Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education: A Cross-National Study: Work carried out by an International Research Network of the World Education Research Association 9781350068681, 9781350068711, 9781350068698

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Series
Title
Copyright
Dedication
Contents
Notes on Contributors
Acknowledgements
Foreword
Part One Setting the Scene
1 Understanding Teacher Education Policy and Practice Cross-Nationally
2 The Significance of Teacher Education
Part Two Country Cases
3 Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Learning Teaching in Australia
4 Learning to Teach in the Czech Republic: Reviewing Policy and Research Trends
5 Learning to Teach in England: Reviewing Policy and Research Trends
6 Learning to Teach in Finland: Historical Contingency and Professional Autonomy
7 Learning to Teach in Hong Kong
8 Learning to Teach in Israel: Reviewing Policy and Research Trends
9 Learning to Teach in Italy: Reviewing Policy and Research Trends
10 How Teachers Learn to Teach: The Impact of Teacher Reforms in Japan
11 Institutional Transformations, Knowledge and Research Traditions in Teacher Education in Mexico: A Review
12 Learning to Teach in Russia: A Review of Policy and Empirical Research
13 The Trajectory of Teacher Education in South Korea: A Review of Policy and Research
14 Institutional Transformations, Knowledge and Research Traditions in US Teacher Education
Part Three Emergent Themes
15 Professional Knowledge and Theories of Teaching and Learning
16 The Interaction of Global and National Influences
17 What Future for Teacher Education?
Index

Citation preview

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Also available from Bloomsbury Developing the Expertise of Primary and Elementary Classroom Teachers, Tony Eaude Reflective Teaching in Schools, Andrew Pollard with Pete Dudley, Steve Higgins, Kristine Black-Hawkins, Gabrielle Cliff Hodges, Mary James, Sue Swaffield, Mandy Swann, Mark Winterbottom, Mary Anne Wolpert and Holly Linklater Transforming Teacher Education, Viv Ellis and Jane McNicholl

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education A Cross-National Study

Work carried out by an International Research Network of the World Education Research Association

Edited by Maria Teresa Tatto and Ian Menter

BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA BLOOMSBURY, BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2019 Paperback edition published 2020 Copyright © Maria Teresa Tatto, Ian Menter and Contributors, 2019 Maria Teresa Tatto, Ian Menter and Contributors have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Authors of this work. Cover photograph © baona / iStock For legal purposes the Acknowledgements on p. xiii constitute an extension of this copyright page. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN: HB: 978-1-3500-6868-1 PB: 978-1-3501-7899-1 ePDF: 978-1-3500-6869-8 eBook: 978-1-3500-6870-4 Typeset by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India

To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

This book is dedicated to the memory of Geoff Whitty (1946–2018), dear friend and colleague, who played a key role in establishing the World Education Research Association and supported the work reported here.

Contents Notes on Contributors Acknowledgements Foreword Felice J. Levine and Liesel Ebersöhn

ix xiii xiv

Part One Setting the Scene

1 Understanding Teacher Education Policy and Practice Cross-Nationally Maria Teresa Tatto and Ian Menter 2 The Significance of Teacher Education Maria Teresa Tatto and Ian Menter

3 9

Part Two Country Cases

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Learning Teaching in Australia Diane Mayer Learning to Teach in the Czech Republic: Reviewing Policy and Research Trends Jarmila Novotná Learning to Teach in England: Reviewing Policy and Research Trends Ian Menter, Trevor Mutton and Katharine Burn Learning to Teach in Finland: Historical Contingency and Professional Autonomy Janne Säntti and Jaakko Kauko Learning to Teach in Hong Kong Yuefeng Zhang Learning to Teach in Israel: Reviewing Policy and Research Trends Smadar Donitsa-Schmidt and Ruth Zuzovsky Learning to Teach in Italy: Reviewing Policy and Research Trends Monica E. Mincu How Teachers Learn to Teach: The Impact of Teacher Reforms in Japan Gerald LeTendre and Sakiko Ikoma Institutional Transformations, Knowledge and Research Traditions in Teacher Education in Mexico: A Review Maria Teresa Tatto and Ivet Parra-Gaete Learning to Teach in Russia: A Review of Policy and Empirical Research Roza A. Valeeva and Aydar M. Kalimullin

21 39 60 81 98 117 135 153

173 193

viii

13 14

Contents The Trajectory of Teacher Education in South Korea: A Review of Policy and Research James Pippin and Eunjung Jin Institutional Transformations, Knowledge and Research Traditions in US Teacher Education Maria Teresa Tatto and Christopher M. Clark

213 233

Part Three Emergent Themes

15 16 17 Index

Professional Knowledge and Theories of Teaching and Learning Maria Teresa Tatto The Interaction of Global and National Influences Ian Menter What Future for Teacher Education? Ian Menter and Maria Teresa Tatto

257 268 280 293

Notes on Contributors Katharine Burn is Associate Professor of Education at the University of Oxford and Director of the Oxford Education Deanery, an extended partnership between the university and local schools, committed to supporting teachers’ initial and continued professional learning through research engagement and collaboration. Her research focuses mainly on the policy and practice of teacher education, but she also has a strong commitment to history education, serving as Deputy President of the Historical Association and co-editor of its professional journal Teaching History. Christopher M. Clark is Professor Emeritus of Education, Michigan State University and founding Senior Researcher at the MSU Institute for Research on Teaching. His published works include research on teacher thinking, written literacy, teacher education and professional development, the moral dimension of teaching and social constructivism. Among his publications are ‘Teachers’ Cognitions’ in the Handbook of Research on Teaching, third edition, and the books Thoughtful Teaching and Talking Shop. He has served as researcher, teacher and visiting scholar at the University of Alberta, Teachers College, Columbia University, Stanford University, the University of Haifa, The Ohio State University, the University of Delaware and Arizona State University. Smadar Donitsa-Schmidt is Associate Professor at the Kibbutzim College of Education in Israel. She is currently Dean of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences and formerly Head of the Research Authority, Head of the Post Graduate Training Program and Head of the English Department. Her PhD from the Ontario Institute of Education at Toronto University is in educational linguistics. Her main areas of research are teacher training and professional development, second language teaching and learning in multicultural societies and assessment practices. Sakiko Ikoma is a researcher at the American Institutes for Research (AIR). She leads research projects focused on analysing data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the High School Longitudinal Study (HSLS) and the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). Her research interests include professionalization of teaching, school climate, professional learning communities (PLCs), teacher quality, homework, sociology of education, credentialism and meritocracy. Eunjung Jin holds a PhD in Curriculum Instruction and Teacher Education. She studied at Michigan State University and her research interests lie primarily in the area of language teachers’ identity, teaching and learning.

x

Notes on Contributors

Aydar M. Kalimullin is Professor and Director of the Institute of Psychology and Education in Kazan Federal University, in the Russian Federation. He has worked in the field of education for more than twenty-five years and has published more than fifty academic works including eleven monographs and study guides. Under his leadership the Institute of Psychology and Education has become a research intensive establishment. Jaakko Kauko, PhD, MSocSc, is Associate Professor of Education at the Faculty of Education, University of Tampere. His research focuses on the fields of education policy and comparative education. He is interested in the questions of power, contingency and complexity. One of his recent publications (2017) is a monograph co-authored with Hannu Simola, Janne Varjo, Mira Kalalahti and Fritjof Sahlström titled Dynamics in Education Politics: Understanding and Explaining the Finnish Case. Gerald LeTendre is Harry Lawrence Batschelet II Chair of Educational Administration at the Penn State College of Education, and was Head of the Educational Policy Studies Department from 2008 to 2016. He is currently co-editor of the American Journal of Education (with Dana Mitra). His current research interests focus on global trends in teacher work roles and teacher-related policy reforms. He and M. Akiba recently edited the Routledge International Handbook of Teacher Quality and Policy (2017). Diane Mayer commences as Professor of Education at the University of Oxford in September 2018, having completed a term as Dean of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney in Australia. She has previously held leadership positions at Victoria University, Deakin University and The University of Queensland in Australia, as well as the University of California at Berkeley in the United States. Her research focuses on teacher education and beginning teaching, examining issues associated with the policy and practice of teacher education and induction into the profession. Ian Menter is Emeritus Professor of Teacher Education at the University of Oxford, where, from 2012 to 2015, he was Professor of Teacher Education and Director of Professional Programmes in the Department of Education. He was President of the British Educational Research Association, 2013–15, and is a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences. He previously worked at the Universities of Glasgow, the West of Scotland, London Metropolitan, the West of England and Gloucestershire. Before that he was a primary school teacher in Bristol, England. He was President of the Scottish Educational Research Association (SERA) from 2005 to 2007 and he was a member of the steering group for the BERA/RSA Inquiry into Research and Teacher Education. Monica E. Mincu is Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy and Educational Sciences at the University of Turin, Italy. She has published in high-profile journals, such as Comparative Education, Oxford Review of Education and History of Education. She has engaged with education politics and governance from a social change and reform perspective and with teacher education in Europe in various

Notes on Contributors

xi

contexts. Her professional experience revolves around education politics and teacher education, through a comparative approach. Trevor Mutton is Associate Professor in the Department of Education at the University of Oxford and is Director of Professional Programmes. He has worked at the Department of Education since 1997, having previously been Head of Modern Languages at one of the department’s partnership schools. His principal research interests focus on initial teacher education policy and practice and teachers’ wider professional learning. Jarmila Novotná is Professor at Charles University, Faculty of Education, Prague, Czech Republic and Chercheur titulaire in CeDS (Laboratoire ‘Cultures et Diffusion des Savoirs’) at Université de Bordeaux, France. Her main fields of interest are didactical conditions of transformation of students’ models of activities when grasping knowledge and skills and transfer of research results into practice. She is involved in numerous international projects, including the Learner’s Perspective Study, and the International Network for the Social Essentials of Learning. Ivet Parra-Gaete is a doctoral student in Educational Policy and Evaluation at Arizona State University. She holds master’s degrees in Higher and Postsecondary Education at Arizona State University and in Communication at Universidad Diego Portales, Chile. Her research interests focus primarily on policy, internationalization, social issues, equity, participation of minority populations, quality of education and social exclusion in higher education institutions. Ivet has nine years of experience working for two Chilean universities as program director of the U.S. Department of State initiative American Corners. James Pippin is a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Teacher Education at Michigan State University. He completed his PhD in Educational Policy from Michigan State University with a specialization in international development. His research focuses on the intersections of policy, context and individual backgrounds in shaping the preparation, support and retention of effective teachers for marginalized students in the United States and internationally. Prior to completing his doctoral studies, James spent more than three years teaching English and conducting research in China and South Korea. Janne Säntti is Adjunct Professor of Education in the Faculty of Education at the University of Helsinki, Finland. He has studied Finnish teacher education in post-war Finland, especially the formation of academic teacher education. He is interested also in digitalization, future provisions of schooling and rhetoric analysis. Säntti is on the board of the Finnish Society for the History of Education and is chief editor of the society’s yearbook. Maria Teresa Tatto is Professor in the Division of Educational Leadership and Innovation, and the Southwest Borderlands Professor of Comparative Education

xii

Notes on Contributors

at the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College at Arizona State University. She is an Honorary Research Fellow at the Department of Education, University of Oxford, England, and a Visiting Professor at the Department of Education at Bath University in Bath, England. She previously worked at Michigan State University and at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). She has served as Editor of the journal Educational and Policy Analysis Archives, as Editor-in-Chief for the Journal of Teacher Education, and as a guest editor for the Oxford Review of Education and the International Journal of Educational Research. She is a former president of the Comparative and International Education Society (CIES), and studies the effects of educational policy on school systems and on teacher education systems. Roza A. Valeeva is Professor and Head of the Pedagogy Department at the Institute of Psychology and Education in Kazan Federal University. She is the Honoured Scientist of the Republic of Tatarstan and the Honoured Worker of Higher Professional Education of the Russian Federation. She serves as President of Janusz Korczak Society in Russia, and is a member of the Board of the International Korczak Association, and of the International Congress on School Effectiveness and Innovation. She is the national representative in the International Study Association on Teachers and Teaching. Her interests are in humanistic education and teacher education. She has authored more than 300 scientific books and articles. Yuefeng Zhang is Assistant Professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the Education University of Hong Kong, a Council member of the World Association of Lesson Study and Vice President of the Hong Kong Society of Small Class Teaching. Her research focus is on effective learning and teaching, teacher professional development and school leadership. She has conducted training workshops for principals and teachers in Hong Kong, mainland China, Taiwan, Singapore, Indonesia, Sweden, the UK, Austria, Italy and Kazakhstan. Ruth Zuzovsky is Associate Professor at the Kibbutzim College of Education, Israel. She is Research Fellow at the MOFET Institute (the National Intercollegiate Center for Research and Program Development for Teacher Educators), and Senior Researcher at the Science and Technology Education Center at Tel Aviv University. She served as the national coordinator of a number of IEA studies (TIMSS & PIRLS, 1995–2009), and is currently involved in several policy-oriented studies in teacher education funded by the Ministry of Education. Her publications deal with secondary analyses of largescale international evaluation studies, professional teacher development and policy issues regarding teacher education.

Acknowledgements A study of this reach and magnitude would not have been possible without the commitment of the country researchers who worked collaboratively to develop a common framework to explore the history and the institutional and knowledge transformations in their systems of teacher education, as well as the research traditions that have accompanied these changes. Their insights help us to understand the limits of what we know and do not know in the field. The work in this book has allowed us to appreciate the complexity entailed in preparing teachers while at the same time highlighting the contested nature of what it means to teach effectively across different contexts. For their insights as we developed our ideas, we are thankful to Marilyn CochranSmith, Kate Reynolds and the late Geoff Whitty, who served as critical readers and helpful discussants during the symposium we held at the European Educational Research Association (ECER) 2015 Conference in Budapest, and the double symposium we held at the World Education Research Association (WERA) Conference during the American Education Research Association (AERA) 2016 in Washington, D.C. Their comments highlighted the importance of the work we were undertaking as well as its high level of complexity. Their advice helped us understand that this is a two-part project: first find what the research in the field reveals about how teachers learn to teach and then ask the second question, whether there is empirical evidence of what approaches/pedagogies help teachers learn to teach effectively – understanding that effectiveness is in itself a highly contested notion. We are thankful to Paul Conway for suggesting the identification of ‘pivotal moments’ in the evolution of teacher education systems, making the task of describing the history of the systems a manageable one. Our appreciation goes to Mary Kennedy and Beatrice Avalos who served as members of our advisory board during the early phases of the study. Our International Research Network (IRN) team is composed of university researchers and thus we thank our institutions for supporting our work. Special thanks are due to the University of Oxford where Teresa, as a then visiting research fellow, initiated this work in collaboration with Ian Menter, and to Arizona State University, Teresa’s home institution, for their continuous support. Finally, we are thankful to the WERA, not only for their visionary IRN scheme and for supporting our proposal in early 2014, but also for their encouragement and backing during conferences, for providing spaces to meet and discuss our work and for providing a web presence for our IRN – Learning to Teach: Building Global Research Capacity for Evidence-Based Decision Making. Maria Teresa Tatto and Ian Menter

Foreword We are pleased to write the foreword for this volume on Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education: A Cross-National Study. It was inspired in significant ways by the aims and aspirations of the World Education Research Association (WERA) to bring the knowledge base together on significant education issues worldwide, situate that work in a global context, critically examine what we know and the limitations of related inquiries, consider future research directions and, as importantly, confront issues of research capacity building essential to the next generation of work. On each of these dimensions, this book has met the objectives of WERA and for work fostered under our imprimatur. The contributions in this volume came together through the leadership of Maria Teresa Tatto and Ian Menter who proposed and formed a WERA International Research Network (IRN) to examine empirically teacher education in different world settings. The purpose and goal of IRNs is to advance education research worldwide through collaborative efforts of scholars, including early career scholars, working on specific topics primarily through virtual communications. Initiatives undertaken by IRNs, such as this important work on teacher preparation, emphasize a critical examination of the state of research and a synthesis of studies, findings and data from different perspectives and contexts. This book fulfils that mission is reflective about where it falls short and is scrupulous in considering when evidence does – or does not – permit drawing firm policy or practice conclusions. The IRN on which this book is based was launched in 2014 as Learning to Teach: Building Global Research Capacity for Evidence-Based Decision Making. Its purpose and goal is to examine how changes in teacher education in different contexts are likely to affect teacher knowledge and capacity, and whether changes and current practices are based on research and empirical evidence or whether they reflect ideological and political considerations. In addition to communicating virtually, this IRN met annually at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting to examine challenges and progress. Also important, during the lifespan of this IRN, are the vibrant discussions that occurred during symposia and presentations at WERA Focal meetings. Besides moving this IRN initiative forward, these meetings also afforded other scholars across the globe opportunities to engage with the focus of this dynamic IRN and benefit from it. As the co-editors note, they invited more than twenty scholars from around the world to participate in the IRN group, although not all could do so for a variety of reasons, including resource limitations. Scholars from twelve countries reflecting diverse regions of the world ultimately contributed to this book. They recruited research teams in each country that undertook these analyses and made possible this work.

Foreword

xv

Contributing authors provided an historical overview of how teacher education evolved in each context and examine the structural features, the knowledge base and the research traditions and perspectives that inform and shape teacher preparation in these countries. Authors reviewed the extant literature on teacher education back to about 1980, when reforms on teacher education became more evident worldwide. They focused on such critical questions as the degree to which the research buttresses knowledge claims on what makes for effective teacher education, what knowledge good teachers should possess and the strength of the evidence for these claims. This volume overall offers an excellent synthesis of empirical research findings and insights on teacher preparation derived from research and analyses in cross-national settings. The challenges of developing common features of ‘good teaching’ as well as the complexity of dealing with policy debates on effective teacher education were confronted early on by this IRN. This book directly takes on this challenge and offers research-based insights on possible trajectories for reform and improvement of teacher preparation practices beyond the single countries from which this knowledge derives. We are so pleased to have an exemplar of an IRN that meets the expectations that WERA has and had for these research-driven groups. We compliment Drs Tatto and Menter for leading this IRN and for reaffirming their commitment to this form of research and capacity building. Their noting that a second volume widening the net of collaborators, countries and cultures is in the offing should not in any sense detract from the overall value of this important book and the chapters herein. If anything, we anticipate that exposure to these works will only reinforce readers’ interest in the next edition to come. Felice J. Levine American Educational Research Association WERA Immediate Past President Liesel Ebersöhn University of Pretoria WERA Secretary General

Part One

Setting the Scene

1

Understanding Teacher Education Policy and Practice Cross-Nationally Maria Teresa Tatto and Ian Menter

Introduction The forces currently challenging university-based teacher education are strong and have managed to transform, in some cases drastically, teacher education in a number of countries (e.g. Chile, England, Mexico, Pakistan and the United States) in a movement that allows the market to determine the future of education at all levels. While to a degree there is awareness of the changes that are occurring in teacher education internationally, it is important to understand the speed and the kind of changes that are occurring at the institutional and curricular levels. It is essential to know how these changes are likely to affect the knowledge and capacities of future teachers, and whether mandated changes are informed by research and empirical evidence, or whether they are largely dictated by ideological and political forces. This book is a product of a collaborative project of the Learning to Teach: Building Global Research Capacity for Evidence-Based Decision Making International Research Network (IRN) sponsored by the World Education Research Association (WERA). The project brings together a group of international education researchers whose goal has been to engage in a cross-national exploratory study using an historical perspective and a review of research approach. We asked contributors to describe pivotal changes in the evolution of teacher education in their native countries, and to examine the research literature to determine how existing research evidence has been used to guide teacher education transformation and how or whether scientific knowledge has informed the theory and practice of teacher education in each nation. We sought to identify common features that distinguish distinct approaches to learning to teach across settings and cultures and to examine whether current policies and practices are supported by research and/or empirical evidence. By engaging in this work, we aimed to create capacity to engage in new research directed at exploring methods and strategies in preparing future teachers and supporting current teachers throughout the career life cycle with emphasis on the subjects that teachers teach and on the needs of teachers who practise in challenging contexts.

4

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

The WERA-IRN ‘Learning to Teach: Building Global Research Capacity for Evidence-Based Decision Making’ The Learning to Teach: Building Global Research Capacity for Evidence-Based Decision Making network was formed in 2014 to address three main objectives, all of them to be pursued through international and comparative perspectives and methods: ● ●

●

Historical overview of how teacher education has developed in each context; Examination of the institutional, knowledge and research traditions that have influenced or been influenced by the evolution of teacher education in different national contexts; Analysis of the research and other factors within each country that have influenced the form and direction of teacher education.

Strand 1: Historical overview We aimed to cast a wide net to recruit collaborators to develop a multi-context review of the evolution of institutions, knowledge and research traditions on learning to teach in their home cultures. The key question guiding the charge to authors was as follows: what evidence has supported different approaches to learning to teach in your country and how has this evidence changed, if at all, over the years? This broad charge was intended to provide indicators of the ways in which societies value particular and perhaps distinctive types of knowledge and how these choices have influenced teaching and learning to teach.

Strand 2: Theory, knowledge and research traditions We also charged our authors to document the underlying theories that characterize past and current thinking about the knowledge, skills and dispositions needed by teachers and to examine the evidence used to support these theories. While more knowledge is needed to examine programs’ theory-of-action in comparative perspective (Weiss, 1997), we consider this one timely step in a larger research agenda. We have urged the chapter authors to examine and make visible the underlying concepts explicit and implicit in the ways in which teacher preparation has been conceived and implemented in their home cultures (see also Whitty and Furlong, 2017).

Strand 3: Empirical evidence We charged authors to review the state of knowledge about teacher education in their home nations beginning in 1980 (when major reforms and insights about teacher education began to become internationally visible) and continuing to the present. Authors used ‘backward mapping’ to chart the evolution of the research and knowledge traditions that supported current and past innovations in teacher education to answer questions such as: How are teachers prepared across countries? What evidence exists that these approaches result in the preparation of knowledgeable and capable teachers? Does the research literature point to common features of effective teacher education across countries and contexts? Does university-based teacher preparation provide

Understanding Teacher Education Policy and Practice Cross-Nationally

5

unique opportunities to learn to teach vis-à-vis other approaches? Is strong content knowledge necessary and sufficient to become a good teacher? What is the role of pedagogical content knowledge and other knowledge forms acquired in partnership between teacher education programs and schools? How have strong accountability and standardized testing trends in a growing number of national, regional and local school systems affected teacher education? What has been the influence of globalization on the education of teachers including the introduction of market-based reforms? We asked authors to summarize in their chapters those studies they saw as ‘indicative’ of the type of studies undertaken. In some cases authors were able to refer to early literature reviews and entire handbooks of research on teacher education, while in other cases no such tradition of research existed. In these cases, position papers and historical documents summarizing policy positions were used. To achieve these purposes we have met annually at WERA meetings beginning in 2014 to discuss the stated goals, and to report on progress and challenges in undertaking this work. While we extended an invitation to collaborate to more than twenty colleagues in different countries, many could not engage in the work for various reasons including lack of funding or institutional support, difficulty in accessing databases and lack of published research that could be used to answer the questions posed. A follow-on book is planned, using the same template, to include more countries and more regional variety. Those who collaborated on this book represent twelve nations: Australia, the Czech Republic, England, Finland, Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, the Russian Federation and the United States. Each author or team of authors provides a valuable account of teacher education and its evolution in their context and influential examples of the research and practical work that needs to be done to improve teacher education in their setting.

Approaches to literature review and analysis using cultural, social and historical lenses Developing a description of the historical development of teacher education and of the knowledge traditions that have guided the field was a challenging but an achievable task. Our third goal, identifying the empirical literature that could point to common features of effective teacher education across countries and contexts, proved more elusive. Because our attempt was to explore these questions across the countries represented by our IRN, we began by identifying the broad consensus among thought leaders in the field of teacher education about what knowledge is needed for good teaching and how teachers can best learn that knowledge (e.g. what opportunities to learn are provided to future teachers) in each country context. It soon became evident that the notion of ‘good teaching’ was variable and situational within and across countries, resulting in the conclusion that there is no definitive research that defines how teachers learn the required knowledge to teach effectively across levels and subjects. It became clear that the notion of effectiveness is contested across societies and contexts and that while the question ‘How do teachers learn to teach effectively?’ is seen as important to pursue; to answer it we needed to follow a two-stage process.

6

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

First, we recognized that our work could not speak to the policy debates about what is effective teacher education because we could not judge whether the research in each nation had empirically identified effective teaching practice, much less effective teacher education. Therefore the questions we need to ask are as follows: What does the research say about what makes teachers good teachers? What is the professional knowledge that good teachers should possess? What knowledge claims have been researched? How strong is the evidence, and of what quality? If there is no persuasive research available on a nation’s school teaching or teacher preparation programs, where do cultural ideas of what a good/effective teacher is come from? These became the questions we attempt to address in this book. The reviews of empirical research therefore sought to address the following:

a. What knowledge claims about what makes effective teacher education are supported in each nation? How central/extensive is this work and how much consensus is there? b. What knowledge claims about what makes teacher education effective are contested or have had mixed or contradictory empirical results. Why are these claims to teacher education effectiveness contested and what are the main points of contention? c. After comparing nations, we can identify which claims about enabling professional expertise are ignored or non-existent in specific nations. This meta-summary of national reviews will show whether or not research exists on what effective teacher education is, what is the quality or depth of the field, and what is missing. This could then propel the next phase of the work, in which we would seek to influence the development of policy from an empirical research base.

Contribution of the methods used in this study and insights of interest to researchers and policymakers Our work is first and foremost collaborative and capacity building (see Tatto, 2011, 2017). The literature review guidelines were developed in collaboration with representatives of the participating countries. The collection of the documents and the search of the databases were done by researchers within each country with guidance from the core research team. The participating scholars recruited their own research teams and guided the studies in their countries. The intention was to work collaboratively with all participants to sift and assess evidence-based knowledge on teacher education relevant to their own settings. Throughout the work we met frequently virtually and face to face, and recruited authors in a significant number of countries. Regular progress reports from our colleagues received frequent rounds of review. We presented our work in two Symposia at the 2016 WERA conference in Washington, D.C.1, where we also held discussions 1

Tatto (2016, April). Learning to Teach: Building Global Research Capacity for Evidence-Based Decision Making, Symposium I and II. In M. Tatto (Chair/presenter), held at the World Education Research Association Focal Meeting at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C., USA.

Understanding Teacher Education Policy and Practice Cross-Nationally

7

that enriched the study and gave it new direction as we realized that there is almost no research on the effectiveness of teacher education in many countries (for exceptions see Tatto et al., 1993; Tatto et al., 2012). This then was the framework within which we undertook this international inquiry into the nature of learning to teach in twelve nations. We are very grateful to our collaborators for the assiduous way in which they have developed their accounts. However, we have not imposed a ‘straitjacket’ on our collaborators, so it is not surprising that there is appropriately rich diversity in the approaches they have taken. Within this diversity, all contributors have addressed the key questions adumbrated above. Several of them adopted a specific ‘periodization’ of the historical development of teacher education in their countries. Each has identified the key themes including the ‘knowledge traditions’ that dominated and currently prevail in the policy and practice of teacher education. And all authors have identified the key or indicative empirical studies available. Although it was possible to identify a number of trends that have occurred in several or many different settings, it is also clear that the relationships among research, policy and practice vary widely by country. Not only do they change across time in each setting but also, when contrasting the twelve different contexts, they can be seen to be very much a reflection of the role of politicians and policymakers in each setting. The resulting picture, which we seek to summarize in the third and final parts of the book, is one which can be celebrated for the diversity it demonstrates as well as offers insights into what is possible in understanding the complex processes of preparing teachers for the challenges of their careers. This complex task we ourselves have sought to undertake in greater depth in our own national contexts (Tatto, Burn, Menter, Mutton and Thompson, 2018) and we understand with sympathy that teacher education reform is not for the faint of heart. Teacher education has very clearly become a ‘policy problem’ (Cochran-Smith, 2016) in every country under consideration here and we can now readily identify some of the early effects of globalization in education (Rizvi and Lingard, 2010), as well as the influences of national cultures and traditions (Alexander, 2000). The picture therefore is rich, complex and deeply fascinating, with strong potential for improvement-driven scholarship, theory development, culturally sensitive applied research and wide-ranging practical application.

References Alexander, R. (2000). Culture and Pedagogy. Oxford: Blackwell. Cochran-Smith, M. (2016). ‘Foreword’ in Teacher Education Group, Teacher Education in Times of Change. Bristol: Policy Press. Rizvi, F. and Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing Education Policy. London: Routledge. Tatto, M. T. (2011). Reimagining the education of teachers: The role of comparative and international research. Comparative Education Review, 55, pp. 495–516. Tatto, M. T. (2017). The role of comparative and international research in developing capacity to study and improve teacher education. In M. A. Peters, B. Cowie and I. Menter (Eds.), A Companion to Research in Teacher Education. Singapore: Springer.

8

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Tatto, M. T., Burn, K., Menter, I., Mutton, T. and Thompson, I. (2018). Learning to Teach in England and the United States. London: Routledge. Tatto, M. T., Nielsen, H. D., Cummings, W. C., Kularatna, N. G. and Dharmadasa, D. H. (1993). Comparing the effectiveness and costs of different approaches for educating primary school teachers in Sri Lanka. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, pp. 41–64. Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S. L., Ingvarson, L., Rowley, G., Peck, R., Bankov, K., Rodriguez, M. and Reckase, M. (2012). Policy, Practice, and Readiness to Teach Primary and Secondary Mathematics in 17 Countries. Findings from the IEA Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M). Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Student Achievement. Weiss, C. (1997). Evaluation. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Prentice Hall. Whitty, G. and Furlong, J. (Eds.) (2017). Knowledge and the Study of Education – an International Exploration. Didcot: Symposium Books.

2

The Significance of Teacher Education Maria Teresa Tatto and Ian Menter

Introduction The significance of teacher education has increased globally over recent decades. From international reports through to political manifestos in many countries, teacher education has been seen increasingly as crucial in the development of successful education systems. Within a globalized world therefore, teacher education has become a key plank of economic and social development. Nevertheless the character and worth of teacher education are contested in some contexts resulting in significant variations in how global influences have interacted with specific trajectories in different nation states and hence the interest in the kind of work that has resulted in this volume. It is possible to reveal a great deal about the culture, politics and economics of any society by studying its approaches to policy and practice in teacher education, especially using cultural, social and historical lenses. The evolution of formal teacher education dates back to the second half of the eighteenth century with the foundation of the Normal Schools for teachers in France. The idea was for the state to create an institution in charge of developing a highly knowledgeable teacher force capable of and committed to educating future citizens. This idea took hold and spread quickly throughout the world and eventually as teaching became acknowledged as a profession, the Normal Schools either became tertiary-level institutions or moved to the universities. Beginning in the mid-1980s, work by Shulman (1987) in the United States and others elsewhere (Loughran, Mitchell and Mitchell, 2003; Verloop, Van Driel and Meijer, 2001; Day, 1999) contributed to understanding learning to teach as a lifelong process. The key conditions to establishing teaching as a profession (specialized knowledge, researching one’s own practice, accountability to peers, etc.) seemed to be in place and education in general seemed to be finding a place as a legitimate discipline in universities. Globally, UNESCO’s Delors Report (1996); Tawil and Cougoureux (2013) included teachers as significant actors in educational success. Policies supporting the education of teachers and research investigating the characteristics of effective teaching flourished during the 1990s in many countries.

10

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

In this chapter, we first explore the ways in which teacher education has become a focus for debate and controversy and a concern of public policy (Cochran-Smith, 2005; Lagemann, 2000). We then offer an account of a three-stranded approach to analysing these concerns. We argue for an historical sociocultural perspective, for seeking to identify theories-in-action in each context and for a review of the available empirical evidence. Each of these three elements is defined in the upcoming sections of this chapter. In the final part of the chapter, we lay out the structure of the book as a whole and provide an overarching rationale for the work presented.

Teacher education as a contested issue and a public policy problem The creation of university-based teacher education is aligned with the view that good teachers can be prepared successfully through a balanced set of experiences that include considerable time to acquire knowledge of the content and of the pedagogy, as well as sufficient supervised in-school practice to teach the school curriculum effectively. The belief that teacher preparation should occur in higher education institutions, however, is not universal. In fact, in some nations the character and worth of university-based teacher education is a fiercely debated issue. At the core of this debate is a deceptively simple question: are teachers ‘born or made’? While many systems recognize that there is little doubt that some individuals who teach may be inherently good at teaching without much preparation, there is also little doubt that these do not exist in enough quantity as to populate schools and whole education systems (Tatto et al., 2012). Yet doubts about the effectiveness of university-based teacher education as a vehicle to procure access to quality of education to all children have prompted some scholars to declare that the university project of education may be in jeopardy. For example, these issues have been examined critically by Furlong (2013) and Menter (2017) within the UK, and by Moon (2016) and Tatto (2007) on the global scale. In England for instance, challenges to university-level preparation for teachers emerged with force in the second half of the twentieth century, later spreading to several other countries. Attacks against teacher education programs in universities continue unabated and have come accompanied by increased accountability mandates as condition for accreditation (Tatto and Pippin, 2017; Tatto et al., 2016) and by the creation of alternative routes into teaching. The creation of untested alternatives to the traditional model of teacher education, some of them from private sources, and attacks against the profession have contributed to weakening the enrolment base. These significant changes in the teacher education landscape have been supported by national-level policies. These policies have allowed (1) alternative routes into teaching under the assumption that these can help supply schools with an adequate teaching force; (2) the market to mediate teacher education provision, under the assumption that competition will increase quality (Childs and Menter, 2013) and increasingly (3) externally driven teacher education program evaluation schemes which rarely build capacity for self-study and improvement (Tatto and Pippin, 2017). While in many countries alternative routes into teaching, marketization and increased

The Significance of Teacher Education

11

accountability demands have not taken hold (Sahlberg, 2010), they have in others, with no sound research evidence to support their alleged effectiveness (Darling-Hammond and Lievberman, 2012). The ongoing debate about the character and worth of teacher education affects notions concerning the kind of knowledge that is valued for teachers to have as they enter the profession and how it should be transmitted, deeply affecting policy (Hordern and Tatto, 2018). While in some countries such as Finland, teaching is seen as a highly specialized profession requiring master-level studies guided by a curriculum based on the sciences of education and research on practice; in other countries the contrary is true (Webb et al., 2004). In England, and in the United States for instance, the redefinition of what counts as a qualified teacher includes academic knowledge requirements but excludes other knowledge which is seen elsewhere as foundational to teaching (such as pedagogy, psychology and sociology among others), and negates the importance of a period of supervised practice before becoming qualified, and recognized as a teacher of record (Tatto and Hordern, 2017). Recent policy in both countries has authorized individuals without a teaching credential a direct route into teaching.

Approaches to policy and practice in teacher education Policies such as the ones described in the previous section have in many cases (such as in England) dramatically changed the educational landscape in irreversible ways (Whiting et al., 2018; Ellis and McNicholl, 2015; Brown, 2018). Yet our research shows that in many cases the evolution of teacher education policy and practice has not always been evidence based (Papanastasiou and Tatto, 2011; Tatto, 2017), and that some of these reforms are occurring as a response to increasing attacks motivated more by political forces and interest groups than by rigorous evidence (in the United States, see Labaree, 2008; Levine, 2006; National Council for Teacher Quality, 2013; in England, see Childs and Menter, 2013). These attacks to the teaching profession have resulted in added scrutiny and uncertainty as programs attempt to respond to standards and mandates for accountability at the state and national levels (Tatto, 2007). Responding to these demands and initiating change has not been easy, especially because historically the profession has lacked cohesiveness, and systemic and cumulative evidence of what are the most effective approaches among the range of possible alternatives across diverse cultural and social contexts.

A historical, sociocultural approach Historically speaking, inquiry into how one learns to teach, and the role of teacher education is not new (see for example Aho, Pitkanen and Sahlberg, 2006; Furlong, 2013; Grossman, 2011; Lagemann, 2000; Menter, Brisard and Smith, 2006; Núñez, 2002). Years of previous research on program implementation and on teacher knowledge have produced a great variety of approaches to teacher learning with a corresponding variety of results. Across contexts, some of these approaches have proven successful (Tatto et al., 2012), but cumulative systemic evidence is still limited within and across

12

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

countries. Exploration of teacher education in countries whose pupils obtain high levels of achievement according to international tests shows some similar findings (Carnoy, 2009; Mourshed, Chijioke and Barber, 2010; Tatto, 2013). Consequently, a sociocultural and historical exploration of the research trajectory supporting these programs and approaches across diverse countries promises to be a fruitful path for a review of the research literature.

A theory-in-action approach Theories underlying diverse approaches to learning to teach are important to investigate because they reveal contextualized conceptions of knowledge held important as societies respond to current and perceived future demands (Bernstein, 2000; Shulman, 1987; Carlgen, 1999; Loughran, Mitchell and Mitchell, 2003; Verloop, Van Driel and Meijer, 2001). The implemented theory of learning to teach as understood by the programs, however, goes a step further and this aspect has been little explored. It is the amalgamation of theory and practice that shapes teaching knowledge. Teacher educators not only formulate theories of learning to teach and implement their programs accordingly; they constantly test the theory-in-action of their teacher education programs (Weiss, 1997); much of this has remained implicit. It is important to make the theory-in-action of teacher education programs explicit. Such activity would provide teacher educators with evidence resulting from their professional practice not unlike what occurs in other professions (Tatto, 2017). It will help explore, for instance, how programs across countries negotiate the balance between disciplinary and pedagogical knowledge, and between theory and practice among others (see for instance Tatto et al., 2012), and the evidence used in making such decisions.

Searching for empirical research evidence as a first step The need for sound empirical research evidence to inform teacher education policy has never been more urgent. Innovative approaches not empirically tested are emerging and spreading worldwide unchallenged, such as Teach for America (Heilig and Jez, 2010), Teach First in England (Tatto et al., 2018) and school-led systems (Mutton, Burn and Menter, 2017). Self-appointed organizations ‘that promote a corporate-influenced school reform agenda, [have] issued ratings of teacher preparation programs that … are seriously flawed’ (Darling-Hammond, 2013; p. 1), yet have been highly influential in the US public and policy arenas. Examples of this rapidly spreading trend can indeed be found under the ‘Teach for All’ banner in places as different as England under neoliberal, neoconservative policies in combination with market systems (see Childs and Menter, 2013; Furlong, 2013), in the United States (Klein, Rice and Levy, 2012), and in Chile (Avalos, 2004; Cox, Meckes and Bascope, 2010), where the market has also been allowed to operate and shape the teacher education provision. Counter examples can also be found in Finland (Sahlberg, 2010) and Singapore (NIE, 2009), where such radical innovations have not been found necessary – and where teachers have been judged to be generally very effective. These extreme different approaches to the same goal – that of preparing future teachers – must be studied.

The Significance of Teacher Education

13

The goals and structure of this book This book examines the question of how teachers learn to teach across several nations by studying the evolution of educational policy and research on approaches to initial teacher education with careful attention to context. To understand teacher education trajectories, it is necessary to examine such changes using cultural, social and historical lenses. We locate our inquiry at the core of different conceptions of knowledge across the contexts of teacher learning and its interaction with what individuals bring with them as they are initiated into teaching. To date there are few systematic cross-national examinations of these important questions (see Schwille, Ingvarson and HoldgreveResendez, 2013). This cross-national perspective is expected to reveal major trends that typically remain obscured in single-country studies. Our hope is that this book will demonstrate the complexity embedded in the knowledge that is considered worth having for teachers and by implication students, and the complex history and theory involved in the provision of teacher education. Indeed our findings reveal that approaches to teacher education are influenced by a variety of research and knowledge traditions, which are not always consistent and sometimes are at odds with national policy with varied results for the intellectual capacity, and future work of teachers. This book is structured in three major parts. In the first part, we review the evolution of teacher education policy and practice as an indicator of the knowledge that is considered important for nation-building, and the significance of teacher education on teacher learning as an indication of the intellectual and moral direction to which schooling must aspire. In the second part of this book, a range of contributors look at these dynamics across powerful societies, including Australia, the Czech Republic, England, Finland, Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, the Russian Federation and the United States. Individual chapters will answer questions of how teachers learn to teach in different countries considering historical and institutional changes and knowledge traditions, as well as the theory and the empirical evidence, if any, backing up these approaches. Each country-chapter observed rigorous criteria for inclusion of research studies. These criteria have been developed within each country context because of the assumption that what counts as valid, reliable and usable knowledge will vary from country to country. (This is an important meta-question that we will seek to answer through our work.) It is crucial in such multination studies to be ‘context sensitive’ (Crossley and Watson, 2003). Each chapter charts the evolution of the research that has supported current and past innovations in teacher preparation to answer questions such as: Historically, what has been the role of schooling in learning to teach in the country? What is the role of time in the progression of learning to teach in individuals’ lived experiences? What is the role of social and organizational norms in the transitions from learner to novice to expert and beyond? What is the role of the social structure, of institutional arrangements and of schools in learning to teach? The third and final part reviews how the country-specific chapters in Part Two illustrate the international variability in different conceptions of knowledge in the context of learning to teach (e.g. what knowledge counts as important among teacher

14

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

educators and for teacher education). We also seek to explore the way in which national and international influences interact in the developing trajectories of teacher education policy and practice; in other words to what extent is ‘globalization’ a feature in the development of teacher education around the world. These final chapters synthesize and compare each country’s findings seeking to answer the questions we raised as we began our study, including the essential question of who are the future teachers and what are the distinct conceptions of learning to teach across different cultures and settings including the knowledge that is considered important for teachers (and pupils) to have. Our study also answers questions about the organizational characteristics (philosophies or work culture) of teacher preparation programs and factors that influence change processes, and about how teachers learn to teach as informed by institutional, knowledge and research traditions. Finally, we answer questions having to do with the national and global policy pressures on teacher preparation programs.

References Aho, E., Pitkanen, K. and Sahlberg, P. (2006). Policy development and reform principles of basic and secondary education in Finland since 1968. Retrieved 8 July 2013 from http: //siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/278200-1099079877269/5476 64-1099079967208/Education_in_Finland_May06.pdf Avalos, B. (2004). Teacher regulatory forces and accountability policies in Chile: From public servants to accountable professionals. Research Papers in Education, 19(1), 67–85. Bernstein, B. (2000) Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity (Revised Edition). New York and Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. Brown, T. (2018) Teacher Education in England – A critical Interrogation of School-Led Training. London: Routledge. Carlgen, I. (1999). Professionalism and teachers as designers. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(1), pp. 43–56. Carnoy, M. et al. (2009). Do Countries Paying Teachers Higher Relative Salaries Have Higher Student Mathematics Achievement? TEDS-M, IEA: Amsterdam and East Lansing, MI. Childs, A and Menter, I. (2013). Teacher education in 21st century England, a case study in neoliberal public policy. Revista Española de Educacion Comparada, 22, pp. 93–116. Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). The new teacher education: For better or for worse? Educational Researcher, 34 (7), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034007003 Cox, C., Meckes, L., Bascope, M. (2010). La institucionalidad formadora de profesores en Chile en la década del 2000: Velocidad del mercado y parsimonia de las políticas (Initial teacher education institutions in Chile between 2000 and 2010: Market speed and policies’ parsimony), Revista Pensamiento Educativo, 46–7, pp. 205–45. Crossley, M. and Watson, K. (2003). Comparative and International Research in Education, Globalisation, Context and Differences. London, Routledge Falmer. Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Why the NCTQ teacher prep ratings are nonsense. In Valerie Stauss, The Answer Sheet Blog, Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpos t.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2013/06/18/why-the-nctq-teacher-prep-ratings-are-nons ense/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.944e92a23bc8

The Significance of Teacher Education

15

Darling-Hammond, L. and Lievberman, A. (Eds.) (2012) Teacher Education around the World – Changing Policies and Practice. London: Routledge. Day, C. (1999). Developing Teachers: The Challenges of Lifelong Learning. Educational Change and Development Series. Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis. Delors, J. (1996). Learning, the treasure within. Report of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-First Century. Paris, France: UNESCO. Ellis, V. and McNicholl, J. (2015) Transforming Teacher Education – Reconfiguring the Academic Work. London: Bloomsbury. Furlong, J. (2013). Globalisation, neoliberalism, and the reform of teacher education in England, The Educational Forum, 77, 28–50. Grossman, P. (2011). Framework for teaching practice: A brief history of an idea. Teachers College Record, 113 (12), pp. 2836–43. Heilig, J. V. and Jez, S. J. (2010). Teach for America: A Review of the Evidence. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved 28 August 2013 from http://epicpolicy.org/publication/teach-for-a merica Hordern, J. and Tatto, M. T. (2018). Conceptions of Teaching and Educational Knowledge Requirements. Oxford Review of Education, DOI:10.1080/03054985.2018.1438254 (https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/IMyrpFNxV5Rhy6ZHZsgm/full) Klein, J. I., Rice, C. and Levy, J. (2012). U.S. education reform and national security. Independent Task Force Report No. 68. New York, NY: Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved 8 July 2013 from www.cfr.org. Labaree, D. F. (2008). An uneasy relationship: The history of teacher education in the university. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser and D. J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education: Enduring Issues in Changing Contexts, 3rd ed. Washington D.C.: Association of Teacher Educators, 290–306. Lagemann, E. (2000). An Elusive Science: The Troubling History of Education Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Levine, A. (2006). Educating School Teachers. Washington D.C.: The Education Schools Project. Loughran, J., Mitchell, I. and Mitchell, J. (2003). Attempting to document teachers’ professional knowledge. Qualitative Studies in Education, 16 (6), pp. 853–73. Menter, I. (2017). The Role and Contribution of Higher Education in Contemporary Teacher Education. Edinburgh: Scottish Council of Deans of Education. Available at: http:// www.scde.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Report-Ian-Menter-2017-05-25.pdf Menter, I., Brisard, E. and Smith, I. (2006). Convergence or Divergence? Initial Teacher Education in Scotland and England. Edinburgh, Scotland: Dunedin Academic Press. Moon, B. (Ed.) (2016) Do Universities have a Role in the Education and Training of Teachers? – An International Analysis of Policy and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C. and Barber, M. (2010). How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better. McKinsey & Company. Retrieved from http://www.mcki nsey.com/client_service/social_sector/latest_thinking/worlds_most_improved_schoo ls 25. Mutton, T., Burn, K. and Menter, I. (2017). Deconstructing the Carter review: Competing conceptions of quality in England’s ‘school-led’ system of initial teacher education. Journal of Education Policy, 32 (1), 14–33. NCTQ (2013). Teacher Prep Review 2013. Washington D.C.: National Council on Teacher Quality. http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Teacher_Prep_Review_2013_Report.

16

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

NIE (National Institute of Education, Singapore), (2009). TE21: A teacher education model for the 21st century. Singapore: Author. Available from http://www.nie.edu.sg/ about-nie/teacher-education-21). Núñez, I. (2002). La formación de docentes. Notas históricas. En B. Avalos, Profesores para Chile: Historia de un Proyecto. Santiago: Ministerio de Educación. Papanastasiou, E. C. and Tatto, M. T. (2011). Program theory, program documents, and state standards in evaluating teacher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, pp. 1–16. Sahlberg, P. (2010). The Secret to Finland’s Success: Educating Teachers. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Research Brief. Retrieved 8 July 2013 from http://edpolicy.stanford.edu Schwille, W., Ingvarson, L. and Holdgreve-Resendez, R. (2013). TEDS-M Encyclopedia: A Guide to Teacher Education Context, Structure, and Quality Assurance in 17 Countries. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform, Harvard Educational Review, 57 (1), pp. 1–22. Tatto, M. T. (2007). Reforming Teaching Globally. Oxford, England: Symposium Books. (Reprinted in 2009 Information Age Publishers). Tatto, M. T. (2013). The Role of Research in International Policy and Practice in Teacher Education (paper 2). The role of research on in teacher education: Findings from the BERA-RSA Inquiry. Tatto, M. T. (2017). The Role of Comparative and International Research in Developing Capacity to Study and Improve Teacher Education. In M. A. Peters; B. Cowie and I. Menter (Eds.), A Companion to Research in Teacher Education. Singapore: Springer. Tatto, M. T. and Hordern, J. (2017). The configuration of teacher education as a professional field of practice: A comparative study of mathematics education. In J. Furlong and G. Whitty (Eds.), Knowledge and the Study of Education: An International Exploration, 255–74. Oxford, England: Oxford Comparative Education Series, Symposium Books. Tatto, M. T. and Pippin, J. (2017). The Quest for Quality and the Rise of Accountability Systems in Teacher Education. In J. D. Clandinin and J. Husu (Eds.), International Handbook of Research in Teacher Education. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Tatto, M. T., Savage, C., Liao, W., Marshall, S., Goldblatt, P. and Contreras, M. L. (2016). The Emergence of High-Stakes Accountability Policies in Teacher Preparation: An Examination of the U.S. Department of Education’s Proposed Regulations. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24 (25). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2322. Tatto, M. T., Burn, K., Menter, I., Mutton, T. and Thompson, I. (2018). Learning to Teach in England and the United States: The Evolution of Policy and Practice. Abingdon: Routledge. Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S. L., Ingvarson, L., Rowley, G., Peck, R., Bankov, K., Rodriguez, M. and Reckase, M. (2012). Policy, Practice, and Readiness to Teach Primary and Secondary Mathematics in 17 Countries. Findings from the IEA Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M). Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Student Achievement. Tawil, S. and Cougoureux, M. (2013). Revisiting Learning: The Treasure Within. Assessing the influence of the 1996, Delors Report. Paris: UNESCO. Verloop, N., Van Driel. J. and Meijer. P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 35 (5), pp. 441–61.

The Significance of Teacher Education

17

Webb, R., Vulliamy, G., Hämäläinen, S., Sarja, A., Kimonen, E. and Nevalainen, R. (2004). A comparative analysis of primary teacher professionalism in England and Finland. Comparative Education, 40 (1). Weiss, H. C. (1997). Theory‐based evaluation: Past, present, and future. New Directions for Evaluation. Special Issue: Progress and Future Directions in Evaluation: Perspectives on Theory, Practice, and Methods, 1997 (76), pp. 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/ ev.1086 Whiting, C., Whitty, G., Menter, I., Black, P., Hordern, J., Parfitt, A., Reynolds, K. and Sorenson, N. (2018) Diversity and complexity: Becoming a teacher in England in 2015-16. Review of Education, 6, 1, pp. 69–96.

Part Two

Country Cases

3

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Learning Teaching in Australia Diane Mayer

Introduction In this chapter, first I provide a snapshot of current teacher education provisions across Australia as a precursor to an historical overview and the links between policy, practice and research. I trace three phases of teaching and teacher education which preceded current reforms and highlight the related knowledge for teaching and learning teaching that was valued most at each historical moment. Then, I focus on more recent developments during the past decade, and specifically since 2014, to examine the significant tensions that now exist between research, policy and practice, and finally consider some future opportunities and imperatives for teacher education researchers. In this chapter, I am focusing on initial teacher education or teacher preparation, but for ease of reading I use the term ‘teacher education’ throughout, acknowledging of course that teacher education is much more than teacher preparation.1

A snapshot of current teacher education provisions in Australia Australia has a relatively small population of 24.6 million people (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2017). In June 2017, the school student population was 3.85 million (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2018), with primary schools providing schooling for students aged five to twelve years and secondary schools for those aged thirteen to eighteen years. (School attendance is compulsory for students aged sixteen to seventeen years.) The schooling system comprises 6,228 primary schools, 1,408 secondary schools and 1,336 combined primary and secondary schools with 315,292 teaching staff across the country, 73 per cent of whom are female (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2018). 1

This chapter draws on previously published work by the author (Mayer, 2014; Mayer, Cotton and Simpson, 2017).

22

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Even though a small alternative pathway into teaching, Teach for Australia, has been operating since 2010, teachers are usually prepared in universities in four-year undergraduate Bachelor of Education degrees, four-year double degrees comprising a degree in the subject discipline area and a Bachelor of Education, or two-year Master of Teaching programs completed after an initial three-year non-education bachelor’s degree. There were 373 accredited programs offered by 48 providers at 85 different locations across Australia graduating 18,194 teachers in 2015 (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2017). Sixty-nine per cent of programs were at the undergraduate level with 31 per cent at the postgraduate level (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2017). In terms of structure, the programs usually comprise professional studies, curriculum studies and professional experience or practicum, as well as discipline or content study for teaching areas where entrants have no first degree in the relevant discipline. Professional experience or practicum comprises a series of supervised experiences in schools during most years of the program, totalling twelve to twenty weeks depending on the length of the program. Secondary teachers are usually prepared to teach two subject areas, and primary teachers to teach across a number of subject areas, including the arts, English, health and physical education, humanities and social sciences, languages, mathematics, science and technologies. Approval of these teacher education programs is managed by teacher regulatory authorities in each state and territory using national program standards. Funding from the Australian government is allocated to universities under the Commonwealth Grant Scheme (CGS), which subsidizes students’ tuition costs. Students pay a portion of the total course fee, which can be paid to the government upfront or deferred through the Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) as an income-contingent loan to students. The 2008 review of Australia’s higher education system (Australian Government, 2008) led to major reforms – specifically and of relevance for this chapter, the uncapping of the allocation of domestic undergraduate university places through a demand-driven system. This has not been implemented for postgraduate CGS places, so the impact on teacher education, which provides both undergraduate and graduate pathways to teaching, means increasing undergraduate pathway numbers and somewhat stable graduate pathway numbers. The Commonwealth government provides additional funding for practicum supervision to higher education institutions, which then contract directly with individual schools to provide supervision of pre-service teachers. In 2015, teacher education bachelor graduates had a slightly higher full-time employment rate (71 per cent) than other bachelor graduates (67 per cent), but graduates from postgraduate teacher education programs had a lower employment rate (65 per cent) than graduates from all higher education postgraduate programs (80 per cent) (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2017). However, studies have shown that more than 70 per cent of employed teacher education graduates usually work at fixed-term contracts or casual appointments in their first year of teaching and that this negatively impacts their career progression and retention in the profession (e.g. Mayer et al., 2017). Historically, schooling and teachers’ work in Australia have been under the jurisdiction of the states and territories, and higher education has been financed and

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Learning Teaching in Australia

23

administered by the Commonwealth. Not surprisingly, this has resulted in tensions at times, particularly when the political party in government at the federal level is different from that in each state and territory and clashes in education policy ensue. However, since 2009, the Australian government has made moves to increase its influence over schooling and teachers’ work, as well as teacher education. This has been accompanied by a positioning of teacher education, like much of the Western world, as a ‘policy problem’ (Cochran-Smith, 2008, p. 273). The policy context is currently dominated by calls for classroom-ready teachers and evidence of the effectiveness and impact of teacher preparation, with the general rhetoric claiming that teacher education research provides no adequate response. This is being used to support large-scale reform agendas, often following the neoliberal agendas driving teacher education policy and practice in the United Kingdom and the United States.

The history of teacher education in Australia Teacher training in the 1960s and 1970s: Developing the craft of teaching In the first half of the twentieth century in Australia, new state departments of education developed a public schooling system and established teacher training institutions. Former schoolteachers became lecturers in these institutions and prepared teachers to teach their state’s school curriculum. Knowledge of the set curriculum for each state and territory and how to teach it was deemed to be the required knowledge for teaching. Policies and practice around workforce supply and demand were also closely controlled by state governments with them only admitting into their teacher training institutions the number of teachers they needed. They then employed the graduating teachers managing their induction and ongoing career progression. After the Second World War, a growing population meant significant expansion of public schooling and demand for teachers. With increased mobility around the country and growing demands on the schooling system, as well as an emerging research base on teaching, teaching came to be seen as a craft and teacher preparation, therefore, required training in developing that craft. The curriculum of the teacher training program was informed by the process-product teaching effectiveness research (e.g. Dunkin and Biddle, 1974) which sought to identify particular instructional skills shown to have been effective for student learning. In their programs, teachers-in-training observed and then practised discrete skills like explaining, questioning, variability and reinforcement. The very popular Sydney micro-skills approach (Turney, 1975) was used in most, if not all, teacher training institutions across the country at this time. It provided a kit with videotaped excerpts of what was considered effective for teaching which student teachers observed and examined, and then practised by teaching small classes of their peers. All of this was videotaped and subjected to group discussion and analysis postteaching. Pre-service teachers were judged on how closely they performed the skill. During this time, state governments established and funded Colleges of Advanced Education (CAEs), thus creating a binary tertiary education system in Australia,

24

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

with CAEs intended to complement the established universities. Apart from offering some diplomas of education for secondary teaching, universities essentially remained ‘disconnected from teacher education which, in turn, became firmly embedded in training colleges which ranked as second tier institutions’ (Aspland, 2006, p. 146).

Teacher education in the 1980s and into the 1990s: Developing decision-making capabilities and reflective practice Changes in the focus of research on teaching and the eventual move of teacher education into universities in the early 1990s led to a gradual change in the ways in which teaching and learning to teach were framed in Australia. At first, teacher preparation and ongoing professional development were informed by the teacher thinking research which aimed to document the cognitive processes and schemata that teachers use, particularly during planning but also while teaching as they made various decisions in response to what was happening in the classroom (e.g. Marland, 1986). Following the research emerging in north America and Europe which aimed to understand the differences between expert and novice teachers (e.g. Berliner, 1987) and the nature of teachers’ knowledge and how it was acquired, held and used (Shulman, 1987), terms like ‘teacher training’ were rejected in favour of ‘teacher education’ and ‘learning to teach’. In line with the focus on the education of teachers by focusing on developing their professional knowledge and professional judgement, reflective practice became a major focus in teacher education programs (e.g. Martinez, 1990; Smyth, 1989). The teacher education governance structures and government policies at the time enabled this greater emphasis on building teachers’ professional knowledge as well as their critically informed professional judgement in meeting the learning needs of all students. Teacher education was largely self-governed by the institution responsible for delivering the programs. In the main, teacher educators had programmatic control over the way they prepared teachers and to some extent also influenced the political agendas related to professional learning and professional practice of in-service teachers. However, in 1988, the Federal Minister for Employment, Education and Training introduced major changes in Australian higher education that significantly impacted teacher education. The previous binary system with CAEs where teacher education largely happened and universities where it rarely happened was replaced by a unified national system of higher education resulting in many amalgamations and the granting of university status to some former CAEs. While the move of teacher education from the CAEs into universities was viewed by some as having the potential to raise the status of teacher education and lift it out of its vocational framing, concerns began to be raised about the low status given to teacher education. Staff moving from their teaching-only positions in CAEs into the university domain were now required to build a research and scholarship profile in order to be competitive within the university rewards structures like promotion. In addition, the move to the unified system resulted in funding and related policies for teacher education becoming the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, while the funding and related policies for the schooling system within which the graduates

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Learning Teaching in Australia

25

ended up working as teachers are the jurisdiction of the state. This situation continues to create ongoing supply and demand tensions and a push-pull of federal state policies and related resourcing. A tug of war over the regulation of teachers’ work and teacher education has been building for some years. Even though the Board of Teacher Education was established in Queensland in 1971 to regulate the profession by accrediting teacher education programs and regulating entry to the profession as well as ongoing registration of teachers those who teach (with teacher registration mandatory for all teachers working in Queensland schools since 1975), other states followed much later. However, we now have eight teacher registration authorities across the country whose role it is to monitor entry onto the profession and ongoing practice in it. All have governing councils or boards usually comprising representation from employers, schools, unions and universities. Teacher education programs are accredited by the relevant teacher registration authority in order for graduates to be eligible for teacher registration in that state/territory and registered teachers are usually granted registration in other states/territories through mutual recognition procedures. So, even though teacher education is now funded by the Commonwealth through grants to universities, states have controlled and regulated schooling and the requirements for entry into teaching and continued practice. Periodically, the federal government has made moves to gain more control, but it was not until 2009 that this became more of a reality.

The last ten years – Teacher education as a policy imperative In 2009, the Australian government’s Smarter Schools – Improving Teacher Quality National Partnership (TQNP) program was allocated $550 million over five years to address specific areas for reform, including ● ● ● ● ●

Attracting the best graduates to teaching through additional pathways, Improving the quality of teacher education, Developing national standards and teacher registration, Improving retention by rewarding high-quality teachers and school leaders and Building knowledge of teachers and school leaders through their careers.

I will specifically focus on the outcomes of the first three agendas because they are the ones most related to teacher education and are linked to some of the most significant changes to teacher education that Australia has seen in recent history. These reforms mirror somewhat various reform agendas being implemented globally and driven by neoliberal pushes in policy wherein teacher education is seen as a policy problem with governments seeking to control, change and reform various dimensions of teaching and teacher education that they believe are most likely to improve teacher quality. In Australia’s case, the policy spotlight was directed towards alternative pathways into teaching, as well as increasing the regulation associated with teaching and teacher education.

26

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Teach for Australia As noted earlier, the dominant pathways into teaching in Australia are university-based degree programs, but in 2010 the TQNP reforms set out to develop and implement an alternative pathway. Teach for Australia was established and like Teach First in the United Kingdom and Teach for America in the United States, it recruits high-achieving university graduates from non-education disciplines to teach in socio-economically disadvantaged secondary schools bypassing the teacher preparation programs in universities. Teach for Australia, like other alternative pathway programs, positions content or discipline knowledge as the most critical knowledge for teaching when it is combined with a passion to ‘make a difference’ by teaching in high needs schools. Teach for Australia Associates complete an intensive six-week teacher training program to develop a basic knowledge of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment before they commence their teaching employment. In their first two years (which is what they sign up for), they are supported by mentors and work with business partners, and also complete the remainder of a university-offered teacher education program in which Teach for Australia staff have high levels of input into and involvement with the curriculum. Full course costs for the Associates are funded by the Australian government. As part of the 2016 mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, the Australian government confirmed investment of a further $20.5 million in the Teach for Australia program for 2016–17 to 2020–21 despite the modest success of the program to date with forty-three Associates in Cohort 1 in 2010, forty-two in Cohort 2, thirty-nine in Cohort 3 and fifty in Cohort 4 in 2013. A 2013 evaluation found that the cost of the program was high relative to other pathways into teaching and concluded that the recruitment process was a major strength of the initiative attracting high-quality graduates, some of whom otherwise may not have considered teaching (Weldon et al., 2013).

National standards and increasing regulation Ironically, just as Teach for Australia was being established to effectively bypass the regulatory requirements that all other teacher education programs had to meet, an increasingly tighter regulation system for teacher education was being established by the Australian government. As part of the TQNP reform areas, the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) was established in 2010 to: ●

●

●

2

Develop and maintain rigorous national professional standards for teachers and school leaders, Foster and drive high-quality professional development for teachers and school leaders and Work collaboratively across jurisdictions and engage with key professional bodies.2

Letter of expectation, dated 14 December 2009, from the then-Minister for Education and Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, on behalf of the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA).

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Learning Teaching in Australia

27

AITSL developed national professional standards for teachers (Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership, 2011) which were structured to reflect four professional career stages (Graduate, Proficient, Highly Accomplished and Lead) across three domains of teachers’ work (Professional Knowledge, Professional Practice and Professional Engagement). The Graduate and Proficient levels are used for teacher credentialing purposes in determining provisional registration after the completion of an accredited teacher education program and full registration after a period of induction into the profession. Even though the professional standards purport to describe what teachers should know and be able to do at different career stages in the three domains, their development was largely a political exercise rather than any research-informed analysis of teachers’ work since agreement had to be achieved from each state and territory to a common national set. This was not an easy task because during the previous decade there had been development, implementation and ownership of multiple sets of professional standards. State teacher registration authorities had developed their own versions of professional standards for graduates from teacher education programs and also standards for more competent professional practice linked to ongoing registration. In addition, the state and territory education departments had created generic teaching standards against which they made employment and career stage decisions, and subject associations had developed standards for accomplished teaching in particular teaching areas. Therefore, in developing a national set it was important that every group could ‘see’ their standards within the new national standards and be assured that their development work had not been ignored. There was, however, an extensive validation process involving almost 6,000 teachers that sought to ensure that the standards descriptors were shaped by the profession (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2010). But it would not be true to say that the current set of national professional standards has been rigorously informed by relevant research. AITSL also developed national program standards for the accreditation of teacher education programs – these were first developed in 2011 and updated in 2015 (Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership, 2015). The state and territory regulatory authorities continued to manage accreditation of teacher education programs in their area, but they now did this using the new national graduate teacher and program standards following the endorsed national accreditation processes. The Australian government aimed to have a nationally consistent system for credentialing teachers – managed by the states but following the same process and using the same standards. However, as might be expected, state and territory governments and their regulatory authorities have continued to strive to maintain their distinctiveness by adding their own state and territory elaborations to the national program standards. In February 2018, the Australian government announced a National Review of Teacher Registration ‘to help tackle key inconsistencies in systems across the country’ focusing on ‘the registration of early childhood teachers, vocational education and training teachers in schools as well as how new teachers transition into the profession’ (Hon Simon Birmingham (Minister for Education and Training), Feb 2018).

28

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

2014–18: TEMAG and the next wave of reforms As this AITSL development work was under way, the Federal Minister for Education established the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group (TEMAG) in 2014 to review teacher education provision across Australia, specifically focusing on the following: ●

●

●

Pedagogical approaches: the ways teachers teach their students and the different ways teaching and learning can occur. Subject content: how well teachers understand the content of subjects they are teaching and Professional experience: opportunities for pre-service teachers to put theory into practice through quality in-school learning experiences. (see http://www.studentsfirst.gov.au/teacher-quality)

The review’s report Action Now: Classroom Ready Teachers  (Action Now) (Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group, 2014) was published in December 2014, and in February 2015, the Australian government released its response (Australian Government, 2015) in which it committed to a reform agenda for teacher education focusing on ● ● ● ● ●

stronger quality assurance of teacher education courses, rigorous selection for entry to teacher education courses, improved and structured practical experience for teacher education students, robust assessment of graduates to ensure classroom readiness and national research and workforce planning capabilities.

Three significant policy directives from the TEMAG review are now impacting the provision of teacher education across Australia: (1) an emphasis on entry to teacher education not controlled by teacher education providers/ universities, (2) the requirement to develop and implement capstone teacher performance assessments and (3) the requirement to demonstrate impact and effectiveness of their programs. I examine each of these in turn drawing links from the policy directives and how teaching and learning teaching are being positioned as well as the role of research in that process.

A focus on entry The last few years of reform agendas have focused political and public attention on a range of approaches as outlined below to effectively limit those coming into teacher education programs in the name of increasing teaching quality. These approaches are not being controlled by teacher education providers, and since teacher education is largely offered by universities, the leadership in universities has expressed concern about the challenge to their status as autonomous, self-accrediting institutions who, by definition, are responsible for their own admissions (e.g. see https://www.universitiesa ustralia.edu.au/). None are supported by research evidence.

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Learning Teaching in Australia

29

In 2016, the Australian government introduced the Literacy and Numeracy Test for Initial Teacher Education Students (LANTITE), an online, multiple-choice or short-answer assessment designed to assess prospective teachers’ personal literacy and numeracy. All teacher education students must now pay for and successfully complete the test prior to completing their program. This development was intended to demonstrate that beginning teachers have been assessed as being in the top 30 per cent of the adult population for personal literacy and numeracy, a goal first identified for prospective teachers by the Australian government in 2011. All state and territory education ministers have recently agreed that LANTITE will be used as the means of demonstrating whether they have achieved this standard. Not surprisingly, the introduction of the test has spawned an industry in test preparation opportunities offered by a range of commercial entities, as well as by some universities. Despite there being no evidence, other than anecdotal, that graduating teachers were lacking in personal literacy and numeracy, the political rhetoric supporting this move suggests that ensuring all pre-service teachers are literate and numerate, at least as measured by LANTITE, will raise the quality of the teaching profession. Of course, the teacher education community is in an unenviable position. If they are not seen to support LANTITE, this is read as teacher educators saying literacy and numeracy don’t matter for teaching. Of course, this is not true. However, to support it means taking responsibility for pre-service teachers who they have admitted to their programs (using a range of selection criteria) who don’t pass the test and indeed taking responsibility to ensure that all their students pass, as evidenced by the number of providers who have developed and are offering test preparation courses. Moreover, the financial impact on pre-service teachers, and the impact that might have on who comes into teaching, has also been an issue of concern for teacher educators. At least one provider is paying for all their students to complete the test. It is also fair to say that there is no small measure of disquiet by teacher educators about the enormous public focus on the test as a way of raising the quality of the profession and the related implication that teacher preparation is somehow failing in this regard. And, of course the media has been busy producing ‘Can you answer these questions correctly? Our teachers can’t’ type of headlines. Alongside the political and media frenzy around LANTITE, there is a similar ongoing brouhaha about the Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR) of entrants into teacher education programs. The ATAR is a number between 0.00 and 99.95 given to school leavers that indicates their individual position relative to all the students who started secondary school with them in Year 7. ATAR and the results of prerequisite Year 12 subjects (final year of secondary school) are usually used as the basis for selection of school leavers into undergraduate university programs. Despite only 38 per cent of entrants into teacher education coming directly from secondary school (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2017, pp. 18–19), ‘between 2006 and 2015, there was an increase in the proportion of ITE students entering through a secondary pathway with an ATAR in the lower bands’ (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2017, p. 21). This perceived lowering of standards has been a source of much angst in public debate and media commentary about the quality of our future teachers.

30

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

From 2018, applicants for initial teacher education courses must also meet nonacademic entry requirements for entry into teacher education programs, related to the following areas: ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

motivation to teach, strong interpersonal and communication skills, willingness to learn, resilience, self-efficacy, conscientiousness and organizational and planning skills.

Some providers and states are requiring a 1,000-word personal statements from applicants designed to demonstrate their understanding of teaching and motivation for undertaking a teaching program. Other providers have developed and are implementing their own online assessments to judge the non-academic qualities of prospective entrants (e.g. the Teacher Capability Assessment Tool at the University of Melbourne), while a number of universities are using a Canadian-based online screening tool called CASPer; see https://takecasper.com/aboutcasper/#aboutcasper. Of course, there are future opportunities to research these measures and their impact on the status and quality of the profession over time. However, the rationales for their introduction have been embedded in political imperatives rather than research evidence.

A focus on preparing graduates to be classroom ready: Teacher performance assessments With the emphasis on beginning teachers’ classroom readiness from the TEMAG review and report (Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group, 2014), the program standards used to accredit teacher education programs across Australia were updated to include a more detailed Program Standard 1.2 requiring programs to now include a capstone teaching performance assessment: Program Standard 1.2 Program design and assessment processes require pre-service teachers to have successfully completed a final-year teaching performance assessment prior to graduation that is shown to: a. be a reflection of classroom teaching practice including the elements of planning, teaching, assessing and reflecting b. be a valid assessment that clearly assesses the content of the Graduate Teacher Standards c. have clear, measurable and justifiable achievement criteria that discriminate between meeting and not meeting the Graduate Teacher Standards

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Learning Teaching in Australia

31

d. be a reliable assessment in which there are appropriate processes in place for ensuring consistent scoring between assessors e. include moderation processes that support consistent decision-making against the achievement criteria.

(Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2016, p. 8) Even before this, new program standard requirement, in line with an increasing focus on outcomes, issues associated with how to provide opportunities for graduating teachers to demonstrate their professional knowledge, practice and engagement against the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers at the graduate level (Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership, 2011) have been exercising teacher educators and regulators for over the past few years. The notion of authentic teacher assessment had been canvassed in a report for the Queensland College of Teachers, the teacher regulatory authority in that state: Authentic assessment requires pre-service teachers to deploy combinations of knowledge, skills, and dispositions in their professional life. Authentic assessment makes the core aspects of teaching visible and measurable against a set of agreed standards. Authentic tasks engage pre-service teachers in processes that are necessary to act professionally in planning curriculum units for a specific group of students, designing episodes of teaching, teaching, and evaluating the effectiveness of their teaching. Authentic assessment, therefore, requires pre-service teachers to be explicit about their thinking and decision-making in designing teaching episodes, to reference the sources and rationale for their ideas, and to reflect upon the actual teaching experience and plans for revising and redesigning the teaching episodes. (The State of Queensland (Queensland College of Teachers), 2012, p. 25)

And there were some examples of work being done to assess pre-service teachers against various sets of standards or indicators of effective teaching, including the following: ● ●

●

Project Evidence (Sim et al., 2012); The University of Melbourne Practicum Exhibition (Kriewaldt and Turnbridge, 2013) and The Deakin Authentic Teacher Assessment (Allard, Mayer and Moss, 2014; Mayer et al., 2015b).

More recently, however, since the updated program standards for accreditation and the requirement that all teacher education programs include a teacher performance assessment by 2018/2019, this work has progressed at a pace to develop authentic capstone assessments that are ‘based on professional teaching standards’ and ‘include multifaceted evidence of teacher practice, student learning, and professional contributions that are considered in an integrated way’ (Darling-Hammond, 2013, p. 153). A lot of this work has been influenced by the work done in California in the Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT, http://www.pacttpa.org/)

32

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

(Pecheone and Chung, 2006) and more recently the EdTPA. PACT aims to assess ‘the planning, instruction, assessment, and reflection skills of student teachers against professional standards of practice’ (Darling-Hammond, 2006, p. 121) with tasks ‘designed to measure and promote candidates’ abilities to integrate their knowledge of content, students and instructional context in making instructional decisions and to stimulate teacher reflection on practice’ (Pecheone and Chung, 2006, p. 24). In order to progress this work in Australia, AITSL funded two consortia during 2017 to develop ‘high-quality teaching performance assessments that are to be used across a large number of initial teacher education (ITE) providers’; see https://www.aitsl.ed u.au/deliver-ite-programs/teaching-performance-assessment. While there are certainly opportunities for teacher educators to take control of the accountability agenda by focusing teacher education accountability where it should be – at the point of graduation (Mayer, 2017) – it is also true that the conceptions of professional knowledge and practice considered most highly valued in this activity are set and somewhat non-negotiable in the form of the legislated Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. Moreover, there are questions about whether a teaching performance assessment, which usually ends up being a type of structured portfolio, is the most appropriate way to capture dimensions of teachers’ work in authentic and fair ways. What professional knowledge is it able/not able to capture? What professional practices is it able/not able to authentically capture? These are important questions that need to be asked and researched as this work develops. While this work continues in Australia, we do at least have the benefit of US scholars who have been investigating some of these issues in relation to PACT and the EdTPA.

A focus on evidence of impact/effectiveness The third area having a significant effect on teacher education in Australia post-TEMAG are new requirements for teacher education providers to demonstrate evidence of the effectiveness of their programs, particularly evidence of them preparing beginning teachers who impact positively on school student learning. The new program standard is worded as follows: Program Standard 1.4 Providers describe and evaluate the intended outcomes of their programs, after students have graduated, by using available data and specifically designed research that provide information on the effectiveness of the graduates as teachers, the achievement of specific program objectives and to inform its continuous improvement. Graduate impact on student learning is included in this evidence where available data allow. Graduate outcomes data are to be drawn from multiple sources that may include a. employment data b. registration data c. survey data including graduate and principal satisfaction surveys

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Learning Teaching in Australia

33

d. studies designed to assess the impact of graduates on student learning including case studies and surveys e. any other type of outcomes data that can be tenably linked to information on program improvement, graduate outcomes and/or positive impact on student learning.

(Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2016, p. 11) Tatto et al. (2016) have critiqued similar policies in the United States, particularly attempts to establish a direct link between teacher education graduates’ employment and student achievement. They highlight unintended consequences of such approaches including negative impacts on program norms and resources as well as compromising the development of teachers’ human, cultural and social capital. With the introduction of Program Standard 1.4, Australian teacher educators are considering how they might engage through a strong research agenda. However, to date, reviews of the available research in Australia, as well as the United Kingdom and the United States, often conclude that it is small-scale, underdeveloped, undertheorized, fragmentary and somewhat parochial (e.g. Menter, 2017; Menter et al., 2010; Murray, Nuttall and Mitchell, 2008; Sleeter, 2014). Because of a lack of funding to support large-scale studies, the available studies are often small scale and focus on a single program or component of a program. Of course, these small-scale studies, while useful in informing the particular program in question in terms of evaluative input, struggle to speak to the claims that teacher education research cannot and does not provide evidence of the effectiveness of teacher education and its impact. In 2012, the Australian government’s Productivity Commission highlighted the need for an evidence base to evaluate teacher preparation and track the subsequent performance of graduating teachers (Productivity Commission, 2012). Regular calls for large-scale, longitudinal and often mixed-methods studies are made (e.g. Menter, 2017). There are some examples of these types of studies within Australia (e.g. Louden et al., 2010; Mayer et al., 2015a; Mayer et al., 2017) as well as across countries, particularly focusing on one teaching area, such as the Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M) study implemented by teacher educators across seventeen countries, which was designed to inform policy and practice in mathematics teacher education (Tatto et al., 2012). Amidst the politically based crisis discourse claiming that teacher education research does not provide any evidence that teacher education is doing anything much at all, some colleagues and I set out to examine the available research and determine what it is able to tell us, in any sort of aggregated way, about the effectiveness of teacher education (Mayer, Cotton and Simpson, 2017). We undertook a systematic review of the available research literature investigating Australian teacher education published since the December 2014 TEMAG report. In our review, we sought to understand (1) how researchers have investigated the effectiveness of teacher preparation postTEMAG, (2) the scale of these studies, (3) what methods are being used and (4) how effectiveness is being interpreted in framing these studies. As a result of a systematic filtering process, we ended up with only seven articles which fitted our criteria associated with being studies that investigated the effectiveness

34

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

of Australian teacher education. Most focused on a component of the teacher education program and many focused on professional experience or practicum, and especially partnerships with schools. They were often evaluations of something that teacher educators were trialling. The most-used data collection tool was a survey with some interviews and focus groups also being used. Program effectiveness was most often interpreted as change in the pre-service teachers’ attitudes, skills, confidence and knowledge, and this was usually determined by collecting pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their own effectiveness (Mayer, Cotton and Simpson, 2017). Our findings mirrored those of a recent review of survey-based teacher education research published in refereed journals from 1995 to 2015, wherein Australian preservice teachers were the respondents (Stephenson, 2017). This review found that most studies were small scale, used surveys as the data collection strategies and involved respondents who were most likely to be elementary school pre-service teachers. Stephenson also reported that the surveys mostly addressed attitudes, perceptions or beliefs, and less frequently skills and knowledge. Of course, these are not the sort of studies that speak to policy. The usual response that stems from these sorts of reviews is that teacher education research needs to include larger-scale and longitudinal studies, and also that the smaller studies should ensure that they both emerge from the current knowledge base in the field and add to that knowledge base (Sleeter, 2014; Zeichner, 2007). These are indeed useful points of departure. However, we argued that is even more important for teacher education researchers to clearly determine how effectiveness is (and should be) interpreted and understood, and for what purpose (see Mayer, Cotton and Simpson, 2017).

Concluding comments: Opportunities for teacher education research This chapter has explored the complex and dynamic connections and tensions between teacher education research, policy and practice in Australia during the past fifty years. Three phases were examined highlighting understandings of teacher preparation and teacher professional development dominant at each point in time, the related knowledge for teaching and the policies driving accountability regimes and resource allocation in each phase. The second half of the chapter has concentrated on the current policy moment in Australia which is positioning teacher education as a policy problem requiring a national solution and large-scale reform agendas. It is clear that there are few alignments among teacher education research, policy and practice in Australia at the moment. How can teacher education researchers position themselves in this context? As Menter (2017) has noted, Three approaches to teacher education research may be defined, all of which are important in the quest for achieving a better understanding of the field. These three approaches are research in teacher education – mainly carried out by

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Learning Teaching in Australia

35

teacher education practitioners; research on teacher education – mainly carried out by education policy scholars; and research about teacher education – carried out by scholars in a range of disciplines and seeking to explore the wider social significance of teacher education. (Menter, 2017)

Given the current policy emphasis in Australia on who comes into teacher education and the teaching profession, and what knowledge and dispositions they bring with them, it behoves teacher education researchers to investigate further what makes a good teacher, in what contexts and for whom, as well as how that might be determined. This research should be aimed at informing policy so that agendas like those currently being enacted in Australia, which effectively set up mechanistic hurdles in the guise of measures designed to raise the quality of teaching, can be challenged. In addition, given the emphasis on measuring outcomes of teacher education programs, that is, beginning teaching quality, it is important that teacher educators, the profession, politicians and the public, all understand what it is that beginning teachers should know and be able to do, and be, as well as the role and relationship of ongoing professional learning. This is usually captured as professional standards, but, as I have discussed in this chapter, these standards statements are usually the outcomes of a political process rather than informed by rigorous and relevant research. Moreover, closer research attention must be given to informing professionally appropriate ways to measure the knowledge and capabilities of graduating teachers against the standards. Are the methods fair, valid, reliable? Do they capture, in authentic ways, the intellectual work of teaching? Do they provide opportunities for graduating teachers to demonstrate their professional knowledge and practice in ways that invoke professional judgements designed to ensure enhanced learning opportunities for all school students? Once research-informed ways of describing high-quality teaching have been established (though it must be noted that these descriptors are not necessarily static), the teacher education curriculum can be developed, and research undertaken to investigate ways in which prospective teachers can successfully build their professional knowledge and practice. Questions to guide this work could include the following: What pedagogical approaches are most effective in teacher education programs? Where does learning best occur? What is to the role of different sites and different stakeholders/experts in learning teaching? I expect that this work would also challenge the related unhelpful rhetoric which positions theory and practice in a dichotomous relationship. Finally, and perhaps most importantly in the current political context, teacher education researchers must engage the discourse that is positioning their research as having nothing much to say about the effectiveness of teacher preparation. Not engaging could invite more of the crisis discourse of the ‘teacher education is failing us’ rhetoric, an easy path to further bypassing initial teacher education altogether. It is generally agreed that the goal of teacher education should be to prepare beginning teachers who are able to positively impact student learning. However, it is problematic to then suggest that the most appropriate way to determine the effectiveness of teacher education is to look at the effectiveness of the teachers that

36

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

it graduates according to the achievement of their students on standardized tests. We know from various critiques that using standardized test scores to make judgements about teachers, and therefore their teacher education programs, is at best a tenuous link. So, a careful reconsideration of what effectiveness could and should encompass is required by researchers. Analyses of the recent policy documents in Australia and the associated discursive practices frame different conceptualizations of effectiveness, sometimes in oppositional ways (Mayer, Cotton and Simpson, 2017). As we concluded in that paper, Therefore, in order to capture the intellectual work of teachers in research that would contribute usefully to the debate, teacher educators should state their intent in terms of defining goals for effectiveness and then set about reporting how they measure the success of their programs at meeting those goals through evidence. In the long term, this could lead to a shared research agenda with a common understanding of what effectiveness means in teacher education, and also hopefully inform policy discussions and ultimately the enacted accountability mechanisms. (Mayer, Cotton and Simpson, 2017)

There is still much research to be done in, on and about teacher education in Australia in order to challenge some of the policy decisions that are being informed by conventional wisdom, political expediency and related policy borrowing, but there is a solid foundation and high motivation to do this essential work.

References Allard, A., Mayer, D. and Moss, J. (2014). Authentically assessing graduate teaching: Outside and beyond neo-liberal constructs. Australian Education Researcher, 41(4), pp. 425–43. doi:10.1007/s13384-013-0140-x Aspland, T. (2006). Changing patterns of teacher education in Australia. Education Research and Perspectives, 133(2), pp. 140–63. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2017). 3101.0 - Australian Demographic Statistics, Jun 2017 Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3101.0 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2018). 4221.0 - Schools, Australia, 2017. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/allprimarymainfeatures/9448F2F814FA 0311CA2579C700118E2D?opendocument Australian Government (2008). Review of Australian Higher Education: Final Report. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Australian Government (2015). Action Now: Classroom Ready Teachers – Australian Government Response. Canberra: Author. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (2010). Validation of the Professional Standards for Teachers. Retrieved from http://www.teacherstandards.aitsl. edu.au/Overview/Validation Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (2016). Guidelines for the Accreditation of Initial Teacher Education Programs in Australia. Melbourne: AITSL. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (2017). Initial Teacher Education: Data Report 2017. Melbourne: AITSL.

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Learning Teaching in Australia

37

Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership (2011). Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. Carlton, VIC: Education Services Australia. Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership (2015). Accreditation of Initial Teacher Education Programs in Australia: Standards and Procedures. Melbourne: AITSL. Berliner, D. (1987). Ways of thinking about students and classrooms by more and less experienced teachers. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring Teacher’s Thinking, 60–83. London: Cassell. Birmingham, Hon. Simon (Minister for Education and Training). (February 2018). National Review of Teacher Registration [Press release]. Retrieved from https://ministe rs.education.gov.au/birmingham/national-review-teacher-registration Cochran-Smith, M. (2008). The new teacher education in the United States: Directions forward. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 14(4), pp. 271–82. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Assessing teacher education: The usefulness of multiple measures for assessing teacher outcomes. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(2), 120–38. Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Getting Teacher Evaluation Right: What Really Matters for Effectiveness and Improvement. New York: Teachers College Press. Dunkin, M. J. and Biddle, B. J. (1974). The Study of Teaching. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston. Kriewaldt, J. and Turnbridge, D. (2013). Conceptualising an approach to clinical reasoning in the education profession. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38, pp. 103–15. Louden, W., Heldsinger, S., House, H., Humphry, S. and Darryl Fitzgerald, D. (2010). Learning from Teacher Education: The Impact of Teacher Education on Knowledge of Literacy and Mathematics Teaching. Study of Effective Teacher Education: Progress Report 2. Retrieved from Canberra: Marland, P. (1986). Models of teachers’ interactive thinking. The Elementary School Journal, 87(2), 209–26. Martinez, K. (1990). Critical reflections on critical reflection in preservice teacher education. The Journal of Teaching Practice, 10(2), pp. 20–8. Mayer, D. (2014). Forty years of teacher education in Australia: 1974-2014. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 40(5), pp. 461–73. Mayer, D. (2017). Professionalizing teacher education accountability. In G. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. New York: Oxford University Press. Mayer, D., Cotton, W. and Simpson, A. (2017). Teacher education in Australia: Evidence of effectiveness. In J. Lampert (Ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Critical Perspectives on Teacher Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mayer, D., Allard, A., Bates, R., Doecke, B., Dixon, M., Kline, J. and White, S. (2015a). Studying the Effectiveness of Teacher Education, Final Report. (Australian Research Council Linkage project LP110100003). Melbourne Deakin University. Mayer, D., Allard, A., Moss, J. and Dixon, M. (2015b). Initial teacher education and assessment of graduates in Australia. In J. Lee and C. Day (Eds.), Quality and Change in Teacher Education: Western and Chinese Perspectives. New York: Springer. Mayer, D., Dixon, M., Kline, J., Kostogriz, A., Rowan, L., Walker-Gibbs, B. and White, S. (2017). Studying the Effectiveness of Teacher Education: Early Career Teachers in Diverse Settings. Singapore: Springer. Menter, I. (December 2017). Teacher Education Research. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Retrieved from doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.275 Menter, I., Hulme, M., Elliot, D. and Lewin, J. (2010). Literature Review on Teacher Education in the Twenty-First Century. Edinburgh, Scotland: Education Analytical Services, Schools Research, Scottish Government.

38

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Murray, S., Nuttall, J. and Mitchell, J. (2008). Research into initial teacher education in Australia: A survey of the literature 1995-2004. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), pp. 225–39. Pecheone, R. and Chung, R. (2006). Evidence in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1), pp. 22–36. Productivity Commission (2012). Schools Workforce, Research Report. Canberra: Australian Government. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), pp. 1–22. Sim, C., Freiberg, J., White, S., Allard, A., Le Cornu, R. and Carter, B. (2012). Using Professional Standards: Assessing work Integrated Learning in Initial Teacher Education [online resource]. Available from: http://www.teacherevidence.net. Retrieved from Melbourne Vic: Sleeter, C. (2014). Towards teacher education research that informs policy. Educational Researcher, 43(3), pp. 146–53. Smyth, J. (1989). Developing and sustaining critical reflection in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), pp. 2–9. Stephenson, J. (2017). An overview of survey-based research carried out with Australian preservice teachers (1995-2015). Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, pp. 159–67. Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S. L., Ingvarson, L., Rowley, G., Peck, R. and Reckase, M. (2012). Policy, Practice, and Readiness to Teach Primary and Secondary Mathematics in 17 Countries: Findings from the IEA Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). Tatto, M. T., Savage, C., Liao, W., Marshall, S., Goldblatt, P. and Contreras, M. L. (2016). The Emergence of High-Stakes Accountability Policies in Teacher Preparation: An Examination of the U.S. Department of Education’s Proposed Regulations. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(25). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2322 Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group (2014). Action Now: Classroom Ready Teachers. Canberra: Australian Government. The State of Queensland (Queensland College of Teachers) (2012). An investigation of best practice in evidence-based assessment within preservice teacher education programs and other professions. Retrieved from Brisbane, Queensland: Queensland College of Teachers. Turney, C. (1975). Sydney Micro-Skills: Skills for Teachers Handbook. Sydney : University of Sydney Press. Weldon, P., McKenzie, P., Kleinhenz, E. and Reid, K. (2013). Teach for Australia Pathway: Evaluation Report Phase 3 of 3. Camberwell, Vic.: Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). Zeichner, K. (2007). Accumulating knowledge across self-studies in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), pp. 36–46.

4

Learning to Teach in the Czech Republic: Reviewing Policy and Research Trends Jarmila Novotná

Introduction Education has a rich tradition and has always played an important role in Czech history. Some of the most important historical facts in the evolution of educational thought and ideas in the Czech Republic begin with the foundation of Charles University in Prague by a charter issued on 7 April 1348 by Charles IV, King of Bohemia and King of the Romans, as the first Studium Generale north of the Alps and east of Paris. The most influential figure in Czech education is Jan Amos Comenius (1592–1670), a Czech philosopher, pedagogue and theologian, who is considered the father of modern education in the country. His fundamental principles include obtaining ideas through objects rather than words (e.g. starting with objects most familiar to the child to introduce him to both the new language and the more remote world of objects); giving the child a comprehensive knowledge of his environment, physical and social, as well as instruction in religious, moral and classical subjects; making the acquisition of a compendium of knowledge a pleasure rather than a task; making instruction universal and learning foreign languages through the vernacular. The formal system of teacher preparation originated in 1774 with the requirement to make six-year school attendance compulsory. During this time and until the Second World War the school curriculum and the teacher preparation curriculum were aligned with Comenius principles. The period of the Second World War saw a strong German influence on Czech Schools, which ended after the communist coup in 1948, when pedagogy was subordinated to ideologization and Marxist-Leninist conception of the so-called scientific communism including the communist conception of undifferentiated education with one national curriculum binding for all schools. For more than forty years, there was a strong influence of the Soviet (communist) tradition, of which schools were only liberated after 1989 with the introduction of education frameworks instead of unified national curricula. This resulted in qualitative diversification of educational opportunities and the introduction of new approaches to teacher preparation (see Table 4.1).

40

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Table 4.1 Summary of the most commonly articulated events shaping modern czechoslovak teacher education/preparation (Timeline) Years 1774 Nineteenth century 1869 1946 After 1989 1993 (January)

1993 (after separation of the Czech Republic and Slovakia)

2004 2014

2016

Pivotal moments (policies) Institutionalization: First educational institutions for teachers are created Academization: Elevation of teacher training to a university level (successful for secondary schoolteachers) Institutionalization: Four-year teacher training institutions set up Institutionalization: Faculties of Education established mostly under universities. established De-monopolization, liberalization Political separation: Czechoslovakia divided into two independent countries, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic, with their own educational systems; both systems come out from the common Czechoslovak educational system Accountability/Accreditation: The Accreditation Commission is formed to monitor the quality of higher education by performing comprehensive evaluations of educational, scholarly, research, developmental, artistic or other creative activity of higher education institutions. Its findings and recommendations were submitted to the Ministry of Education, Youths and Sports for approval. In 2016, as a result of the Higher Education Act, the Accreditation Commission was replaced by an independent administrative institution: the National Accreditation Authority Secondary teacher education required a bachelor’s and a master’s degree. Professionalization/Standardization: Strategy for Education Policy of the Czech Republic until 2020 (for more details, see http://www.msmt.cz/a reas-of-work/sport-and-youth/youth-strategy-2014-2020?highlightWo rds=strategy) Professionalization/Standardization: Discussions on the scope of the Strategy for Education of the Czech Republic until 2030 started (http s://www.vlada.cz/assets/ppov/udrzitelny-rozvoj/The-Strategic-Fram ework-for-SD_2010.pdf)

History of teacher education The first educational institutions for teachers were established in 1774 at the same time that six-year school attendance became compulsory. Almost 100 years later, after the Austro-Hungarian Education Act of 1869, teacher training institutions were set up. Graduation from a teacher training institute and passing the maturita school leaving exam did not mean full qualification. Only after a compulsory one-year practical training under the supervision of an experienced in-service teacher did the would-be teacher pass an exam in pedagogical competence and acquire a professional qualification. Since the nineteenth century, teachers in primary and lower secondary schools have tried to elevate their training to a university level. It was teachers themselves who demanded this change as well as university institutions. Charles University, and later also other universities, initiated teacher training courses  – the so-called extension, that is, extra courses for teachers, but these did not constitute full university education.

Learning to Teach in the Czech Republic

41

After the establishment of Czechoslovakia as a sovereign state in 1918, the Ministry of Education as well as the general public took a negative stance towards university education for primary schoolteachers who were generalists, not specialists in one or several disciplines. In consequence, instead of studying at public universities, in-service teachers established with their own resources a private School of Pedagogical Studies providing the possibility of on-the-job study, but this was done on a voluntary basis. After the Second World War, a law in 1946 issued by the government of the country set down provisions for the establishment of faculties of education, mostly under universities. The main documents enabling university-level teacher education was the decree of President Edvard Beneš from 27 October 1945, wherein it is stated that teachers of all school levels and types (e.g. primary, secondary, pre-service and in-service) were to acquire their credentials at pedagogical and other university faculties. The status of pedagogical faculties was given in Law No. 100 from 9 May 1946 and the governmental decree No. 170 from 27 August 1946. As a result of the Soviet expansion in Eastern Europe and the communist coup in Czechoslovakia in 1948, faculties of education were closed in 1953 and were succeeded by Pedagogy Colleges. In 1959, Institutes of Education were set up bearing the title of regional universities. Institutes of Education educated teachers for primary and lower secondary schools; teachers for upper secondary level obtained their qualification at university faculties in their disciplines. Due to incoming liberalization trends, faculties of education were brought into existence by law again in 1964, with five of them as university faculties (in Prague, Brno, Olomouc, Trnava and Prešov) and seven as independent higher education institutions without university status, all of them providing complete teacher qualification. From 1967, faculties of education offered four-year non-structured courses (i.e. there was no bachelor and master level and graduates were fully qualified teachers). Significant restructuring of the studies occurred in 1976 in connection with a reform of the first stage of basic school. A fundamental change in terms of the content and organization of teacher education took place after ‘the Velvet Revolution’ in 1989 and the end of communist regime (Beneš and Rambousek, 2007). In 1989 teacher education in Czechoslovakia was unified (i.e. the same curriculum, courses and content were implemented at all faculties training teachers). Not only the curricula, the textbooks and learning texts, but also the numbers of lessons and time allotment as well as students’ duties (i.e. courses, assignments) were identical. Primary schoolteachers were generalists;1 secondary schoolteachers had a qualification to teach two disciplines after graduation from university. The possible combinations of disciplines were fixed; future teachers could not have arbitrary choices about the disciplines they wanted to study. (Czech lower and upper secondary teachers had qualification in two subjects; these combinations were given and the number of these combinations was different at different universities.) This is crucially important in the 1

Primary teachers were qualified to teach in primary schools; this covered Grades 1–4, later and until now Grades 1–5. Secondary teachers cover both lower and upper secondary levels. As described in the text, the programs are not unified anymore; they must be accredited and some graduates can be qualified for lower secondary level only, some for upper secondary and for example at Charles University, some graduates are qualified for both.

42

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Czech system of small schools where one subject qualification does not guarantee that the teacher will have enough lessons a week in his or her discipline; this meant that teachers may teach ‘out of subject’. The number of contact hours and study controls for future teachers were rigorously defined and divided approximately into three equal parts: one-third was allocated for pedagogical-psychological training, which was the same for all teachers, the other two-thirds equally for the two disciplines. The hours of teaching practicum (student teaching) were part of the common background studies (about one month a year in the last two years). On the basis of an evaluation of faculties of education by the Accreditation Commission2 between 1993 and 1995, principles were established to apply to teacher education for schools of all types and levels: courses for student teachers for all schools should be at the master’s level and should be run by faculties of education and other university faculties. Faculties of education are authorized to train all teaching categories, including those at the doctoral level, if they have accreditation to do so.

Teacher education in the Czech Republic after 1993 In 2004, the Higher Education Act established that teacher education was to be divided into bachelor’s and master’s cycles. The five-year study model for primary teachers remained in the form of a one-stage parallel program with elements of integration

2

The Accreditation Commission [Akreditační komise] was established in 1990 by the law and was closed in 2016. It took care of the quality of higher education and carried out comprehensive evaluation of the teaching, scientific, research, development and innovative work, artistic and other creative activities of higher education institutions. The chief means of achieving these objectives were by 1. evaluating the activities of higher education institutions and the quality of accredited activities and publishing the results of such evaluations and 2. reviewing other issues affecting the system of higher education, when asked to do so by the Minister, and expressing its standpoint on these issues. The Accreditation Commission expressed its standpoint on the following: 1. Requests for accreditation of degree programs; 2. Requests for authorization to carry out the procedures for the appointment of associated professors and full professors; 3. The establishment, merger, amalgamation, splitting or dissolution of a faculty of a public higher education institution; 4. The granting of state permission to a legal entity wishing to operate as a private higher education institution and 5. Specification of the type of higher education institution. The Accreditation Commission consisted of twenty-one members who were appointed by the government. The Accreditation Commission did not have any decision-making power; it presented recommendations to the Ministry of Education, Youths and Sports (http://www.msmt.cz/areas -of-work/tertiary-education/akreditacni-komise). Per the government’s decision in September 2016 the Accreditation Commission was replaced by the National Accreditation Authority for Higher Education [Národní akreditační úřad pro vysoké školství]. This is an independent body with decision-making power without any approval of the Ministry of Education, Youths and Sports (https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%A1rodn%C3%AD_akredita%C4%8Dn%C3%AD _%C3%BA%C5%99ad_pro_vysok%C3%A9_%C5%A1kolstv%C3%AD#Hodnot.C3.ADc.C3.AD _komise_a_Seznam_hodnotitel.C5.AF).

Learning to Teach in the Czech Republic

43

primarily between the theoretical and practical parts of the training. Practical training, supervised by mentors from the faculty teaching staff, runs through the whole of the studies either in the form of blocks of one to two weeks or in the form of continuous training of one day per week spent at school for the period of several terms. Emphasis is placed on the student’s own attempts at teaching and their reflection upon practical experience. Teacher preparation for lower and upper secondary schools has the same structure in the Czech Republic. It consists of one- or two-discipline non-teaching three-year bachelor’s degree study and a follow-up two-year master’s degree study in the teaching profession. Graduates of bachelor’s degree study are not qualified teachers and thus cannot teach in official schools. Having finished bachelor study programs they are expected to have mastered the bases in the studied disciplines and have an overview of fundamental issues in pedagogy, psychology and common university core studies. The graduate’s aspiration should be the follow-up master’s degree study, but they can find jobs in civil service or in institutions for children and youth’s free time activities. Graduates of the master’s degree study are fully qualified teachers for lower and/or upper secondary schools. They are expected to have sufficient expertise in the studied disciplines; at the same time, they should have developed pedagogical–psychological and subject–didactical competences. All components of their study should be narrowly interlinked. In the study model for teacher preparation for lower and upper secondary schools, there is a big variety in the organization of teacher training programs. A more general idea can be derived from Table 4.2, where the distribution of credits between components of teacher study used at present as a recommendation for accreditation of new teacher training programs for the whole five years of studies, that is for both bachelor’s and master’s degrees together, is presented. This is a common recommendation for all types of study – primary or secondary teacher education. In this general recommendation, primary and secondary teacher education is not distinguished. The difference is in the accredited programs. As these are recommended minimum and maximum hours, it is up to each university to make their own individual programs within these limits. There are, however, significant differences between the programs at different faculties educating subject teachers at both levels. For example, noticeable differences can be found in the content and extent of knowledge that future teachers have to master

Table 4.2 Recommended distribution of contact hours and credits for five years of teacher studies in the Czech Republic Hours

Credits

Min. (%) Max. (%) Subjects together Subject didactics Pedagogy–Psychology Students’ school practice Common university background subjects

50 10 10 5 5

65 15 15 10 10

Min. Max. 150 30 30 15 30

195 45 45 30 30

44

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

in the subjects at the master’s level, and in the attention paid to teaching practice in schools. The emphasis on the common university background studies subjects (e.g. pedagogy, psychology, Czech language, foreign language, human biology, philosophy of education, educational technology, introduction to logic) has been reduced, and the focus had been shifted to the disciplines, both subject knowledge and pedagogical subject knowledge. The comparison of teacher education programs at faculties in the Czech Republic indicates that at present there is a wide variation in the organization of teacher education programs. The next section explains in detail teacher education in the Czech Republic using mathematics teacher education as an example of the education that teachers receive.

Teacher education graduate profiles: Mathematics Graduates of the preschool teacher education have knowledge and skills necessary for pedagogical, conceptual, managerial and evaluation work as a preschool teacher. Graduates of the primary schoolteacher education program have professional competences (knowledge, skills, attitudes, experiences) for the profession of a primary schoolteacher with deeper knowledge and skills in one subject of specialization, but because primary teachers are considered generalists, they are also equipped with basic knowledge to teach the school curriculum to the full range of children’s population, including children with special needs. They are able to do action research. They are well informed about the main educational trends and alternative methods. They are skilled in using contemporary Information and Communication Technology (ICT). Master’s-level programs prepare secondary teachers to teach disciplinary subjects at lower and upper secondary schools of all types. The program is based on the balance of cognitive, didactic and pedagogic-psychological abilities needed for teaching. An emphasis is placed on the use of didactic innovations in the teaching of subjects with regard to the up-to-date didactic conceptions (e.g. constructivism, critical thinking, use of heuristic strategies). The graduates are prepared for the development of school educational programs3 with the focus on the integration of cross-curricular subjects, for example, environmental or multicultural education. The graduates acquire sufficient amount of knowledge and skills to work in a differentiated way with pupils talented for mathematics (i.e. to work with mixed-ability classes). While they are fully qualified as mathematics teachers, they also end up working outside the school system, for instance, in media, offices and institutions. Graduates from master programs can continue their education to pursue a PhD. The graduate of the PhD studies is prepared to deal with both theoretical and application problems in the education of children and adults and carry out both scientific and pedagogical activities. They contribute to the improvement of education of pupils 3

As stated above, the Czech Republic does not have a national curriculum, but instead has the Framework Education Programs for each educational level and type of school. Schools then adapt the framework into their tailor-made school education programs; that is each school’s study program is slightly different but has to meet the compulsory educational outcomes.

Learning to Teach in the Czech Republic

45

and to the professionalization of teachers. They can work at universities, in scientific institutes and as a highly qualified teacher–mediator between research and practice. They are able to recognize up-to-date key topics of the field; propose, realize and evaluate research bringing original results; follow scientific literature systematically and appraise it critically and publish results of their work in refereed journals, at international conferences, in textbooks and possibly in monographs.

Example of a teacher education program for lower and upper future secondary teachers (mathematics sequence) at Charles University, Faculty of Education Bachelor’s study program: Common background4 Bachelor studies at the Faculty of Education are normally three-year programs (in full-time or part-time forms), and may be self-contained degrees orientated to future employment, or taken as a first step towards a master’s degree. Upon completion, students are awarded the academic title of Bachelor. The Faculty of Education offers several Bachelor of Education programs. A dominating feature of bachelor studies is studying professional based subjects or two approbation subjects with a focus on general education. This study program is not designed for obtaining a teacher’s qualification. The Faculty of Education prepares bachelor study programs for professionals in different disciplines who will assert themselves in educational institution, state administration and so on. It is expected that graduates of these subjects will continue in follow-up MA teacher training programs and that will gain the qualification of registered teacher.

Bachelor’s study program: Degree in mathematics education5 The goal of the program is for the graduate to be equipped with general education in basic mathematical fields. He or she can apply theoretical knowledge when solving mathematical and real-life problems. He/she has skills necessary for data handling, writing mathematical texts and so forth. He or she is prepared to work with children, youth and adults within out-of-school educational activities. The goals of the bachelor degree in mathematics education are to ensure that students acquire a general education in mathematics within the wider context of a university education, including basics of pedagogy and psychology, to develop students’ mathematical knowledge and to prepare them for practical application in the work place, mainly within out-of-school education of children, youth and adults, and in public administration (e.g. data management).

4 5

See http://pedf.cuni.cz/PEDFEN-203.html For details see https://is.cuni.cz/studium/eng/predmety/index.php?id=14449ce351a4991bd0e716 c146546ea7&tid=&do=ustav&fak=11410&kod=41-KMDM

46

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education Table 4.3 Common background courses in bachelor study program at Charles University, Faculty of Education Courses Compulsory courses Introduction to pedagogy Introduction to psychology Social pedagogy Developmental and social psychology Introduction to philosophical discourse Basics of didactics Inclusive pedagogy Psychology of pedagogical profession Practice at school Optional courses (organized in six modules) Module A: Foreign language Module B: Information technologies Module C: Natural sciences Module D: Social sciences Module E: Education counselling Module F: Sports

Credits

Semester

2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2

1, 2 1, 2 3, 4 3, 4 3 5, 6 5, 6 5, 6 5, 6

3 + 3 3 2 2 2 2

1, 2 + 3, 4 3, 4 1, 2 5 1 or 2 1 or 2

The bachelor’s degree in mathematics education has been designed in such a way that the expected priority of its graduates is to continue to master studies to become lower and upper secondary mathematics teachers. List of compulsory subjects are the following: ●

● ●

●

Algebra (Introduction to algebra, Linear algebra, Polynomial algebra, Number and algebraic structures, Equations and inequalities, Symmetries in algebra, Number theory) Geometry (Synthetic geometry, Analytic geometry, Dynamic geometry) Calculus (Elementary mathematics, Elementary functions, Calculus, Statistics and probability) Introduction to didactics of mathematics

Examples of optional subjects are game theory, algebra in informatics, mathematical software and mathematical activities for lower and upper secondary pupils (see Tables 4.3 and 4.4).

Follow-up master’s study program: Common background6 ‘Master’s degree programs at Faculty of Education are designed to follow on from bachelor’s programs. The standard length of a follow-on Master’s degree program is two years. Upon completion, students are awarded the academic title of Master. The 6

See http://pedf.cuni.cz/PEDFEN-203.html

Learning to Teach in the Czech Republic

47

Table 4.4 Common background courses in two-year master study program at Charles University, Faculty of Education Courses Compulsory courses General pedagogy and school pedagogy Pedagogical and school psychology Teacher’s professional ethic Czech language

Credits

Semester

3 3 4 2

1 1 1, 2 3

Compulsory courses with alternative (organized in three modules, student is allowed to enrol in max. two courses in each module) Pedagogical module (twelve courses) 2 Psychological module (ten course) 2 Pedagogical-psychological module (twelve courses) 2 Optional courses (organized in three modules) Methodological module (seven courses) Technological module (four courses) Art module (two courses)

4 4 2

2 3 4 3 or 4 3, 4 4

dominating feature a follow-up Master’s study program is studying educationalpsychologic subjects and professional subject didactics or two approbation subjects with focus on general education. Graduates of the follow-up Master’s degree program will be qualified as a teacher of general educational subjects at basic schools and high schools. Most of our programs are available to study full time or part time.’

Follow-up master’s study program: Degree in mathematics education7 The goal of master’s studies in the program Training Teachers of General Subjects at Lower and Higher Secondary Schools – Mathematics is to provide graduates with comprehensive education which will prepare them for the profession of mathematics teacher at lower and upper secondary schools of all types. The program respects a balance of cognitive, didactic and pedagogy-psychologic parts of education. An emphasis is placed on the use of didactic innovations in the teaching of mathematics with regard to the current didactic conceptions while building on the knowledge of different fields of mathematics acquired in the bachelor degree of study. The graduates will be prepared to construct school educational programs with the focus on integration of different parts of mathematics (arithmetic, algebra, geometry, statistics, financial mathematics, etc.) and various educational areas. The graduates will acquire enough knowledge and skills to work in differentiated ways with both pupils talented in mathematics and pupils with special needs not only in mathematics lessons but also within out-of-school activities. 7

See https://is.cuni.cz/studium/eng/predmety/index.php?id=14449ce351a4991bd0e716c146546ea7 &tid=&do=ustav&fak=11410&kod=41-KMDM

48

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education List of compulsory subjects are the following:

● ●

● ●

Algebra (discrete mathematics, history of algebra, applications of algebra) Geometry (deepening of 2D and 3D geometry and analytic geometry, conics, nonEuclidian geometry) Calculus (functions of several variables) Didactics of mathematics (DM for lower and upper secondary teachers, practice, pupils with special needs)

Examples of optional subjects are the following: ● ●

Content and Language Integrated Leaning and some topics of mathematics education

Self-contained five-year master’s study program8 The Faculty of Education also offers ‘self-contained’ master’s programs that do not follow on after a bachelor’s program (e.g. in a consecutive modality) and are known as ‘long-cycle’ master’s programs. This program is designed for those who already have a bachelor’s degree and intend to teach at the primary level in basic schools9 with specialization: Foreign language, Arts, Sports or Drama education. The program is offered to full-time or part-time students. The study is organized in six modules. Modules consist of mutually linked courses from different domains: ●

●

●

● ● ●

Module of common background studies (general education in the domain of human sciences, philosophy, history, information technologies, foreign language, etc.) Pedagogical-psychological module (pedagogy, psychology, different forms of pedagogical practice) Subject module (Czech language and literature, mathematics, natural sciences, national history, music, arts, sports, etc.) Subject didactics module Specialization module (systematic study of a selected specialization) Deepening module (possibility of individual specialization of study)

Examples of Czech lower and upper secondary teaching structured programs In the following text, we compare the distribution of credits in four different teacher preparation programs for lower and upper secondary schools: The first is the program 8 9

See http://pedf.cuni.cz/PEDFEN-203.html Basic schools provide compulsory education. They are divided into two levels: primary (Grades 1–5) and lower secondary (Grades 6–9).

Learning to Teach in the Czech Republic

49

of the Faculty of Education of Charles University from 2004 (which is the first program at this faculty organized as structured in two cycles of Study, bachelor’s and master’s – in Figures 4.1 and 4.2 labelled as UK-PedF 2004); the other three programs are contemporary. The program from the Faculty of Education of Charles University recently got the Accreditation Commission’s approval – this program is labelled as UK-PedF nový in Figures 4.1 and 4.2. Programs from the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Jan Evangelista Purkyně in Ústí nad Labem and from the Faculty of Education of South Bohemian University in České Budějovice are referred to as ‘currently programs’. They are labelled as UJEP and JU – in Figures 4.1 and 4.2 (two-subject qualification, subjects labelled A, B).

Figure 4.1 Comparison of distribution of credits for components in bachelor’s degree study

Figure 4.2 Comparison of distribution of credits for components in master’s degree study

50

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

All the programs presented below require the same minimal number of credits  of  180 for bachelor’s and 120 for master’s degree study. All these programs are two-discipline study programs. The distribution of credits is different for onediscipline studies. The follow-up master’s degree study is organized in different ways at different faculties: At some faculties, the study programs for lower secondary and upper secondary school teaching are accredited as two different study programs; some faculties only have accreditation for one of these forms. On the other hand, only a common study of teaching at both school levels is possible at the Faculty of Education of Charles University. That is why in Figure 4.2, the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Jan Evangelista Purkyně is presented twice; UJEP ZŠ means the study for lower secondary schools, UJEP SŠ for upper secondary schools. Only the program for lower secondary schools is accredited at the Faculty of Education of South Bohemian University in České Budějovice. Figure 4.2 shows all programs together in order to allow better comparison of the division of credits. Groups of courses are again presented together: the two disciplines, common university background studies including credits for writing and successful defending of diploma theses; school practice (student teaching) credits are shown as a separate item; credits for subject didactics are included in the credits for the disciplines. What does this very rough comparison tell us? ●

Bachelor’s degree study: − There are noticeable differences among the faculties in these universities. None of the faculties preserved the formerly used distribution of credits from the previous unified system (one-third of credits for each discipline, one-third of the common basis). This is understandable due to the orientation of bachelor’s degree study, which is not a preparation for training qualified teachers any longer, but whose aim is to enlarge considerably the knowledge in the disciplines from upper secondary schools that will be prerequisite to future teacher training. The nearest to the original model is the Faculty of Education of South Bohemian University and the most distant is the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Jan Evangelista Purkyně, where most of attention is paid to extension and deepening of knowledge in the disciplines.

●

Follow-up master’s degree study: − The difference between the number of credits in the program UJEP ZŠ and UJEP SŠ is negligible. More important differences would be found in the content and extent of knowledge that students have to master in the subjects. − Differences can be found in the attention paid to the school teaching practice. Even though the number of credits gained for a successful completion of the teaching practice has dropped since 2004, the number of credits for this teaching practicum is still the greatest at the Faculty of Education of Charles University if compared to other analysed programs. The fewest credits are

Learning to Teach in the Czech Republic

51

awarded by the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Jan Evangelista Purkyně, but the differences are not dramatic. − In comparison with 2004, the proportion of the common university background studies subjects has dropped and the focus has shifted to the disciplines. This rough comparison of teacher education programs at three faculties of three different universities in the Czech Republic indicates that at present there is variation in the organization of teacher training programs.

Research on teacher education in the Czech Republic This section of the chapter presents the findings from the literature review. An extensive bibliographic search was the main method for collecting evidence for this study. The main research questions that guided the search were: Which types of knowledge are considered important in learning how to teach in the Czech context, and to what extent do teachers in the Czech Republic possess these types of knowledge? In the analysis we investigate trends and results in contemporary research in teacher education using a socio-historical and comparative perspective. The aim of this section of the chapter is to explore some of the key socio-historical issues related to the development of teacher education and its main foci.

Influences on learning to teach: A review of the empirical literature We live in a time which prefers active people who are able to exist in a world full of conflicts and capable of solving complicated problems. The school carries a part of the responsibility for educating such individuals. Czech teachers are no longer working in the restricted conditions of a unified school curriculum. Officially they have the opportunity to apply their creativity to their teaching. To achieve the transition to the new conditions, it is not sufficient to change pedagogical documents alone, but it is necessary to prepare teachers for these changes in both undergraduate and in-service courses. Undergraduate and in-service training cannot be separated. The quality of the undergraduate teacher education is the base for establishing a teacher’s interest in professional development through in-service education. In order to produce creative and self-confident students, it is necessary to first produce creative and self-confident teachers, that is, teachers who not only are capable of delivering complete knowledge and procedures, but also will develop pupils/ students’ ability to use their knowledge and to react in appropriate and adequate ways to changing conditions in the world around them. It is generally accepted that a good teacher should be well prepared not only to teach, but first and foremost to help form the pupils/students’ personality and attitudes; not only to state that the pupil/student is or is not capable of learning something, but also to change his/her relationship to education and life.

52

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

These beliefs influence the research into teacher education and practices (especially novice teachers’ practices) in the Czech Republic. The research is mostly qualitative.

Pre-service teacher education and its consequences for novice teacher’s situation after entering practice In the following text, mathematics is used as an example of school subject. It allows us to illustrate the ideas by appropriate examples. The situation in other subjects may differ in substantial ways from the research that is done in the field of mathematics. As summarized in Novotná (2000), one of the main objectives of teacher education in the Czech Republic is to determine the balance between theoretical and practical knowledge and skills. In accordance with Novotná (2000) and several others (e.g. Nieto, 1996), the following three basic components of future teacher education are specified:

1. Specific knowledge: 1.1 Knowledge of mathematics (mathematical concepts and procedures, methodology, relationships with other areas etc.) 1.2 Psychological–pedagogical knowledge (general aspects of the teaching/ learning processes, getting to know students, management of the lesson, curriculum creation, knowledge of the context, etc.) 1.3 Knowledge of learning/teaching mathematics (learning/teaching strategies for specific topics, curricular and pedagogical materials, etc.) 2. Knowledge, beliefs and attitudes towards mathematics 3. Practical skills

Specific knowledge of mathematics In the Czech context, most future teachers entering pedagogical faculties were taught mathematics at primary and secondary schools. Their knowledge of mathematical concepts and skills is at different levels and they also have different personal experiences of how mathematics was taught. It is assumed that students who will be future mathematics teachers have a positive attitude towards this subject. As research shows, this attitude is not always accompanied by having had experience with any teaching strategy other than instructive teaching. Mathematics is often taught as an isolated school subject only connected with other subjects or real-life problems in a very formal way. The view of mathematics which the student has built up during their school career, survives long after he/she leaves secondary school. If any misconceptions which the students might have during their teacher education are not changed, these misconceptions will return with the teacher back to school. The situation, where mathematics is taught only as a set of precepts and instructions which have to be learnt, leads to ever deeper formalism in the teaching of mathematics, resulting in a lack of understanding of the conceptual structure of the subject and an inability to use mathematics meaningfully when solving real problems. Several examples of the research focusing on specific knowledge of mathematics can be found, for example, in Hejný, Novotná and Stehlíková, 2004.

Learning to Teach in the Czech Republic

53

Psychological-pedagogical knowledge Future mathematics teachers’ preparation is in the centre of attention of research at all school levels. Their results are similar; the main ideas do not depend on the school level. The following publications are examples focusing on this issue. Kuřina (1997) presents activities that help future primary teachers change their instructive approaches to teaching. Hošpesová and Tichá (2015) report results of a survey whose aim was to contribute to research in the area of problem posing in primary teacher training. The core of the research project was empirical survey with qualitative design. Pre-service and in-service teachers were posing problems in the environment of fractions and reflected on this activity in writing. Analysis of the posed problems and participants’ reflections were to answer the following questions: (a) What shortcomings can be identified in the posed problems? (b) How are the posed problems perceived by pre-service and in-service teachers? (c) What relations are there between quality of the posed problems and perception of this activity by their authors? It usually takes time before results of research enter school practice and curriculum. Usually the first step is through teacher education. When novice teachers enter schools, they introduce the innovations into schools and in a few years into School Education Programs. Framework Educational Programs are updated with respect to findings from research about every four years.

Knowledge, beliefs and attitudes towards mathematics Zapotilová (2004) presents the research focusing on future primary teachers’ attitudes towards mathematics and possibilities of changing them. The presented research has three main objectives: get feedback from primary student teachers how they see teaching mathematics at the primary, secondary and tertiary levels, discover important didactical and climate phenomena from the obtained materials and application of the obtained knowledge into educating future teachers at the faculty. The author analyses questionnaires and essays written by the respondents.

Knowledge of learning/teaching mathematics Novotná (2000) explores the influence of a student teacher’s (as well as a practising teacher’s) previous experience in and knowledge of mathematics teaching and learning. Her study shows that teachers’ previous experiences can significantly influence their ability to get an insight into cognitive processes of a pupil, who meets new, for him or her, often surprising concepts, properties and relations. (For example, order in positive fractions; in the case of fractions with the same numerator, the fraction with bigger denominator is smaller fraction. This is in contradiction with pupils’ previous experience with natural numbers order.) In the article, examples of environments enabling future mathematics teachers to meet similar obstacles as their pupils are presented. The text (Kratochvílová, 2004) focuses on the recommended organization of mathematics courses for future teachers of handicapped pupils. The author suggests that the teacher’s task is not only bringing knowledge but also creating a suitable environment, acting as a source of pupils’ motivation. The teacher’s personality is original, once. Therefore even the lessons of two creative teachers cannot be the same.

54

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Kubínová (2002) focuses on lower and upper secondary mathematics teacher education. She also claims that it is necessary to search for such a form of teacher education whose content and methodologies would not only act on the student teacher’s cognitive part of their personality, but much considerably influence their attitudes, value orientation and emotions. She emphasizes that it is imperative to teach future teachers to respect the student’s personality, form positive attitude towards people and the world, support the committed child’s approach to the cognition and connect the work in school to real-life experiences.10

Practical skills Teaching practice is a highly important part of teacher training programs. There are many issues that are related to the future teachers’ practice in school, for example its length, form, mentoring and organization. The success of pedagogical practice requires the trainees’ reflection during their teaching practice. As Dytrtová and Krhutová (2009) claim, reflection is a skill, and like any other skill, it must be learnt. Student teachers might have some initial experience with reflecting from their first micro-teaching during methodology lessons; however the most crucial experience for development of reflective skills is teaching practice. A significant part of the research also examines the influence of university employees (teacher mentors, supervisors, methodologists) as incentive supporters of the students’ professional development regarding reflection (Taušková, 2014). The use of video recordings from real schools in pre-service courses of DM is studied in for example, Stehlíková (2006). Use of computers and other technological tools in mathematics education on primary and secondary school levels and in pre-service teacher training is a very up-to-date topic. The very fast expansion of the use of technological devices (in all forms, especially of those connected to the Internet) in education brings about the need to focus on and study their use in teaching. There are several researches dealing with this issue. The following publications are examples of works focusing on the teacher education for the implementation of ICT in their teaching: Černochová and Siňor (2001), Rambousek and Mošna (2001), Jančařík and Novotná (2013), Robová and Vondrová (2014). Several studies are devoted to researching the obstacles that a trainee teacher faces when beginning his/her teaching practice. Trainee teachers at the beginning of their school practice emphasize, among other things, an unpreparedness for unusual questions from students and for distinguishing between important and unimportant concepts. One of the domains that are becoming more and more important in the contemporary world is the preparation of future teachers for working in multilingual and multicultural environment. It is linked also with preparation of teachers to teach mathematics through the medium of a foreign language for pupils, CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning). The following publications are examples of works focusing on these issues in the Czech Republic: Tejkalová (2009), Moraová and Novotná (2015).

10

For the organization of the course of didactics of mathematics fulfilling these requirements, see for example https://is.cuni.cz/studium/eng/predmety/index.php?id=14449ce351a4991bd0e716c1465 46ea7&tid=&do=ustav&fak=11410&kod=41-KMDM.

Learning to Teach in the Czech Republic

55

One of the new issues studied in the Czech environment is ‘lesson study’ (Vondrová et al., 2016). Lesson study is a professional development practice that has origins in Japanese elementary education. It is new in the Czech environment. The first published study (Vondrová et al., 2016) is the first Czech published study that presents lesson study as a specific form of further education of mathematics teachers based on cooperation between teachers in the improvement of the quality of teaching by means of planning. It focuses the way Czech teachers perceived their participation and how it influenced their perception of didactical phenomena. The collected data include written answers to questions requiring critical reflection and records of discussion. They were analysed using techniques based on anchored theory. The results show that participating teachers (n = 13) considered work in lesson study as meaningful and an advance in their ability to critically reflect on the teaching. On the other hand, the analysis of the reflective tasks did not show an advance in the perception of didactic-mathematical tasks. Differences were found in the depth of individual and group reflection on the teaching situation. The authors also summarize some of the requirements for, and some of the barriers against, the spread of lesson study in the Czech environment. The way to include lesson study in pre-service teacher education and in novice teachers’ activities when entering the practice is one of the questions open for further research.

Challenges encountered by novice qualified teachers Novice teachers at the beginning of their school career emphasize, among other things, an unpreparedness for the ‘everyday life in school’. It does not cover only unusual questions from pupils or distinguishing between important and unimportant concepts; a novice teacher meets several pitfalls of his/her first steps (preparation of plans for the school year, organization of lessons, filling in the class register, keeping records about pupils, etc.). Often, the novice teacher must cope with the situation alone. Induction challenges. In the Czech Republic, assisting novice teachers is the responsibility of individual school management. Novice teachers face not only challenges linked with their teaching. The system of so-called mentor teachers whose task is to introduce the beginning teachers in the environment of the concrete school and to help them at the beginning of their professional career as teachers is not compulsory. There are not too many studies focusing on the work of mentor teachers in the Czech context. Podlahová (2004, pp. 55–6) summarizes the possible forms of cooperation between novice teachers and mentor teachers: mutual sitting in classes followed by analyses of observed lessons, regular consultations, informal contacts at school, common attendance of courses of long-life education, cooperation when preparing project days and other activities in and outside the school and common organizing of activities for parents and public. Concerning instruction mentors can play an important role. For instance Jirotková and Kratochvílová (2004) focused on cognitive misunderstandings in teacher–pupil communication. They pay attention to misunderstanding caused by the teacher. They propose instruments enabling to diminish the danger of such a misunderstanding and those enabling to detect the misunderstanding and repair it in case that it happens.

56

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Challenges relating to frequent changes to the curriculum. The organization of education in the Czech Republic after the change of the regime in 1989 is still in the process of transition. The transition proceeded from de-monopolization to a qualitative diversification of educational opportunities. The development of education since the political change has been rapid and responsive in some areas but less substantial and even constrained in others. General aims of the overall transformation process are as follows: ● ●

●

●

the de-politicization of education and training – the end of tight ideological control, the recognition of right of pupils (or their parents) to choose their educational path according to their abilities and interests as integral part of the overall liberalization process, the breaking down of the state monopoly in education by allowing private and denominational schools to be established and decentralization in the management of the education system, mainly by delegating to municipalities, schools and their directors a number of decision-making powers.

These changes bring with them frequent curricular changes and request to introduce innovative teaching strategies into schools. A great deal of attention is paid to introducing innovative teaching strategies. Much less is known about (not only novice) teachers’ reactions to curricular changes. The study (Hofmannová, Novotná and Hadj-Moussová, 2003) brings the results of research into affective barriers lying at the base of negative attitudes of mathematics and language teachers towards new educational trends, that is, the teaching of mathematics in the English language in monolingual Czech secondary school classrooms. The detected sources of blocks to innovations helped to improve the curricula of the joint degree teacher training courses at Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Education. New incentives in the course curricula were introduced to work with teachers’ motivation and attitudes, and verbal skills were strengthened to procure in teacher education courses the shift from a silent to a communicative classroom. Communities of practice as a response. One of the important topics in the research is the cooperation of teachers and researchers. For example, Hošpesová and Tichá (2009) focus on the role of joint reflection in the teacher development. Teacher in the role of researchers and narrow cooperation of teachers and researchers in the so-called communities of practice are another perspective through which the cooperation of teachers and researchers develops.

Results of comparison of teacher education in Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic The traditional model of the transmissive school, whose goal was the transmission of knowledge seen as necessary for future and pupils’ enculturation to the norms, gradually started to transform into a model in which the integrative and methodologicalcoordinating functions of school are growing, namely at the stage of crucial importance for lifelong learning.

Learning to Teach in the Czech Republic

57

A qualitative transformation of the school is possible only on the condition that teachers play an active part in the selection and creation of educational contents as well as educational policy and if they accept new roles where the domains of interpersonal relationships and values of democratic citizenship are reinforced, where social and ethical barriers in the society diminish and the ideals of Europeanism are supported. Any transformation of school is only possible if teachers take over the responsibility for effectivity of educational processes and their results and if they become creators of positive social climate at schools. Thus teachers must be trained to reflect changes in educational contexts and incorporate them flexibly into their work and their personal and professional development. The pupil, their learning, development of their personality, respecting their uniqueness and individual needs and growing importance of equity and equal chances have gradually become the key concepts and aspects in teachers’ pedagogical approaches and methods. Teachers’ professional qualification and profile are directly influenced by the new educational policies, especially adaptations of the Framework Educational Program into specific regional and school conditions, introduction of new information and communication technologies into education, inclusion and integration of pupils and internationalization of education. The basic change in university teacher training which took place after 1989 consisted in opening the way for faculties to independently define the content and methodology of teacher training. A widely discussed question is the issue of teaching practice. Hitherto, it was always oriented didactically (i.e. explicitly towards the teaching methods of different subjects), while very little attention was given to the teacher’s work with the pupil (i.e. questions of diagnostics, communication, evaluation, etc.). Another discussed question was the relationship between subject teaching and the pedagogical and psychological components of teacher training.

Concluding remarks The list of studies that are conducted in a country can never be exhaustive. Even the themes are difficult to classify exactly; there can be overlapping or parallel studies from which only a part can be presented in a text. The studies that are being realized in the Czech Republic can be roughly divided into two main streams focusing on one of the following fields: field of knowledge and field of subject teachers’ education practices. Both of them are developed in the Czech Republic. Lots of changes with positive effects were realized in the Czech Republic after 1989. It is linked with the effort to de-monopolize and de-ideologize the whole educational system including teacher education. But a lot of work still has to be done. One of the important domains that have had substantial impact on the quality of teachers’ work is the lack of a career system and the legislatively non-anchored system of teachers’ lifelong education. In-service education of education staff includes study programs for unqualified teachers leading to formal teacher qualification, programs leading to other qualifications (such as school adviser qualification) or professional development courses (continuous education). It is delivered within the lifelong learning system at

58

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

higher education institutions, in establishments for in-service training of education staff or other institutions accredited by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports; this type of education can be gained through self-study. In the Czech Republic, in-service teacher education is not compulsory so far. In the mandatory pedagogical documentation of schools there is a one-year school plan of in-service teacher education. At the end of the school year, this information must be published in the annual school report. Schools have in their budgets finances for covering the costs of the training (but not of the necessary changes in the timetable in case the courses are run in morning hours). At this point there is nothing that would force or motivate in-service teachers to participate in in-service teacher education in case they are fully qualified teachers. The in-service teacher education plan is the headmaster’s responsibility and it is up to the headmaster to motivate their teachers to participate. However, if the teachers are not motivated, their attendance at the training will be purely formal and will bring forth no fruit. It also seems that there is a lack of control of the quality of offered in-service teacher training course. Most of them are run by private bodies and despite the need to have the seminars accredited by the Ministry of Education, many of the seminars seem to be run for profit rather than for improving teaching at schools. At present, the new system of in-service teacher education and teachers’ career development is being prepared by the Ministry of Education. The intention is to overcome the above listed difficulties resulting from the current state.

References Beneš, P. and Rambousek, V. (Eds.) (2007). 60 let pedagogických fakult [60 years of Faculties of education]. Plzeň: Koniáš. (In Czech and English.) Černochová, M. and Siňor, S. (2001). How do we teach student teachers with on-line teaching? In Proceedings The International Conference Telecommunications for Education and Training, 31–34. Prague: Univerzita Karlova v Praze. Dytrtová, R. and Krhutová, M. (2009). Učitel: Příprava na profesi. Prague: Grada Publishing. Hejný, M., Novotná, J. and Stehlíková, N. (Eds.) (2004). Dvacet pět kapitol z didaktiky matematiky. Prague: Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Pedagogická fakulta. Hofmannová, M., Novotná, J. and Hadj-Moussová, Z. (2003). Attitudes of Mathematics and Language Teachers towards New Educational Trends. In PME 27/PME NA 25 (Vol. 3, 71–7). University of Hawai’i, CRDG, College of Education. Hošpesová, A. and Tichá, M. (2009). Following the path of the teacher`s development. Joint reflection. The New Educational Review, 17(1), pp. 212–32. Hošpesová, A. and Tichá, M. (2015). Problem posing in primary school teacher training. In Mathematical Problem Posing: From Research to Effective Practice, 433–47. New York: Springer Science+Business Media. Jančařík, A. and Novotná, J. (2013). The role of computers in pre-service teacher training – are our graduates ready for the challenge? In 12th Conference on Applied Mathematics, APLIMAT 2013, Proceedings,. 351–8). Bratislava: STU Bratislava. Jirotková, D. and Kratochvílová, J. (2004). Nedorozumění v komunikaci učitel – žák/ student. In Dvacet pět kapitol z didaktiky matematiky, 81–92. Prague: Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Pedagogická fakulta.

Learning to Teach in the Czech Republic

59

Kratochvílová, J. (2004). Kurz Matematika s didaktikou v oboru Učitelství na speciálních školách. In Dvacet pět kapitol z didaktiky matematiky, 237–46. Prague: Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Pedagogická fakulta. Kubínová, M. (2002). Improving teachers’ beliefs about mathematical education. In Proceedings CERME 2, 595). Prague: Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Pedagogická fakulta. Kuřina, F. (1997). Matematika a matematická příprava učitelů prvního stupně. In Kaktuálním otázkám matematické přípravy učitelů 1. stupně na ZŠ (OŠ) na Pedagogických fakultách v ČR a SR. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého, Pedagogická fakulta. Moraová, H. and Novotná, J. (2015). Use of Electronic Resources in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Pre-Service Teachers’ Perspective. In Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on e-Learning ECEL 2015, 410–16). Reading: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited. Nieto, L. J. B. (1996). Learning to teach mathematics: Types of knowledge. In Becoming a Primary Teacher, Issues from Mathematics Education, 159–77. Sevilla: Gracia Alvarez. Novotná, J. (2000). Teacher in the role of a student – a component of teacher training. In Proceedings of the International Conference Teachers and Their University Education at the Turn of the Millennium, 284–8). Prague: Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Pedagogická fakulta. (Czech version: Novotná, J. (1999). Učitel v roli žáka – součást profesní přípravy učitele. Pedagogická orientace, 1999(3), 28–32.) Podlahová, L. (2004). První kroky učitele. Praha: Triton. Rambousek, V. and Mošna, F. (2001). Technology and information education in teachers’ training in the conditions of new educational program. In XIV DIDMATTECH 2001, 581–5. Radom: Wydawnictwo Institutu Technologii Eksploatacji. Robová, J. and Vondrová, N. (2014). Future mathematics teachers and the identification of specific skills for work with GeoGebra. In Efficiency and Responsibility in Education, 640–7. Prague: Česká zemědělská univerzita. Stehlíková, N. (2006). Using videotapes in the education of future mathematics teachers. In 3rd International Conference on the Teaching of Mathematics at the Undergraduate Level [CD-ROM] 265–70). Taušková, M. (2014). Reflective skills of trainee teachers of English language during their teaching practice: Case study. [Diploma theses.] Prague: Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Pedagogická fakulta. Tejkalová, L. (2009). CLIL as a Challenge for Mathematics Teacher Trainees. In CIEAEM 61 – Actes, 345–6). Montréal. Québec: Université de Montréal. Vondrová, N., Cachová, J., Coufaková, J. and Krátká, M. (2016). ‘Lesson study’ v českých podmínkách: Jak učitelé vnímali svou účast a jaký vliv měla na jejich všímání si didakticko-matematických jevů. Pedagogika, 66(4), pp. 427–42. http://pages.pedf.cuni. cz/pedagogika/. Zapotilová, E. (2004). Postoje studentů k matematice a možnosti jejich změn. In Dvacet pět kapitol z didaktiky matematiky, 159–80. Prague: Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Pedagogická fakulta.

5

Learning to Teach in England: Reviewing Policy and Research Trends Ian Menter, Trevor Mutton and Katharine Burn

Introduction Initially, we offer an overview of the development of institutional approaches to teacher education from the nineteenth century through to the present day, concluding with a suggested ‘periodization’, summarizing different phases. Of particular interest to the concerns of this book are the more recent developments – especially since the 1980s – and it is these years that are the main focus of the subsequent section in which we seek to examine the role that research in and on teacher education had in the development of policy. In particular, we seek to establish the extent to which research helped to shape not only the processes of teacher education but also the understandings of what it is to be a teacher. In other words, how was teachers’ professional knowledge defined and redefined during this time? Having offered a summary of major research in the field, we then take a range of recent policy texts – including two White Papers and a government-commissioned report – as examples, in order to ascertain the extent to which each appears to have been shaped by research evidence or by political ideologies. Our conclusion is that England has become very much an outlier within the UK and to some extent in the wider world in terms of the ways in which teacher education is developed more on the basis of ideology and political expedience/short-termism than on the basis of high-quality research.

The history of teacher education in England There has been very little sustained or large-scale research on English teacher education itself as has been noted in earlier work by the UK-wide Teacher Education Group (Menter et al., 2010). Much of the available work is, in fact, historical and tends to offer the most helpful overview of policy (and practice) across the country as a whole; it is the review of this work that has facilitated our construction of a periodization of the development of teacher education. This focuses in most detail on the time from the

Learning to Teach in England

61

mid-twentieth century onwards, with only a very superficial account of developments up to that point. Above all, it is argued that before the middle of the twentieth century, educational research played little part in policymaking in any aspect of education, including teacher education. Robinson (2004) explores this teacher education history and shows that the dominant view of ‘teacher training’ was that beginners would learn through practice (see also Oancea, 2014). In the post-war period, we begin to see more influence of research on wider education policy, but its impact in teacher education continued to be more in relation to practice than to policy. So, for example, we can see the influence of European and US educators and educationalists such as Froebel, Montessori, Pestalozzi, Piaget and Dewey, as well as ‘home-grown’ early years specialists such as Isaacs, the McMillan sisters and others. Only in the 1960s did the influence of research begin to be felt in teacher education policy; this period saw a rapid flourishing of education studies and the establishment of the so-called major disciplines of education (Tibble, 1966), with psychology and sociology being dominant and philosophy and history also playing a significant part (Furlong and Lawn, 2010). During this period, educational ideology also became much more explicit and visible. Wilkin (1996) demonstrates this very clearly in relation to initial teacher education (ITE) and the virulent contestation that accelerated in the 1980s is a reflection of this trend, with claims that university-based teacher educators were guilty of over-theorization and sometimes of political subversion. In policy terms it appears that it was political ideology that won through over research, consistent with Cochran-Smith’s argument that teacher education increasingly became constructed as a policy problem (Cochran-Smith and Fries, 2008). Although Cochran-Smith’s main focus was on the United States in the 1990s, much the same was true in England in the 1980s (Tatto et al., 2018). The flowering of the ‘reflective teacher’ model in the 1980s – a model which sought to integrate theory and practice within an experiential learning approach – was challenged by the imposition of the ‘effective teacher’ model, through the priorities established under the control mechanisms of the two different government agencies set up with responsibility, respectively, for teacher training and for education inspection. The former was variously called the Teacher Training Agency, the Training and Development Agency for Schools, the Teaching Agency and, more recently, the National College for Teaching and Leadership, which was effectively subsumed within the Department for Education in 2018; the latter is Ofsted – the Office for Standards in Education. This contest between the ‘effective teacher’ and the ‘reflective teacher’ models almost entirely squeezed out the ‘teacher as researcher’ model promoted by Stenhouse in the 1970s (Stenhouse, 1975). More recently, however, we have seen a somewhat paradoxical conflation of the effective teaching model with the notion of evidence-based teaching. The promotion of clinical practice models, the roots of which can be found in the 1970s and 1980s, seems to be an attempt, led by university-based educators working in partnership with schools, to move into this arena. Such principled approaches seek to reflect the real complexity and challenges of teaching and teacher education (Hagger and McIntyre, 2006; Burn and Mutton, 2013; Burn, Hagger and Mutton, 2015; Tatto et al., 2018).

62

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Phases in the development of teacher education in England A periodization of ITE in England and the dominant conceptions of professional knowledge and professional learning can thus be offered, further details of which are provided in Table 5.1. In summary, we are suggesting five major phases historically, as follows. Phase 1. 1800–1944, Institutionalization During the nineteenth and the first part of the twentieth century, there was an expansion of teacher training colleges and some universities created departments of education. Early in the period teachers for elementary schools were trained through pupil teaching and Normal Schools, with the emphasis on knowledge (object lessons), skills (the ‘3 Rs’) and Christian morality/behaviour. Secondary teachers were expected to have the appropriate subject knowledge through their degree studies and actual preparation for teaching was generally minimal. This period can be described as being based on A training model leading to the effective teacher (‘Version 1’). Phase 2. 1944–72, Academicization The school system changed dramatically after the Second World War with primary education becoming a more distinct phase taking children through to the age of eleven when they transferred to one of three types of secondary school: technical, secondary modern and grammar (see Jones, 2003). In teacher education, there was considerable further expansion of colleges (from training colleges to colleges of education) and the promotion of educational theory. Furthermore, there was significant expansion of university involvement, especially in provision for secondary school teaching. In line with the wider cultural changes associated with the ‘social democratic settlement’ there was a development of ‘a liberal (general) education’ for teachers, especially in the primary sector. As education became a key plank of social change, teachers were increasingly seen as potential agents of change, for example challenging poverty and racial inequality as well as illiteracy. This period can be described as being based on a model of Professional education with a broad base leading to teaching as change agency (at least as an aspiration): the transformative teacher. Phase 3. 1972–84, Professionalization The government-commissioned James Report (1972) argued strongly for teaching to become an all graduate profession and also called for recognition of the importance of continuing professional learning for teachers. Moves in this direction ensued with increasing importance being attached to the role of higher education and concomitantly less to the role of schools. A major ‘rationalization’ of provision was undertaken with

Social/political context – some significant events

Teaching/teacher education policy

Evidence in policy text

‘Pragmatic’ – Need for a good general education; emphasis on apprenticeship but with increasing influences from Europe and then the United States

Theory/philosophy

Post-war social 1944 Education Act – tripartite school democratic settlement – system 1944 McNair Report ‘consensual’ education policy Robbins Report (1963) leading to expansion of higher education Student power Plowden Report (CACE, 1967) Research evidence from sociology and psychology

Compensatory education

Fixed ability/intelligence

1972

James Report (1972) - rationalization of provision (closure/merger of colleges of education)

Professionalization of teaching

Research

Taylor (1969) reviews provision in colleges and universities during the middle of the twentieth century

Debates about balance between personal and professional education

See Dent (1977), who covers 1800–1975 See Oancea (2014) for an account of the research influences

(Continued )

Dent (1977)

PROFESSIONALIZATION, 1972–84: Teaching as a graduate profession, largely led by higher education leading to the creation of the reflective teacher

1967

1963

1945

ACADEMICIZATION, 1945–72: Professional education with a broad base leading to teaching as change agency: the transformative teacher

INSTITUTIONALIZATION, 1870–1945: A training model leading to effective teaching (Version 1) 1870-1945 Post-industrialization Providers: local authorities, churches, universities 1900 onwards – development of training colleges

Year/s

Table 5.1 Periodization of teacher education in England

63

Oil crisis Labour government Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government

Social/political context – some significant events

Callaghan’s Ruskin College speech

Teaching/teacher education policy

Evidence in policy text Moral panic about standards, especially in literacy

Theory/philosophy

Research

Partnership – Circulars 9/92 and 14/93 End of HE ‘binary divide’ Focus on the development of ITE mentoring skills in schools (see Hagger, Burn and McIntyre (1993); McIntyre and Hagger (1993); Hagger and McIntyre (1994)) 1994 TTA formed, working with Ofsted

1992/3

John Major Prime Minister from 1991

Circular 24/89 – tightening controls on ITE

Education Reform Act

1988

Clinical practice models being articulated

Circular 3/84, establishment of Council Drawn mainly from The reflective teacher promoted by for the Accreditation of Teacher government papers, ITE providers Education (CATE) for example White Focus on technical teaching skills Paper Teaching and classroom organization Quality 1983 Introduction of employment-based Teacher shortages routes

1989

Attack on trades unions

1984

Furlong et al. (1988): role of the school in ITE Evaluation of Oxford Internship (Benton (1990)) Further work on teaching – (e.g. Brown and McIntyre (1993))

Alexander et al. (1984): Change in Teacher Education

DIVERSIFICATION AND STANDARDIZATION, 1984–2010: Competing approaches to the preparation of teachers with reflective teaching being replaced by effective teaching (Version 2)

1979

1976

Year/s

Table 5.1 (Continued)

64

2007/8

2002

1999

1998

1997

Year/s

Financial crisis/austerity

Devolution in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales

New Labour: Tony Blair prioritizes ‘Education, Education, Education’

Social/political context – some significant events

Teach First launched Providers to deliver the various ‘national strategies’ and later the allembracing ‘National Strategy’ ‘Every Child Matters’ defined education policy during this period and had a significant effect on teacher education Government focus on CPD, teaching as a masters profession and the development of the MTL

Circular 4/98 introduces National Curriculum for teacher education and national teacher standards

Teaching Standards – Circular 9/97

Teaching/teacher education policy

Evidence in policy text Theory/philosophy

Partnership

The effective teacher

Research

(Continued )

BaT (Hobson et al. (2006)) – looking at diverse routes of entry VITAE (Day et al. (2007)) Stages of teachers’ careers

MOTE: Furlong et al. (2000) (work carried out during the 90s)

See Mahony and Hextall, 2000

65

Social/political context – some significant events

Teaching/teacher education policy

Evidence in policy text Theory/philosophy

Research

2016

2015

2013/14

2010

Conservative government

Coalition government emphasizes deregulation; giving schools the responsibility for decision-making at the local level

Carter report Less control from government over provider allocations White Paper Educational Excellence Everywhere Drive towards academization (selfmanaging schools)

White Paper: The Importance of Teaching ‘School Direct’ Free schools and academies – unqualified teachers TTA incorporated into DfE/NCTL Abolition of GTCE and of the curriculum authority (QCA), but further curriculum and assessment reform ‘Troops into Teachers’; ‘Teach Next’; ‘Researchers as Teachers’ BERA-RSA Inquiry

Teaching as a craft Apprenticeship model of learning

Brown (2018) on School Direct

Research reviews and Clinical practice; research literacy BERA-RSA (2014) consultations for teachers Carter refers to BERA- Evidence-based teaching Mutton, Burn and RSA among other Menter (2017); sources Tatto et al. (2018) More misleading The importance of evidence in Whiting et al. (2016, references (re-used) teaching and ‘what works’ 2018) Subject knowledge; behaviour management skills; understanding research on how pupils learn

Some research (misleadingly) referred to in ‘Training our next generation of outstanding teachers’

MARKETIZATION, 2010–18: Complexity and Competition in training routes and a teacher model of ‘enhanced effectiveness’ or ‘effective teaching (Version 3)’ incorporating ‘evidence-based teaching’

Year/s

Table 5.1 (Continued)

66

Learning to Teach in England

67

many colleges of education either closing or being merged with large polytechnics (Hencke, 1987). By the end of the period the term ‘the reflective teacher’ had been coined to summarize the image of the thoughtful and intellectual basis of contemporary teaching (Pollard and Tann, 1987). This phase of professionalization may, however, be seen in hindsight as a period when teacher education was over-academic and detached from the world of professional practice, a criticism made by (among others) McIntyre (1988) and Moon (2016). McIntyre, for example, suggested that ‘student-teachers frequently find the “educational theorizing” they encounter in their courses irrelevant to the practical tasks that confront them in schools’. This period can be described as being based on a model of Teaching as a graduate profession, largely led by higher education (and involving the study of theory as well as practice) leading to the creation of the reflective teacher. Phase 4. 1984–2010, Diversification and Standardization In 1979 Margaret Thatcher became the prime minister and started a radical program of political, cultural and economic change. However, it was a few years before education received direct attention. By 1988 the National Curriculum was launched and for the first time teachers were required to ‘deliver’ a specific curriculum rather than the emphasis being on teachers as curriculum developers. As we shall see, there was considerable consistency between the movements started in 1984 under the Conservative government and those of subsequent Labour-led governments (from 1997). The distinctive feature in teacher education was a ‘tightening grip’ by central government. New agencies played a major role in exerting government control, most notably the Teacher Training Agency and the inspection agency, Ofsted (Childs and Menter, 2013). In the first part of this period, under the requirement of ‘partnership’ between schools and universities, schools and teachers were brought back into the centre of teacher education. New routes to a teaching qualification were introduced, including school-based routes, and School Centred Initial Teacher Training (SCITT) providers were established. The contribution of higher education establishments came under increasing pressure (despite attempts by some of them to sustain more integrated models of clinical practice), and the nature of the ‘training’ process became more ‘practical’ and less ‘theoretical’. In the second part of the period, after New Labour’s accession, strong government intervention continued, but the focus was more on the nature of teachers’ professional knowledge and skills. These were defined through published ‘Standards’, stating what teachers should know and should be able to do and how they should be disposed. The diversification introduced under the previous Conservative government did not diminish, however, and among significant innovations was the introduction of Teach First, an employment-based route seeking to attract ‘the brightest and best’ graduates from ‘leading universities’ into teaching. New Labour also introduced the ‘Every Child Matters’ agenda, which sought to support every child, whatever their background, and ensure a multiprofessional approach to challenging educational disadvantage (HM Government, 2003).

68

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

This period can be described as being based on a process of almost continuous change with Competing approaches to the preparation of teachers (ranging from apprenticeships through to clinical practice models) and with reflective teaching being replaced by effective teaching (‘Version 2’). Phase 5. 2010–17, Marketization This phase was experienced initially under a coalition government and then, from 2015, a Conservative government. The Secretary of State for Education appointed in 2010 was Michael Gove whose White Paper The Importance of Teaching (DfE, 2010a) offered schools greater levels of autonomy and a radical new approach to teacher education, with the aim of making more than half of provision ‘school-led’ by 2015. As part of a wider commitment to making English education a ‘school-led’ system, ‘School Direct’ was introduced as a way of ensuring that schools themselves took a major role in selecting and training new teachers. Simultaneously, Gove called for a ‘simplification’ of the teaching standards. One effect of this was yet further marginalization of higher education in the preparation of teachers and the promotion of a market-driven approach through the proliferation of School Direct lead schools. Here the market was also directly managed through the way in which training places were allocated, although many of these allocation controls were removed in 2017–18. Throughout this period of instability, ‘diversity’ remained a key element in the provision (Whiting et al., 2016), stimulated in part by continuing concern about the adequate supply of new teachers. As Whitty (2014, 2016) noted, this emphasis on diversity encouraged the development of ‘branded’ and localized models of teaching. The period also saw further interest in forms of ‘clinical practice’ being promoted and the encouragement of teachers’ use of research, highlighted in reports such as that of the BERA-RSA inquiry (2014) and the government-commissioned Carter Report (Carter, 2015) as well as the growth of bodies representing teachers themselves, including ResearchEd, The Chartered College of Teaching and the Teaching Schools Council. So, in summary, it seems that what we have in 2018 is an enhanced version of effective teaching, which emphasizes the importance of evidence in teaching as well as a continuing prioritization of subject knowledge. In other words, this period can be described as being based on a model of ‘Effective teaching (Version 3)’ incorporating ‘evidence-based teaching’. This period may be characterized as one of Complexity and competition in training routes and a teacher model of ‘enhanced effectiveness’ or ‘effective teaching (Version 3)’.

Summary Although such a periodization is inevitably subject to fair criticisms of oversimplification and omission, it provides a starting point for further analysis of the changing ways in

Learning to Teach in England

69

which professional knowledge has been described and defined. In undertaking such an analysis, it is important to acknowledge that underlying these policy developments and heavily influencing them were teacher supply issues. From the emergency training during and following the Second World War onwards, demographics (pupil numbers) and the wider economic situation have been key determinants of how teacher education has been organized and how selection and entry procedures have been constructed. Over the period, if we accept the basic trajectory that has been outlined, we can nevertheless see the steady and then rapid expansion of professional knowledge, first through education studies and then through teaching standards; the later phases may also, however, be seen as a retraction of earlier models with an attack on educational theory and research as irrelevant (at best) or subversive (at worst). This has been the effect of the continuing ideological onslaught on teacher education. We can also detect at times the effect of external influences. The impact of globalization can perhaps be seen more keenly elsewhere in the UK, but politicians in England have continued to be influenced by North American and Asian success stories (most visible in the support for Teach First, originally based on Teach for America).

Teacher education research in England We now turn our focus to the research that has been carried out on English teacher education in recent years and the contribution that it has made to the development of policy and practice (see Table 5.2). One of the earliest national studies of ITE carried out following the significant reforms of the late 1980s and early 1990s was the ‘Modes of Teacher Education’ (MOTE) project, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council as two separate studies. The aim of the first was to establish an up-to-date topography of ITE in England, while the second focused on the nature of teacher education provision and the experiences of beginning teachers within different models of partnership at a time when more and more emphasis was being placed on the practicum experience and the competencies that beginning teachers were required to demonstrate. The MOTE project research was completed before the Labour government came to power in 1997, but the publication of the book that summarized its findings (Furlong et al., 2000) coincided with moves by the new government to support the development of ITE partnerships in order to increase both capacity and quality within the system. The National Partnership Project was set up by the Teacher Training Agency in 2001 and ran for four years until 2005 as a collaborative project between teacher education providers, schools, local authorities (responsible at that time for schools within a designated government area) and other stakeholders. The national evaluation of the project, supported by funding from the Teacher Training Agency, highlighted a number of tensions within the government’s approach to developing models of partnership, not least the risk of ignoring ‘epistemological and pedagogical issues’ through creating a uniform approach which ‘flattens complexity and reduces teacher education to technical rationalist tasks’ (Furlong et al., 2006, p. 41). One of the programs identified by the MOTE project as an example of a genuinely ‘collaborative’ partnership – the Oxford Internship Scheme – also produced a significant

70

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Table 5.2 Indicative studies of teacher education in England 1990–2017 Study (and sources) Modes of Teacher Education (MOTE) 1990–2000, Furlong et al. (2000) Oxford Internship Scheme – McIntyre and Hagger (1992) and McIntyre (1997) Developing Expertise of Beginning Teachers (DEBT); Burn, Hagger and Mutton (2015)

The effectiveness of induction; Totterdell et al. (2002) Continuing professional development (CPD); Cordingley et al. (2003, 2005) and Cordingley (2013) Variations in Teachers’ Work, Lives and their Effects on Pupils (VITAE) 2001–05; Day et al. (2007) BaT – Becoming a Teacher 2003–09; Hobson et al. (2009) The work of teacher educators – Ellis and McNicholl (2015) School Direct: Brown (2018)

Learning to Teach 2013–17: Tatto et al. (2018) Diversity in Teacher Education (DiTE): Whiting et al. (2016, 2018)

Data

Major findings

National surveys of providers, with many interviews

Different approaches to partnership with the HEI-led model being dominant and the reflective teacher model most popular Close examination of developing Teacher education is greatly enhanced practice by full engagement of local authorities and school staff

Close examination of learning Teacher education has to involve a processes for beginning fully collaborative partnership teachers on a small number of between schools and universities, ITE programs with each making a distinctive and necessary contribution to the planning, delivery and ongoing development of the ITE program and in which student teachers engage in the process of ‘practical theorizing’ Evaluation of new arrangements Induction is crucial and current for teacher induction practices are very variable Series of systematic reviews of research evidence

Identification of factors essential in the provision of high-quality CPD

300 teachers in 100 schools surveyed and interviewed

Classroom effectiveness is determined by many factors and may change significantly over the course of teachers’ careers

Survey of new entrants with follow-through from initial training to first post Analysis of teacher educators’ work

Less variation of outcomes than expected between different routes

150 interviews with teacher educators and trainees

The skilled work of teacher educators has been undervalued

Although some new opportunities have opened up for school-based teacher educators, there has been severe disruption to established provision Policy analyses and Beginning teacher learning is very investigations in secondary complex and may be affected by school classrooms in England alignment – or not – of different and the United States partners Analysis of national data on Extreme complexity in English different entry routes teacher training

Learning to Teach in England

71

body of teacher education research from the late 1980s onwards. The development of the program was conceived of as a research project in its own right (Benton, 1990) and was significant, in policy terms, in two closely interrelated areas: first, in identifying the potential benefits of effective school-based ITE; and second, in developing the concept of mentoring as an essential aspect of all teacher education programs. The former led to a series of influential publications (including McIntyre and Hagger, 1992; McIntyre, 1997; Hagger and McIntyre, 2006). The mentoring research included a number of studies focusing on the identification of key skills and strategies which likewise led to a number of widely cited publications (e.g. McIntyre and Hagger (1993); Hagger, Burn and McIntyre (1993)). A further key feature of the scheme was its focus on researchbased understandings of teachers’ professional learning, which led to the Developing Expertise of Beginning Teachers (DEBT) project, a longitudinal study tracking thirtysix beginning teachers through the ITE year and their first and second years of teaching (Hagger et al., 2008). The Labour government (1997–2010) commissioned a number of studies focusing on various aspects of teacher education, primarily concerned with ITE but also addressing the needs of teachers at different stages of their professional career. One example of the latter was a major evaluation of the new teacher induction arrangements that had come into force shortly after the government took office (Totterdell et al., 2002). The report highlighted the opportunities that the new induction arrangements had provided for beginning teachers’ professional learning, as well as identified a number of concerns related to variability in the quality of provision and support across schools. In relation to teachers’ ongoing continuing professional development (CPD), two major sources of research publications in England were the CPD Review Group (set up by the National Union of Teachers and sponsored by the General Teaching Council, before its abolition by the coalition government in 2010) and the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre), which was funded by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES). A number of influential systematic reviews published by the latter identified a range of key factors that were essential for the delivery of high-quality CPD for teachers (Cordingley et al., 2003; Cordingley et al., 2005). These factors include the following: ●

●

●

●

Sustained collaboration with professional colleagues, including both the use of specialist expertise and structured peer support for embedding specialist contributions; An understanding of and commitment to professional learning, including enquiry-oriented learning and learning to learn from looking; A focus on refining teaching and learning, working towards aspirations for specific pupils, side by side with theory and Effective scaffolding and modelling of learning by both teachers and leaders for colleagues and for pupils (Cordingley, 2013, pp. 1–2).

In contrast to the relatively few, larger (mainly government-funded) research projects described above, much of teacher education research in recent years has tended to be of a smaller scale, with little or no funding, and these studies have not been significant

72

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

enough to impact on teacher education policy. A major survey of all teacher education research carried out in the United Kingdom from 2000 onwards concluded that ‘the high volume of single studies and the paucity of large-scale, longitudinal studies reduce the potential cumulative and developmental impact of research on and for teacher education in the UK’ (Menter et al., 2010, p. 78). Menter et al. identify only two major studies commissioned in England between 2000 and 2010, the first of which was the Variations in Teachers’ Work, Lives and their Effects on Pupils (VITAE) project, commissioned by the DfES, that ran between 2001 and 2005. The aim of the study was to ‘identify factors that affect teachers’ work and lives and how these impact upon the teachers and their work with pupils over time’ (Day et al., 2006, p. 1). Although this research did not focus specifically on teacher education, the many publications that emerged from the project reflected a range of aspects of teachers’ initial preparation as well as their ongoing professional learning, emphasizing particularly the positive role that collegial support plays in sustaining motivations. The second funded study to which Menter et al. (2010) refer was the six-year longitudinal ‘Becoming a Teacher’ (BaT) project, funded by the DCSF, the General Teaching Council for England and the Training and Development Agency for Schools. The project, which ran from 2003 to 2009, set out to explore the experiences and motivations of those entering teaching through a variety of routes in England and encompassed initial teacher education and training; newly qualified teacher induction and early professional development. As part of its wider remit it explored the potential variation arising from particular training routes, examining universityadministered undergraduate and postgraduate programs, employment-based routes, such as the Graduate Teacher Programme and school-based programs. The lack of relative complexity in the routes into teaching available at the time (compared to subsequent developments) allowed the researchers to offer some clear insights into teachers’ experiences of ITE, induction and early professional development, but they also concluded that while there were a large number of statistically significant variations in beginner teachers’ experiences of ITT and, to a lesser extent, the first year of teaching, relating to the ITT route they had followed and their preconceptions and expectations of ITT and teaching, such variation was largely ‘washed out’ over time by teachers’ subsequent experiences of teaching. (Hobson et al., 2009, p. xii)

One of the findings that interested policymakers, particularly within the coalition government, was that ‘student teachers who had followed SCITT (school-centred initial teacher training) programs indicated that they were more satisfied than those who followed other ITT routes with the balance between the “theoretical” and “practical” elements of their courses’ (2009, p. 247) and such evidence was clearly seen to offer justification for the development of more school-led provision (see below in this section). Teacher education research since 2010 has continued to follow the pattern of smaller-scale projects which often focus on teacher education policy in its widest

Learning to Teach in England

73

sense, particularly with regard to the impact of the significant reforms of the coalition government. Included in such studies are research into ●

● ●

●

the nature of the work being undertaken by teacher educators (Ellis and McNicholl, 2015); the processes of ‘learning to teach’ in different models of ITE (Tatto et al., 2018); the effects of the introduction of ‘School Direct’ (Brown, Rowley and Smith, 2015) and how teacher education practices are currently configured (Whiting et al., 2016; Whiting et al., 2018).

Analysis of recent policy documents In order to judge the extent to which research has influenced teacher education policy in England in recent years, it is useful to examine a range of policy statements and reports, beginning with the significant publications that followed the election of the coalition government in 2010. The first of these, The Importance of Teaching (DfE, 2010a), set out the new government’s vision for the education system as a whole, but gave considerable emphasis to the quality of teaching (and therefore to teacher education) as a feature of the highest performing systems in the world. Drawing on evidence from the McKinsey report (Barber and Mourshed, 2007) the White Paper concludes that the ‘best education systems draw their teachers from the most academically able’ and that they ‘train their teachers rigorously at the outset, focusing particularly on the practical teaching skills they will need’ (2010a, p. 19, para. 2.1). The White Paper was accompanied by a second document ‘The Case for Change’ (DfE, 2010b) in which the coalition government aimed to set out the evidence to support its proposals. This evidence is drawn from a range of different sources, including independent academic research, government-funded research reports and reports from a variety of organizations such as the OECD and Ofsted. Many of the studies cited in the paper focus on teachers’ CPD rather than initial teacher education and include the following: Cordingley et al.’s (2003) systematic review of the impact of collaborative CPD on teaching and learning; Pedder, Storey and Opfer’s (2008) ‘State of the Nation’ study of teachers’ CPD in England; Hustler et al.’s (2003) DfES-funded study of teachers’ perspectives of CPD; Day et al.’s (2016) report of the VITAE project examining variations in teachers’ work and lives and Leithwood, Harris and Hopkins’ (2008) analysis of the claims about successful school leadership – in turn part of the wider DCSF commissioned study The Impact of School Leadership on Pupil Outcomes (see also Day et al., 2009). Many of the ideas emerging from the White Paper can, however, be traced back to other sources which in turn draw selectively on teacher education research. One key example is More Good Teachers (Freedman, Lipson and Hargreaves, 2008), published by Policy Exchange (a centre-right think tank), which calls for ITE in England to be ‘overhauled to make employment-based routes far more common and far easier to access’ (2008, p. 26), as well as arguing for better quality CPD for teachers. The publication cites a number of studies mentioned above

74

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

including, among others, the MOTE project, the BaT project, the work of the CPD Review Group and research based around the Oxford Internship Scheme (Hagger and McIntyre, 2006). The year after the publication of the White Paper, the coalition government published an ‘implementation plan’ (DfE, 2011), specifically addressing teacher education in England and in particular bringing about a more school-based approach to both initial teacher training and CPD. This document clearly builds on the proposals put forward in the 2010 White Paper and sets out the key aspects of the government’s policy, including the introduction of the School Direct route, the development of designated ‘Teaching Schools’, new financial incentives to encourage teachers to train and confirmation of the introduction of the new Teachers’ Standards (DfE, 2011c). In 2014 the government asked Sir Andrew Carter to undertake an independent review of initial teacher training, the final report of which was published the following year (Carter, 2015), along with the government’s initial response (DfE, 2015a). There are frequent references to research throughout the report, reflecting a number of different perspectives on the role of research in ITT. In promoting the use of evidencebased practice, the report itself draws on ‘international evidence’ and specifically cites the BERA-RSA inquiry. Research evidence is cited throughout in support of its central recommendations, and while much of this research is based on a range of official publications, the report does also draw on a large amount of research covering a wide range of areas. There is, however, an apparent disjuncture between the report’s analysis and its final recommendations, which tend to focus primarily on course content (Mutton, Burn and Menter, 2017). The recommendations of the Carter review were taken forward by the coalition government in early 2015 with the setting up by the then Secretary of State for Education, Nicky Morgan, of ‘expert groups’ who, along with the Teaching Schools Council, would ‘lead vital work to improve the quality of initial teacher training (ITT) courses in England’ (DfE, 2015b, press release). The findings of the expert groups were published in July 2016 (DfE, 2016a) at the same time as the government’s response, the latter making clear the expectation that all ITE providers would align their programs with the new core content framework for ITE. One of the expert groups (convened by the Teaching Schools Council in England) followed the recommendation of the Carter Review to produce a set of standards for school-based mentoring for trainee teachers. The resultant mentoring standards were developed following consultation with schools and ITE providers but make no reference as to how they may have been informed by any of the extensive research into mentoring within ITE programs. It is also worth noting that, published alongside the reports of the ITE expert groups, was a separate report from the CPD group setting out the ‘Standard for Teachers’ Professional Development’ (DfE, 2016b, p. 1), which declares not only that effective professional development should be ‘underpinned by robust evidence and expertise’, but also that it should include ‘collaboration and expert challenge’ and be ‘sustained over time’. All of these expectations appear to draw closely on the CPD studies referred to above. The next significant policy document after the Carter Review was the March 2016 White Paper, Educational Excellence Everywhere (DfE, 2016c), published a few months after Nicky Morgan had come into office, which sets out a clear set of aspirations for

Learning to Teach in England

75

teaching and the teaching workforce but which, unlike the other key policy documents cited above, is notably short of properly attributable references to any research. Although the terms ‘research’ and ‘evidence’ are mentioned 100 times altogether in the document (Godfrey, 2017) the White Paper itself draws on little empirical evidence to support its claims. Since the publication of the 2017 White Paper there have been two further Secretaries of State for Education but little by way of major policy reform, particularly in relation to teacher education. Justine Greening, who held office from July 2016 until January 2018, frequently stated her aspiration that teachers should be able to draw on the best research and that they should be ‘armed with the evidence that will allow them to bring the best out of young people, so that they can help realise those young people’s full potential’ (DfE, 2017).

Conclusions There are two main conclusions to be drawn from this analysis:

1. England has become an outlier in terms of teacher education policy, both within the UK and to a large extent internationally (Menter, 2014). The dismissive attitude towards much educational research and university involvement in teacher education has been very visible, especially when comparisons are made with other parts of the UK. The extent to which researchers and university teacher educators should accept some of the responsibility for this situation is an important matter for consideration. A recent report from the National Audit Office (Comptroller and Auditor General, 2016) raises many critical questions about the Department for Education’s policies on teacher training, explicitly noting that its use of evidence and data are lacking in several areas. 2. Teacher education is desperately under-researched. The most recent major independent study on ITE was completed at the turn of the last century. There have been further studies funded by government and its agencies and these have made significant contributions, but we are in need of large-scale, longitudinal work that really gets to grip with questions about quality and effectiveness in different routes and contexts. We may look with some envy at Australia, where the Ministerial Advisory Group Report from 2014 calls for a significant expansion of research (TEMAG, 2014) and where an independent study of the effectiveness of teacher education was completed late last year (Mayer et al., 2015). Even so, elsewhere Mayer and colleagues (Mayer, Cotton and Simpson, 2017) continue to point out how little empirical work there is on the effectiveness of ITE programs. Nevertheless, as we have seen, in spite of the absence of major funding for such work, independent research continues in a number of locations. There are considerable difficulties conducting research in such a rapidly changing environment. The increasing focus on ‘outcomes’ (as identified by Cochran-Smith, 2016), which are usually defined in terms of pupils’ results in standardized tests, is a feature of ITE being defined as a

76

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

policy problem. It is always difficult to establish a causal link between programs and the quality of such outcomes (not least because of the number of variables) and the attempt to do so can also distract attention from understanding or examining the learning processes. A narrow focus on outcomes defined in relation to the trainees’ pupils may also obscure other benefits such as the opportunities for professional learning that arise for their mentors and the schools that host them (see for example Carney, 2000; Mutton et al., 2018). Our overall conclusion is that a huge amount needs to be done to save not only ‘the university project’ in teacher education in England (Furlong, 2013) but to save teacher education itself. A democratic deficit is evident in the way in which much of teacher education – and teaching – has been taken over by ideologically driven politicians. While the other parts of the UK may not have all of the answers about the best ways to develop teacher education, greater humility from English politicians and policymakers in recognizing their efforts would be very welcome. Furthermore, in all of the UK’s jurisdictions there is a desperate need for a sustained, well-funded program of highquality research designed to inform policy and practice. Developments such as the Chartered College of Teachers must be a part of the picture for the future, but those working in university departments of education must also accept their responsibility for creating a more constructive climate in which research, policy and practice may interact in a positive way for the benefit of all – teachers, researchers, parents and especially children in our schools, now and in the future. Work to develop such a climate will need to be undertaken at a local level through facilitating forms of partnership that are based on and responsive to contemporary forms of school management and governance (such as Multi Academy Trusts and Teaching School Alliances), as well as continuing dialogues with politicians and policymakers, locally, nationally and internationally.

References Alexander, R., Craft, M. and Lynch, J. (Eds.) (1984) Change in Teacher Education: Context and Provision since Robbins. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Barber, M. and Mourshed, M. (2007) How the World’s Best Performing School Systems Came Out On Top. London: McKinsey and Co. Benton, P. (Ed.) (1990) The Oxford Internship Scheme: Integration and Partnership in Initial Teacher Education. London: Calouste Gulbenkian. British Educational Research Association – Royal Society of Arts (BERA-RSA) (2014). Research and the Teaching Profession: Building the Capacity for a Self-improving Education System. Retrieved from: https://www.bera.ac.uk/project/research-and-teache r-education. Brown, S. A. and McIntyre, D. (1993). Making Sense of Teaching. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University. Brown, T. (2018). Teacher Education in England: A Critical Interrogation of School-Led Training. London: Routledge. Brown, T., Rowley, H. and Smith, K. (2015). The beginnings of school led teacher training: New challenges for university teacher education. School Direct Research Project Final Report. Retrieved from: http://www.esri.mmu.ac.uk/resgroups/schooldirect.pdf

Learning to Teach in England

77

Burn, K. and Mutton, T. (2013). Review of Research-Informed Clinical Practice in Teacher Education, paper submitted to the BERA-RSA Inquiry (London, BERA/RSA). Retrieved from: https://www.bera.ac.uk/project/research-and-teacher-education Burn, K., Hagger, H. and Mutton, T. (2015). Beginning Teachers’ Learning: Making Experience Count. Northwich: Critical Publishing. CACE (1967). Children and their Primary Schools (The Plowden Report). London: HMSO. Carney, S. (2000). Getting the Most Out of School-Based Initial Teacher Education: Professional Development Possibilities for Teachers. Improving Schools, 3(2), pp. 31–7. Carter, A. (2015). Carter Review of Initial Teacher Training (ITT), London: DfE. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/carter-review-of-initial-teacher -training Childs, A. and Menter, I. (2013). Teacher Education in the 21st Century in England: A Case Study in Neo-Liberal Policy. Revista Española de Educacion Camparada (Spanish Journal of Comparative Education), 22, pp. 93–116. Cochran-Smith, M. (2016). ‘Foreword’ in Teacher Education Group. In Teacher Education in Times of Change. Bristol: Policy Press. Cochran-Smith, M. and Fries, K. (2008). Research on teacher education: changing times, changing paradigms. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. McIntyre and K. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education: Enduring Questions in Changing Contexts, 1050–93. New York: Routledge. Comptroller and Auditor General (2016). Department for Education – Training New Teachers. London: National Audit Office. Cordingley, P. (2013). The Contribution of Research to Teachers’ Professional Learning and Development. Research and Teacher Education: BERA-RSA Inquiry Paper 5. Retrieved from: https://www.bera.ac.uk/project/research-and-teacher-education Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Evans, D. and Firth, A. (2005). The Impact of Collaborative CPD on Classroom Teaching and Learning. Review: What do Teacher Impact Data tell us about Collaborative CPD? In Research Evidence in Education Library, EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Rundell, B. and Evans, D. (2003). The Impact of Collaborative CPD on Classroom Teaching and Learning. In Research Evidence in Education Library, EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. Day, C., Stobart, G., Sammons, P., Kington, A., Gu, Q., Smees, R. and Mujtaba, T. (2006). Variations in teachers’ work, lives and effectiveness. Final report for the VITAE Project, DCSF Research Report 743, London: DfES. Day, C., Sammons, P., Stobart, G., Kington, A. and Gu, Q. (2007). Teachers Matter. Buckingham: Open University. Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D., Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Gu, Q., Brown, E., Ahtaridou, E. and Kington, A. (2009). The impact of school leadership on pupil outcomes. Final report. DCSF Research Report 108, London: DCFS. Dent, H. (1977). The Training of Teachers in England and Wales 1800 -1975. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Department for Education (2010a). The Importance of Teaching. The Schools White Paper 2010. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Department for Education (2010b). The Case for Change. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

78

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Department for Education (2011). Training our next generation of outstanding teachers: implementation plan. London: DfE. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/ publications/training-our-next-generation-of-outstanding-teachers-implementation-plan Department for Education (2015a). Government response to the Carter review of Initial Teacher Training (ITT). Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachment_data/file/396461/Carter_Review_Government_response_ 20150119.pdf Department for Education (2015b). Carter Review recommendations get underway, Government press release, 24 March 2015. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/govern ment/news/carter-review-recommendations-get-underway Department for Education (2011c). Teachers’ Standards. Retrieved from: https://www.gov .uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/301107/Teachers_ _Standards.pdf Department for Education (2016a). Initial Teacher Training: government response to Carter review, Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/initial-teacher-t raining-government-response-to-carter-review Department for Education (2016b). Standard for teachers’ professional development, Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/standard-for-teachersprofessional-development Department for Education (2016c). Educational Excellence Everywhere. Cm 9230. London: Department of Education. Department for Education (2017). Justine Greening: education at the core of social mobility. Speech given on 18 January 2017 at PwC. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/govern ment/speeches/justine-greening-education-at-the-core-of-social-mobility Ellis, V. and McNicholl, J. (2015). Transforming Teacher Education. London: Bloomsbury. Freedman, S., Lipson, B. and Hargreaves, D. (2008). More Good Teachers. London: Policy Exchange. Furlong, J. (2013). Education: An Anatomy of the Discipline. London: Routledge. Furlong, J. and Lawn, M. (Eds.) (2010). The Disciplines of Education. London: Routledge. Furlong, J., Hirst, P., Pocklington, K. and Miles, S. (1988) Initial Teacher Training and the Role of the School. Milton Keynes: Open University. Furlong, J., Barton, L., Miles, S., Whiting, C. and Whitty, G. (2000). Teacher Education in Transition: Reforming Professionalism? Buckingham: Open University Press. Furlong, J., Campbell, A., Howson, J, Lewis, S. and McNamara, O. (2006). Partnership in English initial teacher education: changing times, changing definitions–Evidence from the Teacher training agency national partnership project. Scottish Educational Review, 37(1), pp. 32–45. Godfrey, D. (2017). What is the proposed role of research evidence in England’s ‘selfimproving’ school system? Oxford Review of Education, 43(4), pp. 433–46. Hagger, H. and McIntyre, D. (1994). Mentoring in Secondary Schools. Milton Keynes: The Open University. Hagger, H. and McIntyre, D. (2006). Learning Teaching from Teachers: Realizing the Potential of School-based Teacher Education. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Hagger, H., Burn, K. and McIntyre, D. (1993). The School Mentor Handbook. London: Kogan Page Hagger, H., Burn, K., Mutton, T. and Brindley, S. (2008). Practice makes perfect? Learning to learn as a teacher, Oxford Review of Education, 34 (2), pp. 159–78 Hencke, D. (1987). Colleges in Crisis. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Her Majesty’s Government (2003). Every Child Matters, downloadable from: https://ww w.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/272064/5860.pdf

Learning to Teach in England

79

Hobson, A. J., Malderez, A., Tracey, L., Giannakaki, M. S., Pell, R. G., Kerr, K., Chambers, G. N., Tomlinson, P. D. and Roper, T. (2006). Becoming a Teacher: Student Teachers’ Experiences of Initial Teacher Training in England. London: Department of Education and Skills. Hobson, A. J., Malderez, A., Tracey, L., Homer, M. S., Ashby, P., Mitchell, N., McIntyre, J., Cooper, D., Roper, T., Chambers, G. N. and Tomlinson, P. D. (2009). Becoming a Teacher: Teachers’ experiences of initial teacher training, Induction and early professional development. Final report, DCSF-RR115. Nottingham: Department for Children, Schools and Families Hustler, D., McNamara, O., Jarvis, J., Londra, M., Campbell, A. and Howson, J. (2003). Teachers’ Perspectives of Continuing Professional Development. DfES Research report 429, London: DfES. James, Lord (1972). Teacher Education and Training (The James Report) London: HMSO. Jones, K. (2003). Education in Britain 1944 to the Present. Cambridge: Polity. Leithwood, K., Harris, A. and Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven Strong Claims about Successful School Leadership. School Leadership & Management, 28(1), pp. 27–42. Mahony, P. and Hextall, I. (2000). Reconstructing Teaching. London: Routledge/Falmer. Mayer, D., Cotton, W. and Simpson, A. (2017). Teacher Education in Australia, in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Educatio DOI:10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.305 Mayer, D., Allard, A., Bates, R., Dixon, M., Doecke, B., Kline, J., Kostogriz, A., Moss, J., Rowan, L., Walker‐Gibbs, B., White, S. and Hodder, P. (2015) Studying the Effectiveness of Teacher Education: Final Report. Australian Research Council. McIntyre, D. (1988). Designing a teacher education curriculum from research and theory on teacher knowledge. In J. Calderhead (Ed.) Teachers’ Professional Learning. Lewes: The Falmer Press. McIntyre, D. (Ed.) (1997). Teacher Education Research in a New Context: The Oxford Internship Scheme. London: Paul Chapman. McIntyre, D. and Hagger, H. (1992). Professional development through the Oxford internship model. British Journal of Educational Studies, 40, pp. 264–83. McIntyre, D. and Hagger, H. (1993). Teachers’ expertise and models of mentoring. In D. McIntyre, H. Hagger and M. Wilkin (Eds.) Mentoring: Perspectives on School-based Teacher Education, pp. 86–102. London and Philadelphia: Kogan Page. McNair, Sir Arnold (1944). The Supply, Recruitment and Training of Teachers and Youth Leaders. (The McNair Report). London: HMSO. Menter, I. (2014). Unity or disunity in the United Kingdom? – Policy and practice in teacher education. In I. Schrittser, I. Malmberg, R. Mateus-Berr and M. Steger (Eds.), Zauberformel Praxis, Vienna: New Academic Press. Menter, I., Hulme, M., Murray, J., Campbell, A., Hextall, I., Jones, M., Mahony, P. Procter and Wall, K. (2010). Teacher education research in the UK: The state of the art. Revue Suisse des sciences de l ’education., 32(1), pp. 121–42. Moon, B. (2016). The issues and tensions around teacher education and training in the university. In B. Moon (Ed.), Do Universities have a Role in the Education and Training of Teachers? Cambridge: University Press. Mutton, T., Burn, K. and Menter, I. (2017) Deconstructing the Carter review: Competing conceptions of quality in England’s ‘school-led’ system of initial teacher education. Journal of Education Policy, 32(1), pp. 14–33. Mutton, T., Burn, K., Hagger, H. and Thirlwall, K. (2018). Teacher Education Partnerships: Policy and Practice. Northwich: Critical Publishing. Oancea, A. (2014). Teachers’ professional knowledge and state-funded teacher education: a (hi)story of critiques and silences. Oxford Review of Education, 40(4), pp. 497–519.

80

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Pedder, D., Storey, A. and Opfer, V. (2008). Synthesis report: 32 Schools and continuing professional development (CPD) in England – State of the Nation research project (T34718). Cambridge University, The Open University and The Training and Development Agency for Schools. Pollard, A. and Tann, S. (1987). Reflective Teaching in the Primary School. London: Holt Rinehart & Winston. Robbins, Lord (1963). Higher Education. (The Robbins Report). London: HMSO. Robinson, W. (2004). Power to Teach – Learning Through Practice. London: Routledge/ Falmer. Stenhouse, L. (1975). An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London: Heinemann. Tatto, M. T., Burn, K., Menter, I., Mutton, T. and Thompson, I. (2018). Learning to Teach in England and the United States. London: Routledge. Taylor, W. (1969). Society and the Education of Teachers. London: Faber & Faber. Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group (TEMAG) (2014). Action Now: Classroom Ready Teachers. Retrieved from: https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/ action_now_classroom_ready_teachers_accessible.pdf Tibble, J. (Ed.) (1966). The Study of Education. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Totterdell, M., Heilbronn, R, Bubb, S. and Jones, C. (2002). Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Statutory Arrangements for the Induction of Newly Qualified Teachers. DfES Research Report 338. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Whiting, C., Black, P., Hordern, J., Parfitt, A., Reynolds, K., Sorensen, N. and Whitty, G. (2016). Towards a new topography of ITT: a profile of Initial Teacher Training in England 2015-16. An Occasional Paper from the IFE No. 1. Retrieved from: http://res earchspace.bathspa.ac.uk/8254/1/8254.pdf Whiting, C., Whitty, G., Menter, I., Black, P., Hordern, J., Parfitt, A., Reynolds, K. and Sorenson, N. (2018). Diversity and complexity: Becoming a teacher in England in 2015-16. Review of Education, 6(1), pp. 61–96. Whitty, G. (2014). Recent developments in teacher training and their consequences for the ‘University Project’ in education Oxford Review of Education, 40(4), pp. 466–81. Whitty, G. (2016). Research and Policy in Education. London: UCL IoE Press. Wilkin, M. (1996). Initial Teacher Training – The Dialogue of Ideology and Culture. London: Falmer Press.

6

Learning to Teach in Finland: Historical Contingency and Professional Autonomy Janne Säntti and Jaakko Kauko

Introduction The work of Finnish teachers in primary and secondary education is framed by a national core curriculum, which is decided at the national level and adapted further by the education providers, usually municipalities that draw up their own local curricula. However, in Finland, teachers have a rather high degree of professional autonomy. On the one hand, this autonomy derives from the lack of strong managerial techniques to control the implementation of the curriculum, such as inspection or national standardized tests (Simola et al., 2009). On the other hand, this strong teacher autonomy is a result of historical processes that have formed the current practice in which classroom knowledge is ideally built case-by-case drawing on research yet organized according to the national core curriculum. In this sense, it is difficult to characterize the common knowledge of teachers without understanding the practice of building a teacher’s own research-based pedagogical practice theory. Professional autonomy is reflected in how Finnish researchers describe the country’s teacher education as strongly research based. According to Toom et al. (2010, p. 333), the research base is built with the help of the interconnected nature of research, teaching and study program design in universities, which allows teacher students to train ‘argumentation, decision-making and justification while investigating and solving pedagogical problems’ and ‘academic research skills’. Against this backdrop, to gain understanding of the main topic of this book, how teachers learn to teach, what their knowledge base is and how it has evolved over the years, we provide a historical perspective and examine how the changing institutional arrangements have shaped Finnish teacher education. As such, this chapter makes no claims about what happens inside Finnish classrooms and instead focuses more on the interaction of policy with teacher training in universities and its ideals. The need for contextual understanding has been exacerbated in the wake of the fame that Finnish education has received internationally. Success in the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests since 2000 has brought Finnish

82

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

education to the limelight of the international community. The PISA discourse includes an idea of policymaking with visionary decisions that result in high performance in the tests. While the OECD is active in supporting this narrative (OECD, 2015, p. 13), in this chapter we argue that this narrative does not reflect the Finnish situation. The idea of visionary planning does not gain support from neo-institutionalist research, which sees the institutional norms as stable and difficult to reform (see March and Olsen, 1989). To put this into the context of schooling, Tyack and Cuban (1995) noted that schools have a key role in changing reforms. The Finnish PISA success has spurred many hypotheses about its source. One of the most popular, and as some would argue, most transferable, explanations is teacher training (Kansanen, 2014; Sahlberg, 2015). In contrast to highlighting the importance of research-based skills of contemporary teacher graduates, other researchers (Simola, 2005; Säntti and Salminen, 2015) argue that behind the PISA success are teachers who have received their education at the time when rather traditional teacher-centred teaching prevailed. Although we can see that the Finnish PISA ranks third in mathematics, reading and science in 2009 slipped to twelfth in 2012 and was seventh in collaborative problemsolving in 2015 (OECD, 2010, 2012, 2015), it is hard to prove claims of the teacher training role here due to the nature of the PISA survey, which concentrates on student performance. In addition to other reservations regarding PISA, there are uncertainties about how well the trend of adjacent scores can be interpreted (Rutkowski and Rutkowski, 2016) and PISA does not measure teacher performance. In a more general sense, the promotion of transferring policy reforms becomes difficult when we admit that education is embedded in the socio-historical conditions of a society (Salokangas and Kauko, 2016). We seek distance from explaining the purported Finnish education success in this chapter and instead track how teacher training has been shaped in the course of Finnish history and what the role of political and academic decision-making has been. By drawing on earlier research on the Finnish education system, we point out how teacher training in Finland has taken its current form not only through careful planning but also as a co-effect of intertwining historical trajectories and path dependencies. In fact, what has been seen as effective teaching or the correct way to teach in Finland has been shaped mainly by the interests of teacher educators, which in turn has supported teachers’ academic credibility, especially after the Second World War. We conclude that Finnish teacher education is characterized as a profession with a high degree of independence. This development has gained strength on the one hand from the historical contingencies and on the other from the self-empowerment of teacher education through academization. This academization process has been possible because Finnish teacher educators have had the power to design teacher education according to academic principles with only modest interference from political steering. Teachers themselves including elementary schoolteachers have increasingly gained full respect as academic actors. Below we tie our analysis to the relation between teacher training and its institutional context at the universities and the effects of limited political state steering.

Learning to Teach in Finland

83

Methodology The analysis sought to trace the origins and evolution of current teacher education policy based on earlier literature and document analysis. The literature provides information about the political and socio-historical context of schooling in different historical periods. The document analysis comprises key policy papers. First, there are official committee reports (Committee report, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1972, 1975, 1978, 1979, 1989, 1991) from parliamentary-formed committees designed to control Finnish education policy since the early 1950s. These committees outlined the development of teacher education, made recommendations and issued explicit regulations. From the 1960s the nature of the committees changed and were staffed by educational experts who were professors of education (Matti Koskenniemi, Oiva Kyöstiö, Martti Takala and Erkki Lahdes), principals of teacher colleges or teacher training schools (Martti Ruutu and Jussi Isosaari), officials from the Ministry of Education or their colleagues from the National Board of Education (Veli Nurmi and Jaakko Itälä). Second, there are reports from evaluation groups which came to replace the expert committees in the 1990s (Educational studies and teacher education in Finnish universities, 1994; Helsingin yliopiston arviointiryhmä, the report and proposals of the evaluation committee of the University of Helsinki, 1993; Education towards the future, 1994; Teacher Education as a Future-moulding Factor, 2000; Teacher education, 2020, 2007). Unlike committees, these evaluation groups made recommendations that reflected the newfound autonomy of Finnish academic teacher education departments as a part of the University, although the evaluation initiatives still came from the Ministry of Education. Like committee groups, evaluation groups included such educational scientists as professors Hannele Niemi and Juhani Jussila as well as foreigner evaluators such as Austrian professor Friedrich Buchberger along with officials from the Ministry of Education and school principals. Student representatives were included more intentionally in the evaluation groups as well, and education professors were more strongly represented in the evaluation reports than in earlier committee reports.

Historical processes framing teacher training in Finland Education in Finland was secularized from Swedish ruled (thirteenth to nineteenth century) church-led education during the Russian rule (1809–1917), and the responsibility for education provision was eventually changed from the church to the state and to the municipalities (Leino-Kaukiainen and Heikkinen, 2011; Joutsivuo, 2010). During the decade from 1860 to 1870, the school system was reorganized into elementary schools or literally translated ‘folk schools’ (kansakoulu), and grammar schools (oppikoulu). The elementary schoolteachers were taught in teacher seminaries. Grammar schoolteachers had university master’s degrees in their major (history, biology or languages) with additional pedagogical training (Rantala, 2011). Finland gained independence from Russia in 1917 after which it faced severe difficulties

84

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

in the shape of short and divisive civil war. This new country was behind other European countries in terms of urbanization and industrialization and was also late in making education compulsory which did not occur until 1921. Teacher training became influenced by German Johann Friedrich Herbart’s ideas, which seemed to fit both elementary and grammar schools. Herbart’s base was in psychology, drawing on students’ experience; however, his approach was not child centred but rather teacher led and target oriented. Soon new ideas also came in the form of positivist and behaviourist paradigms in the following decades until the 1920s (Ahonen, 2011; Simola, 2002; Jalava, 2011).

Post-war expansion and the emergence of the comprehensive school Before the 1950s, most of the Finnish labour force was still working in agriculture and forestry. This focus was also reflected in the school institution since the school was expected to produce a new labour force according to tradition. Thus, it is any wonder that up until the 1960s, the structure of the Finnish education system in the postwar era still reflected the system of the previous century. The Compulsory Education Act of 1921 had not yet been fulfilled completely in the eastern and northern parts of Finland, although in the 1940s the idea of compulsory education had gradually reached the farthest corners of the country (Rinne, 1986; Simola, 2002). The first stage of the post-war era curriculum presents the idea of the normative teacher. It includes moral orientation, calling and obedience to authorities. Thus, teachers were expected to respect tradition and cherish what were considered to be common cultural values of the Finnish people while being a role model for their students (Rinne, 1986; Säntti and Salminen, 2015). After the Second World War, the growing service sector, industrialization and the baby boom increased the need for education and large age cohorts flocked to the compulsory schools. Thus, there was a need for more teachers and especially teachers who could participate in the new kind of society that was to be modernized in a very short time (Ahonen, 2003; Rinne, 1986). However, for some decades, the old binary division, where elementary schoolteachers were educated in teachers’ seminars and grammar schoolteachers in the university, still prevailed. Grammar schoolteacher education combined subject-specific studies, practical and pedagogical training in university-driven Normal Schools. For students, the grammar school was the preliminary stage for higher studies, which could lead to careers in administration and government. Thus, grammar schoolteachers reproduced their own backgrounds for the next generations. However, students also from lower social classes gradually began to enter this school level especially because of the baby boom phenomena. This expansion also reflected the needs of the growing service sector and later the information society. The teacher colleges or seminaries that produced elementary schoolteachers reflected not only patriotic and Christian but also provincial values. The atmosphere was more practical than academic. These folk schoolteachers were recruited from among the rural population and after their seminar education; they were expected to rejoin their reference group. Thus, they had the same reproduction function as

Learning to Teach in Finland

85

their colleagues in grammar school although it differed in content. The curriculum of the elementary school included preliminary studies of literacy and mathematics and practical studies like handicraft and agriculture. Where grammar schoolteachers reflected academic values, the elementary schoolteachers possessed a certain kind of craftsmanship and practical know-how that were appreciated in the agricultural society at the time (Rinne, 1986; Säntti and Salminen, 2015). Arguably, the most important process shaping the future of the Finnish education system was the founding of the comprehensive school, providing equal nine-year compulsory education to all children. This also challenged the old dual teacher culture where teachers were educated in either teacher colleges or universities. The debates had begun already in the 1940s and 1950s and during the 1960s and 1970s, a political compromise was reached about the need for comprehensive schooling (Kettunen et al., 2012). The expansion of higher education was a natural part of the comprehensive school reform and teacher training units were a means to support regional policy by keeping students in sparsely populated areas. This was especially important to the political centre, which represented the interests of the provinces outside the traditional core areas of Turku and Helsinki. Furthermore, the regional expansion of universities had dispersed to form nine new universities outside the above-mentioned densely populated areas (Nurmi, 1990, 12; Rinne and Jauhiainen, 1988, pp. 219–20; Säntti and Salminen, 2015). Another important political decision was the university training of teachers. This decision was prepared through committee work. Committees had broad party and expert representation; therefore, they had broad influence on setting the agenda. The teacher training committee of 1973 (Committee report, 1975), consisting of teacher educators with professor Erkki Niskanen as chairman, proposed clearly that Finnish teacher education should be harmonized and the academic standards should be raised especially in class teacher education. Nevertheless, the committee proposed in their temporary report (included in Committee report of 1975) that to become a qualified elementary schoolteacher, individuals did not need a master’s degree. In addition, in the Committee report of 1978 the master’s thesis as it is currently known was not promoted for future class teachers. Instead, the report favoured various study projects that could be made a part of teacher training in schools and as group work but not as an independent research task. At the end of the 1970s, the government had decided to eliminate most of the lower degrees; this paved the way for teacher education, which was in 1979 accepted as a master’s-level degree-granting institution including elementary schoolteacher education (Simola and Rinne, 2010). These changes did not come without resistance. Grammar schoolteachers (who were subject teachers and had subjects like history and biology as their major) and their trade union opposed the idea of the comprehensive school, which meant having one school for all students until the ninth grade. They were also sceptical about master’s-level teacher training and the promotion of educational studies. Gradually, the grammar schoolteachers’ trade union also accepted the idea of the comprehensive school for Grades 1 to 9. This was guaranteed by the merging of different teacher unions under the Trade Union of Teachers, which would now represent every teacher

86

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

regardless of school-level affiliation (Jauhiainen and Rinne, 2012, pp. 111–12). The gradual process of creating the comprehensive school including academically trained teachers began to take effect in the 1980s. The last schools entered the comprehensive system in 1977 and the first master’s-level class teachers graduated in 1984. The committee reports of the 1960s underlined that Finnish society was changing rapidly; this change also affected the agendas and contents of teacher education. Thus, it became clear that in teacher education, major steps were needed. What is crucial in Finnish teacher education is that from the 1960s teacher educator committees have been explicit in their efforts to improve education. Autonomy came with the academic mandate as teacher education departments with professors and clear academic agendas promoted the importance of research to professionalize the field. Finally, when the decisive change occurred in the 1970s with the higher education reform that elevated all careers to master’s-level as a minimum for graduation, every Finnish teacher was given a university master’s degree with an explicit emphasis on the development of research skills (Simola, 1996; Säntti, Puustinen and Salminen, 2018).

Criticism, decentralization and research-oriented teaching from the 1980s By the 1980s, the comprehensive school had been established. As in many other countries, the late 1980s and the 1990s marked a shift in Finnish education towards a more market-driven system. The economic depression in the early 1990s, deepened by the fall of the Soviet Union, which had been an important trading partner, created a backdrop for major political acts. A radical decentralization of decision-making from the central government to the municipalities also shifted educational decision-making to the local level (e.g. Simola et al., 2013). The growing critique towards bureaucracy during the 1980s was also reflected in the criticism of teachers and their education; however, this decentralization created conditions for teachers’ autonomy, which included decision-making in curriculum and assessment matters. The central control of the curriculum weakened after the dissolution of inspections devolving the quality control for education to the municipalities, which had a wide variety of quality control policies for teaching and education, if any. In addition, the non-existence of national student performance tests prevailed (with the exception of the matriculation exam for only part of the student population at the end of general upper secondary education) (Kauko and Varjo, 2008; Simola et al., 2009). Some members of academia were sceptical of the position of teacher education in the university in the 1990s (Helsingin yliopiston arviointiryhmä, 1993). The orientation of teacher education was considered too practical and the educational research produced by teacher educators was judged as restricted and minor. According to critics, the right place for teacher education was in the new polytechnic schools (Jauhiainen and Rinne, 2012; Säntti and Salminen, 2015). This criticism also exerted pressure on the professional image of teachers, which was seen as outdated. The modern teacher was not only a person who teaches in the front of his or her pupils but more of an educational expert and scientist who would develop working conditions and would be active in curriculum and assessment matters. This image of a new kind of teachers as

Learning to Teach in Finland

87

‘change agents’ can be found in the evaluation reports from the 1990s (see for example Education towards the future, 1994). This, in turn, paved the way for the fortification of scientific thinking in teacher education as a vehicle to renew the professional image of teacher educators (to research more) as well as schoolteachers (to develop more) in the field. The research-based tradition was strengthened most clearly at the University of Helsinki (Westbury et al., 2005), a change that Säntti and Salminen (2012) call ‘from classroom didactics to research-based reflection’. Indeed, during the 1990s and 2000s teachers have successfully been able to enhance their professional profile via scientific legitimization (Jauhiainen and Rinne, 2012). The core idea of research-based teacher education is the attention to research competencies, which in practice means emphasizing studies in research methodology. This ‘culture of method’ (Doll, 2005; Autio, 2015) implies that means and tools are preferred over values, norms and other pedagogical issues. The idea is that these tools are relevant in dealing with everyday school issues and these tools can be updated (or sharpened) by engaging in research (see for example Kansanen, 2003). However, some argue that favouring research methodology over traditional pedagogical issues (like those found in philosophy or sociology of education) narrows pedagogical understanding (Kinos et al., 2015). The current understanding is that research-based action means that teachers’ acts in the school environment are based on careful pedagogical thinking and have some reference to educational research. The fact that teachers were granted relative autonomy considering curriculum and assessment supported the research-based ideology. Thus, the decentralization of decision-making presumed that able and academically educated teachers would not only be obedient vassals of a school administration but also rather be autonomous decision-makers. This would be the aim of teacher education: to increase the professional status of teachers in connection with academic prestige. In addition, the stable and almost undisputed status of the comprehensive school and the success of Finnish students in PISA assessments have created path dependency and stability for teachers’ working environment, a condition that has also helped to sustain the basic education structure in times of political criticism (Kauko et al., 2015). Table 6.1 summarizes the main threads described in this section and how the developments in the education system have been linked with the developments in the teacher training system. At the same time as teacher training has responded to the new

Table 6.1 Historical context of teacher training in Finland Years 1870–1944 1945–60 1960–80 1980–2015

Developments in the education system Secularization and institutionalization of education Post-war expansion of the education system Comprehensive school Criticism, decentralization and stabilization

Teacher training development Dual system of academic and seminary instruction Dual system with increased need of teachers Gradual academization of teacher training Research-based teacher training

88

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

challenges in the education system, it has followed a trend towards more research and professionalization. One thread is quite visible to those who study Finnish teacher education in the postwar era. This cord consists of a strong belief in theory and research and it has dictated what has been defined as effective and legitimate teaching (Simola, 1996; SitomaniemiSan, 2015; Säntti, Puustinen and Salminen, 2018). It is a matter of opinion whether Finnish teacher education hardly evolved between the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century, but the change after the post-war period is breathtaking. The examination of the format of teacher training by the aforementioned committees and evaluation groups resulted in key policy documents recommending that teacher training be upgraded to the university requiring more years of academic studies, a process known as academization with a strong foundation in educational research. The close alignment of the teaching profession with the university meant higher levels of education for teachers converting it to a highly specialized occupation driven by the idea of a teacher whose work and daily decisions in the classroom are based on education research. Not only is this research done by scholars and practitioners but also teachers themselves are expected to participate in knowledge production (Teacher education, 2020, 2007). The convergence of the two very different cultures of class teachers (earlier folk schoolteachers) and subject teachers (former grammar schoolteachers) gave birth to a new research-based thinking which since then has shaped Finnish teacher education in recent decades and has been seen as central to teacher knowledge. The general degree reform in higher education served to consolidate teacher education as a legitimate discipline in the university. For teacher education and teachers and especially for elementary schoolteacher education, the new discourse meant the commencement of the academization process and the introduction of the pedagogically thinking teacher. The idea was to increase educational expertise in teacher education and the teaching profession. This would also mean raising its academic status (Simola, 1996; Toom et al., 2010). The old authoritarian teacher would be substituted with a broadminded and democratic actor with an academic stance and pedagogical awareness (Committee report, 1969). Everyday situations and problems in classrooms appeared now as preliminary theoretical issues that should be handled with a theoretical mindset instead of tradition or rules of thumb based on personal experiences and knowledge. Thus, it would be impossible to say what one should do in a specific situation. The idea was that theoretical education would give teachers tools to handle everyday pedagogical situations successfully.

The status of research-based teacher training The philosophy of Finnish teacher education is based on the notion of research. The leading idea in the research-based teacher education is the Personal Practical Theory, in the same sense as Elbaz (1981) refers to ‘practical knowledge’ as a basis for teachers’ acts. Korthagen (2011) sees ‘Personal Practical Theory’ as a cognitive network or what Levin and He (2008) describe as the interaction between knowledge, beliefs

Learning to Teach in Finland

89

and practices. In contemporary Finnish teacher training educators share the abovementioned definition (Jyrhämä et al., 2008; Stenberg et al., 2014; Westbury et al., 2005). When considering the teaching profession, one interesting point is the relationship between theory and practice, which has been the perennial question of teacher education and touchstone of the usefulness of educational theory and the educational sciences. Too often, one can read studies presenting these two spheres as remote. Educational science is often seen as detached from the educational reality in schools (Biesta, 2007, p. 295; Broekkamp and Van Hout-Wolters, 2007; Jörg, Davis and Nickmans, 2007; Korthagen and Kessels, 1999; Labaree, 2000; Säntti, Puustinen and Salminen, 2018; Van de Ven and Johnson, 2006). The current principles of Finnish teacher education quite clearly state that it has found the solution and introduces itself as a model that successfully merges theory and practice. Thus, there is a continuous interaction of research and practice: ‘research, theory and practice are fused with the idea of research-based thinking as the connecting glue’ (Westbury et al., 2005, p. 477; see also, Toom et al., 2010). Finnish teacher education is based on the idea that there is no one particular way to teach effectively, but every teacher finds his or her own path in this regard. Thus, it is impossible to delineate more clearly what this Personal Practical Theory includes. The word ‘personal’ reflects the fact that this practical theory differs from teacher to teacher. We interpret this research-based agenda to mean that every act, every lesson and every thought is based on research. This approach is widely accepted in Finnish teacher education departments and is certified by the fact that every Finnish teacher must complete a master’s degree that includes studies in research methodology and culminates in an independent master’s thesis. There are no fast-track teacher education programs since universities have the full responsibility of the education of prospective teachers (Kansanen, 2014; Sitomaniemi-San, 2015; Toom et al., 2010; Westbury et al., 2005). We have represented how Finnish teacher education is based on the idea of research-based thinking, which includes the ideas of Personal Practical Theory and a close relationship between teachers’ practice and theory. Next, we introduce an example that clearly exposes what these central themes mean in one specific teacher education program.

The Teacher Education Program in the University of Helsinki The Subject Teacher Education Program (STEP, 60 ECTS) is organized in English in the Faculty of Educational Sciences at the University of Helsinki. The program shares the agendas and contents with other subject teacher programs. It also has the same research-based core as all the programs of the faculty, such as class teacher, special education or early childhood education. Students attending the STEP have done, or are doing simultaneously, their major studies (like history, biology, mathematics or French) in their own departments. In the program, students will obtain pedagogical competence to teach children, adolescents and also adults in schools and various adult

90

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

educational institutions. Studies are divided into basic and intermediate studies in the following way: Basic studies (25 ECTS) ● ● ●

Psychology of Learning and Development (5 ECTS) Planning, Implementation and Assessment of Teaching (10 ECTS) Basic Practice (10 ECTS)

Intermediate Studies (35 ECTS) ● ● ● ● ●

Learning Challenges (5 ECTS) Social, Cultural and Philosophical Foundations of Education (5 ECTS) Development of Teaching and Educational Institution (5 ECTS) Advanced Practice (10 ECTS) Teacher as a Researcher (10 ECTS)

One finds immediately that one-third of the studies are teaching practices (Basic and Advanced Practices). In these courses, student teachers are actually teaching in schools, where they learn to plan, implement and assess teaching under the guidance of their instructor. In the learning outcomes of the Advanced Practice studies, it is said that after the course, students will be able to ‘take into account the maintenance and development of research-based knowledge and professional skills in their teaching’. In the learning outcomes it is also stated that the student will understand ‘the significance of reflection in teachers’ work and in the integration of theory and practice’. These learning outcomes clearly reflect a research-based agenda and the integration of theory and practice. Although this is the stage where students are up to their ears in practical issues, the learning outcomes emphasize theoretical matters. Other courses in STEP, such as ‘Social, Cultural and Philosophical Foundations of Education’ or ‘Planning, Implementation and Assessment of Teaching’, deal with various educational themes that are explicitly exposed in the titles. Finally, the course ‘Teacher as a Researcher’ indicates what is the basic idea of Finnish teacher education. After the course, students should be able to ‘justify the use of an investigative approach in their work as teachers and to work as critical education professionals who investigate and develop their work’. In this course, students will write their own minor research of some pedagogical theme they have chosen. In these above-mentioned STEP courses, students are expected to combine their knowledge of their major subject, education and subject didactics. The latter means that since each school subject has its own nature and knowledge formation, it should be taken into consideration when teaching. These three components will combine into a pedagogical practical theory of every individual student teacher. This in turn will help prospective teachers to ‘become experts in the planning, implementation, evaluation and development of teaching’. This sentence sums up the idea of an independent actor, who is also expert in curriculum and assessment matters according his or her own theory. The STEP is a good example of Finnish teacher education, where the central tenets of Finnish teacher education (the integration of theory and practice, research-based agenda and pedagogical practical theory) are represented. These reflect the idea

Learning to Teach in Finland

91

that a Finnish teacher is capable of working independently as an educator who will also investigate and develop his or her work in addition to instructional activities (Sitomaniemi-San, 2015; Säntti, Puustinen and Salminen, 2018).

Results organized according to the key issues As summarized in Table 6.2 and discussed in the previous section, the starting point for teacher education was a normative teacher with patriotic and Christian values. Indeed, before Finnish independence the main discussions dealt with the roles of church and state. Church-led education and teacher training was first interested in maintaining reformist belief and sustaining the order of the estates (nobility, clergy, bourgeoisie and peasants). These needs finally yielded to those of the state of first civil servants and then the educational requirements of industrialization. In the twentieth century the division to ‘folk’ and grammar schools also marked the division between teachers and society. Albeit dissonant voices, two important compromises were formed and the latter was aided by historical contingencies: education was reformed in comprehensive terms and all teachers began to receive a university-level education. At the same time, the ideal of the normative teacher was questioned in the 1960s when the autonomous-thinking teacher was the new norm. Since then, teachers have been expected to study and absorb research results and not to rest their reasoning and action on tradition or personal preferences alone. These effects of the comprehensive reforms were locked in by the institutionalization of the comprehensive school, Finnish success in PISA evaluations and a radical decentralization of education decision-making power to the municipalities. The coinciding ease of central control and the self-empowerment of teacher training have created favourable conditions for research-based teacher training. In the 1990s, the idea developed of a research-oriented teacher who was a true professional and authentic agent equipped with all the knowledge to develop his or her own work after having received a fully academic education. This research orientation agenda also contributed significantly to harmonize different teacher education programs that were organized at the university level (Toom et al., 2010; Salminen and Säntti, 2013). All this has contributed to the Finnish teacher training answer on how to teach efficiently: each teacher should have his/her own Personal Practical Theory, a framework used in different everyday situations in schools. This approach could be criticized as too broad with little to say about effective teaching. Also, teachers could be questioned as to whether or not teachers actually teach as they say they do (Levin and He, 2008). Another question that could be raised is whether everything goes in terms of Personal Practical Theory or if there is a hidden curriculum agenda behind this idea. Are there any criteria to judge when this practical theory is, for example, pedagogically or politically injurious? Indeed, when one observes educational action, it is difficult to define accurately if there is research-based thinking in the background and whether it falls within the norms of an ideal Finnish teacher. Therefore, there is a need to study empirically the consequences of the research-based teacher education programs, keeping in mind that if some answers are needed, they must come from a large-scale study designed for that purpose (Kansanen, 2014).

92

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Table 6.2 The development of the teacher training doctrine, indicative studies Historical context

Guiding principles of teacher training

The normative teacher Swedish rule until 1809, estate Teachers as lower-level clergy. system, teacher training in Maintaining the orthodoxy of the the Academy of Turku since Reformation. Later Enlightenment 1640, first teacher seminary ideas, humanism and in 1806 philanthropism gaining ground Russian rule 1809–1917, Teachers as civil servants. German school reform in the 1840s, pedagogy (Pestalozzi, Fröbel); industrialization since 1870 academic and pedagogic (grammar school) or seminary teaching (folk school) Independence since 1917; First steps of academization; Jyväskylä Compulsory education 1921 teacher seminaries become pedagogical higher education institution in 1934; educational sciences starting interest with positivism

Research references Joutsivuo (2010)

Joutsivuo (2010), LeinoKaukiainen and Heikkinen (2011), Jalava (2011) and Rantala (2011) Leino-Kaukiainen and Heikkinen (2011), Säntti (2011) and Saari (2011)

The pedagogically thinking teacher Post-war welfare state build-up Teacher training moved to universities; Ahonen (2011), Säntti and education expansion academization gives room for and Salminen (2012) 1945–80s constructivist pedagogy (Piaget, and Säntti, Puustinen Vygotsky); Koskenniemi and Lahdes and Salminen (2018) as fathers of Finnish didactics The research-based teacher New public management reforms late 1980s–2000s; criticism towards state professions, budget cuts, decentralization and municipal autonomy 2000–10 PISA results, criticism towards education, economic boost

Teacher training successfully able to enhance professional profile via scientific legitimization and high organization rate

Säntti and Salminen (2015), Rantala (2011), Jauhiainen and Rinne (2012) and Säntti, Puustinen and Salminen (2018) Development of research-based teacher Toom et al. (2010), training Simola (2005) and Säntti, Puustinen and Salminen (2018)

Conclusion Looking at the decisions that led to major teacher training reforms, the most significant ones were the political compromises made in committee and parliamentary work. These groups worked quite independently without strong political pressure. These reforms owe to the pressing needs stemming from historical dependencies and contingencies, demography and industrialization. Furthermore, another feature was that teacher training was not only an entity of its own but its development was linked to the general societal decisions, trends and demands, as was the case with the degree reform.

Learning to Teach in Finland

93

The Finnish teacher agenda, which emphasizes research orientation and research methodology, has also influenced how to describe and tackle the challenges that everyday school life induces. Thus, theoretical knowledge is the key concept in resolving everyday teaching problems (Kansanen, 2003). This viewpoint has been also criticized. Firstly, according to critics, this research-based agenda has overruled other approaches such as caring. Secondly, the special contents, like educational philosophy or psychology, may have lost their reason. Thirdly, some voices are concerned with whether teachers are expected to do research and publish in a scientific journal or are they merely semi-researchers. All these critics point to the question whether this research orientation is for the best of schooling and students. Surely, it is beneficial to teacher educators and maybe as well for teachers yearning for professional status (Buchberger et al., 1994; Kinos et al., 2015, Puustinen, Säntti and Salminen, 2015). There has been a strong tendency towards academization or even scientification in the Finnish teacher education agenda, which has been possible in the situation where the major questions and visions of the teacher profession have been answered mainly by educational scientists. These questions include visions of what kind of teacher is a good or ideal teacher and how he or she might teach effectively. We conclude that teacher education has been searching for academic credibility to justify its position in the university, which has not been self-evident. From this, it has ensured that also teachers must be explicitly academically oriented. As Labaree (2004) has stated, the status of teacher education is tightly connected to the status of teachers and schools. Whether this research orientation has produced effective teaching is still to be answered, since there is no systematic and large-scale empirical study about the consequences of this policy (Kansanen, 2014), nor is there research about whether teachers themselves approve of this agenda.

References Ahonen, S. (2003). Yhteinen koulu: tasa-arvoa vai tasapäisyyttä? [Common School: Equality or Leveling Off ?]. Tampere: Vastapaino. Ahonen, S. (2011). Millä opeilla opettajia koulutettiin? [With which education were teachers trained?] In A. Heikkinen and P. Leino-Kaukiainen (Eds.), Valistus ja koulunpenkki. Kasvatus ja koulutus Suomessa 1860-luvulta 1960-luvulle, 239–52. Helsinki: SKS. Autio, T. (2015). The present educational imaginary in Finland – only Finnish? Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 3(2), pp. 67–71. Biesta, G. J. J. (2007). Bridging the gap between educational research and educational practice: The need for critical distance. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(3), pp. 295–301. Broekkamp, H. and Hout-Wolters, Van B. (2007). The gap between educational research and practice: A literature review, symposium, and questionnaire. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(3), pp. 203–20. Buchberger, F., De Corte, E., Groombridge, B. and Kennedy, M. (1994). Educational Studies and Teacher Education in Finnish Universities. A Commentary by an International Review Team. Helsinki: Ministry of Education, Division of educational and research policy, 14.

94

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Committee Report (1967). Opettajanvalmistustoimikunnan mietintö [Report of the Committee for the Planning of Teacher Training]. Helsinki: Ministry of Education. Committee Report (1968). Opettajanvalmistuksen opetussuunnitelmatoimikunnan mietintö [Report of the Curriculum Planning Commission for General Teacher Training (‘Basic School’)]. Helsinki: Ministry of Education. Committee Report (1969). Peruskoulunopettajakomitean mietintö [Report of the Comprehensive school teacher committee]. Helsinki: Ministry of Education. Committee Report (1972). Filosofisten ja yhteiskuntatieteellisten tutkintojen toimikunnan mietintö [The committee report of the degrees in philosophy and social sciences]. Helsinki: Ministry of Education. Committee Report (1975). Vuoden 1973 opettajankoulutustoimikunnan mietintö [Report of the teacher education committee of 1973]. Helsinki: Ministry of Education. Committee Report (1978). Luokanopettajan koulutusohjelman yleinen rakenne: kasvatusalan tutkinnonuudistuksen ohjaus- ja seurantaprojektin raportti [The general structure of class teacher programme. The report of the project of Curriculum reform of education]. Helsinki: Ministry of Education. Committee Report (1979). Aineenopettajien kasvatustieteellinen koulutus: kasvatusalan tutkinnonuudistuksen ohjaus- ja seurantaprojektin raportti [The educational science in the education of subject teachers: The report of the project of Curriculum reform of education]. Helsinki: Ministry of Education. Committee Report (1989). Opettajankoulutuksen kehittämistoimikunnan mietintö. Kehittyvä opettajankoulutus [Report of the teacher education development committee. Developing teacher education]. Helsinki: Ministry of Education. Committee Report (1991). Opettajien kelpoisuustoimikunnan mietintö [Report of teacher competence committee]. Helsinki: Ministry of Education. Doll, W. (2005). The culture of method. In W. E. Doll, Jr., M. J. Fleener, D. Trueit and J. St. Julein (Eds.), Chaos, Complexity, Curriculum and Culture, 21–75. New York: Peter Lang. Elbaz, F. (1981). The teacher’s ‘practical knowledge’: Report of a case study. Curriculum Inquiry, 11(1), pp. 43–71. Helsingin yliopiston arviointiryhmä. Arto Mustajoki et al. (1993). Universitas renovata. Helsingin yliopiston arviointiryhmän raportti ja ehdotukset [Universitas renovata. The report and proposals of the evaluation committee of the University of Helsinki]. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino. Jalava, M. (2011). In Heikkinen, A. and Leino-Kaukiainen, P. (Eds.), Valistus ja koulunpenkki: Kasvatus ja koulutus suomandessa 1860-luvulta 1960-luvulle. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Jauhiainen, A. and Rinne, R. (2012). Koulu professionaalisena kenttänä. [School as a professional field]. In Pauli Kettunen and Hannu Simola (Eds.), Tiedon ja osaamisen Suomi. Kasvatus ja koulutus Suomessa 1960-luvulta 2000-luvulle. 105–43. Helsinki: SKS. Jörg, T., Davis, B. and Nickmans, G. (2007). Towards a new complexity science of learning and education. Educational Research Review, 2(2), pp. 145–56. Joutsivuo, T. (2010). Papeiksi ja virkamiehiksi. [Becoming Priests and Civil Servants.] In J. Hanska and K. Vainio-Korhonen (Eds.), Huoneentaulun maailma. Kasvatus ja koulutus Suomessa keskiajalta 1860-luvulle, 112–83. Helsinki: SKS. Jyrhämä, R., Kynäslahti, H., Krokfors, L., Byman, R., Maaranen, K., Toom, A. and Kansanen, P. (2008). The appreciation and realisation of research-based teacher education: Finnish students’ experiences of teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(1), pp. 1–16.

Learning to Teach in Finland

95

Kansanen, P. (2003). Teacher education in Finland: Current models and new developments. In B. Moon, L. Vlăsceanu and C. Barrows (Eds.), Institutional Approaches to Teacher Education within Higher Education in Europe: Current Models and New Developments, 85–108. Bucharest: UNESCO – Cepes. Kansanen, P. (2014). Teaching as Master’s level Profession in Finland: Theoretical Reflections and Practical Solutions. In O. McNamara, J. Murray and M. Jones (Eds.), Workplace Learning in Teacher Education: International Practice and Policy, 279–92. New York: Springer. Kasvatusala kohti tulevaisuutta. Kasvatustieteellisen alan tutkintojen arviointi- ja kehittämisprojektin loppuraportti. 1994. [Education towards the future. The closing report of the evaluation and development project of educational science degrees]. Helsinki: Opetusministeriö. Kauko, J. and Varjo, J. (2008). Age of indicators: Changes in the Finnish education policy agenda. European Educational Research Journal, 7(2), pp. 219–31. Kauko, J., Corvalan, J, Simola, H. and Carrasco, A. (2015). Historical dynamics in Chilean and Finnish basic education politics. In P. Seppänen, A. Carrasco, M. Kalalahti, R. Rinne and H. Simola (Eds.), Contrasting Dynamics in Education Politics of Extremes: School Choice in Chile and Finland. Sense. Kettunen, P., Jalava, M., Simola, H. and Varjo, J. (2012). Tasa-arvon ihanteesta erinomaisuuden eetokseen: Koulutuspolitiikka hyvinvointivaltiosta kilpailuvaltioon. [From the ideal of equality into an ethos of excellence: Education policy from welfare state to competitive state]. In Pauli Kettunen and Hannu Simola (Eds.) Tiedon ja osaamisen Suomi. Kasvatus ja koulutus Suomessa 1960-luvulta 2000-luvulle. 25–62. Helsinki: SKS. Kinos J., Saari A., Lindén J. and Värri V-M. (2015). Onko kasvatustiede aidosti opettajaksi opiskelevien pääaine? [Is the educational science truly the major subject of teacher students?]. Kasvatus, 46(2), pp. 176–182. Korthagen, F. (2011). Making teacher education relevant for practice: the pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Orbis Scholae, 5(2), pp. 31–50. Korthagen, F. and Kessels, J. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), pp. 4–17. Labaree, D. F. (2000). Educational researchers: Living with a lesser form of knowledge. In C. Day et al. (Eds.), Life and Work of Teachers, 55–75. London and New York: Falmer Press. Labaree, D. F. (2004). The Trouble with Ed Schools. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Leino-Kaukiainen, P. and Heikkinen, A. (2011). Yhteiskunta ja koulutus. [Society and education]. In Anja Heikkinen and Pirkko Leino-Kaukiainen (Eds.), Valistus ja koulunpenkki. Kasvatus ja koulutus Suomessa 1860-luvulta 1960-luvulle. 16–33. Helsinki: SKS. Levin, B. and He, Y. (2008). Investigating the content and sources of teacher candidates’ personal practical theories (PPTS). Journal of Teacher Education, 59(1), pp. 55–68. March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York, NY: Free Press. Nurmi, V. (1990). Maamme opettajakorkeakoulut. Kasvatushistoriallinen perustutkimus [Finnish colleges of education. A basic study of history of education]. Helsingin yliopiston opettajankoulutuslaitos. Tutkimuksia 87. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto. OECD (2010). PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do. Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science. Paris: OECD. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/ pisa/pisaproducts/48852548.pdf

96

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

OECD (2012). PISA 2012 Results in Focus: What 15-year-olds know and what they can do with what they know: Key results from PISA 2012. Paris: OECD. Available at: http:// www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf OECD (2015). PISA 2015. Results in Focus. Paris: OECD. Available at: http://www.oecd .org/pisa/test/PISA%202015%20MS%20-%20Released%20Item%20Descriptions%2 0Final_English.pdf Opettajankoulutus 2020. (2007). [Teacher education 2020]. Opetusministeriön työryhmämuistioita ja selvityksiä: 44. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino. Puustinen, M., Säntti, J. and Salminen, J. (2015). Ylistystä ja toiminta-alttiutta – retorinen analyysi tutkimusperustaisen opettajuuden rakentamisesta Opettajankoulutus 2020-loppuraportissa. [Praise and receptive to action. Rhetorical analysis of Teacher Education 2020 report]. Kasvatus, 46(1), pp. 6–18. Rantala, J. (2011). Kansakoulunopettajat. [Folk school teachers] In Anja Heikkinen and Pirkko Leino-Kaukiainen (Eds.), Valistus ja koulunpenkki. Kasvatus ja koulutus Suomessa 1860-luvulta 1960-luvulle. 266–99. Helsinki: SKS. Rinne, R. (1986). Kansanopettaja mallikansalaisena: opettajuuden laajeneminen ja opettajuuden rekrytointimekanismit Suomessa 1851–1986 virallisen kuvausaineiston ilmaisemana [Elementary school teacher as a role model: the expansion of teacher profession and recruitment of teachers in Finland 1851-1986]. Turun yliopiston kasvatustieteiden tiedekunta. A. Tutkimuksia; 108. Rinne, R. and Jauhiainen, A. (1988). Koulutus, professionaalistuminen ja valtio. Julkisen sektorin koulutettujen reproduktioammattikuntien muotoutuminen Suomessa [Education, professionalization and the state. The formation of reproductive professions in public sector in Finland]. Turun yliopiston kasvatustieteiden tiedekunta. Julkaisusarja A, Tutkimuksia, 135. Rutkowski, L. and Rutkowski, D. (2016). A call for more measured approach to reporting and interpreting PISA results. Educational Researcher, 45(4), pp. 252–7. Saari, Antti (2011). Kasvatustieteen tiedontahto. Kriittisen historian näkökulmia suomalaiseen kasvatuksen tutkimukseen. [Education and Will to Knowledge. A Critical History of Educational Research in Finland.] Dissertation. Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association. Research in Educational Sciences 55. Sahlberg, P. (2015). Finnish Lessons 2.0. What can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland? 2nd ed. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Salokangas, M. and Kauko, J. (2016). Borrowing Finnish PISA success? Critical reflections from the perspective of the lender. Educação e Pesquisa, 41. Salminen, J. and Säntti, J. (2013). Akateemisesta varjosta kansainvälistyvän tieteen valokeilaan: luokanopettajakoulutuksen kehitys 1960-luvulta 2010-luvulle Helsingin väliaikaisessa opettajakorkeakoulussa ja Helsingin yliopistossa. [From the shadow of academia to the limelight of international science: The development of teacher education from the 1960s to the 2010s in college of education and the university of Helsinki]. In J. Rantala and M. Rautiainen (Eds.), Salonkikelpoiseksi maisterikoulutukseksi. Luokanopettaja- ja opinto-ohjaajakoulutusten akatemisoitumiskehitys 1970-luvulta 2010-luvulle, 106–28. Jyväskylä: Finnish Educational Research Association. Research in Educational Sciences 64. Säntti, J. (2011). Opettajakorkeakoulut. [Teacher training colleges.] In Anja Heikkinen and Pirkko Leino-Kaukiainen (Eds.), Valistus ja koulunpenkki. Kasvatus ja koulutus Suomessa 1860-luvulta 1960-luvulle 269–72. Helsinki: SKS. Säntti, J. and Salminen, J. (2012). Luokkahuonedidaktiikasta tutkimusperustaiseen reflektointiin [From classroom didactics to research-based reflection]. Kasvatus, 43(1), pp. 20–30.

Learning to Teach in Finland

97

Säntti, J. and Salminen, J. (2015). Development of teacher education in Finland 1945– 2015. Hungarian Educational Research Journal, 5(3), pp. 1–18. Säntti, J., Puustinen, M. and Salminen, J. (2018). Theory and practice in Finnish teacher education: A rhetorical analysis of changing values from the 1960s to the present day. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 24(1), pp. 5–21. Simola, H. (1996). Didactics, pedagogic discourse and professionalism in Finnish teacher Education. In H. Simola and T. Popkewitz (Eds.), Professionalization and Education, 97–117. Helsinki: Department of Teacher Education, University of Helsinki. Simola, H. (2002). From Exclusion to Self-selection: Examination of behaviour in Finnish primary and comprehensive schooling from the 1860s to the 1990s. History of Education, 31(3), pp. 207–26. Simola, H. (2005). The Finnish miracle of PISA: Historical and sociological remarks on teaching and teacher education, Comparative Education, 41(4), pp. 455–70. Simola, H., Rinne, R., Varjo, J., Kauko, J. and Pitkänen, H. (2009). Quality Assurance and Evaluation (QAE) in Finnish comprehensive schooling – a national model or just unintended effects of radical decentralisation? Journal of Education Policy, 24(2), pp. 163–78. Simola, H. and Rinne, R. (2010). Kontingenssi ja koulutuspolitiikka: vertailevan tutkimuksen teoreettisia edellytyksiä etsimässä [Contingency and education policy: searching for the theoretical starting points for comparative research]. Kasvatus, 41(4), pp. 316–30. Simola, H., Rinne, R., Varjo, J. and Kauko, J. (2013). The paradox of the education race: How to win the ranking game by sailing to headwind. Journal of Education Policy, 28 (5), pp. 612–33. Sitomaniemi-San, J. 2015. Fabricating the teacher as researcher: a genealogy of academic teacher education in Finland. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis E Scientiae Rerum Socialium 157. Tampere: Juvenis print. Stenberg, K., Karlsson, L., Pitkäniemi, H. and Maaranen, M. (2014). Beginning student teachers’ teacher identities based on their practical theories. European Journal of Teacher Education, 37(2), pp. 204–19. Teacher Education as a Future-moulding Factor. (2000). International Evaluation of Teacher Education in Finnish Universities, edited by J. Jussila and S. Saari. Publications of Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council. Toom, A., Kynäslahti, H., Krokfors, L., Jyrhämä, R., Byman, R., Stenberg, K., Maaranen, K. and Kansanen. P. (2010). Experiences of a research-based approach to teacher education: Suggestions for future policies. European Journal of Education, 45(2), pp. 331–44. Tyack, D. and Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering Toward Utopia a Century of Public School Reform. London: Harvard University Press. Van de Ven, A. and Johnson, P. (2006). Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), pp. 802–21. Westbury, I., Hansén, S.E., Kansanen. P. and Björkvist, O. (2005). Teacher education for research-based practice in expanded roles: Finland’s experience. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49(5), pp. 475–85.

7

Learning to Teach in Hong Kong Yuefeng Zhang

Introduction Teacher quality is often said to be the key to enhancing student learning and sustaining school success. Teachers are the key change agents for advancing teaching practices and school development. In Hong Kong, in order to keep abreast of the needs of the fastchanging world, teachers are required to undertake an ongoing journey of continuous professional development (CPD). Thus, teaching has become a learning profession in Hong Kong (Advisory Committee on Teacher Education and Qualifications (ACTEQ1), 2009) and teacher education has become a crucial driving force to prepare quality teachers and to promote teacher professionalism. The academization of teacher education in Hong Kong started with the Hong Kong Government’s launch of formal teacher training programs in the University of Hong Kong (HKU) since 1916 and gradually scaled up to include four more tertiary institutions: The Education University of Hong Kong (EdUHK), The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK), Hong Kong Baptist University (HKBU) and the Open University of Hong Kong (the only self-funded institution). Currently, there are two types of pre-service teacher education in these institutions. Secondary school graduates can join the five-year full-time Bachelor of Education programs, or obtain a bachelor’s degree from a four-year non-education program plus a postgraduate diploma of education (one-year full time or two-year part time). Since the 2000s, a series of mandatory standardized qualifications were stipulated by the Education Bureau (EDB), the top education authority in Hong Kong responsible for formulating, developing and reviewing educational policies, programs and legislation and overseeing the implementation of educational programs. All primary and secondary teachers are required to be trained graduates since 2004. All English and Mandarin teachers are required to pass mandatory benchmark examinations to prove meeting the language proficiency requirements, besides holding a Bachelor 1

ACTEQ is a non-statutory body set up in 1993 to provide advice on teacher education programs to the Hong Kong government, and on qualifications acceptable for teaching purposes in Hong Kong. It was renamed the Committee on Professional Development of Teachers and Principals on 1 June 2013.

Learning to Teach in Hong Kong

99

of Education degree majoring in English/Putonghua or both a first degree and a postgraduate education diploma in English or Putonghua language teaching. CPD of in-service teachers has been greatly promoted along with a substantial number of large-scale education reforms by the EDB since the 2000s, including a school-based curriculum, whole-person development, liberal studies, new Senior Secondary School, small class teaching, self-regulated learning, e-learning, science technology, engineering and mathematics scheme and so on. All schoolteachers in Hong Kong are recommended to attend CPD activities for not less than 150 hours in a three-year cycle and government-funded schools to allocate three school days per annum for staff development (Lai and Grossman, 2008). This chapter aims to review the current situation of teacher education in Hong Kong and put forward suggestions on further development and research for advancing teacher education.

The theoretical framework Teacher education can be regarded as a discipline whose curriculum can be defined as an interrelated set of plans and experiences (Marsh and Willis, 2007) that teachers (both pre-service and in-service teachers) undertake in order to develop teaching competence and upgrade professionalism. This chapter adopts the theoretic framework of curriculum put forward by Morris (1998), which includes four scaffolding components: intentions, content, pedagogy and assessment (see Figure 7.1). ‘Intentions’ refer to the aims, goals or objectives of teacher education. Aims are the general longterm expectations of teacher education reflecting social beliefs and ideologies about teachers’ roles and competence. Aims can be specified into more specific objectives for teacher training programs. ‘Content’ describes the substance, subject matters or experience of learning, while ‘Assessment’ recommends the ways to assess or evaluate teachers’ learning outcomes. ‘Pedagogy’ refers to the approaches to put the curriculum into reality by organizing learning activities and by transferring intentions, content and assessment into teacher educators’ training and teachers’ learning experiences. The four-component framework helps structure four research questions to explore the current understanding about teacher education in Hong Kong:

1. 2. 3. 4.

What are the goals of learning to teach in Hong Kong (the intentions)? What are the contents of learning to teach in Hong Kong (the content)? How do we enable teachers to learn to teach in Hong Kong (the pedagogy)? How is the effectiveness of teachers’ learning to teach in Hong Kong assessed (the assessment)?

Methods The study utilized a literature review and documentary analysis to identify the existent published knowledge about teacher education in Hong Kong. The literature review was conducted through the following process: articles in either English or Chinese that

100

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Figure 7.1 The components of a curriculum (Morris, 1998) adopted empirical studies and published between 1997 and April of 2016 were reviewed, including research reports and book chapters. This time frame was selected as more major changes in teacher education in Hong Kong happened in this period and the chapter was first drafted in May 2016. Both English and Chinese online databases were assessed to conduct a literature search. English language databases included Google Scholar, EdUHK search engines, EdUHK Publications and Education Bibliographic database, Hong Kong Academic Library Link search engines, dissertations and theses at the University of Hong Kong. The Chinese language databases include the Google Scholar and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (Zhongguo zhiwang). The same keywords of ‘Teacher education in Hong Kong’, ‘Teacher professional development in Hong Kong’ and ‘Learning to teach in Hong Kong’ were used to locate articles in both languages. At the end, eighty-eight relevant articles were identified and reviewed for the purpose of this chapter. Among them, forty-one articles (47 per cent) were about pre-service teacher education in Hong Kong and forty-four (50 per cent) about in-service teacher education in Hong Kong and three involved both sectors. Sixty-three per cent of studies (fifty-five out of eighty-eight) utilized qualitative methods, including observation, interviews (semi-structured interviews and focus group discussion), document analysis (concept maps, meeting records and reflective journals, lesson plans, emails, online forums), discourse analysis, life history method, ethnographic and auto-ethnographic approaches to investigate the process of teacher CPD and the contexts shaping the process. Eighteen per cent of studies (sixteen out of eighty-eight) utilized questionnaire surveys to evaluate the effectiveness of teacher education programs. Nineteen per cent (seventeen out of eighty-eight studies ) employed mixed methods (surveys and interviews) to explore both teachers’ experience in and the effectiveness of teacher education programs. As for the focuses of studies, 74 per cent (sixty-five out of eighty-eight) focused on learning approaches, experience and process in teacher professional activities, while 25 per cent (twenty-two out of eighty-eight) focused on the assessment of learning outcomes of teacher learning courses or a certain aspect such as language awareness, efficacy, teacher identity, intercultural sensitivity or leadership skills. It was noted that 10 per cent of these empirical studies (nine out of eighty-eight) were conducted on teachers’ CPD needs or contents of learning to teach (see Table 7.1 for samples of two studies per area).

Learning to Teach in Hong Kong

101

Table 7.1 Sample reviews of studies Area The intentions

The content

Author

Surveys, interviews

Zhang (2015b)

Observation, interviews Surveys

ACTEQ (2009)

Gu (2011) The pedagogy

The assessment

Methods

Lo et al. (2008)

Lai (2010)

Narrative interviews Interviews

Trent (2010)

Interviews

Chan (2010)

Pre- and postcourse surveys

Forlin et al. (2014)

Pre- and postcourse surveys

Findings Learning Study developed teachers’ understanding of student learning and pedagogical content knowledge Learning Circle promoted teacher CPD and teacher collaboration Teachers paid much more attention to the ‘Teaching and Learning’ domain than the other three domains The formation of a teacher professional self is a process of identity development Teaching practice and mentored learning to teach played an important role in in-service teachers’ professional preparation School-based action research facilitated pre-service teachers’ identity construction A course promoting teachers’ gratitude reduced their emotional exhaustion and increased their sense of happiness and accomplishment A course in inclusive education was effective in improving teacher efficacy for inclusive practice

Official documents related to teacher education in Hong Kong, including documents issued by the EDB and the teacher education institutions, were also collected and reviewed to achieve a more holistic understanding. Content analysis (Northcutt and McCoy, 2004) was then conducted to identify evidence, arguments and answers to the research questions.

Findings The following section reports the findings about teacher education in Hong Kong in four domains: the intentions, the content, the pedagogy and the assessment.

The intentions of teacher education The Teacher Competencies Framework (TCF) and the Policy Framework for Teachers’ Continuing Professional Development was proposed by the ACTEQ in 2003 as the official reference for teacher CPD. Two big-scale mixed-method studies (ACTEQ, 2006, 2009) were conducted by the EDB to validate the TCF. It was found that majority of the teachers surveyed tended to agree with the recommended 150 CPD hours in a 3-year cycle.

102

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

The TCF defined the intentions of teacher education based on the conceptions of ‘good teachers’ in a society. In Hong Kong, good teachers are aiming to be more than just meeting some technical criteria and achieving high levels of work-related competence; they are also recognized for ‘their love and care for children, their passion for the “subject knowledge” they teach, their support and encouragement in helping students achieve the best’ (ACTEQ) 2003: 8). Teachers are expected to engage in collaborative relationships with peer teachers and show a ‘passion for continuous learning and self-improvement’ (ACTEQ, 2003, pp. 11–12). Accordingly, the targets for teacher education are to prepare quality teachers for schools and to support teachers to pursue a fuller professionalism in lifelong learning and wholesome personality. Although different courses or programs focused on achieving different specific goals, such as professional competence (Lo et al., 2008), teacher collaboration (Zhang, 2015b) and perspectives of continuous learning ACTEQ (2009), there have not been any empirical studies into teachers’ perspectives about the overall intentions mentioned in ACTEQ (2003) or mapping the goals of teacher training programs accordingly.

The content of teacher education The above-mentioned intentions of teacher education are transformed into four core domains in the TCF, that is, teaching and learning, student development, school development and professional relationships and service. It maps out three levels of competencies, threshold, competent and accomplished, indicating a CPD trajectory for teachers (see Table 7.2). The framework aims to provide schools and teachers with a reference set of goals/standards for planning and evaluating the direction and content of CPD (ACTEQ, 2003). ACTEQ (2009) reported that the levels of acceptance Table 7.2 An overview of the generic teacher competencies framework (adapted from ACTEQ (2003)) Domain Teaching and learning

Student development

School development

Professional relationships and service

Dimensions • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Subject Matter Knowledge Curriculum and Pedagogical Content Knowledge Teaching Strategies and Skills, Use of Language and Multimedia Assessment and Evaluation Students’ Diverse Needs in School Rapport with Students Pastoral Care for Students Students’ Different Learning Experiences School Vision and Mission, Culture and Ethos Policies, Procedures and Practices Home-School Collaboration Responsiveness to Societal Values and Changes Collaborative Relationships within the School Teachers’ Professional Development Involvement in Policies Related to Education Education-related Community Services and Voluntary Work

Learning to Teach in Hong Kong

103

of these four domains among teachers were 90 per cent, 82 per cent, 75 per cent and 60 per cent. However, teachers paid much more attention to the ‘teaching and learning’ domain than the other three domains (ACTEQ, 2009). There have been other studies confirming the significance of some of these contents in teacher development programs. For example, Gao and Ma (2011) highlighted the importance of strengthening language teachers’ language awareness and strategies. Katyal (2010) argued for cultivating teacher competence of incorporating ICT with theories of learning and teaching to engage students in autonomous teacher-less learning via the Internet. Other studies suggested content of teacher learning for specific education reforms or subject-based programs, such as inclusive education (Ho and Arthur-Kelly, 2013), physical education (Ha et al., 2008), teaching English as a second language (Mak, 2010), language assessment (Lam, 2015) or computer literacy (Kong, 2007) and pre-service teachers (Tang, Cheng and Wong, 2016). Besides these teaching competences listed in the centralized framework, there are other qualities important for teacher professionalism in the literature. For example, a better sense of agency in pre-service teachers may enhance pedagogical understanding (Cheng, Tang and Cheng, 2014). The will and capacity to cope with contextual challenges improves teaching practices inside schools (Gao and Benson, 2012). The development of teacher self-identification may also be a necessary component of teacher professionalism (Gao, 2012; Gu, 2011; Trent and DeCoursey, 2011). The promotion of intrinsic–altruistic motivation also enhances professional competences (Tang, Wong and Cheng, 2015). For pre-service teachers, their attitudes towards learning and ability to integrate different resources influenced their professionalism (Cheng, Tang and Cheng, 2016). The foci of teacher training programs or courses are normally adjusted according to the needs of the society. For example, since inclusive education was introduced in 2003, more training courses have been arranged on knowledge and skills of teaching in inclusive classrooms (Forlin, 2010; Forlin and Sin, 2010). The adoption of small class teaching in primary schools in 2009–15 resulted in six years’ promotion of effective small class teaching strategies in CPD programs (Zhang, 2015b). The TCF is also applied to guide the planning of pre-service teacher education, which is offered mainly in four tertiary institutions funded by the University Grants Committee (i.e. HKBU, CUHK, EdUHK and HKU) (Lai and Grossman, 2008). They offered five-year full-time bachelor’s programs in education. The program structure of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed., English language) in the EdUHK (see Table 7.3) is an example of the content of pre-service teacher education. As shown in Table 7.3, the program includes courses for a total of 156 credit points. Over one-third of credits go to Discipline Studies (English language subject matters, English language curriculum and pedagogy). While different B.Ed. programs contain different discipline-related courses, the remaining domains are similar in all B.Ed. programs. These general domains included Education Studies (theories and practices of education, curriculum, instruction and assessment, classroom management, professional teachers, etc.), General Education and Electives (courses for enhancing whole-person development and developing personal interests), Field Experience (teaching practices in schools for fourteen to sixteen weeks), Honours Project (completing an individual research project), Language Enhancement

104

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Table 7.3 Program structure of B.Ed. (English language) in the EdUHK Domains

Credit points (cps)

Discipline Studies – English Major

54

Education Studies

30

General Education Electives (including optional 15-cps Minor) Field Experience Honours Project Language Enhancement (English, Putonghua and Cantonese) Co-curricular and Service Learning Overseas Immersion Program

21 21

Total

15 6 6 3 0

Examples of courses Introduction to Linguistics; English Language Teaching Curriculum Effective Teaching and Positive Classroom Management A Narrative Perspective of Stories in Life The Phenomena of Internet and Digital Cultures School Attachment, First Block Practice Honours Project Chinese Professional Speaking; English for Language Teachers Effective Public Speaking Immersion in Austria

156

(preparing for the benchmark tests and meeting the trilingual exit requirements for English, Putonghua and Cantonese), Co-curricular and Service Learning (providing service-based learning opportunities to broaden students’ learning experience) and an overseas immersion program (to enhance English language proficiency, learn about cultures and develop a wider world view). Although reviews by external experts have been conducted to validate the arrangements of these courses, they are seldom published. It is worth noting that local teacher education institutes began to recruit non-local teachers (from mainland China and other countries) a decade ago. Many non-local teachers have experienced culture shocks and difficulties (Benson, 2012; Gan, 2013) in getting accustomed to the local education system and developing their teacher identity (Trent, 2010, 2015) and legitimating teacher authority (Lai, Gu and Hu, 2015). Some of them would not choose the teaching profession after graduation due to low motivation and commitment to teaching and a negative view of teaching in Hong Kong (Gu and Lai, 2012). Studies are needed to explore how course content and instructional design can better motivate and prepare these non-local pre-service teachers for the teaching profession in Hong Kong.

The pedagogy of teacher education The pedagogical design in teacher education and teachers’ learning experiences were the most studied areas in the literature. Teachers’ CPD in Hong Kong is promoted in diversified dynamic approaches and well supported by the different stakeholders in teacher education.

Approaches for teacher education The CPD modes for in-service teachers in Hong Kong include structured learning modes, which are formally organized by the EDB, schools or teacher education

Learning to Teach in Hong Kong

105

institutions. These include one-shot workshops/seminars, symposia, short-term theme-based courses (ranging from several days to several weeks), higher academic study, local/overseas conference, offshore study visits, design-based project, seeding and seconding scheme, action research, mentoring and collaborative action research (Learning Study, Lesson Study, Learning Circles). Among them, one-shot workshops or seminars introducing new theories and strategies remain a major approach for teacher learning (Ngan, Lee and Li, 2015) due to its cost-effectiveness. However, workshops and seminars are top-down and externally driven and cannot be tailor-made to cater for teachers’ individual needs. Many schools in Hong Kong have introduced mentoring schemes to support in-service teacher learning, especially for novice teachers (Lai, 2010; Lai, Li and Gong, 2016). School-based collaborative action research in the format of Learning Study (Ng, Liu and Lee, 2010; Lo, Pong and Chik, 2005; Pang, 2006), Lesson Study (Zhang, 2015a) and Learning Circles (Zhang, 2015b) activities has been highly promoted by the EDB since 2000 to enhance student learning, promote professional reflection (Ng, 2012), enhance collegiality among in-service teachers and build communities of practice inside schools or across schools. This innovative mode of teacher education transforms traditional individualized professionalism into networked professionalism (Forrester and Draper, 2005; Lai and Grossman, 2008). Successful collaborative communities may improve both learners’ and teachers’ learning, no matter whether they play the roles as mentors or mentees (Cheng and Yeung, 2010; Lai, 2010; Lau and Yuen, 2013) and provide them with collegial support for implementing innovative pedagogical practices in classrooms (Tam, 2015), and thus develop teachers into reflective practitioners and pedagogical knowledge (PK) producers (Lo et al., 2008). Yet, the successful and sustainable implementation of collaborative action research requires quality disciplinary leadership (Adamson and Walker, 2011; Chan, 2015a; Zhang, 2015a), strong commitment of teachers and continuous support from all the stakeholders in the communities (Mak and Pun, 2015). Other less formal modes of CPD include sharing or collaboration among teachers in their daily teaching practices, sharing of good practices, professional readings and ideas within and outside school, mentoring, self-initiated action research, publications or service to education-related committees. It is worth noting that there has been a rise in using integrated approaches (e.g. theoretical workshops plus school-based practices through collaborative planning, peer observation, mentoring) (Bai, 2014; Zhang, 2015b), to better contextualize theories in teachers’ daily practices. As for pre-service teacher education, the main approaches used in pre-service teaching education include theory-based lectures, tutorials/seminars with practical examples, group presentations, online learning (Mok, 2013), micro-teaching, school visits, action research and field experience. The most effective aspects of teacher education programs considered by pre-service teachers include activities that are related to real teaching contexts (Ni et al., 2006; Urmston, 2003), and include role modelling by lecturers and teachers or promote self-learning (Cheng, 2000; Cheng, Cheng and Tang, 2010). Short-term immersion projects in other cities or countries are offered to provide pre-service language teachers with linguistic and crosscultural experience (Barkhuizen and Feryok, 2006). Some studies (e.g. Trent, 2011a)

106

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

suggested that more guidance is needed for teachers to reflect on the similarities and differences between Hong Kong culture and other cultures, to resolve the conflicts in pre-service teachers’ identity formation (Mak, 2011). The field experience facilitates pre-service teachers’ interaction with local teaching communities for practical school-based curriculum design and transactional professional dialogic reflection and is more helpful than theory-driven courses (Gu and Benson, 2015: Hepple, 2012). Tang, Wong and Cheng (2012) argued for a constructive approach for pre-service teachers to actively and reflectively refine teaching practices and solicit feedback from mentors or supervisions. Studies have suggested that schoolbased action research can facilitate pre-service teachers’ identity construction (Trent, 2010) and promote their reflective practices (Wong, 2011). Collaborative learning study has been adopted in pre-service teacher training by the EdUHK since 2007 (Cheng, 2014) to enhance pre-service teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge (Lai and Lo-Fu, 2013). Online collaborative communities of practice were also used to enhance pre-service teachers’ knowledge of good teaching practices via an online forum of lessons and feedback (So, Pow and Hung, 2009). Other studies investigated the process of teachers’ learning different aspects of the pre-service teacher education, for example, learning to teach writing (Lee, 2010), the change of belief and PK (Ni et al., 2006; Urmston, 2003), conceptualization of learning (Tang, 2002), development of professional identity (Trent, 2012, 2013, 2014), enhancement of motivations (Tang et al., 2015) and development of intercultural sensitivity (Yuen and Grossman, 2009). The transitioning from university study to teaching practices in local classrooms remains a big challenge to pre-service teachers. More studies are needed to explore how to bridge the gap between preservice training and in-service practice (Tang and Choi, 2009; Trent, 2013; Trent and DeCoursey, 2011).

Support to teacher education All the stakeholders of teacher education, including the EDB, teacher education institutions and schools, have worked closely to organize or support learning programs or activities for teachers. The EDB plans and offers commissioned courses regularly, which are taught by staff in teacher education institutions. For example, the EDB promoted small class teaching in government-funded primary schools with a class size of twenty-five pupils in 2009–15. During the period, 344 primary schools adopted small class teaching. The EDB commissioned teacher education institutions to organize different types of courses (twelve-hour workshops, five-week integrated courses and learning circles) to introduce small class teaching strategies to teachers and support teachers’ individual or collaborative action research. Schools made special arrangements to release teachers to attend these courses. Besides, teacher education institutions and schools have built up strong partnerships (Hung et al., 2003). Schools provide opportunities for the pre-service teachers to do teaching practice, while researchers from teacher education institutions support school-based teacher development. In-service teachers demonstrate contextualized teaching practices to facilitate the socialization of pre-service teachers in schools

Learning to Teach in Hong Kong

107

(Cheng, 2005), while tertiary researchers expose teachers to innovative pedagogies and provide guidance for the advancement of teaching and learning (Cheng and So, 2012). Such institute-school partnerships can create ‘win-win’ CPD for both pre-service teachers and in-service teachers in schools (Cheng and Tang, 2003). In schools, many supporting measures have been adopted to facilitate teachers’ CPD. First, curriculum leaders in primary schools (Chan, 2015a) have been assigned to assist the principals in identifying staff development needs, planning, organizing, monitoring and evaluating CPD activities. These CPD leaders have even developed into internal coaches and helped sustain CPD inside schools (Zhang, 2016). The leadership styles of these CPD leaders and disciplinary leaders shaped the qualities of teachers’ CPD (Chow, 2016; Law et al., 2014). In some schools, teachers are involved in decision-making for CPD activities to enhance teacher participation and leadership (Law, 2011; Law, Galton and Wan, 2007). Second, collaborative planning sessions (normally at least one hour a week) have been timetabled in many schools for teachers’ co-planning or sharing with other colleagues teaching the same subject in the same level. Third, special arrangements are made to accommodate teachers’ diversified choices for professional learning, that is, to attend seminars and workshops or pursue further studies. Last but not least, more principals have made more efforts to build trust among teachers, enhance communication and collegiality and provide guidance and support to teachers’ CPD (Zhang, 2015a, 2016). The above pragmatic arrangements, learning-promoted leadership and cultivation of a supportive environment are crucial contexts promoting and sustaining teachers’ CPD (Kong, 2007; Li, Hallinger and Ko, 2016). Teachers may achieve a smooth track of CPD with guidance and support from other stakeholders in school, including teacher trainers, school leaders, peer teachers, parents and students (Zhang, 2015a).

The assessment of teacher education The effectiveness of teacher education in Hong Kong is evaluated mainly through two types of evaluation, school-based reviews and program/project-based evaluation.

School-based reviews Since 2004, the EDB implemented external school review (ESR) to validate schools’ self-evaluation (SSE) activities once every four years. The major approach of evaluating teacher professionalism in the ESR is observing teachers’ classroom teaching by external reviewers trained by the EDB. The performance indicators for assessing teaching performance include student learning process (learning attitude, learning strategies), learning performances (application of learning, learning habits, development of generic skills, etc.), teaching organization (planning and organization of teaching content, teaching objective, teaching strategies), teaching process (communication skills, teaching pace, classroom interaction, classroom management, catering for student diversity, professional knowledge and attitudes) as well as feedback to and follow-up on students’ learning. Teachers’ performances are rated with a four-level rubric of ‘excellent’, ‘good’, ‘acceptable’ and ‘unsatisfactory’. The ESR reports of schools are published to provide information for parents.

108

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Since 1997, all government-funded schools are required to conduct SSE and publish annual evaluation and action plans for further improvement. For such purposes, formal teacher appraisal is conducted to enhance accountability and CPD, which may include self-evaluation, lesson observation by school principals/leaders, perusal of documents (schemes of work, lesson plans and marking of exercises/ examination papers) and other sources (formal/informal interviews and discussions, stakeholder survey, for example student surveys, record of non-teaching duties, students’ academic achievements and progress) (Chee, 2012). Performance indicators similar to that of the ESR are utilized to evaluate teachers’ teaching practices. School leaders may negotiate with teachers about their own personal development plans based on the appraisal results (Zhang, 2015a).

Program/project-based evaluation Evaluative questionnaires are normally used to evaluate the effectiveness of teacher education programs, courses or projects by teacher education institutions by collecting teachers’ evaluative opinions, which are often used for internal evaluation and course development. The published evaluative studies normally contain well-designed instruments for measuring teachers’ learning from teacher training programs. For example, a number of studies (e.g. Chan, 2008; Chao, Forlin and Ho, 2016; Forlin et al., 2014; Sharma, Forlin and Loreman, 2008) used the Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practice Scale to investigate teachers’ confidence in, attitudes towards and concerns about teaching pupils with special education needs after attending special education training programs. Lo et al. (2008) utilized teacher surveys, principal surveys and student learning outcomes to evaluate the impact of 120 Learning Study projects on teacher professionalism. Ho and Arthur-Kelly (2013) evaluated the effectiveness of a part-time CPD program for teachers in special schools with a self-designed survey on teachers’ needs, mode, content and activities in the course. Hue and Lau (2015) evaluated a course promoting gratitude by gauging changes in pre-service teachers’ mindfulness levels, while Chan (2010, 2011) tested changes in teachers’ stress levels and subjective well-being. Trent (2011b) investigated the impact of a five-week CPD program on in-service teachers’ identity development.

Discussion and conclusion This review provides an overview of the previous studies investigating how teachers’ learning to teach is developed and promoted in Hong Kong, in terms of the intentions, the content, the pedagogy and the assessment. Teacher education in Hong Kong has adopted a broad sense of teacher education which includes both pre-service and in-service teacher training, teachers’ formal or informal professional learning inside and across schools and teacher education institutions. The following section discusses the strengths and weaknesses in the research and development of teacher education in Hong Kong as identified in the above-reviewed literature and puts forward suggestions for further study and development.

Learning to Teach in Hong Kong

109

The strengths in current teacher education in Hong Kong Teacher education in Hong Kong has gone through a rapid, steady and vigorous development in the past two decades. First of all, it has been widely accepted by teachers and schools that CPD is an integral part of teachers’ professional life and school practice (ACTEQ, 2003; Mak, 2010). Second, communities of practice start to be established and scaled up in schools which provide a supportive collaborative environment to facilitate teachers’ CPD. The practices of collaborative learning communities reflect features of effective teacher education as they are set in the context of classroom practice (Nuthall, 2004), promote reflection and require teachers to examine their own practice, provide opportunities for empowering social support (Putnam and Borko, 2000) and enable teachers to play a distinctive leading role. Third, a sophisticated supporting mechanism has been established involving different stakeholders of teacher education to provide continuous opportunities for professional learning. Finally, there is a strong quality assurance culture for evaluating the effectiveness of teacher education programs. The teacher educators are accountable for the quality of learning they offer to teachers.

Room for further development and studies Given the above strengths in the current teacher education in Hong Kong, a number of weaknesses need to be addressed for further development. First, Hong Kong teachers’ awareness of professionalism, which is defined as knowledge and skills, responsibility and authority and professional autonomy (Furlong, 2001), was weak, as they tend to focus more on responsibility rather than authority and autonomy (Tang and Choi, 2009). This may be due to the lack of a professional teaching body, such as a General Teaching Council, which can set standards for regulating members of the teaching profession (Lai and Grossman, 2008), leaving the government dictating and stipulating top-down externally driven regulations and education reforms (Ngan et al., 2015). The issue of teacher empowerment and developing teachers’ professional autonomy and leadership has received limited attention (Wan, 2005). Very few articles (Chan, 2015b) have been written by practitioners, who should be encouraged to publish their experiences and expertise in PK production. Although a more interconnected mode targeted at teacher needs in schools is promoted (Lam and Zhang, 2008), more studies are needed to explore how teachers participate in decision-making process to boost their professional identity, authority and autonomy (Walker and Cheng, 1996). Second, Hong Kong teachers have encountered many challenges and pressures in their jobs, which results in a worrying situation of teacher stress and burnout. These include pressures from heavy workload, continuous education reforms, external accountability and lack of collegial support (Chan, 2010, 2011) and the introduction of inclusive education. It is crucial to improve teachers’ well-being to best promote teacher professionalism (Cooper and Yan, 2014) and sustain school success, which is often neglected in school management (Zhang, 2016). More studies are needed to identify strategies to help teachers cope with work pressure and stress more effectively, to promote trust among teachers, to enhance their well-being and to provide more balanced whole-person development opportunities to teachers.

110

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Third, although moral purposes such as love and care for children, passion for teaching the subject and supporting and encouraging students are recognized as most important components of teacher education (ACTEQ, 2003), the managerialistic and market-oriented examination-focused approach of education has distanced teachers from such moral purposes (Tang and Choi, 2009). How to cultivate Hong Kong teachers’ moral qualities has yet to be explored. Fourth, there is a lack of longitudinal studies on the development of teachers through different stages of CPD (from pre-service to the accomplished level) in terms of their subject matters, teaching methodology (Gu, 2013; Lai and Lam, 2011), attitudes towards education and moral development. Little is known about how teachers’ CPD can be scaled up and sustained in schools (Zhang, 2015a). Compared to studies on the impact of school principals on teacher learning (Li et al., 2016), little is said about the roles of other change agents in promoting teacher professionalism, such as teacher trainers, mentors, students and parents. Fifth, although schools have adopted SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis for making school development plans, teachers are not often asked to identify their individual needs in teacher education programs and select their tailor-made activities accordingly (Ha et al., 2008; Tang and Choi, 2009). The TCF is used to map out the pre-service teacher training programs in some tertiary institutions (Tang, 2008); yet little evidence is available about how the TCF can guide teachers’ needs analysis for either formal teacher education or self-directed tailor-made CPD in schools. Other aspects identified as impactful indicators by researchers, such as teacher motivation, efficacy, professional identity and teacher well-being, may need to be considered in reviewing and advancing the TCF. Last but not least, since collaborative communities of practices are promoted to Hong Kong schools as a most effective way of promoting teachers’ learning and enhancing collegiality, more studies are needed to unfold whether and how these communities can be successfully established, developed and sustained in Hong Kong schools (Zhang, 2016). To conclude, teacher education in Hong Kong has been greatly influenced by Western trends of standardization, marketization and accountability. Comparatively speaking, less attention has been paid to reflecting on the uniqueness of the local Confucian culture of education in Hong Kong (Forlin, 2010). Teacher professional learning is a very complex issue, mediated and shaped by many social-cultural contexts in schools and society (Tang et al., 2012), in which teachers adopt different identities and social roles (Lai, Li and Gong, 2016). Teacher trainers and school leaders need to not only consider teachers’ needs and concerns in the above four components, but also be sensitive to the contexts that facilitate or inhibit teacher CPD, in order to maximize teacher professional learning and development. The above suggestions for further research and development lay down directions of advancing and sustaining teacher education in Hong Kong for policymakers, teacher trainers, researchers, school leaders and teachers. These practices, which promote teacher quality in an Asia’s high-performing education context like Hong Kong (Marsh and Lee, 2014), will definitely provide good reference points for advancing teacher education in other contexts.

Learning to Teach in Hong Kong

111

Acknowledgement The author would like to thank the WERA-IRN group on ‘Learning to Teach’ led by Professor Maria Teresa Tatto and Professor Ian Menter for the great opportunity of joining the international research team.

References ACTEQ. (2006). Towards a learning profession: Interim Report on teachers’ continuing professional development. Retrieved 4 May 2016 from http://www.edb.gov.hk/attachme nt/en/teacher/qualification-training-development/development/cpd-teachers/A CTEQ%20Document%202006%20-%20Eng.pdf ACTEQ. (2009). Third report on teachers’ continuing professional development. Retrieved 4 May 2016 from http://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/teacher/qualification-trainin g-development/development/cpd-teachers/ACTEQ%20Document%202009%20-%20E ng.pdf Adamson, B. and Walker, E. (2011). Messy collaboration: Learning from a learning study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), pp. 29–36. Advisory Committee on Teacher Education and Qualifications (ACTEQ). (2003). Towards a learning profession: The teacher competencies framework and the continuing development of teachers. Retrieved 4 May 2016 from http://www.edb.gov.hk/attachme nt/en/teacher/qualification-training-development/development/cpd-teachers/A CTEQ%20Document%202003%20-%20Eng.pdf Bai, B. (2014). Enhancing in-service teachers’ professional learning through a schoolbased professional development programme in Hong Kong. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(4), pp. 434–6. Barkhuizen, G. and Feryok, A. (2006). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of a short-term international experience programme. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), pp. 115–34. Benson, P. (2012). Learning to teach across borders: Mainland Chinese student English teachers in Hong Kong schools. Language Teaching Research, 16(4), pp. 483–99. Chan, C. (2015a). Tensions and complexities in school-university collaboration. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 35(1), pp. 111–124. Chan, D. W. (2008). General, collective, and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy among Chinese prospective and in-service teachers in Hong Kong. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(4), pp. 1057–69. Chan, D. W. (2010). Gratitude, gratitude intervention and subjective well-being among Chinese school teachers in Hong Kong. Educational Psychology, 30, pp. 139–53. Chan, D. W. (2011). Burnout and life satisfaction: Does gratitude intervention make a difference among Chinese school teachers in Hong Kong? Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 31(7), pp. 809–23. Chan, E. S. Y. (2015b). Becoming a craftsman in the process of school-based social studies curriculum development. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 16(3), pp. 322–46. Chao, C. N. G., Forlin, C. and Ho, F. C. (2016). Improving teaching self-efficacy for teachers in inclusive classrooms in Hong Kong. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(11), pp. 1142–54.

112

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Chee, W. C. (2012). Negotiating teacher professionalism: Governmentality and education reform in Hong Kong. Ethnography and Education, 7(3), pp. 327–44. Cheng, A. Y., Tang, S. Y. and Cheng, M. M. (2016). Changing conceptions of teaching: A four-year learning journey for student teachers. Teachers and Teaching, 22(2), pp. 177–97. Cheng, E. C. (2014). Learning study: Nurturing the instructional design and teaching competency of pre-service teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42(1), pp. 51–66. Cheng, M. H. (2000). Re-defining teacher education of primary teachers of science in Hong Kong. Unpublished PhD Thesis of The University of Waikato. Cheng, M. H. and Tang, Y. F. (2003). Touguo yuanxiao hezuo cujin zhongxiaoxue shixi jiaosh de zhuanye fazhan [Promoting pre-service teachers’ professionalism through tertiary-school partnership], New Horizons in Education 47, pp. 54–61. Cheng, M. M., Tang, S. Y. and Cheng, A. Y. (2014). Differences in pedagogical understanding among student–teachers in a four-year initial teacher education programme. Teachers and Teaching, 20(2), pp. 152–69. Cheng, M. M. H. (2005). Understanding teacher professional development during the field experience period using a sociocultural view of learning. Teacher Development, 9(3), pp. 347–67. Cheng, M. M. H. and Yeung, Y. Y. (2010). Identifying professional development environment for mentor teachers at a Learning Centre. Teacher Development, 14(3), pp. 351–63. Cheng, M. M., Cheng, A. Y. and Tang, S. Y. (2010). Closing the gap between the theory and practice of teaching: Implications for teacher education programmes in Hong Kong. Journal of Education for Teaching, 36(1), pp. 91–104. Cheng, M. M. and So, W. W. (2012). Analysing teacher professional development through professional dialogue: An investigation into a university–school partnership project on enquiry learning. Journal of Education for Teaching, 38(3), pp. 323–41. Chow, A. W. (2016). Teacher learning communities: The landscape of subject leadership. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(2), pp. 287–307. Cooper, P. and Yan, Z. (2015). Some possible effects of behaviour management training on teacher confidence and competence: Evidence from a study of primary school teachers in Hong Kong. Educational Studies, 41(1–2), pp. 156–70. Forlin, C. (2010). Developing and implementing quality inclusive education in Hong Kong: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10(s1), pp. 177–84. Forlin, C. and Sin, K. F. (2010). Developing support for inclusion: A professional learning approach for teachers in Hong Kong. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 6(1), pp. 7–26. Forlin, C., Sharma, U. and Loreman, T. (2014). Predictors of improved teaching efficacy following basic training for inclusion in Hong Kong. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(7), pp. 718–30. Forrester, V. and Draper, J. (2005). The professional formation and learning of new secondary teachers in Hong Kong: A dim–sum model? Teacher Development, 9(3), pp. 413–28. Furlong, J. (2001) Reforming teacher education, re-forming teachers: Accountability, professionalism and competence. In R. Philip and J. Furlong (Eds.), Education Reform and the State: Twenty Five Years of Politics, Policy and Practice. London: Routledge Falmer. Gan, Z. (2013). Learning to teach English language in the practicum: What challenges do non-native ESL student teachers face? Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), p. 6.

Learning to Teach in Hong Kong

113

Gao, F. (2012). Teacher identity, teaching vision, and Chinese language education for South Asian students in Hong Kong. Teachers and Teaching, 18(1), pp. 89–99. Gao, X. and Benson, P. (2012). ‘Unruly pupils’ in pre-service English language teachers’ teaching practicum experiences. Journal of Education for Teaching, 38(2), pp. 127–40. Gao, X. and Ma, Q. (2011). Vocabulary learning and teaching beliefs of pre-service and in-service teachers in Hong Kong and mainland China. Language Awareness, 20(4), pp. 327–42. Gu, M. (2011). Cross-border pre-service teachers in Hong Kong: ‘to be or not to be integrated, that is the problem’. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(2), pp. 139–54. Gu, M. and Benson, P. (2015). The formation of English teacher identities: A cross-cultural investigation. Language Teaching Research, 19(2), pp. 187–206. Gu, M. and Lai, C. (2012). Motivation and commitment: Pre-service teachers from Hong Kong and mainland China at a training institute in Hong Kong. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39(3), pp. 45–61. Gu, M. M. (2013). From pre-service to in-service teachers: A longitudinal investigation of the professional development of English language teachers in secondary schools. Educational Studies, 39(5), pp. 503–21. Ha, A. S., Wong, A. C., Sum, R. K. and Chan, D. W. (2008). Understanding teachers’ will and capacity to accomplish physical education curriculum reform: The implications for teacher development. Sport, Education and Society, 13(1), pp. 77–95. Hepple, E. (2012). Questioning pedagogies: Hong Kong pre-service teachers’ dialogic reflections on a transnational school experience. Journal of Education for Teaching, 38(3), pp. 309–22. Ho, F. C. and Arthur-Kelly, M. (2013). An evaluation of the collaborative mode of professional development for teachers in special schools in Hong Kong. British Journal of Special Education, 40(1), pp. 22–32. Hue, M. and Lau, N. (2015). Promoting well-being and preventing burnout in teacher education: A pilot study of a mindfulness-based programme for pre-service teachers in Hong Kong. Teacher Development, 19(3), pp. 381–401. Hung, M. C. M., Mui, W. S. W., Wah, W. Y. L. and Ching, L. M. Y. (2003). Moving from a personal to a social constructivist view of learning: Implications for support in the student teaching experience. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 23(1), pp. 85–98. Kong, S. C. (2007). The development and validation of an information literacy model for Hong Kong students: Key issues in the professional development of teachers for capacity building. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 16(1), pp. 57–75. Katyal, K. (2010). Educating teachers in Hong Kong for leadership in the age of the internet: A re-conceptualisation. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 38(4), pp. 273–84. Lai, C., Gu, M. and Hu, J. (2015). Understanding legitimate teacher authority in a crosscultural teaching context: Pre-service Chinese language teachers doing teaching practicum in international schools in Hong Kong. Journal of Education for Teaching, 41(4), pp. 417–34. Lai, C., Li, Z. and Gong, Y. (2016). Teacher agency and professional learning in crosscultural teaching contexts: Accounts of Chinese teachers from international schools in Hong Kong. Teaching and Teacher Education, 54, pp. 12–21. Lai, E. (2010). Getting in step to improve the quality of in-service teacher learning through mentoring. Professional Development in Education, 36(3), pp. 443–69. Lai, E. and Lam, C. C. (2011). Learning to teach in a context of education reform: Liberal studies student teachers’ decision-making in lesson planning. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(2), pp. 219–36.

114

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Lai, K. C. and Grossman, D. (2008). Alternate routes in initial teacher education: A critical review of the research and policy implications for Hong Kong. Journal of Education for Teaching, 34(4), pp. 261–75. Lai, Y. M. and Lo-Fu, Y. W. P. (2013). Incorporating learning study in a teacher education program in Hong Kong: A case study. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 2(1), pp. 72–89. Lam, C. C. and Zhang, S., (2008). Xianggang jiaoshi zhuanye fazhan celue: Cong buzu mosh douxiang huidong moshi. [Hong Kong teacher professional development strategies: From deficit mode to interconnected mode]. Retrieved 26 May 2016 from http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_6cec2abf010119fk.html Lam, R. (2015). Language assessment training in Hong Kong: Implications for language assessment literacy. Language Testing, 32(2), pp. 169–97. Lau, W. W. and Yuen, A. H. (2013). Learning Study in mathematics: It is for students, teachers, and teacher educators. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(4), pp. 377–88. Law, E. H. (2011). Exploring the role of leadership in facilitating teacher learning in Hong Kong. School Leadership and Management, 31(4), pp. 393–410. Law, E. H., Lee, J. C., Wan, S. W., Ko, J. and Hiruma, F. (2014). Influence of leadership styles on teacher communication networks: A Hong Kong case study. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 17(1), pp. 40–61. Law, E. H. F., Galton, M. and Wan, S. W. Y. (2007). Developing curriculum leadership in schools: Hong Kong perspectives. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 35(2), pp. 143–59. Lee, I. (2010). Writing teacher education and teacher learning: Testimonies of four EFL teachers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(3), pp. 143–57. Li, L., Hallinger, P. and Ko, J. (2016). Principal leadership and school capacity effects on teacher learning in Hong Kong. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(1), pp. 76–100. Lo, M. L., Pong, W. Y. and Chik, P. M. P. (Eds.) (2005). For each and everyone – Catering for Individual Differences through Learning Study. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Lo, M. L., Pong, W. Y., Kwok, W. Y. and Ko, P. Y. (Eds.) (2008). Variation for the Improvement of Teaching and Learning Final Report. Hong Kong: Centre for Learningstudy and School Partnership, The Hong Kong Institute of Education. Mak, B. (2010). The professional development needs of Hong Kong ESL teachers. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(3), pp. 397–410. Mak, B. and Pun, S. H. (2015). Cultivating a teacher community of practice for sustainable professional development: beyond planned efforts. Teachers and Teaching, 21(1), pp. 4–21. Mak, S. H. Y. (2011). Tensions between conflicting beliefs of an EFL teacher in teaching practice. RELC Journal, 42(1), pp. 53–67. Marsh, C. and Lee, C. K. J. (2014). Asia’s High Performing Education Systems: The Case of Hong Kong (Eds). New York: Routledge. Marsh, C. and Willis, G. (2007). Curriculum: Alternative Approaches, Ongoing Issues (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Mok, J. (2013). A case study of developing student-teachers’ language awareness through online discussion forums. Language Awareness, 22(2), pp. 161–75. Morris, P. (1998). The Hong Kong School Curriculum: Development, issues and policies. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Learning to Teach in Hong Kong

115

Ni, Y., Li, Q., Wong, W., Shiu, L. and Cheng, P. (2006). Learning to teach: Tracing and understanding changes in pre-service teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. Education Journal, Hong Kong-Chinese University of Hong Kong, 34(1), p. 47. Ng, C. C. (2012). Redesigning academic essays to promote teacher reflection on selected issues of learning and teaching related to the current educational reform in Hong Kong. Teaching Education, 23(4), pp. 387–410. Ng, P. H., Liu, L. and Lee, C. K. (2010). Ketanxuexi yanjiu: Xianggang de yizhong xiaobenkecheng ji jiaoshi zhuanye fazhan moshi [Learning Study: A mode of schoolbased curriculum development and teacher professional development in Hong Kong]. Journal of Curriculum Studies, Special Issue, 51–68. Ngan, M. Y., Lee, C. K. J. and Li, K. M. (2015). Xianggang jiaoshi zhuanye fazhan: Xuexiao shixingzixun jiaoyu de shikuang [Teacher professional development in Hong Kong: The implementation of information technology in education of Hong Kong schools]. Hong Kong teachers’ Centre Journal, 14, pp. 69–88. Northcutt, N. and McCoy, D. (2004). Interactive Qualitative Analysis: A Systems Method for Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Nuthall, G. (2004). Relating classroom teaching to student learning: A critical analysis of why research has failed to bridge the theory–practice gap. Harvard Educational Review, 74 (3): pp. 273–306. Pang, M. F. (2006). The use of learning study to enhance teacher professional learning in Hong Kong. Teaching Education, 17(1), pp. 27–42. Putnam, R. T. and Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), pp. 4–15. Sharma, U., Forlin, C. and Loreman, T. (2008). Impact of training on pre-service teachers’ attitudes and concerns about inclusive education and sentiments about persons with disabilities. Disability & Society, 23(7), pp. 773–85. So, W. W. M., Pow, J. W. C. and Hung, V. H. K. (2009). The interactive use of a video database in teacher education: Creating a knowledge base for teaching through a learning community. Computers & Education, 53(3), pp. 775–86. Tam, A. C. F. (2015). The role of a professional learning community in teacher change: A perspective from beliefs and practices. Teachers and Teaching, 21(1), pp. 22–43. Tang, S. Y., Wong, A. K. and Cheng, M. M. (2012). Professional learning in initial teacher education: Vision in the constructivist conception of teaching and learning. Journal of Education for Teaching, 38(4), pp. 435–51. Tang, S. Y., Wong, A. K. and Cheng, M. M. (2015). The preparation of highly motivated and professionally competent teachers in initial teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 41(2), pp. 128–44. Tang, S. Y. F. (2002). From behind the pupil’s desk to the teacher’s desk: A qualitative study of student teachers’ professional learning in Hong Kong. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 30(1), pp. 51–65. Tang, S. Y. F. and Choi, P. L. (2009). Teachers’ professional lives and continuing professional development in changing times. Educational Review, 61(1), pp. 1–18. Tang, S. Y. F., Cheng, M. M. H. and Wong, A. K. Y. (2016). The preparation of pre-service student teachers’ competence to work in schools. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 42(2), pp. 149–62. Tang, Y. F. S. (2008). Issues in field experience assessment in teacher education in a standards-based context. Journal of Education for Teaching, 34(1), pp. 17–32. Trent, J. (2010). Teacher education as identity construction: Insights from action research. Journal of Education for Teaching, 36(2), pp. 153–68.

116

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Trent, J. (2011a). Learning, teaching, and constructing identities: ESL pre-service teacher experiences during a short-term international experience programme. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 31(2), pp. 177–94. Trent, J. (2011b). The professional development of teacher identities in Hong Kong: Can a short-term course make a difference?. Professional Development in Education, 37(4), pp. 613–32. Trent, J. (2012). Teacher professional development through a school-university partnership. What role does teacher identity play? Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(7), p. 8. Trent, J. (2013). From campus to classroom: A critical perspective on approximations of practice in teacher education. Research Papers in Education, 28(5), pp. 571–94. Trent, J. (2014). Innovation as identity construction in language teaching and learning: Case studies from Hong Kong. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 8(1), pp. 56–78. Trent, J. (2015). The gendered, hierarchical construction of teacher identities: Exploring the male primary school teacher voice in Hong Kong. Journal of Education Policy, 30(4), pp. 500–17. Trent, J. and DeCoursey, M. (2011). Crossing boundaries and constructing identities: The experiences of early career mainland Chinese English language teachers in Hong Kong. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1), pp. 65–78. Urmston, A. (2003). Learning to teach English in Hong Kong: The opinions of teachers in training. Language and Education, 17(2), pp. 112–37. Walker, A. and Cheng, Y. C. (1996). Professional development in Hong Kong primary schools: Beliefs, practices and change. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 22(2), pp. 197–212. Wan, E. (2005). Teacher empowerment: Concepts, strategies, and implications for schools in Hong Kong. The Teachers College Record, 107(4), pp. 842–61. Wong, M. W. (2011). Adapted action research as an instructional strategy in a music teacher education programme in Hong Kong. Music Education Research, 13(1), pp. 107–20. Yuen, C. Y. and Grossman, D. L. (2009). The intercultural sensitivity of student teachers in three cities. Compare, 39(3), pp. 349–65. Zhang, Y. (2015a). Sustaining lesson study in schools with positive peer leadership: A case study in Hong Kong. The International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 4(2), pp.140–54. Zhang, Y. (2015b). Youxiao yunyong xuexiquan keyan, cujin xiaoban jiaoshi zhuanye zhuanye fazhan [Promoting teacher professionalism in small class setting with effective use of learning circles]. In Lai, K. T. (Ed.), Xiaobanhua jiaoxue siyuxing[Theories and practices of small class teaching]. Nanjing: Nanjing Normal University Press. Zhang, Y. (2016, April). Sustaining Lesson Study in Hong Kong schools with Leadership for Learning. A paper presented at The 2016 AERA Annual Meeting in Washington D.C.

8

Learning to Teach in Israel: Reviewing Policy and Research Trends Smadar Donitsa-Schmidt and Ruth Zuzovsky

Introduction While it is commonly agreed that the role of teachers is essential to the well-being of society, less agreement exists as to how and where teachers should learn how to teach and what types of knowledge are needed for teaching. This chapter aims to detect types of knowledge considered important for learning to teach in Israel that can guide effective approaches and structures of initial and continuous teacher education. The main research questions that guided the study were as follows: What types of knowledge are considered important in learning how to teach in the Israeli context, and to what extent do teachers in Israel possess these types of knowledge? The conception of teachers’ knowledge received much attention as far back as the 1980s (e.g. Elbaz, 1983; Grossman, 1990; Tamir, 1988), but it was Shulman’s categorization that contributed to its conceptualization and stood out due to the extensive list of separate types of knowledge bases that it included. Shulman’s categorization specified seven categories: content knowledge (CK), general pedagogical knowledge (PK), curriculum knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), knowledge of learners, knowledge of educational contexts and knowledge of educational ends (Shulman, 1987, p. 8). This categorization inspired other researchers and was elaborated and validated later by scholars in different disciplines and in different educational contexts (e.g. Ball, Thames & Phelps, 2008; Gitomer and Zisk, 2015; Hashweh, 2005; Mishra and Koehler, 2006; Park and Oliver, 2008). The theoretical framework used in the current study, thus, also leans on Shulman’s scheme. The methodology used included an extensive bibliographic search of empirical studies conducted in Israel that enabled us to trace and analyse the types of knowledge needed for effective teaching, which should be gained at the different stages of teacher preparation. The chapter contains the following main sections. The first is an historical overview of the evolution of teacher education since the establishment of the Israeli state in the mid-twentieth century, focusing on the main policies and pivotal events during this time. This section highlights the ideological, political and social context within which these changes have occurred. The second section presents the three main stages

118

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

that exist nowadays in the preparation of teachers in Israel: pre-service, induction and continuing professional development (CPD), addressing the different types of knowledge teachers are required to acquire in each stage. The following section reviews the empirical studies that provided us with information regarding the required types of knowledge, which are considered important for student teachers and practising teachers, and which are possessed by them. The chapter ends with a concluding section in which we critically analyse and explain these results.

Periodization in Israeli teacher education From a historical perspective, teacher education in Israel can be divided into four main periods (Dror, 1991; Hofman and Niederland, 2012; Israeli, 1999; Yonnai, 1999). Table 8.1 summarizes the main events that occurred at each period and is followed by a short description of each era.

Institutionalization (1948–53) On the eve of the establishment of the Israeli state there were eleven teacher seminaries and four additional ones for training arts and craft teachers. These seminaries, which represented different sectors in Israeli society (the liberal Zionist, the ultra-orthodox, the social religious and the socialist), were two-year post-secondary vocational schools emphasizing practical pedagogical aspects. Following American influences, more theoretical ‘foundation’ studies of psychology, sociology and philosophy were incorporated into the curriculum (Pre- Institutionalization). The newly established Israeli state (1948) faced the challenges of structuring its national institutions and governmental bodies, among them the Ministry of Education (MoE) that took over the management of all educational affairs including teacher education. During the first years of the Israeli state, two main legislation acts impacted teacher training: The Compulsory Education Law (1949), which ensured that all pupils are entitled to the right of education and created a massive need for teachers, and the Statehood Education Act (1953), an unsuccessful attempt to abolish the sectoral ideological streams in the education system which still exist today both in the school Table 8.1 Summary of pivotal moments, events and policies shaping israeli teacher education Years 1948–53 1954–1970s 1980s–2000 2000 onwards

Periods in teacher education Institutionalization: Establishment of the Israeli State and the Israeli Ministry of Education (MoE) Pre-academization: Committees dealing with the need to raise the quality of teacher training Academization: Teacher seminaries gradually become academic colleges granting a B.Ed. degree Professionalization: Emphasis on teachers as lifelong learners and on ongoing professional development of teachers

Learning to Teach in Israel

119

system and in teacher education under different bodies within the MoE – the statesecular, the state-religious, the ultra-orthodox and the Arab supervisory bodies. Facing huge immigration waves in those days that doubled the country’s population and increased the number of students studying in schools, the need for more teachers became urgent. Strategies to rapidly increase the number of teachers included offering emergency courses for uncertified teachers and pedagogical preparatory classes for high school students, and opening teaching seminaries for youngsters serving in the army. These strategies solved the immediate teacher shortage, but created problems of teacher quality.

Pre-academization (1954–70s) In the mid-1950s, the immigration waves slowed down and the need for new teachers was less acute. Critique regarding the quality of teachers led the MoE to establish a series of public committees to improve teacher preparation. Following the Dushkin Committee (1962), teacher preparation programs were extended to three years in 1963, and admission standards were raised. However, many other recommendations, advocating the strengthening of academic demands that were suggested by the committee, were rejected. Another impetus for the academization process was a major structural reform in the education system that occurred in 1968. The reform, which was a reaction to ethnic and socio-economic inequality within Israeli society, led to the creation of a new school structure of six years’ primary school, three years’ junior-high school that served deliberatively a heterogeneous socio-economic population and another three years’ elite-type secondary school. The creation of two upper elementary school tracks required the upgrading of teacher preparation which has led other committees (e.g. Yafe Committee, 1971; Peled Committee, 1976) to advocate the academization of teacher education. Yet, their recommendations were not implemented because of a concern for the ‘academization’ trend taking over the ‘humanistic’ nature that prevailed in the seminaries. It was only in 1979 when the Etzioni Committee that included the social mission and humanistic aspects of teaching in its rhetoric managed to enforce the academization process on teacher education.

Academization (1980s–2000) During this period most of the teacher seminaries were gradually upgraded to academic colleges. The Council of Higher Education (CHE), which until then had only been a silent partner in teacher education matters, was invited by the MoE to develop a framework for academizing teacher education. In 1981, the Dan Committee set up guidelines to be followed by teacher colleges in becoming higher education institutions. According to these guidelines teacher education was prolonged to a four-year program awarding a Bachelor of Education degree and a teaching certificate. The study programs were designed according to age levels and disciplinary fields, and comprised disciplinary subject matter studies, general education courses, pedagogy and didactics and practicum in schools. Practising teachers without an academic degree were encouraged (and later compelled) to study towards an academic degree in a shortened two-year program. As part of the academization process, a national standardized

120

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

admission test was introduced in 1981, and teacher educators were required to hold at least a second degree. During those years, the number of teacher training institutions decreased: from fifty-seven non-academic institutions in 1980 to thirty-four in 1995 out of which twelve were academic. This trend continued and in the year 2000, twentysix colleges were academic. Despite the progress in the academization process, the colleges remained subordinated to the MoE and not to the CHE that governs all other higher education institutions in Israel. The academic colleges were prevented from receiving the same level of autonomy granted to all other higher education institutions to manage their own academic and administrative affairs.

Professionalization (2000 onwards) This period has been influenced by a continuous discontent with the ‘products’ of the Israeli educational system, especially reflecting mediocre achievements in the international comparative educational studies. This resulted in a shared public view that teachers and teacher education were responsible for this situation. This period begins with the initiation of a mandatory nationwide induction year for beginning teachers in the year 2000, and later with an additional year of support. Over the years, master’s level programs were launched: A non-research M.Ed. program for in-service teachers (2004); an MTeach pre-service program for university graduates (2010) and a research track M.Ed. program (2012). Major committees in these years were the Dovrat Committee (2005), also known also as the ‘National Task Force’, which was appointed by the MoE to examine the frameworks for teacher training and their professional development, and the Ariav Committee (2006), which was appointed by the CHE to set up a new uniform set of guidelines for all existing teacher education programs. During this period, the admission standards for pre-service teacher education programs were dramatically raised by both the MoE and the CHE, and teacher educators were required to hold a third degree. Finally, colleges were gradually being moved to the sole auspices of the CHE, slowly gaining more autonomy and ceasing the dual subordination to two governing bodies. As of 2017–18, there were 21 academic teacher education colleges with a yield of about 8,000 graduates every year, and departments of education in 7 research universities with an annual yield of about 850 graduates. In addition, there were thirty small non-academic ultra-orthodox teacher seminaries, whose graduates teach only in the independent ultra-orthodox stream. This chapter does not discuss this latter stream.

‘Learning to teach’ sequence in Israel Figure 8.1 depicts the ‘learning to teach’ sequence that exists today in Israel. The ‘learning to teach’ sequence begins with a pre-service stage offered via two models: (1) A concurrent model that is a four-year program awarding a B.Ed. and takes place in teacher colleges; (2) a consecutive model which is either a one-year program awarding a Post Graduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) or a two-year MTeach program for those who had completed at least a B.A./B.Sc. degree at the university. All

Learning to Teach in Israel

Pre-service Two main models of initial teacher education programmes: (1) A concurrent model: 4-year B.Ed. programme (2) A consecutive model: 1-2-year PGCE/M.Teach programmes

Induction Since the year 2000, a mandatory induction year that includes mentoring, a weekly workshop in teacher education institutions and an evaluation process towards licensure

121

Professional Development Learning experiences that promote growth. From a novice teacher to an expert teacher. Including advanced degree and different CPD courses

Figure 8.1 ‘Learning to teach’ sequence in Israel these avenues, which are traditional initial teacher education programs, followed the CHE guidelines (Ariav, 2006), and were also approved by the MoE. These guidelines require programs to contain three distinct components: a dominant disciplinary one (CK) that comprises about 50 per cent of the program, a pedagogical component (PCK) that comprises about 30 per cent of the program and a school practicum that comprises about 18 per cent of the program. The total number of hours devoted to the whole four-year B.Ed. program was reduced in 2006 (professionalization period) to 90–96 hours instead of 108–120 until then. Following the 2008 economic crisis and an acute teacher shortage in specific disciplines, a handful of alternative programs were initiated. These shorter and on-thejob programs were legitimized by the CHE (Ariav, 2006), and further advocated by supporters of the deregulation approach. Their curriculum, geared towards university graduates, includes mostly PCK that is studied on campus. The second stage, known as the induction phase, consists of several support mechanisms to ease the entry of beginning teachers into the profession. These include a school mentor assigned to each new teacher, a weekly workshop throughout the first year that takes place in teacher colleges and an evaluation process, which determines the licensure receipt at the end of the first year of work. Since the year 2000, the induction year is mandatory, and since the year 2010, an additional year of support was added. The third stage, which is an ongoing one, is the professional development stage that accompanies teachers from being novices to becoming experts. This stage includes further education towards master’s level degrees and various in-service courses that are meant to ensure their CPD. As of the year 2008, teachers’ promotion is based also on the in-service courses that they take which are related directly to their teaching (Ministry of Education, 2008, 2012).

‘Learning to teach’ expected outcomes The expected outcomes of each of the above stages were specified by the MoE, and then operationalized and translated into an evaluation tool of teacher performances by the

122

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

National Authority for Measurement and Evaluation in Education (RAMA, 2011) that is annexed to the MoE. The evaluation tool is administered at the end of the pre-service period, at the end of the induction year, and during teachers’ careers. The evaluation tool includes the following four domains:

1. Role perception and professional ethics that includes (a) identification with the educational and teaching role; and (b) commitment to the school and the system.

2. Disciplinary expertise that includes CK, PCK and knowledge of the curriculum. 3. Educational and instructional processes that focus on (a) instructional planning and management; (b) teaching, learning and assessment and (c) supportive learning environment. 4. Collaboration in the professional community that includes (a) the school’s professional community; and (b) the discipline’s professional community. Within each domain, there are a few performance levels: ●

●

Three levels (below, appropriate and beyond) at the end of the pre-service stage and the induction year. Five levels (below basic, basic, skilled, distinguished and master) for practising teachers.

The four domains decided upon were not preceded by any local evidence-based research, but were rather based only on interviews with different stakeholders such as district supervisors and school principals and on international instruments such as the National Board for Professional Teachers Standards, the Danielson Group Framework for Teaching and the Training and Development Agency for Schools (RAMA, 2011). While the four domains contain some of Shulman’s (1987) categories of teachers’ knowledge, they do not follow all of them.

Methodology An extensive bibliographic search was the main method for collecting evidence for this study. The main research questions that guided the search were as follows: Which types of knowledge are considered important in learning how to teach in the Israeli context, and to what extent do teachers in Israel possess these types of knowledge? In this endeavour, several databases were searched using the following keywords: teachers’ knowledge, CK, PK, PCK, teacher qualifications, students’ achievements, teacher education programs: initial (pre-service), induction, CPD (in-service). The databases searched were as follows: (1) International publications of Israeli scholars (searched using online databases such as ERIC, Psychological Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, ProQuest, Google Scholar); (2) Israeli peer-reviewed journals; (3) The MOFET intercollegial institute; (4) Conference proceedings on teacher education in Israel; (5) The site of the National Authority for Measurement and Evaluation in Education (RAMA); (6) The Knesset (Parliament) Research and Information Centre; (7) Research reports

Learning to Teach in Israel

123

commissioned by the Division of Teacher Education in the MoE; (8) Research reports of research authorities in the colleges of education. The search, which was restricted to empirical studies conducted during the professionalization period (2000 onwards), comprised national and local institutional studies, many of which were published in Hebrew.

Influences on learning to teach: A review of the empirical literature This section summarizes the findings of the studies identified as relevant to the two research questions.

Studies at the national level The studies carried out at the national level are mostly studies that followed several national policy initiations that bear consequences for the type of knowledge teachers should acquire during one of their professional development stages. The main educational policies, which the presented studies follow, are those enacted in Israel since the year 2000 (the professionalization period). These policies echo international trends such as preparing teachers for the twenty-first century by improving their Information and Communication Technology (ICT) skills, strengthening the evaluation literacy of teachers to be used at the classroom and school levels, supporting teachers in their entry stage to teaching via the induction program and providing teachers with opportunities for CPD as part of their lifelong learning. None of these studies were conducted before the policies were decided upon, but rather after their actual implementation. The lack of evidence-based policy will be discussed in the final section. The studies conducted at the national level touch upon different bodies of knowledge regarded as needed by teachers at different stages of their career. These studies relate particularly to Shulman’s categories of CK, PK and PCK while also taking ICT skills into consideration. Consequently, two new types of knowledge are addressed: technological and pedagogical knowledge (TPK) and technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK). The findings of these studies are presented in Table 8.2, and are briefly discussed afterwards. The national program ‘Adapting the educational system to the 21st century’ was initiated in 2011 by the MoE, and intended to implement innovative pedagogy in schools while providing infrastructure and assimilating ICT in schools. Its specific goals were to improve teachers’ skills, to provide real-time feedback to students and parents, to strengthen the connection between home and school and to digitize school services. The MoE complemented this program with training offered to both preservice and in-service teachers. This training aimed at promoting knowledge of how ICT should be utilized within a specific teaching discipline. This type of knowledge combines CK, PK and technological knowledge, that is, TPK and TPACK. A study carried out in the pre-service stage by Goldstein and Asaf (2014) reported on a fairly high ability of student teachers in both TPK and TPACK. These types of

124

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Table 8.2 Studies illustrating the influence of national policy on learning to teach effectively Study Pre-service Levin-Rozalis and Lapidot (2010)

Goldstein and Asaf (2014)

Data Content analysis of syllabi in evaluation courses; interviews with leading figures in colleges Self-report questionnaires

Main findings Not enough opportunities were provided to prospective teachers to learn about evaluation in their pre-service training due to lack of structured programs in evaluation literacy, lack of faculty members with expertise in evaluation and not enough study hours Not enough practical ICT training was given to student teachers Practical training was found to be positively correlated with TPACK and with attitudes towards ICT-based learning and teaching

Induction Nasser-Abu Alhija, Reichenberg and Fresko (2006)

Self-report questionnaires

Nasser-Abu Alhija and An achievement Levy-Vered (2013) test; self-report questionnaires; content analysis of syllabi in testing courses Professional development Zuzovsky (2009)

Students’ achievements in TIMSS 2003

Peled and MagenNagar (2013)

Self-report questionnaires

Mishal and Patkin (2016)

Self-report questionnaires

Inductees rated their knowledge in all aspects as mediocre. They requested help particularly in general PK (e.g. classroom management skills), PCK, curricular knowledge and knowledge of the school context Test results in assessment literacy revealed poor results among the inductees indicating failure to meet the expected standards. Participants reported acquiring little knowledge about topics of assessment during their training

Teacher qualifications had only a marginal positive but non-significant relationship with student achievement and were inconsistent across the two subject areas Participation in content CPD had a positive impact on students’ achievement in both subjects. Participation in pedagogical-oriented CPD was negatively associated to students’ achievement in both subject areas Teachers’ knowledge in experimental schools that implemented ICT pedagogy was significantly higher than that of teachers in the control schools. Yet, even in the experimental schools, knowledge was mediocre Positive attitudes of teachers towards ICT are not sufficient for successful integration of technology The combination of CK, PK and TK (TPACK) guarantees effective teaching At the end of an in-service course in maths and maths-teaching skills, teachers improved their CK and PCK but attributed more importance to the PCK

Learning to Teach in Israel

125

knowledge were correlated with the opportunities that students received to use ICT during their practicum. The research findings advocated that practical training in the use of technological tools given to pre-service teachers was essential for promoting their knowledge of TPK and TPACK and for future implementation of technology in their teaching. A study conducted at the in-service stage (Peled and Magen-Nagar, 2013) highlighted the importance of TPACK that is still underdeveloped among practising teachers. Findings supported the need for in-service courses in this area since such courses were found to positively affect teachers’ knowledge and attitudes towards incorporating ICT in their classes. A second national policy that had an impact on the types of valued knowledge is related to one of the main recommendations of the Dovrat Committee (2005) that, as already noted above, was appointed by the MoE to examine, among other things, the frameworks for training teachers and their professional development. One of the recommendations that was implemented focused on the need to strengthen evaluation processes within the educational system, both at the national level (leading to the establishment of the National Authority for Measurement and Evaluation in Education) and at the school level (e.g. appointing evaluation coordinators in each school). This recommendation to develop teachers’ assessment literacy led the MoE to include evaluation literacy courses as part of pre-service and in-service programs. Yet, research conducted at the pre-service stage (Levin-Rozalis and Lapidot, 2010) and the induction phase (Nasser-Abu Alhija and Levy-Vered, 2013) showed a lack of structured programs offering this knowledge, a lack of faculty members with expertise in evaluation and the occurrence of only few courses dealing with evaluation in teacher preparation programs. In addition, test results revealed poor assessment literacy among inductees, indicating failure to meet the expected standards in the areas of evaluation and assessment. Another study followed the national induction program, which became mandatory in the year 2000 (Nasser-Abu Alhija, Reichenberg and Fresko, 2006). This comprehensive study investigated inductees’ different types of knowledge. Results showed mediocre knowledge as reported by the inductees in all types of knowledge and a special need for help in topics related to general PK (e.g. classroom management skills), PCK and curricular knowledge. Based on this study, it seems that the preparation of teachers during the pre-service stage is insufficient, and, consequently, additional opportunities for CPD are needed. Research focus on teachers’ CPD has received attention since 2010 after the initiation of a new promotion ladder for teachers in 2008, which required teachers to participate in CPD activities that were directly related to their teaching profession, covering both CK and PCK. A study by Mishal and Patkin (2016) explored the contribution of an in-service training course to elementary schoolteachers who taught math without any background in mathematics. The study, which was conducted among several teachers, found, based on self-report questionnaires, that teachers who participated in in-service courses improved both their CK and PCK but attributed more importance to the latter. Findings from a national study that was based on TIMMS 2003 data (Zuzovsky, 2009) showed that while participation in content-oriented CPD had a positive impact

126

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

on pupils’ achievements in mathematics and science, participation in pedagogicaloriented CPD was negatively associated with pupils’ achievement in both subjects.

Studies at the institution level The importance attributed to both CK and PCK, as seen in some of the studies conducted at the national level, is also evident in many of the studies carried on at the institutional level, most of which are small-scale ones. These studies cover some of Shulman’s categories of teachers’ knowledge: CK, PK, curriculum knowledge, PCK and knowledge of learners. Additional categories that were found in the studies, not appearing in Shulman’s categories, are research and methodology literacy and evaluation literacy. These areas of knowledge reflect the knowledge necessary for teachers in the era of accountability. These studies are presented in Table 8.3 and are briefly discussed afterwards. In the pre-service stage, most of the studies conducted at the institutional level dealt with teachers’ CK and PCK. The study by Penso (2002) examined the PCK gained during teaching practice in schools. This knowledge was expressed in this study by the ability to identify pupils’ learning difficulties (i.e. misconceptions) and detect their sources. The study highlighted the need to raise student teachers’ awareness to the complexities of learning processes that were dependent on both students’ characteristics and on teaching itself. The second study (Shahbari, 2013) investigated the level of mathematical CK and PCK owned by student teachers and teachers. This study was conducted among Arab student teachers in an Early Childhood Track and among practising teachers in Arab schools teaching in first and second grades. The study revealed limited CK and PCK in mathematics among the two populations, with no significant change over the three years of pre-service studies. The researcher’s conclusions pointed to a need to enrich the curriculum of first- and second-grade Arab mathematics teacher education programs emphasizing these two types of knowledge. The last study in the pre-service stage explored teachers’ curricular knowledge defined as teachers’ theoretical grasp of the material and programs they used and their awareness of how they were expected to approach curriculum and apply it in teaching (Ben-Peretz, Lendler-Ferdo and Hannuka, 2010). Although the researchers did not mention Shulman in their writing, their definition resembles his. Based on this study, it appears that curricular knowledge is also a neglected area at the pre-service stage. The researchers recommended including both theoretical approaches and practical opportunities to strengthen teachers’ curricular knowledge at the pre-service and the in-service stages. One study at the local level dealt with teachers’ knowledge at the induction period (Tam and Buvilski, 2013). The study reported a gap between what was taught during pre-service training and what the inductees needed when teaching for the first time. The areas mostly needed were those related to general PK such as knowledge of dealing with discipline problems and knowledge related to classroom evaluation processes and grading. Studies that dealt with the knowledge needed at the professional development stage revealed a variety of knowledge types valued as important by teachers and teacher

Learning to Teach in Israel

127

Table 8.3 Studies illustrating the influence of policy at the institutional level on learning to teach effectively Study Pre-service Penso (2002)

Shahbari (2013)

Data Teaching diaries

Self-report questionnaires

Ben-Peretz, Content analysis of Lendler-Ferdo teacher education and Hannuka programs; interviews (2010) with graduates

Main findings Student teachers identified learning difficulties in most of the lessons they observed, but only in half of the lessons they taught Pupils were considered the most frequent source of the difficulties in both cases The study highlighted the importance of knowledge of the learner (e.g. students’ misconceptions) and PK (e.g. instructional pedagogies) Limited knowledge was found in mathematical CK and PCK among pre-service student teachers and teachers No significant changes were found in knowledge from the first to the last years of training Teachers in all institutions need further skills in curricular planning

Induction Tam and Buvilski Reflective writing (2013)

Inductees who participated in a self-action research reported a gap between the tools provided during their training and what they needed in practice, particularly dealing with discipline problems, evaluation and grading

Professional development Raz (1998)

Zohar (2002)

An achievement test; self-report questionnaires

Students’ achievements in physics and biology and their self-esteem as learners were higher in the experimental group following an intervention of an in-service course on outcomes evaluation There is a need to include testing and evaluation courses in pre-service programs, and to provide further training in it via in-service courses

Self-report Following an in-service course on the instruction questionnaires, of higher-order thinking skills, teachers could discussions; teachers’ identify and predict difficulties in their students’ reflections thinking skills. Yet, the teachers used transmissive instructional methods even when dealing with higher-order thinking, thereby blocking students’ opportunities to actively experience critical thinking Cohen and Leyser Self-report Teachers in all school levels lacked knowledge of how (2004) questionnaires to work with disabled pupils in mainstream classes, as it was not taught in their pre-service training CPD in inclusive education contributed to teachers’ knowledge; yet, most teachers did not participate in such courses. Years of experience had no impact on this knowledge (Continued )

128

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Table 8.3 (Continued) Study

Data

Harel and Sela (2011)

Reflective writing

Even (2011)

Interviews; analysis of position papers

Shriki and Patkin Self-report (2014) questionnaire; interviews

Main findings Conducting action research as part of a CPD program had a positive effect on experienced educators: as professionals, it contributed to the building of trust in the research process, and to themselves as practitioners inquiring their own work Advanced mathematics CK studies were perceived by teachers as relevant to teaching in secondary school mathematics and as contributing to the effectiveness of teaching Despite most teachers’ insufficient mathematical background, they did not perceive a need to strengthen their CK nor to acquire knowledge about relevant educational theories. They expressed a need for curricular knowledge, PCK and knowledge about the learners

educators. The first study (Raz, 1998) which investigated knowledge of assessment and evaluation is one of only two studies we found that made the connection between teachers’ assessment knowledge and students’ achievement. Findings of the study pointed to the importance of this type of knowledge as it had a significant impact on students’ achievements in science. This knowledge includes the ability to use a variety of assessment tools while teaching, and the ability to interpret their findings. Knowledge needed for teaching higher-order skills is the focus of the second study at the professional development stage (Zohar, 2002). This knowledge involves the ability to identify difficulties in students’ higher-order thinking skills and the ability to provide appropriate instructional methods to overcome them. Findings showed that teachers could identify and predict difficulties in thinking skills but did not use student-centred problem-solving instructions that provided students with an opportunity to experience higher-order thinking. The study pointed to the importance of the two types of knowledge needed: PK and knowledge of learners. Knowledge about learners of a specific kind – disabled ones – is the focus of the third study (Cohen and Leyser, 2004). The study revealed teachers’ lack of knowledge on how to work with and teach disabled students within the regular classroom. In face of the mainstreaming policy advocating inclusion enacted in Israel in 2002, this knowledge is highly important. Yet, pre-service programs do not provide enough training in this area, and while it was found that professional development activities on this topic could contribute to this void, not enough CPD in this area is offered to teachers. Another type of teachers’ knowledge that only reached recognition because of the movement of ‘teachers as researchers’ is knowledge of research methodology that includes knowledge of how to conduct one’s own study (e.g. self-study, action research). The study by Harel and Sela (2011) iterated the importance of this knowledge for teachers, which contributed to teachers’ insights regarding their identity and professional work.

Learning to Teach in Israel

129

The importance of an especially advanced CK in mathematics to reaching expertise in secondary school mathematics teaching is the finding of Even’s study (2011). Data were collected from teachers studying towards a second degree in mathematics. All teachers reported that courses in advanced mathematics expanded and deepened their knowledge in ways that encouraged and enabled them to transform some of the new advanced mathematical knowledge they had acquired into mathematical PCK. The last research study at the institutional level also dealt with the knowledge needed for the teaching of mathematics but at the elementary school level (Shriki and Patkin, 2014). Using self-report questionnaires, teachers devalued the importance of CK in mathematics, valuing PCK more, probably due to the level of knowledge needed for these grade levels.

Discussion Prior to summarizing and discussing the results of the studies reviewed in this chapter, several remarks should be made. First, the number of research studies that were located was very small, indicating the scarce empirical evidence that supports the formation of teacher education policy in Israel. Second, none of these studies fed any decision regarding the formation of these policies. Rather, the research studies were conducted after the policies had been initiated and implemented. In addition, studies were mainly teachers’ self-reports about the knowledge they valued and possessed, and not an actual assessment of their acquired knowledge. It was also found that almost none of the studies investigated the impact of teachers’ knowledge (and qualifications) on students’ achievement. We shall try to provide explanations for the above later on. The findings presented in this chapter regarding the types of knowledge that are considered important for and by Israeli teachers throughout their professional lives point towards two main types of knowledge coined by Shulman (1987) as CK and PCK. CK was defined by Shulman as the understanding, skills and dispositions that are to be taught by teachers and learnt by school children. PCK was described by Shulman (1987) as the amalgam of content and pedagogy that is uniquely the province of teachers. This type of knowledge reflects pedagogical reasoning, which includes the ability to transform CK into valuable representations, modes of instruction and evaluation procedures. CK and PCK are linked to each other, with PCK being heavily dependent on CK as found also in the Israeli case. Both types of knowledge are crucial for effective teaching as claimed by the respondents in many of the reviewed studies. In any case, most of the reviewed studies pointed to the fact that pre-service teachers and beginning teachers reported that they were not adequately equipped with PCK or with CK. In more advanced stages of their careers, Israeli teachers indicated the need for other types of knowledge that they missed too, some of which were also mentioned by Shulman such as curricular knowledge and knowledge of learners and their characteristics. Other types of knowledge also mentioned at later stages are more specific such as knowledge in assessment literacy, technological knowledge, knowledge of research methodology and knowledge of how to teach disabled children. These latter

130

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

types of knowledge are related to recent policies implemented in the Israeli education system such as the inclusive education that requires extensive knowledge of learners and their characteristics; preparing teachers for twenty-first-century skills using ICT that requires TPACK and a trend in line with the epistemological turn that gave power to teachers’ personal practical knowledge preparing them to study their practice and conceptualize their own knowledge that requires methodological and research knowledge as well as evaluation literacy (Schön, 1983). The lack of knowledge declared by prospective teachers and practising teachers is a matter of concern and raises questions as to what are the reasons for this. One possible reason is associated with the dual subordination of teacher education in Israel to two governing bodies: The Teacher Training Division in the MoE and the CHE, which hold competing views regarding the nature of knowledge needed for effective teaching. While the CHE regards disciplinary CK, mostly gained in academia, as the most needed type, the Teacher Training Division in the Ministry, which views teaching as a reflective practice, regards the pedagogical and practical type of knowledge to be the most important. These competing views, which reflect different ideologies, led to the creation of uniform curricular guidelines (Ariav, 2006) that tried to satisfy both parties but seem to be failing to do so. The attempt to emphasize both CK and PCK resulted in a curriculum which includes an insufficient number of hours allocated to each type of knowledge and an insufficient number of hours devoted to the school practicum. This situation necessitated the provision of additional opportunities to learn in further professional development activities. Yet, it was only in 2008, as part of a new reform, that teachers were encouraged to participate in CPD courses that are directly related to their work (Ministry of Education, 2008, 2012). Another possible explanation for the feeling of possessing insufficient knowledge for teaching voiced by the teachers is the result of another disconnection between two bodies within the MoE itself: The Teacher Training Division that dictates (together with the CHE) and supervises what is taught in the colleges of education, and the Pedagogical Secretariat that is responsible for what is learnt in schools. In such a state, teacher education fails to respond to the often-changing curriculum in the different school subjects. An example of this split between the two divisions can be seen with regard to the impact of the international comparative studies of educational achievement on the Israeli education system. While the achievement of the Israeli pupils, which were fairly low in recent studies, led to numerous changes in the school curriculum, they had no effect on the curriculum in teacher education programs. A third possible explanation for the lack of knowledge, specifically that of PCK, is found in a report written by a recent international committee that was nominated by the CHE to examine the field of education and science education in all departments of teacher education at the universities (CHE, 2015). Findings of this report show that while in many education faculties around the world there is movement away from the generic theories that once constituted much of teacher preparation (i.e. foundations), and towards knowledge that influences how new teachers teach specific subjects (i.e. misconceptions), often referred to as PCK or ‘subject-specific pedagogy’, teacher education programs in Israeli universities lack the latter type of knowledge. Additional findings of the committee were related to the practicum component of

Learning to Teach in Israel

131

teacher preparation. It was found that student teachers were not provided with enough opportunities to practise teaching under the supervision of trained mentors, and that even in programs that emphasize fieldwork, teacher candidates often spent their time observing classrooms rather than teaching. The report concluded that such limited opportunities to teach made it difficult to acquire the skills that new teachers needed to be effective in the classroom. While this report scrutinized teacher training in the universities, it could well be that these weaknesses exist in teacher colleges as well, since the CHE guidelines for teacher education programs is a uniform one. A fourth possible explanation lay in the widespread practice of out-of-field teaching in the Israeli education system, wherein teachers are assigned to teach subjects for which they have no formal qualifications. This out-of-field phenomenon was found to be one of the symptoms of the shortage of teachers in Israeli schools, which forces school principals to fill empty positions by recruiting teachers who do not always have the necessary training to teach a certain school subject at a particular school level (Donitsa-Schmidt and Zuzovsky, 2016). Finally, the lack of knowledge could be explained by the absence of studies and scarce empirical evidence that can support decision-making regarding the content of teacher preparation programs in Israel. This was also evident when we looked for such information in the current research, as was noted above. It seems that instead of relying on national research evidence, policy is determined by opinions, political pressures and, at best, worldwide publications and international experts who are not always familiar with the Israeli context and culture. This is disappointing since the MoE could be provided with such data by several established and prominent sources, such as the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, the National Authority for Measurement and Evaluation in Education which is annexed to it, the Chief Scientist at the MoE, the Israeli Science Foundation and many private and governmental research authorities. Yet, the type of data provided to the Ministry is not targeted towards the formation of teacher education policies. In addition, while reviewing the studies it became clear that almost none of the studies investigated the impact of teachers’ knowledge on students’ achievement. One of the obstacles that hinder the ability to assess such a linkage are the flaws in the existing personnel databases at the MoE, which are partial, lack necessary details, are not always sufficiently updated and are not compatible with one another. This situation was severely criticized by the State Comptroller of Israel (2013). Nonetheless, one should bear in mind that much concern has been voiced regarding the use of valueadded measures in high-stake accountability contexts and the creation of a direct link between teacher preparation and pupil achievement (Tatto et al., 2016).

Conclusion Clearly, Israeli educational policymakers lack valid and reliable direct information on what teachers know. One way to evaluate teachers’ knowledge is through using tests for licensure and promotion purposes, as has been done in many countries. Although teachers’ tests were advocated by the Dovrat Committee (2005), they were strongly

132

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

resisted by many stakeholders including teacher unions and the education colleges themselves. Without knowing what teachers know, it is impossible for programs to know how to improve future teachers’ opportunities to learn including CK, PK and school practicum/induction. Taking into consideration the lack of knowledge, as conveyed by many teachers at different stages of their professional lives, and considering the weak scientific justification for the existing teacher education policies, we can only advocate a more local evidencebased process of policymaking that requires the collaboration of the many bodies that are involved in teacher education. The many research bodies that operate in the Israeli educational landscape should be recruited to contribute towards this purpose.

References Ariav Committee (2006). Report of the Committee for Determining Outlines for Teacher Education in Higher Education Institutions in Israel. Jerusalem: Council of Higher Education. [Hebrew] Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H. and Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching what makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), pp. 389–407. Ben-Peretz, M., Lendler-Ferdo, G. and Hannuka, S. (2010). Teacher preparation and curriculum planning: Do they go together? Halacha Ve’Maase Betichnun Limudim, 21, pp. 215–32. [Hebrew] Cohen, E. and Leyser, Y. (2004). Teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion according to the disability’s category and graveness, and their perception of skills needed for coping with students with disabilities in the inclusive classroom. Issues in Special Education and Rehabilitation, 19(2), pp. 95–109. [Hebrew] Council of Higher Education (2015). Committee for the Evaluation of Education and Science Education Study Programs: General report. Jerusalem: CHE. Dan Committee (1981). Guideline for a B.Ed. degree. Jerusalem: Council of Higher Education. [Hebrew] Donitsa-Schmidt, S. and Zuzovsky, R. (2016). Quantitative and qualitative teacher shortage and the turnover phenomenon. International Journal of Educational Research, 77, pp. 83–91. Dovrat Committee (2005). The National Program for Education in Israel. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education. [Hebrew] Dror, Y. (1991). Between ‘Academization’ and ‘Humanization’ in teacher training in Israel: From the beginning of the century until the end of the 1980s. Derachim Lehora’a, 1, pp. 11–38. [Hebrew] Dushkin Committee (1962). Report and Recommendations of a Public Committee to the Problems of Teacher Education for Elementary Schools. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education and Culture. [Hebrew] Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacher Thinking: A Study of Practical Knowledge. London: Croom Helm. Etzioni Committee (1979). Report of the State Commission to Examine the Status of the Teacher and the Teaching Profession. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education and Culture. [Hebrew] Even, R. (2011). The relevance of advanced mathematics studies to expertise in secondary school mathematics teaching: Practitioners’ views. ZDM, 43(6–7), pp. 941–50.

Learning to Teach in Israel

133

Gitomer, D. H. and Zisk, R. C. (2015). Knowing what teachers know. Review of Research in Education, 39(1), pp. 1–53. Goldstein, O. and Asaf, M. (2014). Evaluation of pre-service teachers’ preparation for ICT teaching in Israeli colleges of education. In J. Viteli and M. Leikomaa (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology 2014, 131–40. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Grossman, P. L. (1990). The Making of a Teacher: Teacher Knowledge and Teacher Education. New York: Columbia University Teachers College Press. Harel, M. and Sela, O. (2011). ‘Like looking through a magnifying glass’: Teachers researching their work. Iyunim Behinuch, 5, pp. 102–32. [Hebrew] Hashweh, M. Z. (2005). Teacher pedagogical constructions: A reconfiguration of pedagogical content knowledge. Teachers and Teaching, 11(3), pp. 273–92. Hofman, A. and Niederland, D. (2012). Is teacher education higher education? The Politics of Teacher Education in Israel, 1970–2010. Higher Education Policy, 25(1), pp. 87–106. Israeli, E. (1999). The Israeli teacher: Status, characteristics and problems. In E. Peled (Ed.), Half a Century of the Education System, 501–26. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport. [Hebrew] Levin-Rozalis M. and Lapidot, O. (2010). Teachers’ professional identity and the evaluation field in Israel: Do teacher training colleges stand a chance? Dapim, 49, pp. 119–47. Ministry of Education (2008). Ofek Hadash Reform in Elementary Schools. http://cms.educ ation.gov.il/EducationCMS/Units/Ofek/ [Hebrew] Ministry of Education (2012). Oz Letmura Reform in Upper Elementary Schools. http://cms .education.gov.il/EducationCMS/Units/oz/ [Hebrew] Mishal, A. and Patkin, D. (2016). Contribution of mathematics in-service training courses to the professional development of elementary school teachers in Israel. Teacher Development, 20(2), pp. 253–74. Mishra, P. and Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), pp. 1017–54. Nasser-Abu Alhija, F. and Levy-Vered, A. (2013). Are future teachers prepared for the challenge of learner assessment? Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Teacher Education: ‘Changing Reality through Education’. David Yellin Academic College of Education & MOFET Institute, Israel. [Hebrew] Nasser-Abu Alhija, F., Reichenberg, R. and Fresko. B (2006). The process of induction. Final Report submitted to the Israeli Ministry of Education. [Hebrew] Park, S. and Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), pp. 261–84. Peled Committee (1976). The Project of Education Planning in Israel in the 1980s. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education and Culture. [Hebrew] Peled, B. and Magen-Nagar, N. (2013). Characteristics of Israeli school teachers in computer-based learning environments. Journal of Educators Online, 10(1), p. n1. Penso, S. (2002). Pedagogical content knowledge: How do student teachers identify and describe the causes of their pupils’ learning difficulties? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 30(1), pp. 25–37. RAMA – The National Authority for Measurement and Evaluation in Education (2011). Evaluations Tools of Teachers’ Performances. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education. [Hebrew]

134

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Raz, R. (1998). Formative evaluation as a teaching tool. Iyunim Behinuch, 3, pp. 53–69. [Hebrew] Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books. Shahbari, A. J. (2013). Training of first- and second-grade Arab mathematics teachers. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Teacher Education: ‘Changing Reality through Education’. David Yellin Academic College of Education & MOFET Institute, Israel. [Hebrew] Shriki, A. and Patkin, D. (2014). Elementary school mathematics teachers’ perception on their professional needs. In D. Patkin and A. Gazit (Eds.), Who are you – the Elementary School Mathematics Teacher? 187–230. Tel-Aviv, Israel: Moffet Institute. [Hebrew] Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), pp. 1–23. State Comptroller of Israel. (2013). Aspects of Manpower Management in the Education System. Annual Report 63c (Fiscal Year 2012). Jerusalem: State Comptroller of Israel. [Hebrew] Tam, T. and Buvilski, T. (2013). The difficulties and coping of novice teachers in their first year of teaching: A self-action research study. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Teacher Education: ‘Changing Reality through Education’. David Yellin Academic College of Education & MOFET Institute, Israel. [Hebrew] Tamir, P. (1988). Subject matter and related pedagogical knowledge in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(2), pp. 99–110. Tatto, M. T., Savage, C., Liao, W., Marshall, S., Goldblatt, P. and Contreras, M. L. (2016). The Emergence of high-stakes accountability policies in teacher preparation: An Examination of the U.S. Department of Education’s proposed regulations. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24 (25). Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2322. Yafe Committee (1971). Report and Recommendations of the Committee Investigating the Pedagogical and Managerial Problems of the Teacher Education Institutions. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education and Culture. [Hebrew] Yonnai, J. (1999). Teachers of a nation whose children are studying: Teacher education in Israel. In E. Peled (Ed.), Half a Century of the Education System, 527–44. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport. [Hebrew] Zohar, A. (2002). Teachers’ pedagogical knowledge in the instruction of higher order thinking, Megamot, 1, pp. 3–28. [Hebrew] Zuzovsky R. (2009). Teachers’ qualifications and their impact on student achievement: Findings from TIMSS 2003 data for Israel. IERI Monograph Series. Issues and Methodologies in Large-Scale Assessments, 2, pp. 37–62.

9

Learning to Teach in Italy: Reviewing Policy and Research Trends Monica E. Mincu

Key issues in learning to teach Since Minister Gentile’s reform of 1923, teacher preparation in Italy has been informed by idealism, based on the premise that a good teacher is a cultivated and humanly rich person. This philosophical orientation continues to be a major influence on Italian pedagogy up to the present day. During the 1960s, an incipient image of the teacher as a professional challenged this orientation, and appropriate pedagogical, psychological and methodological tools were advocated. The idea of a better equipped teacher gained support from sectors of society with vested interests in schooling, such as teacher unions and political parties, at a time when the selective system of education had become more equitable and welfarist (Mincu, 2015). From that point on, the issue of university-based preparation of schoolteachers came to dominate the debates. However, innovations proved somewhat inconsistent up to the end of the 1990s. Traditionally, primary schoolteachers received professional training in specialist higher secondary schools, while secondary schoolteachers were appointed through competitive selection at the national level based on their subject knowledge and lacked any form of preliminary pedagogical preparation. During the 1960s, left-wing government reforms brought the role of the teacher to the centre stage (Table 9.1). In 1962–3, a Parliamentary Commission recommended a two-year university course for primary and secondary schoolteachers: the first year as a taught program, the second as a remunerated apprenticeship. However, intense political debates in this period failed to reach an effective consensus on school reform. The 1970s–90s were years of non-reform. Some primary schoolteachers continued university studies on their own initiative, showing a growing appetite for more robust academic knowledge. Collaboration between secondary schoolteachers and university staff tested professional development (PD) models. Science teachers manifested strong interest in didactics and teacher education, while their humanities colleagues focused instead on a disciplinary-based approach to secondary teaching. A highly diversified teaching workforce was composed of both secondary school and university graduates, on both temporary and permanent contracts. Various

136

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

recruitment routes distinguish between candidates with greater experience but limited formal preparation and younger graduates, trained in the innovative pedagogy introduced at the end of the 1990s. This situation leads to conflict and competition for the insufficient available place. In addition, during the 1980s more specific teaching competencies and skills were put forward. The theoretical contributions and experiments conducted at the Universities of Bologna and Bari led to an internally conceptualized ‘Italian approach’ to the preparation of teachers. This experimental stage in the reform of teacher education helped to redefine a new professional identity as university based (Mincu and Chiosso, 2009). At the policy level, the prolonged debates and more general innovations in education of the 1980s stimulated curriculum reform for the lower secondary school scuola media (1979) and for the primary school (1985). At the same time, a modern idea of teacher professionalism was now largely inspired by prominent scholars, such as Bruner, Mialaret and De Landsheere. These foreign scholars and ideas opened Italian pedagogy to international debates and reform tendencies (Mincu and Chiosso, 2009). This finally led to the legislative Act 341 in 1990, which introduced teacher preparation at the university level. A four-year degree (laurea) for primary and pre-primary teachers was established, as a simultaneous model, as well as a two-year postgraduate master’s for secondary teachers, as a consecutive model. These changes are linked to the 1996 government that implemented them, whose ex-Communist ministers expressed a radical reformist vision and a desire to promote structural reforms. It is significant to note that some of the biggest structural innovations in the history of school reform, such as the introduction of the comprehensive principle through middle school reform in the 1960s and the innovations of the late 1990s, have been promoted by Communist policymakers. However, this new vision of school reform has engendered issues of coherence between the various innovations, resulting in delays and policy misalignments. Teacher education at higher education level has been relatively recently introduced, in 1997/1998, after almost thirty years of debates, postponements and experiments. During this period, the OECD volume on quality teaching (CERI, 1994) played a major influence in offering external legitimation and support. As argued by Chiosso (2002), while the Italian debates did not succeed in reaching a stable consensus, ‘at least nobody was thinking that the teaching profession was merely a question of a cultivated person and not of specific competences’ (p. 89). Recent years have seen divergent trends in this area. The incorporation of higher education for primary teacher preparation has been consolidated over the last eighteen years. One change occurred in 2010 as a consequence of the Bologna Process of structural harmonization of higher education paths in the European Union on the model of three years of undergraduate plus two years of postgraduate studies. The 4-year course became a 5-year program (300 credits), compatible with the current higher education structures. Conversely, in secondary teacher preparation, a highly volatile policy context has been dominant. University-level preparation offered secondary schoolteachers academic content only, lacking any pedagogical and professional elements. A new trend of professionalization for secondary teachers introduced a consecutive two-year master’s level preparation to bring together these

Learning to Teach in Italy

137

elements for the first time in 1999/2000. This course was structurally quite long, requiring five years of university study for admission to the master’s course, and was phased out after 2008/2009. The minister of the public education (1996–2000) and a left-wing architect of this innovation – Berlinguer – had been active during the rightwing Berlusconi period, challenging and debating policy changes. Eventually, the postgraduate professional master’s degree was abolished in 2009, to be replaced by a one-year ‘active apprenticeship’, running on an ad hoc basis for three years (until 2016). By law (249/2010), secondary preparation was designed to include two phases: a two-year professional master’s followed by an active apprenticeship phase. In spite of this, a lack of both political will and finance meant that professional master’s degrees were never set up and secondary teachers’ certification was delivered through the apprenticeship year only. It can be argued that secondary teacher preparation was configured during this ad hoc provision phase as alternative teacher education, though formally controlled by universities. In fact, the theoretical component of preparation was condensed in favour of a hands-on approach of 475 hours overall of classroom observation and teaching. Moreover, a mismatch between the theoretical component, delivered as single units per se and not organically linked to school practice in terms of content and timing, has been reported, as well as significant variations in the provision and delays in different Italian universities (Capra, Niceforo and Palomba, 2013). For these reasons and compared to the previous two-year consecutive program, the alternative active apprenticeship represented a clear step backwards. The latest development in Italian teacher preparation is the result of Law 107/2015, known as The Good School, which was passed by the coalition government led by Matteo Renzi from the Democratic Party. Once more, the proposed changes focus on secondary teachers’ preparation. After 2 years of theoretical preparation in a subject area and with 24 credits (170 hours) of pedagogical or education sciences courses, the prospective teacher may undertake a national selection exams, leading to a 3-year trial training with a contract paid by schools themselves: universities will be in charge of the first year of professional preparation and grant a specialization diploma, with the following 2 years structured as an ‘active apprenticeship’ and gradual immersion into the teaching role. The final positive evaluation of the certification process may lead to a permanent appointment, while previously, the phases of certification and appointment were decoupled. In this new model effective from 2017/2018, teacher certification coincides with securing a permanent appointment in/by the school of training. Some criticisms have been advanced by an independent organization – the Giovanni Agnelli Foundation (FGA) that highlighted (1) the fragmented teacher education logic, first theory and subject knowledge acquisition in university, then practice and professional preparation in schools, (2) the considerable overall length of this path and finally (3) the lack of more general criteria for accessing a permanent teaching position, since teachers are evaluated locally by single schools and in the absence of any professional standard (FGA, 2015). PD continues to be a rather weak aspect of the learning to teach continuum in Italy, though assumed to be a right and a professional duty since the 1970s. Under the regulation of The Good School, it became compulsory, with financial support of up to 500 euros per year (Eurydice, 2016).

138

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Context and policies The Italian welfare state has grown along the lines of other Southern European countries. Italy expanded its universal education provision through a system of middle schools, following a partly comprehensive model up to fourteen years of age. Since the 1980s, moves towards deregulation were manifested initially in health and insurance, and later also in education (see Mincu, 2015). The Italian model of centralization has been characterized, quite paradoxically, by significant diversification (Semeraro, 1998) and by the lack of a robust system of school inspection. A major federalization reform in 2001 brought change in the Fundamental Law (the final part dealing with national and regional responsibilities – the Fifth Title) and reinforced the school autonomy launched in 1997. Partial deregulation of school finances was coupled with diminishing resources (Granello, 2010) and a sharp reduction in school schedules and teaching staff (Bordignon and Fontana, 2010). In this context, quality teacher preparation and/or appropriate selection of teaching staff may play a vital role. Entry into the teaching profession has always been a politically hot issue. Italy is characterized by high unemployment among intellectuals, given its economic profile of myriads of small- and medium-sized enterprises, for which a skilled workforce is not indispensable. University graduates who may not find a job on the Italian economic market represent a pressure on the school system, which provides a safety net for the job market. For many years, recruitment has been a matter of ‘closed scrolling lists’ for both permanent and contract teachers of three different types: (1) candidates who passed competitive selection based on written national exams (2000/2001 to 2015); (2) candidates enrolled in permanent lists (last updated 2006) in possession of a teaching certificate and (3) candidates enrolled in lists for short- and long-term temporary positions, with no teaching certificate. The first two types were managed by the ministry at the regional level, while the third type at the provincial level and the teachers could chose the school of their choice. Recent policies aim to challenge the list-based recruitment and two national selections have been organized over the last years: half of the places have been reserved for candidates enrolled in scrolling lists until their depletion, the other half to newly certified teachers. In this new mechanism: (1) candidates from the lists choose their schools on a ministry platform; (2) the school can express a choice based on the candidate vitae or propose an interview before making a choice on the recruitment platform; (3) the ministry will then make the official designation. One key policy is the establishment in 2011 (Law No. 10) of a National Evaluation System with the following aims: ●

●

● ●

To help schools monitor efficiency and efficacy indicators of their educational offerings and undertake improvement in an autonomous manner; To provide school administration with useful information in order to promote the cultural, social and economic growth of the country and to plan support actions for schools in difficulty; To foster transparency and social accountability and To introduce evaluation of head teachers.

Learning to Teach in Italy

139

In addition, and as a consequence of a developing accountability culture, The Good School Law introduced internal teacher assessment and the concept of performancebased pay. The head teacher evaluates teachers and rewards them according to criteria set by each school for the first three years of the performance-based pay policy, and thereafter on centrally agreed indicators. All schools are required to develop a selfevaluation report and a school improvement plan, as well as to measure and assess overall performance of the administration itself, of its offices and employees, with reward systems for the best performers (Law 150/2008). In primary and pre-primary preparation at the university level, an emerging accountability system of teacher education is rather formal and quantitative in nature: it specifies the number of credits, the types of areas to be covered and a certain level of staffing resources. In the absence of teaching standards, it does not regulate the content of teacher education but merely provides some orientation towards competences that are locally identified by each primary schoolteachers’ program. The five-year master’s level courses are closely affiliated to educational sciences courses and reflect an academic tradition in teaching and learning (Table 9.2).

Timeline of the most commonly articulated events shaping teacher education in Italy Table 9.1 Pivotal moments Years

Pivotal moments (policies)

1923

Normal schools and shorter normal schools for pre- and primary education; Gentile’s influence and idealism No provision for secondary teachers Parliamentary debate on the incorporation of teacher preparation to higher education The duty and the right to CPD remains largely on paper and operates on a voluntary basis up to Law 107 Act 341/1990 fully institutionalized in 1998: four-year degrees in primary education and two-year specialization schools as consecutive paths for secondary teachers (up to 2008) Accreditation on new rules (more formal requirements about the organization of the courses, human resources and types of knowledge areas); no standards for the teaching profession Teacher education accountability not in place, since the wider system accountability is quite a recent trend Temporary provision for secondary teacher preparation (three cycles of a short route into teaching TFA (tirocinio formativo-attivo)/one year of school practice, university-led) A ‘unitary preparation’ is envisaged in principle; on practical grounds it is diverse for primary and secondary teachers, and the training provision for secondary teachers follows a model of separation between its main components

1962–63 DPR 419/1974 1990–98

2003

2008–16

Law 107/2015 The Good School

140

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Table 9.2 Learning to teach sequence in Italy Pre-service program Previous experience/ preparation Subject specialist degrees Higher secondary diploma for primary schoolteachers Ad hoc provision for secondary teachers (some pedagogical courses as supplement to their specialist degree) After 1998/1999: Four years of Primary Teacher Education (five since 2010) Two years of Secondary Teacher Training – SSIS then 1 year ‘active traineeship’ – TFA as ad hoc provision Law 107/2015 – The Good School reform Two years of theoretical preparation in a subject area and 24 credits (170 hours) of pedagogical or education sciences courses. Then national selection process to enter a three-year trial training with a paid contract by schools

→

→

Induction/entry to the profession Competitive national selections based on degrees and subjectbased tests (then one year of induction) and list-based recruitment

The final positive evaluation of the three-year trial training coincides with entering a permanent position as a civil servant with a private contract Training schools may grant civil servant status

→

→

Professional development Implemented on a voluntary basis up to the present day (despite 1974 Law)

Professional development as a professional duty and with some state financial support

Learning to teach expected outcomes Lisimberti’s literature review (2011) investigates the profile of research on teachers and teaching in Italy between 1960 and 2010. She identifies 179 studies and classifies them into 3 major areas – sociological, psychological and pedagogical – and from the point of view of their sample, research method or instrument and focus. The author considers that educational research has increased over recent years, with sociological studies receiving greater recognition. The research method is usually based on questionnaires (63.1 per cent) and most of these studies (64 per cent) use just one instrument. Just 13.4 per cent investigate initial teacher education over time, which has become a more significant topic from 2000 onwards, after the major reforms previously discussed: the move to higher education in the primary area and the professionalization through a two-year consecutive master’s in the secondary area. In addition, almost 70 per cent of these studies are conducted at a regional level in one or more cities and on small samples (86.6 per cent include less than 2,000 subjects). Most prestigious sociological studies are conducted by relevant foundations or associations,

Learning to Teach in Italy

141

mostly private and nonprofit (FGA, 2009; TRELLLE, 2004; IARD 1st, 2nd and 3rd studies: Cavalli, 1992; Cavalli, 2000; Cavalli and Argentin, 2010), on large samples and through structured self-administered questionnaires. The topic is usually quite general, descriptive and informative rather than analytic, and published in specialist monographs. Conversely, psychological studies tend to be based on tests and include a small number of participants, on narrow topics and aimed at a niche audience of scholars. Pedagogical research proved to be less rigorous from a methodological point of view and its impact on decision and policymaking was quite low. Other findings from this research review consist in a limited focus on international scholarship, linked to the exploratory character of such scholarship and limited methodological innovation (Lisimberti, 2011).

Methodological premise Given the characteristics of the Italian policy context and recent reform trends, a system of school assessment is now implemented. The creation by the Ministry of Education of a National Evaluation System around its major actor, the INVALSI agency, was the driving force for a new direction to improve the education system. In fact, a key policy was the introduction of an accountability system, implemented through INVALSI. Teachers and unions initially expressed criticism and resistance to the introduction of standardized tests at several key stages and more recently to staff differentiation through a performance-based pay mechanism. The need to cope with this reluctance represents one major motivation for introducing, as a first step, school assessment in the form of school self-evaluation for improvement. Very recently, external school assessment was conducted by teams of inspectors and largely based on the (English) Ofsted model of inspections, who undertook random visits in 10 per cent of Italian schools. Moreover, it can be argued that this growing assessment culture is also visible in the profile of teacher education scholarship. The capacity to conduct relevant studies on the Italian system of education, specifically on teachers and on their effectiveness, lies primarily with INVALSI as a major actor in the growing accountability culture, or is greatly facilitated by major research institutions. In fact, some of the INVALSI projects (Evaluation for the Development of School Quality and School Evaluation and Development) were instrumental in trialling assessment at the national level (Sistema Nazionale di Valutazione), and include self-evaluation and external evaluation of schools and support for improvement of school organization (Eurydice, 2016). In addition, as a consequence of a developing accountability culture, The Good School Law linked internal teacher assessment to the concept of performance-based pay. Head teachers are now called to implement performance-based pay for teachers. Such general principles of school accountability refer principally to teachers’ work in schools. Moreover, the research conducted so far has been mainly descriptive or based on teachers’ opinions and thus there is no robust tradition of investigating teacher effectiveness through classroom observation. This chapter is mainly based on (1) research reviews (Lisimberti, 2011; Abbiati, 2014), (2) historical scholarship (Semeraro, 1998; Mincu and Chiosso, 2009; Mincu, 2015) and (3) current system descriptions

142

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

(Cappa, Niceforo, Palomba, 2013; Eurydice, 2016). The other studies included are sociological research on the teaching profession. Based on this field recognition, three studies cover teacher effectiveness in various ways and are worthy of discussion:

1. The first study – Assessment and Improvement – is in continuity with the School Evaluation and Development project, linked to the implementation of a national system of school assessment. This unique study on teacher effectiveness through classroom observations is still ongoing and includes contextual data on teacher characteristics, which are not fully investigated as yet. 2. The second study is based on a large sample of newly appointed teachers in three cohorts and analyses teachers’ perceptions of initial teacher education based on their determinants and in relation to various professional competences (De Simone and Molina, 2012) (Table 9.3). 3. The third study – [email protected] – is one of the first randomized control trials, a study of a PD maths program, assessing its effects on students’ achievement (Argentin et al., 2014), only this study draws links between teacher preparation and their effectiveness. Teachers are provided with alternative solutions and methods for presenting traditional contents and it is expected that this may lead to better achievement of results. Another major INVALSI-led study (Assessment and Improvement) may present in the near future a further examination of the nexus between effectiveness and teacher characteristics.

Influences on learning to teach: A review of the empirical literature Table 9.3 Summary of studies illustrating the influence of national and local policy on learning to teach Overview School evaluation and development and School evaluation and improvement led by INVALSI and financed through the EU, on primary and lower secondary teachers De Simone and Molina (2012); 32,000 newly appointed teachers (both primary and secondary) over 2007–2009, overall 38.5 per cent of new Italian teachers

Data

Outcomes

Findings

Quali-quantitative; Use of data Findings from frequency online school, to produce tables report pedagogical parent and student improvements approaches of Italian questionnaires; First Understanding teachers linked to students’ project: school selfclassroom achievement. Possible evaluation practices correlation between Second project: contextual factors (teacher classroom preparation) and teacher observation protocol effectiveness – not as yet SSGC explored The determinants of Identifying Various teacher education teachers’ perceptions teachers’ routes are assessed of initial teacher strategic choices education in (instrumental relation to various variables) professional competences; one pooling sample

Learning to Teach in Italy

143

Evidence-based research and the assessment culture are also visible in the profile of teacher education scholarship. On the one hand, a highly unpredictable policy context may be seen as a relevant factor in the research profile. Closely linked to the major policy agenda of accountability are two projects and studies: the School Evaluation and Development project initiated in 2012 and the Assessment and Improvement project as a second phase. Both received European funding and involved primary and lower secondary schools. The first project required an experimental design of self and external school evaluation, based on the use of school achievement data and in order to stimulate school improvement. It included 288 schools in the external evaluation on a voluntary basis and a further 200 were involved in the self-evaluation process. The second project involved 416 comprehensive institutes and 30 higher secondary schools, of which 208 were observed through a Strategies, Support, Management, Climate protocol. The major aim was to unpack teacher classroom practices through multiple observations. Both projects were based on a mixed-methods research design and were conducted online through school, parent and student questionnaires. The findings on the use of questionnaires based on Poliandri and Sette (2013) are summarized below. Subjects answering the online questionnaires were as follows: 63,048 students (79 per cent of those expected to respond), 16,537 parents (48 per cent of those expected) and 18,315 teachers (76 per cent of those expected). Student questionnaires included schoolrelated self-efficacy, problematic behaviour and social acceptance scales. Parents’ questionnaires included perceptions of the teaching delivered, student well-being and school organization and functioning. Teachers’ questionnaires included a scale on the school ethos, school leadership and management, collaboration with students’ families and with local communities, teacher education, teacher collaboration and school policies. Each scale comprised ten items on pedagogical activities and strategies. In order to analyse the psychometric characteristics of each scale of these questionnaires, the researchers adopted confirmatory and exploratory factorial analysis. From this study, teacher education was indicated to be positively correlated with school management, and school-level policies to the education of both the lowest and the highest achievers. Both teachers and students agreed on the items related to the teaching activities and strategies: the most utilized strategy is checking on students’ understanding, while the least present is that of activities in groups or in pairs. Even if at this stage data was not linked to students’ achievement, there are some suggestive indications, especially for school improvement. The second project engaged with unpacking teacher classroom practices through observation (six observations for three lessons). Ferrer-Esteban, Mancini and Muzzioli (2015) examined the scales’ validity and reliability, which were considered good. So far, frequency tables are available and more is expected to be published as far as teacher practices are concerned. In addition, these data do not link the practices observed to what works in terms of effectiveness for students’ achievement. However, this preliminary analysis includes some suggestive findings. The observers were trained to identify not just the occurrence of various actions, but also to identify the correct/wrong actions. The mean points, measured on a scale from 1 (inadequate) to 7 (excellent) of various teachers’ competences, reach level 5 in one case (teachers’

144

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

behaviour facilitating learning), most of the time ranked between 4 and 5 (e.g. providing feedback, proposing structured activities, ongoing checking of students’ work, etc.), while the lowest competence is at level 2 (adapting the proposed activities to students’ differences). The suggestion is that Italian teachers do not adopt differentiation and often whole class teaching may become non-structured and teacher centred, and this finding correlates with what is reported in research reviews (e.g. Abbiati, 2014). In order to link the results of the study to achievement, students in the first lower secondary year were tested. Possible correlation between contextual factors, such as teacher characteristics and specifically their preparation, and teacher effectiveness has not been as yet explored by the INVALSI researchers and collaborators. Contextual data as well as previous achievement results (fifth elementary) have been included as controls to observe the quality indices of teaching practices and achievement results in the first lower secondary school (for Italian and Maths separately). To date, this study is one of the first to investigate teacher effectiveness through classroom observations; further examination of this data is expected. De Simone and Molina (2012), researchers affiliated with Fondazione Giovanni Agnelli (FGA), focus on how various types of initial teacher education are perceived by newly appointed teachers over a three-year period. Although the study cannot report on teacher effectiveness, it has many merits: it includes a large number of newly recruited teachers (32,000 newly appointed teachers over the 3 years of 2007–09; overall 38.5 per cent), both primary and secondary, and it adopts a sociological approach to identify the determinants of teachers’ perceptions linked to their various competences. Teachers held various types of certification for primary schoolteachers (usually with many years of experience as contract teachers): previous higher secondary certification, various types of academic degrees and the specific five-year concomitant program. The findings report comparatively on the various qualifications, and mainly on perceptions of the program for primary schoolteachers and on the two-year consecutive professional master’s. The first is valued positively in terms of evaluating and motivating pupils, but negatively in terms of acquiring competences of school management, creating good relationships with students, colleagues and parents, and competently making use of technologies. The second, available until 2008, was rather negatively valued by lower secondary teachers and, at the same time, mostly positively valued by higher secondary schoolteachers. Although the master’s was specifically designed as initial teacher education, unexpectedly these programs were used as PD for senior certified teachers (Table 9.4). The [email protected] study (Argentin et al., 2014) was supported by the Italian Ministry of Education and referred to a significant part of the lower secondary maths curriculum. It was first implemented in the northern regions and then was applied in four southern areas, with the lowest level in maths achievement. The gap between the northern and the southern regions widens in lower secondary, and Italy overall shows a dramatic decline in students’ performance from grade 4 (above international average) to grade 8 (below international average in Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) surveys of 2007 and 2011; see Argentin et al., 2014). It investigates the effects of a PD program to improving students’ knowledge and cognitive processes in algorithms and procedures, maths representations, problem-solving, measurement tools and logical thinking. The program involves the training of 100 tutors, who in turn

Learning to Teach in Italy

145

Table 9.4 Influences of immediate institutional arrangements and social groups on whether and how teachers learn to teach effectively Overview Maths, key learning through e-learning – [email protected] A large-scale randomized control trial assessing the effects of a PD program for maths teachers on their students’ achievement

Data A large-scale clustered randomized control trial, 175 lower secondary schools in some of the lowest performing Italian regions

Outcomes

Findings

Identify the No significant impact on impact of the maths scores during program on the first year. Some maths scores? heterogeneity detected: the program has an effect on middle-aged teachers; effects on teaching practices and student attitudes

are responsible for training almost 4,000 teachers nationwide. It is considered one of the most extensive and popular PD projects to date. The project was designed as a large-scale randomized controlled trial, involving 175 schools, 666 teachers and almost 11,000 students in 4 southern Italian regions. It was aimed at lower secondary teachers as a three-year experiment and enrolment was voluntary. In its first year, 473 teachers attended the program; 193 were considered as a control group and invited to attend the program during the following year; eighty-five dropped out before the beginning of the year but after the randomization. The final sample was composed of 409 individuals and 172 schools in the initial data set. Only 39 per cent of the teachers were compliant with the protocol and compliance was related to younger age, ICT familiarity, participation in previous PD activities and personal motivation to enrol in the program (instead of enrolment through a school initiative or senior staff recommendation). Seventy-six per cent enrolled upon the suggestion of their head teachers. The findings of this study are rather mixed. A major finding is that participation in the program had no significant impact on the maths scores. Argentin and colleagues (2014) report that ‘students in the classes where teachers participated in the M@t. abel …  actually present, ceteris paribus, an average slight advantage in the performance, although it is neither statistically significant nor substantially relevant’ (p. 112). Given the large sample size, the heterogeneity of effects has been explored among schools, teachers and students. A differential program effectiveness appears only with regard to teachers’ age. Students of middle-aged teachers (fifty to fifty-five years) show a significant positive effect of [email protected] in their average score (ITT 14.8, ATT 41.6). The same can be said about students’ attitudes: they are less likely to consider maths more difficult for them than for their peers; they report less frequently that they are experiencing learning difficulties due to the curriculum’s fast pace. These findings may suggest that middle-aged teachers managed the new approach better than others. Researchers investigated the effects of this program on teachers’ attitudes, knowledge and practices, collected through an original questionnaire that made use of some TIMSS items, as well as collaboration with peers and attitudes towards teaching (the way they think about teaching maths and the way they approach it). One year after the program, teachers became more eager to collaborate with peers at work: to prepare

146

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

better instructional materials and to discuss ways to present a concept to students. The authors conclude that ‘since collaboration among teachers can be considered one of the effectiveness-enhancing factors (Schreerens, 2000) and since [email protected] explicitly promoted it, this result seems particularly promising’ (p. 118). In addition, they suggest that the lack of overall effectiveness may be a result of the additional teachers’ effort required during the first year. Although the research conducted so far has been mainly descriptive or based on teachers’ opinions, the three studies considered proved to be relevant and worthy of discussion. From the study conducted by Poliandri and Sette (2013), based on exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis performed on questionnaires and previously discussed, it emerged that teacher education is positively correlated with effective school management, and school-level policies with the education of both the lowest and the highest achievers. In this study, school-level policies have been defined as whole school attention to inclusion of pupils with disabilities or from diverse backgrounds, as well as specific actions to support gifted and more talented students. Nevertheless, Italian schools are weakly regulated by policies at the school level, which tend to focus on more formal issues. In fact, the high autonomy of teachers is a major hindrance to the development of a more collaborative culture, linked to weak inputs from a rather formal and limited leadership on pedagogical issues. At the classroom level, both teachers and students agreed that the most utilized strategy, which is not a school policy but rather a consequence of a diffused pedagogical culture, is checking on students’ understanding, while the least present is that of activities in groups or in pairs. From robust classroom observations that lead to measuring various teachers’ competences, it emerged that Italian teachers effectively adopt behaviour that may facilitate learning, but are less effective in their teaching practices in providing feedback, proposing structured activities and checking students’ work. An interesting finding is that they are least competent in adapting proposed activities in response to students’ differences. The suggestion is that Italian teachers do not adopt differentiation and often whole class teaching may become non-structured and teacher centred (Abbiati, 2014).

Teacher education requirements Other findings report comparatively on the various qualifications, and mainly on perceptions of the five-year program for primary schoolteachers and on the twoyear consecutive professional master’s for secondary schoolteachers. Their structural diversity should be noted. The primary teacher preparation has been the result of a previous reform period and has been trialled for more than sixteen years. The secondary teacher preparation is still on paper and will be implemented in 2018. The primary teacher education program includes 30 exams (300 ECTS divided into 8 credits, the equivalent of 56 hours, and semestral courses of 4 CFU each of 28 hours), plus 600 hours of teaching practice in schools, both direct and indirect. Table 9.5 illustrates the ministerial requirements with which each teacher preparation program across Italy must comply. The ministerial requirements are further specified within each discipline, indicating with precision the types of knowledge in that field that can be offered. For

Learning to Teach in Italy

147

Table 9.5 The ministry requirements for primary teachers’ initial teacher education (ITE)

Foundational theoretical disciplines General and social pedagogy, 17 History of pedagogy, 8 Didactics and special pedagogy, 24 Experimental pedagogy, 13 Psychology of development and of education, 8 Sociological and anthropological disciplines, 8

‘School knowledge’

Activities in support of the inclusion of pupils with disabilities and learning difficulties

Mathematics, 22 Didactics and special Literary disciplines, 13 pedagogy, 10 Linguistics, 13 Clinical psychology Biology and ecology, 13 and hygiene-health History, disciplines, 8 Geography, Juridical and hygiene and Physics, 9 health, 10 Chemistry, 4 Arts, 9 Music, 9 Physical education, 9 Children’s literature, 9

Other activities English language laboratories, 12 Laboratory on the use of technologies in education, 3

instance, in physics the curriculum must draw exclusively on the formal fields of experimental physics (FIS/01), astronomy and astrophysics (FIS/05) and didactics and history of physics (FIS/08), and those who deliver this teaching must have scholarly expertise in the fields as university professors. In addition, the ministerial requirements are very specific about the number of credits to allocate to each of the five years. Below is an example of an elementary teacher preparation program (see Table 9.6). Other universities may offer slightly different courses, with respect to both formal fields of knowledge covered and weighting of credits. While the formal criteria may appear somewhat rigid, for example, offering few electives, in practice academic course directors have significant freedom to design the theory content, in the absence of prescribed standards for the teaching profession. Laboratory-based course leaders are often contract professors, holding a PhD and sometimes with first-hand school knowledge. However, laboratory teaching may often offer theory replication than a link to clinical practice. The relationship between academics, laboratory teachers and the team of mentors in charge of fieldwork supervision is not described in the official ministry requirements. The secondary teacher course is yet to be implemented, from 2018, and the first teachers will be in schools from 2020, graduating every two years. Its main phases are the following: (1) national public selection, organized on a regional or inter-regional basis; (2) three years of initial teacher education, school practice, distinguishing between whole class teachers and special education needs teachers for selected candidates; (3) an access procedure to permanent teaching job positions, after positive evaluations of the training. Since the program is still on paper, various experts have been critical about its design, the use of centralized selection, the underlying fragmented logic of ‘first theory, then practice’. The problem is to be identified in a long-standing and widely diffused cultural premise, according to which teaching is reliable when it is conducted on separated fields of knowledge, clearly separated by neat borders, by specialized

General pedagogy, 8 Psychology of development, 8 Cfu History of the school and of educational institutions, 8 Geography (with laboratory), 9 Modern and contemporary history, 8 Cfu Methods of educational research (with laboratory), 7 Didactics and methodology of physical education (with laboratory), 9 English language laboratory, I 4 Cfu

First year

General didactics (with laboratory), 12 Classical civilizations, 8 Sociology of educational relationships, 8 Cfu Italian literature (with laboratory), 13 Elementary maths (with laboratory on maths didactics), 11 Clinical practice, 5 Cfu English language laboratory II, 2

Second year Special needs pedagogy (with laboratory), 10 Social and intercultural pedagogy (with laboratory), 9 Children’s literature (with laboratory), 9 History of contemporary art (with laboratory), 9 Italian language and grammar (with laboratory), 13 Elective eight credits: Forms and models of philosophical thought; the teaching profession and the innovation of the school system; social psychology of the family English language laboratory III, 2 B2 level English certification, 2 Clinical practice, 5

Third year

Table 9.6 Initial teacher education (ITE) at the Catholic University in Milan

Methods and tools of assessment, 6 Elementary geometry (with laboratory of geometry didactics), 11 Didactics and the use of technologies in education, 12 Earth science and nutrition (with laboratory of nutrition), 13 Psychology of education (with laboratory), 9 Laboratory of the use of technology in education, 3 English language laboratory IV, 1 Clinical practice, 7 Cfu

Fourth year

Experimental physics (with laboratory of didactics of physics), 9 Elementary chemistry (with laboratory), 4 Musical communication (with laboratory), 9 Clinical psychology, 8 School legislation, 4 English language laboratory V, 1 Clinical practice, 7 Final teaching assessment, 9

Fifth year

148

Learning to Teach in Italy

149

teachers that work in separation, in distinctive classes and periods of time; in addition, it occurs in school structures reciprocally impermeable and deemed to be, by social reputation, of first class (the academic path – licei), second class (technical schools – istituti tecnici), third class (a professional path organized by the state – professionali) and fourth class (regionally offered professional training – formazione professionale). The primary teachers’ path is valued positively in terms of evaluating and motivating pupils, but negatively in terms of acquiring competencies of school management, creating good relationships with students, colleagues and parents, and competently making use of technologies. The two-year master’s, available until 2008, was rather negatively valued by lower secondary teachers and, at the same time mostly positively valued by higher secondary schoolteachers. From this study, it can be argued that the new training paths provided at the university level are rather weak, especially on professional competences such as, for example, classroom management and the integration of ICT into teaching. This finding can also be explained by the profile of the teacher education curriculum in Italy: the courses offered are not informed by teaching standards, since the teaching profession lacks such a regulation system, but informed by a purely academic logic, on the model of education sciences degrees. Teacher education and training has also been subject to some incipient forms of accountability, with the aim of introducing more coherence into the training provision. Thus, an accreditation process of training offerings abides by new rules, such as more formal requirements about the organization of courses through credit numbers, necessary human resources and types of knowledge areas to be covered in training. In primary and pre-primary preparation at the university level, this emerging accountability system of teacher education is rather formal and quantitative in nature. In fact, it does not regulate the content of teacher education but merely provides some orientation towards competences that are locally and formally identified by each primary teachers program. Better trained and younger teachers, as well as those working in northern regions of the country, are more critical of the training received. Older generations and those less exposed to PK as secondary teachers proved to be more satisfied with their training. As shown in the case of the two-year master’s, originally designed as initial teacher education, there was an unexpected outcome: senior certified teachers used it as a PD opportunity. Centrally defined national policies influence the design and impact of teacher preparation, the balance between the academic and more practicebased components of their curriculum, as well as the availability of CPD provision. As previously shown, in this centralized education system, teacher preparation programs are centrally designed from a disciplinary and academic logic of the fields of theoretical knowledge that contribute to define the offering. There are no specific requirements for the academic course leaders to collaborate with laboratory teachers in order to integrate their respective teaching elements more deeply, nor to liaise with the schools providing professional practice modules and to observe, for instance, their trainees in clinical practice. In the absence of more specific policy requirements for this higher education path into teaching, academic logic prevails and coherence between the various components is not supported. In addition, CPD has only recently been endorsed as compulsory and resources announced in the National Plan of Teacher Education.

150

148

Conclusions Many experts consider Minister Gentile as by far the most influential personality in Italian education. His idealist conception and appreciation for the intellectual sphere led him not only to design a very selective and elitist education system, but also to influence the conception of teacher preparation. First, he eliminated the component of clinical practice from the preparation of primary schoolteachers with the aim of cancelling the prevailing positivistic tradition, which was based on uncritical observation and imitation. Until then, secondary Normal Schools for teacher preparation used to be complemented by an attached school of practice. Second, he assumed that disciplinary knowledge was sufficient for the teaching profession. At a time when the selective education had turned into a more equitable welfarist system (Mincu, 2015), a new idea of the teacher based on specific competences partly overcame this tradition. In spite of a positive trend such as the university incorporation in 1997/1998, teacher preparation continued to be relatively fragmented and subject to frequent changes, particularly secondary teacher education, with three different provisions over the past sixteen years. The most significant policy change in this field is Law 107/2015 (The Good School), which attempts to connect secondary initial teacher education with recruitment in order to overcome the extensive use of contract teachers. However, the proposed sequentiality between theoretical preparation and clinical practice as in the new model for primary schoolteachers initial education is a clear risk to quality preparation. The new training paths provided at the university level are deemed effective in terms of promoting teacher competences to motivate or assess pupils, but weak in terms of promoting specific professional competences such as, for example, classroom management, collegial collaboration and the integration of technologies into teaching because the teacher education curriculum in Italy is not informed by teaching standards or specific competences, but regulated by a purely academic logic, on the model of education sciences degrees. The research impact on teacher education policy is rather weak and the reasons are various. First, research on teacher education is incipient in this country. It is nevertheless significant that a ministry of education research institution, such as INVALSI, has turned its attention to this area and further consolidation of this research can be expected. Second, the very specific demand and supply profile of the market for teachers in this country has to be considered. The pressure comes in this case from an inflated supply side, given the high intellectual unemployment. Thus teacher recruitment is foremost an economic and political matter of concern, often dealt with in response to political pressures and at high speed. Third, the role of the universities to investigate teachers’ education and work has been minimal and, most importantly, the link between academia and those involved with system governance at the central level is quite weak. Since the governance of the Italian system of education is largely based on laws, following a centralization model, a softer instrument more suitable to mobilize academic research knowledge across the system, such as the use of education policies, produced in collaboration between policymakers and researchers, is virtually unknown.

Learning to Teach in Italy

151

In conclusion, research on the impact of teacher education is a growing area of interest in Italy, and this closely correlates to the need to develop studies on teacher effectiveness. In turn, it is expected that research results may gradually inform national policies of relevance to the teaching profession.

References Abbiati, G. (2014). Bilancio di 50 anni di ricerca sugli insegnanti nella scuola italiana. Principali risultati e nuove tendenze. [50 years of research on teachers in Italy]. Scuola Democratica, 3, pp. 503–24. Argentin, G., Pennisi, A., Vidoni, D., Abbiati, G. and Caputo, A. (2014). Trying to raise (low) Maths achievement and to promote (rigorous) policy evaluation in Italy: Evidence from a large-scale randomized trial. Evaluation Review, 38(2), pp. 99–132 Associazione TREELLLE (2004). Quali insegnanti per la scuola dell’autonomia? Dati, analisi e proposte per valorizzare la professione. [What teachers for an autonomous school? Data, analysis and strategies to strengthen the profession]. Genova: Associazione TREELLLE. Bordignon, M. and Fontana, A. (2010). Federalismo e istruzione. La scuola italiana nell’ambito del processo di decentramento istituzionale [Federalism and education: The Italian school and institutional decentralisation]. Working Paper. Torino: Fondazione Giovanni Agnelli. Available at www.fga.it. Cappa, C., Niceforo, O. and Palomba, D. (2013). Initial teacher education in Italy. Revista Españ ola de Educación Comparada, 22, pp. 139–63. Cavalli, A. (1992). Insegnare oggi. Prima indagine Iard sulle condizioni di vita e di lavoro nella scuola italiana. [Teaching today. First IARD inquiry into living and working in the Italian school]. Bologna: Il Mulino. Cavalli, A. (2000). Gli insegnanti nella scuola che cambia. Seconda indagine IARD sulle condizioni di vita e di lavoro nella scuola italiana. [Teacher and a changing school: Second IARD inquiry into living and working in the Italian school]. Bologna: Il Mulino. Cavalli, A. and Argentin, G. (2010). Gli insegnanti italiani: come cambia il modo di fare scuola: terza indagine dell’istituto IARD sulle condizioni di vita e di lavoro nella scuola italiana. [The Italian teachers and the change in doing school. Third IARD inquiry into living and working in the Italian school]. Bologna: Il Mulino. CERI (1994). Quality in Teaching. Paris: OECD. Chiosso, G. (2002). Le dé bat sur la formation des enseignants en Italie [The teacher training debate in Italy]. Politiques d’é ducation et de formation. Analyses et comparaisons internationales, 2, pp. 81–94 De Simone, G. and Molina, S. (2012). Quello che le neoassunte (non) dicono. I giudizi di un contingente triennale di neo-immessi in ruolo sull’adeguatezza della propria formazione iniziale. [What the new teachers do not say. The views of a new teachers on their initial teacher education]. Torino: FGA. Eurydice (2016). Italy: Conditions of Service for Teachers Working in Early Childhood and School Education. Available at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice /index.php/Italy:Conditions_of_Service_for_Teachers_Working_in_Early_Childh ood_and_School_Education

152

148

Ferrer-Esteban, G., Mancini, L. and Muzzioli, P. (2015). Checklist e scale di valutazione. Attendibilità , validità e primi risultati. [Checklist and evaluation scales: reliability, validity and first results]. Rome: FGA & INVALSI. Fondazione Giovanni Agnelli – FGA (2009). Rapporto sulla scuola in Italia 2009. [Report on the school in Italy 2009]. Bari-Roma: Laterza. Fondazione Giovanni Agnelli – FGA (2015). Note sulle linee guida del nuovo Sistema di formazione iniziale e di accesso nei ruoli di docente nella scuola secondaria previste dalla delega al Governo della legge 107/2015. [Notes on the system of initial teacher education and secondary school recruitment as per 107/2015 delegated act]. Torino: FGA. Available at www.fga.it. Granello, S. (2010). Il bilancio delle scuole, questo sconosciuto [The school balance sheet]. Torino: Fondazione Giovanni Agnelli. Lisimberti, C. (2011) La ricerca educativa in Italia. Il caso delle indagini sugli insegnanti (1960-2010) [Educational research in Italy. The case of the studies on teachers], paper in The future of the pedagogical research and its evaluation. Paper presented in Macerata, 23–25 March 2011. Mincu, M. (2015). The Italian middle school in a deregulation era: Italian modernity through path dependency and global models, Comparative Education, 51(3), pp. 446–62. Mincu, M. and Chiosso, G. (2009). Imagined globalisation in Italian education: Discourse and action in initial teacher training. In M. T. Tatto and M. Mincu (eds.) (2009). Reforming Teaching and Learning: Comparative Perspectives in a Global Era. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers & WCCES (World Council of Comparative Education Societies). Poliandri, D. and Sette, S. (2013). Questionari studenti, insegnanti e genitori. Progetti Valutazione e Sviluppo Scuola (VALES) e Valutazione e Miglioramento (VM). Caratteristiche psicometriche e utilizzo delle informazioni nell’autovalutazione delle scuole. [Student teachers and parents questionnaires. VALES and VM projects]. Rome: INVALSI. Schreerens, J. (2000). Improving School Effectiveness. Fundamental of Educational Planning: Paris: UNESCO. Semeraro, A. (1998). Il sistema scolastico italiano. Profilo storico [The Italian system of education. A historical perspective]. Roma: Carocci.

10

How Teachers Learn to Teach: The Impact of Teacher Reforms in Japan Gerald LeTendre and Sakiko Ikoma

Introduction Japanese teacher education and professional development offer a complex case study that is useful when comparing national models of teacher preparation around the world. Like Finland and Singapore, Japanese education has been touted by some as a superior system that has much to offer the world (Stigler and Hiebert, 1999). At the same time, critics of Japanese education abound; Japanese scholars have been quick to point out the flaws of the Japanese educational system (Horio, 1988) and teachers’ responsibilities for these problems (Yoneyama, 1999). Japanese educational practices have been transmitted internationally – by force during Japan’s colonization of South Korea and Taiwan (e.g. Tsurumi, 1977) and, more recently, by policy borrowing of reforms based on Japanese teacher practices, for example, lesson study (Akiba, 2016; Fernandez and Yoshida, 2004; Lewis and Perry, 2014). This chapter seeks to provide a general context for how teachers learn their profession within a broader cultural context impacted by reforms that are themselves products of a political process. To understand what teachers need to know, we need to understand both the cultural expectations placed on Japanese teachers and the political efforts that have tried to shape schooling and the teaching profession. In Kariya and Kaneko’s edited book on sociology of teacher evaluation, Kaneko (2010) argues that Japanese teachers must deal with at least two spheres of valid knowledge: a teachergenerated knowledge and the demands placed on them by an evolving system of teacher accountability, for example, teacher evaluation system proposed under Prime Minister Mori in 2000 (Kariya and Kaneko, 2010). We argue that there are three distinct spheres of knowledge and professional activity – academic, practitioner and bureaucratic – that are critical to understand the Japanese system as a whole. Practitioner (i.e. teachergenerated pedagogical) knowledge is distinct from the academic knowledge generated by university researchers and from the bureaucratic knowledge codified in publications and policies of various reform councils and committees. Knowledge in these spheres is developed and disseminated in distinct ways with different foci and priorities.

154

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Overview of the chapter In the following sections of the chapter, we will briefly discuss the methods used to review literature that provides more detailed background on the political forces that affect teacher education and professional development in Japan. Based on the literature review, we argue that the way in which political conflict has shaped the professional development activities and the professional status of teachers is essential to understanding how the three different spheres of knowledge affect the three major stages in a teacher’s working life: recruitment and pre-service education, placement and professional development and re-certification and career growth. In the following sections, we highlight what knowledge or training is emphasized at each of these stages – who sets the standards for teachers and how and what is tested on various methods used to measure teacher performance (e.g. license examinations). Next, we analyse how changing social and economic conditions have affected teachers, universities and the government. We argue that concerns about global competition, student academic performance and educational innovation have placed great pressure to develop new knowledge in all three spheres. We conclude with a discussion of how the interplay of these spheres of knowledge with teachers’ professional trajectories presents challenges to defining a single, common body of knowledge about effective teaching.

Methods The primary means of gaining information on how teachers learn came from a literature review in English and Japanese of studies of teacher education, professional development and work roles. Key knowledge claims about content of pre-service and professional development learning are drawn primarily from ethnographic studies (e.g. Sato, 2004; Shimahara and Sakai, 1995; Tobin, Wu and Davidson, 1989) with reliance on other comparative work (Stigler and Hiebert, 1999) and Japanese source material (Kariya and Kaneko, 2010; Sato, 2015). Table 10.1 shows representative studies that provide detailed information about the kinds of tasks Japanese teachers are expected to do and what kind of knowledge they need to possess in order to carry out these tasks. The secondary source of information comes from quantitative cross-national studies (e.g. Desimone et al., 2005; LeTendre et al., 2001) that examine the instructional practices and working patterns of teachers based on cross-national surveys. These ethnographic and statistical findings are supplemented by a review of how federal-level reforms and changing socio-demographics have affected the status of the profession and professional development. As part of a larger project on national educational policy generation, a team of researchers identified teacher-related reforms in Japan from 1980 to 2015 using Japanese policy materials from the Ministry of Education. These materials were subsequently reviewed using the following questions:

i. How are effective teaching practices defined? ii. What groups or organizations (e.g. universities) are acknowledged as legitimate sources of valid knowledge for teaching practice?

How Teachers Learn to Teach in Japan

155

Table 10.1 Representative studies Study

Data

Recruitment and Pre-Service Shimahara and Ethnographic Sakai (1995) Ota (2000) Literature Review Suzuki (2013) Literature Review Placement and Professional Growth Shimahara and Sakai (1995) Sato (1996)

Ethnographic

Ahn (2014)

Qualitative

Ethnographic

Major findings Pre-service education serves to select and presocialize high-ability groups of teacher recruits Government attempts to ‘create a new kind of teacher’ via teacher education reform Social problems motivated teacher education reform Similar reactions towards pre-service; extended, loosely coupled mentoring in Japan. Teachers form strong, communities of practice focused on students that share information Teacher’s room fosters information exchange, mentoring

Re-certification and Career Growth Kariya and Kaneko (2010) Akiba and LeTendre (2009) Fraser-Abder and Chen (2013) Sato (2015)

Survey and Ethnographic Survey and Ethnographic Literature Review

Focuses on teacher evaluation and describes the conflict between government and teachers Discusses the effects of practices like lesson study and mandatory rotation Highly developed professional development activities by teachers, distinct from academic educational research Cross-national Japan heavily focused on the trait approach to define analyses teaching as a profession, but reforms should be (TIMSS and PISA) done to shift to a knowledge approach

iii. Is there reference to empirical studies, particularly those that focus on pedagogical content knowledge?

iv. What types of teacher evaluation or testing mechanisms, if any, have been proposed?

Historical context Long-term conflict between the state (e.g. the government) and teachers’ organizations (e.g. unions) has resulted in three distinct spheres of knowledge. The development of different knowledge spheres and the distinct stages of a teachers’ career have roots in the formation of the modern Japanese school system. For much of the post-Second World War period, teachers, academics and professional bureaucrats (e.g. Boards of Education and the Ministry) have been organized in ways that allow each to maintain a distinct focus on a set of activities related to knowledge about teaching. The erosion of these boundaries from the 1980s onwards has resulted in a shift in control over knowledge production and dissemination in the post-university (professional development) period of a teacher’s career trajectory. In the modern era (1868–present), the Japanese state asserted control over the general content of the curriculum, but often left the enactment (i.e. how to teach) and

156

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

development of knowledge of effective instructional practice to teachers (Lincicome, 1995). Arani, Fukaya and Lassegard (2010) document that early forms of teacher-led research and even ‘lesson study’ were occurring as early as 1880 in Japan. The imposition of reforms in the post-Second World War period opened the way for teachers to once again take an active role in controlling professional development knowledge (Duke, 1973; Wray, 1991). An elaborate system of teacher examination, post-baccalaureate induction and long-term expectations for professional development evolved in which teachers maintained significant control over how to teach, while university-based teacher education programs played a minor role (Amano, 1990, 1997; Shiina and Chonan, 1993; Shimahara, 1995). The strong professional development system that characterizes Japan and informs much of what teachers are expected to learn can be traced back to the reforms instituted by the Allied occupation after the Second World War. Post-war ‘cleansing’ of the education system (Wray, 1991) led to the removal of many graduates of teachers’ schools (shihan gakkou) and the rise of teacher union militancy and teacher political mobilization for social justice (Duke, 1973; Thurston, 1973). While constructivist trends can be identified even in the early modern period of Japan (Arani, Fukaya, and Lassegard, 2010; Lincicome, 1995), the embrace of socialist ideologies appears to have been critical to the mobilization of teachers to take more direct control over their classrooms, the curriculum and the kinds of values teachers sought to promote (Horio, 1988). Duke (1973) argues that the post-war union activity centred around defining what he called the ‘teacher’s last preserve – the autonomy of the classroom’ (p. 198). Throughout the late 1940s and 1950s, teachers’ unions were highly active in creating a system of inquiry and study, known as the Educational Research Movement that placed emphasis on practice-based knowledge for teachers (see Horio, 1988, pp. 260– 4). Union activity was important in blocking ministerial reforms that aimed to evaluate or control teachers (Schoppa, 1991). Although the unions were not able to realize the full implementation of democratic reforms they had hoped for, they succeeded in reinforcing teacher autonomy about how to teach and manage their classrooms (see also Aspinall, 2001). Table 10.2 provides an attenuated timeline of major teacher-related reforms in the post-Second World War era. The early part of the post-war period saw the highest levels of teacher union activity and teacher political involvement (Duke, 1973). Union activism gradually declined in the 1970s. The election of Yasuhiro Nakasone in 1983 marked a major shift in federal policy with the institution of the Reform Council. This council and subsequent advisory bodies and councils continue to play a major role in shaping Japanese educational policy.1 The activities of the council and other government-related groups are often cited as evidence by Japanese scholars that the bureaucratic assessment of what is valid knowledge about effective teaching practice constitutes a distinct and influential sphere of knowledge (Horio, 1988). This bureaucratic sphere of knowledge draws on evidence and practice generated by academics and teachers, but is adjudicated by political actors whose primary concern 1

Table 10.2 does not record the loss of power by the Liberal Democratic Party in the early 2000s, which temporarily halted the implementation of reforms until the LDP regained power.

How Teachers Learn to Teach in Japan

157

Table 10.2 Timeline of major teacher-related educational reforms Year

Event

1947

Revision of Fundamental Law of Education Union Activity versus Reassertion of Federal Government

1950s

1960s–70s

1984

2000

2001

2002

2006 2007

2012

2015

2016

Impact

Broad impacts on educational system, including shift from ‘teacher colleges’ to college/university-based programs (Amano (1997); Wray (1991)) Unions mobilized to defend teacher autonomy over what teachers need to know and maintained some control over what to teach (Duke (1973); Thurston (1973)). The Ministry of Education asserts national curriculum has force of law; teachers required to follow curriculum. (Hirata (2012); Schoppa (1991)) Federal councils The federal government continued to organize committees and lesson study that sought to define the standards for teacher development competencies, especially in teacher education. Teachers themselves elaborated the professional development commonly known as ‘lesson study’ Reform Council Federal government sets up a ‘special’ committee on education reform which grows and expands interest in teacher-related reforms (Roesgaard (1998); Suzuki (1990)) Seventeen Educational These propositions were made by Prime Minister Mori. Propositions One proposition was aimed at creating a system where teachers’ motivation and efforts will pay off and be evaluated accurately (Kariya and Kaneko (2010). Control of local teacher councils transferred to principal (Hirata (2012)) Public Service Personnel Instituted ability-based pay for teachers and other forms of System Reform accountability (Kariya and Kaneko (2010); Koike, Hori and Kabeshima (2006)) Yutori education ‘The curricular revision introduced a 5-day school week reform and an integrated study period …, as well as further decreasing instructional hours and streamlining curricular content for the first 9 years of compulsory education’ (Takayama (2007), p. 423) Public Service Personnel Municipalities have increased freedom in terms of System Reform personnel expenses (Seno (2010)) Teacher Certification Teacher Certification Renewal System was established in Renewal System 2007 and has been in effect since 2009. Teachers must renew certification every ten years (attempts made between 2009 and 2012 to repeal the reform failed) (Akiba (2013)) Teacher Evaluation An idea to assign responsibility for teacher evaluation to Reform the boards of education and principals was included in policy agenda (Liberal Democratic Party of Japan (2012)) Quality and Workforce Central Council for Education implements plans for Reforms long-term development of teacher quality and teaching workforce monitoring (Central Council for Education (2015)) Professional Policy proposed to reform recruitment, employment, Development professional development for teachers (MEXT (2016)) Reforms

158

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

is promoting policy agendas, not assessing pedagogical effectiveness. This has resulted in flashpoints over what should be taught (e.g. history textbook controversies; see Horio, 1988, pp. 189–212) or the use of the national anthem or flag (Aspinall and Cave, 2001; Befu, 1992). Since the 1980s, declines in teacher political activism and union strength have seen the expansion of governmental control over educational standards in general (Horio, 1988; Roesgaard, 1998; Schoppa, 1991). Economic malaise, increasing social inequality and concomitant social problems in the 1980s and 1990s have contributed to a long-term decline in teacher social status (Gordon, 2005). Major reforms of teacher certification and standards (Akiba, 2013) resulted in lessened control over the production and transmission of practitioner knowledge by teachers. For example, the control of teacher councils was transferred to principals in 2000 under the School Education Act (Hirata, 2012). Japanese scholars have criticized the government’s imposition of standards and its motives (Fujita, 2014; Kariya and Kaneko, 2010). The battles between the Ministry of Education and the teachers’ unions have been interpreted by some as deliberate and hostile attempts by the Ministry to control teachers’ authority, and to undermine the quality of professional development that teachers create. Horio (1988) writes, ‘The Ministry of Education has gone to great lengths to restrain teachers’ freedom to engage in independently organized research activities’ (p. 248). Horio (1988) argues that the kinds of in-service provided by local boards of education focus on promoting the Ministry directives, and not on advancing teachers’ pedagogical or administrative skills. Since the 1990s, it is clear that the government has succeeded in at least defining a set of standards of the kinds of knowledge that aspiring teachers must acquire. The basic plan of study for students enrolled in an elementary education regular license program includes eight traditional subject matter courses (i.e. language, social studies, mathematics, science, music, art, home economics and physical education), in addition to courses in educational psychology and child development (Nagoshi, 1990, p. 15). Since 2015, the following topics have been made mandatory for the teacher licensure exam for elementary schoolteachers (MEXT, n.d.). ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Subjects related to the teaching profession (educational theory) Japanese language Social studies Mathematics Science Development and socialization Music Art Home economics Physical education

In setting these standard knowledge content areas, the government has attempted to validate certain kinds of knowledge as required for teaching, but also to limit or de-legitimize other kinds of knowledge. The identification of the topics listed above is

How Teachers Learn to Teach in Japan

159

not justified in the Ministry publications on the basis of scientific research, but it rather reflects an incremental or historical effect of what subjects have traditionally been expected of teachers working with students at this age level. Within specific subject areas (e.g. science), topics are continually being updated, but it is not clear if these revisions have a strong basis in empirically tested research. The focus of the topics required under the new teaching certification laws is linked to research literature in government documentation (Akiba, 2013).

Spheres of knowledge and stages of teaching Today, in Japan, a teacher’s lifetime career can be characterized as having three major stages: recruitment and pre-service education, placement and professional development and re-certification and career growth. In the recruitment and preservice stage, future teachers compete to enter the best university possible (Cummings, Amano and Kitamura, 1979). Entrance exams are primarily used to assess academic potential (Zeng, 1999). During their undergraduate studies, student teachers are exposed to academic research and educational theories. Near the end of their course of study, they typically engage in a brief practicum of student teaching in actual schools which exposes them to practitioner knowledge. During the placement and professional development stages, teachers are assigned to and rotated among schools by the board of education. During the first few years, young teachers experience a probationary period where they are expected to learn from senior teachers, attend board of education workshops and design and demonstrate their skills in planning and delivering lessons (Lewis, 1995; Shimahara and Sakai, 1995; Stigler and Stevenson, 1991). At this stage they are primarily exposed to practitioner knowledge delivered by their immediate peers, but also to bureaucratic knowledge about the professions in the form of board of education orientation sessions. After ten years of teaching, teachers are generally recognized as ‘veterans’ by their peers and expected to have a solid grasp of how to manage a class, subject materials, the duties of a homeroom teacher and how the school itself is organized and operates. At this stage, Japanese teachers are formally required to take courses to re-certify their license which again brings them into contact with academic and bureaucratic spheres of knowledge. However, many teachers at this stage engage in classroom-based research within their own subject area (kenkyuukai – see examples in Fernandez and Yoshida, 2004). They may also engage in professional development courses offered by private providers.

Pre-service, student teaching and teacher examinations In Japan, pre-service teacher education, student teaching, and in-service education are not systematically related to each other. Obara, Takahashi and Nakazawa, 1993, p. 35

160

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Pre-service education is largely disconnected from the actual job of teaching, but it serves a sorting or selection function, identifying academically talented young people especially those from poor families (Furusawa and Yoneda, 2011). Pre-service education also has important secondary functions of anticipatory socialization towards a profession that requires long hours, high-profile status in local communities, significant teamwork and ability to work in hierarchical organizations and a strong commitment to ongoing personal development. License examination/certification identifies higher and lower levels of training (e.g. two-year versus four-year colleges); teacher work culture in elementary and middle grades emphasizes a generalist approach with heavy socio-emotional learning, while secondary education emphasizes subject or technical specialty application.

Pre-service education The reforms instituted after the Second World War affected not only the relationship between teachers’ unions and the government, but also the relationship between universities and teachers. The pre-war Normal Schools were abolished, and teacher education courses were offered in both two-year (tanki daigaku) and four-year (daigaku) colleges (Sato and Ushiwata, 1988–1989, p. 58). Japan has a very rigid status hierarchy of universities in which a degree from a four-year college outweighs a degree from a two-year college, and this is reflected in the types of certification Japanese teachers can receive. The course work required of teachers is based on the type of certification to be received, ‘common, special, and temporal’. The common certificate differentiates between elementary, ‘junior high school’ or middle grades, and secondary focus, and is also affected by the degree the person earned (i.e. a master’s degree, four-year college degree or two-year college degree; see Ota, 2000, p. 44). While the Ministry of Education (MEXT) sets these standards, it appears that colleges and universities have significant leeway in adjusting the content of the classes offered. A detailed history of the nature of the curriculum and the reforms of the late 1990s can be found in Ota (2000). An example of the requirements for the teacher education degree from Tsukuba University (one of the leading teacher education institutions) is translated in Table 10.3. As in other nations, teacher education programs in Japan aimed at preparing teachers for lower secondary or upper secondary schools which tended to focus more heavily on subject matter specialization. For example, Peterson (2005) notes that ‘a junior high school teacher of mathematics must take at least 40 college credits in mathematics’ (p. 63). In Japan, the college major is decided by students when selecting a college, so choosing to apply to a college of education as an institution is attractive for those who want a career oriented around children. Education majors in Japan encounter a concurrent model of teacher preparation in which academic and professional focus subjects are studied simultaneously (OECD, 2005). The basic curriculum for the teaching certificate covers the purpose of teaching as a profession, basic theories of education and subjects related to curriculum and teaching. At least for elementary- and middle-grade teachers,

Required Courses

Classification

Subjects related to basic theories of education

Subjects related to purpose of teaching as a profession

• Physical and mental maturation and learning in early childhood (including students with disabilities and their process of development and learning)

• Purpose of teaching as a profession/role of the teacher • Aspects of teaching (including professional development requirements, dress codes and tenure) • Career options and opportunities for prospective teachers • Philosophy of education, history and theories of education • Sociological, institutional and managerial elements related to education

Course related to teaching as a profession

Subjects required under the Teacher Certification Act

Table 10.3 Example teacher course of study plan

6

2

MS

6

2

HS

Credits

Basic education 1 Basic education 2 Basic education 3 Basic theories of education Management, organization and social context of schools Education psychology 1 Education psychology 2 Education psychology 3

Theory of teaching as a profession

Course titles

1 1 1

1 1 1 2 2

2

Available credits

3

3

2

MS

First

First

Second

First

Years taken

(Continued )

3

3

2

HS

Required credits

Courses offered at the University of Tsukuba

161

Total

• Theory and methodology of career advising for students

Instructional techniques for special activities Instructional techniques for academic subjects Theory and methodology of student guidance Theory and methodology of education counselling (including general knowledge of counselling)

Practice teaching Practicum for teaching as a profession

Subjects related to guidance and counselling

• • • •

• Instructional techniques for moral education

• Purpose of curriculum and methods to construct curriculum • Methods and skills/techniques of education (including the usage of information technologies and materials)

Subjects required under the Teacher Certification Act

Subjects related to curriculum and teaching instruction

31

5 2

4

12

23

3 2

4

6

Total

Practice teaching Practicum for teaching as a profession

51

5 2

1

26

5 2

1

3

1 6

2

1

1

1 1 1 1 1   1 1 1

1

1

5 2

1

3

1 4

 

1

 

1

Courses offered at the University of Tsukuba Education materials and methodologies 1 Education materials and methodologies 2 Special education Moral education 1 Moral education 2 Special activities Teaching instructions Student guidance and education counselling 1 Student guidance and education counselling 2 Student guidance and education counselling 3 Student career advising

Fourth Fourth

Third

Third

Second  

Second

Third

Source: The table was retrieved from the official website of the University of Tsukuba: http://www.tsukuba.ac.jp/education/tt-programs/pdf/30s1.pdf (p. 3, originally in Japanese). Note: MS refers to ‘middle school (Grades 7 through 9)’, and HS refers to ‘high school (Grades 10 through 12)’.

Required Courses

Table 10.3 (Continued)

162

How Teachers Learn to Teach in Japan

163

there is still an expectation of the teacher to provide moral guidance and affect the emotional development of the student, rather than simple function as a knowledge authority (Ito, 2010). Historically, colleges of education were perceived as routes for poor but aspiring students to attain professional status by becoming teachers. Teachers are public servants in Japan and have a relatively high status and salaries compared to other nations (Akiba et al., 2012). These factors mean that colleges of education are able to recruit students with high academic skills. Over time, there has been a decline in the percentage of university graduates obtaining teaching certificates falling to less than 20 per cent by the late 1990s (Okano and Tsuchiya, 1999, p. 145). However, this appears to have as much to do with Japan’s shrinking school-age population as with change in the status of the teaching profession. Most of the research literature on teacher education in Japan emphasizes the selection and status allocation functions of universities, not the content or standards of teacher education itself. Tanaka, Uesugi, and Shiraishi (1993) writes, ‘Thus, teacher education programs tend to offer only the minimal requirements for obtaining teachers’ certificates’ (p. 59). Shimahara (1988) described the contribution of universities to teacher’s professional development as ‘quite limited’ (p. 451). Work by Japanese scholars like Shimahara suggests that pre-service education in Japan provides subject matter or curricular knowledge, but not pedagogical content knowledge (see Tatto, Rodriguez and Lu, 2015). Huang and Oga-Baldwin (2015) found that new Japanese teachers rated their university training significantly lower than new Taiwanese teachers (p. 586). Akiba (2013) states, ‘Japanese universities have never taken an active role in offering professional development courses’ (p. 132). Japanese universities, facing their own crises during this period (Eades, Goodman and Hada, 2005), have failed to advance a cohesive view of pedagogical content knowledge. New teachers in Japan, in general, do not feel that their university training provides them with the knowledge they need to teach. Tanaka, Uesugi and Shiraishi (1993) surveyed 510 teachers who graduated from Kyoto University and found that about half of all teachers thought that teachers acquired their teaching abilities through experience as a teacher. About one-quarter to a third saw ‘native ability’ as the source of their basic teaching abilities, and only about 10 per cent indicated university education as the source of where teachers acquire their abilities from. They summarized these findings as follows: ‘The teachers believe that the most important ability required of a teacher is an understanding of human beings, followed by scholastic ability in one’s subject area. These abilities are thought to be acquired by teaching experience followed by personal native ability’ (Tanaka, Uesugi and Shiraishi, 1993, p. 60).

Student teaching One aspect of university education that has been identified as a positive influence by Japanese teachers is their student teaching experience. New teachers relate that student teaching was the most useful part of their college education. Japanese teachers generally feel their field supervision experiences provided them with accurate and useful knowledge about how to teach. These same trends have been observed within

164

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

specialized fields, such as English education (Sato and Kleinsasser, 2004). Student teaching typically takes place in the type of school that teachers will work in, although some authors report that teacher training colleges have great difficulty placing student teachers (Obara, Takahashi and Nakazawa, 1993). Peterson (2005) notes that student teaching is typically conducted in the junior and senior year of the students’ programs (p. 67). Student teachers typically teach for two to three weeks at a stretch. The student teaching experience in Japan, then, provides an intense exposure to the norms and beliefs that are typical of life in schools, and so exposes aspiring teachers to both high levels of pedagogical content knowledge enactment as well as professional norms and organizational culture. The student teaching experience provides Japanese college students with what they consider to be an authentic experience of the actual working conditions they experience on entering a school.

Initial licensure Just as university entrance exams and the hierarchy of universities act as gate-keeping mechanisms that affect the overall academic quality of teacher aspirants, teacher licensing examinations further serve to assure that the pool of teachers in Japan draws from academically talented students. Obtaining a certificate or a degree from an accredited teacher training institution does not automatically enable aspiring teachers to get a job. Teachers must demonstrate their formal knowledge by passing prefectural exams. This procedure resembles the issuance of a ‘teaching license’ by the state, as well as serves the function of making entry more competitive, and identifying the most academically qualified (see Ota 2000). For example, Shimahara and Sakai (1995) note the competitive nature of these examinations in places like Tokyo (p. 125). In 1989, only one in four students passed the Tokyo City teacher examination. Tokyo is one of the more desirable teaching locations, and therefore this means that aspiring teachers face a higher level of competition there than in many other areas of Japan.

In-service and professional development Tokuyama (1993) states, ‘In Japan, universities have not played much of a role in teachers’ continuing education’ (p. 80). Interaction with more experienced teachers provides the most significant source of professional development opportunities for young teachers. During the first few years of work, new teachers will need to display mastery of their knowledge via displays (lesson study demonstrations) as well as by taking on more duties (e.g. work as a homeroom teacher, a club advisor). New teachers typically engage in a loosely coupled apprenticeship with one or more senior teachers, and this effect may be more concentrated by the organizational structure of the school (Ahn, 2014). In Japan, most teachers have their desks in a communal ‘faculty office’ (shokuin shitsu), which tends to facilitate peer interactions. New teachers’ behaviour and interaction with students or peers is observed by a community of peers. Japanese

How Teachers Learn to Teach in Japan

165

teachers typically have a one-year probationary period before they are issued a full contract as a teacher, and during this initial year, a good deal of in-service training is provided by prefectural boards of education (Ota, 2000; Shimahara and Sakai, 1995; Sato, 2004; Sato, Akita and Iwakawa, 1993). New teachers are also expected to provide demonstration lessons (Bass, Usiskin and Burrill, 2002), and after the probationary year, to perform extra-duties by taking on formal roles. The first position typically assigned is that of an assistant homeroom teacher. Senior teachers are expected to fulfil positions such as ‘grade-chair’ (gakunen shunin) and to provide critical feedback and mentoring for new teachers.

The initial years of teaching The first competency expected of new teachers is to establish classroom routines. The knowledge of how to set up and reinforce routines is one of the first demonstrations of competence that new teachers are expected to display (Tobin, Wu and Davidson, 1989). Tobin, Wu and Davidson’s research suggests that in Japan, a new teacher has to demonstrate an ability to set up routines that allow the classroom to be self-monitoring. In their early years, teachers are also expected to support one of the wide range of ‘club activities’ (bukatsudou), Tsuneyoshi (2001) that go on after school. In the first years of teaching, teachers learn how to deal with student emotional issues and ‘guide’ or counsel students (LeTendre, 1994; Lewis, 1995; Sato, 2004). An ability to organize routines that support academic and socio-emotional learning lessons appears to be a hallmark of competent teachers in Japan. New teachers are expected to also learn and demonstrate increasing mastery of instructional practice via ‘lesson study’ (Fernandez and Yoshida, 2004; Lewis, Perry, Hurd, and O’Connell, 2006). Lesson study would include the research, development and public teaching of a model lesson as part of a collaborative process including at least two or more teachers. Teachers are expected to continue to learn effective instructional practices; to modify, experiment and display new teaching techniques and to communicate these techniques to others. As Ahn (2014) notes, this learning is merged with ideas of community, mentorship and mutual support.

Organizational roles and professional development Teachers around the world encounter expectations for continuing professional development (Akiba, 2013), but Japan has a clearer professional trajectory than most other nations. This trajectory is punctuated by new and more demanding roles within the school, with significant increases in salary (Akiba et al., 2012) and social status over a teacher’s career. After their initial probationary period, Japanese middle- and high-school teachers are expected to take on the role of a homeroom teacher (tannin no sensei). Homeroom teachers are expected to be involved in most aspects of their students’ life, including making visits to the students’ homes (katei houmon) to assess their living conditions (LeTendre, 2000). Homeroom teachers are expected to deal with student emotional issues (kokoro no mondai), create a positive class atmosphere (akaruku tanoshii

166

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

kyousitsu) and encourage positive study habits (susunde benkyou suru shuukan). This constitutes the first step towards what many Japanese teachers refer to as ‘veteran’ status. After mastering the duties of a homeroom teacher, mid-career teachers are also expected to take on added roles such as grade chairs (gakunen shunin) or subject chairs (kyouka shunin). In these roles teachers are expected to organize and coordinate teaching and other activities across the grade or subject area. After typically fifteen years of service, a smaller number of teachers will be asked to take on major leadership roles within the school, such as becoming head of guidance (shidou buchou) or even head teacher (kyoutou). Teachers in these more advanced leadership roles are expected to exhibit knowledge of the broader curriculum goals and provide guidance to junior teachers. Nationally, there is some variation in the specific details of these roles, as well as the relative importance placed on the integration of lesson study into teachers’ professional trajectories.

Practitioner knowledge and professional development Arani, Fukaya and Lassegard (2010) show that since 1874, Japanese teachers have organized events ‘which were designed to facilitate the sharing of experiences about learning, teaching, designing effective lesson plans, and managing the classroom and school administration’ (p. 174). Up to the 1980s, this ‘lesson study’ was run by and for teachers. The various demonstration lessons, subject association organizations and research reports that teachers created were intended for a peer audience of teachers, not for academic publication, and universities played a very small role in the production and dissemination of this knowledge. Sato and Kleinsasser (2004) suggest that teacher involvement in professional development (e.g. research groups) is much more limited, and that prefectural provision of in-service or professional development at the high school level is attenuated (p. 809). The dominant role of practitioner knowledge also raised concerns. Sato (2015) warned that the significant emphasis on on-site training for teachers has left Japan behind in terms of teacher education reforms. Data from TIMSS 2011 confirm that few Japanese teachers pursue post-baccalaureate degrees compared to their counterparts in other nations. Only 5 per cent (at Grade 4) and 9 per cent (at Grade 8) of teachers in Japan have master’s degree or higher, whereas 81 per cent (Grade 4) and 78 per cent (Grade 8) of teachers in Finland have such degrees. In the United States, 63 per cent (Grade 4) and 62 per cent (Grade 8) have higher degrees and the overall international average for TIMSS 2011 was 22 per cent (Grade 4) and 24 per cent (Grade 8) (Sato, 2015).

Re-certification and career growth Since 1980 the government has worked to reform patterns in Japanese in-service and professional development by setting up a license renewal system. Tokuyama (1993) argues that the first university-based post-baccalaureate teacher professional development program was implemented in 1983. In the intervening years, more and more universities have expanded their programs; in 2009 a new policy was

How Teachers Learn to Teach in Japan

167

implemented that requires teachers to renew their license every ten years (Akiba, 2013). Akiba (2013) summarizes the current system: Every teacher, including those who received a permanent teacher license before 2009, is required to participate in 30 contact hours of university-offered courses called TLRP (Teacher License Renewal Policy) courses approved by the Ministry of Education. … Teachers are given 2 years prior to the date when their licenses expire to complete the TLRP courses. Since April 2009, over 90,000 teachers each year across the country (approximately 10% of the teacher population) have been required to complete the TLRP courses to renew their licenses, or lose their licenses and teaching positions. (Ministry of Education, 2010a, p. 124)

As Akiba (2013) summarizes, out of the thirty contact hours, twelve hours must focus on the teaching profession, student-related research, educational policy and ‘school partnerships’. The rest of the hours may cover, ‘elective courses on specific subject matters, instruction, student guidance, and other topics’ (p. 131). The Ministry defines the content of these courses and even provides model syllabi which can be accessed on the government website.2 Regional governments have also followed this trend. Seno (2010) shows that as of 2008, 89 per cent of the prefectures in Japan have installed some sort of teacher evaluation system. The imposition of accountability systems (license renewal) has strengthened the bureaucratic sphere of knowledge, requiring teachers to incorporate practices and procedures that are consistent with the government goals. It has not eradicated the use of lesson study, nor the general expectations for long-term professional growth and multiple roles for teachers, but it has significantly eroded teachers’ autonomy over the body of practitioner knowledge that defines quality teaching. Neither the government nor the universities have been able to provide a cohesive set of knowledge or standards that is related to the actual practice of teaching that can completely replace practitioner knowledge. The Japanese government has not made it a priority to define the criteria for scientific evidence on effective teaching practices, nor have universities received significant new funding to meet the mandate of providing licensure renewal courses. The creation of teacher professional development schools appears to be an attempt by the federal government to create a synthesis of these separate spheres – requiring universities to include master teachers and board of education members.

Conclusion If the trends that Akiba (2013) describes are prescient, then it is likely that universities will increasingly turn to collaborations with local schools, teacher councils and departments of education to identify and provide the kinds of professional development that teachers find useful. Another interesting point of collaboration may develop at the 2

http://www.mext.go.jp/en/policy/education/elsec/title02/detail02/1373859.htm

168

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

prefectural or city level. Prefectural and city boards of education tend to be heavily populated with former educators who have strong local ties, and local political interests sometimes conflict with interests of the national political party. Prefectural or city boards of education may oppose federal reforms around accountability and standards, opening up the way for local boards of education to rely heavily on their teachers to create and provide professional development for each other. Another aspect that must be considered is that it is quite possible that Japan may see an increasing role for private providers of teacher professional development. Textbook companies, tablet or computer manufacturers and other educational technology companies already provide in-service like professional development for teachers who adopt their products. Companies like Fujitsu engage in research that incorporates knowledge generated by teachers as they implement specific products. Such independent sources of knowledge may well grow to create a kind of fourth sphere of validated knowledge around specific educational products or technologies. The expansion of the federal government’s role in setting teacher accountability standards, and hence increasing the effect of the bureaucratic sphere of knowledge, is of great concern to many Japanese academics. Not only does this trend reduce teacher input into developing the knowledge base for teaching, it also introduces significant political forces to the process of knowledge production. As Japan has become more involved in the global testing programs and world culture of educational reform (Baker and LeTendre, 2005), public consciousness of education, and that of teachers, has become more negative. As these forms of global ‘governance’ become further institutionalized, Japanese teachers may come under further scrutiny as national governments receive pressure to meet international standards (Meyer and Benavot, 2013). These trends indicate that academic and bureaucratic spheres of knowledge will likely become more distinct from the practitioner sphere, and thus be removed from the day-to-day practice of teachers.

References Ahn, R. (2014). How Japan supports novice teachers. Professional Learning: Reimagined, 71(8), pp. 49–53. Akiba, M. (2013). Teacher license renewal policy in Japan. In Motoko Akiba (Ed.), Teacher Reforms Around the World: Implementations and Outcomes, 123–46. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing. Akiba, M. (2016). Traveling teacher professional development model: Local interpretation and adaptation of lesson study in Florida. In M. F. Astiz and M. Akiba (Eds.), The Global and the Local: Diverse Perspectives in Comparative Education, 77–97. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Akiba, M. and LeTendre, G. (2009). Improving Teacher Quality: The U.S. Teaching Force in Global Context. New York: Teachers College Press. Akiba, M., Chiu, Y-L., Shimizu, K. and Liang, G. (2012). Teacher salary and national achievement: A cross-national analysis of 30 countries. International Journal of Educational Research, 53, pp. 171–81.

How Teachers Learn to Teach in Japan

169

Amano, I. (1990). Education and Examination in Modern Japan. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Amano, I. (1997). Postwar Japanese education: A history of reform and counterreform. Japan Review of International Affairs, 11(1), pp. 70–84. Arani, M., Fukaya, K. and Lassegard, J. (2010). ‘Lesson study’ as professional culture in Japanese schools: An historical perspective on elementary classroom practices. Japan Review, 22, pp. 171–200. Aspinall, R. (2001). Teachers’ Unions and the Politics of Education in Japan. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Aspinall, R. and Cave, P. (2001). Lowering the flag: Democracy, authority and rights at Tokorozawa High School. Social Science Japan Journal, 4(1), pp. 77–93. Baker, D. and LeTendre, G. (2005). National Differences, Global Similarities: World Culture and the Future of Schooling. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bass, H., Usiskin, Z. P. and Burrill, G. (Eds.). (2002). Studying Classroom Teaching as a Medium for Professional Development. Proceedings of a U.S.-Japan Workshop. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press. Befu, H. (1992). Symbols of nationalism and Nihonjinron. In R. Goodman and K. Refsing (Eds.), Ideology and Practice in Modern Japan, 26–46. New York: Routledge. Central Council for Education. (2015). Korekara no gakkou kyouiku wo ninau kyouin no shishitunouryoku no koujou ni tsuite [Regarding the development of teacher quality and ability for future schooling (Council Report)] Retrieved from http://www.mext .go.jp/component/b_menu/shingi/toushin/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2016/01/13/1365896_ 01.pdf Cummings, W. K., Amano, I. and Kitamura, K. (1979). Changes in the Japanese University. New York: Praeger Publishers. Desimone, L., Smith, T., Baker, D. and Ueno, K. (2005). Assessing barriers to the reform of U.S. mathematics instruction from an international perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 42(3), pp. 501–35. Duke, B. (1973). Japan’s Militant Teachers: A History of the Left-Wing Teachers’ Movement. Honolulu, HI: The University of Hawai’i Press. Eades, J. S., Goodman, R. and Hada, Y. (Eds.). (2005). The ‘Big Bang’ in Japanese Education: The 2004 Reforms and the Dynamics of Change. Melbourne, Australia: Trans Pacific Press. Fernandez, C. and Yoshida, M. (2004). Lesson Study: A Japanese Approach to Improving Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Fraser-Abder, P. and Chen, S.-L. (2013). Professional development in Japan and China: Issues and challenges. In P. Fraser-Abder (Ed.), Professional Development in Science Teacher Education: Local Insight with Lessons for the Global Community, 38–55. London, UK: Routledge. Fujita, H. (2014). Abe ‘kyouikukaikaku’ ha naze mondai ka [Why Abe’s education reforms are problematic]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Furusawa, T. and Yoneda, T. (Eds.) (2011). Kyouikushi [History of education]. Tokyo: Gakubunsha. Gordon, J. A. (2005). The crumbling pedestal: Changing images of Japanese teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(5), pp. 459–70. Hirata, J. (2012). Standardization, deregulation and school administration reform in Japan. In L. Volante (Ed.) School Leadership in the Context of Standards-Based Reform: International perspectives (vol. 16), 173–95. London: Springer Science & Business Media.

170

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Horio, T. (1988). Educational Thought and Ideology in Modern Japan: State Authority and Intellectual Freedom. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Huang, C. and Oga-Baldwin, W. L. (2015). Assessing outcomes of teacher education: Quantitative case studies from individual Taiwanese and Japanese teacher training institutions. Asia-Pacific Educational Research, 24(4), pp. 579–89. Ito, Y. (2010). Kyoushi tachi ha ‘super teacher program’ wo dou uketometanoka [How teachers understood and interpreted the ‘super teacher program’]. In T. Kariya and M. Kaneko (Eds.), Kyouinhyouka no shakaigaku [Sociology of teacher evaluation], 1–9. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Kaneko, M. (2010). Mondai no settei to chousa no gaiyou: Kaikaku no purosesu kara mietekuru kyoushoku to iu shigoto [Problem setting and overview of the research: Teaching job through the process of education reforms]. In T. Kariya and M. Kaneko (Eds.), Kyouinhyouka no shakaigaku [Sociology of teacher evaluation], 91–109. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Kariya, T. and Kaneko, M. (Eds.). (2010). Kyouinhyouka no shakaigaku [Sociology of teacher evaluation]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Koike, O., Hori, M. and H. Kabashima. (2006, July). The Japanese government reform 2001 and policy evaluation system: Efforts, results and limitations. Paper presented at International Conference of the International Political Science Association at Fukuoka City, Japan. LeTendre, G. (1994). Guiding them on: Teaching, hierarchy, and social organization in Japanese middle schools. Journal of Japanese Studies, 20(1), pp. 37–59. LeTendre, G. (2000). Learning to be Adolescent: Growing up in U.S. and Japanese Middle Schools. New Haven: Yale University Press. LeTendre, G., Baker, D. P., Akiba, M., Goesling, B. and Wiseman, A. (2001). Teachers’ work: Institutional isomorphism and cultural variation in the U.S., Germany, and Japan. Educational Researcher, 30(6), pp. 3–15. Lewis, C. (1995). Educating Hearts and Minds: Reflections on Japanese Preschool and Elementary Education. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lewis, C. and Perry, R. (2014). Lesson study with mathematical resources: A sustainable model for locally-led teacher professional learning. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 16(1), pp. 22–42. Lewis, C., Perry, L., Hurd, J. and O’Connell, M. P. (2006). Lesson study comes of age in North America. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(4), pp. 273–81. Liberal Democratic Party of Japan (2012). The 2012 Policy Agenda. Retrieved from https ://jimin.jp-east-2.os.cloud.nifty.com/pdf/j_file2012.pdf Lincicome, M. E. (1995). Principles, Praxis, and the Politics of Educational Reform in Meiji Japan. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i Press. Meyer, H.-D. and A. Benavot (2013). PISA, Power, and Policy: The Emergence of Global Educational Governance. Oxford: Symposium Books. MEXT. (2016, September). A Proposal of Partial Amendment for the Special Act for Education Personnel. Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houan/an/detail/ 1377981.htm MEXT. (n.d.). The 2015 Teacher Licensure Exam Contents. Retrieved from http://www .mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/nintei/1367761.htm Nagoshi, K. (1990). Kokuritsu daigaku ni okeru kyōin yōsei karikyuramu no kaizen o meguru shomondai [Issues on curriculum improvement for teacher education in national universities]. Nihon Kyōiku Keiei Gakkai Kiyō [Report of the Japanese Educational Administration], 32, pp. 12–22.

How Teachers Learn to Teach in Japan

171

Obara, Y., Takahashi, Y. and Nakazawa, K. (1993). How Japanese student teachers view practice teaching: An analysis of critical incident summaries. Peabody Journal of Education, 68(2), pp. 34–46. OECD. (2005). Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers. Paris: OECD Publishing. Okano, K. and Tsuchiya, M. (1999). Education in Contemporary Japan: Inequality and Diversity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ota, N. (2000). Teacher education and its reform in contemporary Japan. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 10(1), pp. 43–59. Peterson, B. (2005). Student teaching in Japan: The lesson. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8(1), pp. 61–74. Roesgaard, M. H. (1998). Moving Mountains: Japanese Education Reform. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press. Sato, A. and Ushiwata, J. (1988–9). Review of the research on teacher education in Japan. In Research Bulletin of the National Institute for Educational Research, 57–70. Tokyo, Japan: National Institute for Educational Research. Sato, K. and Kleinsasser, R. C. (2004). Beliefs, practices, and interactions of teachers in a Japanese high school English department. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(8), pp. 797–816. Sato, M. (2015). Senmonka to shite kyoushi wo sodateru: Kyoushikyouiku no gurando dezain [Developing teachers as professionals: Grand design of teacher education reforms]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Sato, M., Akita, K. and Iwakawa, N. (1993). Practical thinking styles of teachers: A comparative study of expert and novice thought processes and its implications for rethinking teacher education in Japan. Peabody Journal of Education, 68(4), pp. 100–10. Sato, N. (1996). Honoring the Individual. In T. Rohlen and G. LeTendre (Eds.), Teaching and Learning in Japan, 119–53. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sato, N. (2004). Inside Japanese Classrooms: The Heart of Education. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Schoppa, L. J. (1991). Education Reform in Japan: A Case of Immobilist Policies. New York: Routledge. Seno, W. (2010). Zenkoku no ‘kyouinhyouka’ jisshidoukou kara [From implementation of teacher evaluation in Japan]. In T. Kariya and M. Kaneko (Eds.), Kyouinhyouka no shakaigaku [Sociology of teacher evaluation], 11–20. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Shiina, M. and Chonan, M. (1993). Appendix: Japanese teacher education, summary description of the role different institutions play in preservice teacher preparation. Peabody Journal of Education, 68(3), pp. 98–113. Shimahara, N. (1988). The Japanese model of professional development: Teaching as craft. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(5), pp. 451–62. Shimahara, N. (1995). Teacher education reform in Japan: Ideological and control issues. In N. Shimahara and I. Z. Holowinsky (Eds.), Teacher Education in Industrialized Nations: Issues in Changing Social Contexts, 155–94. New York: Garland. Shimahara, N. and Sakai A. (1995). Learning to Teach in Two Cultures: Japan and the United States. New York: Garland Science Publishing. Stigler, J. and Hiebert, J. (1999). The Teaching Gap: Best Ideas from the World’s Teachers for Improving Education in the Classroom. New York: Free Press. Stigler, J. and Stevenson, H. (1991). How Asian teachers polish each lesson to perfection. American Educator, 15(1), pp. 12–20.

172

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Suzuki, I. (1990). Educational reform in Japan: Towards the twenty-first century. Prospects, 20(1), pp. 21–7. Suzuki, S. (2013). New Learning Culture and Challenges to Japanese Teacher Education. Retrieved from Children’s Research Network: http://www.childresearch.net/papers/ pdf/school_2013_03_SUZUKI.pdf Takayama, K. (2007). A Nation at Risk crosses the Pacific: Transnational borrowing of the U.S. crisis discourse in the debate on education reform in Japan. Comparative Education Review, 51(4), pp. 423–46. Tanaka, M., Uesugi, T. and Shiraishi, Y. (1993). Teacher training in the research university: A survey of teachers’ opinions. Peabody Journal of Education, 68(3), pp. 58–66. Tatto, M. T., Rodriguez, M. and Lu, Y. (2015). The Influence of teacher education on mathematics teaching knowledge: Local implementation of global ideals. In G. K. LeTendre and A. W. Wiseman (Eds.), Promoting and Sustaining a Quality Teacher Workforce, 279–331. New York: Emerald Group Publishing. Thurston, D. R. (1973). Teachers and Politics in Japan. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Tobin, J. J., Wu, D. Y. H. and Davidson, D. H. (1989). Preschools in Three Cultures: Japan, China and the United States. New Haven: Yale University Press. Tokuyama, A. (1993). The role of the university in the inservice education of teachers. Peabody Journal of Education, 68(3), pp. 80–97. Tsuneyoshi, R. (2001). The Japanese Model of Schooling: Comparisons with the United States. New York: Routledge. Tsurumi, E. P. (1977). Japanese Colonial Education in Taiwan, 1895-1945. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wray, H. (1991). Change and continuity in modern Japanese educational history: Allied occupational reforms forty years later. Comparative Education Review, 35(3), pp. 447–75. Yoneyama, S. (1999). The Japanese High School: Silence and Resistance. New York: Routledge. Zeng, K. (1999). Dragon Gate: Competitive Examinations and their Consequences. New York: Cassell & Continuum.

11

Institutional Transformations, Knowledge and Research Traditions in Teacher Education in Mexico: A Review Maria Teresa Tatto and Ivet Parra-Gaete

Introduction This chapter examines the institutional transformations in teacher education in Mexico and corresponding changes in the knowledge and thought traditions that have accompanied these changes since the time of the formation of the Normal School for teachers back in the late 1800s. The preparation of teachers in Mexico has been centrally controlled by the Ministry of Education, the Secretaría de Educación Pública (SEP), in close alliance with the teachers’ union (SNTE). While the Mexican Normal School has changed names and modalities according to the social needs as perceived across the years, its initial and more powerful influence was as rural Normal Schools that attended to the education of teachers in agricultural zones and later on as vehicles to promote literacy among the rural population along with nationalist values and culture. Subsequent evolutions saw the establishment of the Normal Schools for primary schoolteachers, the Normal School for secondary and upper secondary schoolteachers (Normal Superior), the National School for Teachers and the Normal School Regional centres. In 1978, in efforts to improve the quality of education professionals, the National Pedagogical University (UPN) was created, followed in 1984 by the decision to keep the Normal School structure outside higher education yet introducing more years of study, and the award of a higher education credential. These reforms were followed by the introduction of a National Exam of Knowledge and Skills for Teaching (2010–11) revealing that close to 75 per cent of graduating teachers were underqualified. The results of this exam have justified a number of reforms including the introduction of a rigorous system of teacher evaluation, curricular changes in teacher preparation and importantly a more established market-oriented approach to recruiting and preparing future teachers. Notable in the evolution of Mexican teacher education is the importance that has been given to philosophical traditions and the routine collection of statistical data over and above educational research to guide policy and practice.

174

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Research questions and methods What is the influence of global, national and local forces on the institutional transformations in teacher education and opportunities to learn for Mexican teachers? What are the most noticeable thought traditions? What kind of research has been produced? What information shapes teacher education policy and programs in Mexico? To answer these questions we used a review of the literature looking for documents written on the history, policy and research on teacher education in Mexico. The main data sources are the recent major teacher education guidelines/regulations, policy documents, and subsequent reviews and research publications on the relationship between policy and its effects on teacher education and teacher knowledge. We collected relevant materials published between 20101 and 2017 in English and Spanish, but also looked at older references mentioned in recent publications. We searched six well-known electronic databases including Google Scholar, Academic Search Premier, Education Resources Information Center, Hispanic American Periodicals Index, Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina y el Caribe, España y Portugal (Redalyc) and Web of Science. We used a combination of key search terms including teacher education in Mexico, quality teacher training in Mexico, teacher preparation at Normal Schools, Normal Schools training, pre-service teacher training, initial training of teachers in Mexico, in-service teachers education and continuing education for teachers. We were primarily interested in searching for scholarly articles published in peer-reviewed journals that offered analysis based on empirical research, but also included literature reviews and historical analysis. We also included reports produced by the National Institute for the Evaluation of Education (INEE), the Institute of Education and Syndicates Studies of America (IEESA), the Centre of Educational Studies (CEE), the Department of Educational Research (DIE), the Center for Research and Advanced Studies of the National Polytechnic Institute (CINVESTAV), the Mexican Council of Educational Research (COMIE) and National Congress of Research about Normal Education (CONISEN), as indicative of new trends in research in Mexico. While we tried to be as comprehensive as possible, we believe that our search is not exhaustive, and intend to continue to explore this fascinating topic in future work.

Educational context As of the academic year 2016–17, Mexico had close to 5 million students and a quarter of a million teachers in preschool education; close to 15 million students and over 500,000 teachers in primary education; over 6.5 million students with over 400,000 teachers in secondary education and over 5 million students with over 400,000 teachers in high schools (media superior) (SEP-SNIE, 2017).

1

The year 2010 was taken as a reference point because it is the year when the National Exam of Knowledge and Skills for Teaching (2010–11) was first administered. The revelation that close to 75 per cent of graduating teachers were underqualified triggered a number of reforms including the introduction of a rigorous system of teacher evaluation and subsequent research undertakings including evaluation research.

Teacher Education in Mexico

175

While the Mexican government according to the Constitution is in charge of providing education at every level of the system, sustained efforts have concentrated in the provision of basic education first at the primary level and then at the secondary level with the introduction of compulsory preschool education much later. Together these systems account for over 70 per cent of the school population, whereas the rest are not enrolled. For the purposes of this chapter, we selected as our primary focus the institutional evolution and knowledge and thought traditions that have characterized the preservice preparation of primary and secondary teachers. Preparing teachers for these levels has been the concern of the central state at the federal and gradually at state levels for a long time (primary teachers since the 1820s and secondary schoolteachers since 1993). As of 2016–17, the number of Normal Schools across the country was 450 (about a third private) with 94,241 enrolees and 14,730 professors. This is in contrast with the numbers in 2013–14, when there were 464 Normal Schools with a total enrolment of 131,025 students and 18,253 faculty (Navarro-Leal and Navarrete-Cazales, 2014). Mexican scholars attribute the decrease in the number of Normal School students to the creation of new universities and technological institutes; the diversification of programs in all higher education institutions and the profession’s lower reputation in contrast with the more favourable perceptions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Navarro-Leal and Navarrete-Cazales, 2014). In spite of extraordinary efforts by the Mexican government to prepare teachers, currently only about half of primary schoolteachers have obtained teacher certification (50.7 per cent), and about 10 per cent have progressed to graduate studies (9.8 per cent). While the Normal School for primary schoolteachers has been seen as the key institution for pre-service preparation, only close to 20 per cent of primary teachers have completed their course of studies in that institution and close to 10 per cent had completed the upper Normal School (Normal Superior). The system has sought to provide preparation to unqualified teachers by creating a wide array of in-service programs with uneven results (see Tapia Uribe and Medrano Camacho, 2016; Tatto and Velez, 1997; Tatto, 1999a). Among secondary schoolteachers, less than half (about 40 per cent) have completed a bachelor’s degree in a higher education institution (HEI) and only about a quarter (25 per cent) have completed their studies in the upper Normal School. Close to 20 per cent have completed graduate studies. While the Normal School for primary teachers seems to be losing students who favour a bachelors’ degree from a HEI, the enrolment in the upper Normal School for teachers seems to have stayed constant in part because the credential from the upper Normal School is equivalent to a bachelor’s degree from a HEI. After looking at these statistics it is easy to see why teacher education has emerged as one of the Mexican government’s key priorities. The need to prepare teachers to achieve an acceptable level of education has been reinforced by the poor performance of Mexican students according to national and international standards, and in part as a basic human right. Mexico uses the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) to evaluate the degree to which the system is improving. While still below the

176

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

international mean set at 500, between 2000 and 2015 with 6 test administration events, scores have improved significantly in mathematics (from 387 to 408), but not in reading (from 493 to 496) or in sciences (from 422 to 416). The concern with the preparation of teachers in Mexico, however, goes beyond school effectiveness arguments. Scholars see the current transformation in teacher preparation as a clear indication of the direction to which Mexican society is headed. Under the argument that to construct a more just, free and prosperous country it is indispensable to radically change the educational system, the most recent educational reform has passed a law that mandates major revisions in the national ‘educational model’ (‘Modelo Educativo, 2016’) including study plans and programs, and educational methods and materials (SEP, 2017). Espousing a strong constructivist philosophy yet mirroring a market-oriented discourse (Attick, 2016), the reform sees teachers as the individuals who can implement the new curriculum creatively and according to specific contexts, shifting the emphasis from a teaching-centred pedagogy to a student-centred pedagogy. Pupils are envisioned as actively constructing their own knowledge and approaches to learning. The stated goal is to develop successful twenty-first-century learners, with depth in understanding as a priority over breadth in curricular coverage. In support of such far-reaching reform, the document refers to ‘recent investigations in the education field’, ‘progress achieved in cognitive science’ and ‘the experience of other countries’. There is no clarity, however, as to what those specific investigations are in spite of the fact that Mexican researchers have been active for years2 and that research elsewhere points to the negative consequences of market-oriented schemes (Robertson, 2007). Researchers, on the other hand, have not seen their role as informing policy but as pursuing the search for knowledge (i.e. Ávila, 2014, p. 69). Educational research in Mexico as elsewhere has been concerned mostly with learning and teaching processes and not with the education of teachers as teachers have been rarely considered learners, and policy on teacher education has been made at the centre by the central Ministry of Education (SEP) and the National Syndicate of Education Workers (SNTE). A quick review of documents points to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) as a major interventionist force not only as provider of information on key indicators but also as formulating policy and providing designs for implementation marked by an agreement signed with the SEP (Cuevas Cajiga and Moreno Olivos, 2016; OECD, 2010, 2011). This agreement introduced an additional reform to the Teachers’ Career Ladder (PCM), created a program to incentivize teacher quality (Programa de Estímulos a la Calidad Docente) 2

An important example is the research program of the Department of Educational Research, Departamento de Investigaciones Educativas (DIE), which was founded in 1971 within the Center for Research and Advanced Studies (CINVESTAV) of the National Polytechnic Institute. Since then much research in education has been developed often in collaboration with the Ministry of Education (SEP), but this research has not been about the education of teachers. Research specific to education on the subject areas have existed at least since the late 1980s (i.e. Education Matematica (http://www.revista-educacion-matematica.org.mx/revista/)), mostly focusing on pupil learning. Other centres such as the aforementioned CEE, universities and technical institutes have also been engaged in long-term research endeavours. More recently, the INEE in close cooperation with the OECD has begun to develop a vigorous program of educational research specifically oriented to inform public policy.

Teacher Education in Mexico

177

and established the implementation of universal evaluation in the education system (Evaluación Universal) (Cordero Luna and Patiño, 2013 cited in Martinez-Mendez, 2015, p. 181). What is particularly lacking is prospective research to help anticipate the likelihood that such changes may indeed bring about the intended consequences, and to investigate the unintended ones. The reform document affirms a commitment to the traditional Normal School for teachers by promising to strengthen the institutions so that they can continue to be the ‘semillero’ (breeding ground) of Mexican teachers (Modelo Educativo, 2016). In this context, this chapter examines the historical trajectory of Mexican reforms as they have affected teacher education, with special attention to institutional changes, knowledge and thought traditions, and discusses the role of emerging research.

The evolution of the education system and teacher education in Mexico The evolution of teacher education in Mexico has been dependent on societal changes and reforms in the systems of basic education.3 Table 11.1 summarizes these events. Since the mid-1900s once the Normal School became the institution recognized for the preparation of teachers, changes in teacher education occurred for the most part when curricular changes were introduced typically at the start of a new administration. Examination of these dynamics among Mexican scholars (Tatto et al., 2007; Tatto, 1999b) confirms that the Normal Schools have been very reluctant to change; rather the system adjusted to calls for reform with the introduction of a diversity of ephemeral in-service programs, an approach that was and continues to be used to ‘update’ teachers (Cordero et al., 2017).

The national movement to expand public education The end of the Mexican Revolution (1910–20) marks the creation in 1921 of the Ministry of Education or SEP under José Vasconcelos, a strong advocate of a national education system to respond to the unique educational needs of the Mexican people including the development of, literacy and national culture and values. The rural Normal Schools were created as a response to the social commitments that emerged after the Mexican Revolution, functioning as the vehicle of conscientization, popular participation and transformation among those preparing to teach. Education was conceived as a right especially among the poorest groups in the country. The role of the teacher was conceptualized as similar to that of the ‘missionaries’ and the task was, as Vasconcelos stated, the formation of the ‘Raza Cósmica’ or the development of a holistic and global Mexican consciousness.4 Whereas much was accomplished during 3 4

For a more extensive treatment, see Navarro-Leal and Navarrete-Cazales (2014), IEESA (2012). Secretaría de Educación Pública, Historia de la SEP. Creación de la Secretaría de Educación Pública (México: SEP, 2012) http://www.sep.gob.mx/wb/sep1/sep1_Historia_de_la_SEP#.Ucof1Tvrw28 (retrieved 23 April 2018).

178

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education Table 11.1 Mexico – summary of the most commonly articulated events shaping modern Mexican teacher education/preparation (Timeline) Years 1821–1933

Developments in the system

1934–68

Independence, revolution and expansion Centralization and regulation

1969–93

Academization

1994–2000

Modernization

2001–17

Professionalization/Standardiz ation/Federalization/Acco untability

Teacher education development Creation and evolution of Normal Schools. Expansion to rural areas National Normal Schools move away from the university and become part of the education bureaucracy controlled by the central Ministry of Education Normal Schools become higher education institutions, but not part of the university Creation of the UPN as a separate institution Reforms to improve teacher education under a technical framework. Professionalization discourse. Market approach to teacher education Diversification of routes into teaching. Introduction of a globally inspired accountability model

this period, the instability created by presidential changes and the relentless influence from the United States seeking to eliminate socialism had the effect of limiting the humanistic–nationalist character of the Vasconcelos project.

The beginning of compulsory basic education, centralization and regulation In the middle of the twentieth century (1934–70), the Mexican government issued a constitutional law that established that primary education should be compulsory, accessible to all and free of charge. The program of free textbooks was instituted at this time and continues to this day. The administration of the education system became centralized at the federal level for all levels of basic education, which meant all systems including teacher education, the school curriculum and evaluation were under the control of the SEP. At the same time, the powerful teachers’ union was formed (SNTE). During this period, teachers continued to be prepared via the Normal School. Graduates worked alongside ‘un-trained’ teachers in primary schools (mostly in poor or indigenous areas). Middle and high schoolteachers typically came from the university or from other professions to teach in these schools, most with no pedagogy training (e.g. it was not rare to find architects, medical doctors, geologists, physicists teaching algebra, biology, geography or physics). To compensate for the lack of content knowledge and pedagogical training, in-service training has co-existed with pre-service training to provide support to teachers who were hired

Teacher Education in Mexico

179

at the time of expansion. Upgrading courses were and still are offered by the SEP and outside of the Normal Schools to acquaint teachers with the new curriculum every time a reform occurs. Education research began to figure more prominently during this period in response to two important priorities that have presented a dilemma to the Mexican system of education, which exist to this day: providing equal access to basic education and proving a quality education for all Mexicans. By the time the 1960s came around, the SEP had an established system of data collection including attendance and achievement data at all levels of basic education. These data were used internally by the SEP bureaucrats to monitor the system and later for planning purposes but was not easily accessible to others. It was during this time (1963) that the educator Pablo Latapi created the CEE. The CEE is an independent civic association dedicated to educational research whose initial objective was to describe and then evaluate the national educational system with the explicit goal of informing policymakers and to disseminate to the public information on educational access and equity that had until then remained hidden (CEE, 2013). In 1971 the CEE launched the first educational academic journal of its kind in Latin America (Revista del Centro de Estudios Educativos, now Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos) to inform public opinion using research-based evidence. The research at this time was focused on the systems of formal and informal education, and factors influencing educational achievement including teachers’ behaviours and beliefs. The DIE was created in 1975 as part of CINVESTAV located in the National Polytechnic Institute with the express purpose of producing educational research. Researchers from the CEE and DIE collaborated and in some cases were part of both institutions. There was no research on teacher education at this time.

Academization within a Normal School structure The academization movement of the 1970–80s in Mexico did not result in the transformation of Normal Schools into colleges of education or even teacher colleges. The reforms of 1984, however, resulted in higher requirements to enter the profession and raised the academic requirements to become a teacher to four years of ‘higher education studies’ or the equivalent of college level to be provided within the Normal School curriculum. While this reform was seen as necessary given the low levels of subject knowledge that teachers had when they entered the Normal School, it had the effect of drastically reducing the number of prospective Normal School enrolees. In terms of the Normal School curriculum, more years of study were required to award a higher education credential; however, this did not translate to a significant change in the depth and breadth of the content knowledge that teachers were expected to obtain. The ‘new’ Normal Schools preserved the old pedagogy/child development focused curriculum, without assuming research functions, and continued to be centrally controlled by the SEP in close alliance with the SNTE. While the SEP had been in interaction with research centres such as the CEE and the DIE in other areas such as secondary education in rural areas, textbook production and similar others, it was not until 1982 that the CEE began research on the labour

180

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

force related to primary schoolteachers, and teacher satisfaction in rural areas. Other research projects relevant to teaching as related to school effectiveness, funded by the World Bank, also began at this time. Furthermore, the SEP introduced a system of horizontal promotion called the ‘Programa de Carrera Magisterial’ (PCM) in the hopes of opening yet another avenue to encourage teachers to improve their knowledge and skills via in-service training courses. In spite of these advances in research activity, teacher education policy continued to be informed by the insights gained by education bureaucrats and union leaders in subsequent waves of reforms, and not by systematic research knowledge. Other changes were also occurring in parallel or even preceded the transformation of the Normal Schools. In 1978 UPN was created by presidential decree to ‘develop education professionals and to develop research’. Some saw the creation of the UPN as an attempt to break the monopoly on teacher education held by the Normal Schools and provoked a strong reaction by the teacher union (refusing to agree to hiring schoolteachers who did not receive a credential from the Normal School). While every policy initiative had attempted to reform teacher education with the announcement of curricular changes, these only triggered the development of short courses to update or acquaint in-service teachers with the new curriculum and/or mandates emanating from SEP. These reforms, however, had a negligible effect on the Normal School curriculum. The reluctance to make substantial changes to the Normal School curriculum traditionally characterized by a heavy emphasis on theory and general pedagogy, when the school curriculum was becoming more contentoriented and rigorous, isolated the Normal Schools from the reform efforts, making it difficult for graduates to contribute to improving the quality of education (see Tatto and Velez, 1997).

Modernization In the late 1980s, the government launched the Education Modernization Program with four basic objectives. The first objective was to improve the quality of the educational system, with special emphasis on basic education. The second objective was to raise the level of schooling throughout the population. The third objective was to strengthen community participation in all areas of the education sector. The fourth objective was to pursue gradually the decentralization of the educational system to the states to ‘serve better the diverse interests of society and the needs for modernization’. This effort extended into the 1990s and into the new millennium and gave way to a ‘de-concentration’ movement to devolve administrative and funding responsibilities to the states (with the central SEP still controlling the curriculum, and evaluation processes at all levels of the system). Modernization brought about efforts to produce research to inform teacher education policy and program development in collaboration with researchers funded by the World Bank, and research done by the CEE. In particular, this centre did an intervention study in 1989 addressing teacher education for urban, rural and indigenous teachers producing a book called Mas allá del salón de clases (Beyond the Classroom) which was used subsequently by SEP to prepare

Teacher Education in Mexico

181

in-service teachers. In 2008, the CEE in collaboration with educational authorities published an analysis of teachers’ educational practices using a constructivist framework (Garcia-Cabrero, Loredo and Carranza, 2008) which later served to develop teaching standards, which had a negligible influence in the Normal School curriculum. Later, efforts to professionalize teaching and teacher education intensified as did the development of curriculum standards across the entire system. The so-called new integrated curriculum was implemented at the primary level in the 1992–93 academic year, and that same year (1993) secondary education was declared compulsory and free. In 1993, several states began the task of integrating the different systems of education and of equalizing teachers’ salaries and fringe benefits. ‘Teachers’ Centres’ began functioning inside schools in some states as support groups to decode and enact the curriculum reform guided by constructivist principles (see Tatto, 1999c, for an analysis of this process).

Accountability as a tool to challenge public education and to introduce market-oriented reforms The teacher professionalization agenda brought about increased monitoring in classrooms and across the system, creating discontent among teachers and culminated in 1997 with the SNTE calling for the II National Education Congress to discuss the progress of the reform. During this congress, the SEP was criticized for failing to develop guidelines for in-school social participation processes. The SEP had mandated the creation of teacher-constituted ‘Technical Councils’ within schools charged with the implementation of the new curriculum, and new systems of teacher evaluation. The assumption was that teachers could do this without preparation or special expertise, often with serious consequences for individual teachers or for the whole school as lead teachers (not principals) were perceived as having the power of evaluating colleagues and in some cases preventing such colleagues from receiving a salary raise (see Tatto, 1999b). Soon after this congress, several states began to develop social participation efforts to integrate teachers, including parents and neighbourhoods as well. Research on teacher education by Mexican scholars began to appear during this period (e.g. Tatto and Velez, 1997; Tatto, 1999b, 2004; Tatto et al., 2007). It was during this period as well (2000) that for the first time Mexico through the SEP decided to administer the PISA test. The results placed Mexico’s pupils at the bottom of the participating countries. This situation created a strong reaction against the system of public education and against teachers. The INEE was created by presidential decree in 2002 to evaluate the quality of the educational system broadly defined. The INEE first operated as a semi-autonomous agency of the SEP (from 2002 to 2012), and from 2013 as an autonomous public agency. Accordingly, the INEE’s charge is to evaluate the quality, performance and outcomes of the National Education System, Sistema Educativo Nacional (SEN) in preschool education, primary and secondary education and higher secondary education. The INEE coordinates the National System of Educational Evaluation (SNEE), and it is

182

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

the main producer of policy relevant educational research including, more recently, research on pre-service and in-service teacher education. In 2013, a strong movement towards accountability began in earnest in part fuelled by organisms such as the OECD and by Mexican policymakers (SEP) using as a major argument results in the PISA tests. That year a constitutional change declared the concept of quality as an essential characteristic of education in Mexico and ‘a human right’ and teachers as the individuals at the center of this endeavor. The federal government asked INEE to delineate the mechanisms for the evaluation of the SEN, for pupils and teachers, engage in fair evaluation practices and generate policy recommendations based on evaluation results. Mexican policymakers used the findings reported by the INEE to continue to build an accountability system. The consequence for teachers has been increased regulation for entry and continuation in the teaching profession now based on individuals’ performance, knowledge and capacities. In return, teachers were promised respect for their rights, and transparency in the evaluation criteria. An unintended (but foreseeable) consequence of such accountability policies has been the creation among the Mexican public of a negative image of public education, and of the traditional manner in which teachers have been prepared. This dynamic has facilitated a curricular reform for the Normal Schools, opening of teacher education programs in universities and the introduction of alternative routes into teaching. While the evaluation of the SEN has the potential to improve policies and programs and the well-being of individuals and communities, including teaching and teacher preparation, the use of these results to push market-oriented reforms has the potential to do the opposite. Pursuit of market-oriented reforms has allowed the introduction of alternatives routes to becoming a teacher including the ‘Enseña por México’ (Teach for Mexico) program (modelled after ‘Teach for America’ in the United States, and ‘Teach First’ in England) and ‘Learning One-to-One’ allowing individuals with no preparation in pedagogy or school experience to teach (Cordero Arroyo and Jiménez Moreno, 2018; Medrano Camacho, Ángeles Méndez and Morales Hernández, 2017). Furthermore, a recent federal mandate (Artículo 12º Transitorio de la Ley General de Educación) known as the ‘Modelo Educativo 2016’ authorizes the complete overhaul of the education system including teacher education. Other than the OECD reports and policy guidelines (OECD, 2010, 2011), and multiple reports produced by the INEE, the introduction of this reform was not preceded by research, that could help evaluate the extent to which the intended effects can be accomplished and, most importantly, what could be the unintended effects.

Knowledge and research traditions in teacher education in Mexico We began this chapter by asking about the knowledge and research traditions that have accompanied the institutional changes in teacher education in Mexico. The answer is

Teacher Education in Mexico

183

that the Normal Schools in Mexico in contrast with universities and research institutes have not had a tradition of engaging in research. Under the central management of the SEP and the SNTE, teacher educators were not encouraged to develop capacity to systematically study their own practice. Consequently, future teachers have not been prepared to engage in research. The powerful control that the SEP and the teacher union has exerted on the basic education system and in the Normal Schools (Street, 1992), as well as the lack of transparency concerning how decisions were made, has had an important impact on the production of systematic educational knowledge. It has served to discourage not only research on teacher education or for teacher education but also research about teacher education (e.g. to inform – or react to – policy). Instead, teacher education in Mexico has been influenced first by European thinkers, mostly by French models and later by US models and education theory. Government bureaucrats have served as the re-contextualization agents in teacher education as these notions materialize in curriculum and guidelines, which are then enacted following mandates from the SEP and other central agencies (e.g. the General Directorate of Higher Education for Education Professionals, Dirección General de Educación Superior para Profesionales de la Educación (DGESPE)). Table 11.2 shows the different transformations in pre-service teacher education in Mexico. The most influential figure in the development of the Normal Schools as we know them today was Enrique Rébsamen, a primary and secondary educator who was born in Switzerland and worked in Germany before travelling to Mexico. After working in a ‘model school’ (progressive school) with the German Enrique Laubscher, he developed in 1886 the first Normal School in the state of Veracruz, which became a model for other Normal Schools that were later created in other states. Rébsamen’s ideas followed those of Froebel, Rousseau, Pestalozzi and Spencer and Bain. Conceptions of teaching have changed ranging from notions of the teacher as a missionary, to that of a technician, to attempts at professionalization under the new reform as shown in Table 11.2. The influence of these initial ideas can still be seen in the curriculum of the Normal Schools (described in the next section). The state remains teachers’ main employer; consequently the role of the teacher continues to be that of a bureaucrat. The first significant reform of the Normal School curriculum for future primary and secondary schoolteachers since the late 1990s occurred in 2012 marked by an important shift in emphasis from a predominantly pedagogy-oriented to a discipline-oriented curriculum. The reform of the primary and secondary teacher education plans also known as the ‘Program to Transform and Strengthen Academically the Normal Schools’ was developed by the central SEP in coordination with the educational authorities in the states (the National Council of Educational Authorities or CONAEDU). The reformed program emerged from the commitments expressed in the Educational Development Program 1995–2000. After a number of revisions and consultation, the study plans for prospective primary and secondary teachers in public and private schools were officially implemented at the national level in 2012 within a ‘competence’ framework with emphasis on disciplinary subjects, following the mandate of the General Law of Education (Ley General de Educación).

Institutional transformations

Creation of Normal Schools

Knowledge traditions Teaching as mutual instruction. The teacher as monitor helped by abler pupils. Replication of knowledge as contained in books Teaching as technical and requiring more years of preparation

Thought/Research traditions Learning by teaching and mutual instruction (Joseph Lancaster)

1925–

1921–

Itinerant teachers emerge to bring access to education to rural areas The Normal Rural Schools (or Agricultural Schools) emerge under Secretary of Public Education Vasconcelos (1921) The first Rural Normal School is inaugurated in Tacámbaro, Michoacán, in 1922 Teacher education is conceived as outside of higher education In 1925, the National Normal School for (primary) teachers is created In 1936, the Technical Council of the National Normal School for teachers declares a socialist identity Teaching as technical Teaching as active learning requiring more years of study Teaching as applying principles of dialectic materialism

Teaching as a community building endeavour Teaching as a humanistic endeavour

Functionalism continues to influence Mexican education including the National Normal School Socialist principles and dialectic materialism as a method

Education as a means to disseminate national culture and the ideals of the revolution and to bring literacy to the Mexican people Positivism emerges as a philosophy that can help guide education (also influenced by Dewey’s pragmatism and functionalism)

New Normal School opens in Veracruz with a study plan Progressive techniques based on scientific and consisting in forty-nine courses in four years (1887) rational perspectives seeking connections Rapid increase in the number of Normal Schools between theory and practice (e.g. Carlos A. (forty-five in 1900) Carrillo, Enrique Laubscher, Enrique Rébsamen) 1906 Creation of National School of Higher Education (Escuela Teaching as a humanistic endeavour, Knowledge for teaching seen as broad and concerned de Altos Estudios) as a precursor to the National pursuit of ‘encyclopaedic knowledge’ with human culture, especially literature, history, University art, music and philosophy Education is recognized as a discipline within Mexico’s nascent school for higher education 1910–20 – Mexican Revolution

1885–1900

1822

Years

Table 11.2 Summary of the institutional transformations and knowledge and thought traditions in teacher education in Mexico

184

1942–

1996–2017

1994–

Institutional transformations

In 1942, the Higher National Normal School for (secondary) teachers is created (four-year programs after high school or after basic Normal School studies) Creation in 1978 of the UPN to develop education professionals and educational research, providing bachelors’ degrees for teachers for preschool, and primary education including for indigenous education In 1982, Normal Schools become Higher Education Institutions. In 1984, high school studies are required to enter a Normal School, which causes a dramatic drop in the number of enrolees to Normal Schools In 1994 with the emergence of the National Agreement to Modernize Basic Education, the administration of education including Normal Schools goes to the states under an interventionist federal state The government launches a series of programs to improve the preparation of teachers (Programa para la Transformación y el Fortalecimiento Académicos de las Escuelas Normales; Estrategia Nacional de Formación y Desarrollo Profesional). Internal and external evaluations, and regulations for Normal Schools, are introduced In 2013 a reform of the Article 3 and 73 of the Mexican Constitution creates the Professional Teacher Service, Servicio Profesional Docente (SPD) and gives autonomy to the INEE to design and regulate the SPD and to construct and coordinate the SNEE Introduction of university programs and alternative routes to prepare teachers (Modelo Educativo, 2016)

Years

Knowledge traditions

Thought/Research traditions

Neoliberal principles guide the economy and neoconservativism guides the moral orientation of policy including education Pedagogy is given priority over other types of knowledge. Research is not produced from educators and has a limited role in the curriculum or programs Constructivism expected to co-exist within a neoliberal/neoconservative frame

Teaching as technical Aims to create teachers as professionals. Teachers as the individuals who can implement the new curriculum creatively and according to specific contexts, shifting the emphasis from a teaching-centred pedagogy to a student-centred pedagogy under a bureaucratic role

Rejection of academic formation for teachers. Renewed influence of pragmatism and neopositivist philosophy, which shifts in 1942 towards a model seeking to increase productivity via the introduction of technical and scientific knowledge

Teaching as technical

Teaching as technical Teaching as a professional endeavour

185

186

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

The reformed Normal School curriculum5 The Normal School curriculum for future primary teachers For primary schoolteachers the Normal School curriculum includes seven distinct tracks with fifty-three courses, all with theoretical and practical components. The preparation for teaching and learning track represents close to 40 per cent of the program and includes courses on the learning and teaching of disciplinary knowledge with more weight given to mathematics, sciences and communication and language. English as an additional language, information, technology and the professional practice tracks all take about 30 per cent of the program. The psycho-pedagogical track represents about 25 per cent of the content. The rest is dedicated to optional courses. The study plan comprises 274 hours or 291 study credits and includes a culminating project or thesis for graduation.6

The Normal School curriculum for future secondary teachers The bachelor’s degree for prospective secondary teachers in the Normal School includes three main tracks. The specific formation track takes up close to 50 per cent of the time planned to obtain a degree and includes courses on the scientific disciplines included in the secondary school curriculum and on its didactics. The common formation track represents 35 per cent of the courses in the program and includes courses to help future secondary teachers develop knowledge and understanding of development processes in Mexican adolescents including biological and identity changes, and cognitive capacities. Additional courses introduce prospective teachers to secondary schools’ work, norms and practices including a review of the primary education school curriculum and of the secondary education school curriculum. The general formation track represents about 15 per cent of the courses in the program and includes courses on the philosophical, legal and organizational principles of the Mexican education system. Additional courses explore history related to pedagogy and policies in Mexican basic education. Future teachers observe and practice teaching, and have a two-semester intensive teaching practice plus two workshops dealing with the design and analysis of teaching strategies. Altogether, the program includes 45 courses amounting to 224 hours of study or 392 credits.7 In 2013, after close to two centuries of preparing Mexican teachers, the Normal School is no longer the only institution that prepares teachers in Mexico. Teachers can now obtain a credential to teach through other routes such as in universities, polytechnics or the so-called alternative routes. Nevertheless, the Normal School is still seen as the main producer of teachers for the basic system of education.

5

6

7

Whereas new routes to teacher education/preparation have been authorized for the moment the Normal School is still seen as the main institution preparing teachers, we summarize the curricular reform for those institutions only. www.dgespe.sep.gob.mx/reforma_curricular/planes/lepri/plan_de_estudios/organizacion_malla_ curricular http://www.dgespe.sep.gob.mx/planes/les

Teacher Education in Mexico

187

The status of educational research The Mexican educational research landscape has improved in terms of quality and relevance over the past twenty years as Table 11.3 shows. Much of the knowledge that has informed the curriculum of the Normal Schools for teachers was theoretical, emerging in Europe or in the United States. Recently, systematic educational knowledge has influenced the curriculum of the UPN, and that of some of the in-service programs that emerged at the margins of a centrally and politically controlled system of teacher education. Approaches such as the Actualization Centres, the Emergent Program for Teacher Upgrading (PEAM), the Compensatory Program to Address Educational Lag (PARE) and the Educational Research and Teaching Program of the CEE, as documented by Tatto and Velez (1997), used systematic disciplinary educational knowledge to mould their curriculum. The new curriculum of the Normal Schools for primary and secondary teachers is now significantly different from the old curriculum. It aligns with research findings about the importance of conceiving teaching knowledge as a complex amalgamation of subject knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and knowledge of the school curriculum, of pupils and of contexts (Tatto et al. 2006/2007)). Investigations by the INEE and by the OECD have produced important changes in the system including diversifying the number of routes that future teachers can undergo to obtain a credential. New changes are of concern as they are heavily influenced by the OECD and follow a global agenda with a clear market approach that in the extreme has resulted in negative consequences for the teaching profession (Furlong, 2013; Tatto et al., 2018). At the same time, it is clear that the previous system dominated by the Normal School and the teachers’ union had become inefficient. Not only were the Normal Schools preparing an insufficient number of teachers but also those that they did prepare graduated with very low levels of subject knowledge (Schmidt, Blömeke and Tatto, 2011; Tatto et al., 2016). The recruitment and retention of teachers had also become corrupt (as the SNTE in collaboration with SEP not only guaranteed employment for life, but positions could be passed from teachers to others including relatives even without proper preparation). Opening up the opportunity for universities and polytechnics to prepare teachers may also have the effect of opening up spaces for the development of teacher educators able to engage with research knowledge and help future teachers to do so as well. It is possible that a new cadre of educational researchers can produce knowledge that will help inform and shape policy, and help the system engage with multiple knowledge perspectives that respond to the needs of Mexican teachers and pupils.

Conclusion A number of reforms and approaches to teacher education have been introduced over the years in Mexico, and while official statistics show enormous progress, much is left to be accomplished, as the new reform proposals document. Concerning teacher education, traditional Normal Schools have dominated the teacher education landscape since their inception. Over the past five years, and under market-oriented policies, other approaches have entered the field, and little is known about their consequences.

Surveys of 5 Normales Superiores and 358 prospective secondary teachers

Schmidt, Blömeke and Tatto (2011)

In-service teacher education Tatto et al. (2016, March)

Tatt and Velez (1997)

Questionnaires and knowledge assessment of seventy-eight primary and secondary novice teachers in a Mexican state

Document analysis, interview and observations of different approaches to teach in Mexico (Normal Schools, Actualization Centres, the Universidad Pedagogica Nacional, the Emergent Program for Teacher Upgrading (PEAM), the Compensatory Program to Address Educational Lag (PARE) and the Educational Research and Teaching Program of the CEE and SECyR)

Comparative pre-service and in-service

Literature Review and Historical Analysis

Data

Pre-service teacher education Navarrete-Cazales (2015)

Study

Table 11.3 Indicative studies on teacher education in Mexico

Confirms that the opportunity to learn that teachers have is reflected in their low levels of knowledge of mathematics they demonstrated in the assessments

Normal Schools placed emphasis on curricular contents first, then on general pedagogy, professional foundations and lastly subject matter knowledge. The opportunities to learn provided by PARE (subject matter knowledge and pedagogy) have the best chance to help Mexican teachers whose subject matter knowledge has been traditionally weak. The PEAM (curricular content and general pedagogy) was the next most effective program, followed by the CEE/SECyR (professional foundations, research methods and practice, and pedagogy)

A historical review about Normal Schools in Mexico shows change and stability. Normal Schools are still critical in the training of teachers The opportunities to learn given to future secondary teachers in Mexico influence the knowledge they eventually attain, resulting in good knowledge of pedagogy, at the expense of subject knowledge

Major findings

188

Interviews and document analysis

Document analysis

Data comes from document analysis, interviews and observations with program designers, program coordinators and primary teachers in the state of Chiapas

Tapia Uribe and Medrano Camacho (2016)

Ruiz Cuéllar (2012)

Tatto (1999c)

National continuing education practices are still insufficient to cover specific needs at the state, supervision and school levels. Diverse and specialized in situ designs are considered preferable Reforma Integral de la Educación Básica (RIEB), implemented between 2004 and 2011, does not support school-based training, even if this type of training has been proven to be the most promising strategy for professional development of in-service teachers The PARE program followed a constructivist approach, but the cascade strategy used by program coordinators to enact the program diffused the constructivist message. This together with lack of effective mentoring made it very difficult for teachers to change their practices

189

190

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Increasingly research has entered the field, but only very recently can it be said that research has begun to inform policy. Evaluation research, especially that produced by the INEE, seems to be more influential, but it does not equal the influence that the OECD has carved out for itself in alliance with the SEP. Opening the spaces where future teachers can be prepared, including universities and polytechnic institutes, may also result in the creation of a new generation of educational researchers. This chapter shows that Mexico is undergoing an important transformation in ways of thinking about professional knowledge for teaching, moving from learning from practice to technical models to a desire to prepare teachers as professionals. The review of the empirical research evidence examined in this chapter explores how research has served (or not) to inform policy and practice. A number of issues need to be examined in terms of how policy supports or hinders what, where and how teachers learn and how they are expected to teach in view of current transformations in the education system.

References Attick, D. (2016). Homo Economicus at school: Neoliberal education and teacher as economic being. Educational Studies, 53(1), pp. 37–48. https://www.tandfonline.com/ doi/full/10.1080/00131946.2016.1258362 Ávila, A. (2014). Del saber de la experiencia al saber en la experiencia: 25 años de investigación sobre saberes matemáticos y escolarización tardía en México. Education Matemática [en linea]. [Fecha de consulta: 8 de mayo de 2018] Disponible en:http:// www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=40540854004 ISSN 1665-5826 Centro de Estudios Educativos (CEE) (2013). 50 anos de historia del Centro de Estudios Educativos. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos, XLIII, 3, pp. 153–78. [www.redalyc.org] Cordero, G., Luna, E. and Patiño, N. (2013). La evaluación docente en educación básica en México: panorama y agenda pendiente. Revista Electrónica Sinéctica, 41, pp. 1–19. Cordero, G., Jiménez, J. A., Navarro-Corona, C. and Vázquez, M. A. (2017). Diagnóstico de la política pública de formación y desarrollo profesional del personal educativo de educación básica de la reforma educativa. México: INEE. Cordero Arroyo, G. and Jiménez Moreno, J. (2018). La política de ingreso a la carrera docente en México: Resultados de una supuesta idoneidad. Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas, 26(5). Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.3463 Cuevas Cajiga, Y. and Moreno Olivos, T. (2016). Políticas de evaluación docente de la OCDE: Un acercamiento a la experiencia en la educación básica mexicana. Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas, 24, p. 120. Furlong, J. (2013). Education–An Anatomy of the Discipline: Rescuing the University Project? London: Routledge. Garcia-Cabrero, B., Loredo, J. and Carranza, G. (2008). Analysis de la practica educativa de los docentes. Revista electronica de investigacion educativa, Especial. Retrieved from http://redie.uabc.mx/NumEsp1/contenido-garcialoredocarranza.html Instituto de Estudios Educativos y Sindicales de América (IEESA). (2012) ¿De dónde vienen y a dónde van los Maestros mexicanos? La formación docente en México, 18222012. Retrieved 10 May 2018 from: https://optisnte.mx/instituto-de-estudios-educativ os-y-sindicales-de-america-ieesa/

Teacher Education in Mexico

191

Martinez Mendez, J. I. (2015). ¿Cómo hacer de la evaluación un instrumento para la profesionalización docente? Revista Mexicana de Análisis Político y Administración Pública, 4(2), pp. 167–194. Medrano Camacho, V., Ángeles Méndez, E. and Morales Hernández, M. A. (2017). La educación normal en México. Elementos para su análisis. México: INEE Modelo Educativo (2016). Preguntas frequentes. Retrieved from https://www.gob.mx/m odeloeducativo2016/articulos/preguntas-frecuentes-48274 Navarrete-Cazales, Z. (2015). Formación de profesores en las Escuelas Normales de México. Siglo XX. Revista Historia de la Educación. Latinoamericana, 17(25). Navarro-Leal, M. A. and Navarrete-Cazales, Z. (2014). The Mexican education reforms and the teacher education system at the turn of the century. In N. Popov et al. (Eds.), Education’s Role in Preparing Globally Competent Citizens. Sofia Bulgaria: BCES Conference Books. Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos (OECD) (2010). Mejorar las escuelas.Estrategias para la acción en México. OECD Publishing. En http: //www.oecd.org/education/school/mejorarlasescuelasestrategiasparalaaccionenmexic o.htm. Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos (OECD) (2011). Establecimiento de un marco para la evaluación e incentivos docentes:Consideraciones para México. OECD Publishing. En http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264059986-es Robertson, S. L. (2007). ‘Remaking the World’ Neo-liberalism and the Transformation of Education and Teachers’ Labour, published by the Centre for Globalisation, Education and Societies, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1JA, UK at: http://www.bris.ac.uk/edu cation/people/academicStaff/edslr/publications/17slr/ Ruiz Cuéllar, G. (2012). La Reforma Integral de la Educación Básica en México (RIEB) en la educación primaria: desafíos para la formación docente. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 15, 1. Schmidt, W. H., Blömeke, S. and Tatto, M. T. (2011). Teacher Education Matters: A Study of Middle School Mathematics Teacher Preparation in Six Countries. New York: Teachers College Press. SEP (Secretaría de Educación Publica) (2017). Modelo Educativo para la Educacion Obligatoria. Mexico, D.F.: Secretaría de Educación Publica. Retrieved from https://ww w.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/198738/Modelo_Educativo_para_la_Educac io_n_Obligatoria.pdf SEP-SNIE (Secretaría de Educación Publica – Sistema Nacional de Informacion Estadistica Educativa) (2017). Escuelas, alumnos y maestros, segun nivel educativo 1970–2016. Retrieved from: http://www.snie.sep.gob.mx/descargas/estadistica/SEN_es tadistica_historica_nacional.pdf Street, S. (1992). Maestros en movimiento: Transformaciones en la burocracia estatal (1978-1982). Mexico City : CIESAS. Tapia Uribe, M. and Medrano Camacho., V. (2016). Modelos de formación continua de maestros en servicio de educación primaria: criterios e indicadores para su evaluación. México: INEE. Tatto, M. T. (1999a). Iniciativas para el cambio en la formación de maestros: El caso de México. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos, 29 (3 and 4), pp. 9–62. Tatto, M. T. (1999b). Education reform and state power in México: The paradoxes of decentralization. Comparative Education Review, 43, pp. 251–82. Tatto, M.T. (1999c). Improving teacher education in rural México: The challenges and tensions of constructivist reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, pp. 15–35.

192

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Tatto, M. T. (2004). La Educación magisterial: Su alcance en la era de la globalización. Mexico, D.F.: Editorial Santillana. [Teacher Education: Its potential in the globalization era]. Tatto, M. T. and Velez, E. (1997). A document-based assessment of teacher education reform initiatives: The case of México. In C. A. Torres and A. Puigros (Eds.), Latin American education: Comparative Perspectives, 165–216. Boulder, CO: Westview. Tatto, M. T., Schmelkes, S., Guevara, M.R. and Tapia, M. (2006/2007). Implementing reform amidst resistance: The regulation of teacher education and work in Mexico. International Journal of Educational Research, 45, pp. 267–78. Tatto, M. T., Barriendos-Rodriguez, A. L., Canché Góngora, E. M. and Domínguez Bravo, E. (2016). Learning to teach in Mexico: Insights from the first five years of mathematics teaching study. In M. Tatto (Chair), Teachers and Teacher Education in Latin America, Symposium conducted at the Comparative International Education Society Annual Meeting, Vancouver, British Colombia, Canada. Tatto, M. T., Burn, K., Menter, I., Mutton, T. and Thompson, I. (2018). Learning to Teach in England and the United States: The Evolution of Policy and Practice. Abingdon, England: Routledge.

12

Learning to Teach in Russia: A Review of Policy and Empirical Research Roza A. Valeeva and Aydar M. Kalimullin

Introduction The current priority for educational policy in Russia is the problem of teacher education. That was reflected in the adoption of several state programs, some of which are oriented to research. In 2013–15 there were a number of modernization projects in the Russian Federation (Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of the Russian Federation, 2013; Conception of teacher education development support, 2014; Comprehensive program to improve the professional skills of educational institutions teaching staff, 2014; Russian Government, 2014). All of these were aimed mainly at improving the existing system of teachers’ training. Together with the organizational restructuring, no less important and requiring special research attention is the substantial upgrading of the process. The process of transition to a market-driven economy, accompanied by deep structural changes in social development, also covers the field of educational services provided by the system of higher education. The boundaries between ‘school education’ and ‘adult education’ begin to blur. Instead we need a new model of learning, implementing the innovative management of educational flows, aimed at training throughout life and not just preparing for the initial entry into adult life (Bolotov, 2014). The scientific problems of teacher education in Russia are quite broad and diverse, especially in the context of strengthening its research component. The most valid approaches to study this issue are socio-historical and comparative approaches. In this chapter, we firstly examine the historical evolution of teacher education policy in the Russia. Then we analyse the empirical results of the teacher education modernization project in the context of the ‘Conception of teacher education development support’: the role of time (sequencing) in the learning to teach progression; the transitions and progressions in learning to teach, from learner to novice to expert and the expected outcomes of teacher education. On the basis of empirical review we describe the influences of local and national policies and social structures as well as those of immediate institutional arrangements and social groups

194

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

in learning to teach effectively. Our conclusion is that the reform of teacher education in Russia is a necessary response to the challenges of our time.

History and the role of teacher education in Russia The history of the teacher education in Russia is closely connected with the development of a comprehensive school which became a mass phenomenon in the nineteenth century, when universal primary education began to spread. This required major changes in teachers’ training. Education reforms in Russia have always been closely linked to the reforms of the state apparatus and economy, finance and foreign policy (Valeeva and Gafurov, 2017). The uniqueness of Russian traditions in teaching can also be found in the writings of prominent scientists, public figures, clergymen and representatives of the creative intelligentsia. Among these were Archbishop Feofan Prokopovich; teacher and author of the first Russian textbook L. F. Magnitsky; economist I. G. Pososhkov; historian V. N. Tatishchev; scholar, lexicographer M. V. Lomonosov; educator I. I. Betskoi; writer, publicist and publisher N. I .Novikov; writer, philosopher, revolutionary A. N. Radishchev; the great medical scientist N. I. Pirogov; internationally renowned educator and psychologist K. D. Ushinsky; writer Leo Tolstoy; mathematician N. I. Lobachevsky; chemists D. I. Mendeleev and A. M. Butlerov; teacher of literature F. I. Buslaev; as well as representatives of the revolutionary-democratic movement, social democrats, especially G. V. Plekhanov and V. I. Lenin. That is why we start our history of teacher education from the eighteenth century, when the profession of teaching in Russia was born, and when the question of institutional teacher education was first raised (Eskin, 1952). In 1779 a three-year teachers’ seminary (Normal School) was opened at Moscow University, training a small number of teachers for Moscow and Kazan gymnasiums. The organization of this seminary was undertaken by the well-known Russian educators N. I. Novikov and I. G. Schwarz. At the end of the eighteenth century the need for teachers increased greatly because of the opening of public schools in 1786 in each city. These were called ‘principal’ in the provincial (guberniya) cities, and ‘small’ (ujezd) – in the rural areas. For the first time the state requirements for teachering were formulated in the ‘Charter of public schools’ (1786), which became a major milestone, not only in the development of the school system, but also in the development of teacher education. St Petersburg principal public school (1783) and St Petersburg teachers’ seminary (1786) trained teachers for the principal schools in small towns (Panachin, 1979). Educational system reform began in Russia in the early nineteenth century (1804). In 1803 St Petersburg teachers’ seminary, which had already trained about 500 teachers, was transformed into the St Petersburg Pedagogical Institute. In 1804, the Russian universities adopted a new Charter, according to which a Pedagogical Institute with three-year training was to be established at each university. A graduate of the institute was obliged to work for at least six years in the rank of teacher. In Moscow, St Petersburg, Kazan, Kharkov, Vilna and Derpt school districts, six

Learning to Teach in Russia

195

pedagogical institutes were opened at universities. From 1804 to 1835, between twenty-four and thirty people were enrolled in each of the teacher training institutes. The students were trained free of charge and studied special sciences for the first two years. In their last year, students improved their knowledge of selected subjects at seminars, studied pedagogy and honed their skills in practice. The duration of study was extended to four years in 1835. St Petersburg Pedagogical Institute was reorganized into the Chief Pedagogical Institute, and was the basis for establishing the St Petersburg University in 1819. The institute, although not part of the university, still continued to operate as an independent higher educational institution. In St Petersburg University the faculty of technical sciences teachers was opened. In the first half of the nineteenth century the St Petersburg Chief Pedagogical Institute was the main institution for training teachers for high schools, university and other higher education institutions. It existed for nearly sixty years. The term of study at the institute was originally six years, but was reduced later to five years. After much debate, the final period of training was recognized as four years. Entrance examinations were obligatory for all applicants. The curriculum included logic and metaphysics, higher mathematics, physics, geography, world history, rhetoric, grammar, Russian, foreign and ancient literature, drawing and painting, the law of God and a foreign language. The training comprised an in-depth and comprehensive study of selected disciplines and thorough pedagogical training: theory of pedagogy (“the basics of pedagogy”), the content of school subjects, didactics, methodology (“ways of learning”) and practical training. The Minister of Public Education was the head of the institute which, in part, is why it provided organizational and pedagogical supervision over the activities of all university teachers’ institutes in Russia. The Chief Pedagogical Institute had a special Charter, which was in force for nearly thirty years (Eskin, 1952). In 1859 during the reform of education, the teacher training institutes in the universities were closed because they did not meet their goals. First, they were replaced by the two-year teacher training courses on which the graduates of the historicalphilological and physical-mathematical faculties were accepted. It was assumed that these graduates already had general pedagogical and methodological training. Some technical schools conducted training of teachers of physics, mathematics and science (mainly for real schools). But since the students studied more than twenty specialized disciplines, the psychological and pedagogical training was given minimal time and pedagogical practice was a mere formality (Panachin, 1979). Reform in the 1860s of the Russian public administration entailed school reform that touched on all parts of the educational system of Russia. Teachers’ seminaries and schools became the most common type of teacher training institute. K. D. Ushinsky developed a plan for their organization (‘Project of teachers’ seminary’, 1861). Universities were still training teachers for gymnasiums and real schools. Instead of pedagogical institutes, two-year teacher training courses opened at the universities, which were compulsory for all young people who wanted to become teachers (‘Candidates for teachers’). ‘Candidates for teachers’ had to study the subject they would teach in high school (Russian literature with the Slavic language and Russian history; general and Russian history and political geography, natural history

196

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

and physical geography, mathematics and physics, ancient languages; new languages). Compulsory subjects included pedagogy and didactics. The university professors conducted theoretical studies. Students had their practice at school, led by experienced teachers. Graduates were recommended to work in a high school only after the successful completion of the course. In 1872, a number of teachers’ institutes were opened, but they did not have the status of a higher educational institution and did not give the right to enter the universities and other higher schools. They trained teachers for the city and county schools. At the end of the nineteenth century teachers’ institutes were opened in St Petersburg, Moscow, Belgorod, Vilna, Glukhov, Kazan, Tambov, Tbilisi, Tomsk and Feodosiya. By the end of the century, their number had increased to fifteen, and by 1917 had risen to twenty (Mikheeva, 1985). The beginning of the twentieth century was marked by the development of the concept of university teacher education. It was intended to strengthen the weakest component of teacher education – psycho-pedagogical training. There were two possible models of development. The first model was based on the provision of training in the departments of pedagogy or at the pedagogical faculties. The second had a research orientation and implied half-university education. K. P. Janowski’s project, for example, was supposed to train students for the chosen subject and two additional subjects. In the first year, students were immersed in pedagogical theory; in the second they tested their skills in practice at school. This project was successfully implemented in the P. G. Shelaputin’s Moscow Pedagogical Institute (Knyazev, 1989). In the early twentieth century, a so-called integrated model of teacher education was implemented. Professional pedagogical training was combined with access to higher education, the level closest to the university (Higher Female Courses). Students received general scientific education for the first two years and then undertook teaching practice in high school or elementary school. There were ten thousand secondary schoolteachers in Russia in 1901, but only half of them (mostly university graduates) had higher education (Mikheeva, 1985). From the first days of the October Revolution, one of the priorities was the radical restructuring of the entire system of public education. The Bolsheviks were well aware of the primary value of the school as a means of propaganda and dissemination of communist ideology. In the Soviet state trained teachers became the most numerous group of the new Soviet intelligentsia. ‘Mass’ and ‘availability’ were the guiding principles of building a new system of teacher education (Voitekhovskaya, 2011; Zhelvakov, 1947). In the traditions of Russian education two institutional models of the higher pedagogical education – ‘university’ and ‘specialized’ – co-existed. The first model was traditionally more of theoretical and the second of applied character. The AllRussian Conference on Teacher Education (1924) recognized both as basic models of the higher teacher education. In 1930, when the system of teacher training had been completely brought under state control, the situation repeated itself. Teacher education institutions were divided into the two major subsystems: the teacher training school that trained teachers for preschool and primary school and teacher training institutes and universities that

Learning to Teach in Russia

197

trained teachers for secondary school (Vasilyev, 1966; Panachin, 1975; Shcherbakov, 1968). In 1974, in the USSR, teacher training was carried out in 199 teacher training institutes, and 63 universities. Only 5–10 per cent of the Russian teachers were trained in the classic universities and 90–95 per cent of them trained in the academic universities (Panachin, 1975; Slastenin, 1976). Since the 1990s the number of teacher training institutes and universities has decreased. In 1994, there were ninety-six state teacher training higher educational institutions, but by 2008, this had reduced to seventy and today there are only forty-eight. The main reason for this reduction is the contradiction between educational, research and technical criteria on the one hand and the accreditation requirements imposed by the government on the other. Due to the recession in the 1990s there has been a considerable decline in the state support for higher educational institutions, and this has caused stagnation. For this reason, many of them were reformed, mainly by merging them with academic universities. These changes are largely responsible for a tendency to increase the share of state allocation for training teachers in the classical universities. They have more powerful educational and scientific potential, and the best equipment, which they can use in training teachers. Before Russia joined the Bologna Process, it took four and five years to train teachers in higher institutions where they got a specialist diploma on graduation. Since 2001, training is completed with the award of a bachelor’s degree (four years) and master’s degree (two years). However, the content, forms and methods of teacher training have remained unchanged. This created difficulties in teacher training which were worsened by the low prestige of the teaching profession, low salaries and a lack of career prospects (Bolotov, 2001; Menter, Valeeva and Kalimullin, 2017) (Table 12.1).

Transitions and progressions in learning to teach from learner to novice and to expert Pre-service teacher education in Russia offers various ways of entering into the teaching profession: ● ●

●

●

Different profiles of educational undergraduate (four years); Short educational undergraduate for graduates of specialized colleges (three years and two months); Master’s degree programs, including for non-teaching profile undergraduate (two years); Retraining for non-teaching profile undergraduate (one year).

For most bachelor’s and master’s programs, students can study by correspondence, taking an additional year for the training. The university provides and certifies these correspondence programs. Bachelor’s programs in education train teachers for standard curriculum subjects of the Russian general academic school and educators for additional education. Master’s programs in education give in-depth professional training of an innovative nature, preparing for the implementation of research, design and management activities.

198

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Table 12.1 Timeline of the most important events shaping modern Russian teacher education Years Eighteenth century

1804–59

1860s–1900

1900–17

1917–1990s

2000s–

Key moments (policies) Actualizing teacher education problem Opening of Normal School (teacher training seminary) in Moscow University in 1779 Formulation of the first state requirements for teachers (‘Charter of public schools’ (1786) Academization: move from Normal schools to universities to prepare public schoolteachers – Russian educational system reform (1804). New University Charter. Opening in Moscow, St Petersburg, Kazan, Kharkov, Vilna and Derpt school districts: six pedagogical institutes at universities. The Petersburg Chief Pedagogical Institute as the main educational institution training teachers for high schools, university and other higher education institutions Institutionalization: public recognition of the need to establish special schools for training teachers, rural public statements justifying the extension of general education teachers. Teachers’ seminaries and schools as the most common type of teacher training institute. K. D. Ushinsky’s ‘Project of teachers’ seminary’, 1861. Universities were training teachers for gymnasiums and real schools. Instead of pedagogical institutes, two-year teacher training courses were opened at the universities Integration: the development of the concept of university teacher education. Two models of teacher training: (1) training in the departments of pedagogy or at the pedagogical faculties; (2) research-oriented half-university education. Integrated model of teacher education (Higher Female Courses) Centralization/Regulation: ‘Mass’ and ‘availability’ as the guiding principles of building a new system of teacher education. Division of teacher education institutions in the two major subsystems: the teacher training school, which trained teachers for preschool and primary school and teacher training institutes and universities that train teachers for secondary school. Five to ten per cent of the Soviet teachers were trained in the classic universities Internationalization: Before Russia joined the Bologna Process it took four and five years to train teachers in higher institutions. Upon graduation they got a specialist diploma. After 2001 training finished with awarding bachelor’s degree (four years) and master’s degree (two years)

Students can undergo bachelor’s programs in education in traditional teacher training universities and in classical or federal universities. Those students who do not enter traditional university-based teacher education programs follow an alternative educational pathway. They can choose master degree programs in education after completing a non-teaching undergraduate profile. There are three qualification categories of teachers in Russia: basic, first and highest. After pre-service teacher education, the novice gets the basic qualification category. The procedures for assigning the first and highest qualification categories are governed by regulations approved by the regional executive authorities. With the exception of the basic certification there is no common basis for the certification of teachers across the entire Russian Federation. There are two types of certification: mandatory and voluntary. Mandatory certification is carried out every five years to verify compliance with the pedagogue’s position. Voluntary certification is carried out when the teacher submits the application for certification him/herself with a statement about the match

Learning to Teach in Russia

199

of their skill requirements against the first or the highest qualifying category. The law does not set deadlines for centralized applications and periods of certification, so the teacher can apply for certification at any time within the five years. Qualification Testing for the first and highest category takes place in the form of a professional judgement of the portfolio of the teacher’s achievements by the certification commission established by the regional ministries of education. According to the ‘Procedure for certification of pedagogical employees of the organizations implementing educational activities’ (Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, 2014) the first qualifying category requirements are as follows: ●

●

●

knowledge of modern educational technologies and techniques, and effective use of them in practice; сontribution to the improvement of the quality of education by improving methods of training and education and stable development of students in studying educational programs and performance of their achievements that are above average in this region of the Russian Federation.

The additional requirements for the highest qualification category are as follows: ●

●

contribution to the improvement of the quality of education by improving teaching methods and training, innovation, development of new educational technologies and the active dissemination of their own experience in improving the quality of education and training and stable development of students in studying educational programs and performance of their achievements that are above average in this region of the Russian Federation, including their results in all-Russian and international competitions, contests and competitions.

Expected outcomes of teacher education In 2013 ‘The teacher professional standard’ was adopted in Russia (Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of the Russian Federation, 2013). The standard sets out uniform requirements for the content and quality of vocational educational activities, for assessing the level of qualification of teachers in employment and for certification for career planning. It provides a basis for job descriptions and the development of federal state educational standards of teacher education. It was proclaimed as the basis for employment contracts, fixing the relationship between employee and employer and enabling the calculation of seniority, the accrual of pensions and other material benefits of teachers. It can also form the starting point for a national framework of standards supplemented by local regulations that take into account sociocultural, demographic and other characteristics of the territory, for example megacities, areas with a

200

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

predominance of the rural population, mono-ethnic and multiethnic regions which impose specific requirements on teachers. The teacher professional standard can also be supplemented with an internal standard of educational institution (similar to the standard of the enterprise), to meet the needs of schools for gifted, inclusive schools, etc.). It makes demands of the personal qualities of the teacher, which cannot be separated from his professional competencies, such as willingness to teach all children, without exception, regardless of their inclinations, abilities and characteristics of development disability. Table 12.2 outlines the professional activity types in the teacher professional standard. Each of these can be elaborated further. Thus, for example, labour actions for the code A/01.6 in the section ‘General pedagogical function. Teaching’ include the following: ●

●

●

● ●

●

● ● ● ●

Development and implementation of programs of academic disciplines within the basic educational program; Professional activities in accordance with the requirements of the federal state educational standards for preschool, primary general, basic general and secondary education; Participation in the development and implementation of a safe and comfortable learning environment in the educational organization; Planning and conducting training sessions; Systematic analysis of the effectiveness of training sessions and learning approaches; Organization, monitoring and evaluation of educational achievements, ongoing and final results of mastering by students the basic educational program; Formation of universal educational actions; Formation of skills related to information and communication technologies; Formation of motivation to learn and Objective assessment of students’ knowledge on a test basis, and other control methods in accordance with the real educational opportunities of children.

The Required skills for the same code include the following: ●

●

●

●

Possess forms and methods of training, including project work, laboratory experiments and field practice; Objectively evaluate the students’ knowledge on a test basis, and other control methods in accordance with the real educational opportunities of children; Develop (master) and apply modern psychological and pedagogical technologies based on the knowledge of the laws of personality development and behaviour in real and virtual environments; Use and test specific approaches to learning in order to include all students in the educational process, including those with special needs in education (students who have shown outstanding abilities; students for whom the Russian language is not native; students with disabilities);

B

A

Code

Educational activities on the design and implementation of process in educational institutions of preschool, primary general, basic general and secondary education Educational activities on the design and implementation of basic educational programs

Denomination

5–6

6

Qualification level

Generalized labour functions

Labour functions

Educational activities on the implementation of preschool education programs Educational activities on the implementation of primary education programs Educational activities on the implementation of programs of basic and secondary education The module ‘Subject teaching. Mathematics’ The module ‘Subject teaching. Russian language’

General pedagogical function. Teaching Upbringing activities Development activities

Denomination

Table 12.2 Functional outline of professional activity types in the teacher professional standard

5 6 6 6 6

B/02.6 B/03.6 B/04.6 B/05.6

6 6 6

Level (sub-level) of qualification

B/01.5

A/01.6 A/02.6 A/03.6

Code

201

202 ●

●

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Possess ICT competencies (general user ICT competence; general pedagogical ICT competence; subject-pedagogical ICT competence (reflecting professional ICT competence of the relevant area of human activity)); Organize different types of extra-curricular activities: gaming, learning and research, artistic and productive, cultural and recreational, taking into account the opportunities of the educational organization, place of residence and the historical and cultural identity of the region.

The required knowledge for the same code includes the following: ●

●

●

●

● ●

●

● ● ●

Taught subject within the requirements of the federal state educational standards and basic educational program, its history and its place in the world of culture and science; History, theory, laws and principles of construction and operation of the educational systems, the role and the place of education in the life of the individual and society; Basic laws of age, stage and crises of development, the socialization of the individual, the individual characteristics of the indicators of life trajectories, their possible deviation, as well as the foundations of their psycho-diagnosis; Basics of psycho-didactics, multicultural education, laws of behaviour in social networks; Ways to achieve educational outcomes and ways of assessing learning outcomes; Basic methods of teaching, basic principles of the activity approach, types and techniques of modern educational technologies; Priority directions of development of the educational system of Russian Federation, laws and other normative legal acts regulating educational activities in the Russian Federation, normative documents on training and education of children and youth, the federal state educational standards for preschool, primary general, basic general, secondary education, legislation on children’s rights, labour law; Normative documents on training and education of children and youth; Convention of Children’s rights and Labour legislation.

Other aspects are described in the same manner (Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of the Russian Federation, 2013). However, while these standards have been broadly discussed in Russia they have not yet been implemented in all educational institutions.

Methodology An extensive bibliographic search was the main method for collecting evidence for this study. The main research questions that guided the search were as follows: Which types of knowledge are considered important in learning how to teach in the Russian

Learning to Teach in Russia

203

context, and to what extent do teachers in Russia possess these types of knowledge? A complex variety of methods, complementing each other was used: analysis and synthesis of the regulatory, legislative, instructional and teaching papers and materials on management and procedure studies on teacher education modernization in Russia; study and generalization of innovative teaching experience. We searched several databases using the following keywords: teachers’ competences, teacher qualifications, students’ achievements, teacher education program initial (preservice), induction, CPD (in-service). The databases searched were as follows: (1) International publications of Russian scholars (searched using online databases SCOPUS, Web of Science, Google Scholar); (2) Russian peer-reviewed journals; (3) Conference proceedings of conferences on teacher education in Russia; (4) The site of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation; (5) The site of the Russian Ministry of Education and Science project of modernization of teacher education. The main data sources for the study were the reviews and subsequent teacher education regulations policy documents in the Russian Federation together with research papers on the implementation of the teachers’ professional skills improvement program. In particular, some researchers (Slastenin, 1976; Panova, 2009) consider the professional development from the standpoint of the personality of the teacher, Kuzmina (1965) and Zagvyazinsky (1986) from the standpoint of his activities, while others (Abdullina, 1990; Shiyanov, 1991) consider the effectiveness of teacher training in pedagogical high school.

Influences on learning to teach Influences of local and national policies and social structures on teacher education: Review of the empirical literature V. A. Bolotov (2001) in his research ‘Theory and practice of the teacher education reform in Russia in terms of social changes’ offered an account of the conception of teacher education and the practice of teacher education reform in Russia, in the context of social changes. He considered a unified system of the principles, technology and management of innovative processes in teacher education in Russia and identified causal relationships within the reformed educational system, and the effectiveness of management of innovative processes in teacher education. Bolotov analyses the expert evaluations of the Russian teacher training universities’ experience in Volgograd, Krasnoyarsk, Moscow, St Petersburg and Tula. Among the objective factors of indigenous higher education reform in Russia he identifies the autonomy of institutions in matters of organization and support of the educational process, the diversification of contents and forms of education, the increase of the mobility of students and teaching staff and the internationalization of education. These factors contribute to a new quality in the teacher education system, associated with the transition from the knowledge oriented to the personal paradigm of teaching. Analysis and evaluation of the results of the teacher education modernization led to the conclusion that, in spite of serious attempts to improve teacher education, there was still a one-sided bias in the subject-functional area. A deepening differentiation

204

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

of teacher education was carried out without justification of a single professional core, which would integrate all these various specializations of teachers. Pedagogical theory, as it was studied by future teachers, was more suitable for the construction of theoretical models of education than for action, because it did not give a complete picture of the future professional environment. Application of the method of multidimensional system analysis enabled the identification of key trends in the development of teacher education system. The outcomes of the reform efforts at the federal and regional levels were significant changes in the target, content, organizational and technological characteristics of teacher education. In her research ‘Professiological basics of teacher education’ E. V. Balakireva (2008) justified directions of qualitative renewal of the content and process of teacher education, due to the essential changes in the teaching profession. She developed the model of implementation of a ‘professiological’ approach to teacher education, which includes two open subsystems, ‘system of the teacher’s professional knowledge’ and ‘teacher education system’. The study was carried out in the A. I. Herzen Russian State Pedagogical University and in the Association ‘University educational district St. Petersburg and Leningrad region’ (about 100 educational institutions in total).

Influences of local and national policies and social structures on teacher education: Results organized according to the key issues A timely step was the suggestion in the strategic ‘Conception of teacher education development support’ (Conception of teacher education development support, 2014) that initial teacher training, in-service training and professional retraining lie at the heart of the reform. The idea of combining the opportunities of classical and pedagogical universities provides unique conditions for a broad scale experiment in new content formation and the organizational structure of teacher education modelling. The ‘Comprehensive program to improve the professional skills of the teaching staff in educational institutions’ was developed and approved in May 2014. The program combines the main goals, objectives and activities in the field of professional development of teachers, aimed at testing and implementation of the teacher professional standard, teacher education upgrading, the transition to efficient contracts and an increase in the prestige of the teaching profession. These are set out in the approved federal programs and target documents (Russian Government, 2012, 2014; Barhatov and Belova, 2017) and have led to important changes in policy direction with significant consequences in terms of the structure and curriculum of teacher education. The national program involves three main training profiles:

i. Educational training (training of teachers specializing in certain subjects e.g. chemistry, biology, literature, etc.);

ii. Psychological and pedagogical training (school psychologists, social educators, educators involved in extra-curricular activities, etc.) and

iii. Speech pathology training (training of educators working with special needs children – problems with speech, hearing, vision, supporting-motor apparatus, mental disabilities, etc.).

Learning to Teach in Russia

205

At the same time, Russia is experiencing a change in the structure of university teacher training with reforms in four basic areas: ●

●

●

●

Improving the quality of training by eliminating the linear path of learning and creating conditions for a direct ‘entry’ into the programs and teachers training for different groups of students (undergraduates and bachelors, acting teachers and other professionals) and elaborating bachelor’s teacher training programs into a ‘universal bachelor’s program’. Changes in the content of teacher training programs and training forms and methods to ensure implementation of teacher’s new professional standard and the new standards of school education, practical training and strengthening the connection between all the components of the training content and teachers’ professional practical tasks. These changes also involve the enrichment of curricula with an extensive system of school-based practices, and on internship. They give the opportunity to train teachers for different subjects, as well as teachers for different types of schools, and groups of students, by means of extensive use of school-university partnerships’ mechanisms. Out-of-school activities and informal education are also included changes. The improvement of the efficiency of existing teacher training colleges and universities implementing teacher training programs, by means of introduction of joint programs of teachers’ practical training (so-called applied bachelor degree program) through networking of colleges and universities, and the development of master’s degree programs for different groups of applicants wishing to start or continue a career in the system of education. The development and testing of the system of independent certification of professional teachers who have already received the diploma through various training programs in order to enable (establish) graduates’ mentoring system and teachers’ career development, and the establishment of the system of educational programs’ quality assessment.

Influences of immediate institutional arrangements and social groups on teacher education In 2014 a project for teacher education modernization was initiated by the Ministry of Education and Science of Russian Federation. The main objective was to provide teacher training in accordance with the teachers’ professional standard and the federal state educational standards of general education. The first phase (2014–15) was aimed at overcoming the existing pedagogical education problems which had been observed in those higher education institutions that were implementing training programs for future teachers, such as the almost single-channel model of the system of teacher training, the absence of opportunities to implement transitions between teaching and non-teaching areas of training and the absence of independent quality assessment. The content of the second phase projects (2016–17) was aimed at the development and testing of basic professional educational programs for the basic profiles of teacher

206

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

training. They were developed in accordance with the requirements of ‘The teacher professional standard’ and Federal state educational standards (FSES) of general education. The development of the second phase professional educational programs relied on the models and methods that emerged as a result of the outcomes achieved during the first phase. At the first phase (2014–15), projects in forty-five Russian universities developed four different models to modernize teacher education at the inter-regional level – applied bachelor, professional (educational) master, academic bachelor and master research courses and produced more than 110 new modules of basic professional educational programs in 2 years. A module is a complete unit of an educational program that forms one or several defined professional competencies. A modular educational program is a collection and sequence of modules aimed at mastering certain competences necessary for assigning qualifications. The new modules have been tested with over 6,000 students in 13 participating universities and a further 32 universities, who were project joint contractors. More than 5,000 project participants and executives developing new modules of basic professional educational bachelor and master programs were given advanced training according to specified project requirements. A Resource Centre was established on the basis of the project Operators Moscow State Psychological and Pedagogical University and the Higher School of Economics to provide expert-analytical support of the implementation of the teacher education modernization projects in the inter-regional level. The outcomes of the project were identified as the development and testing of training modules on two levels of education and basic directions of the educational area ‘Education and pedagogical sciences’ teacher training programs for all categories of teachers (preschool, primary general, basic and secondary education teachers, educational psychologists, speech therapists), meeting the requirements of the professional standards and the FSES of general education. There was an independent evaluation of the outcomes. An independent evaluation of professional competencies covered 3,603 students from 38 universities. The toolkit of the independent evaluation was developed in accordance with the specifics of the teacher labour actions described in teachers professional standard and included a professional competence test and a case study. The evaluation was done by the operators of the project. Bolotov et al. (2015) analysed the project’s implementation and reported the projects completed in 2014–15: ● ● ●

●

Implementation of an actively professional approach in teacher training; Transition to a modular principle of training in high school; Engaging schools as equal partners of university teachers in the formation of students’ professional competences and Providing different training paths to the profession and entry into the profession.

At the second phase (2016–17), the higher education institutions developed and submitted for examination to the Federal Educational and Methodological Association for the educational area ‘Education and pedagogical sciences’ projects of forty-two exemplary core professional educational programs. In the process of

Learning to Teach in Russia

207

implementing this complex project, courses of professional development for the faculty of higher educational institutions participating in the project were organized, and an independent evaluation of the professional competencies of students trained both in the approved educational programs and in the existing training programs was implemented. The new programs have been tested with over 12,000 students in 8 participating universities and a further 53 universities, who were project joint contractors. An independent evaluation of professional competencies covered 2,768 students from 43 universities of Russia. Uniform control and measurement materials were developed by a group of experts who were not directly involved in approbation of educational programs in participating universities. This ensured independent character of the evaluation of students’ professional and general professional competencies. The toolkit included a test and case studies aimed at testing knowledge and skills in accordance with the passports of general professional competences. The results of assessing the formation of general professional competencies of students of experimental and control groups differed. Average score of assignments in the experimental groups was seventy-one and in control groups sixty-four. The results indicate the effectiveness of the developed training programs and their compliance with the requirements of the Teachers professional standard and Federal state educational standards of general education (Results of the complex project on modernization of teacher education in the Russian Federation (2014–2017), 2017; Margolis and Safronova, 2018) (Table 12.3).

Kazan University as an example of a Perennial Federal University offering teacher education in Russia Recent experience has shown that major university centres, offering significant educational, scientific and technical resources, are the most efficient in providing a comprehensive solution for the mentioned problems. One of these is Kazan Federal University (the authors’ own institution). Established in 1812, it is one of the first teacher training institutes in the Russian Empire. In 2011, Tatar State Humanities and Teacher Training University (which has been training teachers since 1876) and the Yelabuga State Teacher Training University (established in 1898) became part of Kazan Federal University. Today the university is one of the three largest teacher training centres of Russia with 8,000 prospective teachers taught by 600 lecturers and researchers specializing in the fields of education, educational psychology, abnormal psychology and other subjects. There are programs at bachelor, masters and doctoral level, together with advanced teacher training programs and professional retraining programs. It is one of the five Russian universities that train future teachers for all stages of school education. The university trains educators for extended activities and teaches standard curriculum subjects of the Russian general academic school. Kazan Federal University has a unique model of teacher training combining the advantages of the classical (more qualified staff, better laboratory facilities,

Bolotov (2001) studied the expert evaluations of the Russian teacher training universities experience in Volgograd, Krasnoyarsk, Moscow, St. Petersburg and Tula Balakireva (2006) studied directions of qualitative renewal of the content and process of teacher education, due to the essential changes in the teaching profession Bolotov et al. (2015) analysed the expertanalytical support of the implementation of the teacher education modernization projects in the inter-regional level

Overview

Outcomes

Findings

Independent evaluation of the pedagogical training programs graduates professional competencies formation in accordance with the requirements of the teacher professional standard; new technology of teachers’ training, implementing the principles of the activity approach and in-depth practical training; new models of the joint development of the basic professional educational programs, algorithms of action by the research teams implementing in their high schools new teacher training programs on the basis of the resources generated by the project

Application of the method Found objective factors of indigenous higher of multidimensional education reform Russia system analysis allowed identifying key trends in the development of teacher education system Development of the Established the conditions of successful model of implementation implementation of professiological approach to of professiological teacher education approach in teacher education

Thirteen participating universities and thirty-two 110 new modules of universities, which were project joint contractors. the basic professional More than 6,000 students participated in the educational programs testing of the new modules. More than 5,000 project participants and executives developing new modules of basic professional educational bachelor and master programs. A total of 3,603 students participated in the testing of an independent evaluation of professional competencies

Data from the A. I. Herzen Russian State Pedagogical University, Association ‘University educational district St. Petersburg and Leningrad region’ (about 100 educational institutions)

Survey of all teachers, interviews and observations of subsample

Data

Table 12.3 Summary of studies illustrating the influence of national and local policy on learning to teach effectively

208

Learning to Teach in Russia

209

multidisciplinary educational programs) and teacher training (specialization, focus on teaching techniques, psychological readiness) higher education institutions (Kalimullin, 2014a). It offers entry into teaching through: ● ●

●

●

Bachelor’s Program in Education (four years); Short-term Bachelor’s Program in Education for graduates of teacher training colleges (three years and two months); Master’s Program in Education which is also suitable for graduate in non-teaching subjects (two years) and Retraining of non-teaching profile bachelors (one year).

The majority of bachelor’s and master’s programs can be done by correspondence, taking an additional year to complete. Combining opportunities of classical and teacher training universities has allowed KFU to implement several organizational approaches to teacher training:

1. The branch of the University in the city of Yelabuga has maintained the traditional form of teacher education at undergraduate programs.

2. The University in the city of Kazan carries out a new distributed form with a teacher training department within eight institutes (Institute of Mathematics and Mechanics; Institute of Philology and Intercultural Communication; Institute of Management, Economics and Finance; Institute of Fundamental Medicine and Biology; Institute of Physics; Institute of Chemistry; Institute of International Relations, History and Oriental Studies and Institute of Computational Mathematics and Information Technologies). This allows the achievement of a higher level of subject competence for future teachers by attracting more qualified staff, by using state-of-the-art laboratory facilities of these institutions (especially important in the field of natural science).. The Institute of Psychology and Education supervises this process and is responsible for educational and psychological training of future teachers. 3. A new master’s degree program in Education that aims to concentrate all master’s programs at the Institute of Psychology and Education was introduced in 2015. This will create conditions for differentiation and profiling the training of graduates who continue their education after a bachelor’s degree with a teaching or a non-teaching profile (Kalimullin, 2014b; Valeeva and Gafurov, 2017). The university also has its own centre for training and retraining 6,000 teachers each year who must pass a qualifying exam every three years. There are two secondary schools for gifted children in the field of physics, mathematics and IT, which serve as an experimental platform for students testing new technologies. The university system is built to work with different categories of children (gifted, having different deviations and limitations in the physical and mental health, ‘at risk’, immigrants and others).

210

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Conclusion The crisis in the Russian system of teacher education came about because of three groups of problems:

1. Difficulties in entering the profession. For example, school leavers intending to do a degree in education usually enter with low grades and so there was little possibility of selecting the best students who were suited to teaching. Few graduates with a degree in education had experience of working in education (the problem of the so-called double negative selection). 2. The graduates’ qualifications were of poor quality because of out-of-date training methods, insufficient internship and hands-on experience, lack of knowledge in activity-based approaches, a disconnection between the courses taken and the needs of school, low research activity of students and poor resource provision. 3. Problems of sustainable employment connected with a lack of forecast for the demand in educators in the region, a failure of the regions to take responsibility for meeting the cap on student numbers and future employment of graduates. Inappropriate recruitment methods failed to attract the most talented graduates into a teaching career, lack of professional support and guidance of beginner teachers, and a lack of career prospects for teachers due to lack of vacancies in schools, as poorly qualified teachers occupy these positions. In the context of educational development in Russia, when openness, selforganization, self-determination and self-development are becoming its essential characteristics, the teacher’s role as an integral element of the system is redefined. The effective professional teacher moves from being reactive (passive and adaptive) to active (active and adaptive). Yet there is a lack of ready-made models of educational practice for implementations of these new goals. The professional and personal characteristics of the teacher capable to successfully operate in the conditions of a particular model of education have not yet been specified and their development has not been determined at the technical level (Conception of teacher education development support, 2014). The new contemporary realities dictate the emergence of new areas of pedagogics, such as STEM education, robotic engineering, migration education, neuropedagogics – and the development of human capital for the future economy. In this stage of educational development there is an increasing need for teacher-generalists, able to navigate the arising changes, to define themselves in the diversity of variants of educational content, educational models and, consequently, to transform their own pedagogical activity. The teacher in demand is the one who is willing to constructively and creatively engage in change, often as their initiator. Changing requirements in competences require him/her to be constantly researching and learning. In this regard, the Russian society faces a pressing problem of fundamental changes in pedagogical, psychological, philosophical, economic and other approaches to teachers’ training.

Learning to Teach in Russia

211

The Russian government is aware of the need for radical renewal of teacher education. It is strategically important for Russia to expand the scope of knowledgebased developments, as the country’s progress is impossible without scientists and highly skilled professionals capable of ensuring the development of science and postindustrial sectors, based on information technology and sustainable knowledge. In this context, school education becomes particularly important as a determinant of the success of the subsequent levels of the educational process. The reform of teacher education in Russia is a necessary response to the challenges of our time.

Acknowledgements The work was performed according to the Russian Government Program of Competitive Growth of Kazan Federal University.

References Abdullina, O. A. (1990). General Pedagogical Training of the Teacher in System of the Higher Pedagogical Education. Moscow : Prosveshcheniye. Balakireva, E. V. (2008). Professiological basics of teacher education. Doctoral dissertation. St. Petersburg. Barhatov, V. and Belova, I. (2017). State support programs of small and medium sized enterprises in Russia. In Mehmet Huseyin Bilgin, Hakan Danis, Ender Demir and Ugur Can (Eds.), Eurasian Business Perspectives: Proceedings of the 20th Eurasia Business and Economics Society Conference, Volume 1, 172. Springer. Bolotov, V. A. (2001). Theory and practice of the teacher education reform in Russia in terms of social change. Doctoral dissertation. St. Petersburg. Bolotov, V. A. (2014). The issues of the teacher education reform. Psychological Science and Education, 19(3), pp. 32–40. Bolotov, V. A., Rubtsov, V. V., Froumin, I. D., Margolis, A. A., Kasprzhak, A. G., Safronova, M. A., Kalashnikov, S. P. (2015). Information-analytical materials on the results of the first phase of the project ‘Modernization of teacher education’. Psychological Science and Education, 20(5), pp. 13–28. Comprehensive program to improve the professional skills of educational institutions teaching staff (2014). URL: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_166654/ Conception of teacher education development support (2014). https://www.vedu.ru/newskoncepciya-podderzhki-razvitiya-pedagogicheskogo-obrazovaniya Eskin, M. I. (1952). Secondary school teachers’ training in pre-revolutionary Russia (XVIII beginning of XX century). Doctoral dissertation. Moscow. Kalimullin, A. M. (2014a). Processes of reforming teacher training in modern Russia (experience of the Кazan federal university). American Journal of Applied Sciences, 11(8), pp. 1365–8. Kalimullin, A. M. (2014b). Improvement of teachers’ qualification at Kazan federal university. World Applied Sciences Journal, 30(4), pp. 447–53. Knyazev, E. A. (1989). Formation and development of the higher teacher education in Russia (1905-1917). Doctoral dissertation. Moscow.

212

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Kuzmina, N. V. (1965). Psychological structure of the teacher’s activity and the formation of his personality. Doctoral dissertation. Leningrad. Margolis A. A., Safronova M. A. (2018). The Project of Modernisation of Teacher Education in the Russian Federation: Outcomes 2014–2017. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie – Psychological Science and Education, 23(5), pp. 5–24. doi: 10.17759/ pse.2018230101 Mikheeva, E. P. (1985). Higher Education for Women in Pre-revolutionary Russia (18721917). Moscow : Prosveshcheniye. Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (2014). Procedure for certification of pedagogical employees of the organizations implementing educational activities. Accessed 10 January 2018 at: http://legalacts.ru/doc/prikaz-minobrnauki-ro ssii-ot-07042014-n-276/ Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of the Russian Federation (2013). Professional standard. The teacher (pedagogical activity in the preschool, primary general, basic general, secondary general education) (educator, teacher). Accessed 9 December 2017 at: http://www.rosmintrud.ru/docs/mintrud/orders/129/ Menter, I., Valeeva, R. and Kalimullin, A. (2017). A tale of two countries – forty years on: politics and teacher education in Russia and England. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(5), pp. 616–29. Panachin, F. G. (1975). Teacher Education in the USSR: the Most Important Stages of History and Modern State. Moscow : Pedagogika. Panachin, F. G. (1979). Teacher Education in Russia. Historical and Pedagogical Essays. Moscow : Prosveshcheniye. Panova, N. V. (2009). Personal-professional Development of Teachers at Different Stages of Life. St. Petersburg: Anno. Results of the complex project on modernization of teacher education in the Russian Federation (2014–2017). (2017). Moscow: MGPPU. Accessed 9 December 2018 at: http:// xn--80aaacgdafieaexjhz1dhebdg0bs2m.xn--p1ai/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/%D0%91% D1%83%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%82_%D0%9C%D0%9F%D0%9E_2017.pdf Russian Government (2012) State programme: Education Development, 2013–2020. 22 November. Accessed 9 December 2018 at: http://government.ru/en/docs/3342/ Russian Government (2014) The concept of Federal Target Programme ‘Russian Language’ for 2016-2020. Accessed 9 December 2018 at: https://www.prlib.ru/en/events/669697 Shcherbakov, A. I. (1968). Formation of the Soviet school teachers in higher teacher education. Doctoral dissertation. Leningrad. Shiyanov, E. N. (1991). Theoretical bases of the teacher education humanisation. Doctoral dissertation. Moscow. Slastenin, V. A. (1976). Formation of the Soviet School Teachers in the Process of Vocational Training. Moscow: Prosveshcheniye. Valeeva, R. and Gafurov, I. (2017). Initial teacher education in Russia: connecting practice, theory and research. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), pp. 342–60. Vasilyev, K. I. (1966). Essays on the History of Higher Teacher Education in the RSFSR (1918-1932). Voronezh: Centralnoye chernozemnoye knizhnoye izdatelstvo. Voitekhovskaya, M. P. (2011). The development of the form of professional pedagogical education in Russia in the first quarter of the 19th century. TSPU Bulletin,13 (115), pp. 11–16. Zagvyazinsky, V. I. (1986). Development of Teachers’ Pedagogical Creativity. Moscow: Znaniye. Zhelvakov, N. A. (1947). The beginning of the construction of pedagogical education (1917-1920). Sovietskaya pedagogika, 10, pp. 71–80.

13

The Trajectory of Teacher Education in South Korea: A Review of Policy and Research James Pippin and Eunjung Jin

Introduction Some education researchers and policymakers in Western countries point to South Korea’s (hereafter, Korea) education system as a model of excellence and equity (e.g. Akiba, LeTendre and Scribner, 2007; Duncan, 2014). At the core of this system are highly knowledgeable teachers attracted and retained by favourable working conditions and traditional public regard for the teaching profession (Kang and Hong, 2008). Although some reports describe the learning environments and working conditions of in-service teachers in Korea (e.g. TALIS, 2014), few studies illuminate the research and policies that have influenced the development of the country’s teachers. This chapter seeks to contribute to that literature by charting the evolution of research and policies shaping innovations in Korean teacher preparation. Specifically, we seek answers to the following research questions:

1. What are the key educational policies and institutional arrangements that have influenced teacher learning in Korea since 1945?

2. What is the influence of these policies and arrangements on Korean teachers’ ability to teach effectively? Since Korea is often presented as having a model educational system, understanding reforms to teacher education, and the contexts in which these reforms occurred, may point to valuable lessons for scholars and policymakers in many countries. We approach the research questions from a socio-historical perspective, which helps us see and understand the ways that historical, social and cultural events in Korea have shaped teacher preparation policies (Martin et al., 2014). For example, a sociohistorical perspective illustrates how Confucianism continues to influence the Korean education system broadly, and the preparation, practices and working conditions of teachers specifically. Furthermore, this perspective helps to link post-war national education reforms to the needs and demands of a rapidly changing society.

214

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Key issues in learning to teach in Korea Education has always been important to Koreans. In fact, some might argue that contemporary Koreans’ educational achievements are intricately linked to the ways in which education is embedded in Korean society (Sorenson, 1994). For example, since the earliest dynastic kingdoms, Confucianism encouraged Koreans to value learning, the learnt and ideals like meritocracy, which were exemplified in the tradition of selecting public officials based on their performance on rigorous competitive examinations (Martin et al., 2014). The influence of these values and ideals can still be seen in contemporary society as the public continues to hold teachers in high regard and students study long hours in hopes of scoring well on highly competitive college entrance exams. In spite of this long history of valuing learning, Korea did not begin to develop a formal public system of education until gaining independence from the Japanese occupation at the end of the Second World War in 1945. Early efforts to develop this system were hampered by the subsequent destruction of 75 per cent of the country’s infrastructure and the loss of millions of lives during the Korean War of 1950–53 (Martin et al., 2014). The Korean people spent the remainder of the decade working to reconstruct their society. Yet during this time of rebuilding, the new Korean government was able to establish the first national curriculum in 1954, establish compulsory primary education, compose and distribute primary level textbooks and create the first teachers’ colleges (Republic of Korea Ministry of Education, 2015). As the country continued its reconstruction efforts, policymakers focused on developing labour-intensive manufacturing export industries, which required an educated workforce, fuelling educational expansion (Kim, 2001). During the 1960s and 1970s, Korea also implemented a standardized college entrance exam, upgraded high schools to two-year primary teacher preparation colleges, upgraded secondary teacher training institutions to four-year teacher colleges and established a graduate school of education. Education reform in the 1980s shifted from system expansion to quality (Republic of Korea Ministry of Education, 2015). Reforms in this period prioritized the development of Korean social life, including reducing competition for college entrance, minimizing private tutoring, introducing a learner-centred curriculum and securing high-quality teachers (Kim, 2001). The year 1993 marks the beginning of civilian government in Korea. While lacking the singular power of past military leadership, centralized government affords Korean executive administrations considerable policymaking latitude. Below, we present three key education policy movements impacting teachers as they learn to teach – curriculum reform, accountability and multicultural education – and trace these reforms through the most recent executive administrations. Table 13.1 serves as a timeline of these administrations and the corresponding reforms.

Curriculum reform The national curriculum of Korea has been revised seven times since 1954. Perhaps the most important change for teachers occurred during the shift from the 6th to

The Trajectory of Teacher Education in South Korea

215

Table 13.1 Education policies in Korea, by presidential administration: 1993–2016 Administration

Year

Education policies

Young-sam Kim Administration

1993–98

Dae-jung Kim Administration

1998–2003

Moo-hyun Roh Administration

2003–08

Myung-bak Lee Administration

2008–13

Geun-hye Park Administration

2013–16

• First civilian government • Formed the Presidential Commission on Education Reform (PCER) – 1994 • 5.31 National Education Reform • 6th National Curriculum Reform • School Management Committee • Invited Teacher System • Called the People’s Government • 7th National Curriculum Reform • Education Environment Reform restricts class size to thirty-five • Teacher Evaluation System • Legitimization of Korean Teachers Union (KTU) • Called Participatory Government • 2007 Revised National Curriculum • Reform of Teacher Education System: Process of Training, Selection, Placement • Reform of Teacher Promotion Structure: Multi-source Assessment of Teachers, Head Teacher policy • Full Implementation of After-school Program • Curriculum Differentiation • Reform of Teacher Education Curriculum and Program (2003–07) • 2009 Revised National Curriculum • 4.15 School Autonomy Policy • Education Policy for English Learning • No students below basic level policy (Zero plan) • Customized Supporting System: Reform of Head Teacher system, Legislation of Teacher Evaluation • 2015 Revised National Curriculum • Normalization of Public Education: Policy for bullying prevention, Reform of teaching environment • Reducing burden of Education cost: Free after-school programs

the 7th National Curriculum in 1998. The 6th National Curriculum was a largely closed, teacher-centred curriculum that simply supported the operational efficiency of the education system. Under this curriculum, for example, students had limited opportunities to choose electives (Kim and Han, 2002). The Presidential Commission on Education Reform (PCER) of 1994 recognized that the 6th National Curriculum hindered further social and economic development by limiting student creativity, interests and moral or personal development (Lee, 2001). The Asian financial crisis of 1997–8 also pressured policymakers to adopt education reforms aimed at enhancing economic development. The work of the PCER served as a framework for two of Korea’s most important educational reforms, the 5.31 National Education Reform and the 7th National Curriculum. These reforms called for developing a lifelong learning society, increasing school autonomy, reducing the burden of the college entrance exam, diversifying curriculum, developing a system

216

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

to evaluate teachers and administrators and training effective teachers (Kim and Han, 2002). The 5.31 reforms and the 7th National Curriculum introduced new concepts and practices for Korean teachers and greatly expanded the scope of their work (Kim, 2014). For example, a diversified curriculum required primary teachers to begin teaching English in Grade 3. All teachers were required to introduce technology into their classrooms and lessons as well. After-school programs were also introduced. Finally, subsequent curriculum revisions (e.g. 2009) called for further emphasis on creativity and character development (Jones, 2013).

Accountability In addition to curriculum reform, future and novice teachers in Korea are influenced by an extensive system of accountability. For example, a system of teacher appraisal, the Teacher Appraisal for Performance (TAP), has been in place since 1964 (Kim et al., 2010). An additional system, the Performance-based Incentive System (PIS), was implemented in 2001 to improve teacher morale and introduce incentives to promote professional development and performance. However, TAP and PIS were perceived by many as failing to influence teachers’ practice (Kim et al., 2010). Furthermore, in the early 2000s, teachers were perceived by the public as failing to manage ‘classroom collapse’, a term used in the media to convey extreme student disengagement (Kang, 2013). Therefore, after extensive piloting, the central government implemented the Teacher Appraisal for Professional Development (TAPD) in 2010. The TAPD includes input from school administrators, fellow teachers, parents and students in a holistic appraisal of teachers on two main criteria: academic instruction and student advising (Kang, 2013). For Korean teachers, the TAPD requires them to open their classroom doors to observations by administrators, peer teachers and parents, a significant change to past teaching norms in Korea (Youngs, Kim and Pippin, 2015).

Multicultural education Teachers in Korea are adjusting to an increasingly diverse student population. Children of three major immigrant groups are entering Korean classrooms: migrant workers, international brides and North Korean defectors (Kang, 2010). In 2006, the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology published the Education Plan for Multicultural Family Students, a program that focuses on teaching Korean language and culture to multicultural students in after-school programs (Grant and Ham, 2013). Some scholars (e.g. Olneck, 2011) have criticized after-school Korean language and culture programs for stigmatizing multicultural students and failing to include all students in the work of developing multicultural citizenship. Pre-service teacher education programs across Korea offer courses on multicultural education, but they tend to be lower-level, elective classes and in-service professional development programs largely focus on integrating multicultural students into Korean society (Mo and Lim, 2013).

The Trajectory of Teacher Education in South Korea

217

Key transitions in learning to teach in Korea The key issues of curriculum reform, accountability and multicultural education outlined above beg the question of how Korean teachers are prepared to teach in this context. Entry into teacher education programs is based on an applicant’s secondary school grades, recommendation of their homeroom teacher, performance on the highly competitive College Scholastic Ability Test (CSAT) and interviews about the candidate’s attitude and ethics regarding teaching (Kim, 2015). Because teaching in Korea is ‘career-based’, a relatively high-status position with lifelong job security (OECD, 2005), teacher preparation programs are able to routinely select candidates from the top 5 per cent of their graduating secondary school class (Kim, 2015). A teacher is licensed at Level 2 by the Ministry of Education (MoE) upon completion of an undergraduate or graduate teacher preparation program approved by the MoE in which he or she took at least fifty semester credit hours in their major (which includes twenty-four credits of subject-specific pedagogy coursework), twentytwo semester credit hours in general education and a ‘C’ average across 120–145 undergraduate degree credits (Kang, 2013). This coursework includes four weeks of full-time student teaching. An in-service teacher may upgrade her license to Level 1 by (1) teaching for at least one year and earning a master’s degree from an MoEapproved program, (2) teaching for three years with an earned master’s degree or (3) teaching for three years and completing an ‘upgrade’ professional development program (Kang, 2013). Although the state manages teacher certification, there are no national standards regarding the curriculum of teacher preparation (Kim, 2007). Elementary teachers are prepared at one of eleven national universities of education or departments of elementary education in two private institutions. In contrast, secondary teachers are generally prepared in at least 40 national and private teachers colleges, 57 regular university education departments, 136 university teacher training programs and 135 graduate schools of education with considerable variation in curricula, practicum and so on (Kim, 2007). The two tables below present sample curricula from two different Korean teacher preparation programs: Korea University (Table 13.2, primary level) and Pusan National University (Table 13.3, secondary level mathematics). Licensed teachers who wish to secure a teaching position (see Figure 13.1) must take the National Teacher Employment Test (NTET) which includes a multiple-choice exam on general education and subject area content essays on subject-specific content and pedagogy and engage in in-depth interviews that include a teaching demonstration (Kang, 2013; Kim, 2015). Success rates for the NTET are roughly 60 per cent at the primary level and 10 per cent at the secondary level (Kang, 2013).

Expected outcomes of teacher education Defining a ‘quality’ or ‘effective’ teacher is difficult in any context. In Korea, these concepts present a paradox. Given the rigorous requirements to pass the CSAT, the NTET and other requirements to enter the field of teaching, Korean teachers are, by any

218

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Table 13.2 Sample Korean primary teacher preparation program coursework Curriculum General Education

Core General Education

Educational Theory

Major (Basic)

Electives Teacher’s Certificate

Course

Credit hour(s)

Thinking & Writing Academic English Freshman Seminar World Cultures Historical Investigation Literature & Art Choose 2 Ethics & Ideas Sociological Studies Science & Technology Choose 1 Quantitative Research Principles of Curriculum & Instruction Material Development & Teaching Methods Thinking & Writing in Education Philosophy of Education Educational Psychology History of Korean Education Curriculum Theories Measurement & Evaluation Educational Technology Introduction to Special Education Educational Administration Sociology of Education Teaching Practicum 1 Teaching Practicum 2 Educational Service Practice on School Affairs School Violence Prevention and Intervention

Major Electives General Curriculum Total Required Credits

4 4 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 34 2 3 2 2 2 18 140

Source: Korea University Department of Education (http://edu.korea.ac.kr/edu_en/policy.do).

standard, qualified in terms of their credentials. Furthermore, Korean student scores on international standardized tests like the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study and the Program for International Student Assessment are consistently among the highest in the world. Therefore, even if the measure of teacher quality or effectiveness is student achievement, Korean teachers would still be considered qualified. Paradoxically, significant proportions of the Korean public are dissatisfied with public education in general, and teachers’ ability to manage ‘classroom collapse’ in particular (Kang, 2013). One way to determine the expected outcomes of effective teachers is to look at the evaluative criteria outlined in the TAPD (see Table 13.4). The main objectives of the TAPD are to help teachers improve academic instruction and student advising.

The Trajectory of Teacher Education in South Korea

219

Table 13.3 Sample Korean secondary mathematics teacher preparation program coursework Curriculum Basic Major Course

Required General Education Course

Required Major Course

Secondary Education Course

Practicum

Course

Credit hour(s)

Calculus 1 Discrete Mathematics Introduction to Math Logic and Set Theory Calculus 2 Open-minded Speaking Global English 1 Global English 2 Reading Classics of Great Literature Creative Writing IT Utilization Theory of Math Education Analysis & Teaching 1 Theory & Teaching of Geometry Probability, Statistics, & Teaching Modern Algebra 1 Introduction to Topology Philosophy & History of Education Introduction to Education Education Method & Technology Educational Psychology Educational Administration & Management Philosophy & History of Education Lifelong Education Curriculum School Bullying Prevention & Intervention Guidance & Counselling Educational Evaluation Teaching & Practical Business Teaching Volunteer Activities Special Education for Children with Disabilities Education & Society Practicum in Own School Practicum in Other School

3 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Electives Total Credits

140

Source: Pusan National University College of Education (https://www.pusan.ac.kr/uPNU_homepage/e n/sub/sub.asp?menu_no=100203) While various types of professional development are available for Korean teachers (especially after the introduction of the TAPD), the most common is the 180 hours of professional development necessary for advanced (i.e. Level 1) certification (Kim, 2015).

Methodology To gather the literature cited as the source of evidence for this chapter, we conducted a focused review of English and Korean peer-reviewed journal articles, policy documents, book chapters and reports from government and non-government

220

Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education

Pre-Teacher Education

Teacher Recruitment Exam

Novice Teacher Training

In-service Teacher Training

Elementary and Secondary Education Act 21:2

Teacher certification degree 24-27

Public Education Personnel Act

Public Education Personnel Act

Required credits for teacher training course Subject matter courses: 40+ hours General education courses: 20+ hours Field training: 2+ hours

Three exam rounds Paper Performance Interview

Three years as novice teacher

Professional development

One year as novice teacher with master’s degree in education

Teacher promotion system

Second level teacher certification

Content Subject matter knowledge General education Pedagogy

Certification training for Level 1 teaching certificate

Head teacher system Supervision

Supervision

Certification as public school teacher

Figure 13.1 Learning to teach sequence in South Korea (created by authors)

Table 13.4 Evaluation content of Korean teacher appraisal for professional development Evaluation area Academic Instruction

Evaluation element Lesson Preparation

Lesson implementation

Assessment and its use Student advising

Advising: personal

Advising: social

Note: Adapted from Kang (2013).

Evaluation criteria 1. Understanding the curriculum and teaching and learning methods 2. Understanding student characteristics and subject matter content 3. Plan teaching and learning strategies 4. Lesson introduction 5. Questioning 6. Attitudes 7. Interaction with students 8. Use of lesson materials 9. Lesson progression 10. Lesson wrap-up 11. Assessment content and methods 12. Use of assessment results 13. Understanding of student’s personal issues and advising for creativity and character development 14. Collaboration with parents in advising 15. Career education and support for talents 16. Advising on basic life habits 17. Advising on school life 18. Advising on democratic citizenship

The Trajectory of Teacher Education in South Korea

221

organizations that addressed education reforms related to teachers and teaching since 1945. First, using focused keywords (e.g. Korea, education, policy, teachers, quality and effectiveness) we searched and gathered sources from a range of databases. English language databases included EBSCOHost, ProQuest, JSTOR, Academic OneFile, Web of Science and ERIC. Korean language databases included Korea Education and Research Information Service’s (KERIS) RISS International and the Korean Studies Information Service System. Next, we searched for peer-reviewed articles in international and Asia-specific research journals. Finally, we consulted the websites and databases of organizations like the Korean Ministry of Education (MoE), KEDI and the Korean Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation. Finally, we chose to only search for sources published since 1945 and those that focused on public schools teaching the official curriculum. Even using these broad parameters, our search yielded few empirical studies in English (see Table 13.5 for examples of representative studies). After reviewing the studies, we organized them according to the three policy areas influencing Korean teachers that we introduced above: curriculum reform, accountability and multicultural education.

Influences of local and national policies and social structures on learning to teach effectively As far as we know the TALIS (2014) study is the only nationally representative study of Korean teachers published in English. Most empirical research on the influence of policy on Korea teachers learning to teach is qualitative in nature. In addition, both quantitative and qualitative studies are heavily skewed in that they typically sample teachers from the Seoul metropolitan area. Nonetheless, several findings from these studies help us provide a description of the experiences of Korean teachers as they begin their teaching careers and respond to national education policy reform. For instance, in TALIS (2014), 58 per cent of principals of lower secondary schools in Korea reported that formal induction programs were available for all new teachers at their schools, but only about 40 per cent of beginning Korean teachers actually participated in a formal induction program in 2013. For teachers who participate in formal induction programs, the content of the programs may not provide the support that new teachers need to effectively teach in the Korean context. For example, in an analysis of questionnaire data from a sample of 289 primary and secondary teachers with fewer than 4 years of teaching experience in Seoul, Cho and Kwon (2004) found that effective lesson planning and using technology in the classroom were beginning teachers’ lowest priorities. Instead, teachers ranked teaching children with special needs or learning disabilities as their highest priorities. Furthermore, as teachers gained teaching experience, their perception of effectively instructing students with learning disabilities as a problem actually increased. The authors noted that most teachers did not have opportunity to learn content related to students with learning disabilities in their preparation programs or induction programs.

Youngs, Kim & Pippin (2015)

Park & La (2016)

Accountability

Park and Sung (2013)

Curriculum Reform Kwon and Ju (2012)

Authors

Data/Sample

Research methods and analysis Summary/Major findings

Analysis of open-ended statements obtained from teacher evaluation for professional development Teachers’ Responses to Changes in Teacher Evaluation Policy in Korea and the United States

67,239 Descriptive responses in Teacher Appraisal for Professional Development (TAPD): fellow teachers (2,834), parents (11,477), students (52,928) Interview data from eleven teachers and four principals in two Korean and two American elementary schools. Teachers had at least four years of teaching experience

Qualitative Analysis Students and parents’ expectation (Nvivo 10) regarding a good teacher is different from teachers’ own definitions of good teacher Qualitative analysis Korean teachers and principals defined ‘effective teachers’ as teachers who contributed to the management of their schools. Resistance to new evaluation policy linked to the fact that the policy focused on teachers’ contributions to school management and rewarded existing hierarchy

Curriculum documents of all the teacher Qualitative Analysis The elementary mathematics teacher education institutions (thirty-six education emphasizes pedagogical secondary teacher education institutions knowledge. However, the secondary and thirteen elementary teacher mathematics teacher education education institutions) in Korea and includes various aspects of pedagogical items of TET (teacher employment test) content knowledge in its curricula and since 2009 teacher employment test Teachers’ Perceptions of Semi-structured interview data from a Qualitative analysis Teachers in this study reported that the Recent Curriculum purposeful sample of six elementary new curricular reforms imposed Reforms and their teachers (four females; two males) heavy workload and demonstrated Implementation: What in Seoul with a range of teaching little interest in implementing them. Can We Learn from the experience from three to twenty-six Perceptions were due to lack of Case of Korean Elementary years professional development, peer support Teachers? and sufficient resources to implement

Standards for professionalization of mathematics teachers: policy, curricula and national teacher employment test in Korea

Title

Table 13.5 Representative results of review of literature

222

Mo (2009)

Huh, Choi & Jun (2015)

Relationships among Multicultural Sensitivity, Multicultural Education Awareness and Level of Multicultural Education Practice of South Korean Teachers Effects of teacher training program for multicultural education

Multicultural Education

Pre- and post-questionnaire data from sixty-eight elementary teachers who participate in the teacher training program for multicultural education

Teachers with positive attitudes regarding multicultural education are better able to implement teaching and learning practices to a diverse population

Quantitative Sixty-eight participants have shown that Analysis (paired teacher’s multicultural efficacy has T-test) been improved after the professional development program in the Multicultural Education scale (p