The Impact of Finnish Teacher Education on International Policy: Understanding University Training Schools 3030895173, 9783030895174

Table of contents :
Acknowledgements
Contents
Chapter 1: Setting the Stage: Finland’s Teachers, Teacher Education, and the Programme for International Student Assessment
Introduction
The Context
Research
Tradition Behind Teacher Education
Teacher Training and Teacher Education: Finland’s Research Orientation
Current Finnish Teacher Education
Aims of Finnish Teacher Education
Summary
References
Chapter 2: In the Spotlight: Finnish Teacher Education and the Normaalikoulu
Introduction
The Historical Context of Finnish Teacher Education
The Nineteenth Century
Dawn of the Twentieth Century
The 1960s: Beginning of Change
Reforms: The 1970s
Questioning Reforms: Consolidation or Change? The 1980s and 1990s
AP (After PISA): Finnish Teacher Education After the Release of PISA
The Normaalikoulu
Field Schools
Supervision
Admissions
Teacher Education Degree Requirements
Teaching Practice
Summary
References
Chapter 3: Effective Preparation? Finnish Teachers and Student Teachers Critically Examine the Normaalikoulu
Introduction
The Normaalikoulu
The Normaalikoulu: Normal or Not Normal?
Quality of Practice in the Normaalikoulu
Field Schools
Normaalikoulu and University Partnerships
Mentoring
Student Teacher Perspectives
Mentor Perspectives
Theory and Practice
Student Teacher Perspectives
Views of Teachers
Substitute Teaching
Research
Master’s Degree
Summary
References
Chapter 4: The Nexus of Theory, Policy, and Practice? A Critical Examination of the Normaalikoulu by Education Professors and Principals
Introduction
Teacher Education
The Normaalikoulu
Views from Principals
Views of Professors
Positive Aspects of the Normaalikoulu
Negative Aspects of the Normaalikoulu
Normaalikoulu Versus Field School
Normaalikoulu-University Partnership
Mentor Teachers
Theory and Practice
Research
Master’s Degree for Teachers
Summary
References
Chapter 5: Conclusion: The Possibilities and Pitfalls of Normaalikoulu Export
Export of the Normaalikoulu
Policy Learning
Discussion and Recommendations
Teacher Training Versus Teacher Education
Normaalikoulu Versus Field Schools
Policy Transfer
Recommendations
Summary
References
Appendix
Participant Chart
References
Index

Citation preview

The Impact of Finnish Teacher Education on International Policy Understanding University Training Schools

Jennifer Chung

The Impact of Finnish Teacher Education on International Policy

Jennifer Chung

The Impact of Finnish Teacher Education on International Policy Understanding University Training Schools

Jennifer Chung Department of Learning and Leadership Institute of Education, University College London London, UK

ISBN 978-3-030-89517-4    ISBN 978-3-030-89518-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89518-1 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: Pattern @ Melisa Hasan This Palgrave Pivot imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Acknowledgements

Thank you to the British Academy for funding this research project. I must also thank the participants of this study, and the wonderful people of Finland for welcoming me and my research so warmly.

v

Contents

1 Setting the Stage: Finland’s Teachers, Teacher Education, and the Programme for International Student Assessment  1 Introduction   1 The Context   3 Research   5 Tradition Behind Teacher Education   6 Teacher Training and Teacher Education: Finland’s Research Orientation   7 Current Finnish Teacher Education   8 Aims of Finnish Teacher Education  10 Summary  10 References  11 2 In the Spotlight: Finnish Teacher Education and the Normaalikoulu 15 Introduction  16 The Historical Context of Finnish Teacher Education  16 The Nineteenth Century  16 Dawn of the Twentieth Century  18 The 1960s: Beginning of Change  19 Reforms: The 1970s  21 Questioning Reforms: Consolidation or Change? The 1980s and 1990s  23

vii

viii 

Contents

AP (After PISA): Finnish Teacher Education After the Release of PISA  24 The Normaalikoulu  25 Field Schools  27 Supervision  28 Admissions  30 Teacher Education Degree Requirements  36 Teaching Practice  39 Summary  41 References  42 3 Effective Preparation? Finnish Teachers and Student Teachers Critically Examine the Normaalikoulu 45 Introduction  46 The Normaalikoulu  46 The Normaalikoulu: Normal or Not Normal?  46 Quality of Practice in the Normaalikoulu  50 Field Schools  53 Normaalikoulu and University Partnerships  55 Mentoring  57 Student Teacher Perspectives  57 Mentor Perspectives  59 Theory and Practice  65 Student Teacher Perspectives  65 Views of Teachers  69 Substitute Teaching  74 Research  77 Master’s Degree  81 Summary  85 References  85 4 The Nexus of Theory, Policy, and Practice? A Critical Examination of the Normaalikoulu by Education Professors and Principals 89 Introduction  89 Teacher Education  90 The Normaalikoulu  93 Views from Principals  93 Views of Professors  97

 Contents 

ix

Normaalikoulu Versus Field School 105 Normaalikoulu-University Partnership 112 Mentor Teachers 118 Theory and Practice 120 Research 130 Master’s Degree for Teachers 136 Summary 140 References 140 5 Conclusion: The Possibilities and Pitfalls of Normaalikoulu Export143 Export of the Normaalikoulu 144 Policy Learning 150 Discussion and Recommendations 152 Teacher Training Versus Teacher Education 153 Normaalikoulu Versus Field Schools 153 Policy Transfer 154 Recommendations 156 Summary 157 References 158 Appendix161 References165 Index173

CHAPTER 1

Setting the Stage: Finland’s Teachers, Teacher Education, and the Programme for International Student Assessment

Abstract  Finland’s performance in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) has drawn worldwide attention from the early 2000s. PISA catalysed Finland’s ascent to an educational superpower. Research investigating the so-called Finland phenomenon uncovered the importance of education in Finland, and a rigorous teacher education programme. All qualified teachers earn a Master’s degree and hold high esteem in Finnish society. This chapter thus provides an overview and context of the Finland phenomenon, the stimulus for this book’s investigation into Finnish teacher education and the normal schools. It also introduces teacher education in Finland, the traditions behind it, including the importance of research, educational science, and teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. Keywords  Finland • PISA • Teachers • Education • Teacher education • Research

Introduction Finland burst onto the world’s educational spotlight due to the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). PISA, administered by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), began collecting data in 2000. PISA assesses fifteen-year-olds around the © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. Chung, The Impact of Finnish Teacher Education on International Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89518-1_1

1

2 

J. CHUNG

world in reading, mathematics, and scientific literacy, and occurs every three years. Finland has consistently produced high scores on all iterations of the survey since PISA’s inception. Research (Chung 2009, 2019; McKinsey 2007; OECD 2010) has uncovered the essential role of teachers in Finnish education. All teachers undergo a rigorous process in order to gain admission into teacher education programmes; approximately ten percent of applicants earn acceptance to primary teaching courses. All future teachers undertake teaching practice in a normaalikoulu, a ‘lab school’ affiliated with the university. Remarkably, all qualified teachers in Finland have a Master’s degree. The combination of Finland’s PISA scores and the uncovering of teachers’ rigorous preparation led to much interest in Finnish teacher education. One salient example, England’s 2010 Schools White Paper, entitled The Importance of Teaching (DfE 2010), highlighted PISA as a benchmark for a country’s educational success and singled out Finland’s lab schools as desirable policy. This illustrates how influential PISA has become for policymakers, with PISA stimulating educational reform (Crossley 2019). The White Paper thus proposed University Training Schools in England, modeled after the normaalikoulu. Therefore, this book explores, in depth, Finnish teacher education and teacher training schools, in order to shed light upon this educational ‘phenomenon’. This chapter, the introduction, gives an overview of Finnish teacher education. Chapter 2 explores Finnish teacher education and normaalikoulu at length. Chapter 3 investigates teacher education from the perspective of teachers and student teachers; Chap. 4 does so from the perspective of professors and principals. Chapter 5, the conclusion, considers the possibilities, or lack thereof, of transfer and export of the normaalikoulu to foreign shores. The research contributing to this book utilises policy borrowing and transfer theory, juxtaposing the findings with relevant academic literature. It researches teacher education’s role in the “Finland phenomenon” (Takayama 2009, p.  64) within a comparative framework grounded in educational policy borrowing theory and methodology (Chung 2009; Crossley and Watson 2003; Ochs and Phillips 2002; Ochs and Phillips 2004; Phillips and Ochs 2004; Phillips and Schweisfurth 2006). This book also investigates, in-depth, wider contextual factors that influence the “ecosystem” (Kemmis and Heikkinen 2012, p. 157) in which Finnish teacher education thrives. It follows an interpretivist epistemological approach, in order to “explore the human experience” (Cohen and Manion 1994, p. 36) and to “discover reality through participant’s views,

1  SETTING THE STAGE: FINLAND’S TEACHERS, TEACHER EDUCATI… 

3

background, and experiences” (Thanh and Thanh 2015, p. 24). The project thus follows a qualitative research approach, in order to explore “a world in which reality is socially constructed, complex, and ever-­changing” (Thomas 2003, p. 6). The empirical findings stem from the use of semi-­ structured interviews (Bell 2010; Denscombe 2014) and non-participant observation (Cohen and Manion 1994) with a total of 43 participants. The sample includes eight student teachers, thirteen teachers, six principals, fourteen professors, and two others with connections to Finnish teacher education, exploring their views of Finnish teacher education and the normaalikoulu. I collected all data for this book, including the semi-­ structured interviews and non-participant observations. The observations included taught lessons by teachers and student teachers, in addition to mentor-mentee feedback sessions in normaalikoulu. The research itself took place in six different cities, with a wide range of geographical locations around Finland. This included three cities hosting universities with affiliated normaalikoulu.

The Context Finland’s education system received much worldwide attention due the country’s performance in PISA. Education policymakers and researchers flocked to Finland to discover the reasons behind the ‘Finland phenomenon’. As stated previously, research into this ‘phenomenon’ uncovered the role teachers and teacher education played in PISA, as well as the influence of Finland’s historical, political, and socio-cultural context (Chung 2009, 2019), highlighting the ‘ecosystem’ in which Finnish education exists. Furuhagen, Holmén, and Säntti (2019) state, reminiscent of Sadler (1900, in Higginson 1979), that to understand the current teacher education system of Finland, we need to understand the historical context of the education system. Therefore, this book explores the Finnish ‘ecosystem’ at length. Finns have consistently held education in “high regard” (Koski and Pollari 2011, p. 13) and with respect. Education played a major role in Finnish nation building and identity, first as a part of the Kingdom of Finland-Sweden and then as an Autonomous Grand Duchy of Russia (Chung 2009). “This tradition dates back to at least a century to a respect for learning and education as a core of Finnish culture and the statehood of a developing nation” (Toom and Husu 2012, p.  46). In addition to nation building, education played an essential role (Antikainen 2010) in

4 

J. CHUNG

upholding Finland’s social democratic and welfare state values: “These idealistic tones are closely related to education’s tasks and ability to promote social hope in societies. In Finland, the socio-political project to create a welfare state, where basic social services, including education, have become public services for all citizens, has promoted the social role of education” (Toom and Husu 2012, p. 49). Thus, education commands a strong connection with the Finnish welfare state. For example, “education has been a major factor in determining social status: one’s place in society has been secured by one’s wit rather than by birth” (Koski and Pollari 2011, p. 13). Furthermore, Hämäläinen and Välijärvi (2008, p. 14) assert, “For decades people have turned to education and teacher training in the quest for solutions to most diverse social problems”, highlighting the roles both education and teacher education play in building and maintaining an equitable and inclusive society. Therefore, education exists as a “resource of hope” (Toom and Husu 2012, p. 49), emphasising its crucial position in Finnish culture and society. In the twenty-first century, with the advent of PISA, Finland has become one of the world’s educational “‘superpowers’” (Economist Intelligence Unit 2012, in Uusiautti and Määtä 2013, p. 2). Uusiautti and Määtä (2013) attribute much of this prowess to teachers and teacher education. The commitment to social democratic values such as equality and equity in education (Jakku-Sihvonen and Niemi 2006) has also aided Finland’s ascent as an educational superpower. Furthermore, “the promotion of equity, learning and education is a central factor in our national history, which can be seen in the framework of cultural and historical background factors. Thus, in Finland we like to think that our success in the PISA surveys has been only a side product in the development of our educational system” (Niemi 2012, p.  20). Kumpulainen and Lankinen (2012, p. 69) give a good overview of values underpinning the Finnish education system: [U]nlike in many other countries, in Finland students start school fairly late – at the age of seven – and spend less time in school. The students have fairly little homework and are rarely tested at the national level. In Finland, the schools create their own curriculum based on the national core curriculum. The teaching profession is highly valued and trusted. The teachers are not subjected to evaluations either.

1  SETTING THE STAGE: FINLAND’S TEACHERS, TEACHER EDUCATI… 

5

Pupils attend comprehensive school until the age of sixteen, then choose between vocational upper secondary education and an academic upper secondary education, called lukio in Finnish, and gymnasium in Swedish. The only national test for Finnish pupils occurs at the end of lukio, which culminates in the matriculation examination (Chung 2009, 2019). Pupils can leave school legally at sixteen, after their lower-secondary education, but some politicians wish to extend this until age eighteen or nineteen (News Now Finland, 27 February 2020). Higher education institutions include universities for more theoretical disciplines, and polytechnics for applied subjects. Primary and secondary school teachers, among others, receive their education at universities, a topic discussed at length in Chap. 2.

Research The academic and research-basis of Finnish teacher education has garnered much interest due the country’s consistently high performances in PISA (Krokfors et al. 2011). Finland’s commitment to an academic and research approach to teacher preparation remains particularly noteworthy. Furuhagen et al. (2019, p. 2) assert, “Although other countries may have similar models, what makes Finland stand out is that every teacher education institution has a research-based agenda, and all teachers complete a masters degree”. This is explored at length later in this book. Research builds “the teacher’s pedagogical thinking, that is, how a teacher thinks and makes decisions, and, particularly, how the teacher justifies these” (Jyrhämä and Maaranen 2012, p.  97). Interestingly, research “was presented as more of an emancipated possibility” to teachers (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 17). Research, which led to this emancipation, then allowed for teacher and for school autonomy. This autonomy is often praised as a strength of Finnish education, and one of the reasons for Finland’s top performances in the PISA survey (Koski and Pollari 2011; Palsrud and Wermke 2019). Furthermore, as Säntti, Puustinen, and Salminen (2018, p. 17) suggest, “The acceptance of a research-based agenda could be seen as a crucial factor enabling teachers to maintain their position on the social scale, or even to raise it”. The academic and research nature of Finnish teacher education, therefore, has carved out a stable place for teachers in Finnish society, even raising their esteem and socio-economic status. The respect and influence teachers command in Finnish society stems from their teacher education, which culminates in a Master’s degree.

6 

J. CHUNG

The requirement of a Master’s degree transformed the teaching profession and increased teachers’ esteem in Finnish society. Education reforms of the 1970s, discussed at length in Chap. 2, instilled equitable and egalitarian values into Finnish education. The change to comprehensive school supported these values, as did shifting all teacher preparation to the Master’s degree level. Furthermore, requiring Master’s-level education for all primary teachers resulted in one of the most important education policy decisions for Finland (Niemi 2012). This empowered teachers and increased their independence and autonomy: “Teachers were expected to take care of planning and development work along with their teaching duties in the classroom” (Säntti et al. 2018, p. 11). Teacher control of the curriculum helped justify the Master’s degree, and teacher-led curricula also helped avoid the “critical questioning” of teacher education and of “its academic status” (Säntti et al. 2018, p. 11).

Tradition Behind Teacher Education The Finnish independence movement deepened education’s importance in society and played a major role in nation building (Toom and Husu 2012). Even in the nineteenth century, teachers took their role seriously and saw the greater cause of educating the country: “Those who graduated as teachers served in small two-teacher schools and diligently took care of their educational tasks – their mission – even in the most remote villages” (Uusiautti and Määtä 2013, p.  4). Similarly, teacher education had similar importance for the Finnish independence movement and for “national education” (Niemi 2012, p.  20). Teacher preparation at the time laid foundations for the current teacher education system (Uusiautti and Määtä 2013). Therefore, Finnish education and teacher education encompass a wider vision for the country. Toom and Husu (2012, p. 46) explain: The way of organizing educational policy into pedagogical practice does not solely make good things happen in schools. Behind this foreground, there is also a background in Finnish educational policy that paves the way for success in schoolwork: our democratic and consensus-seeking ethos in political decision-making. We call this the mindset of the Finnish educational system. This mindset of educational policy and educational thinking can be seen in attitudes and assumptions held by the majority of Finnish people. This mindset functions independently on all levels of educational ­decision-­making

1  SETTING THE STAGE: FINLAND’S TEACHERS, TEACHER EDUCATI… 

7

and politicians, educational administration and governance, teachers, and parents – even pupils share it to some extent.

This ‘mindset of the Finnish educational system’, therefore, has permeated the Finnish psyche, illustrating the importance of education, teaching, and teacher education in the country.

Teacher Training and Teacher Education: Finland’s Research Orientation Teacher preparation takes different forms; Finland advocates a research-­ based approach. In order to situate Finnish teacher education, this chapter now explores various orientations of teacher preparation. Furuhagen et al. (2019, p.  3) classify five different “conceptual orientations” of teacher education. The vocational orientation emphasises “practical skills”; institutions within this orientation “prioritise practical teacher training”, where “experienced and active school teachers play a key role as teacher educators” to the student teachers, “who themselves have an apprenticeship status” (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 4). Interestingly, these “practical skills” are not founded on science, but on “everyday experiences” (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 4). The vocational orientation promotes the “ideal teacher” in a “traditional-craft paradigm” as “handymen of pedagogy, or competent crafts people who are imitated by apprentices in teacher practise. Trial and error is considered a superior method of learning how to teach” (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 4). The academic orientation, however, focuses on “the knowledge content of school subjects” (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 5). Interestingly, “the orientation is clearly anchored in the university, where teacher educators with a doctoral degree provide student teachers scientific instruction according to the traditions of their discipline” (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 5). Teachers become “subject experts” and the teacher gains the role of “an intellectual leader with an emphasis on subject knowledge” (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 5). Closely related to the academic orientation is the orientation of educational sciences. Academic study and the university as the base for teacher education have utmost importance, and, as with the academic orientation, teacher educators have Doctoral degrees. “However, this orientation does not focus on school subjects: it focuses on educational science” (Furuhagen et  al. 2019, p.  5). Interestingly, educational science is the terminology used in Finland to denote the study of education, as seen throughout the

8 

J. CHUNG

empirical data in this book. Educational science “includes pedagogy, psychology, philosophy, and sociology as academic disciplines, as understood in the educational context” (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 5). The “orientation of educational sciences is based on science, experiments, and systematic development work. Proponents of this orientation believe that education science is the key to developing student teachers’ teaching abilities, and thereby actual teaching practices in schools. According to this orientation, the ideal teacher is a research-based educationalist” (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 5). In addition to the vocational, academic, and educational sciences approach to teacher preparation, Furuhagen et al. (2019) also cite the progressivist and personal development orientations. A “conceptual orientation” helps classify and categorise different types of teacher education programmes (Furuhagen et  al. 2019, p.  3). Furthermore, “A given teacher education is seldom influenced by a single orientation, but usually combinations of several” (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p.  4). It can be argued here, that the Finnish approach to secondary teacher preparation leans towards the academic approach, in addition to the educational science approach. It can also be argued that primary teacher preparation in Finland takes the educational science approach, with some of the aforementioned academic orientation. The Finnish approach to teacher education does not involve vocational orientation.

Current Finnish Teacher Education Finnish teacher education, as stated previously, follows a research-based approach. Krokfors et al. (2011, p. 3) characterise research-based Finnish teacher education with four attributes: (1) “systematic analysis of education”, (2) research-based teaching, (3) argumentation and problem solving, and (4) research skills. Thus, Finnish teacher education remains “deductive”, embedded in research, with student teachers reading research, writing essays, and studying research methods (Krokfors et  al. 2011, p. 4). Interestingly, “most teacher educations contain elements of both vocational and academic orientations, and usually also include some idea of personal development. Comparisons show, however, that the emphasis placed on each orientation varies among different teacher programmes” (Furuhagen et  al. 2019, p.  4). For example, Stephens, Tønnessen and Kyriacou (2004) and Chung (2016) argue that teacher preparation in England focuses on practical skills and training. In contrast, Furuhagen et  al. (2019) agree that Finnish teacher education follows a

1  SETTING THE STAGE: FINLAND’S TEACHERS, TEACHER EDUCATI… 

9

research-based approach. This, therefore, highlights the difference between teacher education, stressed in Finland, and teacher training (Chung 2016), where teaching is seen as a craft and learned through an apprenticeship. The research element permeates all aspects of Finnish teacher education. For example, even in their practical studies, students not only implement theory into teaching observations, but also utilise research during their teaching practice: “The aim is to achieve a balanced development of the teacher’s personality in which the teacher’s pedagogical thinking is essential by applying the theory into practice as well as conceptualizing the practice towards the theory” (Krokfors et  al. 2011, p.  5). Student teachers generally enjoy the academic underpinnings of their teacher preparation. The research of Jyrhämä et  al. (2008, p.  11) showed that student teachers “appreciated the high level of the Master’s degree studies. In other words, they saw it as valuable that teachers have rather long academic studies instead of the more practical teacher training”. Finland’s current iteration of teacher education took time to establish, as discussed further in Chap. 2. Furuhagen et al. (2019) map the transitions of Finnish teacher education and the changing role of the ideal teacher. Originally, the ideal teacher needed practical teaching. The “research orientation” step in the 1990s allowed teachers to have “authority in the curriculum process” in order to “become more autonomous actors than ever before with almost non-existent official supervision” (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 19). Finally, the current ideal teacher is “the research-based teacher, whose everyday action is founded on theoretical knowledge. This teacher’s working ethos is clearly anchored in the interests of educational science” (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 19). The terminology of educational science transpires again, giving rigour to the study of education. Säntti et al. (2018, p. 17) explain: Educational science, including teacher education, has long been recognized as a true academic discipline in Finland. In addition, it has been relatively free from political control, especially compared with other Western countries. This freedom has established the top priority of Finnish teacher education to produce high academic standards, and regulate the teacher’s work accordingly.

Educational science, therefore, has achieved a very high level in Finland, and the emancipation of education from political control has allowed it to rise even further.

10 

J. CHUNG

Aims of Finnish Teacher Education Finnish teacher education ultimately aims to prepare “autonomous and reflective teachers” who become “practitioner researchers” (Krokfors et al. 2011, p. 3). The research underpinnings of teacher education remain of utmost importance: “The critical scientific literacy of teachers and their ability to use research methods are considered to be crucial” (Niemi 2012, p. 32). Furthermore, “According to legislation, pedagogical studies must be studies in the science of education with an emphasis on didactics” (Niemi 2012, p. 30). This ultimately produces a profession undertaking “constant research” (Uusiautti and Määtä 2013, p.  7). For example, Finnish teacher education includes the study of national evaluation and assessment reports (Kumpulainen and Lankinen 2012). This helps develop teachers’ “critical awareness and support their abilities for independent and autonomous stance vis-à-vis external forces and mechanisms” (Ojanen and Lauriala 2006, p. 75). These exercises in research and critical analysis allow teachers to become self-reliant in their careers, and maintain their autonomy and independence with confidence. Finnish teacher education ultimately aims to create “teacher’s pedagogical thinking” (Krokfors et al. 2011, p. 3) or “teachers’ pedagogical knowledge” (Tirri and Ubani 2013, p. 22). Tirri and Ubani (2013, p. 24) elaborate: Pedagogical content knowledge is located at the intersection between content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. Pedagogical content knowledge is unique to teachers and separates, for example, a science teacher from a scientist. With this knowledge a teacher can teach a certain context to different learners effectively and with attributes that help her/him guide a student to understand content in a manner that is personally meaningful […] In Finnish teacher education, pedagogical content knowledge is seen as a prerequisite for purposeful teaching.

Summary This chapter gave an overview of the attention surrounding Finnish education, due to high performances in PISA. Research into the ‘Finland phenomenon’ uncovered the integral role of teachers, and therefore, teacher education in Finnish society. The low acceptance rate to teacher education programmes, the academic and research basis of teacher education, and the Master’s-led profession has drawn much cross-national attraction

1  SETTING THE STAGE: FINLAND’S TEACHERS, TEACHER EDUCATI… 

11

towards Finland. This book uncovers the nuances of Finnish teacher education by exploring its historical, political, and socio-cultural context, as well as incorporating empirical evidence from educational actors from Finland.

References Antikainen, A. (2010). The Capitalist State and Education: The Case of Restructuring the Nordic Model. In Current Sociology, 58(4), pp. 530–550. Bell, J. (2010). Doing Your Research Project (5th Edition). Maidenhead: Open University Press. Chung, J. (2009). An Investigation of Reasons for Finland’s Success in PISA. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oxford. Chung, J. (2016). The (Mis)use of the Finnish Teacher Education Model: ‘Policy-­ based Evidence-Making’?. In Educational Research, 58(2), pp. 207–219. Chung, J. (2019). PISA and Global Education Policy: Understanding Finland’s Success and Influence. Leiden/Boston: Sense/Brill. Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1994). Research Methods in Education. (4th Edition). London: Longman. Crossley, M. (2019). Policy Transfer, Sustainable Development, and the Contexts of Education. In Compare, 49(2), pp. 175–191. Crossley, M. & Watson, K. (2003). Comparative and International Research in Education: Globalisation, Context and Difference. London: Routledge. Denscombe, M. (2014). The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Social Research Projects. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Department for Education. (2010). The Importance of Teaching: The Schools White Paper 2010. Crown Copyright. Furuhagen, B., Holmén, J. & Säntti, J. (2019). The Ideal Teacher: Orientations of Teacher Education in Sweden and Finland after the Second World War. In History of Education, pp. 1–22 Hämäläinen, K. & Välijärvi, J. (2008). Challenges for Education. In J.  Loima (Ed.). Facing the Future: Developing Teacher Education, Helsinki: Palmenia – Helsinki University Press, pp. 13–47. Higginson, J.H. (1979). Selections from Michael Sadler, Liverpool: Dejall & Meyorre. Jakku-Sihvonen, R. & Niemi, H. (2006). Introduction to the Finnish Education System and Teachers’ Work. In R.  Jakku-Sihvonen and H.  Niemi (Eds.). (2006). Research-Based Teacher Education in Finland – Reflections by Finnish Teacher Educators. Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association, pp. 7–13. Jyrhämä, R. & Maaranen, K. (2012). Research Orientation in a Teacher’s Work. In H. Niemi, A. Toom and A. Kallioniemi (Eds.). (2012). Miracle of Education:

12 

J. CHUNG

The Principles and Practices of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 97–112. Jyrhämä, R., Kynäslahti, H., Krokfors, L., Byman, R., Maaranen, K., Toom, A. & Kansanen, P. (2008). The Appreciation and Realisation of Research-based Teacher Education: Finnish Students’ Experiences of Teacher Education. In European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(1), pp. 1–16. Kemmis, S. & Heikkinen, H.L.T. (2012). Future Perspectives: Peer-Group Mentoring and International Practices for Teacher Development. In H.L.T. Heikkinen, H. Jokinen & P. Tynjälä. (Eds.). Peer-Group Mentoring for Teacher Development, pp. 144–170. London: Routledge. Koski, K. & Pollari, P. (2011). Teacher Training Schools – The Finnish Way of Organising Teacher Training. In M. Kontoniemi & O.-P. Salo (Eds.) (2011). Educating Teachers in the PISA Paradise. Perspectives on Teacher Education at a Finnish University. University of Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä, Finland, pp. 13–18. Krokfors, L., Kynäslahti, H., Stenberg, K., Toom, A., Maaranen, K., Jyrhäma, R., Byman, R. & Kansanen, P. (2011). Investigating Finnish Teacher Educators’ Views on Research-Based Teacher Education. In Teaching Education, 22(1), pp. 1–13. Kumpulainen, K. & Lankinen, T. (2012). Striving for Educational Equity and Excellence: Evaluation and Assessment in Finnish Basic Education. In H. Niemi, A. Toom and A. Kallioniemi (Eds.). (2012). Miracle of Education: The Principles and Practices of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 69–81. McKinsey (2007). How the World’s Best Performing Schools Come Out on Top. Retrieved from http://mckinseyonsociety.com/how-­the-­worlds-­best-­ performing-­schools-­come-­out-­on-­top/ Niemi, H. (2012). The Societal Factors Contributing to Education and Schooling in Finland. In H. Niemi, A. Toom and A. Kallioniemi (Eds.). (2012). Miracle of Education: The Principles and Practices of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 19–38. Ochs, K. & Phillips, D. (2002). Towards a Structural Typology of Cross-National Attraction in Education. Educa, pp. 1–43 Ochs, K. & Phillips, D. (2004). Processes of Educational Borrowing in a Historical Context. In Educational Policy Borrowing: Historical Perspectives, pp. 7–23. OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do – Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science (Volume 1). Paris: OECD. Ojanen, S. & Lauriala, A. (2006). Enhancing Professional Development of Teachers by Developing Supervision into a Conceptually-Based Practise. In R.  Jakku-Sihvonen and H.  Niemi (Eds.). (2006). Research-Based Teacher Education in Finland – Reflections by Finnish Teacher Educators. Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association, pp. 71–87.

1  SETTING THE STAGE: FINLAND’S TEACHERS, TEACHER EDUCATI… 

13

Palsrud, D. & Wermke, W. (2019). Decision-Making in Context: Swedish and Finnish Teachers’ Perceptions of Autonomy. In Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, pp. 1–22 Phillips, D. & Ochs, K. (2004). Researching Policy Borrowing: Some Methodological Challenges in Comparative Education. In British Educational Research Journal 30(6), pp. 773–784. Phillips, D. & Schweisfurth, M. (2006). Comparative and International Education: An Introduction to Theory, Method and Practice. Trowbridge, Wiltshire: The Cromwell Press. Säntti, J., Puustinen, M. & Salminen, J. (2018). Theory and Practice in Finnish Teacher Education: A Rhetorical Analysis of Changing Values from the 1960s to the Present Day. In Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 24(1), pp. 5–21. Stephens, P., Tønnessen, F.E. & Kyriacou, C. (2004). Teacher Training and Teacher Education in England and Norway: A Comparative Study of Policy Goals. Comparative Education, 40(1), pp. 109–130. Takayama, K. (2009). Politics of Externalization in Reflexive Times: Reinventing Japanese Education Reform Discourses through “Finnish PISA Success”. In Comparative Education Review, 54(1), pp. 51–75. Thanh, N. & Thanh, T. (2015). The Interconnection Between Interpretivist Paradigm and Qualitative Methods in Education. In American Journal of Educational Science, 1(2), pp. 24–27. Tirri, K. & Ubani, M. (2013). Education of Finnish Student Teachers for Purposeful Teaching. In Journal of Education for Teaching, 39(1), pp. 21–29. Thomas, R. (2003). Blending Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods in Thesis and Dissertations. London: SAGE publications. Toom, A. & Husu, J. (2012). Finnish Teachers as ‘Makers of the Many’: Balancing between Broad Pedagogical Freedom and Responsibility. In H.  Niemi, A. Toom and A. Kallioniemi (Eds.). (2012). Miracle of Education: The Principles and Practices of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 39–54. Uusiautti, S. & Määtä, K. (2013). Significant Trends in the Development of Finnish Teacher Education Programs (1860–2010). In Education Policy, 21 (59), pp. 1–22.

CHAPTER 2

In the Spotlight: Finnish Teacher Education and the Normaalikoulu

Abstract  This chapter investigates, in detail, Finnish teacher education and normal schools. It delves into Finnish education’s context, illustrating the long road to academic teacher education. Finland’s social, historical, political, and religious context shapes today’s teachers. Considered as the heart of the village, teachers were trained in seminaries and colleges. The teacher education reforms of the 1970s moved all teacher preparation to universities, culminating in a Master’s degree. These reforms consolidated over the 1980s and 1990s, and were positively reinforced with the release of PISA scores in the 2000s. Applicants to teacher education programmes undergo rigorous selection. Primary education admission remains extremely competitive; however, secondary education programmes have higher acceptance rates. Student teachers undertake their teaching practice in normal schools and in field schools. Normal schools are officially part of the university, while field schools are municipal schools that carry out teaching practice. Keywords  Normaalikoulu • Normal schools • Teacher education • Education policy reform • Research • Master’s degree

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. Chung, The Impact of Finnish Teacher Education on International Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89518-1_2

15

16 

J. CHUNG

Introduction This chapter gives a comprehensive overview of Finnish teacher education, as well as the use of normaalikoulu in the teacher preparation process. Chapter 2 expands on Chap. 1’s introduction of Finnish teacher education. It delves into the history of teacher education, and the emphasis on education, rather than training of future teachers (Chung 2016). Respect for teachers within Finnish society today is no coincidence. The historical context of Finnish teacher education and deliberate academisation of the teaching profession played a significant role in Finnish PISA outcomes. The “academic drift” (Kivinen and Rinne 1994, p. 518) of teaching illustrates the conscious effort by Finns to emphasise theory and research within teacher education. This chapter expands on the Introduction’s overview, providing more detail on the admissions process as well as the requirements of teacher education. Chapter 2 also uncovers details about normaalikoulu, its supervision, its relationship with the university, and incorporates empirical data along with a critical analysis of academic literature. The empirical data, collected from the eight student teachers, thirteen teachers, and fourteen professors’ interview data, contributes to the literature analysis.

The Historical Context of Finnish Teacher Education The Nineteenth Century The importance of education stems from a long tradition in Finnish history. As stated in Chap. 1, the Finnish national movement has a close relationship with education. Teachers and education played an essential role of establishing the country’s national identity and eventual independence (Niemi 2012). Furthermore, “Teacher education was seen as a necessary means for national education” (Niemi 2012, p. 20). This instilled the importance of teacher education in the Finnish national movement. Academics served as advocates for independence, further implementing the role of education in nation building. “Finnish national identity” (Niemi 2012, p.  20) gained momentum in the nineteenth century, in response to Finland’s position as part of the Kingdom of Sweden and as an Autonomous Grand Duchy of Russia until independence in 1917. The national movement and support for education also built the foundations

2  IN THE SPOTLIGHT: FINNISH TEACHER EDUCATI… 

17

for current teacher education in Finland: “The first advocates of a national identity put a strong emphasis on basic education. Respect for learning and education provided also the possibility from the lower strata of society. Historically, many teachers had peasant family backgrounds” (Niemi 2012, p. 21). Because of this, the origins of modern Finnish teacher preparation emerged in the 1860s. The Fennoman movement played an important role. Johan Vilhelm Snellman, a Fennoman, or “a supporter of Finnish language and culture […] was convinced that the establishment of decent teacher training colleges would ameliorate the quality of education” (Uusiautti and Määtä 2013, p. 4). Furthermore, the introduction of Finnish teacher training in the nineteenth century “laid the foundation for the teacher training that is still done in Finland at the present” (Uusiautti and Määtä 2013, p. 4). The first professorship of education commenced in 1852 at the University of Helsinki. This was not only the first professorship of education in Finland, but also the first professorship of education in the Nordic countries. The first education professor, also Lutheran pastor, worked within the Faculty of Theology; he supervised student teachers and built secondary education. This closely connected education, teacher education, and society, as these first professors of education advocated the independence and national movements (Niemi 2012; Tirri 2014). In 1863, the first teaching seminary was opened in Jyväskylä (Husso et al. 2006; Niemi 2012; Uusiautti and Määtä 2013) by Uno Cygnaeus, a Lutheran pastor (Tirri 2014). This seminary admitted both women and men, and the first student teachers came from modest backgrounds (Tirri 2014). Furthermore, Cygnaeus, considered “the father of Finnish elementary education” (Uusiautti and Määtä 2013, p. 4), developed teaching guidelines and teacher education (Niemi 2012). Because of Cygnaeus’ Lutheran background, at the time, teacher training “colleges should follow strict religious principles. At the time, Christianity had a strong foothold in Finland and formed an important part of educational goals too” (Uusiautti and Määtä 2013, p. 4). Lutheranism and Christianity played an important role in education and literacy in the country (Chung 2009, 2019), supporting teachers and promoting education, even requiring literacy before permitting couples to marry (Chung 2009; Niemi 2012; Tirri 2014). A decree on elementary education in 1866, just three years after the founding of the first teacher training seminary, provided access to primary education for children (Husso et  al. 2006; Niemi 2012; Uusiautti and Määtä 2013).

18 

J. CHUNG

Exploration of teacher education’s history uncovers Finland’s deeply ingrained respect and admiration for teachers (Niemi 2012; Tirri 2014). Teachers, considered “candles of the nation” (Niemi 2012, p.  21; Tirri 2014, p.  602) and the “heart of the village” (Jyrhämä and Maaranen 2012, p.  99), educated the entire community with music, theatre, and adult education, in addition to teaching children (Jyrhämä and Maaranen 2012; Niemi 2012; Tirri 2014). Towards the end of the nineteenth century, primary schools began to take responsibility for literacy and education in Finland (Tirri 2014). Also during this time, grammar, or subject school teachers earned a Bachelor’s degree in their subject “after which, from the mid-1800s, they received some pedagogical instruction and practical teacher training” (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 8). This parallel system of teacher preparation, different for primary and secondary teachers, plays a role in the 1970s reforms, discussed later in this chapter. In the twentieth century, Finnish “society has changed to become much more complex. However, in Finland, what has remained from those times is an appreciation of teachers” (Jyrhämä and Maaranen 2012, p. 99). Dawn of the Twentieth Century More teacher training seminaries formed throughout the end of the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century. A compulsory education law, passed in 1921 (Tirri 2014), required six years of education for all children, and “entailed a new emphasis on teacher training, and new teacher training colleges were established across the country” (Uusiautti and Määtä 2013, p. 4). The increasing academic prowess of future teachers led to the formation of teacher training colleges, utilising the matriculation exam for admissions, “which from 1934 in Finland […] coexisted with the seminar[ie]s” (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 8). Furthermore, teaching practice was “carried out in separate teacher training schools, known as model schools, where student teachers could practice teaching” (Uusiautti and Määtä 2013, p. 4). These policy decisions still influence the current teacher education system. The political landscape of Finland during that time helped shape today’s teacher education system. After the Second World War, the Communist party participated in Finnish political life. Along with the “Social Democratic Party, they started to demand that the school system be reformed: that teacher education should dispose of the Christian and patriotic values inherent in the seminar[y]” (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 13).

2  IN THE SPOTLIGHT: FINNISH TEACHER EDUCATI… 

19

Interestingly, at this time, primary teacher education focused on “everyday school practices” and “the tricks of the trade”, and teacher preparation during this era “contained neither theoretical elements nor educational thinking. Traditional teacher education seminar[ie]s were in small rural towns and aimed to recruit students from lower social backgrounds with elementary education” (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 14). In other words, teachers at this time did not have a high level of education. Curiously, these institutions did not seek to improve on this amount of education: “These [seminaries] defended the status quo and resisted scientific interests” (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 14). Despite the accolades that Finnish teacher education receives now, resistance to the academic and research elements infiltrating a traditional teacher training seminary did exist. Unlike the seminaries, the colleges and their “educational scientists” supported “the scientific approach” (Furuhagen et  al. 2019, p.  14). Furthermore, secondary and primary school teachers had different types of teacher preparation: Secondary teacher education “was academically oriented and focused on school subjects and subject knowledge” (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 14) while, in seminaries, primary teacher preparation involved learning the aforementioned “tricks of the trade” (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 14). A demographic change sparked the transformation of Finnish teacher education. A post-Second World War baby boom of the 1950s coincided with growing ideas of a welfare state: “Education was seen as a basic factor for equity in society. An important part of this process was the ideal that free education is a basic right for all citizens” (Niemi 2012, p. 21). The 1960s: Beginning of Change The 1960s marked the beginning of societal change in Finland, also reaching the education and teacher education systems. These societal changes contributed to teacher education’s transformational reforms: “In the 1960s, Finnish society underwent deep changes in economic structure and urbanization. The new welfare society needed a new pedagogy that would meet the demand for equality and individualization” (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 14). At the time, policymakers started re-evaluating Finnish education, and considered policy reforms towards comprehensive schooling (Uusiautti and Määtä 2013). The 1960s, therefore, denote a “historical development of Finnish teacher training”, and a “crucial turning point” to start university-level teacher education (Uusiautti and Määtä 2013,

20 

J. CHUNG

p. 3). Much like Furuhagen et al. (2019), Säntti et al. (2018, p. 9) cite major changes in Finnish society in the 1960s: “the process of deep change in [Finland’s] economic structure as the old rural and outmoded way of life was in turmoil”. This sparked increased importance of education, as “political authorities from left to right have seen comprehensive education as a key to survive in our increasingly competitive world” (Toom and Husu 2012, p. 46). Finland’s comprehensive school reform went hand-in-hand with teacher education reforms. The “comprehensive-school reform and changing society, both of which called for well-educated, expert teachers, justified these demands” (Säntti et al. 2018, p. 10) for academic teacher education. The Finnish parliament approved the comprehensive school system in 1968. Also at that time, “Teacher education committee reports from the 1960s clearly wanted to bury the old culture of teacher colleges” (Furuhagen et  al. 2019, p.  14). The modifications to comprehensive school triggered a major change for teacher preparation. In the 1960s, “the theoretical basis of teacher education was unequivocally inadequate” and the previous incarnation of teacher needed to transform into a well-­ educated and well-prepared educator; “the motto of the era was ‘more theory’” (Säntti et al. 2018, p. 9). Therefore, “teachers were expected to rely on the findings and methods of educational science” (Säntti et  al. 2018, p.  9), stressing the importance of the aforementioned academic study of education. During this decade, the notion of moving teacher education to university started gaining momentum (Säntti et  al. 2018). For example, at the same time as the comprehensive school reforms, the “Teacher Training Committee proposed that future teacher training should be provided at universities and should be based on graduates from upper secondary school” (Uusiautti and Määtä 2013, p. 5). Repositioning teacher education to the university was not without drawbacks. This “painful process for teacher training colleges” concluded with the “closure of remaining elementary school teacher training colleges by the so-called abolition law in 1969” (Uusiautti and Määtä 2013, p. 5). The 1960s triggered much educational change in Finland, eliminating “outdated” (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 18) systems and instigating comprehensive school and teacher education reforms. However, while Säntti et al. (2018, p. 5) acknowledge “rhetorical success” of Finnish education, “the uniqueness of Finnish teacher education is largely maintained by Finnish scholars and teacher educators who see it as a historical triumph following the substitution of the out-dated teaching-college tradition with

2  IN THE SPOTLIGHT: FINNISH TEACHER EDUCATI… 

21

a successful academic culture”. Nevertheless, others would argue, “‘old sour wine is now sold in more elegant bottles’” (Lappalainen, 1989, in Kivinen and Rinne 1994, p. 523), implying an exaggerated glorification of Finland’s academic teacher education. Reforms: The 1970s Interestingly, during the 1970s, the polytechnic “model was accepted especially in teacher-education committees because it was seen as a way of raising the academic status of the discipline. The polytechnic ideal is presented as a contrast to the conventional academic model, which was seen as detached from society and working life” (Säntti et al. 2018, p. 10). The teacher education committee even produced a report modeling polytechnic teacher preparation in 1972. Furthermore, the polytechnic model seemed to fit the purposes of teacher preparation, in both theory and practice. The eventual rejection of the polytechnic model of teacher preparation became a consequence of political leanings and affiliations of the time: “Several prominent Finnish educationalists had presented left-wing options in the school reform discussion, and the Polytechnic model of the DDR [East Germany] fascinated many of them. The model was welcomed as the long-awaited key to merging theory and practice” (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 14). The “politically delicate” nature of the polytechnic model, however, did not receive acceptance by the academic staff (Säntti et  al. 2018, p. 10). Despite debate surrounding the polytechnic model versus the university model of teacher education, the 1970s also signifies the time when the movement for teachers as researchers started to consolidate (Husso et al. 2006). Therefore, the Teacher Education Act of 1971 shifted teacher preparation to universities (Jakku-Sihvonen and Niemi 2006). Faculties of Education were subsequently established between 1973 and 1975, and both primary and secondary teacher preparation moved from teacher training colleges to universities in 1974 (Uusiautti and Määtä 2013; Tirri 2014), in order to academise and standardise teacher preparation programmes (Uusiautti and Määtä 2013). This shift to universities signifies the transformation from teacher training to teacher education (Chung 2016) in Finland. Furthermore, from 1979, all teachers needed to earn a Master’s degree (Jyrhämä et  al. 2008; Niemi 2012; Tirri 2014). Both primary and secondary teachers were required to earn a Master’s degree, with the purpose of unifying teacher education for all future teachers and

22 

J. CHUNG

of achieving an equally high standard of academic education (Jakku-­ Sihvonen and Niemi 2006; Niemi 2012; Tirri 2014). Furthermore, secondary teachers expanded their study of pedagogy (Niemi 2012; Tirri 2014). Despite this, “Teacher education was expected to serve the increasing needs of society, and at the same time it had to convince the academic world that the teaching profession had proper theoretical foundations” (Säntti et  al. 2018, p.  11). Societal changes catalysed teacher education reforms in the 1960s, and the reforms slowly consolidated over the decades after these policy visions. While the 1970s ushered in policy change to teacher education, and ambitiously required all teachers to have a Master’s degree, “From an academic point of view, at this point Finnish teacher education was not yet ready to initiate a balanced and credible theory-based programme” (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 15). Rather, it emphasised educational science, and drew much inspiration from Germany’s didactics (Furuhagen et  al. 2019). Finnish teacher education at the time represented a “melting pot” of subject studies, German-influenced didactics, and the strong vocational underpinnings from the previous teacher training tradition (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 15). The integration of qualitative methods and methodology within educational science broadened the scope of educational research in Finland, thus instigating the gradual process of accepting education research in the country. The reforms of the 1970s provided teacher preparation with a foundation of research and theory; however, these reforms needed time to achieve wider acceptance. Even though teacher education moved to universities, the vocational element of teacher preparation still existed for some time. Furuhagen et al. (2019) cite the late 1970s as a noteworthy turning point in Finnish teacher education. Despite these challenges, the reforms of the 1970s eventually realised their purpose. Maaranen et al. (2019, p. 211), much like Furuhagen et  al. (2019), Säntti et  al. (2018), Jyrhämä et  al. (2008), and Tryggvason (2009) refer to the reforms of the 1970s making teacher education, and more specifically, primary teacher education “fully academic in Finland”. Therefore, all qualified teachers today have Master’s degrees. This increase in academic status and respect took time to consolidate (Furuhagen et al. 2019; Maaranen et al. 2019; Säntti et al. 2018). However, “Nowadays, practically the entire faculty holds doctoral degrees and the Finnish teacher education is characterized as research-based” (Maaranen et al. 2019, p. 211) and Finnish teacher education currently

2  IN THE SPOTLIGHT: FINNISH TEACHER EDUCATI… 

23

has “the research-based approach as its main organising theme” (Jyrhämä et al. 2008, p. 2). Questioning Reforms: Consolidation or Change? The 1980s and 1990s After the major educational reforms of the 1970s, the 1980s served as a time of “consolidation” of “university-based teacher education” (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 15). Even in the 1990s, nearly twenty years after the teacher education reforms, teacher preparation was still seen as a practical subject, and drew much criticism: “The orientation of educational sciences’ long reign in Finland has been plagued by conflicts” (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 16). In other words, teacher education at the time was still subject and teaching oriented, and seen in a practical manner (Säntti et al. 2018). Interestingly, this led to a new teacher education programme at the University of Helsinki, “in which student teacher majored in educational psychology. This was quite a significant change – which still did not question the common belief in research-based teacher education, the core concept of the orientation of educational science” (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 16). Therefore, teacher education reinforced its scientific and research-based underpinnings, and the practical teaching elements strengthened its academic elements with critical reflection. The role of teacher-as-researcher consolidated further in the 1990s. The “scientification process” (Säntti et al. 2018, p. 12) and the “scientific foundation” (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 16) strengthened the theoretical underpinning of teacher education. Therefore, “The 1990s saw the completion of the qualitative change towards research-orientation” (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 16), and “Teachers were to be ‘educational experts’, not only schoolteachers” (Säntti et al. 2018, p. 11) in the 1990s. The research orientation, therefore, as the new millennium approached, began to strengthen: “Finland has followed the orientation of educational sciences since the 1980s, although the foundation of this orientation was under construction for more than a decade before it was accomplished” (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 18). This was “a gradual scientification process” (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 19). The status of teachers as researchers also finally reached the next level: “At the beginning of the new millennium, the research-orientation of the 1990s had developed into a research-­ based approach, which is also the unquestionable agenda of current Finnish teacher education” (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 17). Therefore, it

24 

J. CHUNG

can be argued, that the strong research foundation of Finnish teacher education, and therefore, teachers, had finally taken hold in Finnish society and in the psyche of Finnish people. The transformation of the Finns’ attitude towards teaching and teacher education was nearly complete. “The constant refrain ‘all teaching is based on research’ is supported by the fact that most teacher educators have a doctoral degree and research as their primary assignment” (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 17). AP (After PISA): Finnish Teacher Education After the Release of PISA Release of the first PISA scores in 2001 suppressed criticism of academic teacher education: “The good learning results in international school-­ achievement tests silenced the critical voices. At the same time, the academic profile of Finnish teacher educators was now on a par with that of other members of academia: they were expected to have a PhD, and to carry out research duties” (Säntti et  al. 2018, p.  13). Furthermore, the Finns’ initial scepticism towards education as an academic subject, and towards teacher educators as academics, vanished. PISA provided positive reinforcement for the decades-long commitment to academising teacher education. In fact, Niemi (2012) believes raising the education of primary teachers to Master’s level remains one of the most important educational decisions for Finland. The subsequent decades required a strong commitment to the original reforms; however, the political conditions of that time also allowed this. Clear vision and stable politics have aided Finnish teacher education immensely: “The relatively stable policy environment, which has lasted for decades, has brought many advantages to Finnish teacher education”, now seen as “academically credible” (Furuhagen et  al. 2019, p. 20). The solidification of theory and research in Finnish teacher education coincided with the publication of the first PISA data. While an internal report in 2007 suggested to “further strengthen the research-based agenda”, it also stated “that teachers are educational experts who show a research orientation in their daily work and who undertake research in their own working environment” (Säntti et  al. 2018, p.  13). However, increasing the research focus of teacher education required sacrificing teaching practice. For example, “teaching practice changed radically: it has been reduced by around 30% in duration and the amount of guidance has been cut off by five sixths. In the latest development teaching hours are

2  IN THE SPOTLIGHT: FINNISH TEACHER EDUCATI… 

25

reduced to a minimum in most of the courses” (Säntti et al. 2018, p. 14). As seen later in this book, many student teachers complain about the lack of teaching practice within Finnish teacher education as a result of these changes.

The Normaalikoulu The normaalikoulu, or lab school, is a unique feature of Finnish teacher education. This vestige from Finland’s former model schools remains an essential element of the teacher education programme. Despite Finland’s heavy emphasis on research, teaching practice clearly forms an integral part of teacher preparation. In fact, “the quality of teaching practice defines the quality of teacher education” (Koski and Pollari 2011, p. 16), illustrating the importance of practice, even in the most research-based teacher education programme. Finnish teacher education possesses unique features compared to other countries, mainly stemming from each university’s affiliated teacher training school (Koski and Pollari 2011). Furthermore, normaalikoulu “are among the key players in the teacher education provided at universities and that they should be genuinely connected to the performance guidance of teacher education” (Ruuskanen 2011, p. 22). The normaalikoulu, therefore, deserve much credit for the “Finland phenomenon” (Takayama 2009, p. 64) and the accolades that Finnish teacher education received due to PISA. There are twelve teacher training schools in Finland, whose main objective focuses on practice for future teachers (Koski and Pollari 2011). “These are state-owned schools and are part of the teacher-education faculties at every university. They also function as ordinary comprehensive schools, following mainly the same curriculum as other schools” (Kansanen 2008, p. 61). While students also undertake practice at field schools, discussed later in this chapter and throughout the book, student teachers assume most of their teaching practice at the normaalikoulu, under the watchful eye of their capable mentor teachers (Koski and Pollari 2011). Therefore, normaalikoulu have an essential role in the education of future teachers in Finland, and differ from municipal schools: “The teachers have a dual role: on one hand they teach pupils and on the other, they supervise and mentor student teachers. Many of the Normal School teachers are active in research and development and are members of teams that produce learning materials for schools” (Niemi 2012, p. 35). Both Koski and Pollari (2011) and Niemi (2012) draw attention to normaalikoulu

26 

J. CHUNG

teachers for their supervision and mentorship duties. Furthermore, “Special competence requirements are expected of their teachers, who are experienced supervisors” (Kansanen 2008, p. 61). This book later explores their mentorship roles more closely. Niemi (2012) highlights mentor teachers’ research capability, while Koski and Pollari (2011, p. 16) commend the close connection between normaalikoulu and university: “One evident reason for successful teacher training and teacher education is the innate connection between teacher training schools, departments of education and other university departments”. Teaching practices have a strong theoretical and research underpinning. “Finnish uniqueness”, the combination of theory and practice in normaalikoulu periods, requires “detailed theoretical studies” during each practice period, supported by reading and discussion of academic research (Kansanen 2008, p. 61). Teacher educators “encourage student teachers to conduct ‘real’ research on the practice of teaching […] a student combines collecting data for his/her research during the teaching practice period” (Jyrhämä and Maaranen 2012, p. 110). Interestingly, this leads to many mentor teachers pursing further education, namely Doctoral degrees (Jyrhämä and Maaranen 2012). Therefore, the normaalikoulu support research-based teaching practice. Teaching practices gradually acquaint student teachers to the profession. They first engage in observations, then progressively experience the wider requirements of teaching (Kansanen 2008). Student teachers tackle more responsibility in later practices. Furthermore, “The larger perspectives of a teacher’s work, in the form of cooperation with parents and involvement in the home lives of the students, are of importance, and cooperation among all teacher educators is essential” (Kansanen 2008, p. 61). Despite Kansanen’s assertions about including the external role of teachers, for example, with parental engagement, student teachers criticise the lack of breadth and scope of normaalikoulu practice, discussed later in this book. A review of teacher education from an internal working group, outlining strategies for 2020, reiterated the importance of research, especially developing teaching practice’s relationship with educational research (Ruuskanen 2011). These strategies also highlighted the role of normaalikoulu in teacher education research. Normaalikoulu often serve as instigators of educational research, and research-based teacher education: “The teacher training schools have profound expertise in the modeling of educational and learning theories for different learning environments and

2  IN THE SPOTLIGHT: FINNISH TEACHER EDUCATI… 

27

everyday classroom work” (Ruuskanen 2011, p. 24). This working paper reinforced the role of mentor teachers as researchers as well: “Evidence of research should become a central selection criterion for filling teaching positions at teacher training schools, and the development of teachers’ salaries should be based on research results” (Ruuskanen 2011, p.  24). While it will take some time to see if these goals were fulfilled, these aims illustrate the importance of research in teacher education, in the teaching profession, and in the normaalikoulu.

Field Schools Despite the accolades, the time student teachers spend in normaalikoulu remains rather limited. Therefore, teaching practice takes place in normaalikoulu and in field schools (Syrjäläinen and Jyrhämä 2008, in Krokfors et al. 2011). The sheer numbers of student teachers overload the normaalikoulu (Ruuskanen 2011), also supporting the need for additional teaching practice. As discussed later in this book, many student teachers find the normaalikoulu ‘not normal’, and wish for more ‘typical’ teaching practices. Therefore, field schools provide alternative teaching practice and supervision (Jyrhämä 2006; Kansanen 2008; Niemi 2012). Internal research from a Ministry of Education working group, exploring normaalikoulu and field schools, found that “the supervised teaching practice seems to have succeeded quite well at university teacher training schools, but it can be further enhanced by ensuring that the supervised practice at the partner schools and institutions becomes an integral part of the education” (Ruuskanen 2011, p. 23). Furthermore, the working group recommended that one third of teaching practice should take place in a field school setting (Ruuskanen 2011). Field schools have become an integral part of a Finnish teacher education programme, and enrich the teaching practice. In fact, they play an important role in the school-university partnerships within Finnish teacher education, as well as teacher education’s position in influencing society (Jyrhämä 2006). Municipal schools often express interest in becoming field schools. University of Helsinki, with the largest teacher education programme, utilises many field schools for teaching practice: “The field school network of the University of Helsinki received membership applications from 368 teachers and 91 different schools during 2004. The idea behind this type of collaboration between schools and universities is the creation of a new learning society” (Jyrhämä 2006, p. 65). Criticisms of

28 

J. CHUNG

the normaalikoulu, explored throughout this book, often are alleviated with the characteristics and the experience of practice in field schools. Huugo, a lecturer specialising in teacher induction and field school partnerships, says, “There has always been some amount of teaching practicum in the field schools in teacher education in Finland”. One of the field schools has participated with his university since 1994. He describes how larger universities even have a wider “network of field schools”, and “student teachers are having the practicum in both environments”. Huugo explains the credit distribution for field schools and normaalikoulu practice: “It’s twelve credit points in the teacher training schools and then eight credit points in field schools”. He alludes to the aforementioned “national recommendation that at least one third of practicum should be in field schools”. Larger universities utilise field schools more, with almost half of practices in field schools. Huugo asserts that field school practice remains very popular with student teachers.

Supervision Student teachers in Finland have a myriad of supervisors. Trainees receive feedback from peers, university lecturers, and mentor teachers for “an ongoing dialogical process during practice periods” (Krokfors et al. 2011, p.  5). The strong research and theoretical underpinnings of Finnish teacher education necessitate a multi-layered supervision process: In teaching practise there are three actors whose role and interaction with others requires attention. These are the supervisor from the university (university lecturer), the local mentor who is one of the teachers in the teaching practise school and the student teacher him/herself. Together they aim at realising two curricula with both of them influencing their action. It is, however, evident that university-based supervisors are more affected by academic views and that they focus more on the teacher education curriculum whereas the local mentors represent school pedagogy and are more familiar with their own curriculum. The student teacher needs to be active in realising the goals of both curricula (Jyrhämä 2006, p. 55).

This multi-layered supervision process is discussed at length later in this book. A university’s teacher education team divides into two groups, the university lecturers and the normaalikoulu teachers, as the teachers are employees of the university (Mouhu 2011). The lecturers teach at the

2  IN THE SPOTLIGHT: FINNISH TEACHER EDUCATI… 

29

university, but also supervise in the training schools, and normaalikoulu teachers supervise teaching practices. All teacher educators have a strong research orientation and a high level of education: “In principle, all teaching faculty have doctoral degrees” (Krokfors et al. 2011, p. 1). Furthermore, “practically all teacher educators have the teaching qualifications required in Finnish schools” (Krokfors et al. 2011, p. 2), showing how they have experience from previous teaching careers. Normaalikoulu teachers hold a unique role, as they teach the pupils at school while, at the same time, mentor student teachers (Mouhu 2011). In order to work at a normaalikoulu, teachers must have at least two years of teaching experience in addition to official teaching qualifications for Finland, including the Master’s degree and “teachers pedagogical studies of a minimum of 60 ECTS [European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System] credits (35 study weeks)” (Mouhu 2011, p.  159). One ECTS point is roughly equivalent to 25–30 study hours (Niemi and Jakku-­ Sihvonen 2006). Supervisors play an important role in teaching practice, and receive training to strongly connect theory and practice during their mentorship sessions (Krokfors et al. 2011). Supervising teachers need to keep abreast of current pedagogical knowledge and the university’s pedagogical curriculum; therefore, they receive much encouragement to engage with relevant academic literature (Jyrhämä 2006). Furthermore, mentor teachers often receive supervision and mentorship training consisting of at least 5 ECTS (Ruuskanen 2011). “Traditionally, theory has been seen as an abstract, academic generalisation and practice as its opposite. By educating supervisors we aim at narrowing this gap” (Jyrhämä 2006, p.  63). The mentor teachers’ supervision, in other words, has a strong foundation of theory based on academic research. In addition to “professional in-service education” (Koski and Pollari 2011, p. 16), normaalikoulu teachers have a high level of university education. Many teachers, twenty percent in some schools, have a Doctoral or a Licentiate degree (Jyrhämä 2006; Koski and Pollari 2011), which is “between a Master’s and a Doctorate”, leading to very high-quality supervision (Koski and Pollari 2011, p.  16). This illustrates the universities’ ability, via teacher training schools, to positively influence society (Jyrhämä 2006). Furthermore, normaalikoulu teaching jobs prove very popular: “teachers wanting to become supervisors of teaching practise had high expectations and saw it as a way to lift their everyday teaching to a new level and as a way to improve it” (Jyrhämä 2006, p. 65). Furthermore, the normaalikoulu teacher role enables deep, critical reflection upon one’s

30 

J. CHUNG

own practice: “The [supervising] teachers learn as they analyse their own work and also when they see student teachers develop new ideas and utilise new teaching strategies and information and communication technology to their advantage” (Jyrhämä 2006, p.  65). Empirical research contributing to this book also highlights the popularity of normaalikoulu teaching positions. The research underpinnings of teaching practice render the role of mentor quite demanding. “The idea of research-based teaching makes it especially challenging for supervisors to help student teachers become reflective professionals in the area of teaching” (Jyrhämä 2006, p.  64). Supervisors need to integrate the latest research into their supervision, and remain well informed about the university’s curricula as well. Furthermore, this requires mentor teachers and student teachers to engage with a “common conceptual language” in order to promote research-informed teaching and dialogue about the teaching practice sessions (Jyrhämä 2006, p. 64). This benefits the student teacher as well: “Both teacher training practice […] and being supervised by a skilled teacher show the student teachers ways to grow into teachership […]. The student teacher is thus building his or her personal practice theory based on teaching practice experiences and reflections on them, i.e. through the interaction of theory and practice” (Mouhu 2011, p.  157). The supervision and mentorship process allows growth for both parties involved: “Not only the supervisee, but also the supervisor, changes through supervision, as new knowledge is integrated into the existing repertoire of knowledge and skills and as personal experience is conveyed to others. The maturity of both parties that they introduce to the supervisory relationship has an influence on the growth process and its results” (Ojanen and Lauriala 2006, p.  75). In other words, both supervisor and supervisee learn and grow from the mentorship experience.

Admissions The rigorous admissions process and low acceptance rate to Finnish teacher education has garnered much “cross-national attraction” (Phillips and Ochs 2004, p. 779). Upper secondary school students undertake a matriculation examination. Those who pass in four subjects receive their matriculation certificate, allowing entrance to tertiary education in Finland, either in a university or in a polytechnic (Niemi 2012). The academic prowess of teacher education applicants is very strong, and they

2  IN THE SPOTLIGHT: FINNISH TEACHER EDUCATI… 

31

possess some of the highest matriculation examination scores at universities (Kansanen 2008). Furthermore, universities hold entrance examinations. As higher education is free of charge in Finland, the Ministry of Culture and Education determines the Numerus Clausus, or quota for each subject at university, based on the predicted needs of society (Niemi 2012). Therefore, the large numbers of applicants to teacher education programmes also require entrance examinations, which assist with the selection of candidates (Kansanen 2008). These examinations have a tradition in Finnish teacher preparation: The tradition of selecting teacher-education students by means of an entrance examination goes back quite a long way in Finland. These examinations were mainly used in the early teacher training colleges to test the competence to read and write, and basic general knowledge. With the development of the school system and the increase in quality of general education the entrance examination has changed its form. The matriculation examination is nowadays the basic requirement for university entrance, and the departmental examination is meant to select students who are assumed to be the most suitable for teaching work (Kansanen 2008, p. 53).

The entrance exams select the most suitable candidates for teaching, in order to best develop future teachers. A positive by-product of careful selection results in very few teachers leaving the profession until retirement (Kansanen 2008). For example, Matias, a former lecturer of history teacher education, currently a lecturer in pedagogy and vice head of a Department of Education, says his university has a quota of ten students for history teaching: “If we have more than ten candidates, we have aptitude tests which are interview, and so-called group discussion, where we are measuring the skills to be a member of a group”. After this, he elaborates, “We have certain criteria to evaluate their interview and discussion, and then we give them [scores] and we select the best ones”. The professors acknowledge the extremely fortunate position they possess as teacher educators. For example, Huugo states, “We can choose from the best [applicants]. We have excellent students in our faculty”. Gareth, a lecturer in teacher education, originally from the UK, also acknowledges the incredibly privileged position he is in: “One of the luxuries that I have is that I can handpick my students. That’s a reflection of the mindset amongst young people and society in general, […] that teaching is a desirable profession”. At Gareth’s university, “there are six

32 

J. CHUNG

faculties, so we cover all of the academic disciplines with one or two notable exceptions, but we’ve got medicine; we’ve got engineering. Of all the faculties in the university, the most difficult one to get into is teacher education”. For his specific programme, Gareth notes “around ten percent get accepted, which means that I’d have to be a bloody awful teacher if I couldn’t do something with these students because they really are bright, real bright”. Admission to primary teacher education programmes combines test results, an interview, and practical group work (Kansanen 2008). Currently, prospective students for most programmes need to complete the VAKAVA, an application to study teacher education in Finland. VAKAVA is an acronym for “National Educational Selection Cooperation Project” in Finnish (Malinen et al. 2012, p. 571). This “demanding exam”, inspired by values of equity, allows all candidates to apply at the same starting point (Hammerness et  al. 2017, p.  11). VAKAVA commenced in 2006, and focuses on five to eight peer-reviewed, educational journal articles. New articles are chosen every year. Articles are released to candidates approximately six weeks before the exam. The VAKAVA consists of multiple-­ choice questions, but ones necessitating “application and analysis” (Hammerness et al. 2017, p. 12). It allows students to apply to a maximum of six different degree programmes, out of seven universities and 35 different degree options (University of Helsinki, 30 June 2020). Anni, studying primary education and special educational needs, describes her VAKAVA process: “We had VAKAVA, it means that it’s a national test for all students who want to get into study to be a primary school teacher, special educator or kindergarten teacher. It is maybe five articles we had to study, and then we passed an exam”. Elina, also a student teacher, remarks on the “intense” exam for teacher education, based on a “huge book”, with applicants even “tested on footnotes”. Anni says, “It was hard work. I worked really hard. […] I don’t know how many weeks I read but it was quite a long time I read those articles.” Marko, a student teacher in primary education, refers to the VAKAVA as an “open test”, which is “open for everyone”, referring to the equitable principles (Hammerness et  al. 2017) upon which VAKAVA was founded. Previous to the VAKAVA, universities selected students on the basis of their matriculation examination scores, with additional merit given to students who had previously studied educational science at the open universities, or worked as unqualified teachers or teaching assistants (Malinen et  al. 2012). Furthermore, admissions committees gave extra

2  IN THE SPOTLIGHT: FINNISH TEACHER EDUCATI… 

33

acknowledgment to applicants with previous experience, previous study, or special skills, for example, with music (Kansanen 2008). Antti, studying to become an English teacher, says, “We had an entrance exam. First you pre-select those students who can come to the entrance exam. […] It was like this when I applied. They changed it afterwards. Now everyone who has graduated from high school can attend the entrance exam”, referring to the equitable underpinnings of VAKAVA (Hammerness et  al. 2017). Tuija, studying to be a primary education teacher, also remarks on the change to the VAKAVA: The matriculation exam “didn’t matter in those tests. It has changed”. She states how the previous applications depended on high matriculation exam scores: “Before, it was those numbers you have had, the grades, have effect when you applied, not anymore. It has made that we have different teachers. Not everyone has been at the top of their class”. VAKAVA, founded on principles of equity, has allowed for more inclusive, yet still very selective, admissions. Tuija continues: “I can see that not everyone has been top ten. I think that is really good. We can understand school more differently. We can understand the children who don’t think they are really good in schools”. In other words, eliminating the matriculation examination scores has diversified the applicant pool for teacher education programmes. The previous system of admissions fell under criticism for discriminating against applicants freshly out of upper secondary education (Malinen et al. 2012). While the VAKAVA promotes more equitable admission to teacher education programmes, it has led to preparation courses and cram schools specialising in passing the exam (Malinen et al. 2012). After the VAKAVA, universities invite applicants with the highest scores to the next step. According to Hammerness et al. (2017, p. 14) “simply passing the VAKAVA with a high score does not guarantee admission into the competitive primary teacher education programmes in Finland”. Marko, for example, says, “after the test they take maybe 200 at the top of the test who are called to the next phase of the entry test. In the next phase there are interviews and personality tests in [my university]. In other universities they have some sort of, you have to teach for maybe ten minutes”. In fact, “There is no common interview protocol or other selection procedure between different universities” as they “have the freedom to decide what selection process they would like to use to select candidates” (Hammerness et  al. 2017, p.  14). Tuija gives her perspective: “After [VAKAVA], some of us got into the second level, and then we had the psychological test at first, and then we did go to an interview. There was

34 

J. CHUNG

[sic] three teachers interviewing us”. Anni says, “Usually it goes that people who get best points from the VAKAVA goes to interview, and then part of those who are interviewed get into the university”. The popularity of teaching careers, especially primary teaching, in Finland has gathered much international attention. Very few applicants gain admission to primary teacher education programmes. For example, Toom and Husu (2012) cite around 6500 applicants for one primary programme, and about 800 acceptances. Uusiautti and Määtä (2013) also note the popularity of the teaching profession, and the acceptance rate to some programmes are around ten percent of applications. Similarly, Toom and Husu (2012) give acceptance averages around eight to ten percent of applicants. Koski and Pollari (2011, p.  14) state about “10–15% of the applicants” accepted for primary teacher education, illustrating how this “popularity of the teaching profession is one of the factors that foster quality in education”. Amazingly, “Today it is easier to be admitted to the faculties of law or medicine at the University of Helsinki than it is to gain admission to the [primary] teacher education programme” (Tirri 2014, p. 602). Hammerness et al. (2017) cite 1649 applicants to the University of Helsinki on the VAKAVA exam for 120 spots in primary teacher education. All of this illustrates the popularity of primary teaching, and the immense difficulty in gaining admission to a primary education programme in Finland. Rita, also a student teacher, for example, cried with happiness for an hour when she learned she was offered a place to study primary education: “Especially the teacher education is very popular in Finland and it is more challenging to get in. I worked hard. I studied eight or ten hours a day last spring and I was happy that I got in”. However, the very selective admission does, unfortunately, deter many capable future teachers. Tapio, a Finnish language teacher and student counselor, says, “I was a boy with not so good grades and doing a lot of else, so I didn’t get first to be an elementary teacher because it’s the hardest way to get there. I decided I needed another road, then I went to study Finnish language and I thought okay, this is one way to get to be a teacher”. Tapio’s experience illustrates the difference in admissions rate to primary and secondary teacher education programmes. Research highlights the efficacy of this rigorous admissions process. For example, Kansanen (2008, p.  55) cites a variety of studies, where “the clearest results seem to point to the fact that the elements in which practical activities are observed and tested show the highest correlations with the evaluation of teaching skills after completion of the teacher-education

2  IN THE SPOTLIGHT: FINNISH TEACHER EDUCATI… 

35

study programme”. While the rigour of the admissions process selects candidates with high motivation and desire to become a teacher, unfortunately, however, this means that many strong applicants do not have the chance of entering the profession. While “from the societal point of view the situation is extremely favourable”, this also means “those who are responsible for the entrance examination [are] in a very difficult situation” (Kansanen 2008, p. 64). This popularity and low admissions rate, unfortunately, does not extend to secondary teacher education. Some less-popular secondary subjects face a teaching shortage (Niemi and Jakku-Sihvonen 2006). While subjects like biology remain popular, subjects such as mathematics, chemistry, physics, and some foreign languages have trouble recruiting suitable candidates (Niemi 2012). For example, “in mathematics almost all prospective candidates are accepted, but this figure shrinks to only one third in relation to religious education courses” (Tirri and Ubani 2013, p.  22). These secondary admissions figures are in stark contrast to primary teacher education. Furthermore, like many other countries, Finland also has trouble recruiting men into the teaching profession (Kansanen 2008). Niemi (2012, p. 25) cites how some secondary subject programmes have switched from an “‘elimination approach’ to a ‘recruitment approach’” in trying to attract students, especially in subjects with trouble gathering applicants. Matias gives some insight on secondary admissions: “Some of our subjects are quite popular, like history. We always have more candidates than we can take in, but for example, math, science sometimes we have less [sic] candidates than we have places for them […]. They usually all get in.” Secondary student teachers have the option to study their subject, the subject plus teacher education, or applying for teacher education during university. Linus, studying to be an English teacher, gives some insight into his admissions process: I applied to the English teacher training programme. It included the one-­ year programme [of pedagogy and teaching practice], but I have a lot of friends who have, later on, after they enrolled in university, they started thinking, hey, maybe I could become a teacher. They then chose later on to apply, so they are starting this thing also, this one year [of pedagogy and teaching practice].

Matias also states, “in subject [teaching] there are different possibilities”. He adds, “we call it direct selection, when the students know from the

36 

J. CHUNG

beginning of their studies, if they are going to be […] a teacher or not”. He notes that students can gain admissions to secondary teacher education during their university programmes: “If you are not selected in the beginning of the studies, you can apply when you have enough studies in your major and in education”.

Teacher Education Degree Requirements After moving all teacher education to the universities in the 1970s and 1980s, a “fairly strict core curriculum”, dictated by the Ministry of Education, allowed for unification of teacher education requirements and raising of teaching standards (Niemi and Jakku-Sihvonen 2006, p. 32). In the 1990s, universities followed a general decentralisation plan in accordance with the decentralisation of all education in Finland. Universities had more autonomy in terms of planning their teacher education, were “in a better position to take local needs and the strengths”, and even connect teacher education with the universities’ wider aims and strategic plans (Niemi and Jakku-Sihvonen 2006, p.  32). Despite this, Pauliina, who teaches English at a normaalikoulu, says, “Our [teacher education] system is very homogenous in a way. All the universities offering the teacher education programme have the teacher training schools and the programmes are more or less the same”. This highlights the consistency and consensus behind teacher education in Finland, despite decentralisation and university-­based decisions. As stated previously, all teachers need to earn a Master’s degree. Primary teachers study educational science, while secondary teachers major in their subject, and minor in pedagogy. Secondary student teachers either study education studies within one year, or simultaneously with their subject studies (Niemi and Jakku-Sihvonen 2006). Teacher education students also study for a minor in a specific subject. For example, primary teachers major in educational science, have minor studies in “multidisciplinary subject studies”, and study for one or two minor subjects, typically 25 ECTS credits each for two minor subjects, and 60 ECTS credits for one minor subject (Malinen et  al. 2012, p.  573). Secondary teachers major in their subject, minor in educational science, and have the possibility in one or two minor subjects. Among the primary student teachers, for example, Marko is minoring in crafts education, and Tuija has minors in Finnish language and literature. Linus, studying to be a secondary school teacher, has an English language major, but also a minor in Swedish. Saara, currently a lecturer, studied Finnish language as

2  IN THE SPOTLIGHT: FINNISH TEACHER EDUCATI… 

37

a major and Finnish literature as a minor, along with her pedagogical studies. Finnish teacher education, especially since the reforms of the 1970s, has adhered to an academic orientation (Koski and Pollari 2011). Eight universities in Finland, “some of which have more than one institute for education” provide teacher education (Niemi and Jakku-Sihvonen 2006, p.  35). These “eight research-intensive universities” require that “all senior lecturers must have a PhD” (Maaranen et al. 2019, p. 215), highlighting the academic and research underpinning of Finnish higher education. The universities offer a wide variety of education programmes. For example, “In the University of Helsinki there are six different teacher education progammes, namely early childhood education teacher, class teacher, home economics teacher, handicraft teacher, special education teacher and subject teacher education programmes” (Maaranen et  al. 2019, p. 215). Early years teachers have an academic teacher education (Jyrhämä 2006); thus, all teacher education has a heavy emphasis on theory. Jakku-­ Sihvonen and Niemi (2006) break down the educational requirements to qualify as a teacher. The credits are given in European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS); again, one ECTS point is roughly equivalent to 25–30 study hours. Early years teachers need a Bachelor’s degree (180 ECTS) with education as a major. This qualifies them to teach in an early years setting or in a preschool. Primary teachers need a Master’s degree (300 ECTS) with “education science” (Koski and Pollari 2011, p. 13) as a major, which allows for teaching preschool and grades 1–6 (Jakku-Sihvonen and Niemi 2006). The education science major for primary teachers consists of 140 ECTS. The major studies of education include “core content courses of cultural, psychological and pedagogical bases of education” (50 ECTS), research and research methods, Bachelor’s and Master’s theses (70 ECTS), and teaching practice (20 ECTS) (Krokfors et  al. 2011, p.  4). Primary teaching candidates study the subjects taught in school, or multidisciplinary studies as their minor (60 ECTS). They also have “complimentary minor subject studies” in one or two other subjects (60–75 ECTS) “to profile their expertise as a future teacher” and study “communication and orienting studies” (25 ECTS) (Krokfors et al. 2011, p. 4). Secondary teachers need a Master’s degree (300 ECTS), and major in the subject, but need 60 ECTS of pedagogical studies (Jakku-Sihvonen and Niemi 2006; Koski and Pollari 2011; Tirri and Ubani 2013).

38 

J. CHUNG

Secondary teachers undertake their “pedagogical studies” which “represent about 20% of a master’s degree. Following four-year university studies in their subjects, the student teachers first start their pedagogical studies” (Tryggvason 2009, p. 370). This yearlong pedagogical education “includes studies such as school pedagogy, educational psychology, special education and pedagogical content knowledge of their own subjects” (Tirri and Ubani 2013, p. 22). To reiterate, secondary student teachers study their subject in that specific faculty, for example, Finnish, mathematics, or history, and undertake their pedagogical studies in the Department of Teacher Education: In practice, this means that subject-matter studies take place at the subject departments but courses on subject-matter education, or how to teach in general and how to teach a special subject in particular, take place at the departments of teacher education. One consequence of this is that cooperation between specialists of education and specialists of subject-matter education is possible within the same department. Another is that cooperation between subject-matter specialists and specialists of subject-matter education or pedagogical content knowledge requires effort in terms of crossing departmental boundaries (Kansanen 2008, p. 56).

This raises an interesting point concerning the synergy and cooperation between education science and subject pedagogy within the same department, perhaps raising the esteem of educational science within Finnish academia. All future teachers undertake research methods for their Bachelor’s and Master’s theses and a minimum 60 ECTS credits of pedagogical studies (Koski and Pollari 2011). This element of teacher education requires student awareness of the most current educational research, culminating in thesis writing in order to highlight “their knowledge of educational research” and utilising “scientific language” (Tirri and Ubani 2013, p.  22). Pedagogical study includes teaching practice, “communication, language and ICT”, a “personal study plan”, which helps students develop their own career trajectory and goals, and finally “optional studies”, which “may cover a variety of different courses through which students seek to profile their studies and qualifications” (Niemi and Jakku-Sihvonen 2006, p. 35). However, these pedagogical studies do not lose sight of the educational science aspect of teacher education; student teachers learn didactics within an educational science framework: “The goal of pedagogical

2  IN THE SPOTLIGHT: FINNISH TEACHER EDUCATI… 

39

studies is to create opportunities to learn pedagogical interaction, to learn how to develop own teaching skills, and to learn how to plan, teach and evaluate teaching in terms of the curriculum, the school community, and the age and learning capacity of the pupils” (Niemi and Jakku-Sihvonen 2006, p.  36). Special education teachers need a Master’s degree (300 ECTS) in education or in special education. Teachers with this qualification can be a special education teacher or a primary teacher. Teachers in vocational education need to have a higher or postgraduate degree within their specific subject, either from a university or a polytechnic. If a higher degree does not exist within the field, they must have the highest possible qualification within that discipline. In addition to the academic qualifications, vocational teachers must have at least three years’ experience within their field of study, as well as the pedagogical coursework (Chung 2009, 2019).

Teaching Practice As stated previously, student teachers undertake teaching practice in the normaalikoulu and a field school, a municipal school with a supervision specialism (Jyrhämä 2006). This practice, in conjunction with expert mentorship, allows student teachers “to grow into teachership and its development in terms of content, didactics, and pedagogy” (Mouhu 2011, p. 157). As stated throughout this book, student teachers are encouraged to find their own teaching style. The teaching practice, therefore, allows them to develop the aforementioned “personal practice theory” and integrate “theory and practice” (Mouhu 2011, p. 157). Peer supervision also plays a significant role during teaching practice, “and is now being systematically supported. Practising in pairs and teams has also become widespread” (Jyrhämä 2006, p.  61). Huugo uncovers how peer learning is written into the process of teaching practice. For the first practice in their first year, student teachers “just observe when they come to training school, for a couple of weeks”. However, “On their second year, I think it’s normally six weeks’ training, where they start in a group of four people and they plan all together and keep lessons together, four lessons in a week”. The peer learning continues, according to Huugo: “Then, after the third and fourth weeks, they keep the lessons in [pairs] and plan their lessons in [pairs] and the other two gives [sic] feedback for them. It’s a kind of a collaboration thing, after all the lessons”. Finally, he says, “On the fifth and sixth weeks they keep individual lessons, but the others work

40 

J. CHUNG

also as evaluators or mentors for those. It’s written in the curriculum of the practice”. Therefore, peer learning and collaboration make up a substantial part of the teaching practice periods. Primary student teachers, as stated previously, study educational science (140 ECTS) as their major. They take five modules for their major: “the cultural, psychological and pedagogical basic studies of teaching, the basic studies of research methodology and practical studies” (Jyrhämä 2006, p. 58). The students also undertake two long teaching practices, one during their Bachelor’s degree and one during the Master’s degree study. During minor subject practice, consisting of 12 undergraduate credits, student teachers practice in the different subject areas of primary school. This makes for a smoother transition into teaching: “It is easier for the student teachers to start teaching by first concentrating on limited subject areas and then moving on to more holistic and pupil-centred approaches to teaching” and to first develop “subject didactical skills” (Jyrhämä 2006, p.  59). The major subject practice takes place during the Master’s programme and consists of 8 ECTS. During this time, “the theory of classroom teaching is applied comprehensively”, and this “practicum is viewed as the second most important study period in addition to preparing the thesis” (Jyrhämä 2006, p. 60). The major subject practicum takes place over five weeks, and consists of one of the following orientations, chosen by the student teacher: 1) Classroom teaching practicum in classes 1–6 of comprehensive school. 2) Basic teaching practicum with classroom teaching and subject-teaching in classes 1–9. 3) Wide-ranging practicum with classroom teaching and, for example, special education, immigrant education, practise abroad or high-­ school or adult education. 4) Research practicum which combines thesis preparation and teaching practise by, for example, enabling the student teacher to collect the material for his/her thesis during a teaching practice period (Jyrhämä 2006, pp. 60–61).

Pedagogical studies also include “guided teaching practice” consisting of approximately 20 ECTS (Niemi and Jakku-Sihvonen 2006, p. 36). This helps student teachers develop the skills and critical reflection necessary for the profession. For example, student teachers can meet pupils from diverse socio-economic backgrounds, with varying special needs, in order to prepare them for future challenges (Niemi and Jakku-Sihvonen 2006).

2  IN THE SPOTLIGHT: FINNISH TEACHER EDUCATI… 

41

Summary This chapter delved into the history of Finnish teacher education, starting in the nineteenth century. Even at this time, education played a role in national identity and teachers commanded respect in society. The Elementary Education Decree in 1866 started children’s access to education. The first professors of education in Finland also reinforced the role of education in society. The preparation of future teachers, however, remained divided between the primary and secondary sectors, with secondary teachers receiving more education. Compulsory education became law in 1921. Teacher training colleges emerged and coexisted with teaching seminaries, previously established in the mid-1800s. The colleges, interestingly, used model schools for teaching practice. The twentieth century ushered in both the beginnings of, and resistance to educational science. The 1960s, with welfare society ideals, catalysed the movement towards comprehensive schooling and university-­ based teacher preparation. The idea of polytechnic teacher preparation in the 1970s was rejected for ideological and political reasons. The Teacher Education Act of 1971 moved teacher preparation to the university, and from 1979, all teachers needed to earn a Master’s degree. This decade continued both the acceptance of and resistance to academic teacher education, which still possessed vocational elements. The 1980s and 1990s consolidated academic teacher education and the ‘scientification’ of teacher education by strengthening the research basis of the discipline. In the 2000s, the OECD released the first PISA scores, positively reinforcing the 1970s teacher education reforms. This chapter also discussed the normaalikoulu and the field schools as loci of teaching practice. Many credit normaalikoulu for the ‘Finland phenomenon’. These differ from municipal schools as they fall under the administration of their affiliated universities; furthermore, they have the unique position of teaching pupils and mentoring student teachers. Normal schools have close connections to universities and support research of student teachers, mentor teachers, and the university. Field schools exist to supplement normaalikoulu practice, and allow student teachers to experience a more ‘typical’ school. Future teachers usually engage in one third of their practice in field schools. Student teachers at normaalikoulu have a multi-layered supervision process, involving peers, mentor teachers, and university lecturers. This facilitates a close connection between theory and practice, and deep critical reflection.

42 

J. CHUNG

Admission to teacher education programmes proves very difficult. Most primary teaching programmes accept around ten percent of their applicants. Prospective students undertake a rigourous entrance examination based on academic literature. Applicants also need to engage in interviews and personality tests in order to gain acceptance to university. While primary teaching candidates have the most difficult competition, many secondary teaching candidates do not, depending on their subject. Primary student teachers major in educational sciences, with minor studies in a subject of their choice, while secondary student teachers major in their subject, and minor in educational science. All future teachers engage in research throughout the university programme.

References Chung, J. (2009). An Investigation of Reasons for Finland’s Success in PISA. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oxford. Chung, J. (2016). The (Mis)use of the Finnish Teacher Education Model: ‘Policy-­ based Evidence-Making’?. In Educational Research, 58(2), pp. 207–219. Chung, J. (2019). PISA and Global Education Policy: Understanding Finland’s Success and Influence. Leiden/Boston: Sense/Brill. Furuhagen, B., Holmén, J. & Säntti, J. (2019). The Ideal Teacher: Orientations of Teacher Education in Sweden and Finland after the Second World War. In History of Education, pp. 1–22. Hammerness, K., Ahtiainen, R. & Sahlberg, P. (2017). Empowered Educators in Finland: How High-Performing Systems shape Teaching Quality. San Francisco: Wiley. Husso, M.-L., Korpinen, E. & Asunta, T. (2006). Teacher Researcher Net  – A Forum of Interactive Professionalism and Empowerment. In R. Jakku-Sihvonen and H. Niemi (Eds.). (2006). Research-Based Teacher Education in Finland – Reflections by Finnish Teacher Educators. Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association, pp. 103–121. Jakku-Sihvonen, R. & Niemi, H. (2006). Introduction to the Finnish Education System and Teachers’ Work. In R.  Jakku-Sihvonen and H.  Niemi (Eds.). (2006). Research-Based Teacher Education in Finland – Reflections by Finnish Teacher Educators. Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association, pp. 7–13. Jyrhämä, R. & Maaranen, K. (2012). Research Orientation in a Teacher’s Work. In H. Niemi, A. Toom and A. Kallioniemi (Eds.). (2012). Miracle of Education: The Principles and Practices of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 97–112. Jyrhämä, R. (2006). The Function of Practical Studies in Teacher Education. In R.  Jakku-Sihvonen and H.  Niemi (Eds.). (2006). Research-Based Teacher

2  IN THE SPOTLIGHT: FINNISH TEACHER EDUCATI… 

43

Education in Finland – Reflections by Finnish Teacher Educators. Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association, pp. 51–69. Jyrhämä, R., Kynäslahti, H., Krokfors, L., Byman, R., Maaranen, K., Toom, A. & Kansanen, P. (2008). The Appreciation and Realisation of Research-based Teacher Education: Finnish Students’ Experiences of Teacher Education. In European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(1), pp. 1–16. Kansanen, P. (2008). Distinctive Highlights of Finnish Teacher Education. In J. Loima (Ed.). Facing the Future: Developing Teacher Education, Helsinki: Palmenia – Helsinki University Press, pp. 48–68. Kivinen, O. & Rinne, R. (1994). The Thirst for Learning, or Protecting One’s Niche? The Shaping of Teacher Training in Finland during the 19th and 20th Centuries. In British Journal of Sociology of Education, 15(4), pp. 515–527. Koski, K. & Pollari, P. (2011). Teacher Training Schools – The Finnish Way of Organising Teacher Training. In M. Kontoniemi & O.-P. Salo (Eds.) (2011). Educating Teachers in the PISA Paradise. Perspectives on Teacher Education at a Finnish University. University of Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä, Finland, pp. 13–18. Krokfors, L., Kynäslahti, H., Stenberg, K., Toom, A., Maaranen, K., Jyrhäma, R., Byman, R. & Kansanen, P. (2011). Investigating Finnish Teacher Educators’ Views on Research-Based Teacher Education. In Teaching Education, 22(1), pp. 1–13. Malinen, O.-P., Väisänen, P., Savolainen, H. (2012). Teacher Education in Finland: A Review of a National Effort for Preparing Teachers for the Future. In The Curriculum Journal, 23(4), pp. 567–584. Maaranen, K., Kynäslahti, H., Byman, R., Jyrhämä, R., & Sintonen, S. (2019). Teacher Education Matters: Finnish Teacher Educators’ Concerns, Beliefs, and Values. In European Journal of Teacher Education, 42(2), pp. 211–227. Mouhu, H. (2011). Becoming a Supervisor in the Finnish Teacher Education System. In M. Kontoniemi & O.-P. Salo (Eds.) (2011). Educating Teachers in the PISA Paradise. Perspectives on Teacher Education at a Finnish University. University of Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä, Finland, pp. 157–183. Niemi, H. (2012). The Societal Factors Contributing to Education and Schooling in Finland. In H. Niemi, A. Toom and A. Kallioniemi (Eds.). (2012). Miracle of Education: The Principles and Practices of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 19–38. Niemi, H., Toom, A. & Kallioniemi, A. (2012). Epilogue: How to Be Prepared to Face the Future?. In H. Niemi, A. Toom and A. Kallioniemi (Eds.). (2012). Miracle of Education: The Principles and Practices of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 273–279. Niemi, H. & Jakku-Sihvonen, R. (2006). Research-Based Teacher Education. In R.  Jakku-Sihvonen and H.  Niemi (Eds.). (2006). Research-Based Teacher Education in Finland – Reflections by Finnish Teacher Educators. Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association, pp. 31–50.

44 

J. CHUNG

Ojanen, S. & Lauriala, A. (2006). Enhancing Professional Development of Teachers by Developing Supervision into a Conceptually-Based Practise. In R.  Jakku-Sihvonen and H.  Niemi (Eds.). (2006). Research-Based Teacher Education in Finland – Reflections by Finnish Teacher Educators. Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association, pp. 71–87. Phillips, D. & Ochs, K. (2004). Researching Policy Borrowing: Some Methodological Challenges in Comparative Education. In British Educational Research Journal 30(6), pp. 773–784. Ruuskanen, P. (2011). Challenges and Prospects for the University of Jyväskylä Teacher Training School. In M.  Kontoniemi & O.-P.  Salo (Eds.) (2011). Educating Teachers in the PISA Paradise. Perspectives on Teacher Education at a Finnish University. University of Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä, Finland, pp. 21–32. Säntti, J., Puustinen, M. & Salminen, J. (2018). Theory and Practice in Finnish Teacher Education: A Rhetorical Analysis of Changing Values from the 1960s to the Present Day. In Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 24(1), pp. 5–21. Takayama, K. (2009). Politics of Externalization in Reflexive Times: Reinventing Japanese Education Reform Discourses through “Finnish PISA Success”. In Comparative Education Review, 54(1), pp. 51–75. Tirri, K. (2014). The Last 40 Years in Finnish Teacher Education. In Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(5), pp. 600–609. Tirri, K. & Ubani, M. (2013). Education of Finnish Student Teachers for Purposeful Teaching. In Journal of Education for Teaching, 39(1), pp. 21–29. Toom, A. & Husu, J. (2012). Finnish Teachers as ‘Makers of the Many’: Balancing between Broad Pedagogical Freedom and Responsibility. In H.  Niemi, A. Toom and A. Kallioniemi (Eds.). (2012). Miracle of Education: The Principles and Practices of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 39–54. Tryggvason, M.-T. (2009). Why is Finnish Teacher Education Successful? Some Goals Finnish Teacher Educators Have for Their Teaching. In European Journal of Teacher Education, 32(4), pp. 369–382. Uusiautti, S. & Määtä, K. (2013). Significant Trends in the Development of Finnish Teacher Education Programs (1860–2010). In Education Policy, 21 (59), pp. 1–22.

CHAPTER 3

Effective Preparation? Finnish Teachers and Student Teachers Critically Examine the Normaalikoulu

Abstract  This chapter delves into the perspectives of teachers and student teachers regarding Finnish teacher education. The empirical data gathered from semi-structured interviews uncovered a debate regarding the ‘normality’, or lack thereof, of the normal schools. Participants criticised relative lack of practice and the narrow scope of teaching in normal schools. The teachers and student teachers agree, however, on the high quality of normal schools, and praised the mentor teachers, many with Licentiate or Doctorate degrees. The close connection to universities also received commendation. The teachers and student teachers criticised the lack of practice in Finnish teacher education, and subsequently utilised substitute teaching to gain more experience. However, they did approve of the research and academic focus, and specifically, the Master’s degree, during their teacher education. Keywords  Teachers • Student teachers • Substitute teaching • Normaalikoulu • Field schools • Mentor • Theory • Research • Master’s degree

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. Chung, The Impact of Finnish Teacher Education on International Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89518-1_3

45

46 

J. CHUNG

Introduction This chapter includes interview data with thirteen teachers and eight teacher education students. The teacher participants were selected from seven schools in six cities, including three normaalikoulu. Student teacher participants came from two different universities in Finland. The data collection for this book also included non-participant observation (Cohen and Manion 1994) of lessons taught by teachers and student teachers, in addition to supervision and feedback sessions. Student teachers were interviewed at various stages of their programme, and provided an excellent perspective into their insider view of current Finnish teacher education. Teachers, with various subjects and lengths of careers, also contributed their perceptions regarding Finnish teacher education. The teachers interviewed for this chapter encompassed a wide variety of experiences and subject matter. This illustrates the versatility of the teaching profession and a teaching degree in Finland. The teachers and student teachers’ passion for teaching, strong research backgrounds, and need for substitute teaching before their permanent jobs were salient features of their teaching careers. Therefore, this chapter discusses the necessity of substitute teaching at length.

The Normaalikoulu The student teachers and the teachers possessed some excellent insight regarding normaalikoulu as the main locus for teaching practice. For example, Linus, a student teacher of English, believes that the normaalikoulu provides good guidance and allows student teachers to find their own voice, by formulating their own style of teaching. This section of the chapter explores normal schools from the perspective of teachers and student teachers. The Normaalikoulu: Normal or Not Normal? A main theme emerging about the normaalikoulu concerns its ‘normality’. While the name most likely originates from setting norms, student teachers, among other participants for this study, often referred to the lack of normality in these practice schools. As many refer to normaalikoulu as not ‘real’, it most benefits teacher trainees with the least experience. For example, Marko, studying primary education, says, “It has some benefits,

3  EFFECTIVE PREPARATION? FINNISH TEACHERS AND STUDENT TEACHERS… 

47

but in general I think that the normaalikoulu is not representing the real life”. As discussed later in this chapter, some student teachers gain a fair amount of substitute teacher experience before they begin their teacher education programmes. Many of the student teachers remark how the normaalikoulu is not ‘real’ or ‘normal’. Tuija, studying primary education with a minor in Finnish, commends the normaalikoulu for its relevance with initial teaching practice, but would not call it a “real” school, as “real” schools provide student teachers with challenges: I think that first practice it was really good to go to normal school, but I hope that I could go also to other schools, because I think that in normal school, you have all of the equipment there. You have the space; you have the support. It is easy. I feel like I cannot have the real experience from there, because I think the real world is really tough. I think many of our students think that the normal school is not the real environment that we are going to have to apply someday.

Tuija also speaks of the support she receives from her peers and from the mentor teachers: “There is also the support. There are teachers that work together. There are lots of [teaching] students, to get the ideas, get the support. I would also like to have experience […] differently than in the normal school”. Despite this, she still believes normaalikoulu is the best place for initial teaching practice: “I just have the feeling that the normal school isn’t so challenging than the other schools can be. But at the first practice it is really good to go to the normal school. Definitely”. Even current teachers share these viewpoints with the student teachers. For example, Kaarina, a history and social studies teacher, found it more challenging to teach in municipal schools. Seija, a Swedish and German teacher, believes the normaalikoulu are easier because of the “smaller classes, fewer students, and good students in the classes”. Kaarina found normaalikoulu “quite far from the reality” of teaching. She elaborates: teaching in normaalikoulu is “just a few hours” and differs from “the difficulty of the work that is going to await you in real life”; however, the normaalikoulu is “easy and you can be more innovative and creative”. Piia, a chemistry, physics, and mathematics teacher, says: “[At normaalikoulu] you just have to manage yourself, then you get out of that place and you have to do everything by yourself. There is no one to help you”. Piia

48 

J. CHUNG

echoes Tuija’s feelings about the wider reality of teaching outside of the normaalikoulu. Many of the teachers found normaalikoulu not ‘normal’. For example, Jouko, a history and social studies teacher, states that the normaalikoulu are not ‘normal’ due to differences in the student body. For example, some normaalikoulu draw from neighbourhoods with a higher socio-­ economic profile. However, in his city, “there are a lot of immigrants in this area, so it’s different. They call it normal school, but it’s not normal”. Hannu, an ICT teacher in a normaalikoulu, says, the worst points, “which I hear quite often, is that it is different to working in the municipality’s school”. Marko also says normaalikoulu is not ‘real’ or ‘normal’. He, however, pinpoints the “very high standard of technology” of these schools. Furthermore, he highlights the research ethos underpinning Finnish teacher education, including teaching practice: “It is research-based; the teacher[s] […] are working on their own [Doctoral] study at the same time”. Linus, studying to be an English and Swedish teacher, disagrees with the normaalikoulu being called ‘not normal’. “Well, some people say this school has too good of a student pace [...] and when you go into real schools you will see real problems, but I don’t think that’s true at all. I think some of the students here are really a good representation of the whole nation”. While not ‘normal’, the normaalikoulu possess strong reputations regarding their teaching quality, and prove very popular. Viivi, an English and French teacher at a normaalikoulu, speaks about her school’s high reputation: “There are three schools in [my city] which get the best students. […] Luckily, we are one of them”. The children want to attend the school, and the parents also want their children to attend. She continues: “If somebody in a family has been in our schools, then they know the school too. Usually, that runs in the family”. Pauliina, an English teacher at a normaalikoulu, also speaks of her school’s high esteem: “We have a reputation of being able to offer quite a high quality of education here. The students do well in their matriculation exams, and the facilities as you can see are pretty nice. We are considered a good school”. She also says the normaalikoulu is popular with parents. However, Pauliina points out the privilege of being a school with better funding and resources: “If we weren’t a normaalikoulu, I don’t know if we would have facilities like this”. Many of the teachers recognise the quality of teaching. Päivi, a visual art teacher, while not working in a normaalikoulu, discusses the

3  EFFECTIVE PREPARATION? FINNISH TEACHERS AND STUDENT TEACHERS… 

49

importance of theory, practice, and critical reflection for normaalikoulu teachers: “I think it’s an important combination [of theory and practice], because it goes also the other way around. Maybe the teachers in the normaalikoulu, they need to reflect on their practices and they need to be updated”. Nevertheless, Päivi recognises the “idealistic situation” for normaalikoulu teachers: “When you go out there and you teach in another school, you’re on your own, basically. Normaalikoulu, it’s based on an idealistic situation, but it gives a nice chance to reflect on different points of view”. Pauliina sums up the difference between normaalikoulu and municipal schools: “I think [teaching in a normaalikoulu] must make some sort of difference. It must keep us a bit more abreast with things and a bit more alert”. In other words, needing to keep up with the current academic research, and constantly mentor student teachers, allow the supervising teachers to critically reflect upon their own practice and mentorship, thus improving their overall practice. The quality of normaalikoulu pupils also contributes to the ‘abnormality’ of the teacher training schools. Kaarina says, “In the real world [pupils] are not as good, and maybe [not] as pleasant or quiet”. Viivi alludes to the quality of teaching for these students. She says, “I think most often, [the pupils] get very good teaching, maybe even better than in other schools”. Pauliina has some good insight on the student body in a normaalikoulu, and if they provide more or less of a challenge than a municipal school: In terms of the number of students in the class, this may be a less challenging place to teach than in some ordinary schools. But having said that, I think our pupils and students are quite demanding and they’ve seen it, they’ve done it, they have seen all the different ways of doing things, so they can demand quite a lot from the student teachers as well. In that sense I think that when I said facility wise, etc., this may be a bit less challenging than many ordinary schools to teach, but in that sense, this is more challenging which I think is good for the student teachers because it pushes them in a way. You can’t settle for mediocre kinds of things all the time.

Pauliina insightfully unpacks the advantages and disadvantages of the student body in the normaalikoulu.

50 

J. CHUNG

Quality of Practice in the Normaalikoulu While student teachers felt their time in schools was valuable, some thought that their practice could have encompassed a wider vision of the teaching profession. For example, Anni, studying to be a primary school teacher, believes, “Well, I got enough practicing with didactics. Things like how you study, what exams to do, what kind of tasks I can give to pupils”. However, “The problem is that we got quite a little education on things […] like how to meet parents and difficult situations in school, and things like that”. Despite Kansanen’s (2008) assertions, Anni would have liked more training for skills ‘outside’ of the classroom. Current teachers shared this view of normaalikoulu. Seija believes the best part of normaalikoulu was the practical and didactic teaching guidance, but thinks that “the theory part is far away from the reality”, learning it at the university but not seeing it in the classroom. Antti, studying primary education and English, uncovers how teacher trainees are not at the same level as the teachers in normaalikoulu: “For example in [normaalikoulu], we aren’t allowed to go to the teacher’s room. We have our own room, so we don’t really get to know the community, the teacher’s work community there”. His revelation illustrates how the normaalikoulu experience could be more inclusive. Linus also believes, “Maybe you could integrate the trainees a little more closely to the everyday life of the teachers, I think”. However, he remains quite positive about his experiences at the normaalikoulu: “But other than that I don’t have a lot of criticism for this place. As an environment this is pretty pleasant”. Teacher trainees seemed very aware of the pupils in normaalikoulu and how training periods affected the pupils’ experience. Tarja, a student teacher of English, notes how it is easier to organise teaching practice when pupils have so much experience with student teachers: “The pupils here […], they are accustomed to the fact there are trainees all of the time, so then they don’t really pay attention to that so you can just do your thing and not answer twenty questions about why I am here”. However, she does worry, much like other student teachers, about “real” schools: “Pupils in real life may be a little different. That’s the only thing we have been criticising”. Piia also feels that normaalikoulu is a good starting point for teaching: “There is someone helping you how to get started; there are other student [teachers] so you might share some ideas and maybe work

3  EFFECTIVE PREPARATION? FINNISH TEACHERS AND STUDENT TEACHERS… 

51

together at first”. However, she implies there might be competition between student teachers as well. Tuija worries about the pupils, due to the large number of teacher trainees in normaalikoulu, and the fact that she had to leave after bonding with the pupils: “I think that is also the only negative thing, there [are] so much student [teachers] in normal school, that I feel for the kids. […] I did really feel fond of the kids, and they felt fond to me, then I left. It’s really tough”. Mikko, an English teacher, thinks there was not enough practice in the normaalikoulu, which, like for Tuija meant that he had to sever newly-made bonds with the pupils: “During the final lessons I got to know the students and then we hit it off, but it just ended then”. Mikko notes the relative lack of training time in normaalikoulu and in the teacher education programme, discussed at length later in this chapter. He says, at normaalikoulu “I think that six-hour periods in one training is not enough”. Jouko recalls, “I didn’t like [normaalikoulu] at all”. Jouko, a history and social studies teacher who studied in the early 1980s, does not think the normaalikoulu prepared him for teaching, as he did not have enough teaching practice: “We were spending one year in this normal school, and if I remember right, I had maybe twenty lessons. I hope that maybe they have changed the system”. Mari, an English and Swedish teacher, has similar feelings to Mikko. She says her practice in normaalikoulu was “adequate, because I was [substitute] teaching for two years before going there. I think for many people it would have been better to have more”. Interestingly, as discussed in Chap. 2, the expansion of theory in Finnish teacher education and the Master’s degree for all teachers, reduced the amount of practice in teacher education programmes (Säntti et al. 2018). Mari also brings up the issue of substitute teaching in order to gain experience, discussed later in this chapter. Both the student teachers and the teachers make comparisons between normaalikoulu and practice in a field school. Tuija’s only concern is that teaching practice mainly takes place in the normaalikoulu: “I would like to go to the other schools also, [pupils] […] are used to that there are lots of teachers”. Municipal schools are keen to become field schools in order to learn current teaching strategies. Tuija says, “I would like to go also to other schools. I have made contacts to schools and they wish to get some students there, so they could also learn what stage and what kind of teaching strategies there are nowadays”. Welcoming student teachers into schools, whether affiliated with the university or not, allows the staff to learn about the latest research and teaching techniques (Jyrhämä 2006).

52 

J. CHUNG

While some criticise the normaalikoulu for a narrow view of teaching, others praise it for the high quality of teacher preparation. Kaarina, for example, states “getting the tips and support from those people who are making studies about teaching in their own field” is quite helpful. In other words, the research orientation of normaalikoulu benefits student teachers. Similarly, Hannu thinks the best part of normaalikoulu “is the close connection to the university”. He believes mentors play a role in this as well: “it’s a strong point that we have a trained personality to mentor those students in the real school context”, and the university partnership makes the mentorship of better quality. Hannu continues: “the strong point, I think the university contact is very important for our own professional development that we should know even better, but we know quite well, what the students have studied”. Elina, a current student teacher, says that in normaalikoulu, student teachers “are not afraid to make mistakes”. Mentor teachers “want [us] to try different, new things […] Teachers are not that ‘above’ students, but we are working together”. Päivi has the interesting perspective of working both at a university and at a school: “Well, when I was teaching in the university […] I thought that it was very good for the future teacher to hear different points of view [from lecturers and mentors]. At least when I was supervising the teachers at the normaalikoulu, we exchanged the ideas also. It was good for the university student to hear different aspects of the same idea”. Päivi’s experience gives some insight on the unique aspects of normaalikoulu, of having both a university lecturer and a mentor teacher supporting student teachers, as the literature of Krokfors et al. (2011) and Jyrhämä (2006) suggested in Chap. 2. Similarly, Viivi, who teaches at a normaalikoulu, likes “the fact that we have the teacher training lessons”. She enjoys working with adults, “and not only the pupils and the students in high school […]. It’s more demanding, but it’s also more interesting. I like it”. The challenge of researching, teaching, and mentoring draws in professionals that thrive in the normaalikoulu environment. Both student teachers and current teachers would prefer more teaching practice, and also in a field school setting. For example, Marko wished for more “regular” school experience. Piia also wanted placements in different schools. She found normaalikoulu “too theoretical, and too easy”. Elina says the field schools’ “pupils were different, because in normaalikoulu they are used to having trainees”. The field school experience is thus discussed at length in the following section.

3  EFFECTIVE PREPARATION? FINNISH TEACHERS AND STUDENT TEACHERS… 

53

Despite some of the criticism and negative memories, the normaalikoulu does have some admirable qualities. Viivi says: It’s kind of a joke, but people talk about the spirit of normaalikoulu. So, the teachers, and we are trying to make the students, also, that they are very enthusiastic and curious about things that they really want to learn and want to do their best. If we can get that sort of spirit to the future teachers too, it’s easier to send them to the field schools to teach, if they get that good feeling about teaching and the importance of learning.

Viivi remarks that this spirit comes from “tradition, perhaps. This is what we do in normaalikoulu. This is how it’s done. This is a good way”. Perhaps this “spirit” is a ‘special ingredient’ that the normaalikoulu possesses, that sets it apart from field schools, or any other practice-based environment.

Field Schools While normaalikoulu have existed for decades, the issue of practicing in field schools questions the necessity of the normaalikoulu, or, questions if the field schools enhance the normaalikoulu’s provision (Krokfors et al. 2011; Ruuskanen 2011). Antti, a student teacher of primary school English, prefers field schools, as they represent the reality of teaching. He feels that trainees are more part of the community, and the same level as the teachers: “In the field schools it’s nicer. [The teachers] are really interested in you”. He continues: “You’re a part of the work community there. In that sense it’s different”. This chapter previously cited how student teachers felt isolated from normaalikoulu teaching staff, even being excluded from the teachers’ lounge. In field schools, however, the student teachers engage more with the teaching staff. The teaching experience also differs in field schools. Elina notes that in field schools, pupils are not as familiar with student teachers. The student teachers often felt that normaalikoulu pupils were completely used to having student teachers, and were almost overwhelmed by the volume of teaching practices in their schools. However, Elina says the field school pupils “were more natural”. She found “It was a more natural situation, that kind of situation that you are going to have” in a teaching job. Antti also noticed a difference in the mentoring style in the field schools:

54 

J. CHUNG

I also noticed that the [field school] teachers, the ones supervising your training, that it’s a bit different as well, the way they behave. In [normaalikoulu] they have training for that, of course there are different teachers there as well. Some of them are quite strict and very detailed […] and sort of the relationship is more authoritative there, but in the field schools you’re sort of on the same level.

Mikko, a teacher very early in his career, says, “I had a good instructor in normaalikoulu, but it was a kind of richness to see in other schools”. Some teachers admit that teacher education programmes should expand to include more field school practice. Tapio, a student counselor and a Finnish teacher, says, “I think that [teacher education] would be even better that there would be [field school] practice, but it’s not easy to organise”. While training in normaalikoulu remains expensive, it is easier to organise teaching practice there. Tapio continues: I think that it would be better if there is more [field school] training, but it would need lots of resources here, the organisation. Of course, it would be better that way that there would be both the small groups and a training teacher for them, the practices [at a normaalikoulu], and also that they would be [at a field school] on their own, so both would be better.

The normaalikoulu pupils have a bit too much exposure to various student teachers during their school year. Viivi elaborates: It was quite nice to be in just an ordinary school where they don’t have teacher trainees all the time. Sometimes our students, they are a bit tired of having a different teacher all the time. That’s what we are trying to tell our practice teachers, that they really have to plan the lessons well, because the students deserve the best teaching […] they are not supposed to suffer from the fact that there are different teachers all the time.

Pauliina offers her perspective of mentoring her student teachers, and the differences between a field school and a normaalikoulu: What I think is the forte of the Finnish system is that we probably spend a lot more time on mentoring the student teacher than in the so-called field schools. Our student teachers do part of their teacher training outside of the normaalikoulu also. What they usually say when they come back, or the feedback, is that the teachers there did not have that much time. It’s

3  EFFECTIVE PREPARATION? FINNISH TEACHERS AND STUDENT TEACHERS… 

55

s­omething additional or extra that they do for extra pay, but for very little extra pay. They probably don’t dedicate that much time for that either. But when you come [to the normaalkoulu] to work it is taken for granted that this is your number one priority, or at least number two priority, that you have time for your student teachers.

In other words, a normaalikoulu teacher must make the mentoring and training of student teachers one of their highest professional priorities. According to Pauliina, this sets apart a normaalikoulu mentorship from a field school practice.

Normaalikoulu and University Partnerships The normaalikoulu’s partnership with the university remains a unique feature of Finnish teacher education. The interesting position as part of the university, rather than funded by the municipality, allows the normaalikoulu to form a distinctive identity. Furthermore, proximity of the schools to the universities, the physical closeness, allow for easier partnership and organisation of teacher training, mentorship, and research, as stated by Koski and Pollari (2011) in Chap. 2. The physical proximity allows for constant dialogue between normaalikoulu and university. This, along with university influence on the normaalikoulu’s decision-making remains a positive aspect of the school-university partnership. Linus says, “I think it is beneficial because there is constantly a dialogue and people visit from here, visit to the university and come and lecture, they go and sit on the boards there, and they influence the decision making of the policy of the school”. In addition to this, both university lecturers and mentor teachers observe student teachers during their practice lessons. Tuija praises the partnership, much like Koski and Pollari (2011), as the normaalikoulu and university have the same goals for student teachers: “We have equal goals, and we have also guidance from the school, and they know how the normal school goes”. Mentor teachers and university lecturers, according to Tuija, “give different kinds of comments, also some things are the same, but the teacher who comes from the university, he looks at the situation like an outsider. He sees the situation differently to the teacher.” Therefore, this triangulation allows for a good balance of normaalikoulu and university. Tuija states: “I did use many ideas that I got from in the normal schools, the ideas that I got at the university […] lessons, I used in practice”. Her

56 

J. CHUNG

experience illustrates a good balance of theory and practice, through university work and teaching practice. The teachers also have perspectives on this partnership between normaalikoulu and university. Mikko remarks on the equal position of both mentor teachers and university lecturers: “I would say that the teachers at the normaalikoulu and the teachers at the university are somehow on the same level, and they talk to one another”. This multi-layered supervision and mentorship process benefit the students (Jyrhämä 2006; Krokfors et al. 2011). Therefore, Mikko “think[s] it’s a beneficial thing” to have a school attached to the university. Viivi, however, believes there could be more communication and cooperation with the university: “yes, we do some cooperation together, and we should actually do it more, I think”. Pauliina gives some insight into the cooperation and partnership with the university lecturers: We have regular, not very often, but once or twice or three times a year we have official meetings with them, so that we all meet and then of course, if they come here to observe classes, we of course meet them and talk with them and it’s more informal. The better you know the lecturers at university, of course, and the better the chemistry between you and the person, the chances are that you talk to them more. But I’m not sure if I know all the lecturers at the teacher education department.

Interestingly, there are various viewpoints about the level of cooperation between university lecturers and mentor teachers at the normaalikoulu. Overall, though, the partnership itself seems well received by both student teachers and teachers. Research, one of the largest foundations of Finnish teacher education, has beneficial, but possibly detrimental influences on the normaalikoulu. Marko questions whether mentor teachers’ research benefits the school, as it could be “one of the cons to having the university and school combined. It is very hard to say whether it is a good or bad thing to have it”. However, Antti possesses a different opinion on the matter. He believes research benefits the normaalikoulu and university partnership. It is easy to conduct research as pupils’ parents sign off on ethical considerations at the beginning of each school year: Throughout our studies it’s been good that we have [the normaalikoulu], because some studies, for instance, in science, we had this project where we

3  EFFECTIVE PREPARATION? FINNISH TEACHERS AND STUDENT TEACHERS… 

57

had to find out pupils’ pre-knowledge of these things, and we can just go to [normaalikoulu] and ask to interview a few people because they have signed this agreement, or their parents, that these pupils can be used for research purposes or something like this.

The normaalikoulu plays an important role in promoting research for student teachers, mentor teachers, and the university as well.

Mentoring An exploration into the normaalikoulu and Finnish teacher education naturally lends itself to investigation of normaalikoulu teachers’ mentorship role. This dual role, both teacher for pupils and mentor for student teachers, on the whole, garnered much praise from the student teachers. The current teachers and the normaalikoulu teachers also possessed some rich insight into this unique profession. Student Teacher Perspectives The student teachers held their mentor teachers in high regard. Linus calls his knowledgeable mentors “gurus”, and without these “gurus”, it would be difficult to learn how to teach. Linus says, “They are, of course, you know, a whole hell of a lot more experienced than I am. They […] have seen [what] works and what they know is a better way of doing things”. He has, for this reason, “appreciated, valued their opinion”. Linus praises Pauliina, also a participant in this study: These instructors, for example, [Pauliina] who you just saw, who has read a lot of books and instructional books, so they are just really competent and good people for you to meet before you go out there into the world if I hadn’t meant these gurus, who know a lot about teaching. But then again, I have also had a lot of clashes with them and I have also been able to formulate my own teacher out of myself.

While Linus appreciates and values his mentors’ input, such as Pauliina’s, he notably stands up for his own choices and ability to form his own teaching style. Marko enjoys how the mentor teachers give practical advice, providing a good contrast to the university portion of teacher education:

58 

J. CHUNG

It is not much theory based, it is more like how to interact with the students, the pupils in the classroom, how to plan your lessons, plan your classes, how to do the assessment and evaluation in while you are teaching. It is more practical, the ideas we get from the teachers, the tutor teachers. They are very practical and I think that gives very good balance and contrast to what we get here at university where in our lessons we are 70 students listening to one lecturer, but in the small group there is one teacher who has been teaching for twenty years and four students. I enjoy the contrast, so you get very practical ideas, how to actually do the job and I’ve enjoyed the small sessions and discussions with my teacher.

Interestingly, Marko appreciates the practical nature of his teaching practice, which contrasts heavily with the theoretical university studies. The balance of theory versus practice and peer group mentoring are discussed later in this chapter. Tarja, much like her fellow student teachers, fully appreciates her mentor teachers, even calling them the best part of her teacher education programme. She says, “You just get so much from them” during her discussions. While she enjoys her detailed mentorship, Tarja also values the ability to find her own teaching style: The mentoring teacher was […] detailed with all my lesson plans and stuff, and asked so many questions. Also, gradually, they have loosened up. […] Of course, they still say if I come up with something that wouldn’t work with this group. She’ll tell me it will not work, but they give us all the time more freedom to create our own lessons and also something that fits our personality. That […] step-by-step approach to practical training is good.

Tuija similarly praises the mentorship she received, mainly through modeling and discussion. She says her mentors “have the knowledge, how to teach us and give us guidance.” Much like her peers, she also commends normaalikoulu teachers for allowing her to try new things, and ultimately find her own teaching style: I definitely think that [in] the normal school […] we can try out new things. I think in other schools, they won’t allow us to do. I don’t think they are so open as in normal school. In normal school, when I did want to teach about the bone structure and everything, I wanted to use drama in the class. I did decide to make a little role, and I was the skeleton, so I did use a little drama. I was playing with the skeleton. I did make a little story into it, and the

3  EFFECTIVE PREPARATION? FINNISH TEACHERS AND STUDENT TEACHERS… 

59

teacher, was yeah, go for it! Do it! I was afraid the kids wouldn’t like it. It was amazing! The teacher said he has never seen that the kids were so into it, that everyone was raising their hands: ‘I want to answer!’ ‘I want to answer the skeleton’s questions!’ and it was really nice. But I wouldn’t, if I didn’t have the support, I wouldn’t have used the drama.

The student teachers fully appreciate the capabilities of their mentors and the ability to find their own teaching style, even if it does not match that of the normaalikoulu teacher. Mentor Perspectives The normaalikoulu teachers also had some incredible insight into the mentorship of their profession. The trust inherent in the Finnish education system (Chung 2009, 2019) also exists between mentor and student teacher. Hannu highlights this trust: “In Finland, I think the one strong point in the educational system is that it is based on trust that the teachers know what they are doing and we don’t control them, or nobody’s controlling them. I try to help the students to find their own way of being a teacher”. The normaalikoulu teachers overwhelmingly agreed that their student teachers must not copy what they see in the schools, but find their own unique teaching style, also discussed later in this chapter. Interestingly, Hannu admits feeling pressure to maintain the quality of Finnish teachers, the catalyst for so much worldwide attention since the advent of PISA: “To keep up the Finnish good quality of teachers, it’s a big thing. We really try to push them, the teacher students, to think about why they are doing what they are doing”. Hannu’s views, therefore, epitomise the wide and varied role of a normaalikoulu teacher. In addition to teaching pupils, he must mentor student teachers, no matter their experience level, integrate theory into practice, and help them find their own distinct teaching style. The theoretical element of teaching plays a major role in Finnish teacher education. Even in teaching practice, student teachers must have the ability to make connections with educational theory (Kansanen 2008). Oskari, a teacher of English and Swedish at a normaalikoulu, as well as international liaison, illustrates the importance of theorising practice periods: The main purpose of becoming a trained teacher in Finland, and I think it should be the main aim also wherever teachers are educated, is for them to

60 

J. CHUNG

acquire skills that make them able to notice their own working theory on the things that they believe in, the authorities and the theories that they have acquired at university at the theory level, how to put those beliefs and theories into practice, and how to fill up their own individual toolbox with different types of skills and sets of skills that you are applying in your profession.

The students learn theory at university, but then formulate their own working theories for their future teaching career. Mentors have the important job of guiding student teachers through this process. Oskari states: It is that process of helping the teacher trainee to become aware of those defined skills and how to use them in his or her own subject to provide the students with opportunities to learn. Actually, it is like a virtuous circle of skills that are made visible either by visualising or writing about their beliefs, theories, and knowledge.

This virtuous circle, where students find their own working theories of teaching, occurs through guided mentorship during the teaching practice. Oskari gives a good overview over the training and mentorship process: When these very motivated student teachers come to the teacher training school, they start observing these experienced mentor teachers giving their lessons, and according to a very regulated process, they start planning their lessons, themselves, with the help and advice from the mentoring teacher. Then, they slightly move on closer to the moment when they stand by themselves being responsible for that class, the subject, and the content.

The mentors guide student teachers until they feel comfortable teaching on their own. Mentor teachers and student teachers have a common goal: the student teachers must find their own teaching style. Hannu, echoing the trust within the Finnish education system, empowers his trainees to find their own teaching style. Student teachers come to normaalikoulu with different levels of experience, some with teaching assistant and substitute teacher experience, or not much experience at all. Hannu says, “They are very different levels, those teacher students. Of course, we need to support everybody on their individual way to become a teacher”. Oskari describes the start of the training process as this: “in the beginning, they need quite straightforward, hands-on advice. We start with the very basic skills of a teacher in the practicing period, which we call the ‘basic practice’”.

3  EFFECTIVE PREPARATION? FINNISH TEACHERS AND STUDENT TEACHERS… 

61

The normaalikoulu teachers give an overview of their student teacher groups in one academic year. For example, Pauliina has approximately twenty student teachers in a year: “I don’t have twenty student teachers with me all of the time. I have four or five at a given time, and they stay with me for, say, let’s say five, six, seven weeks or something like that. Sometimes the time is shorter, but anything between three to six weeks perhaps”. Viivi says she often has three to four trainees in a group for two months, and then they work with another teacher. She says the number of trainees varies per year. One year she had twelve students, and at another point, seventeen in total. Previously, teacher trainees received marks for their teaching practice. The mentor teachers gave their students marks, first from 1–5, then from 1–3. Pauliina recalls it was phased out around the turn of the millennium. In terms of evaluation of teaching practice, Viivi describes changes in the process: Earlier, we had some kind of grading system that we gave them. When I was in a teacher training programme, when I was much younger, much younger, the scale was from one to five, and five was the best. And then, later on, that changed from one to three, so three was the best. Hardly anyone got a five or a three. And then later, on, they don’t have the grades anymore; you just have to pass.

Currently, however, the process is more forgiving. Viivi notes what happens when one of the trainees does not pass the teaching practice component: Nowadays, if it seems that a person is not suitable for a teacher, then we just have to let them know and give them more practice, and try to see if someone really doesn’t suit being a teacher. It doesn’t happen so often now. Sometimes it does, and they have to come back the next year to get some more practice.

If someone is not performing well in their teaching practice, Viivi says, “We try to guide them. We give them examples of how to do it, because sometimes they try to think how they were taught when they were young, and it’s not always good”. In other words, student teachers receive much guidance within their teaching practice, and updating of their perceptions of classroom teaching with the current theories and techniques.

62 

J. CHUNG

The mentorship side of normaalikoulu teaching requires different learning from the rest of the Finnish teacher education programme. Oskari describes it as “a process quite close to learning by doing in that sense, with the difference that you always have this experienced mentor [teacher] sitting there, helping you, and the process could be described as ‘learning by doing’ at work, like an apprenticeship, in a way”. Pauliina contrasts the mentor role in the beginning of a student’s teacher training, and at the end of the process: “At the very beginning, I think that idea is to give them some sort of ‘first touch’; they just go there and have the experience of how does it feel to be in the classroom as a teacher”. However, with a student that taught his last lesson at the normaalikoulu, Pauliina says, “We met the day before. We sat there for half an hour, talking about his lesson plan. I wanted to ask him for his pedagogical reasons for doing [the lesson]”. In order to make her trainees into independent teachers, Pauliina says, “It depends on the student teacher, quite a lot. We try to give them both freedom and responsibility. Initially, of course, we start planning the lessons. […] We try to walk them through the process and giving them ideas, or suggesting the ideas”. Even with her student teacher’s final practice, Pauliina asked him about his pedagogical reasons for designing that specific lesson. She remarks how she tailors her supervision to their specific needs and strengths: “With some student teachers, that works very beautifully, and with some, not necessarily so much. They need more scaffolding, more guidance all of the time”. Interestingly, Pauliina says, “We never ever give them a ready-made lesson plan. Of course, we suggest more ideas initially. The idea, the process is that the further they go, the more responsibility and freedom they get”. This chapter next discusses mentoring trainees to find their own teaching methods. Allowing student teachers to find their own approach, rather than copying the teaching methods of the mentor, was upheld strongly by the normaalikoulu teachers. Hannu says, student teachers “are trained very well [at normaalikoulu]”. He continues: “I want [student teachers] to test their ideas in practice. I’m responsible for my pupils, that we are following the curriculum, but I don’t want [them] to copy my ways of teaching. I encourage them to test their own ideas and find their own way to be a teacher”. When supervising his trainees, “I try to be a kind of mirror for them and to stop them, not to accept their first ideas, but to give another option, but I will let them choose which one they follow”. However, Hannu says he does not tell his student teachers exactly how to teach: “We

3  EFFECTIVE PREPARATION? FINNISH TEACHERS AND STUDENT TEACHERS… 

63

don’t give them recipes, but try to make them think through their theory and through our experience and try to – like I said earlier – try to make them think of different ways of teaching something that they are supposed to teach”. After each lesson, he has a discussion with his student teachers about what went well or what could have changed. Other normaalikoulu teachers agree with this approach. Pauliina sheds light on the discussions with her student teachers: “We spend quite a lot of time talking to [student teachers] and going over their lesson plans and thinking of alternative ways of doing the same thing. We seldom say, ‘Don’t do it like this!’ But we discuss other sort of options as well”. These discussions prove quite valuable, as the time practicing in classrooms remains rather limited. Pauliina says, “They don’t really have very many lessons to teach. All of these discussions, reflections, are there in order to try to open new avenues and then sort of think of different ways of doing the same thing”. Viivi lets her students work at their own pace and find their own teaching style: “We just follow them, and then, later on, when they are ready, we let them do it more independently, so that they can really use their creative ideas. So, they don’t have to do it just the way I do, but they can use their own methods too”. Hannu highlights how student teachers do not want to be told how to teach, and alludes to the strong academic orientation and Master’s degree fueling this confidence and autonomy: “The [student teachers] don’t want the recipe. They don’t trust that somebody tells them, ‘Do this’. They think [for] themselves and that is something, which might be because they have studied in the university. They went through the Master’s process”. Again, the research foundation and Master’s degree requirement for Finnish teachers allows for autonomous teachers, but in this case, empowered teacher trainees. The normaalikoulu teachers acknowledge challenges, as well as benefits of teaching and mentoring in a teacher training school. Oskari and Pauliina note the continual observation involved with mentoring student teachers. Oskari asserts, “You also have to remember that being a teacher at this school means, at the same time, that you are always observed and, in a way, year after year, you have to get used to that. There are always new people watching you do things”. Pauliina similarly notes the “constant presence of student teachers”. Furthermore, as a mentor teacher in a normaalikoulu, she says, “You never know who is going to come and observe your classes and we are actually not allowed to say no”. This obviously adds to the challenge of the job, but overall, the mentor teachers find the position very rewarding and enjoyable. Pauliina says, “Sometimes it is

64 

J. CHUNG

tough. […] It is challenging but it can be very rewarding as well. It keeps you sort of alert in a way. I think I learn new things from them as well”. In terms of priority for a normaalikoulu teacher, there seems to be some disagreement among the interviewees. Hannu says, “My most important thing is, of course, the kids and their learning, first the kids and then the student [teachers]”. However, mentoring student teachers is supposed to be the biggest priority at Pauliina’s normaalikoulu: “Mentoring student teachers is number one on our task list. To me personally, the number one for me is teaching [pupils] […]. They are my first priority, but the official tune for the school is that the student teachers are our first priority”. When asked about the biggest focus of her job, Viivi astutely says: Well, I feel is that it’s being a teacher. I teach my students, because they have to get a good education here. But then also, being a teacher trainer, they need to have a good education to be a good teacher. […] I think the students come first, the pupils here, and then the practice teachers. Yes, that’s the order, I think, because the students are here all the year; we have them all the time in the comprehensive [school] and in the high school, but the practice teachers, they are here, let me think, five months, perhaps, four or five months. It’s not all the year.

These examples illustrate the dedication normaalikoulu teachers have to teaching pupils, as well as mentoring student teachers. Despite the complexities with this job, normaalikoulu teachers sometimes do not have any extra training or education. Despite Ruuskanen’s (2011) assertions in Chap. 2, some normaalikoulu teachers state they had no official extra study or training. Pauliina says, “You have to have experience, but you are expected when you get a job from our school, you are expected to join and do one of those mentoring courses. It is not something you have to have before, but you will have to take it when you enter or take your position”. For example, Pauliina did not have any extra training to mentor student teachers: “Nowadays we have some sort of a mentoring programme, but when I first came here in the 1990s, there was nothing. I think that has been sort of a learning process, learning by doing, really”. Overall, mentor teachers very much enjoy their jobs as teachers and teacher trainers. According to Viivi, the best part of working in a normaalkoulu is supervising future teachers: “When you’re teaching them how to teach, you have to think of how you do it”. The job also adjusts to

3  EFFECTIVE PREPARATION? FINNISH TEACHERS AND STUDENT TEACHERS… 

65

the variations of pupils and student teachers. She says: “It has to be different every year, and I have to think of the students, and not just do everything the way I used to do all the time. I have to get new ideas and new methods”. Pauliina believes that the normaalikoulu and Finnish teacher education complement each other: I think this system works. If there were just one thing I could ‘give’ in inverted commas, to my student teachers, it would be some sort of an aptitude or willingness to question what they are doing, so keeping inquisitive […]. Usually, the first thing that comes to their mind is perhaps the most traditional and perhaps not always the most effective or pedagogically the soundest. To make them question themselves, or to make them question their lesson plans and methodology, to try to ask the question why, why do you do it like this? What is the pedagogical point? I think that goes a long way.

Pauliina, when asking for the ‘pedagogical point’, really pushes her students to think critically and consider the theory. Oskari sums up the position of normaalikoulu teacher: “Being a teacher at the teacher training school in Finland is, for some, the dream of dreams. It is a very sought-­ after position in that way”.

Theory and Practice The balance of theory and practice in a teacher preparation programme is subject to debate. The distinction between the terminology ‘teacher education’ and ‘teacher training’ highlights the varying emphases given to theory or practice dimensions in different programmes (Chung 2016). Countries often adopt a distinct teacher preparation ethos (Jyrhämä et al. 2008). Finland committed to a research-based teacher education programme in the 1970s (Jakku-Sihvonen and Niemi 2006; Niemi 2012; Tirri 2014), culminating in a Master’s degree for all qualified teachers. This plays a significant role in the balance of theory and practice in Finnish teacher education. Student Teacher Perspectives The student teachers possessed meaningful insight into the balance of theory and practice in their programmes, no doubt due to deep involvement at the time of interview. Antti cites how teacher education students

66 

J. CHUNG

learn theory and practice in both in the classroom and at the university; theory and practice “back each other”. The students appreciate the theoretical basis of their university programme. Teaching is a ‘profession’ in Finland; therefore, teachers need theoretical competence and extensive education, not unlike the medical profession. Linus says this illustrates the merit of theoretical knowledge: “We consider teaching like it is as a profession. Just like a doctor you need to have a certain type of competence. We appreciate the teachers educate themselves while they work. In that sense I do see the merit of a theoretical knowledge. But personally, I have learned in the classroom”. Despite the acknowledgement of and appreciation for theory, Linus still asserts that he learned more in the classroom “by far”, as classroom experience is “something like you can’t really study it in the lecture halls”. Ultimately, Linus believes: “I think the real hands­on experience teaches a lot more than just theory”. Antti wanted longer classroom training, in order to see the bigger picture of teaching: “I would like [practice] to be longer. I think the whole system where you practice there for two weeks really intensively, and you plan your individual lessons so thoroughly, I am always wondering if it is reality that you do it like that in the future?” Interestingly, he makes a cross-cultural, international comparison: “We had this girl from South Africa, I think, and she said their final year, the whole academic year they are in this training class, and so they co-teach with the teacher there”. Keeping this in mind, he has interesting opinions about the teaching practice time in Finland: “I think long-term training would be better than this short two-week intensive period. I know in practice it’s pretty hard to do […] financially”. Antti, astutely observing the importance of teaching practice, acknowledges the logistical issues in realising this within Finland. Marko and Antti also bring up the issue of having practice more often. Antti thinks teaching practice should occur every year. Similarly, Marko believes practices should take place more often, in order to concretise the theory: I personally think, and the thing I have discussed with my peers, the time in normaalikoulu is not enough in the sense that in the first year we get so much theory, and second and of course in third year as well. There is so much theory coming and we are working and learning, essays and different courses have different learning, what you out to do [assessments] but I think there should be more smaller training in the classroom, say maybe twice a year.

3  EFFECTIVE PREPARATION? FINNISH TEACHERS AND STUDENT TEACHERS… 

67

Marko finds that his programme has a good balance of theory and practice, but more practice sessions would incorporate theory more effectively: “So it should give us more balance in what we learn in a year in university and what we are actually doing in normaalikoulu”. In order to remedy his, he believes, “I personally think there should be smaller, shorter periods of practice but throughout the year”. Furthermore, Marko says, “There are times as I think back […] I have kind of missed the practical side. Because last [autumn] was very theory focused and theory emphasised, so I kind of missed the balance of being in the school, being with real children”. Many student teachers wished for more practice. For example, Elina says her practice in the normaalikoulu “was too few hours”. While the university did not give enough practice, she states, “at the same time I was giving [physical education] lessons in a voluntary job in a sports club”. Elina, much like many teachers and teacher trainees, supplements her university-­based training with other educational activities to gain experience. Her experience suggests Finnish teacher education does not have sufficient practice, at least in the eyes of student teachers: If I could change the university curriculum for becoming a teacher, I’d probably give more lessons at school and more […] not just teaching the subject, but how to meet the person, how to meet the pupils, how to meet the parents, more like that kind of educational aspect. Because I think in the Finnish teaching system you know a lot about your own subject and how to teach your subject, but not how to deal with the students.

Elina wants these issues tackled within normaalikoulu practice. However, Tarja feels overall happy with the balance of theory and practice in her teacher education programme, but she says, “It would be great if we had even more of this training, but of course it costs money”. Much like other student teachers, she realises the logistical and financial difficulties of having more teaching practice within the teacher education programme. Despite their wishes for more practical experience, the student teachers very much appreciate the theoretical underpinnings of Finnish teacher education. The theory, according to Linus, was “a good amount”. Because of this, he feels more or less prepared for the classroom: “Of course I could have spent more [time in the classroom], but right now I’m pretty stressed also with all the other schoolwork. I do courses at the university too. […] It would maybe be too much if I had to do a lot more. At this point I think this is a pretty good amount”. Interestingly, Elina would

68 

J. CHUNG

have wanted more content over more practice. While being the minority, her perspective on the balance of theory and practice illustrates the academic orientation of these student teachers. The student teachers very much enjoyed and appreciated transforming their theoretical knowledge into practice. For example, Marko says: “The best part at the moment is where you can see how you have applied your theory knowledge into classroom practice”. He would, however, liked to have more opportunities to see theory in practice: “Seeing knowledge going into action and practice, those are the precious moments. Maybe it sounds like a cliché, but that is what I learned”. Tarja thinks her teacher education programme has a good balance: When you learn something in the lecture and then you come here, and then you see, ‘Hey, that really is the case!’ […] I would have never thought that before. So, I think it’s easier to come here and teach when you have the background knowledge from the university. Of course, it gives you some kind of confidence that you can handle stuff and you know stuff, and how things should be done.

Tuija feels that the theory is more meaningful after practice: “After this practice I did realise that I learn more from the theory, that I have something that I can reflect on. I have some experience from the teaching and I can, when I read some books, I can think, how am I going to apply it […] to my teaching and to the kids”. She also refers to the importance of critical reflection in teacher education (Jyrhämä et al. 2008). Tuija thus gives an example: If I learn some new strategy, how could I use it in the classroom even if I might not go there again. I have some memories, and some practice about the practical thing, so I can now use it both. So, the theory isn’t something that isn’t far away, or something that I can now easily connect it together, the theory and practical. After the rehearsal time, I think that I have been more interested in the theory, because now I realise how I can use it in schools. I have some kind of base to reflect the theory, other than my own school memories, because they are so far away.

The teaching practice allowed Tuija to develop a teacher identity rather than a student identity, reinventing her school experience and developing her professional identity as a teacher: “Now I try to make my teacher identity. I now can see school in other ways than being a student in there”. She

3  EFFECTIVE PREPARATION? FINNISH TEACHERS AND STUDENT TEACHERS… 

69

therefore utilises her critical reflection skills emphasised in Finnish teacher education, and starts forming her teacher identity for her future career. Views of Teachers The current teachers had variable views about the balance of theory and practice in their teacher education programmes. This suggests that retrospect colours the teachers’ views of theory and practice during their teacher preparation. Nevertheless, many of the current teachers still wished for more practice. For example, Seija acknowledges that theory is necessary, but still would have liked more practice: “We had so few teaching lessons to do the practice; there should be more teaching lessons”. She would have liked more placements in different schools. Mikko, a secondary English teacher, also would have preferred more practice in school: “Now that I have a little perspective to this routine, I would have liked to teach more, a lot more. In comparison to the elementary school teachers, they have a lot more classes they have to teach during their training, and their training goes on for about five years”. As discussed earlier, subject teachers have most of their teaching practice at the end of their university programme, while primary teachers have practice throughout their teacher education. In addition, Mikko asserts, “I would prefer more courses on the actual teaching”, rather than on the subject itself. Stina, a teacher of Swedish, has some strong opinions on the amount of theory and practice within the teacher education programmes in Finland. She firmly believes there is not enough practice: For me I think it’s problematic that you don’t have so many training lessons, because it gives you a false picture of what teaching is because if you have one lesson in a week, you have one week to plan a lesson. Okay, so you have 30 hours to plan one lesson. Then you come to a school and you have 30 lessons in one week.

Stina clearly declares that her teacher education programme was too theory-based: I think we had too much theory. It was very theory-based but for me teaching is mainly practice, because you can read the theory, you can learn the theory and you can sit and home reading the theory, but you can’t be at

70 

J. CHUNG

home practicing teaching. So that I criticise about the Finnish education system because I actually have criticism.

Interestingly, Stina advocates moving teacher education from university to polytechnic, an idea presented, unsuccessfully, in the 1970s in order to synthesise theoretical and practical elements of teacher preparation (Furuhagen et al. 2019). That way, she believes teacher education could have a more practical focus: “I think that it’s a problem that we have the teaching education as part of the university. I would have this to be a part of the yrkehögskola [polytechnic]”. While this would allow for more practice, and a more practical experience for the teachers, would this change Finnish preparation for teaching from teacher education to teacher training (Chung 2016)? Furthermore, Stina says: “I think there should be given more time to experiment with other forms of teaching, because in Finland we have a very good system. It’s very formal and very strict and we get good results, yes, but the variation is very little”. She states that more practice and less theory would allow for more variation in terms of teaching styles. Pauliina recognises that the majority of student teachers wish for more practice in school: I think that most students would say they need more time in school. Or, at least that is what they tell us, and that is what they write in their feedback every year. ‘I wish we had more practices, and I wish we had more time to have lessons’ because teaching and really preparing for lessons is probably the part where they think they learn most.

However, Pauliina uncovers the contradictory views from universities: “But if you go to the Teacher Education Department, they probably say this is a very good distribution or they would like to have more theory”. This limited amount of practice stems from the academisation of teacher education in Finland, culminating in a Master’s degree (Säntti et al. 2018). As a teacher educator herself, she has some clear views about teaching practice, and internalising theory during that practice: “If I had a chance to rewrite the whole thing, I would allocate more time and more credits for the actual teaching practices, the actual teacher training, because you can really learn theoretical ideas and theory, the integration of theory and practice in practice as well”. Stina and Pauliina’s views about teacher preparation would align Finnish teacher education more with the “experiential

3  EFFECTIVE PREPARATION? FINNISH TEACHERS AND STUDENT TEACHERS… 

71

and personal method[s]” of teacher preparation, and “school-based teacher education”, according to Jyrhämä et al. (2008), although Chung (2016, p. 5) would argue this approach should be called teacher “training”. Interestingly, the teachers acknowledge student teachers’ dissatisfaction with the amount of practice, but highlight how qualified teachers, in retrospect, eventually appreciate their teacher preparation. Hannu says, “I think that if you asked from the students, why they are studying [theory], they don’t see the connection so well […]. But, after a few years in work, they will know the value of what they have studied”. This uncovers how critically reflecting on teacher education allows for retrospective appreciation. Hannu says, “I think the balance is okay and I think the teacher training school system in Finland is very good, a very good system”. Päivi, an art teacher, found the practical courses more interesting during her teacher education: “Especially as a visual art teacher, you need to know so many practical things”. However, much like Hannu, her appreciation for the theory came later: “My mind has changed a little bit. At the time, when I was doing my Master’s degree, we were worried about how the curricula was changing into more theoretical [sic] because the universities were saving money”. While financial issues again play a role in limiting practice, Päivi’s Doctorate led her to appreciate the theory on a deeper level: “When I was doing my PhD studies, I felt that for me it has been very interesting to have a more profound and a more overall picture of art education and the school system and the educational system”. While Päivi says, “I still think practice is very important”, she interestingly states how she retrospectively appreciates the theory. Despite this, some teachers believe that student teachers do not understand the connection between theory and practice. For example, Hannu says, “I think [student teachers] don’t find the connection so well between the theory and practice. I think this is one thing where we should develop; we should have more common time [at normaalikoulu], so we would know better what they are teaching here”. His observation suggests that closer connections between normaalikoulu and university would benefit the student teachers. Päivi finds that current teacher education students do not think critically enough, further emphasising the importance of theory in their university programme: “I was teaching in a university for only half a year, but I was teaching the future elementary school teachers. They wanted ready answers instead of really thinking through themselves”. Even in Finland, where teacher education stresses theory and research, teacher educators find the students do not engage enough with theory.

72 

J. CHUNG

The current teachers reiterated the importance of theory in teacher education, and in teaching practice. The normaalikoulu, as mentioned earlier, has a unique position as part of the university. Technically, teachers work for the university (Mouhu 2011). For example, Hannu says, “I consider myself working with the university”. The theoretical element drew him to the normaalikoulu job; mentor teachers “have to work with the theory and practice at the same time, because of the students bring what they have studied recently”. In fact, as noted throughout this book, normaalikoulu teachers often have worked as lecturers in the teacher education department, and vice versa. Oskari elaborates: “Many of our university lecturers have had a background in teaching and at the teacher training school, and so they have been our old colleagues that we have been able to work with at the university”. Despite this, Hannu thinks this exchange could be utilised more often: “The other good option might be that […] there would be more movement between [working at normaalikoulu and university] […] So […] maybe the guys from [university] could keep some lessons in our school”. This would allow for close cooperation (Jyrhämä 2006; Krokfors et al. 2011), and a consistent commitment to theory, both in the university and in the normaalikoulu. The connection between university lecturers and normaalikoulu teachers allows for a variety of mentoring perspectives and a strong foundation of theory. Oskari says, “We are able to utilise the method of triangular expertise, consisting of teacher trainees, university lecturers, and also the staff from the subject departments. On a yearly basis, we have three meetings where we are able to discuss […] the year’s procedures”. This ‘triangular expertise’ with the “three actors” (Jyrhämä 2006, p.  55) gives Finnish teacher education a special quality. Hannu, however, documents the decline in cooperation over the years: “It used to be so that […] we also had joint sessions up here on the training. […] Those were good in the sense that during those, there was also an exchange of information, what is happening [at normaalikoulu] and what is happening [at university]”. Due to budget constraints, the university participation element has diminished over the years. Hannu remarks: “But, now we have a little bit of a lack of resources, and [lecturers] will concentrate more on [the university], on keeping their lessons […] they don’t have time to follow the practice and I think it’s a pity”. Again, financial limitations restrict Finnish teacher education’s remit. Some of the teachers praise Finnish teacher education for the balance of theory and practice. For her own studies, Viivi said: “I think it was quite

3  EFFECTIVE PREPARATION? FINNISH TEACHERS AND STUDENT TEACHERS… 

73

well balanced. There was theory and we had practice”. She thinks the balance between the two should be “about 50–50”. Tapio thinks the amount of practice is enough: There are much tougher places after [normaalikoulu] because there are bigger groups and the speed, the action is so high over time, lots of people. So, you need the basics at the [normaalikoulu] and it’s really good, and after that, I think you should go to the field, and just go to the school and learn, because you have all you need.

Tapio suggests that normaalikoulu provides “the basics”; the knowledge of theory instilled through Finnish teacher education provides a good foundation for a teaching career. Oskari praises the balance between the theory and practice in Finnish teacher education: I think it is quite balanced at the moment regarding the fact that they have theory lectures at the university and also a set of courses which are aimed at putting the theory into practice. They write their pedagogical essays and theses at the same time they are doing their teacher training and fulfilling the pedagogical year. I think it is quite balanced.

Oskari highlights the rigorous academics of teacher education, along with teaching practice in the normaalikoulu. He implies that the amount of practice complements the university element of their course, which is quite thorough. The student teachers wanted more practice time, but many teachers thought practice was sufficient. Ultimately, the logistical issues of having more time in the normaalikoulu prevent more practice during the teacher education programme. The teachers uncover how money, or lack thereof, hinders teaching practice. Pauliina discusses the restrictions: Of course, there are practical constraints as well. I don’t think that if the number of lessons they actually teach was a lot higher, I don’t think we could take so many student teachers per year, because we wouldn’t have enough lessons. We don’t really want to give all of our lessons to our student teachers. We try to maintain a balance there as well, the number of lessons taught by student teachers and the number we teach ourselves.

She cites logistical problems, and also the fact that she, and other normaalikoulu staff, would like to teach their pupils. Oskari, despite his praise of

74 

J. CHUNG

the balance of theory and practice, would have more practice periods in an ideal world: “If I was [sic] able to decide, I would increase the number of lessons taught by the student teachers. I would definitely increase that, but it is always a matter of negotiating about study points. When you are negotiating about study points, you are negotiating about money, and that is when it gets tough”. Pauliina and Oskari reveal the practical and financial constraints, perhaps the biggest barrier, to increasing teaching practice in the normaalikoulu. When asked if his teacher education prepared him for the classroom, Oskari says, “that is hard to tell, as the process of being a teacher is continuous learning. You cannot tell that you are ready at a certain point because every day is a new opportunity, and whenever you enter the class, it is like a new show”. In other words, the teaching profession involves continuous learning, critical reflection, and evolution. Teachers always need to prepare the next step. He says, “In order to be in shape, you need to practice your skills, you need to be prepared for the class. What I mean by this is that all teachers need to get prepared for their class, and it is continuous learning”. Oskari emphasises the “continuous” aspect of teaching, the constant changes, progression, and learning that takes place in the teaching profession. His views echo that of Jyrhämä et al. (2008), meaning that Finnish teacher education provides the tools needed to tackle any challenges faced in the profession, with research skills, critical analysis, and reflection. Practice is limited in lieu of providing teacher trainees the skills for future problem solving.

Substitute Teaching Many teacher trainees and current teachers supplement their practice with substitute teaching. It became a surprisingly salient theme emerging from the research. While many of the interviewees feel Finnish teacher education errs on the side of too much theory, substitute teaching allows student teachers to gain valuable experience. In order to be a substitute teacher, people register online, and receive a notification in the morning of any potential jobs. There is no need for an official teaching qualification. Elina says, “I think you have to be eighteen. You don’t need to be qualified as a teacher. You don’t even have to be studying to be a teacher to be a substitute teacher”. Many of the student teachers thought substitute teaching gave them valuable experience. Elina believes teacher trainees get more experience as

3  EFFECTIVE PREPARATION? FINNISH TEACHERS AND STUDENT TEACHERS… 

75

teaching assistants and through substitute teaching, rather than the teacher education programme: “I’ve done subbing before and I’ve been assistant teaching before, so I have some kind of an idea what you’re supposed to do there. I think if you’ve never done any kind of teaching or if you don’t do any teaching while you are studying to become a teacher, it might be useful”. Similarly, Rita says, “I’ve done a lot of substituting, so I had an idea of what it means to be a teacher”. She felt this complemented her practice in the normaalikoulu. The first teaching practice “gave a lot more experience and also confidence to see that I can actually do it, that the children actually listen and they might actually have learned something”. Antti feels prepared for his future classroom, but he also had experience as a substitute teacher. Otherwise, he would be “afraid” as he feels he did not have enough practice in the schools: I think I feel pretty prepared [for the classroom], because I’ve done a lot of substituting already before I came to the university. I worked as a school assistant in this special ed[ucation] school. There I also did a lot of substituting, and during my studies a lot. So, I’m just wondering if I didn’t have any other teaching experience except for those trainings, I think maybe I would be a bit afraid.

Elina says, “It’s an easy way to practice. It’s also an easy way to make money if you don’t have a steady job”. Many people in teacher education have been substitute teachers, even before university studies. She highlights how people become interested in teaching because of experience as a substitute teacher: “I think a lot of people do it to get money and then they realise that they really like it”. Interestingly, Elina uncovers how the city of her university has a teaching assistant programme, where unemployed youth work as teaching assistants. This motivates many of them to become a teacher: You would get [living support] anyway if you’re unemployed and you can’t find a job, but for unemployed youth, they offer an opportunity to get a job. A lot of them are in schools. I think a lot of people go through that experience, being a TA, and maybe get excited about becoming a teacher.

This interesting snippet of Finnish welfare society illustrates how providing youth, as Elina cites, under the age of 26 with work and money,

76 

J. CHUNG

inspires them to become teachers. The teaching assistant programme broadens the appeal of a teaching career. The current teachers also had experience as substitutes. Furthermore, substitute teaching allows for experience and money before finding a permanent teaching job, which can prove difficult. Mikko, early in his teaching career, spent time as a substitute teacher. He held a substitute position for three consecutive weeks, “so that was a bit longer period and that was the most important part of my CV as a teacher”. Substitute teaching also facilitates career change. For example, Kaarina first worked as a journalist, then in technology, and after in public relations. She began her teacher education at 42, after having her children. She was a substitute teacher for one year before finding her permanent position. It proves difficult to find a permanent job right after graduating from university, and many teachers need to work as substitutes. Kaarina says, “If you’re lucky, you get this permanent job”. Some students enter teacher education programmes with substitute teaching experience. Mari had a one-year teacher education for secondary teachers, in her case, Swedish and English. She mentions she had a very good teacher education experience, but “I had already been substituting for about two years before going to university”. Oskari worked as a substitute teacher before he earned his degree, as a language teacher just outside of Helsinki. He even worked as a one-year substitute at his current normaalikoulu for a year. As Oskari stated previously, working at a normaalikoulu is “the dream of dreams”, highlighting the popularity of these jobs (Jyrhämä 2006). His time as a substitute teacher before earning his teaching degree, and as a substitute in a normaalikoulu before securing his permanent job, illustrates the importance of substitute teaching for gaining experience, and the difficulty in finding permanent teaching jobs in Finland. Stina’s time as a substitute teacher shows the threefold importance of substitute teaching in Finland: first, for youth to make some money, second, for student teachers to enhance their classroom experience, and finally, to gain a foothold in permanent teaching positions. She became a teacher before she earned a qualification: “Well, actually, I became a teacher before I got my teacher’s licence or my teacher’s education […]. There are so many short time jobs that need to be fulfilled, so they tend to recruit people who are not educated because they are cheaper”. She says this is typical: “Most of us have worked as teachers before we have been fully educated but just for a few weeks. I got a longer term of employment

3  EFFECTIVE PREPARATION? FINNISH TEACHERS AND STUDENT TEACHERS… 

77

because one of my teachers recommended me”. As with the case of Stina, and other current teachers, substitute teaching can lead to a permanent job. For similar reasons, Viivi tells her students, “If somebody asks you to be a substitute teacher somewhere, please go, so then they will know you, and then they might ask you again, and if you have been there for some time, then they know you, ‘Ah, yes, she was here two years ago. She would be a good candidate for this job’”. This investigation into Finnish teacher education has uncovered the difficulty in finding a permanent job in Finland. Substitute teaching not only plays an important role in gaining valuable teaching experience, but also with finding a route into permanent employment.

Research Finnish teacher education, as stated throughout this book, has a strong research foundation. Research permeates all parts of teaching; student teachers and current teachers report a strong connection with educational research. Even in their initial teaching placement in the first year of study, student teachers engage with research (Kansanen 2008). Rita, for example, cites her research project about pupil motivation in her first year of teacher education. In groups of three, the student teachers conducted a project on a topic of their choosing: We had to choose the topic before the practice. We made a little presentation about it. All the groups made a presentation about their own topic. Then during the practice, we visited several clubs, extra-curricula [sic] activity clubs at [the school]. We interviewed the instructors. We had a little questionnaire for the students or pupils and we got some results.

After the placement, the groups explored the topic more deeply by connecting it with literature, and then taking a comparative education perspective. Rita states: “After the practice, we had some time, a week to finish the research. We read some literature concerning the topic, extra-­ curricular activities, and compared the Finnish system with the American one”. Rita’s first taste of educational research left her hungry for more: “It was interesting, but […] it could have been deeper analysed. That’s another good topic to look at later”. In addition to this, she aims to conduct some small research projects for university credit over the summer holiday break.

78 

J. CHUNG

Linus also has interest in research. His previous research job investigated the reliability of PISA questions: “I [have worked] two summers at the Centre for Educational Research, so that is where I have done some work on the studies they conduct here, such as PISA. That’s the institution responsible for PISA in Finland”. Even before he starts his teaching career, Linus has engaged with large-scale educational research. Similarly, Antti has Doctoral ambitions: “I am very interested in doing a PhD sometime when I have worked”. Marko, also a student teacher, noticed the research culture at the normaalikoulu, and comments how the teachers utilise research-based teaching and have advanced degrees, above the required Master’s degree. The student teachers overall had a strong awareness of the importance of research, both within their teacher education programme and in the teaching profession. Research is embedded at all levels of teacher education in Finland; thus, research culture permeates the teaching profession as well. The teachers also have strong research orientations. Some, much like the student teachers, have Doctoral ambitions. For example, Mikko says, “would like to study more at some point. I like researching”. Viivi similarly mentions, “Sometimes, I’ve been a part of some projects, and we have been studying some points here in language learning, but I haven’t really gone further in my studies. But maybe someday, when I retire, I would write my [Doctoral] thesis”. As previously mentioned, many teachers, especially normaalikoulu teachers, have higher degrees than the required Master’s degree (Jyrhämä 2006; Koski and Pollari 2011). However, this research culture also applies to non-teacher training schools. Päivi has a Doctorate, and is one of two teachers that have a PhD at her school: Most of the people who have the PhD, they want to approach the academic career. That was maybe in my mind when I started making or doing the postgraduate studies, but I have discovered that I want to work with the young students, so what I do now, is this is my full-time job and then I write articles. I don’t want to go on an academic career. I really enjoy working with the young people.

At Pauliina’s normaalikoulu, she says that about “twenty percent of us either have a Licentiate degree, sort of a relic between a Master’s and a Doctorate, or a Doctorate”. She studied for a Licentiate degree while she was working at an institute for educational research, a job held before her

3  EFFECTIVE PREPARATION? FINNISH TEACHERS AND STUDENT TEACHERS… 

79

current position of normaalikoulu teacher. Pauliina researched portfolio assessment: I think it developed my thinking and my analytical thinking quite a bit. I think that I like to mull over things in a way. I am pretty analytical, even though I didn’t realise it when I was younger, but I try to see the whys of things, why do we do it like this? I had been questioning me and my work as well, and that probably has developed me.

Both the Licentiate degree and her time as an educational researcher allow Pauliina to analyse in a critical manner. Viivi discusses the high education level of her colleagues: “Yes, some of our teachers have really gone further in their studies. Usually, they demand more. When you apply for a job at the normaalikoulu, in educational sciences, you have to have a higher degree than in ordinary schools”. Hannu says, at his normaalikoulu, “we have, I think two or three doctors”. He praises the research culture at the school: “The research is present […] because [of] the close link, that we are part of the Faculty [of Education at the university]”. The teachers in normaalikoulu aim for research-based teaching. Hannu says: “the teacher training school is a place where we try to work as research-based”. This adds to a school culture that cultivates PhDs. He continues, “I thought that I might be interested in doing my PhD during my work”; however, the difficulty for normaalikoulu staff to teach and undertake a Doctorate proves difficult, limiting the number of Doctorates in the school: “not so many are interested to make PhDs, because it’s hard work when you also have to work with the kids and the student [teachers]”. It seems logistics and workload, rather than desire or ambition, prevents more normaalikoulu teachers from undertaking their Doctorates. Sometimes the sheer volume of research in normaalikoulu can become detrimental. According to Viivi: Sometimes it seems that there is so much research going on that, ‘Hey don’t disturb us.’ Sometimes for example, the practice teachers, when they have to write their seminar papers, or they want our students to fill in some questionnaires, sometimes it’s okay, but if there are too many of them, then it’s really a burden. But there are, I think, quite a few. Even now, among our teachers, they are doing some research.

80 

J. CHUNG

Viivi’s account of the research burden in normaalikoulu uncovers the detriment of too much research concentrated in one school. In terms of the type of research in normaalikoulu, Hannu says, there are “very many kinds. Some of those are heavily research-based, but we have many small development things, projects coming on”. This variation in research rigour (Furuhagen et  al. 2019) brings up the issue of research versus inquiry (Säntti et al. 2018) produced by teacher educators in Finland. Hannu teaches at a normaalikoulu, but at the year of interview, he is “off my duties from teaching. I work as a project manager with one of our development projects”. He is studying “self-regulated learning among children”. With his project, he wants “to spread those ideas to other schools as fast as possible, because the teacher students come and they take those ideas with them to other schools”. The grant, according to Hannu, was from “the National Board of Education; it gives funding for schools to develop things. We got almost 300,999 EUR”. Six teachers in the normaalikoulu are involved, but only Hannu works on the project full time. His sabbatical and grant-writing ability illustrates the strong research culture evident in the normaalikoulu. The normaalikoulu acts as a locus for research. This “research setting”, according to Oskari, provides teachers, student teachers, and the affiliated university “the first place that they usually contact”. Normaalikoulu teachers possess such a strong research orientation, that they even lead research centres. For example, Oskari leads a research centre. He encourages student teachers to become fully involved with their research projects in the normaalikoulu: With our student teachers, when they are doing their teaching practice and they have entered the point where they start writing their pedagogical theses, we [encourage] them to take advantage of the experience that they have at the teacher training school.

He speaks highly of the research culture embedded in Finnish education, and especially in normaalikoulu: “Many of my colleagues are doing their advanced studies in education and we have lots of PhD students among our staff here. The research is highlighted in the Finnish education system a lot”.

3  EFFECTIVE PREPARATION? FINNISH TEACHERS AND STUDENT TEACHERS… 

81

Master’s Degree Both student teachers and teachers had strong opinions about the positive value of a Master’s degree. The student teachers, at different stages of their teacher education, already had excellent insight into the Master’s degree element of their teacher preparation. Elina believes: “The Master’s degree […] gives you maybe a more open mind to try different things and try to understand different kinds of students. You understand more of the society and all the changes in society. […] I’d say if you get this degree, you think wider”. The Master’s thus gives credibility and flexibility to the teaching profession, according to Linus, and even enables other career options to teachers: It doesn’t necessarily give you the qualifications to do any [other] specific work, but if you look at television hosts or hockey commentators were teachers in Finland and the Secretary of Treasury, who takes care of Finland’s finances, the financial minister, is also a teacher, and so I think in Finland a teacher education is valued because it is a Master’s degree anyway.

Anni similarly believes the Master’s degree gives a good “attitude to teaching”. She admits the challenges of a postgraduate degree helps their future career: “We have to work hard and do quite a lot of work to be a proper teacher, so I think it’s good because, it’s a kind of attitude to studying and learning”. Furthermore, teacher education with a Master’s degree allows for academisation of the teaching profession. Anni continues: “There is a kind of value in a university, if you graduate from university, and I think it brings some good attitude to studying. It is good to study to be a teacher in a university”. Master’s degree-based teacher education attracts academically ambitious students. Anni, who already has a degree in biology, technically does not need to do a write a Master’s thesis to become a teacher, but she wants to. This will be her second Master’s thesis, and she wants to pursue it in order to experience a different type of research, qualitative rather than quantitative: “I don’t have to do it to get a permanent job and to be a proper primary school teacher, but I will do it because it is so different from a science thesis. […] Science, in biology, there are like 99 percent quantitative theses, so [an education thesis] is different and interesting”. Notably, Anni participated in this research project in order to gain some experience with educational and qualitative research. Her attitude towards

82 

J. CHUNG

writing a second Master’s thesis illustrates her ambition as a student and as a future teacher. Marko, also a student teacher, appreciates the five-year timeline of Finnish teacher education, two of which include the Master’s degree. He says, “As I graduate, I think I am prepared and qualified enough to start working as a teacher, because even though we have five years of study, in most other countries it is only three or three and a half years and then you qualify to be a primary school teacher”. Marko thus highlights the differences between Finnish teacher education and teacher preparation in other countries, namely the academic nature of the programme: I think the balance between the theory and the practice, and having the five years of university study before you can actually have your own class, that is the cornerstone for the Finnish education system. Five years is very highly appreciated the profession [sic], even though it is not well paid, but it still very highly appreciated profession.

The five years required for a teaching degree established an appreciation for teachers in Finland. Antti agrees that the Master’s degree helps teachers. He compares, much like Marko, the five-year course in Finland to shorter, Bachelor’s-level courses in other countries: “When I think about the content of the education studies here in Finland, […] I think they are more advanced, and of course, better. […] The tendency nowadays is teachers should be reflecting on their own work, and maybe a bit research oriented as well”. Antti also credits writing two theses with instilling a research orientation in teachers: “We do two theses, a Bachelor’s thesis and a Master’s thesis, of course it prepares us, or makes us more research-oriented”. The teachers also have similar regard for the Master’s degree, with the benefit of retrospect. Teachers at the upper secondary level, for example, Kaarina, believe the Master’s degree for teachers is “necessary”. Piia thinks it is especially important when “you’re teaching at [upper secondary school]”. Seija also supports the Master’s degree, saying, “You really need to know the subject you are teaching”. Kaarina continues the emphasis on sophisticated content knowledge at upper secondary school: “I think we would be in deep trouble if we didn’t have this long education”. Piia believes the Master’s degree is good for content knowledge and subject teaching, for example, “answering the most difficult questions”. She also thinks it benefits teachers’ subject competence. She states how Finnish

3  EFFECTIVE PREPARATION? FINNISH TEACHERS AND STUDENT TEACHERS… 

83

people “are very critical” and if teachers are not competent, “maybe you’ll lose your credibility as a teacher. In this upper high school [the pupils] are very critical and they test teachers”. Jouko, also an upper secondary teacher, notices the difference between Finland and other European countries: “We have a lot of these exchange programmes, and I have met a lot of teachers in Europe. I feel that they are […] the kinds of teachers who know […] how to teach, but they don’t know enough of what they are teaching”. In other words, the teachers Jouko encountered do not have enough content knowledge. While the Master’s degree has importance at the upper secondary school level, Piia admits that content knowledge does not encompass all of what teaching entails: “Even if you know everything it doesn’t help if you don’t know how to teach, how to react, how to work there with the kids and communicate”. Hannu thinks the Master’s degree for teachers is beneficial, as it makes for critical thinkers: “That process makes them think as they think when they graduate. […] All the teachers, I think, they are very motivated. I think it has something to do with the long process, while they are studying”. The Master’s degree for teachers, therefore, encompasses more than expanding content knowledge, by providing a platform for critical thinking and a research-based profession. The Master’s degree for teachers was implemented in the 1970s (Furuhagen et al. 2019; Säntti et al. 2018; Tirri 2014). Oskari gives insight into this policy achievement: Definitely, yes, [the Master’s is beneficial for all teachers] taking into consideration the fact that all subject teachers have had Master’s since the inauguration of the teaching system in Finland. Then, also, from the beginning of the 1970s, we have had [primary] teachers with a higher degree. I think it has benefitted the system a whole lot.

Despite initial resistance (Säntti et  al. 2018), the Master’s degree ultimately proved beneficial and helpful for the teaching profession. The interviewees’ nearly unanimous support for the Master’s degree highlights the importance of academic rigour in the Finnish national psyche. Teachers appreciated their university-based teacher education. Jouko says, “I don’t know what kind of system they have in other countries, but maybe this is different in Finland. […] I have studied in the university”. Similarly, Tapio states, “I think that’s a big, big thing that we have a Master’s [degree], even if [teachers] don’t need all the things in their teaching. [Teachers]

84 

J. CHUNG

don’t need all the information they have, but I think the university background is really good”. In other words, even if teachers do not use all of the content from their programmes, university-based education benefits their careers. Mikko, quite early in his career, has some good insights into the benefits of the Master’s degree. He says, “Some people are born teachers, and I think I kind of regard myself as one of them, but I think it is beneficial to have a Master’s degree”. The postgraduate degree allows for deeper and broader perspectives. Mikko continues: “It takes a lot of time to start thinking about different kinds of issues in the world and see things other ways, as you might want to see things as a teacher”. In other words, the Master’s degree gives teachers a critical ‘lens’ for viewing the world. Some teachers noted successful by-products of raising teacher education to the postgraduate level. Despite initial opposition, Finnish society slowly began to appreciate the Master’s degree for teachers (Furuhagen et al. 2019; Säntti et al. 2018). While this took decades, the current teachers’ viewpoints on the matter illustrate the appreciation of this policy within Finland. Tapio uncovers respect for teachers as a result of the Master’s degree: “I think that’s a really, really good thing. It affects on the identity of the teacher. You are a professional and you are a respected professional and you are […] like a doctor when you have a similar exam”. He reiterates the professionalism of teachers and high status: “I think [the Master’s degree] is important. It sort of levels teachers, the professionals, to the same category like doctors and economists”. Tapio’s astute comments about status and professionalism associated with the Master’s degree illustrate the role of teachers in Finnish society. The Master’s degree results in ambitious teachers. Päivi says: “Most of the people are ambitious about that and they want to do it so well […]. Yes, I definitely think the Master’s degree, it has to be for the teachers”. Viivi believes the Master’s degree allows for more critically analytical teachers: “I think it gives a deeper understanding of everything […]. Maybe some people say that it’s a bit too much having a Master’s degree for teaching, but I think it gives good quality”. Mari singles out Finland with Master’s degrees for teachers, and PISA. She says, “It’s the Master’s degree, first of all that makes [success in PISA] happen. In many other countries it is no Master’s that you actually need to be a teacher”. Decades after the major teacher education reforms in Finland (Furuhagen et  al. 2019; Säntti et  al. 2018), teachers seem to wholeheartedly support the Master’s degree, providing status, respect, and ambition to the teaching profession.

3  EFFECTIVE PREPARATION? FINNISH TEACHERS AND STUDENT TEACHERS… 

85

Summary The teachers and teacher trainees possessed some excellent insight into Finnish teacher education. While most generally praised the normaalikoulu, many criticised its ‘abnormality’. High motivation of pupils, good facilities, and latest technology make these schools ‘not normal’. The normaalikoulu seems best suited to student teachers with less experience, and for initial practice. The strong reputations of these schools also received much praise. Normaalikoulu allow for research and theory in teaching practice. The physical proximity of normaalikoulu and university facilitates this, and enables student teachers to have double supervision, with their normaalikoulu teachers and university lecturers. The mentor teachers, referred to as ‘gurus’ by some student teachers, received much praise for their high quality of supervision. They encourage their trainees to find their own style while justifying their choices with pedagogical reasons. However, many participants criticised the narrow view of teaching in the normaalikoulu, mainly focusing on didactics. Limited practice time also received criticism. Student teachers remarked that they could not access the teachers’ lounge. Supplementing normaalikoulu with field schools allows most student teachers to complete their teaching practice in a ‘real’ school, and feeling part of the teachers’ community. Related to this, many participants enhanced their teaching practice with substitute teaching, which also leads to permanent jobs. The research element of Finnish teacher education, again, remains a salient point. Even in teaching practices at normaalikoulu, student teachers engage in research. Student teachers exhibited a strong interest in their own research, with some expressing PhD ambitions. Normaalikoulu teachers often have higher-than-required Licentiate or Doctoral degrees. The normaalikoulu also serves as a site for educational data collection. The Master’s degree for teachers adds to the research orientation of student teachers in Finland, while giving them critical thinking and problem solving skills needed for the teaching profession. While student teachers did want more teaching practice, they appreciated the theoretical basis of their teacher education.

References Chung, J. (2009). An Investigation of Reasons for Finland’s Success in PISA. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oxford.

86 

J. CHUNG

Chung, J. (2016). The (Mis)use of the Finnish Teacher Education Model: ‘Policy-­ based Evidence-Making’?. In Educational Research, 58(2), pp. 207–219. Chung, J. (2019). PISA and Global Education Policy: Understanding Finland’s Success and Influence. Leiden/Boston: Sense/Brill. Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1994). Research Methods in Education. (4th Edition). London: Longman. Furuhagen, B., Holmén, J. & Säntti, J. (2019). The Ideal Teacher: Orientations of Teacher Education in Sweden and Finland after the Second World War. In History of Education, pp. 1–22 Jakku-Sihvonen, R. & Niemi, H. (2006). Introduction to the Finnish Education System and Teachers’ Work. In R.  Jakku-Sihvonen and H.  Niemi (Eds.). (2006). Research-Based Teacher Education in Finland – Reflections by Finnish Teacher Educators. Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association, pp. 7–13. Jyrhämä, R. (2006). The Function of Practical Studies in Teacher Education. In R.  Jakku-Sihvonen and H.  Niemi (Eds.). (2006). Research-Based Teacher Education in Finland – Reflections by Finnish Teacher Educators. Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association, pp. 51–69. Jyrhämä, R., Kynäslahti, H., Krokfors, L., Byman, R., Maaranen, K., Toom, A. & Kansanen, P. (2008). The Appreciation and Realisation of Research-based Teacher Education: Finnish Students’ Experiences of Teacher Education. In European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(1), pp. 1–16. Kansanen, P. (2008). Distinctive Highlights of Finnish Teacher Education. In J. Loima (Ed.). Facing the Future: Developing Teacher Education, Helsinki: Palmenia – Helsinki University Press, pp. 48–68. Koski, K. & Pollari, P. (2011). Teacher Training Schools – The Finnish Way of Organising Teacher Training. In M. Kontoniemi & O.-P. Salo (Eds.) (2011). Educating Teachers in the PISA Paradise. Perspectives on Teacher Education at a Finnish University. University of Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä, Finland, pp. 13–18. Krokfors, L., Kynäslahti, H., Stenberg, K., Toom, A., Maaranen, K., Jyrhäma, R., Byman, R. & Kansanen, P. (2011). Investigating Finnish Teacher Educators’ Views on Research-Based Teacher Education. In Teaching Education, 22(1), pp. 1–13. Mouhu, H. (2011). Becoming a Supervisor in the Finnish Teacher Education System. In M. Kontoniemi & O.-P. Salo (Eds.) (2011). Educating Teachers in the PISA Paradise. Perspectives on Teacher Education at a Finnish University. University of Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä, Finland, pp. 157–183. Niemi, H. (2012). The Societal Factors Contributing to Education and Schooling in Finland. In H. Niemi, A. Toom and A. Kallioniemi (Eds.). (2012). Miracle of Education: The Principles and Practices of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 19–38. Ruuskanen, P. (2011). Challenges and Prospects for the University of Jyväskylä Teacher Training School. In M.  Kontoniemi & O.-P.  Salo (Eds.) (2011).

3  EFFECTIVE PREPARATION? FINNISH TEACHERS AND STUDENT TEACHERS… 

87

Educating Teachers in the PISA Paradise. Perspectives on Teacher Education at a Finnish University. University of Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä, Finland, pp. 21–32. Säntti, J., Puustinen, M. & Salminen, J. (2018). Theory and Practice in Finnish Teacher Education: A Rhetorical Analysis of Changing Values from the 1960s to the Present Day. In Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 24(1), pp. 5–21. Tirri, K. (2014). The Last 40 Years in Finnish Teacher Education. In Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(5), pp. 600–609.

CHAPTER 4

The Nexus of Theory, Policy, and Practice? A Critical Examination of the Normaalikoulu by Education Professors and Principals

Abstract  This chapter incorporates empirical data from semi-structured interviews with Finnish professors of education and school principals. The participants praised the academically-rigorous teacher education, which eventually leads to research-informed, critically reflective teachers. The normal schools, they agreed, have justifiably strong reputations and good connections with their affiliated university. The normal school staff also carry out their own research, and normal schools act as a locus for research. While this drew praise, the quality and rigour of research undertaken by normal schools came under some criticism. The professors and principals were divided on their views on the normal schools versus the field schools. Some thought student teachers needed more practice time, while others disagreed, as a teaching career serves as practice. Keywords  Professor • Principal • Normaalikoulu • Theory • Research • Master’s degree

Introduction This chapter delves into the viewpoints of education professors and school principals, including about the connections between theory, policy, and practice in Finnish teacher education. The participants for this chapter involve three different universities, three normaalikoulu, and two © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. Chung, The Impact of Finnish Teacher Education on International Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89518-1_4

89

90 

J. CHUNG

municipal schools, encompassing five different cities in Finland. It incorporates original, empirical data, consisting of semi-structured interviews with fourteen professors and lecturers of education, and six principals, along with analysis of current academic literature. One international liaison for a university contributed to the interviews in this chapter, supporting English language for two principals. She possesses a teaching qualification in Finland. This chapter incorporates these two groups of interview data as school principals and professors of education have close connections. The academic and research-based nature of Finnish teacher education and the higher-than-required education level of normaalikoulu teachers allow these principals to have both an academic research profile and a leadership role. The interview data showed that normaalikoulu principals had previous employment as professors, and vice versa. The carefully-constructed academic nature of Finnish teacher education encouraged this outcome: “It has been a very characteristic feature of Finnish teacher education that it has leaned on the legitimacy of the educational sciences […]. Teacher training thus in fact eventually legitimated its gradually growing status by leaning on the established academic status of educational research” (Kivinen and Rinne 1994, p. 519). Normaalikoulu principals are even employed as part of the university. Professors of education, including ones directly involved with the normaalikoulu also contributed to this chapter. The research findings highlight the close connection between theory, policy, and practice in Finnish teacher education.

Teacher Education The professors and lecturers had some insightful views about Finnish teacher education. While Chap. 2 of this book discussed the teacher education process at length, this section analyses the professorial perspectives of teacher education with a broad lens. Panu, a professor and an educational researcher, says, “The quality of the education system cannot exceed the quality of the teachers”. This mantra has also been published via McKinsey consultancy (2007). This viewpoint, while disputable, as it overlooks the connections teachers have with each other, with the wider teaching profession, and with society’s efforts in building an education system, highlights the commitment within Finland to the teaching profession. Juho, a professor and an educational researcher, states, “If you want [results] to be good, you have to invest a lot [in] teachers’ potential”.

4  THE NEXUS OF THEORY, POLICY, AND PRACTICE? A CRITICAL EXAMINATI… 

91

Investment in teachers is held in high regard, which leads to elevated expectations of teachers. Matias, a lecturer in pedagogy, says, “We should have that kind of teachers who are willing to take responsibility for their job, who are willing to see their work as intellectual work and who are willing to build up the community where teachers can work together”. Ursula, a lecturer of arts and crafts teacher education states, “Our [teacher education] is rather long. It takes five years and they make a Master’s degree in educational science”. The terminology of “educational science”, as previously stated in Chap. 2 (Säntti et al. 2018, p. 9), is of significant importance. Finns refer to the study of education as ‘educational science’, in order to emphasise academic rigour within the education discipline. Juho gives an example within primary teacher education: It means when you have five years training, it opens more possibilities and also keeps possibilities to organise practical training as part of the studies. […] In primary teacher training, they have these three or four different phases, step-by-step, to becoming […] more independent […] under the control of the teachers at the normaalikoulu. But the final phases, many cases nowadays it is in [field schools]. That seems to work very, very well.

Arvo, a lecturer in special and inclusive education, states, “We have good teacher education. […] The students are mostly satisfied with the feeling they have got skills in finding knowledge, how to develop professionally after they leave this department, how to reflect on their surroundings around his [sic] or herself”. The professors emphasise the major foundations of Finnish teacher education: critical reflection and a long, academic programme to create future professionals (Jyrhämä et al. 2008). Theory forms the bedrock of Finnish teacher education. To improve teacher education elsewhere in the world, Ursula suggests “more theory might help, and this combination, trying to combine theory and practice”. The professors thus view theory and academics as a major strength of Finnish teacher education. In Matias’s opinion: “I think the best way is to combine [subject] studies and pedagogical studies as well as we ever can, that way that we should not give them certain models, frames to be teachers, and more to push them to create something new”. Annukka, a lecturer in higher education, admits that teacher education students, with their academic background, have strong traditional learning skills: “Because we have so many applicants to our teacher education, so only the best of the best are selected and they have so good studying skills”.

92 

J. CHUNG

However, she believes, “they should be challenged more from the viewpoint of their future profession”. In order to do this, she mentions meaningful periods in Finnish teacher education: “Those most meaningful are teaching practice periods and the Master’s thesis. […] Those are the most challenging ones, and they are really [tested] in those courses, that am I able to become a teacher?” Pauli, Professor Emeritus of Teacher Education, also emphasises research and reflection as cornerstones of Finnish teacher education: Our research-based teacher education is based, or has two phases: the first is that it’s evidence-based. Evidence-based means that it is based on research results, literature, scientific journals, and so on, what colleagues have found in their research. You must know the subject if you are teaching […] so you must be on the point. What is the modern way of thinking in that area? But then the other face is that you are like a practitioner/researcher, reflecting on your own work so that you can evaluate what you do, and it’s productive in that sense that you can search for new knowledge yourself in a classroom, and no one can help you.

The research and academic basis of the Finnish teacher education programme, in addition to the critical reflection, allows for autonomous and self-reliant practitioners. When asked about the weaknesses about Finnish teacher education, Annukka says, “I know is that we could organise the studies in teacher education even more […] meaning that we should offer opportunities for our student teachers, have a more active role already in the beginning in the theoretical courses. […] The studies are organised quite traditionally”. The aforementioned meaningful periods, according to Annukka, the teaching practice and Master’s thesis, uncovers that student teachers “should be challenged more already in the beginning”. These challenges build up and formulate future teacher identities. In other words, she says teacher education students need challenges from the beginning to start forming identities as teachers: They should be challenged more from the beginning of their studies, not only in third year when they are in teaching practice and it is too late if they then start to think that, oh well, this is my future profession, but already in the beginning, so that they could start to build a picture of themselves as teachers and try to make use of all those theoretical courses that they do

4  THE NEXUS OF THEORY, POLICY, AND PRACTICE? A CRITICAL EXAMINATI… 

93

during their studies and how this and that builds me and my capability as a future teacher.

Early challenges and forming of teacher identity allow student teachers to better utilise the theories underpinning Finnish teacher education. The professors’ viewpoints about Finnish teacher education set the stage of this chapter. Different countries have varying attitudes towards teacher education. Finland utilises a research-based model, while countries like England incorporate school-based teacher training (Jyrhämä et  al. 2008). Matias possesses some good insight into the differences between the English and Finnish approaches to teacher preparation: “In England, teachers are getting more courses after they have done their pedagogical studies at university. In Finland, it’s the opposite. When you have your Master’s degree and to be qualified as a teacher, it is possible to go through the whole career without getting in-service training”. The Finnish attitude towards teacher education allows for a bottom-heavy approach, supplying future teachers with the research skills to help them tackle future challenges, with relatively little teaching practice in normaalikoulu and field schools.

The Normaalikoulu The normaalikoulu, a vestige of original teacher preparation in Finland, has become a unique locus of teaching practice, with strong connections to research and affiliation with a university. In fact, normaalikoulu are officially part of a university, and the university employs all teachers and principals as well (Mouhu 2011). The principals and the professors had very valuable insight into the role of the normaalikoulu in Finnish teacher education. Views from Principals The normaalikoulu principals gave interesting viewpoints, both as the leading administrator, but as educators as well. Principals at municipal schools also provided insight into the normal schools. The normaalikoulu, according to Jussi, the leading principal of a set of normal schools, have a special quality because of their involvement with university teacher education through in-service training, research-based teaching, teacher

94 

J. CHUNG

education, and curriculum development. The schools facilitate educational research as well. The process of becoming a normaalikoulu principal is different than becoming the head of a municipal school. Petteri, also the leading principal of a set of normaalikoulu, including a primary, lower secondary, and upper secondary school, says, “In [the] Finnish system, principals must be teachers also”. He continues, “Our teachers [decide] who can be the best principal and vice principal”. In other words, in a normaalikoulu, unlike in municipal schools, principals are elected by their colleagues, the teachers, and must come from within the school. The university senate approves choices of principal for the normaalikoulu. Petteri states, “The university senate selected me to be principal about twelve years ago.” Kiira, principal of the upper secondary normaalikoulu under Petteri’s leadership, reiterates how the normaalikoulu principals and vice principals must be elected. Kiira elaborates: “I am not coming outside of the school, so I already knew everyone when I was elected to be principal”. In fact, she states, heads “for the upper, lower secondary school and primary level, the principals are from the staff […] so I think that is the main difference compared to other schools”. Furthermore, student teachers add another dimension to the principal role in normaalikoulu. Kiira continues, “I have to take care of the pupils for the upper secondary level […] at the same time, 250 subject teacher trainees [are] here, and I try to help them also”. Petteri says his job differs from other principal jobs in this way: “[It is] a lot of administration. My job, [it is] a lot of economics and a lot of choosing teachers, new teachers to our school, administration and economics. Our budget is more than ten million Euros; we must think how we use our money. [There are] a lot of meetings in the university and in the schools”. Martti, the leading principal of a set of normaalikoulu in another city, also remarks how his job differs from principal jobs in municipal schools. First of all, “it’s a more independent job”. He cites a policy change in 2010, which allows “the main principal [to hire] all the teachers. It’s my decision; the faculty board doesn’t any more select them. I can build such a kind of team that I think is good for the school”. This independence allows him to build a teaching staff that matches his vision. Furthermore, Martti says, “we are also independent concerning the city […], so we can decide our working days and holidays”. One downside, however, “is that I’m not demanded to teach. I like teaching, so I go as a substitute teacher to all lessons, but it’s not needed”. Ari, a principal in a municipal school,

4  THE NEXUS OF THEORY, POLICY, AND PRACTICE? A CRITICAL EXAMINATI… 

95

praises the normaalikoulu for “the good leadership of the schools”. The principals, even in the small sample for this book, show strong leadership and vision. Normaalikoulu have very good reputations within their communities. Parents often want their children to attend these teacher training schools. Petteri says, “I think we have very good teachers. […] I think that our teachers, they do their job diligently, and they take care of their pupils very well”. Kiira concurs: “You can see the groups are smaller for lessons […] I think that every lesson is prepared. It doesn’t matter if it is a trainee’s lesson or a trainer’s lesson. You can count on quality”. In line with the Finnish education system, primary and lower secondary students attending the normaalikoulu come via the catchment area. Kiira says, “For the primary and lower secondary [schools], they are ordinary children”. What makes their experience unique, she says, is that “their education is to have more than one adult to trust in the classroom”. With upper secondary pupils, however, the Finnish education system allows them to apply for schools, using school choice awarded to them via the 1998 Basic Education Act (West and Ylönen 2010). Kiira explains: “For the upper secondary school you can choose freely from what part of Finland or even abroad, you can apply to be our pupil. We have pupils from, I think this year […] it’s from 11 different municipalities, communities, towns”. The school chooses them according to their lower-secondary grades. Kiira continues: “There is a national system, so it is according to marks. Nothing else matters but your marks. When you finish your lower secondary level, you get marks and then you can choose five different schools and then you put them in order”. Essi, the international liaison for a university, adds that the affiliated normaalikoulu is so popular, other upper secondary schools in the region have had to lower their entry standards and requirements. While attending upper secondary school has been losing favour in Petteri and Kiira’s region, the popularity of the normaalikoulu remains high. Kiira’s colleagues at other schools remark how she can choose the “cream from the milk”. Martti’s normaalikoulu is situated in a wealthy area of the city. The primary and lower secondary children come from the catchment area, and “are quite ordinary pupils”; however, his school also offers Latin, so pupils who want to study Latin have their own admissions process. For the upper secondary school, Martti says, “it’s quite famous, because this is an old school and traditional school”. Therefore, he says it is “quite difficult to get into our upper secondary school”, with only one third of lower

96 

J. CHUNG

secondary pupils gaining admission to upper secondary school. Martti says his normaalikoulu pupils have high standards for their teachers and student teachers: “They are motivated, and they are also demanding [pupils] for the student teachers to teach”. Martti’s normaalikoulu also performs well on the matriculation examinations, the only national exam in Finland (Chung 2009, 2019). The rankings of matriculation examination scores, while, “we don’t like that kind of list”, Martti says, “the media like them. There are three or four schools which are in the top, and we are one of those three or four schools”. This illustrates the high quality of this normaalikoulu. The leading principals of two normaalikoulu, Petteri and Martti, highlight the academic rigour in and popularity of their upper secondary schools. Martti’s school remains popular with parents, due to the matriculation results, strong tradition, and high-quality teaching, but “we are a university teacher training school, which means that we know what is happening in [educational] science, in subjects, what kind of research is done. Our teachers have often meetings with the Faculty of Behavioural Science and those workers there, and also subject faculties. I would say that the standard of teaching is quite high here, and most of the parents know it”. Many teacher trainees, teachers, and even professors view the normaalikoulu as ‘not normal’, and find teaching in municipal schools more difficult. However, Essi gives her perspective: It [is] actually quite difficult to be a trainee in a teacher training school. Even though our student [teachers] criticise that this is not an ordinary school and it is much more difficult if you are actually teaching somewhere else, but in a way, it is more difficult here because the kids have seen it all. They have seen it all, so they don’t bat an eyelid if you stand on your hands and speak Mandarin Chinese. ‘Another trick, show us something more’. They are very critical about teaching. They know good teaching when they see it.

While many criticise the normaalikoulu for its ‘abnormality’, it does present its own challenges. The pupils are accustomed to high-quality teaching, and have elevated expectations of teachers and student teachers. Reflecting back on his own teacher training, Ari says, the normaalikoulu gave him “a good starting point and some skills and some tools to go to the first working place in school. […] Those teachers in normaalikoulu were also good ones, and they inspired me. They gave me also self-esteem”.

4  THE NEXUS OF THEORY, POLICY, AND PRACTICE? A CRITICAL EXAMINATI… 

97

However, he also says, “there are very few lessons during that teacher training year”. Ari praises strong mentorship during his teaching practice; however, like many others, points out the short practice periods as well. The balance of theory and practice in Finnish teacher education is discussed at length later in this chapter. Views of Professors The education professors participating in this study had some very insightful opinions about the normaalikoulu. They reflected on their own teacher trainee periods, and analysed the schools as education researchers. The professors had much praise for the normaalikoulu, but also much criticism. Despite current interest in Finland’s teacher training schools, this model has been around for some time. Pauli states, “The history of our normal schools is very interesting”. The normaalikoulu model has existed for a long time, as an ‘old’ model of teacher preparation. He continues, “The system started in Germany, in France, in the USA in the beginning of 1800, 1812, perhaps”. Much like other Finnish education policies gathering much interest (Välijärvi et al. 2002), Pauli says, “Finland followed that system later, but then the other countries have abolished that system. For example, in other Nordic countries, they don’t have any normal schools anymore”. He asserts how the normaalikoulu “succeeded to live in Finland, and we were also quite critical because we thought that those normal schools had too much power to decide and they did too little cooperation with the departments. But it has changed gradually and now we think that, we call them ‘university practice schools’. We think that it’s our strength that we have such schools”. The normaalikoulu, interestingly, serves as a leader for other schools in the country. According to Juho, a professor and educational researcher: This normaalikoulu, [is] not only a place where students practice, you can also see it as a school that is organising this type of activities. They can be the centre of organising, practicing, [a] network of schools. Like in Jyväskylä and Helsinki, they have city schools which are working as a network organised by normaalikoulu. They in a way guarantee the quality in these schools and training teachers in other schools, to be advisors of teacher students. I think in Finland it’s becoming more and more a network where this university normaalikoulu, it has responsibility of the network and to keep the quality similar.

98 

J. CHUNG

Juho’s depiction of the normaalikoulu as a leader of a school network of echoes some of the proposed policy in the 2010 Schools White Paper, The Importance of Teaching (DfE 2010). The White Paper specifically mentioned University Training Schools: “Every university offering education sciences in Finland is closely linked to a school, in which prospective teachers undertake classroom teaching practice under the constant guidance and supervision of experienced teacher trainers. These schools act as a link between teaching and the latest academic research and innovation” (DfE 2010, p. 24). The Importance of Teaching also recommended a network of teaching schools, much like teaching hospitals. This raises some interesting policy transfer issues, discussed in the Conclusion chapter. This chapter next uncovers the varying opinions, both positive and negative, of the normaalikoulu.  ositive Aspects of the Normaalikoulu P The professors, even the ones most critical of the normaalikoulu, pinpointed many positive features of a university-affiliated teacher training school. Sirpa, an educational researcher, for example, says, “I think the idea of having university schools, normaalikoulu, is a really good idea”. Henrikki, a lecturer in education, agrees: “it’s a unique system, and I think it’s a good system. Maybe it’s an expensive one”. Sirpa continues: “I have opinions about the normaalikoulu first from the point of view of having a school related to teacher education, which I think is a good thing in itself”. She also praises how the mentor teachers encourage the student teachers to find their own style. Sirpa continues: “The normaalikoulu now, the teachers are a little bit better educated than in most schools. The teacher students do their first period in there, so they are used to it, and they emphasise the teaching of teachers”. The normaalikoulu provides conditions ideal for initial teaching practice, and for student teachers to find their own style. The professors also praise normaalikoulu teachers. Pauli states, “Our students can go there and practice with professional mentors. […] We have good cooperation with those teachers; they are highly educated teachers.” Annukka praises mentor teachers and draws attention to their high levels of education: The supervisors and teachers there are really experienced to do the supervision; there are many PhDs who work as class teachers there, and they really have the understanding about this research-based thing, and the ability to

4  THE NEXUS OF THEORY, POLICY, AND PRACTICE? A CRITICAL EXAMINATI… 

99

theorise things that student teachers observe and reflect during the teaching practice. So, they have the ability to raise the level of thinking and provide various viewpoints to the situation, and broaden their thinking.

Henrikki also praises normaalikoulu teachers, and contrasts their mentorship style with field school teachers. He says normaalikoulu differ from field schools because the teachers “are so well trained to supervise. They are doing it every day from year to year, and yes, they have been qualified”. Henrikki continues, “it’s a more amateur thing in field schools. [In normaalikoulu] they are trained for that”. He states: “I guess [field school teachers] vary a lot, so some are good supervisors and some are not. [There] […] are good supervisors in the field schools, but this is more professional in normaalikoulu”. This illustrates the professionalism of normaalikoulu mentor teachers (Jyrhämä 2006; Krokfors et  al. 2011; Ruuskanen 2011). The chapter later discusses the field school versus normaalikoulu debate at length. The physical closeness of the normaalikoulu and its affiliated university also garnered praise from professors (Koski and Pollari 2011). For positive attributes, Arvo mentions the normaalkoulu’s close proximity to the university: “It’s right there”. Similarly, Matias says the best part of normaalikoulu is proximity to the university: “If someone is admiring our system, I think that the best part of it is that they are, the school and the university are close to each other, not far away. I think that it is not the amount of practice which is the university studies’ important part, but more the theory which is given to the students to understand the work”. The proximity allows for a close connection of theory and practice. Huugo, a lecturer in education, while quite critical of the normaalikoulu, does list some positive aspects: There are some practical reasons. It’s very close. We don’t need to travel far, which saves time and then it makes it a bit more effective in a way. […] There is quite good experience of organising the teaching practicum so that it supports the […] didactical and pedagogical skills […]. These schools emphasise these didactic and pedagogical skills, and the planning and implementation of education.

The physical proximity of normaalikoulu and university allows for easier organisation of teacher education’s practical elements.

100 

J. CHUNG

The idea of a university-based teacher training school in itself deserves praise. Juho says, “The idea to have a school for training of students who are becoming teachers, I think that is basically quite a clever idea. But how to organise it, how to guarantee it’s close enough to the conditions that teachers meet outside of university, that’s a challenge, but that’s a challenge also in Finland”. Henrikki, interestingly, disagrees with the ‘not normal’ argument, saying that the normaalikoulu is normal: “There are pupils from the area, just normal pupils”. He does say, however that “of course, [the schools] should be very well equipped”, referring to the superior facilities and technology present in the normaalikoulu. Saara, a lecturer of languages and teacher education, says, the benefits of the school-­university partnership are “that the teacher training, the practice is easy to organise, well, it’s not easy, but it’s easier. And also the close cooperation between us, the university lecturers, and the teachers at school is important”. Saara gives a good overview about the positive aspects of the normaalikoulu: “Research is somewhat easier in a normal school, research in education, than in other schools. I say that somewhat because there are a lot of people who want to go there and do research, and they can’t, of course, accept everyone. […] They have the flexibility and the familiarity with research”. Saara’s point about research requires elaboration; this is discussed in detail later in the chapter. Similarly, Jukka says normaalikoulu “are collaborating now more and more, producing independent scientific research, and are willing to cooperate with us on research issues. They are taking good, protective care of our young students who want to become teachers”. He sums up the positive features of normaalikoulu well: “They are good schools. They function well; they are capable of taking care of the disturbances which teacher training constitutes. They are capable of handling very difficult logistic problems. They are proud of themselves and they know that they are as good as any”.  egative Aspects of the Normaalikoulu N Much like any education policy, an investigation of the normaalikoulu must include a critical analysis of its features. The professors had a balanced view of Finnish teacher training schools, and provided some excellent insight into their weaker features. Juho says, “This normaalikoulu model […] is very much in the interest”, citing the “cross-national attraction” (Phillips and Ochs 2004, p.  779) still so prominent in Finland. However, he warns, “There is the threat that [PISA tourists] are taking too much as a model school. It may cause similar problems as in Finland,

4  THE NEXUS OF THEORY, POLICY, AND PRACTICE? A CRITICAL EXAMINATI… 

101

that, well, in Finland we call it a normaalikoulu, a normal school, but in many cases, it is the most abnormal school in Finland”. Saara, reflecting on her own experience, also says about the normaalikoulu: My opinion then was the practice is so artificial. It’s not really real teaching. When you are alone responsible for the classroom and you actually do design, plan your teaching by yourself, and you don’t do what the supervisor tells you to do, it’s totally different. Of course, the guided practice is important, and the more, the better, I think, but I still thought it was rather artificial. Maybe it still is.

Related to this ‘artificial’ feel of normaalikoulu is the elitist reputation of the schools. As discussed previously in this chapter, normaalikoulu are often situated in catchment areas with more expensive real estate, and the upper secondary schools attract top students. Because of this, Juho outlines this challenge: “[Normaalikoulu] should not be too different compared to [municipal] schools in this country. How do they guarantee that students are selected that they are representing not only the elite group but the whole population?” The issue of normaalikoulu as ‘not normal’ remains a salient theme in this book. The high education level of mentor teachers, seen by many as a strength, also serves as a detriment. Panu, a professor and education researcher, states: “This university-attached school is somehow, those have turned out to be elite schools in Finland, which is not a good thing. Teachers, maybe half of them might be doctors and so on”. Furthermore, he says, “I think that normal schools actually are becoming […] more and more strangers of the real school life”. He suggests normaalikoulu teachers with Doctorates should move into more challenging schools of Finland, and in schools with higher numbers of immigrant pupils. Sirpa recalls a change in location: The [normaalikoulu] which is now in [one area of the city] used to be in the western suburbs, where the inhabitants are more upper-middle class as well. It was interesting to notice. They moved about ten years ago or so and many of the teachers had real problems adjusting to the heterogeneity of the students because it was the first time that students were not from relatively educated and well-to-do families. They, too, had problems in that.

Therefore, the upper-middle class neighbourhoods that host many normaalikoulu impart challenges for both student teachers and for staff.

102 

J. CHUNG

Similarly, Arvo critcises the student body: “Their distribution of students, it’s not normal. If there’s 8.5 percent of students transferred to special education in one form or another, the normaalikoulu has very much less [sic] those students, so it’s not like the normal situation, which brings a little bit of irony to the name”. The lack of ‘normality’, therefore, is also a salient criticism from the professors. Teaching practice, or lack thereof, comes under criticism. Arvo, for example, cites the logistical issues of having so many student teachers in one school. He describes “scheduling problems”, as schools are “so full of teaching practice students that […] this kind of structural hindrance, it starts to affect the routines negatively, because it’s very full”. Furthermore, he adds, “The schedules restrict the students’ possibilities to get experiences”. For teaching practice in advanced studies, Arvo says, “we try to have seven weeks with no breaks. Students are there for seven weeks and try to have as much responsibility of teaching as possible. The problem is that it’s too optimistic. The experience is one lesson there and one there”. The juggling needed to host all student teachers within normaalikoulu limits their teaching practice and view of their future profession. Huugo provides some criticism: It’s a very traditional way of thinking and it’s very much based on a single lesson, to plan the lesson, to have the feedback and everything. That is the difference between the real teacher’s work and to be a student teacher in a university training school. So, the students say and the newly qualified teachers say they actually don’t get whole picture of a teacher’s job if the practicum is organised like this. They need a more holistic picture of the teacher’s work. That’s why this alternative practicum [in field school] is so popular. This [normaalikoulu] is called abnormal school because it’s so different there.

The volume of student teachers, according to Sirpa, makes mentor “teachers […] more conscious of their roles”, but the student numbers also create distractions: This “cause[s] problems because it disrupts […], but it also means that there are awfully more adults per children in that school for big periods of time when they are doing the practical phases”. Therefore, the high volume of student teachers limits potential practice time, but also proves disruptive to the school pupils.

4  THE NEXUS OF THEORY, POLICY, AND PRACTICE? A CRITICAL EXAMINATI… 

103

The role of student teacher also comes under criticism. Some professors feel the student teachers possess a low position in the normaalikoulu’s hierarchy. Huugo elaborates: The role of the student teacher is different [in normaalikoulu]. They are somewhere in between a pupil and a teacher. It is a very special kind of role. They have a staff room of their own, so the student teachers go to their own staff room. The ‘real’ teachers go to the real staff room, so they are separated there. I would say that the student teachers are excluded out of the teachers’ community in this school, whereas in the field school, they are living in the same staff room, not living, but visiting, and they are having wonderful discussions about teaching and everything in the staff room. That is one thing that makes it really, really different in normaalikoulu and in other schools.

In addition to the hierarchical structure of normaalikoulu, some professors dispute the necessity of having a normaalikoulu for teaching practice. For example, Saara says: I’m not really sure if it offers anything that couldn’t be achieved with other schools, in partnership with other schools as well. It’s just as important that there is theory and research basis for the studies, and it is important that there is guided practice. Of course, in guided practice it’s important that the supervising teachers have this orientation towards teaching teachers, and understand their role and have what it takes for that role. I think that’s really important. But do we really need necessarily the normal school for that? I’m not sure.

Huugo has similar criticisms as Saara, but he also mentions the cost of running a normaalikoulu: There seems not to be any difference in the quality of preparation, […] no significant difference between these two kinds of systems or the experiences of the two kinds of system, but the difference is the cost. […] I would use this money elsewhere in teacher education, and I would build up a collaboration between the schools around the university, not only one school. It’s also about elitism. It’s an elite school here.

Henrikki also mentions the “expensive” normaalikoulu. While professors do have much praise for these teacher training schools, they raise the issue

104 

J. CHUNG

of value for money. In other words, does a normaalikoulu provide a teacher training experience representative of its price? Matias gives a good overview of the normaalikoulu while offering his criticisms. His analysis includes a historical evaluation as well, also discussed in Chap. 2: I think it is a good system. I think the structure is good, but because there has [sic] always been tensions. This is not a new thing. […] When the system was founded in the 1860s, then our national philosopher, Johan Wilhelm Snellman, who created this system thought there should be very strong cooperation between the professor of pedagogy in the University of Helsinki, which was the only university then in Finland, and the teachers in the training school, but it didn’t work then, and it’s not working nowadays. I mean in the best possible way.

Matias therefore believes normaalikoulu never worked within the original, ideal vision for the school. He continues his balanced criticism of the normaalikoulu: I think the structure is good. If we had more research groups where is [sic] teachers from the school and our department, if we had more discussion between training school and department of teacher education, if we had more courage to raise up the difficult questions, we could have a better future, but I’m not willing to change the system as some of my colleagues, for example, are. They would like to destroy the training school and transfer the practice for other schools.

Due to historical reasons, he speaks of “power” behind the normaalikoulu, and the strong, socio-cultural roots in Finnish society. Matias again mentions criticism of these schools amongst his colleagues: “I know […] some of our teachers think it would be heaven if we had just schools which are not normaalikoulu. But I don’t think it that way”. Interestingly, PISA put an end to much debate about the efficacy and the necessity of normaalikoulu. Martti says, “I think after the PISA results, there is not much discussion any more that we should change the system”. This illustrates how PISA’s influence and power (Crossley 2019) influences internal education policy as well. These criticisms of normaalikoulu provide a helpful counterpoint to the praise received from both within Finland and internationally, and should aid in an evaluation of critical policy transfer.

4  THE NEXUS OF THEORY, POLICY, AND PRACTICE? A CRITICAL EXAMINATI… 

105

Normaalikoulu Versus Field School This chapter thus far discussed the positives and negatives of a normaalikoulu. Field schools provide training for teachers outside of the university environment (Jyrhämä 2006; Krokfors et al. 2011). The principals and the professors had generally positive views of field schools, but had varied opinions regarding the extent of practice in these schools, mainly dependent on their level of criticism of the normaalikoulu. For example, in reference to normaalikoulu, Henrikki says, “It’s a very good system. […] but […] It’s a very expensive system”. Huugo also mentions that the normaalikoulu are six times more expensive than field schools: There is a big difference in the expense of these systems. The teacher education expenses, in normaalikoulu, in the university teacher training schools, are six times higher than in if we organised this all in field schools. […] If we compare the money that is allocated for organising the teacher practicum, supervising it, educating the supervisors of the teaching practicum, organising all of these collaborations and also the research is included in this money. We end up with a difference. The relation is 1:6, so six times more expensive to do this thing, to organise this normaalikoulu system than in field schools.

Martti admits that much criticism focuses on the expense of normaalikoulu, but he says, “of course it’s more expensive than in municipal schools, because then our teachers have this supervising task, so we have more teachers […] and of course our teachers’ salaries, they are also a little bit higher than in municipal schools”. The expense of normaalikoulu remains a main criticism. The sheer amount of teacher trainees needing to go through a normaalikoulu also faced some criticism earlier in this chapter. Furthermore, principals in field schools enjoy having teacher trainees. Huugo, who runs field school training at his university, cites how the principal of a field school found “it very useful and a refreshing experience for them to have these student teachers, not continuously, but once a year”. However, normaalikoulu principals and teachers may have a different perspective. Huugo states: “The difference is that in this normaalikoulu is that teachers in normaalikoulu are just fed up with these student teachers coming and going. […] It’s a burden for them”. This ‘burden’, mentioned by other participants, highlights the need for field schools. He elaborates how trainees enhance a field school’s wider provision: “But in this case, when the student teachers come once a year, it’s a refreshing thing, a new wave in the school which also contributes to the development

106 

J. CHUNG

of the school community”. Henrikki explains the necessity of field schools: “so the capacity of [normaalikoulu] is not enough for us so that is why we also have field schools. So, for example, our classroom teachers, they practice both in normaalikoulu and in field schools, but they are really experts there in normaalikoulu and I mean, experts in teaching and supervising”. While the large volume of student teachers necessitates field school experience, professors like Henrikki admit that normaalikoulu teachers have exemplary supervision and mentoring skills. The professors and principals agree that a normaalikoulu provides a safe place to begin teaching practice. Arvo says, “It should be both/and. Some students could go to the field school, some to normaalikoulu. It could be sequential, [starting in] the normaalikoulu, and then start to practice more in the field school. What I am saying is there should be enough experiences in the field school before graduating”. Kiira gives an excellent analogy for normaalikoulu practice: “It is easier to learn to swim when the water is warm”, but does encourage student teachers to “visit ordinary schools”, most likely with “substitute” teaching. Arvo takes this to another level. Despite Kansanen’s (2008) assertions, Arvo thinks that teacher education, and the training aspect of it, needs to have a bigger picture, and not just in the classroom: “The teaching practice, it should be more. It should handle more of the topics of school community […] how the teachers gather together, what they talk about in the meetings, how does the student welfare group work, how they deal with parents”. He thinks there is a need for both normaalikoulu and field school practice: It’s not the main question, should there be a normaalikoulu or not? We need field schools on the side and now we have them also in the last teaching practice. I would say I would like to see as much as possible the teaching practice in authentic circumstances. That means in the field, just because there has been research done in this department […] that shows that students want more real grassroots knowledge, and they think that normaalikoulu is a little bit too fancy. […] Somehow some students think that they want to have experience of a more real school, whatever they mean by that.

Martti praises the “bond of theory and practice” at a normaalikoulu, but also recognises the high price and expense of these schools. The students at his university undertake a three-week field school experience, where “they can select what they prefer, there are multicultural schools, primary schools, adult institutes, so they also get a picture of different kinds of

4  THE NEXUS OF THEORY, POLICY, AND PRACTICE? A CRITICAL EXAMINATI… 

107

schools than this”. This field school practice, at least for Martti’s student teachers, takes place in a “field school period” in January. He remarks how the student teachers gain a broader experience during these field school practices, but have more peer-supported learning in normaalikoulu training. As Henrikki stated earlier, mentor teachers at normaalikoulu are especially capable. Kiira also mentions this: “Our staff members […], they know what to do; they have chosen the role of trainer. They have been educated to be a trainer, so it is very important for the future teacher that their first guide is very good [at] it”. Jussi, also a leading principal of a normaalikoulu, speaks of mixed experiences student teachers have at field schools, dependent on their mentor teacher: “[For] field schools, it is highly dependent on their mentor there. How has he or she been active in the training he or she has got for the mentoring? […] Quite often, a mentoring teacher is alone in a field school. Even though these teachers are qualified, it is hard to work alone”. Ursula admits, “The mentors at [a field] school, they haven’t had much education for the mentoring. They do it as well as they can, but they haven’t been studying how to counsel”. Interestingly, she cites how field school mentors do not have as much mentorship training as normaalikoulu teachers (Krokfors et  al. 2011; Ruuskanen 2011), but student teachers feel they have professional autonomy and are able to engage in solo practice teaching at the field schools. Normaalikoulu teachers have mentor training; they possess a different type of professionalism. In addition, Jussi remarks that, in a normaalikoulu, there “is time that is focused for mentoring processes, and [mentor teachers are] paid separately for each one”. Teemu, principal of a municipal upper secondary school, criticises his normaalikoulu practice, due to the ‘abnormality’ of the experience. Both the class size and the quality of teaching equipment varied greatly, which provided a shock for him when teaching in municipal schools. He believes students should practice in field schools; however, he does admit he learned more in normaalikoulu than in field schools, due to the mentor teachers. Huugo also considers the normaalikoulu ‘abnormal’. He states that the students find the field school experience more of a ‘real’ experience, giving a wider picture of teaching: “what they appreciate in this kind of teaching practicum, is they really have a real school. […] There is a difference. Actually, they think this normaalikoulu is an abnormal school […]. Being a teacher is not just about teaching but a wide range of organisational duties”. Teemu mentions that student teachers “can’t come to

108 

J. CHUNG

the teachers’ lounge” in the normaalikoulu. He suspects this reason connects to the high numbers of teacher trainees in the normaalikoulu, a criticism echoed throughout this book. However, when he hosts student teachers at his school, “they come to the teachers’ lounge, and they are like one of us from the beginning”. Ursula says that in field schools, student teachers do not feel like students, but rather a member of staff: “At a [normaalikoulu], there are so many students, so that to be able to do that work, you have to be kind of different, act professionally in a different way than you do here”. At a field school, student teachers feel more ‘equal’ and ‘professional’; at a normaalikoulu, the trainee is a ‘student’. Interestingly, Annukka says: “I would say […] field schools […] are good environments, but normaalikoulu is […] more structured and there are many student teachers who are also able to reflect with their peers”. She views the large numbers of normaalikoulu teacher trainees as a positive feature, in contrast with many participants in this research, as it allows for peer learning and reflection. Furthermore, she praises how student teachers in normaalikoulu “have their own student teacher room where they can plan their things and prepare their lessons and meet their peer students and reflect”. Annukka’s view as a researcher of teacher education gives justification for the separate teachers’ lounge and student teachers’ lounge. However, the inability for student teachers to access the teachers’ lounge remains a stark criticism of normaalikoulu. The debates surrounding the normaalikoulu, surveying their strengths and their weaknesses, including their expense, led to the utilisation of field schools for teaching practice. Depending on the viewpoint, the necessity of field schools has been either a successful or an unfortunate by-product of the popularity of teaching in Finland. Ursula attributes the necessary ascent of the field school practice due to “money questions”. She says, previously, “all of the practices were meant to be in the practice school”. However, due to high numbers of teacher education students, she elaborates, “Now they don’t have enough room for all of the students”. She uncovers how field schools became a research project as well: “These five or six years, we have done it, researching it and writing of it. It has been seen as meaningful, so they want us to continue this. […] The students, they say they need it, to see different kinds of schools than just a practice school”. Ursula says how field school practice modules are incredibly popular: “[Enrollment] was opened yesterday, and I think it is full now”.

4  THE NEXUS OF THEORY, POLICY, AND PRACTICE? A CRITICAL EXAMINATI… 

109

Therefore, the field school element of teaching practice has become an official part of teacher preparation in Finland. Pauli, echoing Ruuskanen (2011), says, “The principle is that two thirds of the practice takes place in university practice schools and one third in field schools”. Most agree this allows for a more holistic view of teaching. Matias says: We should have at least one practice outside of normaalikoulu because it’s the way to see the community, not only the classrooms but the school culture as a community and see what’s happening in the teacher’s room and things like that, that are not possible over there. In theory [the normaalikoulu] is a good system, and it’s working in practice, I know. But we always have to have a critical view of the system.

Huugo praises the field schools’ ability to provide student teachers with a broader view of their future careers. At the normaalikoulu, for example, teacher trainees do not work with teaching assistants and koulunkäyntiohjaaja, or a school social worker, during their practice periods. Huugo says: “In these teacher training schools, the student teachers don’t get practically any experience with collaborating with these koulunkäyntiohjaaja. So, we have this collaboration between different kinds of professionals, which takes place in these field schools”. Saara also advocates practice outside of normaalikoulu. She went to a vocational school for extra training as a Finnish language teacher: “I think it’s a very good idea to have a practice outside of normal school, because it’s not normal. When you go to schools other than normal schools, you would be disappointed if you hadn’t seen anything else but the normal school. And that’s also the practice nowadays. They do go also to other schools for practice”. Furthermore, Pauli reveals how student teachers have the opportunity to take over an entire class for days at a time, allowing for a broader view of the education profession: “In the period in the end of studies, the students go to the field schools and then they have responsibility for the whole class and for the whole week perhaps, so that they become acquainted with the usual schools and what the school life is”. Jukka explains how field schools “are selected so that they represent a variety of neighbourhoods”. These provide extra challenges for the student teachers. He elaborates: “Some are working in areas which are called ‘demanding’, which is to say that the social background is lower, and the children are more easily more disturbed or disturbing. The trainees learn that you can also work there”. He also explains the major difference

110 

J. CHUNG

between the two teaching practices: “[At] normal schools, they concentrate on subjects, but in field schools, they experience extra things. There are more complicated problems, and accordingly, there are multi-­ professional work teams, which are called Student Welfare Groups. That is the advantage that they get there”. The academic foundation of Finnish teacher education means that field school practice, as Ursula suggested earlier, has become a research area. According to Jukka, the field schools “are our windows to the everyday practice of going to school, which is useful for the university”. The universities utilise field schools, much like normaalikoulu, for school-university partnerships and research. He elaborates: “These field schools are eyes for us and instruments for getting information from the life of schools. They are important to us as a way of communication, and getting information and knowledge of what is happening”. Jukka continues: [The student teachers] write reports. We call them ‘field reports’ or ‘field notes’. Every year, in special education, we have about 80 trainees that would go to different schools. We get 80 reports of one week of activities. We have participant observation data collection all the time, and we use those reports in research concerning these reforms of special education.

In other words, teacher trainees engage with research at field schools, and the affiliated university implements the research on a broader level. Student teachers feel more as equals and more autonomous during their field school practice. Huugo, who organises teaching practice for his university’s teacher trainees, cites feedback and criticism he has received from his students. For example, he recounts one of his student’s reflections: ‘I worked as a substitute teacher in many schools. I could make a breakthrough in an ordinary school. And after having worked as a substitute teacher, I went back to the university teacher practicum and it was a total regression. I was not a teacher. I was someone between […] the pupils in the classroom and the teacher. This time [at the field school], I expect that I am trusted as a comfortable person’.

He continues, “This means that in these teacher training schools, the student teachers actually feel like they are not taken as adult persons. They are somewhere between the [pupil] and the teacher”. This contrasts, according to Huugo, with their time in the field school: “When they leave the

4  THE NEXUS OF THEORY, POLICY, AND PRACTICE? A CRITICAL EXAMINATI… 

111

normaalikoulu and then they enter the field schools, they have the experience that they are taken seriously as adult persons and real teachers”. As stated previously, student teachers have the opportunity to teach independently in a field school, but not in a normaalikoulu. Ursula elaborates: the student teachers at the field school “get two whole days where the class teacher is not there. That would never happen in [normaalikoulu] because the ‘real’ teacher is always in charge […] [it’s their] duty”. She asserts that independent teaching “is the highest, most autonomous feeling we can give them”. This reinforces the autonomous and equal position that student teachers possess in field schools. The level of autonomy, or lack thereof, in normaalikoulu relates to what Huugo refers to as the “second order paradox of teacher education”: The main challenge is to promote professional autonomy of teachers within the teaching practicum. […] It is a challenge we take seriously, how to educate the teachers so they can do their work on their professional ethics and professional expertise. […] It is a dilemma which we call here a second order paradox of teacher education. It is a paradox. If you want somebody to become autonomous, then how [do you] supervise someone to be autonomous?

He then cites Emmanuel Kant’s “pedagogical paradox, which means how to make another person independent or autonomous”. While the normaalikoulu develops strong mentor-mentee relations, the field school instills autonomy. This raises the question: which technique best prepares teachers for their future careers? Huugo elaborates on the paradox: “This second order paradox in teacher education, if we think that in education, generally, teachers’ aim is to educate the person in the society so they become rational and autonomous persons, then how [do we] educate the teachers who then educate the pupils so they then become autonomous?” Huugo’s philosophical and astute analysis of this paradox thus leads to exploring the efficacy of normaalikoulu versus field school. Regarding the debate of more effective teacher training practice and supervision, Huugo mentions a Finnish Doctoral dissertation comparing normaalikoulu and field schools, uncovering “only faint differences between training and practice environments in these field schools and teacher training schools”. The field schools emphasise cognitive skills and the overall role of the teacher. The normaalikoulu focus on didactic and pedagogical skills, planning and implementation. Huugo says that skills

112 

J. CHUNG

learned in the normaalikoulu are “only one part of teachers’ work. Teachers’ work is something else than just having the lesson in school. It is about collaboration with colleagues and parents and some other officials”. While Huugo remains staunchly critical about the normaalikoulu, its value for money, and its efficacy for preparing future teachers, Annukka has a more positive view on the balance of normaalikoulu and field school practice: At the end of their studies, our student teachers, especially in [primary] teacher education, they go to the field school to final practice [sic], but the first two practice periods are done in normaalikoulu, and I think that it’s a very good thing. Based on my personal experiences when I studied, and now when we have done the research in the practice periods in normaalikoulu, I think that it’s a good environment for our student teachers to practice teaching.

Annukka’s own academic research has involved student teacher feedback from normaalikoulu practice, and “it is really positive. They complain only that they don’t have keys to all the rooms at school and the computers are not always operating perfectly. […] So, for me it tells that everything is – they are really satisfied”. Sirpa gives a balanced view on the merits of both types of practice: “I think it is extremely valuable that the students do two periods of pre-service training at schools, and that one of them is in that one and that the other one is somewhere else. I think that they won’t get a real picture of what life at school is like if they only do it in the normaalikoulu”. While both normaalikoulu and field schools have their merits and detriments, the normaalikoulu should remain a prominent feature of Finnish teacher education. Reiterating Martti’s statement from earlier in this chapter, “I think after the PISA results, there is not very much discussion any more that we should change the system”.

Normaalikoulu-University Partnership Perhaps normaalikoulu’s most unique feature remains its affiliation with universities. The word ‘partnership’ even underestimates the relationship, as the normaalikoulu officially is part of the university, differentiating it from municipal schools around the country (Koski and Pollari 2011). Jukka gives a good overview of the dual role of normaalikoulu. First of all,

4  THE NEXUS OF THEORY, POLICY, AND PRACTICE? A CRITICAL EXAMINATI… 

113

he says, “They are a communication between life and classrooms and life in universities”, and “They provide a “channel of communication”. Furthermore, he states that the normaalikoulu provide “a good foundation for universities to collaborate with them, and also one window to the semi-real world of young people”, in other words, offering a locus for research. It is not unusual for normaalikoulu staff to be former lecturers of education at the affiliated university, or university lecturers to be former normaalikoulu teachers, as stated earlier in this book. This close exchange of knowledge and expertise of lecturing and mentoring staff allows for a strong connection between theory and practice. Jussi says, “people from here to go to the Teacher Education Department for a long or shorter time. Some stay there permanently, and vice versa as well”. Saara, a lecturer of Finnish language education, also encourages this practice: I was not so long time ago discussion one colleague that works at the Department of Teacher Education and took a leave of absence for one year to go to school, to go to a lower secondary school to teach. And that is something maybe we should all do, sometimes, at some point in our career as a teacher educator. I also thought when I was a researcher, we should have had more actually contact with school and not only go there and gather data and come back.

Normaalikoulu, as part of universities, allow for this movement, although Saara thinks more lecturers should take this opportunity. Martti, the leading principal of a normaalikoulu, was previously a professor of religious education at the affiliated university. Technically, he never left the university when he began his role as the principal: “Actually, I stayed at the university, because this is part of the university”. This fluid and continuous perception of normaalikoulu and university affiliation (Mouhu 2011) also contributes to the unique role of the schools in both teacher education and in Finnish society. Student teachers not only have the guidance of their mentor teachers, but they also have support from their university lecturers (Jyrhämä 2006; Krokfors et  al. 2011). Two leading principals, Jussi and Petteri, remark how university lecturers come to the normaalikoulu to observe students. Petteri states how the level of support depends on the lecturer, but when he was a lecturer, he came to normaalikoulu every day. Arvo, a lecturer in special and inclusive education, spends much time observing his students

114 

J. CHUNG

at normaalikoulu. In fact, “after our meeting I am to [going] to discussions there. The primary school teacher and two of my students who are practicing in her class, so we are having a discussion”. Professor Emeritus Pauli gives an overview about the distribution of mentorship allotted to the mentor teachers, university lecturers, and professors: “When our student teachers go to the practice school, they have the responsibility, individual responsibility for the classes. But the mentors are sitting in the back and observing, and after the lesson they are discussing. Then sometimes, university lecturers go observing and discussing, professors, quite seldom but sometimes”. Therefore, while mentor teachers have primary responsibility for student teachers’ practice, university lecturers do participate in this process. Mentor teachers and university lecturers thus take responsibility for both theory and practice needed for the teaching profession. Matias says lecturers teach “courses without practice, and then we have practice which is supervised by [normaalikoulu] schoolteachers and our lecturers”. Jukka clarifies: Supervising lecturers, who are responsible for teacher education, go to the schools to see their students who do […] teacher training work. Then, afterwards, they discuss with the permanent teacher of the class […] and then the trainee, and they discuss what happened there, what was good, and what things might be done otherwise. These discussions are part of the learning process.

Thus, dialogue between the three, trainee, mentor, and lecturer, plays a key role in teaching practice (Jyrhämä 2006). Matias also mentions the importance of dialogue in teacher preparation: “We from the Department of Teacher Education are organising group discussions where we have, let’s say, five students, one of them is [teaching] the lesson. We all will follow the lesson and we have a discussion session after the lesson where we analyse; we discuss of the different dimensions of the lesson”. Matias also describes differences between his input and the mentor teacher’s observations: “I am making observations and following their work, but not as closely of course as the teacher in school does. Our role is to be more like supervisors to help students to understand from the theoretical framework of what they are doing in school”. As for the distribution of time in school versus at the university, Ursula says she is 90 percent at university and ten percent at schools: “We observe

4  THE NEXUS OF THEORY, POLICY, AND PRACTICE? A CRITICAL EXAMINATI… 

115

[the student teachers]. We mentor. We try to help them to plan their lessons. We go to their lessons and observe, give feedback”. Like Matias, Ursula says she observes differently than mentor teachers: “The views [differ], yes. […] We don’t know the pupils and the school climate, culture. The teacher in the practice school gives them that information, and we more or less concentrate on how to plan a perfect lesson, what kind of things they have to do to take into consideration when reading the curriculum, what to take out of there and bring it to the lesson”. As for time she spends observing her students, Saara says, “Maybe I think five percent is the maximum”. She continues: “We do have a share of responsibilities that the Department of Teacher Education is actually responsible for providing the pedagogical studies for the students”. Saara differentiates her job with mentor teachers in the schools: “We provide the Finnish language expertise, and when they go to normal school or other schools for teacher training, also the teachers there, the supervisors of the guided practice at school, participate in teaching the students”. As for communicating with the normaalikoulu, she says, “It is sort of regularly irregular, if you know what I mean. So, we are in contact, and we have these shared meetings where we plan the courses and so on and so on, but there are times during the semester where we don’t really communicate very often because everyone is so busy doing their own bit. It is not necessarily very frequent, but in a way, it is still regular”. Some lecturers believe they need even more contact with the normaalikoulu. While Saara praises their mutual goals, she says it is “not enough” time observing her students in the classroom: “I would like to go to schools more, and maybe I should. Everyone here should. Unfortunately, there isn’t really time during the semesters, and it really is a pity”. She reiterates that lecturers need to spend more time in schools: “This shared responsibility helps a bit, because we have more perspectives that only our perspectives would be. But still, I think we should have more time in school”. Similarly, Arvo says, “We need more collaborative advising routines. We need to develop those”. Furthermore, he says, “We have work to do with the collaboration between teacher education staff and normaalikoulu staff. […] I think we need more of that kind of [collaboration]”. While the lecturers and normaalikoulu teachers both supervise and mentor the trainees, lecturers admit the brevity of their involvement, and wish for some more. The administration of normaalikoulu differs from that of municipal schools, as the normaalikoulu is technically part of the affiliated university.

116 

J. CHUNG

Petteri describes his “good” relationship with the department, administration, and university rector. He says, “Every day, we make cooperation, in meetings, in e-mail, every day. I think that is about 30 percent of my job, to cooperate with the department and the university”. Kiira, as vice-­ principal, speaks about her memberships of various university committees, for example, admissions to teacher education programmes and the faculty council. Petteri highlights how his “boss is our dean, the dean of the faculty”. He also speaks of his autonomy: “We have a lot of autonomy in our school. We are part of the university but can make a lot […] here in our school, what we think is the better way to do things”. Kiira continues, “So we can organise the lessons, the timetable, but we have to do it according to the curricula”. This chapter earlier discussed leading principal Martti’s autonomous leadership of his normaalikoulu, echoing the viewpoints of Petteri and Kiira. Martti also spends at least one day per week at the university due to administrative duties: We have this so-called leading group of the faculty. There is the dean, then there is the leader or boss or head of Department of Teacher Education. Then we have another department, the Department of Behavioural Sciences; there is psychology and education and such subjects. Then I am the fourth one, because we have two teacher training schools, but these two teacher training schools, they have one budget unit, and I’m the head of the budget unit.

The administration of normaalikoulu thus has a different dimension due to its affiliation with a university, and is run as part of the university. The principals also work with the university lecturers. Mattias gives an example: “I have a responsibility to develop practices in our department, so I have a quite close relation with the principals you met, same in the primary school”. The experience of principals differs from municipal school principals as the normaalikoulu is part of a university. The normaalikoulu’s partnership with the university allows for research centres that include both school and university. In Chap. 3, Oskari, a normaalikoulu teacher, discussed leading a research group at the university. Similarly, the teacher education department has research centres in which normaalikoulu teachers participate. Jussi praises this: “It keeps [the teachers] activated, motivated, and they have a form to publish”. This partnership benefits the university as well. Pauli adds that he uses these opportunities and partnerships for research: “But when I started my

4  THE NEXUS OF THEORY, POLICY, AND PRACTICE? A CRITICAL EXAMINATI… 

117

research work, we have a certain classroom in our department, because it was an observation classroom with three cameras and we videotaped lessons, many hundreds of lessons. We make observation analyses from these lessons”. The proximity of normaalikoulu and university, as discussed earlier, allows for a close school-university partnership (Koski and Pollari 2011), in addition to, according to Matias, a clear “role defined by the system of education. We all know that it’s the training school, and the role is certain”. Similarly, Saara says, benefits of the school-university partnership are “that the teacher training, the practice is easy to organise […] and also the close cooperation between us, the university lecturers, and the teachers at school is important”. As for the negative aspects of the school, Saara says: The only really negative thing actually is, it’s all very well resourced, the school, which is not really true in every school. It might give the students the wrong idea about what it’s like to work at school. On the other hand, it needs to be well resourced because the students get to, in their practice, get to use all of these modern technologies in teaching and so on.

The history of the normaalikoulu, discussed in Chap. 2, while also a major benefit to teacher education systems, also results in detriments. Matias says: [The] disadvantages are of course it’s been this kind of system now 150 years. It means [normaalikoulu] have their own culture, we [university] have our own culture, and they aren’t always facing each other. It’s not that we have different viewpoints towards certain things, but it’s different if we cannot tolerate each other. There are tensions between our cultures. We [the university] would like to do some things in a different way, and because the school culture is so old, and it has so powerful role in the whole system, […] they can resist the things we are trying to do. […] There is so much tacit knowledge in the normaalikoulu, tacit knowledge in the Department of Teacher Education, and it’s that kind of tacit knowledge we are transferring to another generation is not similar.

Saara similarly says normaalikoulu “are resistant to change”. She continues: “I think it would be really important to go to school and be more familiar with the actual practices of the school and understand where all this resistance to change is coming”. While normaalikoulu and university have an established partnership, the question remains about how to best balance this relationship. The

118 

J. CHUNG

multiple roles of normaalikoulu teachers, principals, as well as university lecturers and professors, complicate the job parameters. Pauli says teachers and university lecturers must have dialogue to stay on the same page: The teachers “are doing everyday work; it’s teaching. We are doing research, and we must have a discussion between us. But it’s not so easy in practice because the schools are not in the same building here. But we have meetings and it’s not a problem”. Arvo, as he also stated earlier in this chapter, advocates more communication between university and school. He works with mentor teachers at the normaalikoulu, but “not as closely as I would like. It’s a little bit distant, the collaboration, but with every teacher in normaalikoulu who has my students, there is collaboration, every time we get the chance, at least once, to talk about how the practice has gone”. Pauli, while laughing, says the school-university partnership “is never in balance”. However, he admits, “We have a very good situation. Now everybody is satisfied, but it has not been the same all the time. […] Because we have teachers in the normal schools who are our Doctorates, they are doing their dissertations, so we have all the time the contact between normal schools and university”.

Mentor Teachers Mentor teachers, the source of such mentor in this book, have a unique job with high requirements. Technically, normaalikoulu teachers need traditional teaching qualifications, for example, the Master’s degree, but with at least two years of experience (Mouhu 2011). However, due to the nature of the job, employers often demand more. Jussi says the teachers require: “major studies in educational sciences, which the other schools do not ask for, and a readiness to develop, innovate, and participate”. Martti explains that normaalikoulu teacher candidates need “at least two years full-time teaching before they can apply for a job from normaalikoulu”, but then, in addition to their official degrees and qualification, he investigates their social skills, as “not everybody is suitable to act as a supervisor, and even there are also teachers who don’t want to be teachers like this. Because you are always observed, and you are not alone with the students in classrooms, so social skills are important”. He emphasises the importance of advanced studies in education, even for secondary teachers: “At the University […], it’s demanded that all our teachers, in order to get a job here, they must have advanced studies in education. That’s let’s say, an extra major subject”. Furthermore, he highlights that mentor teachers

4  THE NEXUS OF THEORY, POLICY, AND PRACTICE? A CRITICAL EXAMINATI… 

119

have “more than a Master’s degree, because they supervise, or they are mentors. It’s important that they have studied also educational science”. Martti’s views reflect the importance of “educational science” (Säntti et al. 2018, p. 9) discussed in Chap. 2 and throughout this book. Normaalikoulu teachers, on the whole, have a high level of education. For example, at the schools under Petteri’s jurisdiction, “We have about ten doctors in our school and about 13 or 14 Licentiates. Licentiate is between Master’s and a Doctorate degree”. Jyrhämä (2006) and Koski and Pollari (2011) also discussed the high education level of normaalikoulu teachers, with Licentiate and Doctoral degrees in Chap. 2. Petteri encourages his teachers to study beyond the required Master’s degree. At Martti’s school, 30 percent of the teachers have a Licentiate or Doctorate degree, and some teachers currently study for their Doctorates. Jussi has eleven members of staff with Doctorates at his school. While the level of education aligns more with that of a university, Essi and Petteri point out that the normaalikoulu is the university. For these reasons, as expressed by Petteri, “It’s very hard” to gain employment as a mentor teacher at a normaalikoulu. Furthermore, this higher-than-required level of education also attracts mentor teachers with a strong interest in educational research (Jyrhämä 2006). Matias praises normaalikoulu teachers: “Teachers are very qualified. They are high qualified in the way they are usually research-­ oriented. They have high professional skills in teaching and learning”. Mentor teachers also must keep up to date with current research and theory, Essi reveals, as they “contribute to the formation of the new teachers”, so are “broad-minded enough to say, ‘try’”. For these reasons, as Jussi points out, time and money are set aside for the mentoring process, resulting in higher salaries for normaalikoulu teachers. Mentors encourage student teachers to find their own style. Essi, also a qualified teacher, notes that, in other countries, “the supervising teacher is not happy until you imitate his or her teaching style. They are perhaps not so much exposed to seeing other people teach and other theories, so they think their way is best”. In Finland, however, as Essi cites, teachers say, “‘Don’t do what I do, experiment with different things, experiment with different learning styles, and find out what suits you as a person’”. Mentor teachers encourage trainees to find their own teaching style. Even as a vice principal, Kiira has student teachers, which she considers “the best part of the job”, and she says it “empowers” her. Normaalikoulu teachers have a dual role, as teachers of the school’s pupils and mentor of student teachers. As discussed earlier, normaalikoulu

120 

J. CHUNG

teachers receive higher pay due to these additional responsibilities. Furthermore, they have a reduction in teaching workload in order to accommodate supervision. The most important role for normaalikoulu teachers, according to Martti, is both teaching pupils and mentoring trainee teachers. He says, “Both are important. Of course, the teacher trainees, they must also observe and see how their teacher is teaching the pupils, so I think that both things are important, to act as a teacher and act as a mentor or supervisor”. Matias, reflecting upon his own teacher training, says, “I am happy I had very good teachers in the normaalikoulu. […] I thought the quality was excellent”. Sirpa mentions she conducted some research in normaalikoulu and field schools, and found normaalikoulu teachers had a strong identity and sense of purpose: “It looked like there was a more constantly-motivated teacher corps maybe, and more unified in the sense that they understood their status more uniformly than in some other random field schools”. Matias gives a good overview of the importance and power of the mentor teacher in the normaalikoulu: The last word is teachers in the normaalikoulu. It’s important because for our teachers, our teacher students, when they give feedback to us of the studies, it is of course the practical questions, practical solutions, and practice in general which is the most meaningful part of their studies, not theoretical frames and theories in pedagogy, but practice, practical things, which are affecting during their studies the most for them. And they are doing practice. […] The way the teachers in the normaalikoulu are working is the most powerful model for our teacher students.

The influence and impact of mentor teachers, especially in the normaalikoulu, holds much weight in the formation of future teachers.

Theory and Practice Any investigation of teacher education needs to review the balance of theory and practice. As stated previously, the balance differs, often according to national values and therefore national education policy (Jyrhämä et al. 2008). Finland’s teacher preparation has a strong emphasis on ‘educational science’, and stresses theoretical aspects of the profession. Henrikki exemplifies this attitude when discussing normaalikoulu: “I don’t know why they are called ‘teacher training schools’, because this is teacher

4  THE NEXUS OF THEORY, POLICY, AND PRACTICE? A CRITICAL EXAMINATI… 

121

education that we talk about”, echoing the argument of Chung (2016), emphasising the ‘education’ aspect of Finnish teacher preparation. This book, in Chap. 2, discussed the evolution of Finnish teacher education, and the concerted effort needed to implement a theory- and research-based teacher education programme. The theoretical and research basis of Finnish teacher education, however, has its strong critics. As seen in Chap. 3, Kiira admits that student teachers generally ask for more practice time. Jussi, when addressing the balance of theory and practice, says it is a “complicated question, since the answer is dependent on who you ask”. He also stresses the importance of theory, “regardless of study credits”, whether in university or in practice periods. Jussi stresses that students have “reflective teaching theory after those training periods”. Despite the theoretical emphasis in Finnish teacher education, subject departments now have more pedagogical options for students. Essi remarks on this change: The subject departments of the university have paid attention to pedagogical content in their studies. Back in my day, when I was a student at the Department of English, we didn’t have any pedagogical content in our studies whatsoever. We were trained to be linguists; nowadays the Department of Languages has […] a lot of […] courses with pedagogical content. At that stage, there are even two paths, so the students choose whether they are going to become teachers, they follow this path, or the general linguistic path.

Therefore, even with emphasis on theory, future teachers can study a subject with a more pedagogical lens than a generation ago. This reform for subject teachers, according to Essi, allows for “a chance to grow as a teacher” as the pedagogical lens and practice are over a longer period. This, she says, gives “a better chance to actually integrate theory and practice, so […] it’s a better system nowadays”. Despite this stronger pedagogical emphasis in university, according to Kiira, future secondary school teachers still do not start any teaching practice until their second year, as they need to have subject knowledge first. Martti, much like Kiira, acknowledges that students want more teaching practice, and they view teaching practice periods as the highlight of their studies. Despite the fact that students want more practice, it remains difficult to balance with their theoretical requirements. Martti says: “The amount of the pedagogical studies is 60 credits, 20 is the amount of

122 

J. CHUNG

practice, and 40 is then these educational studies, and they also do a small research”. Nevertheless, he believes a good balance of theory and practice exists, “but I would do maybe two or three lessons more, just to hold [the ideas]. Some have already taught before they come to our practice, and they know a lot. But there are also students who have never been in front of the classroom, and for those, it would be useful to teach a little bit more”. As outlined in Chap. 2, the theorisation and academisation of Finnish teacher preparation led to reduction in teaching practice by 30 percent (Säntti et al. 2018), instigating this dissatisfaction with the amount of teaching practice. Some professors would like to change the order of the theory and practice. For example, Arvo says, “I think we even have it sometimes the wrong way, so that we have the very traditional way of having theory then teaching practice, or having them at the same time. I believe more in just getting the experience in the field first, or having it dominate, though you can always have some literature there, and all that. We are pretty traditional in that sense”. He would change the sequence of the teacher education: It goes like, theory and practice [taps table to indicate they are separate]. […] Many people here want [it] so they are together, courses and teaching practice, because many, many people believe in the idea of scheme forming. The student has a chance to form schemes and also the staff would picture very much better what the curriculum is all about. […] I would like to make those merge, two-way merging, courses and teaching practice and general and special education.

Much like Essi stated earlier, secondary teacher education programmes now accommodate more pedagogy. Annukka admits that students want more teaching practice, are keen on getting in the classroom as early as possible, and discloses how they have started teaching practice earlier in the teacher education programme: Our students always say that they really would like to go earlier to try teaching practice to try to teach and how it is, and it is understandable from their viewpoint because they have applied here and they have come here to study to become a teacher, and one of the important tests for them is that how well they manage to do the teaching in the classroom. So, it is a test for them; they feel it, and it is a real test that when they are in the front of the class and how well things are going there so they know that, is this my career

4  THE NEXUS OF THEORY, POLICY, AND PRACTICE? A CRITICAL EXAMINATI… 

123

or not? Now we have changed the programme a little bit that in previous years our teaching practice started in the third year.

Annukka then describes the changes in teaching practice for student teachers: In the third year they had their first and quite big, quite long teaching practice period, and the other was at the end of fourth year or in fifth year, and now they have a small teaching practice period in the first, at the end of their first study year, and this change seems to be good and relevant for them. So, I would say that the balance between theory and practice is good, and now it is even better, because we have changed it a little bit that there is, at the end of the first year, there is the first small practice, and then in third year there is a teaching practice focusing on the subject teaching, and at the end it is general practice, which is focused more on general matters and the wholeness of teachers’ work and these kind of things. So, I wouldn’t add practice.

Despite the reduction in teaching practice in lieu of theory (Säntti et al. 2018), Annukka believes these changes in practice periods satisfy student teachers’ wishes for more practical experience. Moving some of the practices earlier makes their experience more applicable to their studies, as Arvo suggested, therefore giving enough relevant practice during the programme. Despite these changes, some professors believe students still need more time practicing in schools. For example, Arvo advocates more time in the classroom: “If I remember right, the demand from the Ministry of Education is at least twenty credit units of practice, and nowadays I think we have 26 or something? Anyway, we have more than the minimum, but our practice is less than ten percent of the whole package of studies, so it’s not very much”. Matias, while supporting the research basis of Finnish teacher education, believes students need more practice: “We should educate students who are teachers, who have a research-based attitude to this job, and they are willing to work as a community, not as an individual person. It means we have to have time, so we should have a longer period to study education and pedagogical studies”. Matias’s views echo those of the student teachers, who said they need more time in schools. Therefore, in terms of the theory-practice balance, he says:

124 

J. CHUNG

I think we should have more longer practice periods. They are quite short now. When they are short, students are not ready to make something new, make something creative. They are more following the teacher educators’ will than their own. If we had a longer period there would be more time to feel themselves to be safe. I mean feel the space to be safe to experiment something new.

Even with longer practice periods, Matias stresses the theoretical underpinnings of practice: “I think we should change it, that our teacher students should be there more and more, and what they see in practice and what they try to do in practice should at the same time be analysed at the university side. […] We could do something in the way we could combine theory and practice more, I mean better”. The professors reflect back on their own teacher education when remarking on the balance of theory and practice. For example, Saara says, “Let’s just say I wasn’t really confident after the training to go teaching”. This even influenced her career choices: “So when I was offered a job here at the university in a research project, I took that opportunity, and well, here I am still”. Upon reflection, Saara would have liked more topics covered in her university studies, and more practice as well: “There were many topics I felt we should have had more courses on, for instance, reading disabilities […]. But maybe I would have wanted, needed more education in some topics, and maybe a bit more time in school also, in practice”. Matias’ reflections and criticisms of his own teaching practice echo those of student teachers in Chap. 3: “I don’t think I had [enough practice]. I think I had enough practice in class, but I didn’t know anything about the school culture”. This also reiterates Chap. 3’s assertions about the narrow focus of normaalikoulu practice. Matias continues: So, it means that our teacher education is focused on psychology and didactics, but it’s a problem because teachers are trying to solve the problems in school with the tools coming from psychology and didactics, but some of the problems are not based on psychology and didactics, but are more sociological or more phenomenas [sic] in the culture and in the school community. That’s something I couldn’t get from the teacher education and I know our students don’t get enough either nowadays. So, it’s always […] a shock of induction when they go to school. They are shocked because they see the whole school culture, which is not well known to them.

4  THE NEXUS OF THEORY, POLICY, AND PRACTICE? A CRITICAL EXAMINATI… 

125

These professors, while reflecting upon their own teacher preparation, believe student teachers need more time in schools. While some professors think student teachers need more practice time, others believe the theoretical element of teacher education needs the most emphasis. Pauli, one of the pioneers of academic Finnish teacher education, says it gives “a picture of the totality”. He states how the student teacher “sees how the totality is built and what part the practice has in that totality”. For this to happen, according to Pauli, this needs to be “in cooperation with the theory. If you go to the school and have only practice, no use. You don’t learn over practice. You must have practice with reflection, with research, but not only practice”. Therefore, theoretical elements of teacher education must underpin practice, and then student teachers must critically reflect upon their experiences as well. Pauli takes an internationally comparative perspective: “If you compare teacher education programmes, in Finland we have comparatively little practice. Many say, ‘Why do you have so little practice?’ We say that when the teachers go to the schools, the whole school life is practice. Why already in the studies? In the studies, they must study what is important: knowledge and research methods and so on. In the school they can use that in practice”. In other words, teacher education gives all of the tools, and the career is for practice. The theoretical and research orientation gives student teachers the preparation they need for their careers, despite reduction in practice periods in favour of academising teacher education (Säntti et al. 2018). Saara gives some insightful opinions on the balance of theory and practice: “I think it is important that there is also theoretical approach and emphasis, but especially in earlier years, students found that maybe they could have used, or had more time at school”. She refers to the teaching practice mentioned by Essi and Annukka earlier in this chapter, now introduced at an earlier stage in the teacher education programme. Saara gives an interesting analogy: “I think the situation has improved, and it’s a bit like getting a driver’s licence. You get the licence after you graduate. You have the basic education but you actually have to train more, actually doing it, doing the job”. Similarly to Pauli, she sees the teaching career as practice. While she views earlier practicing as an improvement, she suspects the students still want more experience in the classrooms: “So I would say that nowadays that students do get better, they are better prepared for the demands of the teacher’s profession, for instance, than I was when I was graduating from the same teacher training programme. But I

126 

J. CHUNG

do suspect if you do ask them, they might still think they should have perhaps more professional courses”. The importance of theory in teacher education, despite complaints of teacher trainees, plays an important role in the professors’ minds. Many emphasise the importance of theoretical understanding during practice periods. For example, Annukka says, “In more theoretical courses, we try to guarantee that they understand the link between the theoretical things and the conceptual-level things and the relevance to teachers’ work. So, what is the relation of this theory and this kind of way of thinking, related to the teaching practice?” Much like Pauli and Saara, Annukka states theory is important for their career: “They are like higher-level thinking skills that we think that they need when they go work as a teacher”. Regarding the theoretical emphasis in Finnish teacher education, Henrikki makes an astute point, that students criticise the lack of practice, but do not criticise any lack of theory: “Students say that, ‘We don’t have practice enough.’ But I have not heard that people are criticising our theoretical side”. Henrikki even says how teacher education in Finland has become more theoretical since his own teacher preparation: “I think most of the students would like to practice more, but actually we had only two periods of practice, but nowadays we have three and when I was there in the [19]80s there were five of them. It was more practical then”. This has changed (Säntti et  al. 2018) in order to make room for, according to Henrikki, “this kind of more theoretical programme”. However, he says, “There were only some study points and you must have the balance in some way, so that maybe there was a little bit too much practice when I was there”. Interestingly, he criticises his own teacher education for have too many practical elements. Reflecting upon his training periods as an academic reveals the insufficient theoretical component of previous Finnish teacher education. Jukka emphasises the importance of theory when making sense of practice periods. He says, “Theory and practice: this is a simplified but good way to say that you have experiences, but in order to make sense of them, you need considerable knowledge”. Jukka says that, to describe these experiences, students need “defined words, which are called scientific concepts”. He cites Vygotsky, with his “everyday concepts” of experiences and emotions, and “scientific concepts” of “form and structure”. He continues, “This process of theory and practice is a time-bound process of getting experiences and making sense of them. Sense-making is the theory part”. The importance of time to make sense of the theory and practice

4  THE NEXUS OF THEORY, POLICY, AND PRACTICE? A CRITICAL EXAMINATI… 

127

provides the foundation and justification for Finnish teacher education. Jukka makes a very astute point: In order to really make this theory and practice useful, you need time and you need slow reading as well. Teacher training keeps the basics and the open idea that writing is a difficult thing. […] Talking is easy; writing is difficult. […] In order to really understand the advantage of role [of] theory, you need a long time and you need to be slowly collecting experiences, giving interpretations, in theory and practical terms, in schools, and then naming those scientifically and understanding them scientifically. […] It comes later.

The delayed reaction of internalisation and understanding theory therefore gives justification for the five-year length of Finnish teacher education, as well as the required Master’s degree. Furthermore, Jukka’s astute comments connect with Pauli and Saara’s views of Finnish teacher education providing tools for a career. In other words, the teaching qualification, much like a drivers’ licence, provides skills for a lifetime of meaningful practice. In order to tackle their career, teachers need to interact with the theory. Jukka says not every teacher needs to become a researcher, but they need to understand and read academic research: It is not necessary for every teacher to become a researcher to understand the role of theory, but they should be able to read articles and understand that words in an article are sometimes easy to understand and correspond to your life; whereas, sometimes, they are less easy, and you have to fight to work to understand that some articles which contain scientific information.

Interestingly, Finnish teacher education enables teachers to read academic articles and to “not totally, but almost”, according to Jukka, apply the information to their teaching careers. Furthermore, it is of note that he uses ‘science’, as in, “educational science” (Säntti et al. 2018, p. 9) when referring to educational research. As discussed in Chap. 2, this conscious decision by the Finns increases the rigour of education as an academic discipline. The emphasis of theory in Finnish teacher education requires study at a university. Matias stresses the importance of university: I think the most important part [of teacher education] is not in the school but in the Department of Teacher Education which is giving the curriculum

128 

J. CHUNG

for the whole teacher education, not only for practice. I believe that if the responsibility of teacher education is transferred to schools, I think it would be more working in the reality of school […] rather than understanding the school.

In other words, a school-based, training model of teacher preparation does not give a holistic or a deep understanding of the teaching profession. Jukka compares teachers to doctors, and stresses the importance of theoretical understanding: “Doctors and medical people are more used to learning new things and really understanding so that they can change their practice. Teachers are not yet at that stage, but they are still capable of reading articles and understanding that something new might be coming. They can find out”. Providing teachers with a theoretical background and the ability to critically analyse academic literature gives them the tools to tackle challenges independently, and even change practice throughout their careers. While the balance of theory and practice remains a fundamental issue and source of debate in teacher education, the integration of theory and practice also requires discussion. The proximity of normaalikoulu to university allows for this. According to Matias: “If someone is admiring our system, I think that the best part of it is that they are, the school and the university are close to each other, not far away. I think that it is not the amount of practice which is the university studies’ important part, but more the theory which is given to the students to understand the work”. Again, the professors stress the importance of theory in Finnish teacher education. The minimal amount of practice, to some lecturers, is sufficient. Ursula says students only have “26 credit units” for practice, “in the whole five years.” In terms of the balance of theory and practice, she says, “I think it is quite enough. I know at least this morning, I was listening to one lecture of two students who were researching that question. They had the idea that students wanted more, to have more practice. What has been a big question is how to combine theory and practice. That’s a big question for them too”. Again, student teachers stress how they want more practice time. Ursula says, students “want to have more real life, real life as a teacher, not just practicing, but somehow there is not so clear definition what is real teacher life. But that’s what they want”. Interestingly, critical reflection used in teaching practices requires a strong grasp of theory. Ursula discusses the cycle of reflection (Jyrhämä et al. 2008). She says, “it starts from the theory […] then we have […]

4  THE NEXUS OF THEORY, POLICY, AND PRACTICE? A CRITICAL EXAMINATI… 

129

practical experiential knowledge”. The students face “dilemmas in practice”, then they “conceptualise it and see how it could be solved” in their seminars with lecturers. Ursula calls it “integrative pedagogy, and it tries to integrate the theory and practice by self-regulated knowledge”. Perhaps students do not realise how much theory they need in the practice periods. Some lecturers, such as Matias, would like to see more integration of theory and practice: “The changes that I want to do is to have more collaborative working culture and to combine research with the practice we are doing. We should research more the activities, the practice teaching we are doing in teacher education. So, we could get more researched-based information of the education we are giving for our students”. In other words, having more research-based teaching would integrate theory and practice better for professors and for students. The professors not only discuss the natural connection between theory and practice, but also how to make this explicit for the students. Jukka acknowledges the difficulty in combining theory and practice: “That process, very easily, gets stuck. […] This theory and practice, as a lifelong process, is more complicated”. Because of this, Huugo suggests using creative and innovative practice: “To organise teacher education so that theory and practice are really integrated, that I think is the key. […] That is then, where we require some kind of innovative ways of doing, so we need some creativity”. He continues: “I think the theory is there in the practice. The point is how to see it and how to make it explicit”. Jukka also acknowledges high expectations for students to engage in their own research: “They learn in principle that making a research report, which they do as part of their teacher education, is a difficult thing”. For these reasons, Henrikki believes student teachers should make stronger connections between the Master’s thesis and the final practice, in order to better integrate theory and practice: “When they have the final practice it could be part of what they are investigating in the Master’s thesis. That would be a very nice link”. Jukka continues: “Theory and practice is a multi-layered, complex phenomenon, which is related also the division of labour. Educational research is separated from the everyday life of schools, but not totally. It is not isolated. That, I think, is one of the great things in Finnish teacher education. They are not isolated. They are only separated. It is possible to unite”. Therefore, the admirable efforts to connect the practice of teaching with educational theory have much value, whether the students can see it in their teacher preparation, or whether they have delayed appreciation for the theoretical emphasis of their teacher education.

130 

J. CHUNG

Research Finnish teacher education, as stated throughout this book, has a strong commitment to research, and it embeds research throughout the entire programme. The normaalikoulu acts as a locus for educational research, not only for professors, but also for student teachers and normaalikoulu teachers. Finnish teacher education entrenches research even within teacher trainees’ practice periods. Furthermore, “cross-national attraction” (Phillips and Ochs 2004, p.  779) has led normaalikoulu staff to engage with research partnerships internationally. Research has utmost importance in Finnish teacher education, because, as Jukka says, “Research is a way to become aware of complicated processes, and that is always a good thing”. A normaalikoulu often serves as the first port of call for education research in Finland. Professors use normaalikoulu for research, as do normaalkoulu teachers and education students. As discussed previously, parents of normaalikoulu pupils give consent and sign ethics forms to allow their children’s participation in research. Leading principal Martti and vice principal Kiira remark on this, saying even teacher trainees become the subject for university research, as professors investigate teacher education as an academic discipline. Normaalikoulu pupils have strong awareness of good research, and of appropriate research instruments. Kiira considers them “professional pupils”, and they help with constructive feedback: “[The pupils] can also give some critical points. They can also say to the researcher, ‘Your questionnaire was so bad’”. Research in the normaalikoulu focuses on “school life”, according to Jussi, for example, “external/internal relationship, action research in the classroom, family/parent association activities […] just to name a few”. His school even hosts eleven staff members, all with Doctorates, on the “research in-service training and development project team”, illustrating “willingness to do that kind of job”. Similarly, Martti says, “I think it’s important that in our staff there are teachers who have done research”. Furthermore, he states, “We have developed these schools as research surroundings; there is quite a lot of research done. But I still would prefer that there would still be even more research done in these schools, and of course I would like to have more doctors as teachers”. Professor Emeritus Pauli still researches teacher education: “You know we call our teacher education research-based. So, I try to develop it theoretically, and different kinds of models and solutions, things like that”. He

4  THE NEXUS OF THEORY, POLICY, AND PRACTICE? A CRITICAL EXAMINATI… 

131

speaks of the university’s research cooperation with normaalikoulu: “Of course in the university departments, our responsibility is to do research, and we do research so that we can help practice. So that’s not against practice, or our practice courses are not against research; they are participating in our research projects too. We have some doctors also in normal schools working.” Saara similarly remarks on research in normaalikoulu, with “researchers going in the school and doing research. […] It is very probable that teachers more often do a PhD than in other schools, and the atmosphere in the school and the relationship with the university of course helps with that”. Saara, referring to the research orientation in normaalikoulu, speaks about expanding this research culture into all schools: “Why centralise the research orientation at school in one school? It should be spread all over the country and all over the schools, I think. Teachers should have qualifications for that, because they have had the Master’s training, the idea being having a research orientation towards your own work. In that way it could be achieved in other schools as well”. Research, as stated throughout the book, provides the main foundation for Finnish teacher education, and all normaalkoulu reflect this strong research orientation. Saara makes a valid point: as all teachers have a Master’s degree, should all schools have the same research focus? The research foundation of Finnish teacher education requires, as stated previously, all teachers to earn a Master’s degree. This book has also discussed the higher-than-required education of normaalikoulu teachers. For example, Jussi states he has eleven mentor teachers with Doctorates at his school, and Pekka remarks how he has ten teachers with Doctorates, and thirteen or fourteen with Licentiate degrees. The leading principals are proud of their teachers with advanced degrees. For example, Martti says, “I think that it’s important that in our staff there are teachers who have done research. There are quite many doctors and licentiates”. Furthermore, normaalikoulu staff produce their own, original research. Pekka’s school even publishes its own book series. Ursula, a lecturer, says it is typical for teacher educators to be engaged in research: “We should both teach and make research”. The principals lead by example, as they often have Doctorates as well. For example, Martti previously held a professorship at the affiliated university: “I became a Doctor of Theology, so I got a lectureship from the Theological faculty. I was there a university lecturer, and then I applied to the Department of Teacher Education, to act as a professor, and then I came here”. In other words, normaalikoulu principals are also academics.

132 

J. CHUNG

Similarly, the university lecturers have teaching backgrounds, and they often worked previously as normaalikoulu teachers. For example, Annukka’s own teacher education was at the same university where she now works. Her Master’s thesis involved looking at “teacher beliefs about good educational practices and good instructional process”. She worked as a primary teacher: “I had a permanent position there and I really, really enjoyed the work, and it was not an easy decision to come back and continue. Although I like research work and I really felt during my basic education when I did my MA thesis that it’s really fascinating work”. The Master’s degree process inspires new education academics. One must wonder if, however, it creates an exodus of talented teachers into the academic world. For example, Annukka left teaching to become a researcher: “Actually, I was really curious to know more and I really enjoyed research […] although it was complicated and it was difficult and quite challenging to do it, but I really still liked it”. The pioneers of the 1970s teacher education reforms started a dynasty of educational researchers. Some still have direct influence on teacher education policy today. For example, Pauli, one of the original professors of education, has a nearly-direct influence on Annukka’s academic career: Pauli’s “students were my supervisors, so I’m like a product of that group […]. At the moment actually many members of that group work as professors of teacher education around Finland”. Annukka joined a research group after she left teaching, which was “doing research on teachers’ pedagogical thinking and teachers’ beliefs […]. Two professors in that group were the supervisors of my MA thesis. And, when I came back, I continued in the same group to do my PhD, around the same topic area but of course with a little bit different specific focus”. She continues: “there were a lot of people around and also there were many of us who did a PhD thesis at the moment, so many, many generations from that line”. In other words, ‘generations’ of academics have descended from that line of original, pioneering researchers. This raises the question, as time passes and the distance from the original professors of education grows, will the same enthusiasm for education as an academic discipline still exist in Finland? On the other hand, perhaps the educational research culture continues to flourish. As discussed in Chap. 2, the research orientation in Finnish teacher education took time to develop and crystalise in the national psyche. Normaalikoulu research culture, for example, keeps growing and expanding. Jukka says normaalikoulu “are collaborating now more and more, producing independent scientific research, and are willing to

4  THE NEXUS OF THEORY, POLICY, AND PRACTICE? A CRITICAL EXAMINATI… 

133

cooperate with us on research issues. They are taking good, protective care of our young students who want to become teachers”. He also notes the contribution of mentor teachers’ education: “[The teachers] are making their theses, like [Licentiate] theses or Doctoral theses; that is that level. Some of that is done together with us, where someone from the University Teaching Department is collaborating with them”. Despite this, some think normaalikoulu could conduct even more research. Arvo says, “If the objective is to have the student to understand what it means to be a teacher as a researcher, that kind of model is not very good” because “it’s not merged enough. I don’t think we use the possibilities to have the teaching practice as a research site enough. We do that, but not enough, I think”. He does credit normaalikoulu staff for engaging in research: “I’m not saying they aren’t doing research there. It’s how to connect with the content knowledge that we give here. That’s in my opinion, a little bit of a problem”. Therefore, the rigour of normaalikoulu research could be on a deeper level. Jukka elaborates: “Some of the research work there is of the same quality as we are doing. Some work is more practically-oriented, like developmental things, which could produce small, useful and practical innovations to be taken into use, but taken together, it is a joint attempt to take research seriously, and that mode of thinking is very important”. This relates to Arvo’s previous criticism of normaalikoulu research. Furthermore, Jyrhämä et al. (2008, p. 3) cite “a distinction between academic research and research carried out by teachers”, highlighting how teachers’ research culture needed time, and perhaps still needs time, to take hold in Finland (Furuhagen et al. 2019; Säntti et al. 2018). Interestingly, Henrikki mentions the lack of research from normaalikoulu in the 1990s: “What was discussed a lot […] in the ‘90s, ‘why are they not part of this research thing? […] Let’s say those schools are not active investigating, in conducting research”. He mentions that in the 1990s, the technology surge and the success of Nokia’s mobile telephones added to the laissez-faire attitude towards research: “It was […] Nokia. […] The rise of IT and ICT so that we have some projects so the normaalikoulu leaders was [sic] not interested in them and we saw that. […] That’s one thing that they have been criticised”. In other words, the success of Nokia’s mobile telephones and the Finnish economy at the time drew attention away from the importance of educational research. Some professors question the quantity, as well as the quality of research emerging from normaalikoulu. For example, Henrikki says research at the

134 

J. CHUNG

normaalikoulu is “more like a personal or individual thing. Nowadays there are doctors who have dissertations”. He implies that the research culture has not quite permeated the entire school, but rather occurs on a more individual level. Furthermore, this questions whether constant praise for the research basis of Finnish teacher education and of the normaalikoulu is exaggerated. Säntti et al. (2018) and Furuhagen et al. (2019) also would support this argument, as practitioner research, or even inquiry, can differ from academic research (Jyrhämä et  al. 2008). Furthermore, Henrikki reveals some criticism about normaalikoulu teachers and their research: “They have been criticised. They are not systematically […] conducting research […] but maybe it is that […] they are more active nowadays”. As for the level of research at the normaalikoulu, Jukka says, “It would be difficult to find the word that is not humiliating or showing superiority”, insinuating that the research at normaalikoulu is not at the same level of university research. Despite this, Jukka says it is good that normaalikoulu teachers are researching at all. Research comprises part of normaalikoulu teachers’ responsibilities, and it holds much importance for the whole profession and education system. He states: “Even to start to think that research is really part of your obligations and duties as a teacher, it opens up something that might be very important for the profession, for the school, and for the whole system. It is better to try to do something than not to do. It is better to try to have the ball than not to have the ball”. Jukka also praises the high level of education achieved by normaalikoulu teachers: In normal schools, there are more teachers with Doctoral degrees than in other schools. In order to get a job [at university] you actually need the Doctoral degree. That makes them [sic] possible [to work both as a normaalikoulu teacher and as a university lecturer]. Sometimes, they are doing it here and then returning sometimes there after having a position there in the normal school. They can be used by us. Sometimes, they take part in research projects. All kinds of mixing of things is [sic] possible to take place.

While the level of research could ideally achieve a higher level of rigour, normaalikoulu staff do engage well with educational inquiry, as well as research. Even during their practice periods, student teachers view education through a research-based lens (Kansanen 2008). Henrikki states: “in many teacher education programmes in the world, it’s more like […] didactics,

4  THE NEXUS OF THEORY, POLICY, AND PRACTICE? A CRITICAL EXAMINATI… 

135

[…] how to teach things, […] recipes, routine tips […], manage the classroom”. However, he says that this needs to be on a conceptual level, “not general”, so that the student teachers can have skills with “reflecting and pedagogical thinking and metacognition”. Gareth says, “At the same time [student teachers] are getting [teaching] experience, they’re going to be doing research on the experience too”. Furthermore, Henrikki says within Finnish research-based teacher education, two major skillsets exist: “We have two big things that we want that our students [to] know, and are skillful in, is teaching and also researching”. Gareth asserts how the first teaching practice, focused on observation, still utilises research. In the first teaching practice, student teachers look for and observe “themes that they can be considering when they’re observing what’s happening in the school. They have to read what the literature says about these themes. Then observe what is there to be observed in the school, and then come back and relate their observations to the literature”. He continues how the first practice really embeds the idea of teachers as researchers: The first practice is also the first contact that they have with the idea of a practicing teacher being a practicing researcher at the same time. In the whole five years they’ll have four practices. Each practice is progressively long and the amount of research that they’re doing at the same time as they’re doing the practice gets more and more demanding as well.

Gareth says how these themes for observation often become the topic of their Bachelor’s and Master’s theses: “[The students] all decided on themes that they want to pursue over a six-week teaching practice. But very often what happens is that theme that they want to explore during this practice leads to their Bachelor’s thesis at the end of the third year in fact”. The third year practice, according to Gareth, is the “practice where we set them free”. The intention, therefore, is to embed research even in teaching practices. Henrikki asserts research-based teacher education leads to teachers becoming “consumers” and “producers” of research. To ‘consume’ means to read, research, and apply this to the classrooms and future career. Teachers ‘produce’, at the minimum, the Bachelor’s and the Master’s thesis. According to Henrikki, some are “not making active research in their work, so they are not researchers in that sense”; however, this is “what [Finns] think about research-based teacher education”. This links to the arguments of Säntti et al. (2018) and Furuhagen et al. (2019) that Finnish

136 

J. CHUNG

teacher education does not actually embrace ‘research’ in its entirety, but rather more like ‘inquiry’. Henrikki, much like Jukka, discussed his reservations about teachers’ research earlier in this chapter. Furthermore, Matias similarly thinks the normaalikoulu does not produce enough research, due to the structure of teaching practice, as research “usually needs a long period”. For example, he says, “When the [student teachers] make their first research, and then they are evaluated by teachers, it means it takes time. You cannot do research in one or two lessons. You have to have more time. […] It is not based on the teachers but more on the structure we have. The structure is the problem”. A major criticism of normaalikoulu and Finnish teacher education lies in the short and meagre practice periods. This also seems to hinder the quality of research as well. Nevertheless, according to Henrikki, research-based teacher education remains “something that is special for Finland […] we have discussed and investigated this quite a bit. […] They [student teachers] are making a Master’s thesis, Master’s degrees, so as all university students they have to know how to make research in their field”.

Master’s Degree for Teachers This book, in Chap. 2, discussed education reforms that led to the Master’s degree for teachers. Henrikki supports the “quite special” Finnish “tradition” of the Master’s degree for teachers. Martti reiterates how education reforms of the 1960s and 1970s, installing comprehensive schooling (Niemi 2012; Uusiautti and Määtä 2013) and Master’s degrees for teachers (Niemi 2012; Tirri 2014) served as “improvements” to Finnish education. Gareth, originally from the UK, gives an interesting perspective on the postgraduate level of education for teachers: “Of course a Master’s would be beneficial [in other countries]. But something is needed at the Bachelor’s level already to get young future professionals to view themselves as being professionals”. Primary teachers in Finland, previously trained in seminaries with a qualification lower than a Bachelor’s degree, saw their education changed to the Master’s degree level, over and beyond their original level of education. This has now led to early years and preschool teachers wanting this higher level of education. Pauli elaborates: Finland is a poor country, no capital. What we have is our education, culture and so on. We must earn our money, so to say, with education and culture, so that everybody appreciates high education. Now we see that, for ­example,

4  THE NEXUS OF THEORY, POLICY, AND PRACTICE? A CRITICAL EXAMINATI… 

137

kindergarten teachers, they do the Bachelor’s at the university, and they are making their voice aloud and say that they want a Master’s education too.

Pauli states how people no longer think the Master’s degree for teachers is unnecessary: “Not any more. Now, Finnish society is special in that sense that we appreciate education. It has always been so”. Annukka believes the Master’s degree gives teachers freedom and responsibility, and allows them to make their own decisions, for example, with content and assessment. It gives teachers independence: [The Master’s] has changed in a way that our teachers have quite strong, quite a lot of freedom and a lot of responsibility to do their teaching in their own classroom, so they are the only ones who decide how they actually teach, which materials they use, how they assess pupils, and I think that they really need this kind of academic education in order to be able to do these kinds of tasks independently. […] Our teacher education is always related to the school system where we potentially think that our teachers will work. So, here we have to make sure that they have enough skills and knowledge to be able to work there.

While some may argue that this level of education is not necessary for teachers, Pauli says, in terms of teachers becoming ‘too academic’ with a Master’s degree, or Doctorates: “I don’t agree. If you think of other professions, so what’s the difference between teachers or priests or doctors, surgeons, lawyers, it’s not too academic for them, why for teachers?” Furthermore, the Master’s degree allows teachers to access Doctoral studies. Pauli says that teachers in Finland can continue onto Doctorates directly, due to the Master’s degree: A good thing is that our teachers can continue to Doctorate direct[ly], and we have such young people who want to continue to a Doctorate. That’s exceptional in teacher education, because in most other countries, the teachers must do some additional studies before they can start Doctorate programmes. But here, because they are Master’s, they can continue direct.

This policy decision, despite the criticism, eventually reached acceptance. For example, Juho makes these remarks about the Master’s degree for teachers:

138 

J. CHUNG

It is quite successful and that is one explanation for the quality of Finnish teachers and especially the popularity of the profession. Maybe that’s also one that is specially appears in Finland, that people have always respected the qualifications, and then it’s the thinking of people. It is a clear difference between a Bachelor’s degree and a Master’s degree.

Teachers’ Master’s degree, despite the criticism seen in Chap. 2 (Furuhagen et al. 2019; Säntti et al. 2018), has added a positive dimension to teaching after the 1970s reforms, transforming it into a research-based profession. Despite initial resistance and criticism, the Master’s degree for teachers has now taken firm hold in the Finnish psyche. The principals also concur. For example, Jussi, much like Martti, believes the Master’s degree “absolutely” benefits the research-based teaching aspirations of Finnish teacher education, as it allows teachers to adapt the latest research into their teaching. Jussi also praises the Master’s thesis for instilling research-based teaching in the profession. Teemu cites “motivation” and “high expectations” created by the Master’s degree. He even has two teachers in his municipal school that have Doctoral degrees, illustrating how teachers’ research orientation extends beyond the normaalikoulu. Therefore, according to Martti, the Master’s degree should be the “goal” for teachers. In addition to this, Annukka believes that the Master’s gives teachers more curriculum knowledge. She says this allows teachers to “participate to the curriculum process in their own school”: Our National Board of Education prepares the national curriculum about every year, which is followed in all schools in Finland and all schools have to make their own, more specific school curriculum based on those guidelines, and teachers are involved very actively to that process. […] They really need this kind of different level skills to work as a teacher. And the thing that we emphasise here related to these research capabilities and research-related skills is that we supervise our student teachers.

Furthermore, the research skills needed for a Master’s-degree based profession allows for application of these abilities throughout their careers. Annukka elaborates: When they have courses in research methods, they step-by-step realise that how we collect information from situations around us, how we systematise these things that we observe, and what kind of decisions and argument decisions we are able to make based on these observations that we always do.

4  THE NEXUS OF THEORY, POLICY, AND PRACTICE? A CRITICAL EXAMINATI… 

139

And we try to educate them to have these kinds of abilities when they work as teachers, because it’s their responsibility to teach their own class and take care of it. So, we think that they have to have this kind of understanding beyond their teaching methods and contents and materials.

Similarly, Henrikki believes the Master’s degree gives student teachers “the tools how to investigate education, how to investigate phenomena in education, how to even investigate your own classroom”. Gareth agrees: “This ability to stop and think and reflect that comes with doing a Master’s degree is something that you take into the profession as well”. The Master’s degree challenges teachers and forces them to analyse scientifically. For example, Jukka reiterates how teachers “learn that the writing is difficult”. He believes experiencing education is easy “because that is every day”; however, “talking […] among teacher[s] is more difficult, but it is relatively easy. Writing about our observations in a scientific manner is so difficult, so they learn. That makes them conscious of it”. Therefore, according to Jukka, “a scientific Master’s thesis is metacognition in one sense”. This awareness of research and analysis benefits the teachers, the pupils, and the profession. Jukka supports the Master’s degree, as “[Student teachers] are made aware that everyday experiences as a teacher cannot be described in verbal forms. It is difficult but not impossible. That opens them, to some extent […] to reading scientific results from papers. If that happens, then, all kinds of reforms of their competence is made easier”. Similarly, Saara asserts: I am all in favour of the Master’s level degree for teachers. It does have very important benefits, or potential benefits, like the ability to develop your teaching and have a research orientation for it, and also when the teachers are educated at a university, they are through their studies familiar with the latest research. That’s the idea anyway, that teaching is based on research. That’s something that I find important and worth all that trouble.

In other words, the ‘trouble’ of requiring a Master’s degree for all teachers, not to mention the expense to the government paying for advanced degrees, allows for academically-inclined and research-based teaching, with a profession consisting of critically and scientifically-oriented thinkers.

140 

J. CHUNG

Summary The professors and principals held Finnish teacher education in high esteem. They recognised the need to invest in teachers, and to have academically rigorous teacher education. This allows for critical reflection, leading to research-informed, professional teachers. The participants for this chapter highlighted the unique role of the normaalikoulu, with close connections to the university. These schools remain popular with parents due to delivering high-quality education, possessing top facilities, and having high expectations of their staff and of their pupils. Nevertheless, the professors and principals also noted the ‘abnormal’ and ‘artificial’ nature of normaalikoulu, and the expense of training large numbers of student teachers. The participants acknowledged the authentic nature of field schools, allowing for an autonomous experience and a broader view of the teaching profession. Normaalikoulu allow for a close connection of theory and practice. Often normaalikoulu teachers become lecturers at the university, and vice versa. As Finnish teacher education emphasises the theoretical element of teaching, this limits the practicum. While some professors and principals agree with student teachers, that they should have more practice time, others disagree. The career serves as practice; knowledge and theory are needed to make sense of the practice. This also justifies the relative long length of Finnish teacher education. Similarly, the Master’s degree enables teachers to read academic articles and instills high expectations within the profession. This leads to respect for teachers and for education in Finland. Normaalikoulu also aid in the research orientation of Finnish teacher education, enabling data collection for teacher trainees, mentor teachers, and professors. Some criticisms remain concerning the rigour of normaalikoulu-­ based research, or, if it should be called inquiry. Nevertheless, the normaalikoulu requires research embedded in teaching practice, and facilitates the research underpinnings of Finnish teacher education.

References Chung, J. (2009). An Investigation of Reasons for Finland’s Success in PISA. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oxford. Chung, J. (2016). The (Mis)use of the Finnish Teacher Education Model: ‘Policy-­ based Evidence-Making’?. In Educational Research, 58(2), pp. 207–219.

4  THE NEXUS OF THEORY, POLICY, AND PRACTICE? A CRITICAL EXAMINATI… 

141

Chung, J. (2019). PISA and Global Education Policy: Understanding Finland’s Success and Influence. Leiden/Boston: Sense/Brill. Crossley, M. (2019). Policy Transfer, Sustainable Development, and the Contexts of Education. In Compare, 49(2), pp. 175–191. Department for Education. (2010). The Importance of Teaching: The Schools White Paper 2010. Crown Copyright. Furuhagen, B., Holmén, J. & Säntti, J. (2019). The Ideal Teacher: Orientations of Teacher Education in Sweden and Finland after the Second World War. In History of Education, pp. 1–22 Jyrhämä, R. (2006). The Function of Practical Studies in Teacher Education. In R.  Jakku-Sihvonen and H.  Niemi (Eds.). (2006). Research-Based Teacher Education in Finland – Reflections by Finnish Teacher Educators. Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association, pp. 51–69. Jyrhämä, R., Kynäslahti, H., Krokfors, L., Byman, R., Maaranen, K., Toom, A. & Kansanen, P. (2008). The Appreciation and Realisation of Research-based Teacher Education: Finnish Students’ Experiences of Teacher Education. In European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(1), pp. 1–16. Kansanen, P. (2008). Distinctive Highlights of Finnish Teacher Education. In J. Loima (Ed.). Facing the Future: Developing Teacher Education, Helsinki: Palmenia – Helsinki University Press, pp. 48–68. Kivinen, O. & Rinne, R. (1994). The Thirst for Learning, or Protecting One’s Niche? The Shaping of Teacher Training in Finland during the 19th and 20th Centuries. In British Journal of Sociology of Education, 15(4), pp. 515–527. Koski, K. & Pollari, P. (2011). Teacher Training Schools – The Finnish Way of Organising Teacher Training. In M. Kontoniemi & O.-P. Salo (Eds.) (2011). Educating Teachers in the PISA Paradise. Perspectives on Teacher Education at a Finnish University. University of Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä, Finland, pp. 13–18. Krokfors, L., Kynäslahti, H., Stenberg, K., Toom, A., Maaranen, K., Jyrhäma, R., Byman, R. & Kansanen, P. (2011). Investigating Finnish Teacher Educators’ Views on Research-Based Teacher Education. In Teaching Education, 22(1), pp. 1–13. McKinsey (2007). How the World’s Best Performing Schools Come Out on Top. Retrieved from http://mckinseyonsociety.com/how-­the-­worlds-­best-­ performing-­schools-­come-­out-­on-­top/ Mouhu, H. (2011). Becoming a Supervisor in the Finnish Teacher Education System. In M. Kontoniemi & O.-P. Salo (Eds.) (2011). Educating Teachers in the PISA Paradise. Perspectives on Teacher Education at a Finnish University. University of Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä, Finland, pp. 157–183. Niemi, H. (2012). The Societal Factors Contributing to Education and Schooling in Finland. In H. Niemi, A. Toom and A. Kallioniemi (Eds.). (2012). Miracle of Education: The Principles and Practices of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 19–38.

142 

J. CHUNG

Phillips, D. & Ochs, K. (2004). Researching Policy Borrowing: Some Methodological Challenges in Comparative Education. In British Educational Research Journal 30(6), pp. 773–784. Ruuskanen, P. (2011). Challenges and Prospects for the University of Jyväskylä Teacher Training School. In M.  Kontoniemi & O.-P.  Salo (Eds.) (2011). Educating Teachers in the PISA Paradise. Perspectives on Teacher Education at a Finnish University. University of Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä, Finland, pp. 21–32. Säntti, J., Puustinen, M. & Salminen, J. (2018). Theory and Practice in Finnish Teacher Education: A Rhetorical Analysis of Changing Values from the 1960s to the Present Day. In Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 24(1), pp. 5–21. Tirri, K. (2014). The Last 40 Years in Finnish Teacher Education. In Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(5), pp. 600–609. Uusiautti, S. & Määtä, K. (2013). Significant Trends in the Development of Finnish Teacher Education Programs (1860–2010). In Education Policy, 21 (59), pp. 1–22. Välijärvi, J., Linnakylä, P., Kupari, P., Renikainen, P., Arffman, I. (2002). The Finnish Success in PISA – And Some Reasons Behind It: PISA 2000. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä University Institution for Educational Research. West. A. & Ylönen, A. (2010). Market-Oriented School Reform in England and Finland: School Choice, Finance and Governance. In Educational Studies, 36(1), pp. 1–12.

CHAPTER 5

Conclusion: The Possibilities and Pitfalls of Normaalikoulu Export

Abstract  The conclusion explores possibilities of policy export. Finns now see education as an export product, due to PISA. Many participants encourage the transfer of features such as good mentorship and the normal schools’ close link with universities. However, other participants argued that normal schools are part of Finland’s cultural memory and ecosystem. Some interviewees encouraged policy learning instead of transfer in order to indigenise the exported policy. The book concludes with an endorsement of the research- and university-based approach to teacher preparation, in other words, teacher education. In order to transfer normal schools successfully, communication is needed between borrower and lender; long-term vision, free from political influence, is paramount. Finns have achieved high expectations for the teaching profession, which should be emulated. For Finns, the career is for practice, while teacher education imparts theory, research, and critical reflection. Keywords  Export • Policy borrowing • Policy transfer • Policy learning • Research • Normaalikoulu

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. Chung, The Impact of Finnish Teacher Education on International Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89518-1_5

143

144 

J. CHUNG

Export of the Normaalikoulu This book investigated Finland’s historical and cultural context along with the current requirements of teacher education, juxtaposed with empirical evidence from teachers, student teachers, principals, and professors of education in the country. It explored international interest in, and cross-­ national attraction toward Finnish teacher education. It also uncovered the long-term vision needed to see policy change to fruition, exemplified by Finnish teacher education reforms. Therefore, this book culminates with a discussion of normaalikoulu’s export and transfer to foreign shores. This has also been a topic of discussion within Finland. For example, Jukka says, “Teacher education has been one of those things which has been – there has been discussion and attempts to try to figure out whether you could have that as something to be borrowed”. The internal discussions focus on the feasibility of transferring Finnish teacher education abroad. Panu similarly states: “As a Finn, it has been little by little we have noticed that education might be our export product”. The attention that Finland has received due to PISA has led to this. He continues: “For Finns, […] the publicity has been working well, and the branding of Finland. We have been now because of PISA, one of the leading countries in child wellbeing in the world […] so it has worked positively in Finland”. Panu believes in the possibility of transferring teacher training schools and strong mentorship: “good quality mentors, with higher educated supervisors in schools, with a good salary system, with good organised things, that should be possible”. Interestingly, he says normaalikoulu are non-essential: “I would say that in many countries you could do well without those normal schools as well. That’s not the major issue. It is that you would have good supervision for teacher students or trainees”. He also thinks that thinks that teacher education “can be” borrowed, or “at least adapted” with “cultural adaptation.” While the interviewees gave warnings and overall scepticism over policy borrowing more generally, they possessed much more positive and optimistic opinions about the transfer of the normaalikoulu itself. Mikko thought that normaalikoulu providing “a link between university” was “mostly” a good idea, “but it needs a lot of development for it to be as efficient as it could be”. Similarly, Hannu also thinks the normal school could transfer abroad, especially the “co-thinking, those people who are guiding […] the students”. In other words, having the best mentor teachers to guide practice could be a transferable policy.

5  CONCLUSION: THE POSSIBILITIES AND PITFALLS OF NORMAALIKOULU… 

145

Pauliina says, “Why not?” when asked about potential transfer of the normal schools. She says, “I don’t think [normaalikoulu] is so culture specific”. While she does state that culture plays an important role in the feasibility of policy export, she believes that the normaalikoulu does not have those cultural ties. Pauliina continues: “We aren’t a separate unit, but we are part of the university […]. But the idea of having schools that are closely linked with the university, that do a major part of the teacher training” is something that could cross borders. Similarly, she thinks that the training school model would benefit other countries: “In Sweden, I think they learn in field schools. Well, you can learn that way too, but if you have this normaalikoulu system, then you are much more aware of what they are being taught here”. Viivi highlights the stronger awareness of training processes and regulation in a normaalikoulu setting versus practice in a field school. Tighter connection to the university allows for a more streamlined and standardised process of teaching practice. Therefore, a close connection and consistency in expectations between university and practice schools could be a policy that crosses national borders. While the possibility of transferring normaalikoulu exists, the act of policy borrowing takes time. For example, Essi says, “I think [normaalikoulu] can be taken to another country […]. Of course, it takes time to create a functional system of teacher training schools or any other practice schools”. She gives an example of the United Kingdom’s teacher preparation: “If we think about the UK system of having a network of field schools where the students do their teaching practice, that also establish[es] and maintain[s] the networks, takes a long time to create the mutual feeling of being trusted and trust and cooperation. It’s possible but it won’t happen overnight”. Essi emphasises the importance of the long-term vision needed for policy change. While she believes the normaalikoulu model can transfer across national borders, it would take a long time to implement the policy and see it to fruition. Pauli says normaalikoulu could help improve teacher education in other countries: “Yes, why not? In Sweden, in Norway, they quite often speak that they would like to have the system back, but it’s very difficult. It’s a political problem, and then it doesn’t succeed so easily”. While Pauli does have some encouragement, a teacher education system with a widely different ethos may have trouble incorporating and indigenising the normaalikoulu. Paavo, a professor of educational evaluation, thinks that teacher education and the normaalikoulu model is “one area that can be applied in

146 

J. CHUNG

many countries, yes”. He explains his ideas about exporting a narrow piece of education policy: We have had some ideas also in our university, that we might have possibilities to bring some, to create some models related to, for example, teacher training […] and to bring them to other countries. […] We need to have some clear programme which we can offer, then discuss with countries. […] We should first make some clear products, modules, and then offer them to other countries.

When asked about the borrowability of the normaalikoulu, Saara says, “Sure, I think it could. Having a school as part of the university working as a main practice location for the teacher trainees, sure”. However, the most unique quality of the normaalikoulu, as part of the university rather than as a municipal school, remains its key characteristic. She says, “I think that what the normal school actually has that other schools necessarily don’t have, as it’s part of the university, is this research orientation and closeness to the research”. Much like most Finnish educationalists, Saara has a strong view about the importance of research in teacher education: “Since normal school is close and is part of the university, it’s a natural thing. But if that is something you can’t transfer to another school, then I would say then we do need normal schools”. Additionally, Saara says, “I see [normaalikoulu] as a practical solution and that practical solution is something you can borrow [sic] to other countries”. Mikko believes that theoretically, normaalikoulu policy can transfer: “I think in theory, at least in theory, it’s possible.” However, he warns about the importance of culture: “It’s not only the reality of the school but also to understand the phenomenas [sic] which are part of the teachers’ profession, teachers’ work, not only teaching and learning and also wider things concerning school culture”. Henrikki says, “There are so many cultures […]. Maybe it’s not so very easy to be in this kind of system. We have had it over 100 years”. In other words, as seen in Chap. 2, Finnish normaalikoulu culture possesses very deep cultural and historical roots. Therefore, Matias’ views of educational culture ring true: “The idea, the structure [of normaalikoulu] is possible to transfer, but not the school from our culture to another culture, because it is not a separated, isolated island. It’s just part of the society, reflecting the values, all the other things in the society”. Juho, a professor and educational researcher says, “This normaalikoulu model […] is very much in the interest”. However, he warns that

5  CONCLUSION: THE POSSIBILITIES AND PITFALLS OF NORMAALIKOULU… 

147

countries may “export” (Crossley and Watson 2003, p. 60) the normaalikoulu’s problems as well: “In Finland we call it a normaalikoulu, a normal school, but in many cases, it is the most abnormal school in Finland”. He continues: “the idea to have a school for training of students who are becoming teachers, I think that is basically quite a clever idea. But how to organise it, how to guarantee it’s close enough to the conditions that teachers meet outside of university, that’s a challenge, but that’s a challenge also in Finland”. Juho warns against borrowing haphazardly, and encourages deep investigation before critical, judicial policy borrowing. When asked about normaalikoulu export, Jukka believes schools benefit from partnerships with universities. In order to implement this, he says, “When you would start training for a normal school in a new country with no tradition at all, how would I do it?” First, he would get to know the schools. “Then, I might open a tender: ‘please announce your willingness to engage with a ten-year project of participating with the university. We would allow you for training and an extra salary’. Then you would pick up certain schools. Then, I would start discussions of the ways to work there and how to organise the flow of students”. Jukka stresses the importance of dialogue and discussion when implementing policy transfer or export. He admits, “That is not an easy thing to do. It is not complicated, theoretically, but, practically, it takes a lot of time. It takes at least three years or something”. This supports assertions of long-term vision when enacting policy change. He gives an example: “The first year, you make silly mistakes, then you make something better, and the third year should flow quite nicely”. In other words, this kind of policy change requires time and patience. The conflicting views on whether or not the normaalikoulu is culturally bound, or if it can successfully cross borders, brings up the question of “cultural memory” (Hämäläinen and Välijärvi 2008, p. 28) and the role it plays in a teacher training school. Vitikka et al. (2012) argued that even a national curriculum does not have immunity from this cultural memory. If so, how does a teacher training school evolve as a culture-free institution? The aforementioned 2010 Schools White Paper, The Importance of Teaching (DfE 2010), suggested transferring normaalikoulu to England. It praises the normaalikoulu; therefore, this concluding chapter further explores the interviewees’ views on exporting normaalikoulu to foreign shores. Linus has some insightful views about export: “I don’t see why you can’t at least try it.” However, he sees challenges in the process: There needs to be, for example, a “school where you can associate with a

148 

J. CHUNG

university [… to] coordinate the teacher training within that space. You can bring up a generation and test it on that”. Linus, even as a university student, has views about policy export that echo those of education professors. He acknowledges the importance of long-term vision, and uses the example of a generation to enact true policy change. He says, policy change, and the idea of a normaalikoulu, in this case, “needs to be taken serious[ly] in that way”. Linus also has a very astute outlook for consistency in teacher education programmes throughout a country: “It is good to have a solid, standard partner with the university where all the teacher training is coordinated and it is just done in different cities”. Gareth, a lecturer in education in Finland, but originally from the UK, had some excellent insight into the export of normaalikoulu abroad. He does not believe that normaalikoulu would work in England: “I think it would probably make things worse because, if you look at it from a historical perspective, just the whole name of a normaalikoulu in Finnish, which is translated to a normal school, and you do need that term”. Gareth discusses the origin of the normaalikoulu name: “It was training and these are the norms […]. I think that despite the name, the normaalikoulu, they’re not normative at all. They’re linked with the universities because of the link with higher education and research”. Again, the research orientation of Finnish teacher education plays a major role, and in this case, why a training school would not translate to the English context. Gareth continues with his arguments on why normaalikoulu would not work in the English context: “The students, when they go to a normaalikoulu, […] they’re going there not to be taught how to do it but to find out”. In other words, student teachers are not told how to teach in normaalikoulu, but are given space find their own style. He continues: “Ultimately the mentor is the one who is responsible for the education of the children in their classroom but they’re given plenty of space in fact”. Research highlighting the pivotal role teachers play in Finnish society (Chung 2009, 2019; McKinsey 2007), has led to the immense policy interest in the normaalikoulu, as shown in The Importance of Teaching. Gareth says, “‘Okay, Finland seems to be doing very well. They have normaalikoulu system, let’s introduce that into England.’ It can’t work”. He implies that teacher trainees in England are not given the same space to make mistakes and find their own style, as they are in Finland. Furthermore, Gareth provides another reason why normaalikoulu will not work in England: “It can’t work because you’ve got the introduce at the same time a different mindset. That’s the real issue. Where can you start with a

5  CONCLUSION: THE POSSIBILITIES AND PITFALLS OF NORMAALIKOULU… 

149

different mindset?” The “mindset of the Finnish educational system”, discussed in Chap. 1, and the “democratic and consensus-seeking ethos” permeates nearly all aspects, and actors, in Finnish society (Toom and Husu 2012, p. 46). This, along with the “cultural memory” (Hämäläinen and Välijärvi 2008, p. 28) provides hindrances to successful export of the normaalikoulu. Matias speaks extensively about The Importance of Teaching (DfE 2010). He says that British policymakers “are willing to follow the Finland model of teacher education, and I think it’s not possible”. He remains sceptical about the Finnish teacher education model thriving in Britain: If you transfer the teacher education from universities to schools […] the system, when the schools are part of the university, is opposite for that idea, because we are thinking that when the school is part of the university, it is at least in theory possibility to link and combine theory and practice and create this. We call it research-based teacher education, but maybe it should be more like research-oriented teacher education.

The research orientation of Finnish teacher education persists as a salient point. Matias discusses how The Importance of Teaching praises, and wishes to import, the normaalikoulu, but also proposes moving England’s teacher preparation, or training in this case (Chung 2016) to the school level and away from the university. The White Paper, therefore, contradicts itself, and provides an example of uncritical policy borrowing (Crossley 2000) and failed transfer, due to “uninformed”, “incomplete”, and “inappropriate” borrowing (Dolowitz and Marsh 2000, pp. 11, 17). In Finland, the normaalikoulu is part of the university, which allows for better combination of theory and practice. Otherwise, the Finnish teacher education programme remains heavily research-based. The White Paper, on the other hand, not only proposes the transfer of normaalikoulu, but also moving teacher preparation to the school level and away from the university, thus contradicting the wider teacher education policy of Finland (Chung 2017). Matias highlights the university’s critical role in Finnish teacher education, which contradicts proposed policies in the Schools White Paper (DfE 2010): “I think the most important part [of teacher education] is not in the school but in the Department of Teacher Education which is giving the curriculum for the whole teacher education, not only for practice”. Therefore, he sees teacher education as a more holistic process than the experience of teaching practice. The Finnish attitude towards teacher

150 

J. CHUNG

education is to provide tools for the future career; therefore, the emphasis on research and critical reflection plays a major role in Finnish teacher education.

Policy Learning While this book has discussed the inability to borrow education policy wholesale, this leads to inevitable exploration of what policy lessons can come out of Finland. Phillips and Ochs (2004, p. 779) discuss the “indigenisation” and “internalisation” of borrowed policy, thus indicating that the ‘borrowed’ policy does not exist in its original form when taken into another country or context. While this book has provided many cautions and some encouragement regarding the borrowing, transfer, or export of Finnish teacher education, it must also discuss the policy learning potential from observing Finnish education closely. Paavo echoes Phillips and Ochs (2004) when he says, “There is the possibilities [sic] to take some parts, […] but in each country, […] it is necessary to find an own solution. If they take some idea, it needs to be applied to this context of the country”. Sirpa agrees: “talking about [exporting] a whole system, I really doubt it would work”. Similarly, Jukka, also a professor of education, says that most observers of Finnish education need to spend more time in the country, and also engage in much discussion. He says, educational tourists would need to “visit Finland for a long period in order to get […] concrete evidence […] and then by observing them and discussing about them, then you can learn how the system works”. Only after this, he says, can actual policy transfer or export take place. Sirpa acknowledges the more realistic policy learning over wholesale policy borrowing. She says, “I think policy borrowing is possible and policy learning is possible, but, of course, not every part that you would like to borrow is applicable”. Much like Jukka, she says, “Of course, you have to know the lender very well and then the object of the borrowing very well”. Taking time to get to know the lending context holds much importance in policy export, or even policy learning. Policy learning, therefore, leads to, according to Jukka, a “modified borrowing”. However, not all countries and ‘PISA tourists’ adhere to this guidance. Jukka gives an example of wholesale and haphazard policy borrowing from Finland:

5  CONCLUSION: THE POSSIBILITIES AND PITFALLS OF NORMAALIKOULU… 

151

I know for example that my old school have collaborated with Chinese schools who wanted first to translate all of the materials into Chinese and that was done. But it didn’t help. It was necessary to go there and it was necessary for them to come to Finland to see what’s going on. The translation of papers is not enough; you need concrete evidence. If that is organised – that’s a slow process, but that’s one way to do this borrowing.

Jukka’s example of policy failure due to uninformed, inappropriate, and incomplete transfer (Dolowitz and Marsh 2000) highlights this ‘slow process’ of policy borrowing, which, in turn, is more realistically categorised as policy learning. Juho also agrees with the policy learning aspect of cross-­ national attraction (Phillips and Ochs 2004): I don’t believe it is possible to take models of educational systems as such, from one country, one culture to another. But you can learn a lot and if you go a little bit more concrete level, for instance how teacher education had been organised, and how special support our students with special needs. They are, I think you can find some models which are appropriate, or at least you can use them to develop your own practices.

Finnish academics, much like many comparative education scholars, have warnings about policy borrowing, or educational export. However, they do encourage policy learning. Sonya, an independent educational consultant, also highlights the importance of policy learning. She illustrates the difference in attitude between academics and policymakers: “Most academics feel that you can’t borrow policies because the contextual factors are very different. Governments don’t feel that way”. Similarly, Crossley and Watson (2003, p. 60) state, “The direct export of ideas and expertise also continues to be actively encouraged by, for example, government bodies”. Sonya interestingly discusses “mature policy countries” such as OECD countries, who are “not going to junk everything” in order to adopt another country’s education system. These wealthy, OECD countries can “look at the elements of a policy that works” and then see how it fits into their country. PISA, which created the “Finland phenomenon” (Takayama 2009, p. 64) and the subsequent ‘PISA tourism’, has shown, according to Sonya, that “there are many different roads to [educational] success and there’s not a single road to success”.

152 

J. CHUNG

Interestingly, Sonya says, “The governments are looking more at across policy systems […] trying to see [the] way in which this mature policy system we have can be made better, can be enhanced. The policy learning is something that we could not do very well before PISA, and that is to relate it to outcomes.” PISA, in this case, has allowed for policy learning across national borders. Earlier research (Chung 2019) has shown that PISA has allowed for some encouraging responses, and Sonya’s assertion that PISA enables policy learning may be a positive by-product of the PISA survey. However, she does give some warnings about the downfall of PISA tourism. Some ‘PISA tourists’ are looking for “a magic bullet. Or they are looking at a small section of education. […] Just fixing one little thing is not going to do it […]. You [need to] get a much bigger picture. […] You’re looking through a pinhole. You’re not going to get the whole picture.” However, for policy mature countries, Sonya suggests they can pursue “policy exchange, policy learning”. She continues: Policy learning is tying policy experimentation, policy experience, to actual outcomes of what compulsory education is able to do. That policy learning is, should be the basis for, I won’t say policy borrowing or policy copying, but for internalising the policy idea and applying it to an existing policy to make it work in a particular country.”

Sonya’s views about policy learning relate to Phillips and Ochs’ (2004) cycle of policy borrowing. The “indigenisation” and “internalisation” (Phillips and Ochs 2004, p.  779) phase illustrates how wholesale transplantation of foreign education policy does not work, but rather, this “policy exchange, policy learning” idea that Sonya suggests, can become a more realistic solution.

Discussion and Recommendations After a deep and thorough investigation of Finnish teacher education and the normal schools, this book now discusses my viewpoints on the matter. As a researcher of education, and more specifically, of Finnish education for many years, I now present my assertions concerning the research findings.

5  CONCLUSION: THE POSSIBILITIES AND PITFALLS OF NORMAALIKOULU… 

153

Teacher Training Versus Teacher Education This book, while investigating Finnish teacher education, highlights the ongoing tension regarding teacher preparation, and more specifically, the debate between teacher training and teacher education. Emphasising “specialised training” and practical skills differs from the “cultivation” of a teacher education model (Stephens et al. 2004, p. 110). Stephens et al. (2004) and Chung (2016) agree that countries like England follow the training model, while Chung (2016) argues that Finland embraces teacher education. I conclude that a teacher education approach best prepares teachers for their future careers. While Finland has held staunchly to their teacher education and “education science” (Furuhagen et al. 2019, p. 5) programme, other countries, such as England, are moving away from, and even shunning, the teacher education model. The aforementioned 2010 Schools White Paper, The Importance of Teaching (DfE 2010), illustrates this (Chung 2016). The popularity of teaching in Finland has allowed for the nurturing of teacher education, focusing on theory and research, and culminating in a Master’s degree for all qualified teachers. This, coupled with the luxury of a selective and rigorous admissions process, has given credibility to teaching as a profession in Finland. The research emphasis permeates Finnish teacher education, and remains a salient finding from this book. However, criticisms, even from within Finland, exist about the actual rigour of some educational research, and if it should be classified as inquiry (Säntti et al. 2018). Despite the dispute over the quality of some research, the number of credits dedicated to theory and research in a teacher education programme does not come under criticism. For example, Henrikki, a lecturer, stated that students never complain about having too much theory. Nevertheless, Finnish students often criticise the lack of practice required in the teacher education programme, resulting in the curious by-product of substitute teaching in order to gain practical experience. Normaalikoulu Versus Field Schools Student teachers in Finland supplement their normaalikoulu practice with teaching experience in field schools. The most salient criticism of normaalikoulu is the lack of ‘normality’. However, is the artificial or sterilised nature of the normal school necessarily a detriment? For example, Kiira, a principal of an upper-secondary normaalikoulu, stated earlier, “It’s easier

154 

J. CHUNG

to swim when the water is warm”. Critics of the normal school praise field schools for their more realistic portrayal of the teaching profession. Therefore, do field schools enhance or hinder normaalikoulu provision? The mentor teachers at normal schools drew consistent and high praise, whereas the supervision in field schools, according to the participants, was more varied in quality. The higher-than-required education level of normaalikoulu teachers, or “gurus”, encourage student teachers to find their own style, in order to utilise the critical thinking skills emphasised during their teacher education. Furthermore, as the normaalikoulu is officially part of the university, it embeds research, theory, and school-university partnership as the basis of Finnish teacher education. As Matias, a lecturer, stated in this book, the normaalikoulu possesses a clear and distinct role in both the education and teacher education systems. To sum up the difference, normal schools encourage strong mentor and mentee relationships, and field schools promote autonomy. I asked this question earlier in the book: which school best prepares teachers for their future careers? Much like Sirpa, a professor of education, I believe that student teachers should undertake their initial practices at the normal school, and supplement that with field school experience towards the end of their teacher education programme. Interestingly, Finland’s PISA results dampened criticisms of teacher education, as highlighted earlier in this book. This illustrates the power of PISA results and the influence of international achievement studies on education policy (Crossley 2019). Policy Transfer As stated earlier, “the interplay and influence of multiple levels and forms of contexts” (Crossley 2019, p. 181) plays an integral role in not only the study of education but also when investigating the potential for policy transfer. While Finland’s historical context has resulted in the importance of education in the country, the long, “150 year”, according to Matias, history of the normaalikoulu has created a unique normal school culture and subsequent resistance to teacher education policy changes. Furthermore, the normaalikoulu themselves are “resistant to change”, says Saara, a lecturer. While the astute “continuity and change” mantra of education policy originated from Finland (Chung 2009, p. 208), the normalikoulu’s strong historical roots cement its place in Finnish teacher education. Depending on point of view, this can either hinder or help Finnish teacher education’s future.

5  CONCLUSION: THE POSSIBILITIES AND PITFALLS OF NORMAALIKOULU… 

155

The “policy maturity”, according to Sonya, of Finland’s normal schools can result in potential “policy exchange” or “policy learning” by other countries. This book also cited the necessary long-term vision for education policy reform, which often requires a difficult and contested journey. For example, Finland’s teacher education reforms of the 1970s faced much criticism, but now, there is near-universal support for a Master’s degree for all teachers. This endorsement was consolidated with Finland’s high scores in PISA. The Importance of Teaching’s (DfE 2010) goal to emulate the normaalikoulu exemplifies the policy transfer aspirations of many countries. Is it possible to “distill” the normaalikoulu into a “toolkit” of “best practice” (Kamens and McNeely 2009, p. 12), or is the normal school’s success bound to its “ecosystem” (Kemmis and Heikkinen, 2012, p.  157) and “deep cultural logic” (Tobin et  al. 2009, p.  239)? Crossley and Watson (2003, p. 39) argue, “Education, in short, cannot be decontextualised from its local culture”. Policy transfer of Finnish teacher education also raises the question of money. The aforementioned expense of running a normaalikoulu, in addition to providing high-quality teacher education, and offering Master’s degrees to all teachers costs a good deal of money. The implication is: it requires a rich country to provide this type of teacher education. In other words, does a normaalikoulu deliver a teacher training experience representative of its price, and are governments willing to spend the money? The Finnish “ecosystem” (Kemmis and Heikkinen 2012, p. 157) highlighted by this book, illustrates the “interplay and influence” (Crossley 2019, p. 181) of context. The participants of this book, while divided on the cultural ties of normaalikoulu, do acknowledge a country’s “cultural memory” (Hämäläinen and Välijärvi 2008, p. 28). The major question, then, focuses on if the normaalikoulu is culturally bound, or if the aforementioned ‘mindset’ of Finnish education extends to the normal schools. I have previously argued (Chung 2017), that countries can transfer the normaalikoulu, but only with strong communication between ‘borrower’ and ‘lender’ (Ochs 2006), and emancipation from using policy transfer to fuel an “‘edu-political’ chess match” (Rappleye 2006, p. 238). I now supplement my 2017 article’s assertions with the importance of long-term policy vision, due to the research findings from this book.

156 

J. CHUNG

Recommendations This book discussed, at length, the benefits and detriments of a normal school, as well as comparison to a field school. As I recommended earlier, the normaalikoulu is better for early practice, and the field school is better to consolidate the foundations of a teaching career. However, as the normaalikoulu is the university, it allows for enviable strong connections between educational theory and practice. Nevertheless, normal schools could utilise these connections to their full potential. For example, participants praised how normaalikoulu teachers became university lecturers, and vice versa. This movement between normal school and university, however, could be more fluid. The participants wished for more exchange between these teacher educator positions. I also advocate a regular exchange between these positions, in order to close the gap between theory and practice, and to encourage tight cooperation between university and normal school. As stated throughout this book, all qualified teachers in Finland earn a Master’s degree. Despite criticisms, the Finns adhered to the original policy for a generation (Chung 2009). This long-term vision allowed the policy reforms to come to fruition. During that time, the idea that teachers deserved a Master’s-level education solidified within the Finnish psyche. Therefore, I recommend that any major education reform needs time to achieve full execution. Gareth, originally from the UK, astutely states, “In Finland, education policy is made for the next generation. In England, education policy is made for the next election”. This long-term vision also stems from the oft-mentioned political consensus (Chung 2009, 2019) in Finland regarding education. Furthermore, Finland’s multi-party political system and the necessary coalition-building further encourages long-term vision and consensus. Finally, the reforms leading to the Master’s degree, according to Teemu, a principal, requires “motivation” and “high expectations”. The practical element of teacher preparation is of obvious importance; the Finns’ most salient criticism of Finnish teacher education focused on the lack of practical experience. However, removing the theoretical element of teacher preparation, for example, as proposed by The Importance of Teaching (DfE 2010), implies a devaluing of teaching at best, and in the most pessimistic view, a so-called ‘dumbing down’ of the job. In the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, some Finns resisted the Master’s degree for teachers; however, the subsequent decades after the reforms, and the advent of PISA, reinforced this ambitious policy vision.

5  CONCLUSION: THE POSSIBILITIES AND PITFALLS OF NORMAALIKOULU… 

157

Therefore, Teemu’s astute comment about “high expectations” encompasses the long-term vision, determination, and sisu, or Finnish grit (Chung 2009, 2019) needed to achieve the reform’s original intentions.

Summary This book has conducted a comprehensive investigation into the historical, cultural, and political context of Finnish teacher education, in addition to the structural requirements of the current teacher education programme. The conclusion chapter has revealed some encouragement regarding the normaalikoulu’s transfer, despite participants’ scepticism in reference to policy borrowing more generally. This raises the question: What kind of policy learning can arise from a deep investigation into Finnish teacher education? While 2010s The Importance of Teaching recommended an English version of normaalikoulu, it also proposed more school-based training and less time at the university. As this chapter previously suggested, this contradicts the ethos of Finnish teacher education. Research persists as the common thread throughout Finnish teacher education. Finland achieved academic and university-based teacher education through high expectations and long-term vision. While participants in this study gave some encouragement for transferring normaalikoulu, the 2010 Schools White Paper (DfE 2010), in reality, illustrates a lack of holistic vision and disregard for the wider “ecosystem” (Kemmis and Heikkinen 2012, p. 157) in which an education system exists. Finnish teacher education aims to bestow a complete and comprehensive view of teaching and education. Pauli astutely says, as stated earlier in the book, that Finnish teacher education gives “a picture of the totality”, and in normaalikoulu, the student teacher “sees how the totality is built and what part the practice has in that totality”. In other words, practice in normaalikoulu makes up just part of the entire teacher education process. Pauli stresses the importance of practice embedded in theory, and also critical reflection. He says practice needs to be “in cooperation with the theory. If you go to the school and have only practice, no use. You don’t learn over practice. You must have practice with reflection, with research, but not only practice.” Panu, a professor and educational researcher, reiterates the lack of practice in Finnish teacher education: If you compare teacher education programmes, in Finland we have comparatively little practice. Many say, ‘Why do you have so little practice?’ We

158 

J. CHUNG

say that when the teachers go to the schools, the whole school life is practice. […] In the studies, they must study what is important: knowledge and research methods and so on. In the school they can use that in practice.

In other words, the career is for practice. Finnish teacher education stresses the tools to problem solve in a teaching career: theory, research, and critical reflection.

References Chung, J. (2009). An Investigation of Reasons for Finland’s Success in PISA. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oxford. Chung, J. (2016). The (Mis)use of the Finnish Teacher Education Model: ‘Policy-­ based Evidence-Making’?. In Educational Research, 58(2), pp. 207–219. Chung, J. (2017). Exporting Finnish Teacher Education: Transnational Pressures on National Models. In Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education, 1(1), pp. 36–52. Chung, J. (2019). PISA and Global Education Policy: Understanding Finland’s Success and Influence. Leiden/Boston: Sense/Brill. Crossley, M. (2000). Bridging Cultures and Traditions in the Reconceptualisation of Comparative and International Education. Comparative Education, 36(3), 319–332. Crossley, M. (2019). Policy Transfer, Sustainable Development, and the Contexts of Education. In Compare, 49(2), pp. 175–191. Crossley, M. & Watson, K. (2003). Comparative and International Research in Education: Globalisation, Context and Difference. London: Routledge. Department for Education. (2010). The Importance of Teaching: The Schools White Paper 2010. Crown Copyright. Dolowitz, D.P. & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer in Contemporary Policy-Making. International Journal of Policy and Administration, 31(1), pp. 5–24. Furuhagen, B., Holmén, J. & Säntti, J. (2019). The Ideal Teacher: Orientations of Teacher Education in Sweden and Finland after the Second World War. In History of Education, pp. 1–22 Hämäläinen, K. & Välijärvi, J. (2008). Challenges for Education. In J.  Loima (Ed.). Facing the Future: Developing Teacher Education, Helsinki: Palmenia – Helsinki University Press, pp. 13–47. Kamens, D.H. & McNeely, C.L. (2009). Globalization and the Growth of International Educational Testing and National Assessment. In Comparative Education Review, 54(1), pp. 5–25.

5  CONCLUSION: THE POSSIBILITIES AND PITFALLS OF NORMAALIKOULU… 

159

Kemmis, S. & Heikkinen, H.L.T. (2012). Future Perspectives: Peer-Group Mentoring and International Practices for Teacher Development. In H.L.T. Heikkinen, H. Jokinen & P. Tynjälä. (Eds.). Peer-Group Mentoring for Teacher Development, pp. 144–170. London: Routledge. McKinsey (2007). How the World’s Best Performing Schools Come Out on Top. Retrieved from http://mckinseyonsociety.com/how-­the-­worlds-­best-­ performing-­schools-­come-­out-­on-­top/ Ochs, K. (2006). Cross-National Policy Borrowing and Educational Innovation: Improving Achievement in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. In Oxford Review of Education, 32(5), pp. 599–618. Phillips, D. & Ochs, K. (2004). Researching Policy Borrowing: Some Methodological Challenges in Comparative Education. In British Educational Research Journal 30(6), pp. 773–784. Rappleye, J. (2006). Theorizing educational transfer: Toward a conceptual map of the context of cross-national attraction. Research in Comparative and International Education, 1(3), pp. 223–240. Säntti, J., Puustinen, M. & Salminen, J. (2018). Theory and Practice in Finnish Teacher Education: A Rhetorical Analysis of Changing Values from the 1960s to the Present Day. In Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 24(1), pp. 5–21. Stephens, P., Tønnessen, F.E. & Kyriacou, C. (2004). Teacher Training and Teacher Education in England and Norway: A Comparative Study of Policy Goals. Comparative Education, 40(1), pp. 109–130. Takayama, K. (2009). Politics of Externalization in Reflexive Times: Reinventing Japanese Education Reform Discourses through “Finnish PISA Success”. In Comparative Education Review, 54(1), pp. 51–75. Tobin, J. Hsueh, Y. & Karasawa, M. (2009). Preschool in Three Cultures Revisited: China, Japan, and the United States. London: University of Chicago Press. Toom, A. & Husu, J. (2012). Finnish Teachers as ‘Makers of the Many’: Balancing between Broad Pedagogical Freedom and Responsibility. In H.  Niemi, A. Toom and A. Kallioniemi (Eds.). (2012). Miracle of Education: The Principles and Practices of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 39–54. Vitikka, E., Krokfors, L, & Hurmerinta, E. (2012). The Finnish National Core Curriculum: Structure and Development. In H.  Niemi, A.  Toom and A. Kallioniemi (Eds.). (2012). Miracle of Education: The Principles and Practices of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 83–96.



Appendix

Participant Chart Professors (14) Pseudonym Sex Arvo Annukka Gareth Huugo Henrikki Jukka Juho Matias Panu Paavo Pauli Saara Sirpa Ursula

Position

Male Female Male Male Male Male

Lecturer in Inclusive and Special Education Lecturer in Higher Education Senior Lecturer in Teacher Education Lecturer in Teacher Education and Teacher Induction Lecturer in Media Education Professor, Teacher Education, Special Education, Centre of Educational Assessment Male Educational Research Male Lecturer in Pedagogy and Vice Head of Department of Education Male Secretary General of Finnish Evaluation Council Male Professor of Educational Evaluation Male Professor Emeritus of Teacher Education Female Lecturer in the Department of Languages Female Centre of Educational Assessment Female Lecturer – Arts and Crafts for Teacher Education

Teachers (13) Pseudonym

Sex

School Type

Subjects

Hannu Jouko

Male Male

Normaalikoulu Municipal

ICT History and Social Studies (continued)

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. Chung, The Impact of Finnish Teacher Education on International Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89518-1

161

162 

APPENDIX

(continued) Pseudonym

Sex

School Type

Subjects

Kaarina Mari Mikko Oskari Päivi Pauliina Piia Seija Stina Tapio Viivi

Female Female Male Male Female Female Female Female Female Male Female

Municipal Municipal Municipal Normaalikoulu Municipal Normaalikoulu Municipal Municipal Municipal Municipal Normaalikoulu

History and Social Science English and Swedish English Swedish and English; Host for overseas guests Visual art English Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics Swedish and German Swedish Finnish Language, Student Counselor English and French

Principals (6) Pseudonym Sex

School Type

Role

Previous Teaching Subject

Ari

Male

Municipal

Jussi

Male

Normaalikoulu

Kiira

Female Normaalikoulu

History, Social Studies, Entrepreneurship Primary Teacher, Guidance Counsellor Physics

Martti

Male

Normaalikoulu

Petteri

Male

Normaalikoulu

Teemu

Male

Municipal

Principal of Upper Secondary School Leading Principal, Normaalikoulu Principal of Upper Secondary Normaalikoulu Leading Principal, Normaalikoulu Leading Principal, Normaalikoulu Principal of Upper Secondary School

Religious Education, Philosophy History, Economics, Law, Civics Physical Education

Student Teachers (8) Pseudonym

Sex

Subject

Anni

Female

Antti

Male

Elina Linus Marko

Female Male Male

Rita

Female

Primary Education and Special Educational Needs Education and English (English Primary Teaching) Intercultural Teacher Education, Biology English and Swedish Primary Education and Technology (Crafts) Education Primary Education, Intercultural Teacher Education (continued)

 APPENDIX 

(continued) Pseudonym

Sex

Subject

Tarja Tuija

Female Female

English Primary education and Finnish

Miscellaneous (2) Pseudonym Affiliation Essi

Sonya

Position

Affiliated with University and thus International Affairs at a Finnish connected to Normaalikoulu University, Previously qualified as an English teacher n/a Independent Educational Consultant

163

References

Antikainen, A. (2010). The Capitalist State and Education: The Case of Restructuring the Nordic Model. In Current Sociology, 58(4), pp. 530–550. Ball, S. J. (2012). Global Education Inc. New Policy Networks and the Neo-Liberal Imaginary. London: Routledge. Bell, J. (2010). Doing Your Research Project (5th Edition). Maidenhead: Open University Press. Chung, J. (2009). An Investigation of Reasons for Finland’s Success in PISA. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oxford. Chung, J. (2016). The (Mis)use of the Finnish Teacher Education Model: ‘Policy-­ based Evidence-Making’?. In Educational Research, 58(2), pp. 207–219. Chung, J. (2017). Exporting Finnish Teacher Education: Transnational Pressures on National Models. In Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education, 1(1), pp. 36–52. Chung, J. (2019). PISA and Global Education Policy: Understanding Finland’s Success and Influence. Leiden/Boston: Sense/Brill. Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1994). Research Methods in Education. (4th Edition). London: Longman. Crossley, M. (2000). Bridging Cultures and Traditions in the Reconceptualisation of Comparative and International Education. Comparative Education, 36(3), 319–332. Crossley, M. (2019). Policy Transfer, Sustainable Development, and the Contexts of Education. In Compare, 49(2), pp. 175–191. Crossley, M. & Watson, K. (2003). Comparative and International Research in Education: Globalisation, Context and Difference. London: Routledge.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. Chung, The Impact of Finnish Teacher Education on International Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89518-1

165

166 

REFERENCES

Crossley, M. & Watson, K. (2009). Comparative and International Education: Policy Transfer, Context Sensitivity and Professional Development. In Oxford Review of Education, 35(5), pp. 633–649. Denscombe, M. (2014). The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Social Research Projects. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Department for Education. (2010). The Importance of Teaching: The Schools White Paper 2010. Crown Copyright. Dolowitz, D.P. & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer in Contemporary Policy-Making. International Journal of Policy and Administration, 31(1), pp. 5–24. Ertl, H. (2006). Educational Standards and the Changing Discourse on Education: The Reception and Consequences of the PISA Study in Germany. In Oxford Review of Education, 32(5), pp. 619–634. Furuhagen, B., Holmén, J. & Säntti, J. (2019). The Ideal Teacher: Orientations of Teacher Education in Sweden and Finland after the Second World War. In History of Education, pp. 1–22. Gruber, K.H. (2006). The Impact of PISA on the German Education System. In Ertl, H. (Ed.) Cross-National Attraction in Education: Accounts from England and Germany, pp. 195–208, Oxford: Symposium Books. Hämäläinen, K. & Välijärvi, J. (2008). Challenges for Education. In J.  Loima (Ed.). Facing the Future: Developing Teacher Education, Helsinki: Palmenia – Helsinki University Press, pp. 13–47. Hammerness, K., Ahtiainen, R. & Sahlberg, P. (2017). Empowered Educators in Finland: How High-Performing Systems shape Teaching Quality. San Francisco: Wiley. Higginson, J.H. (1979). Selections from Michael Sadler, Liverpool: Dejall & Meyorre. Husso, M.-L., Korpinen, E. & Asunta, T. (2006). Teacher Researcher Net  – A Forum of Interactive Professionalism and Empowerment. In R. Jakku-Sihvonen and H. Niemi (Eds.). (2006). Research-Based Teacher Education in Finland – Reflections by Finnish Teacher Educators. Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association, pp. 103–121. Jakku-Sihvonen, R. & Niemi, H. (2006). Introduction to the Finnish Education System and Teachers’ Work. In R.  Jakku-Sihvonen and H.  Niemi (Eds.). (2006). Research-Based Teacher Education in Finland – Reflections by Finnish Teacher Educators. Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association, pp. 7–13. Juusola, H. & Räihä, P. (2018). Exploring Teaching Staff’s Experiences of Implementing a Finnish Master’s Degree Programme in Teacher Education in Indonesia. In Research in Comparative and International Education, Vol. 12(2), pp. 342–357. Jyrhämä, R. & Maaranen, K. (2012). Research Orientation in a Teacher’s Work. In H. Niemi, A. Toom and A. Kallioniemi (Eds.). (2012). Miracle of Education:

 REFERENCES 

167

The Principles and Practices of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 97–112. Jyrhämä, R. (2006). The Function of Practical Studies in Teacher Education. In R.  Jakku-Sihvonen and H.  Niemi (Eds.). (2006). Research-Based Teacher Education in Finland – Reflections by Finnish Teacher Educators. Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association, pp. 51–69. Jyrhämä, R., Kynäslahti, H., Krokfors, L., Byman, R., Maaranen, K., Toom, A. & Kansanen, P. (2008). The Appreciation and Realisation of Research-based Teacher Education: Finnish Students’ Experiences of Teacher Education. In European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(1), pp. 1–16. Kalaja, M. (2011). International Norssi. In M. Kontoniemi & O.-P. Salo (Eds.) (2011). Educating Teachers in the PISA Paradise. Perspectives on Teacher Education at a Finnish University. University of Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä, Finland, pp. 259–270. Kamens, D.H. & McNeely, C.L. (2009). Globalization and the Growth of International Educational Testing and National Assessment. In Comparative Education Review, 54(1), pp. 5–25. Kandel, I. (1933). Studies in Comparative Education. London: George G. Harrap and company, Ltd. Kansanen, P. (2008). Distinctive Highlights of Finnish Teacher Education. In J. Loima (Ed.). Facing the Future: Developing Teacher Education, Helsinki: Palmenia – Helsinki University Press, pp. 48–68. Kemmis, S. & Heikkinen, H.L.T. (2012). Future Perspectives: Peer-Group Mentoring and International Practices for Teacher Development. In H.L.T. Heikkinen, H. Jokinen & P. Tynjälä. (Eds.). Peer-Group Mentoring for Teacher Development, pp. 144–170. London: Routledge. Kivinen, O. & Rinne, R. (1994). The Thirst for Learning, or Protecting One’s Niche? The Shaping of Teacher Training in Finland during the 19th and 20th Centuries. In British Journal of Sociology of Education, 15(4), pp. 515–527. Koski, K. & Pollari, P. (2011). Teacher Training Schools – The Finnish Way of Organising Teacher Training. In M. Kontoniemi & O.-P. Salo (Eds.) (2011). Educating Teachers in the PISA Paradise. Perspectives on Teacher Education at a Finnish University. University of Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä, Finland, pp. 13–18. Krokfors, L., Kynäslahti, H., Stenberg, K., Toom, A., Maaranen, K., Jyrhäma, R., Byman, R. & Kansanen, P. (2011). Investigating Finnish Teacher Educators’ Views on Research-Based Teacher Education. In Teaching Education, 22(1), pp. 1–13. Kumpulainen, K. & Lankinen, T. (2012). Striving for Educational Equity and Excellence: Evaluation and Assessment in Finnish Basic Education. In H. Niemi, A. Toom and A. Kallioniemi (Eds.). (2012). Miracle of Education: The Principles and Practices of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 69–81.

168 

REFERENCES

Malinen, O.-P., Väisänen, P., Savolainen, H. (2012). Teacher Education in Finland: A Review of a National Effort for Preparing Teachers for the Future. In The Curriculum Journal, 23(4), pp. 567–584. Mallinson, V. (1957). An Introduction to the Study of Comparative Education. London: William Heinemann Ltd. Maaranen, K., Kynäslahti, H., Byman, R., Jyrhämä, R., & Sintonen, S. (2019). Teacher Education Matters: Finnish Teacher Educators’ Concerns, Beliefs, and Values. In European Journal of Teacher Education, 42(2), pp. 211–227. McKinsey (2007). How the World’s Best Performing Schools Come Out on Top. Retrieved from http://mckinseyonsociety.com/how-­the-­worlds-­best-­ performing-­schools-­come-­out-­on-­top/ Morris, P. (2012). Pick ‘n’ Mix, Select and Project; Policy Borrowing and the Quest for ‘World Class’ Schooling: An Analysis of the 2010 Schools White Paper. In Journal of Education Policy, 27(1), pp. 89–107. Mouhu, H. (2011). Becoming a Supervisor in the Finnish Teacher Education System. In M. Kontoniemi & O.-P. Salo (Eds.) (2011). Educating Teachers in the PISA Paradise. Perspectives on Teacher Education at a Finnish University. University of Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä, Finland, pp. 157–183. News Now Staff (2020, 27 February). New Education Initiative Raises the Age on Compulsory Classes. https://newsnowfinland.fi/politics/new-­education-­ initiative-­raises-­the-­age-­on-­compulsory-­classes. Accessed 23 July 2020. Niemi, H. (2012). The Societal Factors Contributing to Education and Schooling in Finland. In H. Niemi, A. Toom and A. Kallioniemi (Eds.). (2012). Miracle of Education: The Principles and Practices of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 19–38. Niemi, H., Toom, A. & Kallioniemi, A. (2012). Epilogue: How to Be Prepared to Face the Future?. In H. Niemi, A. Toom and A. Kallioniemi (Eds.). (2012). Miracle of Education: The Principles and Practices of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 273–279. Niemi, H. & Jakku-Sihvonen, R. (2006). Research-Based Teacher Education. In R.  Jakku-Sihvonen and H.  Niemi (Eds.). (2006). Research-Based Teacher Education in Finland – Reflections by Finnish Teacher Educators. Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association, pp. 31–50. Ochs, K. (2006). Cross-National Policy Borrowing and Educational Innovation: Improving Achievement in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. In Oxford Review of Education, 32(5), pp. 599–618. Ochs, K. & Phillips, D. (2002). Towards a Structural Typology of Cross-National Attraction in Education. Educa, pp. 1–43 Ochs, K. & Phillips, D. (2004). Processes of Educational Borrowing in a Historical Context. In Educational Policy Borrowing: Historical Perspectives, pp. 7–23. OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do – Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science (Volume 1). Paris: OECD.

 REFERENCES 

169

Ojanen, S. & Lauriala, A. (2006). Enhancing Professional Development of Teachers by Developing Supervision into a Conceptually-Based Practise. In R.  Jakku-Sihvonen and H.  Niemi (Eds.). (2006). Research-Based Teacher Education in Finland – Reflections by Finnish Teacher Educators. Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association, pp. 71–87. Palsrud, D. & Wermke, W. (2019). Decision-Making in Context: Swedish and Finnish Teachers’ Perceptions of Autonomy. In Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, pp. 1–22 Phillips, D. (2006). Investigating Policy Attraction in Education. In Oxford Review of Education, 32(5), pp. 551–559. Phillips, D. & Ochs, K. (2004). Researching Policy Borrowing: Some Methodological Challenges in Comparative Education. In British Educational Research Journal 30(6), pp. 773–784. Phillips, D. & Schweisfurth, M. (2006). Comparative and International Education: An Introduction to Theory, Method and Practice. Trowbridge, Wiltshire: The Cromwell Press. Rappleye, J. (2006). Theorizing educational transfer: Toward a conceptual map of the context of cross-national attraction. Research in Comparative and International Education, 1(3), pp. 223–240. Ruuskanen, P. (2011). Challenges and Prospects for the University of Jyväskylä Teacher Training School. In M.  Kontoniemi & O.-P.  Salo (Eds.) (2011). Educating Teachers in the PISA Paradise. Perspectives on Teacher Education at a Finnish University. University of Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä, Finland, pp. 21–32. Sahlberg, P. (2007). Education Policies for Raising Student Learning: The Finnish Approach. In Journal of Education Policy, 22(2), pp. 147–171. Sahlberg, P. (2009). Educational Change in Finland. In Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M. & Hopkins, D. (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Educational Change, 23, 323–348. Sahlberg, P. (2011a). The Fourth Way of Finland. In Journal of Educational Change, 12, pp. 173–185. Sahlberg, P. (2011b). Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland? New York: Teachers College Press. Säntti, J., Puustinen, M. & Salminen, J. (2018). Theory and Practice in Finnish Teacher Education: A Rhetorical Analysis of Changing Values from the 1960s to the Present Day. In Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 24(1), pp. 5–21. Stephens, P., Tønnessen, F.E. & Kyriacou, C. (2004). Teacher Training and Teacher Education in England and Norway: A Comparative Study of Policy Goals. Comparative Education, 40(1), pp. 109–130. Takayama, K. (2009). Politics of Externalization in Reflexive Times: Reinventing Japanese Education Reform Discourses through “Finnish PISA Success”. In Comparative Education Review, 54(1), pp. 51–75.

170 

REFERENCES

Thanh, N. & Thanh, T. (2015). The Interconnection Between Interpretivist Paradigm and Qualitative Methods in Education. In American Journal of Educational Science, 1(2), pp. 24–27. Tirri, K. (2014). The Last 40 Years in Finnish Teacher Education. In Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(5), pp. 600–609. Tirri, K. & Ubani, M. (2013). Education of Finnish Student Teachers for Purposeful Teaching. In Journal of Education for Teaching, 39(1), pp. 21–29. Thomas, R. (2003). Blending Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods in Thesis and Dissertations. London: SAGE publications. Tobin, J. Hsueh, Y. & Karasawa, M. (2009). Preschool in Three Cultures Revisited: China, Japan, and the United States. London: University of Chicago Press. Toom, A. & Husu, J. (2012). Finnish Teachers as ‘Makers of the Many’: Balancing between Broad Pedagogical Freedom and Responsibility. In H.  Niemi, A. Toom and A. Kallioniemi (Eds.). (2012). Miracle of Education: The Principles and Practices of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 39–54. Tryggvason, M.-T. (2009). Why is Finnish Teacher Education Successful? Some Goals Finnish Teacher Educators Have for Their Teaching. In European Journal of Teacher Education, 32(4), pp. 369–382. University of Helsinki. (2020). About Vakava, https://www.helsinki.fi/en/networks/national-­selection-­cooperation-­network-­in-­the-­field-­of-­education/ about-­vakava. Accessed 23 July 2020. Uusiautti, S. & Määtä, K. (2013). Significant Trends in the Development of Finnish Teacher Education Programs (1860–2010). In Education Policy, 21 (59), pp. 1–22. Välijärvi, J., Linnakylä, P., Kupari, P., Renikainen, P., Arffman, I. (2002). The Finnish Success in PISA – And Some Reasons Behind It: PISA 2000. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä University Institution for Educational Research. Vitikka, E., Krokfors, L, & Hurmerinta, E. (2012). The Finnish National Core Curriculum: Structure and Development. In H.  Niemi, A.  Toom and A. Kallioniemi (Eds.). (2012). Miracle of Education: The Principles and Practices of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 83–96. Webb, R., & Vulliamy, G. (1999). Changing Times, Changing Demands: A Comparative Analysis of Classroom Practice in Primary Schools in England and Finland. In Research Papers in Education, 14(3), pp. 229–255. Webb, R., Vulliamy, G., Häkkinen, K., & Hämäläinen, S. (1998). External Inspection of School Self-Evaluation? A Comparative Analysis of Policy and Practice in Primary Schools in England and Finland. In British Educational Research Journal 24(5), pp. 539–556.

 REFERENCES 

171

Webb, R., Vulliamy, G., Hämäläinen, S., Sarja, A., Kimonen, E., & Nevalainen, R. (2004). A Comparative Analysis of Primary Teacher Professionalism in England and Finland. In Comparative Education, 40(1), pp. 83–107. Webb, R., Vulliamy, G., Sarja, A., Hämäläinen, S., & Poikonen, P. (2009). Professional Learning Communities and Teacher Well-Being? A Comparative Analysis of Primary Schools in England and Finland. In Oxford Review of Education, 35(3), pp. 405–422. West. A. & Ylönen, A. (2010). Market-Oriented School Reform in England and Finland: School Choice, Finance and Governance. In Educational Studies, 36(1), pp. 1–12.

Index

A Academic, 2, 5–10, 16, 18–24, 26, 28–30, 32, 37, 39, 41, 42, 49, 61, 63, 66, 68, 73, 78, 82, 83, 90–92, 96, 98, 110, 112, 125–128, 130–134, 137, 140, 151, 157 B Borrowing, 2, 144, 145, 147, 149–152, 157 borrow, 146 D Doctoral degree, 7, 22, 24, 26, 29, 85, 119, 134, 138 Doctoral, 29, 48, 78, 111, 133, 137 Doctorates, 29, 71, 78, 79, 101, 118, 119, 130, 131, 137 doctors, 101, 131 PhD, 24, 37, 71, 78–80, 85, 98, 131, 132

E Educational science, 7–9, 20, 22, 23, 32, 36–38, 40–42, 79, 90, 91, 98, 118–120, 127, 153 science of education, 10 Education system, 60, 95 England, 2, 8, 93, 147–149, 153, 156 Export, 2, 144–158 exporting, 146 F Field school, 25, 27–28, 39, 41, 46–85, 91, 93, 99, 102, 103, 105–112, 120, 140, 145, 153–154, 156 Finland, 1–11, 16–25, 28–37, 41, 46, 59, 65, 66, 69–71, 76–78, 80–85, 90, 93, 95–98, 100, 101, 104, 108, 109, 119, 120, 125, 126, 130, 132, 133, 136–138, 140, 144, 147–151, 153–157

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. Chung, The Impact of Finnish Teacher Education on International Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89518-1

173

174 

INDEX

Finnish, 2–11, 16–25, 27–30, 34, 37, 41, 46, 48, 51, 55–57, 59, 60, 62, 65, 67, 69, 70, 72–74, 77, 80, 82, 84, 85, 90–95, 97, 100, 104, 109, 110, 112, 113, 115, 121, 123, 125–132, 134–138, 140, 144, 146, 148–150, 152–158 I The importance of teaching, 2, 66, 98, 147–149, 153, 155–157 White Paper, 149 L Lab school, 2, 25 Lecturer, 28, 31, 36, 37, 41, 52, 55, 56, 58, 72, 85, 90, 91, 98–100, 113–116, 118, 128, 129, 131, 132, 134, 140, 148, 153, 154, 156 Licentiate degree, 29, 78, 79, 131 Licentiate, 85, 119, 133 Long-term vision, 144, 145, 147, 148, 156, 157 long-term, 155 M Master’s, 82 Master’s degree, 2, 5, 6, 9, 21, 22, 29, 36–41, 51, 63, 65, 70, 71, 78, 81–85, 91, 93, 118, 119, 127, 131, 132, 136–140, 153, 155, 156 MA, 132

Master’s, 6, 10, 24, 29, 37, 38, 40, 78, 81–84, 92, 119, 129, 131, 132, 135–139, 156 Master’s thesis, 139 Mentor, 3, 25–30, 40, 41, 47, 49, 52, 55–65, 72, 85, 98, 99, 101, 102, 107, 111, 113–115, 118–120, 131, 133, 140, 144, 148, 154 mentoring, 53–55, 58, 60, 62–64, 72, 106, 107, 113, 119, 120 mentorship, 26, 29, 30, 39, 49, 52, 55–60, 62, 97, 99, 107 N Normaalikoulu, 2, 3, 16, 25–30, 39, 41, 46–85, 89–140, 144–158 Normal school, 25, 41, 46–48, 51, 55, 58, 93, 97, 100, 101, 103, 109, 110, 115, 118, 131, 134, 144–148, 152–156 P Policy, 2, 6, 18, 19, 22, 24, 55, 83, 84, 89–140, 144–152, 154–157 Polytechnic, 5, 21, 30, 39, 41, 70 Principal, 3, 89, 90, 93–96, 105–107, 113, 116, 118, 119, 130, 131, 138, 140, 144, 153 Professor, 2, 3, 16, 17, 31, 41, 89–140, 144–146, 148, 150, 154, 157 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), 1–11, 16, 24–25, 41, 59, 78, 84, 100, 104, 112, 144, 150–152, 154–156 Pupil, 5, 7, 25, 29, 39–41, 49–54, 56–59, 62, 64, 65, 67, 73, 77, 83, 85, 94–96, 100–103, 110, 111, 115, 119, 120, 130, 137, 139, 140

 INDEX 

R Reform, 2, 6, 18–24, 37, 41, 84, 110, 121, 132, 136, 138, 139, 144, 155–157 Research, 2, 3, 5, 7–10, 16, 19, 22–30, 34, 37, 38, 40–42, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 55–57, 63, 65, 71, 74, 77–83, 85, 90, 92–94, 96, 98, 100, 103–106, 108, 110, 112, 113, 116, 118–125, 127, 129–136, 138–140, 146, 148–150, 152–155, 157, 158 researcher, 21, 23 S Schools White Paper, 2, 98, 147, 149, 153, 157 Student teacher, 2, 3, 7–9, 16–18, 23, 25–30, 32, 34–36, 38–42, 46–85, 92–94, 96, 98, 99, 101–103, 105–115, 119, 121, 123–125, 128–130, 134–136, 138–140, 144, 148, 153, 154, 157 Substitute teacher, 47, 60, 74–77, 94, 110 substitutes, 76 Substitute teaching, 46, 51, 74–77, 85, 153 substitute, 106 substituting, 75, 76 Supervisor, 26, 28–30, 98, 99, 101, 105, 114, 115, 118, 120, 132, 144 supervise, 99 supervising, 49, 62, 64, 105, 106, 119

175

supervising teachers, 103 supervision, 28–30, 39, 41, 46, 56, 98, 106, 120 T Teacher education, 1–11, 16–42, 46–48, 51, 54–59, 62, 65, 67–78, 81–85, 89–94, 97–100, 103–106, 108, 110–117, 120–132, 134–138, 140, 144–146, 148–158 Teacher preparation, 5–9, 16–23, 25, 31, 41, 52, 65, 69–71, 81, 82, 93, 97, 109, 114, 120–122, 125, 126, 128, 129, 145, 149, 153, 156 Teacher training, 2, 4, 7–9, 17–22, 25–31, 35, 36, 41, 49, 52, 54, 55, 60–63, 65, 70–73, 79, 80, 90, 91, 93, 95–98, 100, 103–105, 109–111, 114–117, 120, 125, 127, 144–148, 153, 155 Transfer, 2, 98, 104, 144–147, 149–151, 154–155, 157 U University, 2, 3, 5, 7, 16, 19–22, 25–39, 41, 42, 46, 50–52, 55–58, 60, 63, 66–73, 75–77, 79–85, 89, 90, 93, 94, 96–106, 109, 110, 112–119, 121, 124, 127, 128, 130–132, 134, 136, 137, 139, 140, 144–149, 154, 156, 157