Assessment’, in J. Hautamäki, E. Harjunen, A. Hautamäki, T. Karjalainen, S. Kupiainen, J. Lavonen, E. Pehkonen, P. Rantanen & P. Scheinin, eds, PISA 2006: Analysis, Reflections, Explanations, 2008, 65–113. Helsinki: Ministry of Education Publications 2008:44. accessed 27 Feb 2009. Meisalo., V. ‘Subject Teacher Education in Finland: A Research-Based Approach: The Role of Subject Didactics and Networking in Teacher Education’, in R. Jakku-Sihvonen, R. & H. Ministry of Education. Teacher Education 2020 (in Finnish Opettajankoulutus 2020, an abstract in English), Reports and reviews of the Ministry of Education 44: 2007, Helsinki 2007. Niemi, H. ‘Effectiveness of Teacher Education: A Theoretical Framework of Communicative Evaluation and the Design of a Finnish Research Project’, in H. Niemi & K. Tirri, eds, Effectiveness of Teacher Education: New Challenges and Approaches to Evaluation. Reports from the Department of Teacher Education in Tampere University, 1996, A6, 11–32. Niemi, H. ‘ICT in Teacher Education’, in M. Sinko & E. Lehtinen, eds, The Challenges of ICT. (Juva: Atena, 1999), 145–173. Niemi, H. ‘Active Learning – A Cultural Change Needed in Teacher Education and in Schools’. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18 (2002), 763–780. Niemi, H. ‘Educating student teachers to become high quality professionals – A Finnish case’, Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal. C•E•P•S Journal,1/1, 43–66.

Niemi, H. & Jakku-Sihvonen, R. ‘Research-Based Teacher Education’, in R. Jakku-Sihvonen & H. Niemi, eds, Research-Based Teacher Education in Finland: Reflections By Finnish Teacher Educators. Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association, (2006) 31–50. Niemi. H. & Jakku-Sihvonen,R. ‘Teacher Education in Finland’, in M. V. Zuljan & J. Vogrinc, eds, European Dimensions of Teacher Education, Similarities and Differences (Slovenia: University of Ljubljana & The National School of Leadership in Education, 2011), pp. 33–51.

21

Niemi, H. & Kemmis, S. ‘Communicative Evaluation: Evaluation at the Crossroads’, Lifelong Learning in Europe (LLinE), IV/1 (1999), 55–64. Niemi, H. & Kohonen, V. Towards New Professionalism and Active Learning in Teacher Development: Empirical Findings on Teacher Education and Induction. (University of Tampere, Department of Teacher Education, 1995, Research series A 2). Teacher Education Development Programme. (Helsinki: Ministry of Education, Department for Education and Research Policy, 2002). Spady, W. G. ‘Outcome Based Education’, in Guthrie, J. W., ed., Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed. New York: Macmillan Reference, 2003), 1827–1831. Vokke Project ‘Finnish Project Related to European Bologna Process Implementation’ (2005), accessed 14 March 2011. Wolff, K.-D. „Wege zur Qualita¨tskultur. Die Elemente der Qualita¨tsentwicklung und ihre Zusammenha¨nge‟, in Benz, W., Kohler, J. and Landfried, K., eds), Handbuch Qualita¨t in Studium und Lehre, C 2.1, (Berlin, Josef Raabe Verlags 2004) 1-20. Younger, M., Brindley, S., Pedder, D. & Hagger, H. ‘Starting Points: Student Teachers’ Reasons for Becoming Teachers and Their Preconceptions of What This Will Mean’. European Journal of Teacher Education, 27/3 (2004), 245–264.