The Teacher's Role in the Changing Globalizing World : Resources and Challenges Related to the Professional Work of Teaching [1 ed.] 9789004372573, 9789004372559

Citation preview

The Teacher’s Role in the Changing Globalizing World

The Teacher’s Role in the Changing Globalizing World Resources and Challenges Related to the Professional Work of Teaching Edited by

Hannele Niemi, Auli Toom, Arto Kallioniemi and Jari Lavonen

LEIDEN | BOSTON

All chapters in this book have undergone peer review. The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at http://catalog.loc.gov

ISBN: 978-90-04-37255-9 (paperback) ISBN: 978-90-04-37256-6 (hardback) ISBN: 978-90-04-37257-3 (e-book) Copyright 2018 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, %ULOO1LMKR൵%ULOO5RGRSL%ULOO6HQVHDQG+RWHL3XEOLVKLQJ All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

CONTENTS

1.

2.

3.

4.

Teacher’s Work in Changing Educational Contexts: Balancing the Role and the Person Auli Toom and Jukka Husu

1

The New Roles for Twenty-First-Century Teachers: Facilitator, Knowledge Broker, and Pedagogical Weaver Wing On Lee and Jennifer Pei-Ling Tan

11

Pedagogical Beliefs, Instructional Practices, and Opportunities for Professional Development of Teachers in Estonia Äli Leijen and Margus Pedaste

33

The Role of Teachers in the Finnish Educational System: High Professional Autonomy and Responsibility Hannele Niemi, Jari Lavonen, Arto Kallioniemi and Auli Toom

47

5.

Dutch Teacher and Teacher Education Policies: Trends and Ambiguities Theo Wubbels and Jan van Tartwijk

6.

Teacher Professional Development in Malta: Liberalizing the Way We Learn Christopher Bezzina

79

Teaching in the USA: Decentralization, Inequality, and Professional Autonomy Gerald K. LeTendre

91

7.

8.

9.

63

Challenges and Solutions Faced by China’s Teachers in the Era of Globalization Mingyuan Gu

109

The Changing Roles of Teachers and Teacher Learning in the Twenty-First Century: The Singapore Story Ee-Ling Low

125

10. The Teaching Profession Amid Changes in the Educational Ecosystems Hannele Niemi, Auli Toom, Arto Kallioniemi and Jari Lavonen

141

About the Contributors

151

v

AULI TOOM AND JUKKA HUSU

1. TEACHER’S WORK IN CHANGING EDUCATIONAL CONTEXTS Balancing the Role and the Person

ABSTRACT

This chapter elaborates the two central features that shape and cultivate the work of teachers. It highlights the importance of understanding teaching both as a role behavior and as an expression of an individual teacher’s abilities and personality. Teachers act within the borders of their role, and simultaneously, they need to find ways to express their subjectivity and personal qualities in their teaching. The chapter employs the concept of authenticity to reveal and elaborate the connections between role and personal demands in teaching, as authenticity always occurs within its social and institutional contexts. It presupposes that what teachers do should match not only to what they believe but should also be consistent with the institutional demands, structures, and constraints of their work. The chapter presents a model to analyze the spaces where teachers do their professional work as well as identify and understand multiple structures, tensions and resources related to it. Keywords: teacher role, teacher person, authenticity, teacher’s work INTRODUCTION

A teacher’s work is thinking practice (Lampert, 1998): involving essentially demanding, knowledge-intensive work requiring academic expertise and human relations skills. Teaching requires systematic and persistent planning from curriculum design to detailed lesson implementation in close encounters with students. The task is to support student learning both in the individual and social classroom contexts. In their work, teachers aim to educate independent, responsible and knowledgeable citizens by using pedagogical methods relevant for their students. Teaching involves continuous problem solving and decision-making in multiple and continuously changing interactional situations (cf. Shavelson, 1973; Borko, 2004). Nowadays, teaching also extends to pedagogical and school development with colleagues and other professionals involved with schools (Leana, 2011; Vangrieken et al., 2015) and also to parents and communities close to schools (Zeichner, 2016; Zeichner et al., 2016; Ilomäki et al., 2017). The participation of teaching practitioners with teacher learning and professional development throughout their careers is seen as one of the © KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2018 | DOI 10.1163/9789004372573_001

A. TOOM & J. HUSU

cornerstone elements in teachers’ work, which teachers should plan and implement after their pre-service teacher education (e.g. Heikkinen et al., 2015). Teaching is extremely responsible and independent, even autonomous in many contexts (Toom & Husu, 2012), and it requires ethical professional action and integrity (Niemi, 2016; Tirri, 1999) both in school communities and their surrounding societies. Working in the middle of continuous rapid changes, incompleteness, uncertainties and imperfections are always part of teaching but nowadays these teaching characteristics are changing. The teaching profession is rapidly changing throughout the world, and teachers, researchers, and policy makers report many ongoing and possible future changes. The traditional ways of working as teachers are being challenged, and teachers face new professional demands, such as creating new ways to effectively teach, learn, and assess in formal and informal educational contexts (Binkley et al., 2012), implementing new curricula (Pyhältö et al., 2014; Voogt & Roblin, 2012)), and promoting learning focused participatory pedagogies and digitalization (Ilomäki et al., 2017). Further, growing diversity among students, increasing special educational needs, as well as concerns for students’ core future competencies, school engagement, well-being, and marginalization challenge the teaching professional’s roles and tasks (e.g. Salmela-Aro et al., 2008; Salmela-Aro & Tynkkynen, 2012). The emerging factors reflect broader societal changes that have brought real-life transformations in the teaching profession. This amount of changes may have led to a situation, where newly qualified teachers find teaching so challenging that they have considered changing profession, or even leaving teaching soon after graduation (Heikonen et al., 2017). This echoes the need to support teachers from the upper structures of educational systems and policy making to school level leadership and collegial collaboration. These challenges have been largely identified, and those best positioned to facilitate these changes have also been identified. Both personal and social factors contribute to the ways teachers perform their professional tasks, and thus shape the teacher role. The role is made up of the dynamics between the individual teacher and the surrounding context, and this relation characterises the ways teachers are obliged and able to do their work. The societal needs, curricular structures, evaluation and assessment practices as well as public appreciation of teachers as professionals significantly influence the way teachers work. Roles evolve and unfold as teachers respond to those demands, and work actively for the best of their students’ learning and development. As Elmore (1996, p. 2) has noted, the teacher role involves how teachers understand the place of their students, and how the ideas about learning are manifested in teaching and classwork. In line with this notion, support for teachers’ commitment to teach and collaborate with their colleagues and school leadership help to build active and professional teacher roles, which systematic in-service teacher education programmes and mentoring can further support. The growing awareness of the decisive roles of teachers has motivated research into how to improve the quality of the teaching role, including teacher education 2

TEACHER’S WORK IN CHANGING EDUCATIONAL CONTEXTS

reforms and improving career opportunities to attract good candidates, while also redefining the professional role of teachers. This introductory chapter elaborates those changes on a more general level, and aims to help readers consider the similarities and differences regulating, shaping and cultivating the role of teachers, both now and in the future. We aim to examine role dynamics both on the conceptual and practical levels and underline the importance of doing research on both levels. Through these perspectives, the book covers the personal, professional, and socioagentic aspects of teachers and teaching in various international contexts, and highlights the importance of promoting and developing high-quality education for teachers (and students). SOCIAL AND PERSONAL FACTORS STRUCTURING THE TEACHER ROLE

Teaching requires teachers to act on reasons and make decisions through constant deliberation in line with larger professional, social, and political frameworks that enable activities to go beyond teachers’ personal preferences (Buchmann, 1986; Wiggins, 1993). The role perspective elaborates the public and personal aspects of teachers’ work and sets guidelines for balancing them in situationally appropriate ways. As Sockett (2009) has pointed out, the demanding task is to combine those private and public elements in ways that makes teaching valid, successful, and moral(ly good) for students. In other words, what is needed to help every student learn and develop the knowledge and skills necessary to participate in society as adults. The work of teaching is not only to realize teachers’ own educational visions and ambitions, but rather to realize them by fulfilling the teacher’s role. As Buchmann (1986) emphasizes, schools are for children, and children’s autonomy and self-realization largely depend in part on what they learn in schools. Thus, “self-realization in teaching is not a good in itself, but only insofar as pursuing self-realization leads to appropriate student learning” (p. 538). The ways of doing teachers’ work are always formed in the frictions and dynamics between social role expectations and individual teachers performing the role (see Figure 1). From the role perspective, social norms and principles set guidelines for professional behaviour and its aims. The analysis of role in the social sciences has emphasized the importance of social determinants for role theory. As Biddle and Thomas (1966) state: Individuals in a society occupy positions, and their role performance in these positions is determined by social norms, demands, and rules; by the role performances of others in their perspective positions; by those who observe and react to the performance; and by the individual’s particular capabilities and personality. (p. 4) According to the definition, role theory concerns features of social life as well as characterizing particular behaviour patterns and responsibilities related to the role. It views persons as members of social positions and has expectations for their 3

A. TOOM & J. HUSU

behaviours and those of others (see e.g. Wilson, 1962; Turner, 1978; Brophy, 1982; Bullough et al., 1984; Buchmann, 1986; Floden & Buchmann, 1993; Hansen, 1993; Holt-Reynolds, 2000; Beck, 2008). Roles often embody high aspirations while also providing certain standards for guiding actions under their spotlight. They are parts teachers play in schools, roles do not describe individuals, and they apply regardless of teachers’ personal views. They express certain responsibilities, which students, parents, and the public community expect teachers to fulfil. Responsibilities in teaching do not depend on any particular person and they apply to the whole profession regardless of individual teachers’ views. Buchmann (1986) underlines the importance of understanding teaching as a role behaviour. Schools as educational institutions set certain expectations, regulations and limitations for teachers, because they are institutions, which are ruled by official directives. From this it follows that teachers have to work with acceptable criteria of what it means to be a teacher and to articulate or to demonstrate one’s professional knowledge and skills. Teachers have to develop formal methods for judging professional ideas and actions, and teachers as public servants cannot be arbitrary in so doing. In order to fulfil their mandate correctly, teachers cannot operate in an informal, ad hoc manner. (cf. Lortie, 1975; Buchmann, 1986). As Hansen (2001) states, “the question of what it means to be a person in the role of a teacher is best answered … from a context of tradition and practice” (p. 19). A person becomes a teacher through embracing the responsibilities of the work and through engaging in the social world of schools and classrooms. For the role demands that teachers are also responsible for developing their personal and professional capabilities and taking care of their personal well-being throughout their career. As noted above, roles always work through an individual’s own abilities and personality. In teaching, there is always a person in the teacher’s role, whose personal qualities characterize the teacher work done. Persons act within the borders of the teacher role, and simultaneously, they need to find ways to express their subjectivity and personal qualities in their teaching. Teachers need to discover their own strengths and weaknesses as well as their own successful ways to teach in order to be able to utilize their best professional potential for the interests of their students. Many authors (e.g. Jackson, 1986; Taylor, 1991; Floden & Buchmann, 1993; Hostetler, 1997; Kreber, 2010) use authenticity to reveal the connections between role and personal demands in teaching. Authenticity is about awareness of others (especially students), and of the cultural, social, and educational contexts that influence practice. Also, as Cranton (2006) notes, self-awareness and critical selfreflection on teaching are integral parts of authenticity. Becoming an authentic teacher is a developmental process that builds on experience, maturity, self-exploration, and reflection in particular contexts (Cranton & Carusetta, 2004). However, authenticity does not imply there are conditions where individuals make judgments for themselves alone and without external imposition: authenticity always occurs within its social and institutional contexts (Taylor, 1991). 4

TEACHER’S WORK IN CHANGING EDUCATIONAL CONTEXTS

Becoming authentic does not only mean being genuine, it also involves understanding what genuine means in specific educational contexts. Therefore, instead of “honesty,” authenticity can usefully be thought of as coherence (Hunt, 2006). This coherence needs to be both internal (Does what teachers are doing match what they believe?) and external (To what extent is what teachers are doing consistent with the institutional demands, structures, and constraints of their work?). Authenticity thus calls for teachers “to bring qualities of mind, character, and practice transcending [just] skillful application of technique[s of teaching]” (Kornelsen, 2006, p. 80). Within this interplay towards authenticity, the meaning of any given role is also interdependent with other roles in the structure. Thus, these roles are complimentary (Bess & Dee, 2008), much like the roles of student and the teacher depend on each other. As Murillo (2013) states, actually there cannot be one without the other, and problems tend to arise “when these roles either conflict with each other or become ambiguous” (p. 35). CONTEXTUAL FACTORS REGULATING AND SUPPORTING THE TEACHER ROLE

Beyond the role expectations, the contextual factors and local structures contribute to teacher’s possibilities to work and regulate their professional actions (see Figure 1). Societal needs and determination to contribute to high-quality education are important contributing factors, which require long-term societal efforts and a broad consensus in educational policy decisions. As a consequence of this, social appreciation towards teachers as professionals has been shown to influence the ways

Figure 1. The social, personal, situational and contextual factors elements regulating teacher’s professional practice (cf. Husu & Toom, 2008; Toom & Husu, 2012)

5

A. TOOM & J. HUSU

teachers work and even the willingness of younger generations to become teachers. Further, the degree of professional agency accorded to teachers in the educational system crucially defines their work. The specific local curricular structures (e.g. Vitikka et al., 2012), either centralised or decentralised organisation of curriculum work (cf. Pyhältö et al., 2012), and especially the responsibilities and freedom for the teachers through it (Toom & Husu, 2012) significantly influence the quality of the everyday work of teaching. Evaluation and assessment practices related to teacher’s work crucially regulate the ways in which teachers can work (Buchanan, 2015; Kumpulainen & Lankinen, 2012). As a whole, all the mentioned factors form both the borders and the possibilities associated with teacher work. Certain facilitating structures and supporting factors that make teachers work actively and do high-quality work for the best of their students’ learning have been shown to be crucial. Support for teachers’ commitment towards their work through their commitment to high-quality education and schools at the societal and community levels is essential (Zeichner et al., 2016). Encouragement and possibilities for continuous collegial collaboration that allow teachers to learn in their profession, launch pedagogical innovations and develop schools into meaningful learning environments (Leana, 2011; Lieberman & Pointer Mace, 2008) are key resources for teachers throughout their professional careers. Functioning school management and shared leadership among the teachers allow teachers to influence their working environment, participate in the decision making and make changes when necessary (Pyhältö et al., 2014). Systematic in-service teacher education programmes and mentoring have been identified as significant ways to build a meaningful professional role for teachers (Heikkinen et al., 2015). DISCUSSION

The teaching profession is changing rapidly in many ways due to the demands set for pupil learning which lead to knock on effects on teachers’ professional capabilities and professional actions in schools. Also, the multitude of changes occurring in schools and societies influence the ways teachers work. Still, many aspects of teachers’ work remain the same: their most important professional task is to support pupil learning and education in the best possible way. Individual teachers, their professional competencies, their continuous learning in the profession as well as their capacities to promote educational innovations and school development are still the most important factors for pupil learning in schools (Pyhältö et al., 2014; Toom, 2017; Toom et al., 2017; Husu & Clandinin, 2017). These are the aspects that the authors of this book elaborate on from the viewpoint of the educational contexts they represent. What is crucial for teachers, pupils and schools are the communities and society around them. The communities and society build up their teachers’ characters/ competences with appreciation, requirements and demands, possibilities, support and trust, in ways which are relatively challenging to structure and maintain. An appreciation of teachers and trust in their work require systematic and persistent 6

TEACHER’S WORK IN CHANGING EDUCATIONAL CONTEXTS

work, and these ideal educational atmospheres are built over long periods of time. Still, this is the only sustainable way, because they pave the way for the pupils and their future lives. They also pave the way for sustained education and teacher careers. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work was supported by the Academy of Finland (Grant 285806). REFERENCES Beck, S. (2008). The teacher’s role and approaches in a knowledge society. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38(4), 465–481. Bess, J., & Dee J. (2008). Understanding college and university organization: Theories for effective policy and practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC. Biddle, B. J., & Thomas, E. J. (Eds.). (1966). Role theory: Concepts and research. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Defning twenty-first century skills. In P. Grin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17–66). Dordrecht: Springer. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33, 3–15. Brophy, J. E. (1982). How teachers influence what is taught and learned in classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 83(1), 1–14. Buchanan, R. (2015). Teacher identity and agency in an era of accountability. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 21(6), 700–719. doi:10.1080/13540602.2015.1044329 Buchmann, M. (1986). Role over person: Morality and authenticity in teaching. Teachers College Record, 87(4), 529–543. Bullough, R. V., Gitlin, A. D., & Goldstein, S. L. (1984). Ideology, teacher role, and resistance. Teachers College Record, 86(2), 339–358. Cranton, P. (2006). Integrating perspectives of authenticity. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 111, 83–87. Cranton, P., & Carusetta, E. (2004). Perspectives on authenticity. Adult Education Quarterly, 55(1), 5–23. Elmore, R. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 1–27. Floden, R. E., & Buchmann, M. (1993). Between routines and anarchy: Preparing teachers for uncertainty. In R. E. Floden & M. Buchmann (Eds.), Detachment and concern: Conversations in the philosophy of teaching and teacher education (pp. 211–221). New York, NY: Cassell. Hansen, D. T. (1993). From role to person: The moral layeredness of classroom teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 30(4), 651–674. Hansen, D. T. (2001). Exploring the moral heart of teaching: Toward a teacher’s creed. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Heikkinen, H. L. T., Aho, J., & Korhonen, J. (2015). Ope (ei) saa oppia: Opettajankoulutuksen jatkumon kehittäminen. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän yliopisto, Koulutuksen tutkimuslaitos. Heikonen, L., Pietarinen, J., Pyhältö, K., Toom, A., & Soini, T. (2017). Early career teachers’ sense of professional agency in the classroom: Associations with turnover intentions and perceived inadequacy in teacher-student interaction. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 45(3), 250–266. doi:10.1080/ 1359866X.2016.1169505 Holt-Reynolds, D. (2000). What does the teacher do? Constructivist pedagogies and prospective teachers’ beliefs about the role of a teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 21–32.

7

A. TOOM & J. HUSU Hostetler, K. D. (1997). Ethical judgement in teaching. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon/Longman. Hunt, R. (2006). Institutional constraints on authenticity in teaching. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 111, 51–62. Husu, J., & Clandinin, D. J. (2017). Pushing boundaries for research in teacher education: Making teacher education matter. In D. J. Clandinin & J. Husu (Eds.), The Sage handbook of research on teacher education. London: Sage Publishers. Husu, J., & Toom, A. (2008). Ethics, moral, politics: The (un)broken circle of good and caring pedagogical practice. In A. Kallioniemi, A. Toom, M. Ubani, H. Linnansaari, & K. Kumpulainen (Eds.), Cultivating humanity: Education – values – new discoveries (Research in Educational Sciences 40, pp. 215–230). Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association. Ilomäki, L., Lakkala, M., Toom, A., & Muukkonen, H. (2017). Teacher learning within a multinational project in an upper secondary school. Education Research International. doi:10.1155/2017/1614262 Jackson, P. W. (1986). The practice of teaching. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Kornelsen, L. (2006). Teaching with presence. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 111, 73–82. Kreber, C. (2010). Academics’ teacher identities, authenticity and pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 35(2), 171–194. Kumpulainen, K., & Lankinen, T. (2012). Striving for educational equity and excellence: Evaluation and assessment in Finnish basic education. In H. Niemi, A. Toom, & A. Kallioniemi (Eds.), Miracle of education: The principles and practices of teaching and learning in Finnish schools (pp. 69–81). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Lampert, M. (1998). Studying teaching as a thinking practice. In J. Greeno & S. G. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices (pp. 53–78). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Leana, C. (2011) The missing link in school reform. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9(4), 30–35. Lieberman, A., & Pointer Mace, D. H. (2008). Teacher learning: The key to educational reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(3), 226–234. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Murillo, P. E. (2013). Role theory and the enactment of teacher leadership (Doctoral dissertation). Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC. Retrieved from https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/wcu/f/ Murillo2013.pdf Niemi, H. (2016). Erinomaisuus, sitoutuminen ja eettisyys: Miten hyvän työn kriteerit toteutuvat opettajan ammatissa? In T. H. Cantell & A. Kallioniemi (toim.), Kansankynttilä keinulaudalla: Miten tulevaisuudessa opitaan ja opetetaan? (s. 19–38). Jyväskylä: PS-kustannus. Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J., & Soini, T. (2012). Do comprehensive school teachers perceive themselves as active professional agents in school reforms? Journal of Educational Change, 13(1), 95–116. Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J., & Soini, T. (2014). Comprehensive school teachers’ professional agency in large-scale educational change. Journal of Educational Change, 15(3), 303–325. Salmela-Aro, K., Kiuru, N., Pietikäinen, M., & Jokela, J. (2008). Does school matter? The role of school context in adolescents’ school-related burnout. European Psychologist, 13, 12–23. Salmela-Aro, K., & Tynkkynen, L. (2012). Gendered pathways in school burnout among adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 929–939. Shavelson, R. J. (1973). What is the basic teaching skill? Journal of Teacher Education, 24(2), 144–151. Sockett, H. (2009). Dispositions as virtues: The complexity of the construct. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 291–303. Taylor, C. (1991). The ethics of authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Tirri, K. (1999). Opettajan ammattietiikka [Teacher’s professional ethics]. Helsinki: WSOY. Toom, A. (2017). Learning professional competencies in teacher education and throughout the career. In D. J. Clandinin & J. Husu (Eds.), The Sage handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 777–782). London: Sage Publishers. Toom, A., & Husu, J. (2012). Finnish teachers as ‘makers of the many’: Balancing between broad pedagogical freedom and responsibility. In H. Niemi, A. Toom, & A. Kallioniemi (Eds.), Miracle of education: The principles and practices of teaching and learning in Finnish schools (pp. 39–54). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

8

TEACHER’S WORK IN CHANGING EDUCATIONAL CONTEXTS Toom, A., Pietarinen, J., Soini, T., & Pyhältö, K. (2017). How does the learning environment in teacher education cultivate first year student teachers’ sense of professional agency in the professional community? Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 126–136. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2016.12.013 Turner, R. H. (1978). The role and the person. The American Journal of Sociology, 84(1), 1–23. Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., & Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 15, 17–40. Vitikka, E., Krokfors, L., & Hurmerinta, E. (2012). The Finnish national core curriculum: Structure and development. In H. Niemi, A. Toom, & A. Kallioniemi (Eds.), Miracle of education: The principles and practices of teaching and learning in Finnish schools (pp. 83–96). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299–321. Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessment: Authenticity, context, and validity. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(3), 200–208, 210–214. Wilson, B. R. (1962). The teacher’s role: A sociological analysis. The British Journal of Sociology, 13(1), 15–32. Zeichner, K. (2016). Independent teacher education programs: Apocryphal claims, illusory evidence. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center Brief. Zeichner, K., Bowman, M., Guillen, L., & Napolitan, K. (2016). Engaging and working in solidarity with local communities in preparing the teachers of their children. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(4), 277–290.

Auli Toom Centre for University Teaching and Learning Faculty of Educational Sciences University of Helsinki, Finland and Institute of Education, University of Tartu Estonia Jukka Husu Department of Teacher Education University of Turku Finland

9

WING ON LEE AND JENNIFER PEI-LING TAN

2. THE NEW ROLES FOR TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY TEACHERS Facilitator, Knowledge Broker, and Pedagogical Weaver

ABSTRACT

The notion of twenty-first-century competences began merely as a thought at the time when it was first mentioned in UNESCO’S Delors’ Report (1966). The continuous discourse, and the development of various assessment frameworks around the world seem to indicate that there is increasing buy-in of the concept, although the details and what counts as appropriate and robust measurements of this set of competences are still emerging and will take time to consolidate. Over time, several international organizations have developed various twentyfirst-century educational frameworks. Broadly speaking, these frameworks have called for changes in Thinking Skills, Interpersonal Skills Information, Media and Technological Skills, and Life Skills that require flexibility, adaptivity, inter-cultural awareness and social and civic competence, in addition to the conventional emphasis on life and career skills. This chapter argues that it is pertinent for teachers and student teachers to be aware of all these shifts, firstly in the economy, and consequently requiring new sets of competences to cope with the changing economy. The changing demands or expectations on the learning outcomes have led to the new demands on education providers, i.e. school and teachers. This chapter found that the high performing education systems without exception see teachers as an important vehicle for change and they all invest immense efforts in teacher education, in order to help teachers of today become “twenty-first century.” This new learning context will require teachers to think whether they would continue to play the role of “Sage-on-the-stage,” or change their role to become “Guide-on-the-side” and “Meddler-in-the middle.” In the new learning context, good teaching is no longer determined by how well knowledge is transmitted, but how well and articulated knowledge weaving is done based on the initial knowledge found by the students in, or from outside of, the classroom. Keywords: twenty-first-century educational frameworks, twenty-first-century teachers, high performing education systems, twenty-first-century competences

© KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2018 | DOI 10.1163/9789004372573_002

W. O. LEE & J. P.-L. TAN

INTRODUCTION: THE EMERGENCE OF THE TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY EDUCATIONAL AGENDAS

The notion of twenty-first-century competences began merely as a thought when it was first mentioned in UNESCO’S Delors’ Report (1996). Nevertheless, the continuous discourse and the development of various assessment frameworks around the world seem to indicate that there is increasing buy in of the concept, although the details and potential appropriate and robust measurements of this set of competences are still emerging and will take time to consolidate. Over time, several international organizations have developed various twenty-first-century educational frameworks. The more notable ones are: (1) the Partnership for twentyfirst-century Skills (the P21 Project) of the US government; (2) the Assessment and Teaching of twenty-first-century Skills (ATC21S Project), headquartered at Melbourne University, to help integrate twenty-first-century competencies into Australia’s national curricula (ATC21S, 2012); (3) the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Definition and Selection of Competencies (OECD’s DeSeCo Project) (OECD, 2005); and (4) the European Union’s Key Competences for Lifelong Learning—A European Framework (European Union, 2006). A recent report jointly released by the China Education Innovation Institute of Beijing Normal University and the World Innovation Summit for Education in Beijing on June 5, 2016, announced that the concept of twenty-first-century competences is a new direction for education reform in China and that conducting student-centered, cross-disciplinary and practice-focused learning will be effective in nurturing twenty-first-century competences (Zhao, 2016). In addition, Chinese Taipei introduced “core competences” for K-12 national foundation education in 2013, and the competences mentioned in their reform documents closely resemble the competences mentioned in the above-mentioned twenty-first-century competences frameworks (Tsai & Chen, 2013). These frameworks identify and provide descriptions of key competences and citizenship qualities that are crucial to the knowledge economy of the twenty-first century. Voogt and Roblin’s (2012) comparative review of twenty-first-century competences frameworks indicated that these frameworks differ mostly in terms of focus, areas of emphasis, and in the way the competences are defined and categorized. Table 1 presents an overview of the key competences as identified by these frameworks. Despite the varied emphases of these frameworks, they all mention some common skills in the context of twenty-first-century competences, such as creativity, innovation, critical thinking, problem solving, communication skills, collaboration, information and digital literacy, conflict resolution, and social and inter-cultural skills. In addition, they have developed new demands for education. For example, P21 broadened the core subjects to include interdisciplinary subjects and placed special emphasis on life and career skills; ATC21S developed emphases on ways of thinking, ways of working, and tools for working and living in the world; and the DeSeCo framework emphasized interactive tools, interacting 12

Ways of Thinking

Learning and Innovation Skills 1. Creativity and innovation 2. Critical thinking and problem solving

Life and Career Skills 7. Flexibility and adaptability 8. Initiative and self-direction 9. Social and cross cultural skills 10. Productivity and accountability 11. Leadership and responsibility

Information, Media and Technology Skills 4. Information literacy 5. Media literacy 6. ICT literacy

4. Use language, symbols and 4. Mathematical competence and basic competences in texts interactively science and technology 5. Use knowledge and 5. Digital competence information interactively 6. Use technology interactively Acting Autonomously 6. Social and civic competences 7. Act within the big picture 8. Form and conduct life plans 7. Sense of initiative and entrepreneurship and personal projects 8. Cultural awareness and 9. Defend and assert rights, expression interests, limits and needs

6. Information literacy 7. ICT literacy

Living in the World 8. Citizenship (local and global) 9. Life and career 10. Personal and social responsibility (including cultural awareness and competence)

2. Communication in the mother tongue 3. Communication in foreign languages

1. Learning to learn

European Reference Framework

Using Tools Interactively

Interacting in Heterogeneous Groups 1. Relate well to others 2. Co-operate, work in teams 3. Manage and resolve conflicts

OECD

Tools for Working

3. Communication and collaboration 4. Communication 5. Collaboration (teamwork)

Ways of Working

1. Creativity and innovation 2. Critical thinking, problem solving, decision making 3. Learning to learn, metacognition

ATC21S

P21

Table 1. Overview of key competencies identified by various twenty-first-century competences implementation frameworks. Source: Binkley et al. (2010); Gordon et al. (2009); OECD (2005); http://www.p21.org/overview

THE NEW ROLES FOR TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY TEACHERS

13

W. O. LEE & J. P.-L. TAN

in heterogeneous groups, and acting autonomously. Broadly speaking, these frameworks have called for changes in (1) thinking skills that would require twentyfirst-century learners to learn how to learn and master meta-cognitive thinking, in addition to the conventional emphases on criticality, creativity, and problem solving; (2) interpersonal skills that particularly emphasize the significance of collaborative problem solving and conflict resolution, in addition to the conventional emphases on communication and teamwork; (3) information, media and technological skills that would require information and digital literacy and competence, in addition to the conventional emphases on the mastery of media and ICT technology; and (4) life skills that require flexibility, adaptivity, cultural awareness and social and civic competence, in addition to the conventional emphasis on life and career skills. The realization of these paradigm shifts is particularly pertinent to teachers as the carriers of knowledge in the classroom. The knowledge economy is becoming recognized by people in both the front-end and practice-end—those who are running businesses and those who are employed by them. These are the groups of people who will feel the changes immediately and be affected by the changes instantly. For the employers, if their products have no markets, they will need to close their businesses, and the employees will lose their jobs immediately. However, teachers are the latest group to feel the market changes, as they are quite settled in the school organizations. Traditionally, teachers are trained in teachers’ colleges rather than in the real market and then go back to school to teach. Thus, they may be less sensitive toward market changes. This chapter argues that it is important for teachers and student teachers to be aware of all these shifts in the economy that will require new sets of competences to cope with the changes. The twin forces of globalization and the knowledge economy have facilitated the flow of information and knowledge across the globe. They have also shaped agendas and policies for national development in countries all over the world. The knowledge capital of citizens is the most important force driving the knowledge economy. In other words, the political, social, and economic advancement in any country depends heavily on how well they develop and tap into the intellectual potential of their youth. This urgent need to build the capacity of students as future workers is heeded by many governments, who have been tweaking their educational systems through major reforms to prepare their students for the workplace in the twenty-first century. Kennedy (2008) notes that almost all Asian countries have embarked on curricular reforms to cultivate “twenty-first-century competences” in students that cover a spectrum of skills and dispositions related to information, civic literacy, global awareness and cross-cultural interaction and communication, and critical, inventive, and creative thinking. However, the nature of twenty-first-century competences is quite soft. They are meant for the ability to change and adapt. The epistemological revolution brought about by the emergence of twenty-first-century competences may prove to be fundamental. It has been said that twenty-first-century competences bear similarity to Putnam’s (1995) social capital, otherwise known as “soft skills,” that broadly 14

THE NEW ROLES FOR TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY TEACHERS

includes social networks, teamwork, social cohesion, and trust. These soft skills, scholars have argued, are critical for economic advancement in the new global environment (Heffron, 1997). Soft skills, as the term implies, refers to the softer side of the competences that focus on experience and interpersonal skills. And because these are soft skills, they are the kind of skills needed for adaptability and for change. They are acquired through learning from experience and learning through action and interaction with others. The body of knowledge related to such soft competences is, thus, more fluid and mutable relative to that of cognitive knowledge, which is based on fact and evidence, as well empirical findings. Kogan (2005) conceptualized knowledge as a spectrum that ranges from hard to soft science. Hard science refers to specialist knowledge that is not accessible to those outside of its epistemic community. Soft science refers to the application of knowledge and focuses on inclusiveness and accessibility. The appeal of soft science may well increase as “consumers demand more power” in the knowledge-production processes. The professional competences of teachers cover a wide range of skills and dispositions (Darling-Hammond, 2006; European Commission, 2013; Kunter et al., 2013; Niemi et al., 2016). Crick (2008) has stated that a competence is best described as “a complex combination of knowledge, skills, understanding, values, attitudes and desire which lead to effective, embodied human action in the world, in a particular domain” (p. 312). Notably, twenty-first-century competences are also closely related to active citizenship in global and interdependent societies. For example, Merryfield and Duty (2008) describe four skills necessary for active global citizenship: (1) being able to understand and appreciate the points of view of people who are different from themselves; (2) intercultural competence to function well in today’s multicultural societies; (3) being able to think critically, particularly when assessing information sources that are conflicting; and (4) habits of mind that are compatible with civic responsibilities in a global age, such as to approach judgments and decisions with open-mindedness, anticipation of complexity, and resistance to stereotyping, and to develop the habit of asking “Is this the common good?” Similarly, Cogan and Derricott’s (1998) multidimensional citizenship model requires citizens to address a series of interconnected dimensions of belief, thought, and action that are expressed in terms of personal, social, spatial, and temporal dimensions, as briefly summarized in Table 2. Table 2. Multidimensional citizenship (Cogan & Derricott, 1998) Personal

A personal capacity for and commitment to a civic ethic characterized by responsible habits of mind, heart, and action

Social

Capacity to live and work together for civic purposes

Spatial

Capacity to see oneself as a member of several overlapping communities—local, regional, national, and multinational

Temporal Capacity to locate present challenges in the context of both past and future to focus on long-term solutions to the difficult challenges we face

15

W. O. LEE & J. P.-L. TAN

THE CHANGING ROLE OF TEACHERS IN TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY SCHOOLING1

Schooling for Tomorrow (OECD, 2001) was an education policy analysis conducted by the Center for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) in OECD, where member countries were tasked with projecting the development of schooling over the next 15 to 20 years. The results of the study put forward six scenarios, which are grouped into three main states as shown in Table 3. These scenarios combine trends, interrelationships between different variables, and guiding policy ideas (OECD, 2001). The two “status quo extrapolated” scenarios reflect the continuation of existing features or trends of schooling (OECD, 2001, p. 119). Scenario 1 delineates the persistence of bureaucratic, institutionalized school systems resisting substantial change but performing significant hidden social functions. In Scenario 1, the school system is a huge bureaucracy. With teachers being a major organized group, it will be basically impossible to implement fundamental changes in the education system without considerable social consequences. The schools will be, therefore, hesitant and slow to make changes, thereby maintaining the status quo. However, the externality of the changes, as described at the beginning of this chapter, will continue to change, and change rapidly. No matter how much the school system wants to maintain its status quo, the external environment will require and force change to the school system. The larger the gap between the external changes and the status quo, the larger the demand from society at large will be for the schools to function and prepare students for all these changes. Thus, there will be more public demand for continuous professional development (to prove that existing teachers are aware of the changes and can show that they have the updated skills and knowledge to cope with them). As a result, there will be increased public and government calls for accountability and measurement of teacher and school performances. However, the schools in this scenario will only be open to incremental change, not fundamental change in their functions and structures. The main reason is that people believe and recognize that the fundamental role of schools encompasses more than training students with the knowledge and skills needed for the times but also includes essential tasks, Table 3. The OECD schooling for tomorrow scenarios (OECD, 2001, p. 121) The “status quo extrapolated”

The “re-schooling”

The “de-schooling”

Scenario 1: Robust Bureaucratic School Systems

Scenario 3: Schools as Core Social Centers

Scenario 5: Learner Networks and the Network Society

Scenario 2: Extending the Market Model

Scenario 4: Schools as Focused Learning Organizations

Scenario 6: Teacher Exodus—the “Meltdown” Scenario

16

THE NEW ROLES FOR TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY TEACHERS

such as imparting literacy, numeracy, and disciplinary knowledge, that will form the basics that all students should know. In addition, some of the initial reasons for establishing schools, such as looking after children, keeping children off the streets, and socialization, continue to be important functions for society. Despite that, the school systems, being bureaucratic systems, will continue to function as they are, with incremental demands for school personnel to continuously update themselves to face the changing needs of the economy and increased social demand for accountability. In Scenario 2, existing market-driven approaches to education are expanded much more radically than the present, bringing about both positive and negative consequences. This stems from widespread dissatisfaction with the rigidity of public school systems and their demands for cost-effectiveness. Because the teaching force may not adequately meet the new challenges of modern society, there will be an increasing demand for the diversification of education. In response to these pressures, governments will start to exploit market potential both nationally and internationally. They will encourage diversification of education and the emergence of new learning providers through funding, incentives, and even deregulation. Lifelong learning will then emerge as a norm for many people within this model. However, alongside the numerous innovations brought by the new providers of learning, the market-oriented approach may lead to a painful set of transition processes in educational provision. While it will benefit students who can access more learning opportunities, it may also result in greater exclusion for the financially disadvantaged students. Although direct public monitoring and curriculum regulation face a decline in the market model, the roles of public education, schools, and the government do not completely disappear. Scenario 2 is categorized as the state of “status quo extrapolated” because the nature of schooling does not fundamentally change. The two scenarios in the “re-schooling” category represent “a strengthening of schools’ public recognition, support and autonomy” (OECD, 2001, p. 119), in which schools are envisaged to function beyond academia and examinations. In Scenario 3, schools will become “core social centers” that take care of students’ social and professional needs. It is fueled by the belief that frontline professionals would make better teachers than those who are conventionally trained because they have the relevant experiences and are technologically savvy. Facing fast changes in economic restructuring in a globalized world, the experiences of the frontline professions will become more relevant to the students. There will be high trust and close cooperation between authorities, teachers, employers, and other communities. In this model, schools and society will be seamlessly connected to perform the dual roles of transmitting knowledge as well as performing other social and cultural responsibilities. It marks a greater realization of lifelong learning. The risk is that this scenario may not solve and might even exacerbate existing inequalities between different communities.

17

W. O. LEE & J. P.-L. TAN

In Scenario 4, most schools will become flexible “learning organizations” with a strong knowledge focus and comprise highly motivated teachers. Schools will become the lead organizations that drive “lifelong learning for all.” Informed by a strong equity ethos, this model solves the problems of inequality in the previous models. Like Scenario 3, schools, tertiary education institutes, the media, and other enterprises will cooperate extensively with each other. Professionals (teachers and experts) will be highly motivated in teaching and learning, integrating ICT in the professional development process. Networking will become the norm among professionals and other sources of expertise. Different from the role of “core social centers” in Scenario 3, schools in this model will have a much stronger knowledge focus to avoid the risk of excessive and ever-widening impossible demands from society. In addition, the teaching force will remain a distinct profession but with greater occupational mobility. Common to the two scenarios in this “re-schooling” category is that schools will function beyond their traditional academic teaching role and take up the role of social centers. There will be more partnership between schools and the community. Teachers will be respected, but they will need to take care of students’ social and professional needs. There will be more occupational mobility among the teachers, and there will be professionals joining the teaching force mid-career. These teachers will be welcome, as they will bring in the expertise needed by the economy and have more up-to-date professional knowledge and experience. The boundaries between formal and informal learning will become blurred, and there will be more emphasis on adopting lifelong learning skills. The two scenarios in the “de-schooling” category involve “the dismantling of much of school institutions and systems” (OECD, 2001, p. 119). In scenario 5, “deschooling” emerges through the “widespread establishment of non-formal learning networks, facilitated both by ICT and a ‘network society’ environment” (OECD, 2001, p. 119). On the one hand, there will be widespread dissatisfaction with the school systems from the public. On the other hand, the ubiquity of computers and the internet will allow students to access and share information freely. This scenario is in tune with the lifelong learning agenda, emphasizing flexibility and individualization. It stresses cooperation rather than competition. To a certain extent, this scenario is already visible as society progresses toward the “network society”. Scenario 6 represents the worst scenario among the future trends in schooling. It arises through “an exodus of teachers that is unresponsive to educational reforms and results in the more or less extensive meltdown of school systems” (OECD, 2001, p. 119). The schools’ expectations, difficult students, and demanding parents have combined to cause teachers to lose the joy of teaching, and many have left the profession prematurely. It has also created a paradigm shift in the teacher–student relationship, threatening to push teachers into obsolescence unless they attempt to stay relevant. Moreover, the outflow of teachers due to retirement will significantly outnumber the inflow of new recruits. The rising demand for manpower and better opportunities in the marketplace could also result in severe difficulties, not only 18

THE NEW ROLES FOR TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY TEACHERS

in recruiting new teachers, but also retaining them in the teaching profession. The severe shortage of teachers may spur radical innovation and reconstruction in schooling. Diverse organizations and stakeholders (e.g., communities, media, and corporations) may come in to provide education. However, the loosely organized education resources might be much more unevenly distributed. These scenarios, as pointed out by the OECD (2001) report, aim to clarify the major trends, policy issues, and strategic options for schooling over the long term. They are tools for reflection rather than analytical predictions. Despite the differences in the six scenarios, they reveal the necessity to reshape schooling in accordance with social changes. The first scenario, although highly resistant to change, seems unlikely to stay in the status quo. The market-driven practices in Scenario 2 are exerting a profound influence on school operations. It is also possible that the socioeconomic changes will drive us toward Scenario 3 or Scenario 6, with the optimistic development of schools becoming social centers or the pessimistic outcome of deschooling. Indeed, it is no longer possible for education systems, curricula, and schooling models to remain unchanged. The questions are whether our society and its people are ready, whether there is sufficient motivation for change, and whether we are willing to face the pain brought in by the reforms and take responsibility for the often painful and costly trial-and-error processes. It is also important to note that the OECD (2001) report is anchored in the context of the global trend of educational reform toward lifelong learning for all. TEACHERS AS A FACTOR OF EDUCATIONAL SUCCESS

In 2014, a new Education Innovation Series published by Springer and edited by Lee, Hung, and Teh (2014) was launched. In one of its volumes, entitled Educational Policy Innovation: Levelling Up and Sustaining Educational Achievement (Lee, Lee, & Low, 2014), Lee (2014) compared the high-performing education systems included for analysis, namely Finland, Shanghai, South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong. Lee found that in all these high-performing education systems, teachers were outstandingly regarded as a factor of educational success. Thus, his major comparative finding was that these education systems all took teachers, teaching, and teacher education seriously. Therefore, we can conclude that part of the educational miracles in these education systems, as emerged from the recent PISA studies, can be attributed to the contribution of teachers. Lee (2014) concluded his findings as follows: ‡ Shanghai focuses on the teacher education system and professional practice: the teacher’s career ladder in schools, the master teacher and mentorship scheme, peer observation, and group lesson planning. ‡ Singapore emphasizes the tripartite alignment between the Ministry of Education, National Institute of Education, and the schools, as well as how the graduated teacher competences are designed to prepare Singapore teachers to become 19

W. O. LEE & J. P.-L. TAN

twenty-first-century teachers and the strong belief in the development of twentyfirst-century skills for twenty-first-century teachers. ‡ Korea emphasizes how respect toward teachers can become a foundation of a whole society that attracts the best talents to aspire to become teachers and to empower teachers to exercise their authority; their love toward students forms a unique phenomenon of warm authoritarianism. ‡ Finland focuses on the research ability of teachers as a foundation for the development of the teaching profession and on how the internalization of research facilitates teaching in order to foster inquisitive minds. The research mind can become a driver for teachers to aspire to make teaching a self-improving profession. Finland’s respect for teachers does not lie in their authority but in their autonomy; the society gives them a high degree of trust rather than scrutinizing them with a stringent accountability system. ‡ Likewise, Hong Kong SAR’s high performance may be more attributable to the decentralization of the school system, which provides autonomy to teachers for school-based developed instruction and assessment (p. 228). Lee drew further insights from the above features of teachers that might have some implications for the way forward for existing education systems in facing the challenges of the twenty-first-century knowledge economy and lifelong learning: If we treat the above summary of findings for each [education system] as a typology developed from each of them, they form a pretty macro picture about how we can construct a system of teacher, teaching and teacher education that could form an overall productive success factor for our readers to consider: We need a rigorous teacher education system and strong peer-supported teaching practice (Shanghai), an alignment of policy and implementation as well as theory and practice (Singapore), a respectful system to ensure the best talents become teachers (Korea), an internalized research mind for teachers, and trust towards teachers in exercising their professional autonomy (Finland), and a decentralized school system to allow teachers to make schoolbased judgements on instruction and assessment (Hong Kong SAR). (Lee, 2014, p. 228) Much of this observation and insight was developed during Wing On Lee’s period of service as dean of the Office of Education Research (OER) at the National Institute of Education in Singapore (2010–2014). During this period, one major research focus of the OER centered on twenty-first-century competences that can be fostered or cultivated with appropriate classroom pedagogies. On the basis of the above conceptualization of twenty-first-century competences, both in theoretical and practical terms, this chapter now moves on to provide concrete school-based research examples that illustrate the ways in which twenty-first-century competences can be translated into classroom pedagogy, as articulated by Jennifer Tan, convener of the twenty-first-century competences research niche area in OER. 20

THE NEW ROLES FOR TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY TEACHERS

In the process of formulating pedagogical research projects that could bring about the learning outcomes of twenty-first-century competences in students, many of our researchers in OER found that twenty-first-century pedagogies are best co-developed alongside contemporary technologies, which greatly extend opportunities for capturing student learning behaviors in action, including interactions with peers and teachers throughout the learning process. These can then be analyzed and visualized in timely and dynamic ways to inform teachers and learners alike in their choices for pedagogical and learning strategies. The direction and power of such analyses largely depend not only on the kinds of technology platforms and software adopted but also on the prevailing understandings and approaches to knowledge, learning, teaching, and assessment. This in turn calls attention to the roles teachers play in actualizing the affordances of contemporary learning technologies for nurturing twenty-first-century competences in learners. To this end, in the sections that follow, we foreground two important forms of technology-enhanced learning that are substantially shifting understandings and expanding possibilities for teaching and learning in classrooms (i.e., computer-supported collaborative learning and learning analytics) and explicate how such shifts bring to the fore two new roles for the twenty-first-century teacher—knowledge broker and pedagogical weaver. TEACHING IN DIGITAL TIMES: THE ADVENT OF COMPUTER-SUPPORTED COLLABORATIVE LEARNING AND LEARNING ANALYTICS

The postmillennial advent of contemporary collaborative learning technologies in schools, classrooms, and students’ social lives has undeniably reshaped our understandings of what counts as good teaching in the twenty-first century. In particular, the proliferation of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) digital affordances over the last two decades—such as wiki-based and/or forumbased tools that often allow students to engage with others around a suite of multimodal resources—foreground the potential benefits of purposefully designed learning experiences and environments that privilege social knowledge construction through meaningful argumentation and dialogic peer-based learning (Stahl & Hesse, 2009; Wegerif, 2013). Along with the advancements in CSCL, the educational landscape is also seeing a growing appreciation for, and appropriation of, educational big data and learning analytics to better inform both teaching practices and learning outcomes (Shum & Ferguson, 2012; Siemens & Long, 2011). Learning analytics is generally understood as the measurement, collection, analysis, and reporting of data about learners and their contexts for purposes of understanding and optimizing learning and the environments in which it occurs (Siemens et al., 2011). In broad terms, as more and more learning takes place online, supported by the increasing use of learning management systems, CSCL affordances, mobile-based learning tools, and the like, large amounts of data are captured of students’ and teachers’ learning and teaching interactions and behaviors. With big data technologies and new learning-analytics approaches to analyzing 21

W. O. LEE & J. P.-L. TAN

data that are more time-sensitive and proximal to the learning engagements—both individual and social—there is now much potential for effectively mining these large corpuses of data to surface productive and sub-optimal teaching and learning processes and patterns over time (Baker & Inventado, 2014). This in turn allows for the timely identification of specific learners and particular critical moments in their learning processes where they might benefit from personalized and adaptive pedagogical interventions, both to extend and to better scaffold learning experiences and progress. In this regard, the optimal design and use of CSCL and learning analytics to enhance teaching and learning necessarily call for a highly specialized suite of technological, pedagogical, and methodological knowledge and skills that reside in various expertise domains, including computer-based learning design and programming, complex data mining, and statistical analysis. Importantly, these are not commonly accessible knowledge and skills that our current generation of teachers are privy to, even the most highly qualified and well-trained pedagogical and content specialists, arguably in educational systems across the world. To this end, an imperative question arises—what is the unique role and value proposition of teachers if they are to remain relevant and continue to play a fundamental part in students’ learning in digital times? TEACHERS AS KNOWLEDGE BROKERS AND PEDAGOGICAL WEAVERS

McWilliam (2009) offers some insight on this conundrum by arguing for a necessary expansion in teachers’ pedagogical identities from that of merely the conventional “Sage-on-the-stage,” as well as the relatively more contemporary “Guide-on-theside,” to include that of the “Meddler-in-the-middle,” where expert teacher-meddlers view themselves as active interventionists who are “mutually involved with students in the assembling and/or dis-assembling of knowledge and cultural products… as codirectors and co-editors of [their learners’] social world” (p. 287). It is important to note that rather than a linear progression from Sage to Guide to Meddler, McWilliam (2009) refers to these as a suite of pedagogical repertoires that can and should be appropriated adaptively, as and when needed, to achieve the intended learning objectives and outcomes at hand. This ability to navigate and adopt a combination of pedagogical strategies to suit the learners and learning intentions of interest have been referred to by others as a form of “weaving” that is more often observed in highly skilled teachers rather than the critical mass (Cazden, 2006; Kalantzis & Cope, 2014; Kwek, 2012). In this chapter, we build on this line of work to reconceptualize the role of effective twenty-first-century teachers, especially those who aspire to leverage the learning affordances of advancements in CSCL and learning analytics to create powerful twenty-first-century educational experiences for their learners. Not only will they be Sages, Guides, and Meddlers, but also competent Brokers and Weavers of knowledge acquisition, generation, and adaptation with the defining characteristic of being able to blend these pedagogical moves as the learning situation necessitates, buttressed by strong content knowledge and expertise. 22

THE NEW ROLES FOR TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY TEACHERS

Our emphasis here is on the latter two essential identities of Brokers and Weavers, particularly in educational contexts that seek to leverage the powerful modes of contemporary learning afforded by CSCL and learning analytics with the intention of nurturing young people who can better thrive in modern digital worlds—local, global, and virtual. By Brokers, we are referring to the teachers’ role in connecting with and leveraging various key external expertise, including learning scientists and researchers and software engineers, developers, and programmers. These external experts would design, implement, evaluate, and document computer-supported techno-pedagogical innovations aimed at fostering the desired learning outcomes of conceptual understanding alongside twenty-first-century collaborative, creative, critical, and communicative competencies. By Weavers, we are referring to the teachers’ adaptive expertise in blending a suite of pedagogical repertoires—Sage, Guide, Meddler, Broker—to suit the learner and learning context at hand. To better illustrate the uniquely valuable roles of teachers as knowledge brokers and pedagogical weavers in the context of twenty-first-century technology-enhanced learning, we briefly describe an ongoing CSCL and learning analytics innovation known as WiREAD and its design and enactment over a period of 16 school weeks in the Secondary Three (Year 9) English Language domain. WiREAD: A COLLABORATIVE CRITICAL READING AND LEARNING ANALYTICS ENVIRONMENT

WiREAD is a web-based collaborative critical reading and learning analytics (LA) environment developed as part of a three-year Singapore Future School curriculum innovation project led by Jennifer Tan that involved a team of teacher collaborators and NIE researchers. It was funded by the National Research Foundation’s eduLab Research Program at the National Institute of Education and Ministry of Education, Singapore. WiREAD was designed in concert with English language teachers to help their upper-secondary (Year 9) students develop richer dialogues and quality interactions with peers around multimodal texts, thereby deepening their appreciation of and connection to collaborative and critical reading as a generative social practice.

Figure 1. Multimodal texts co-developed by teachers and researchers

23

W. O. LEE & J. P.-L. TAN

Figure 2. Critical lenses and talk types scaffolds to guide collaborative reading

Figure 3. Student learning dashboard visualizations (selected only)

The techno-pedagogical design of WiREAD focused on two key learning affordances: (i) online peer interactions around reading and (ii) the student LA dashboard. The teacher-collaborators and researchers worked together to develop a range of multimodal texts that were uploaded to WiREAD weekly for students to collaboratively critique and discuss (Figure 1), using a suite of micro-pedagogical scaffolds comprising seven critical lenses (message, purpose, audience, assumption, point of view, inference, and impact of language/visuals) and five critical talk types (I think that, I think so because, I agree, I disagree, and I need to ask). These served as meta-cognitive guides for students’ collaborative critiques of texts on WiREAD as they posted comments and replied to peers’ comments around the selected texts and tagged each of their comments/replies with one critical lens and one critical talk type (Figure 2). Apart from the collaborative reading features, the learning dashboard feature of WiREAD (Figure 3) provided students and teachers with dynamic realtime visualizations of their online learning behaviors, including their usage of 24

THE NEW ROLES FOR TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY TEACHERS

critical lenses, talk types, and discussion network profile. In this way, the learning dashboard was designed with the goal of providing rich, meaningful, timely, and formative feedback to students and teachers throughout the term to help monitor reading engagement and progress and to modify learning strategies and pedagogical practices to improve outcomes. At the time of writing, WiREAD has been implemented and used with 11 classes of Year 9 students (N = 495) over a total of six school terms (approximately 24 weeks) of formal English language curriculum time in one incubator school in Singapore. Each of these 11 classes of students engaged with WiREAD for approximately 45 minutes per week over two school terms (eight to ten weeks). Students were also encouraged to use personal time outside of school to read, comment, and reply to others’ posts on the multimodal texts online. WiREAD is also in the process of being implemented in more schools and classrooms led by teacherinnovator leaders in the English Language (EL) and Information and Communication Technology (ICT) subject domains. An evaluation of WiREAD across the implementation weeks demonstrated, both quantitatively and qualitatively, observable improvements to students’ learning outcomes, especially in terms of higher levels of efficacy and enjoyment toward learning English, as well as higher levels of teacher–student relatedness and improved critical reading fluency among students. Qualitatively, participant teachers observed their “students’ quality of talk improve over the weeks,” as well as “heightened engagement and motivation, especially when [students] became aware of their own learning profile through the learning dashboard maps.” Participant students, on the other hand, commented that WiREAD provided them with “more practice,” was “very fun,” and afforded them “more teacher feedback.” They also commented on particular benefits in terms of exposing them to “different perspectives,” such that “when you can’t find out a question right, you swap to that person’s perspective, then you can finally find the answer.” Furthermore, students found the “information about [their] class learning networks very interesting.” The Knowledge-Broker Teacher on WiREAD For this techno-pedagogical innovation process to come to fruition and result in observable learning benefits to students, it is evident that any single teacher or even a group of teachers would not have been able to accomplish this learning innovation on their own. Rather, this endeavor involved (a) one department head and two teachers with EL curriculum and content expertise, (b) a learning scientist-cum-researcher with specialized expertise in CSCL, LA, and twentyfirst-century competencies, (c) a software engineer with the necessary technical and programming expertise to actualize the pedagogical intentions into a technological learning platform, (d) a research assistant supporting the complex analyses and visualizations of learning-disposition and network data, (e) a 25

W. O. LEE & J. P.-L. TAN

policymaker from Singapore’s Ministry of Education’s learning technologies branch with contextual expertise in the implementation of interactive digital media learning innovations in schools, as well as (f) key members of the school leadership team, including the principal and the ICT department head, who provided invaluable structural support, such as curriculum timetabling flexibility and ICT infrastructure resources. It was only the teachers’ (especially the lead teacher’s) ability to connect with experts beyond their peers within the school and to serve as knowledge brokers across these various expert domains that led to the shared construction of a powerful learning experience that significantly enhanced the likelihood of WiREAD’s success. The Pedagogical-Weaver Teacher on WiREAD We will now illustrate the extent to which teachers’ abilities to play the role of pedagogical weaver—that is, to effectively blend and weave pedagogical moves—in the same WiREAD learning innovation can lead to different learning outcomes for students. Figures 4 and 5 provide graphical representations of how two teachers enacted different pedagogical roles on WiREAD. As evident from the two sociograms, Teacher A (Figure 4) played a largely Sage-on-the-stage role, making individual replies to all students who posted comments on the nominated text (as seen from arrows pointing away from teacher toward students), and not

Figure 4. Teacher A’s pedagogical profile and interactions with students on WiREAD (class A)

26

THE NEW ROLES FOR TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY TEACHERS

Figure 5. Teacher B’s pedagogical profile and interactions with students on WiREAD (class B)

only was it clear that there were few interactions among and between students (minimal arrows pointing between/amongst students), students were not observed to have responded to Teacher A’s replies to their comments (no arrows pointing from students to Teacher A). In contrast, Teacher B’s pedagogical interactions with her students take on a very different nature (Figure 5). While Teacher A remained as the central influential node of learning in the class (Sage-on-the-stage), Teacher B was also seen to reflect a form of Meddler-in-the-middle pedagogy whereby she facilitated reciprocal discussions and responses between herself and the students and between student peers (many arrows pointing from her to students and vice versa and between/amongst students). A comparison between these two classes of the within-subjects paired t-test results of the learning outcomes (described and presented earlier in Figure 3) showed that unlike Class B students, who reflected learning gains similar to those shown in Figure 3 (i.e., improvements in EL self-efficacy/confidence and cognitive playfulness-curiosity, sense of teacher relatedness, trust, and competence support with medium to large effect sizes), Class A students reported no significant learning gains other than a marginally improved sense of competence support from their teacher (small effect size). This is not surprising, given the high level of the teacher’s cognitive presence and responsiveness to her students in their teaching–learning interactions. These findings accentuate the critical 27

W. O. LEE & J. P.-L. TAN

Figure 6. The adaptive pedagogical roles of the twenty-first-century teacher

importance of helping teachers to foster a pedagogical weaver identity and capacity to adaptively employ a blend of different pedagogical roles when as necessary. To conclude this section, we provide a visual representation of the twenty-firstcentury teacher as a Knowledge Broker and Pedagogical Weaver as an extension to the existing roles of Sage, Guide, and Meddler (Figure 6). We posit this to be a notable and necessary shift in the role of the teacher in our rapidly shifting twenty-first-century educational landscapes that will bring about more relevant and promising educational trajectories for our young people. CONCLUSION

This chapter began with how the emergence of the notions of twenty-first-century competences and the knowledge economy has changed the requirements or expectations of the human resources produced by schools. Despite being just a thought that the twenty-first century required twenty-first-century competences, over time, various education systems and international organizations did work toward defining the specifics of twenty-first-century competences and drawing 28

THE NEW ROLES FOR TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY TEACHERS

up various frameworks for these expected new competences. Although the competences are generally “soft skills,” difficult to be defined and measured, many attempts to measure them, in one way or another, were made by OECD’s PISA studies. The changing demands on the learning outcomes led to the change of demands on the providers—the school and teachers. As outlined in OECD’s (2001) portrait of the shifting role of schools and teachers in the next 15 years, schools are becoming learning centers, and teachers have to face the challenge that in the twenty-first century, students can learn by themselves with the availability of the worldwide web via the internet. If we do not want to see teachers become obsolete, teachers must change the way they define themselves and change their pedagogies for the new times. From a system perspective, we were also able to observe that high-performing education systems, without exception, see teachers as important vehicles for change, and they all invest immense effort in teacher education to help them become “twentyfirst-century teachers.” Our research efforts in the OER of the National Institute of Education in Singapore found that with the help of modern computer technologies and contemporary approaches to capturing, analyzing, and visualizing in-situ learning data, we can create new learning scenarios that can lead to new forms of cognitive, social, and pedagogical interactions with demonstrable potential for fostering learning outcomes that are relevant for the needs in the twenty-firstcentury knowledge economy. The research examples mentioned in this chapter show that the learning context in the twenty-first century, at least in Singapore classrooms, has changed. Self-learning and peer-learning best describe the new learning context that is emerging. With the abundance of resources available from the web and the open educational resources, students can easily search and find answers to almost any questions. Interestingly, because of this, peer learning becomes possible and more relevant for students, as they can share what they find differently due to individual differences. This will complement their learning, both in terms of comparability of findings among themselves and finding answers in the quickest possible time. Further, we found that the emergence of collaborative learning naturally fosters critical thinking, as the students need to make judgments on what to take and what to let go. This new learning context will create pressure for teachers. As illustrated in Figure 4, Teacher A can continue to play the role of “Sage-on-the-stage,” but the students’ learning is marginal, mainly because the power of the teacher becomes minimized in the face of the vast and diverse demands of the whole class of students who can self-learn and peer-learn. Figure 5 shows what a twenty-first-century teacher is going to be like—the teacher is interactive with the students, who are also interactive among themselves. Because of the contextual change of learning, the teacher’s role also gradually changes from “Sage-on-the-stage” to become “Guide-on-the-side” and “Meddler-in-the-middle”. Teachers are gradually taking up the role of facilitators. Instead of being traditionally didactic for the transmission of knowledge in the class, 29

W. O. LEE & J. P.-L. TAN

teachers in the new learning context gradually become knowledge brokers and weave the bits and pieces of knowledge generated by students in the classroom during the learning activities. Thus, the teacher’s role gradually becomes “pedagogical weaver.” These new scenarios raise the question of how to define good teaching and, thus, good teachers. In the new learning context, good teaching is no longer determined by how well knowledge is transmitted but by how articulately knowledge weaving is done based on the initial knowledge found by the students in, or from outside of, the classroom. Perhaps this will shed some light on the direction of twenty-first-century teaching. NOTE 1

This section is extracted from Lee (2012).

REFERENCES ATC21S. (2012). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills. Retrieved from http://www.atc21s.org Baker, R. S., & Inventado, P. S. (2014). Educational data mining and learning analytics. In J. A. Larusson & B. White (Eds.), Learning analytics (pp. 61–75). New York, NY: Springer New York. Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., & Rumble, M. (2010). Draft white paper 1: Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills project. Melbourne: ACTS. Retrieved from http://atc21s.org/index.php/resources/ Cazden, C. B. (2006, January). Connected learning: “Weaving” in classroom lessons. Keynote address presented at Pedagogy in Practice 2006 Conference, University of Newcastle, New South Wales. Cogan, J. J., & Derricott, R. (1998). Citizenship for the 21st century: An international perspective on education. London: Kogan Page. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2015). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Learning by design. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. European Union. (2006, December 30). Recommendation of the European parliament and of the council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning (20006/962/EC). Official Journal of the European Union, L 394/10. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/? uri=CELEX:32006H0962&from=EN Gordon, J., Halsz, G., Krawczyk, M., Leney, T., Michel, A., Pepper, D., Putkiewicz, E., & Wisniewski, W. (2009). Key competences in Europe: Opening doors for lifelong learners across the school curriculum and teacher education. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/more-information/ moreinformation139_en.htm Heffron, J. M. (1997). Defining values. In J. D. Montgomery (Ed.), Values in education: Social capital formation in Asia and the Pacific (pp. 3–27). Hollis: Hollis Publishing Company. Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2010). The teacher as designer: Pedagogy in the new media age. E-Learning and Digital Media, 7(3), 200–222. Kennedy, K. J. (2008). Globalised economies and liberalised curriculum: New challenges for national citizenship education. In D. Grossman, W. O. Lee, & K. Kennedy (Eds.), Citizenship curriculum in Asia and the Pacific (pp. 13–26). Hong Kong: Springer/Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong. Kogan, M. (2005). Modes of knowledge and patterns of power. Higher Education, 49, 9–30. Kwek, D. (2012). Weaving as frontload and backend pedagogies: Building repertoires of connected learning. In C. Day (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook on teacher and school development (pp. 335–350). London: Routledge. Lee, W. O. (2012). Learning for the future: The emergence of lifelong learning and the internationalization of education as the fourth way? Journal of Education Research Policy and Practice, 2(1), 53–64.

30

THE NEW ROLES FOR TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY TEACHERS Lee, W. O. (2014). Comparative analysis of high performing education systems: Teachers, teaching and teacher education as factors of success. In S. K. Lee, W. O. Lee, & E. L. Low (Eds.), Educational policy innovations: Levelling up and sustaining educational achievement. Dordrecht: Springer. Lee, W. O., Hung, D., & Teh, L. W. (Eds.). (2014). Education innovation series. Dordrecht: Springer. McWilliam, E. L. (2009). Teaching for creativity: From sage to guide to meddler. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 29(3), 281–293. Merryfield, M. M., & Duty, L. (2008). Globalization. In J. Arthur, I. Davies, & C. Hahn (Eds.), Handbook for citizenship and democracy (pp. 80–91). London: Sage Publications. OECD. (2001). Education policy analysis. Paris: OECD. OECD. (2005). The definition and selection of key competencies: Executive summary. Paris: OECD. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/35070367.pdf Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2012, May 21). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/documents/P21_Framework.pdf Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2001). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: American’s declining social capital. The Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78. Shum, S. B., & Ferguson, R. (2012). Social learning analytics. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 3–26. Siemens, G., Gasevic, D., Haythornthwaite, C., Dawson, S., Buckingham Shum, S., Ferguson, R., Duval, E., Verbert, K., & Baker, R. (2011). Open learning analytics: An integrated & modularized platform. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ProposalLearningAnalyticsModel_ SoLAR.pdf Siemens, G., & Long, P. (2011). Penetrating the fog: Analytics in learning and education. EDUCAUSE Review, 46(5), 30. Stahl, G., & Hesse, F. (2009). Practice perspectives in CSCL. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(2), 109–114. Tan, J. P.-L., Caleon, I. S., Jonathan, C. R., & Koh, E. (2014). A dialogic framework for assessing collective creativity in computer-supported collaborative problem-solving tasks. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 9(3), 411–437. Tan, J. P.-L., & McWilliam, E. (2009). From literacy to multiliteracies: Diverse learners and pedagogical practice. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 213–225. Tsai, C. T., & Chen, Y. H. (2013). National core competencies and its implication to curriculum development. Journal of Curriculum Studies (Taiwan), 8(1), 1–13. Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299–321. Wegerif, R. (2013). Dialogic: Education for the internet age. New York, NY: Routledge. Zhao, X. Y. (2016). Report reveals 21st century competencies. China Daily. Retrieved from http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2016-06/05/content_25615131.htm

Wing On Lee Zhengzhou University China Jennifer Pei-Ling Tan National Institute of Education Singapore

31

ÄLI LEIJEN AND MARGUS PEDASTE

3. PEDAGOGICAL BELIEFS, INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF TEACHERS IN ESTONIA

ABSTRACT

The average age of Estonian teachers appears to be relatively high among the OECD countries, with a rather small proportion of young teachers. Thus, the pedagogical beliefs and instructional practices of teachers in Estonia often originate from their initial teacher education in the past, when the subject-oriented approach prevailed and teachers’ autonomy was quite low. In this context, it is important to understand how initial teacher education could be updated in order for it to be more attractive and in line with recent innovative international trends in teacher education and how teachers’ autonomy and changes in their pedagogical beliefs and instructional practices could be supported. With this in mind, we discuss how different interventions at the country and university levels have provided opportunities for enhancing teachers’ professional development in Estonia. These interventions include the introduction of new comprehensive school curricula and teachers’ professional standards, increased autonomy of schools, and changed teacher education curricula at the university level that aim at attracting more students. Challenges related to the realization of these interventions include the need for improved management of resources, wider teachers’ acceptance of changes, and the need for developing a clear career ladder for teachers that supports their professional development. Keywords: pedagogical beliefs, instructional practices, initial teacher education, teacher education curriculum, teachers’ autonomy, professional development INTRODUCTION

Like in several other countries, the state statistics in Estonia (http://www.haridussilm.ee) indicate that the average age of teachers is rather high (47.9 years in Estonia in comparison with the OECD average of 44 years; see the TALIS survey, 2013). In addition, the TALIS survey revealed that Estonian teachers had the longest work experience among the OECD countries (an average of 21.6 years compared with the OECD average of 17 years). This indicates that the population of teachers in Estonia

© KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2018 | DOI 10.1163/9789004372573_003

Ä. LEIJEN & M. PEDASTE

contains a large group of older teachers who received their initial teacher education in Soviet times. Although there are historical differences between class teachers’ and subject teachers’ preparation (class teachers’ education has been more practice-oriented, whereas subject teachers’ education has been more subject-related content oriented), all teacher education programmes were largely subject-oriented during Soviet times. In those days, many students enrolled in certain subject areas, such as biology or Estonian linguistics, also obtained teaching qualifications during their 5-year study period. Those students had applied for subject studies, and even when they started to teach after graduation, their identities were related to their subject fields. This background suggests the presence of subject-specific focus in Estonian schools. In this context, it is interesting that Estonia has had quite good results in PISA surveys. For example, in 2012, Estonia held 4th place in mathematics, 4th to 5th place in reading, and 2nd place in science among European countries, according to the mean score in PISA (http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf). However, there are also some issues—many students do not enjoy going to school. About 66 percent of the students reported being happy at school (the OECD average was 80 percent). In comparison with other countries, only students in the Slovak Republic, Czech Republic, and Korea are less happy at school. Thus, the performance of Estonian students is quite good, but their psychological wellbeing is of concern. The latter could be linked to the teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and instructional practices, which we address in the next section. PEDAGOGICAL BELIEFS AND INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

Katrin Poom-Valickis has studied teachers’ pedagogical beliefs via metaphors for more than a decade (see Poom-Valickis, 2003; Poom-Valickis & Oder, 2013). Her research group has used the framework of Beijaard, Verloop, and Vermunt (2000), according to whom teachers’ professional identities consist of three aspects: subject matter expertise, didactical expertise, and pedagogical expertise. First, subject matter expertise means that teachers’ work requires specific subject-related knowledge and that one of their main duties is to support students’ cognitive development in that subject area. Second, a teacher requires didactical skills that focus on questions regarding how to teach or support students’ learning of a particular subject matter in the best way. Third, a teacher’s work is related to more general pedagogical goals that help to support the students’ broader emotional and moral development. Poom-Valickis’s findings from 2003 indicated that the teachers’ metaphors representing their pedagogical beliefs most prevalently focused on subject matter and knowledge acquisition, whereas teachers’ metaphors from 2013 indicated a clear dominance of pedagogical and didactical focus. The latter is in line with a study conducted by Lepik and colleagues (2013), who investigated the pedagogical beliefs of 1,189 Estonian teachers through a questionnaire that measured beliefs

34

PEDAGOGICAL BELIEFS, INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES, AND OPPORTUNITIES

on two scales: constructivism and traditionalism. They found that, overall, the average scores of different groups of teachers were higher on the constructivism scale (close to maximum scores) than on the traditionalism scale (close to the average score). When comparing the different groups, class teachers scored the highest on the constructivism scale and mathematics teachers on the traditionalism scale. Moreover, this study showed that teachers did not consider practices related to constructivism and traditionalism as opposing; on the contrary, they reported being inclined to combine these practices. The acceptance of social-constructivism beliefs by Estonian teachers was also visible in the TALIS study (TALIS survey, 2013). However, teachers’ pedagogical beliefs are not necessarily related to their instructional practices. In the same study, the lower secondary education teachers were asked to report how often they used different teaching practices. Estonian teachers reported that their most common practices were presenting a summary of recently learned content (80 percent did it frequently or in all or nearly all lessons), followed by checking students’ exercise books (71 percent) and letting students practice similar tasks (basically drill and practice, 68 percent). In contrast, only 38 percent of teachers reported that their students often worked in groups, 29 percent of teachers often let students use ICT tools for project or class work, and 15 percent of teachers let students work on projects that required at least one week to complete. In line with these findings, class teachers (n=74) who participated in a study by Uibu, Kikas, and Tropp (2011) reported using instructional practices aimed at comprehension, application, and individualization (related mainly to cognitive constructivism) more than supporting students’ independence (social constructivism scale) and traditional rote learning practices. In a recent study, Uibu, Padrik, and Tenjes (2016) analyzed video-recorded data of 50 teachers through language modeling, a sub-scale of the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) (Pianta, LaParo, & Hamre, 2008), and found a majority of the class teachers applied language modeling strategies on a random basis. Although teachers used dialogue in their classes, its main purpose was to check their students’ knowledge or to simply transfer knowledge to students. Rarely was dialogue used to support classroom discussion and shared meaning making. These findings suggest that teachers paid little attention to how to support their students’ learning skills and socio-cognitive development. The findings presented above reveal that teachers’ beliefs have changed towards student-centered views over the years in Estonia. The actual teaching practices seem to be more traditional and are changing more slowly. In the following sections, we provide some possible explanations as to why these developments have taken so much time and describe some recent state-level interventions that aim at fostering the pedagogical turn in Estonian schools (see also Estonian Lifelong Learning Strategy 2020—Eesti elukestva õppe…, 2014). Namely, teachers’ autonomy and professional development are described as the main factors in the Estonian context.

35

Ä. LEIJEN & M. PEDASTE

TEACHERS’ AUTONOMY

Estonia’s educational system has been radically reformed since 1991, after the reestablishment of the independent republic. In 1996, the new national curriculum was launched. It had been developed on the basis of many Western curricula but was still mainly subject-oriented. In 1997, new national state exams were introduced at the end of upper secondary school to test the achievement of the objectives set out in the national curriculum. The results of the state exams were published in national newspapers, and schools were often ranked based on their students’ scores. Introduction of such high-stakes standardized tests decreased teachers’ autonomy in deciding what and how to teach their students. It has been debated in Estonia whether the introduction of such tests has also contributed to the issue of students merely preparing for test-taking. For example, a recently conducted study by Saks and Leijen (2015) showed that meta-cognitive learning strategies had no direct effect and a weak negative indirect effect on the outcomes of the national state exam in English. This was very surprising, since meta-cognitive learning strategies have been shown to have a very strong effect on learning outcomes in other tests, for example, the PISA 2009 results (see, e.g., Mikk et al., 2012). During the last decade, both the national curriculum and state exams have been changed. In the Estonian context, it is important that teachers were involved in this process—some of them in the workgroups designing changes and several others in giving feedback. According to Viirpalu, Krull, and Mikser (2014), teachers are now expected to act as curriculum leaders, and 43 percent of them have been involved in curriculum development. In their study, 60 percent of teachers found that both national and school curricula are important guidelines for their work. Today, the curriculum is still rather subject-oriented in defining subject-specific expected outcomes, but the general competencies have gained much more importance, and teachers have more freedom to decide what and how to teach. For example, in the last version of the national curriculum for upper secondary schools, only 63 courses out of 96 are specified as compulsory. Therefore, the school has more autonomy in providing courses according to their specialization, and the students, too, have more freedom to choose elective courses. In addition, although the national state exams are still in force, their role has been reduced in recent years. Starting from 2014, students have to take three (instead of five, which was the previous practice) national state exams: mathematics, mother tongue, and foreign language. Thus, more autonomy has been granted to the teachers of many other subjects to decide what to teach and how to evaluate the outcomes. For example, the graduation exams in these subjects are designed by the schools. TEACHERS’ PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Another change introduced in the mid-1990s was the teachers’ attestation system, which was important for the goals of that time but had to be adjusted to new societal 36

PEDAGOGICAL BELIEFS, INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES, AND OPPORTUNITIES

needs. Pedaste (2012) has concluded that the old system did not support teachers’ autonomy and professional development toward using innovative learning approaches. He identified five main issues: (i) the attestation system supported teachers’ activities outside of their school rather than focusing on improving teaching in school, (ii) no position-specific or more complex work was expected from teachers moved to a higher level through attestation, (iii) teachers’ salaries were linked to the level they were assigned through attestation but not necessarily to their teaching skills or tasks they had in school, (iv) the attestation process had no good measure regarding teaching quality, and (v) the attestation process did not support teachers’ personal continuous professional development while it was evaluating the outcomes and not the process (e.g., teachers had to show that their students had good results in national Olympiads, teachers had taught courses in universities, they had gotten a research-oriented master’s or PhD degree, or they had published something about teaching or learning). In 2013, the new professional standards (see http://www.kutsekoda.ee/) for teachers were introduced, and these distinguish between teachers, senior teachers, and master teachers. The standards were developed by a group of representatives of associations of teachers and school leaders, teacher educators from universities, and a representative of the Ministry of Education and Research. The standards describe teachers’ obligatory competences. These include competences related to the planning of learning and teaching activities; development of the learning environment; supporting learning and development, reflection, and professional self-development; counseling parents and students; and developmental, creative, and research activities. From senior teachers and master teachers, the same competences are required on a higher level, and some additional competences are expected, such as supervising and teaching teachers and leading the group work of teachers. This differentiation makes it possible to build a more attractive career ladder for teachers with more new challenges for experienced teachers. Research-oriented competences are a new characteristic of the professional standards in Estonia, and reflection is much more in focus compared with the former standard. This also means that according to the new standards, teachers have more autonomy in planning their own professional development and that the evaluation process is founded on their portfolio-based self-evaluation. The evaluation process is coordinated by the Estonian Association of Teachers, meaning that teachers have been given responsibility for their own professional development. This is also supported by the recent changes in legislation. As of September 2015, teachers no longer have to prove that they have taken 160 hours of in-service courses within five years. In the amended legislation, it is assumed that teachers can improve their competences in many different ways, not just through in-service courses. Licenses are awarded to graduates at universities where the teacher education programs are designed according to these standards. In order to apply for the higher level license, teachers are expected to compile their portfolios with examples of materials describing their teaching (descriptions, videos, developed learning materials, etc.) and analytical reflections based on the standards as systematic 37

Ä. LEIJEN & M. PEDASTE

guidelines. These are used in an evaluation process that ends with a discussion with a committee (consisting mainly of teachers) that is trained for awarding teachers’ licenses. The new system has only been used for a few years, and the effect of it is not yet clear. There are not many teachers who have been interested in applying for a higher level license, but the ones who have done it reflect this as a very useful process for their personal professional development. In addition, the new system is not tied with teachers’ salaries, which can now be decided by schools based on their own criteria. Furthermore, as of September 2013, the minimum or maximum number of lessons a teacher has to teach weekly is not specified. Thus, more autonomy has been granted to schools and teachers in designing the school’s curriculum and deciding what type of work should be done by which teachers. For example, if a master teacher is needed for mentoring a number of other teachers or for conducting research in order to solve some problems in school, his or her workload in teaching could be reduced or even cut down to zero. This kind of autonomy has been viewed as the main characteristic of the most successful educational systems in the world, according to the McKinsey report comparing the OECD countries (Barber & Mourshed, 2007). It presents experienced teachers with new challenges and enriches the professional community. CHALLENGES RELATED TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CHANGES

Despite several reforms in Estonia’s educational system, there are still some issues that need to be solved in order to support the implementation of the new autonomyoriented approach described above. The availability of resources and the school leaders’ and teachers’ acceptance of and willingness to implement changes are two of those issues. When it comes to resources, schools should have enough money to differentiate teachers’ work and salaries as well as support their professional development and research. Therefore, the budget for teachers’ salaries has been one of the main priorities of the Ministry of Education and Research for many years and is also set out as a goal in the implementation plans of the new Lifelong Learning Strategy adopted by the Estonian government in 2014. However, the resources are not enough if the teachers’ willingness to adopt changes and self-efficacy or courage to take responsibility are not in accordance with the increased autonomy they have. According to Deci and Ryan (2000), there are three basic psychological needs that must be satisfied in order to ensure the optimal functioning and growth of humans: competence, relatedness, and autonomy. Thus, when schools and teachers are already granted autonomy, teachers should feel competent regarding the expectations specified in the professional standards and other relevant documents. The need for relatedness should also be satisfied; in this context, teachers should understand that the new pedagogical aims are shared with many other teachers. When the three basic psychological needs have been achieved, teachers are able to self-regulate their professional development. Unfortunately, 38

PEDAGOGICAL BELIEFS, INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES, AND OPPORTUNITIES

there are some worrying research results related to Estonian teachers’ self-efficacy and willingness to adopt educational reforms. In the analysis of the TALIS data, four clusters of Estonian teachers have been specified (based on the sample teaching in lower secondary school, VHH/RRJPD 1HPHUåLWVNL 7ZRFOXVWHUVFRQWDLQHGWHDFKHUVZLWKUDWKHUORZ self-efficacy (71 percent). However, among the teachers with high self-efficacy, only one cluster (17 percent) of teachers was satisfied with their work and societal position, meaning that they also felt the relatedness required for supporting their professional development. The other cluster with high self-efficacy contained teachers who did not feel that they as teachers were loved and appreciated by society (characteristics of relatedness). Thus, only a small group of teachers has been shown to be prepared for adopting new educational approaches. The issue was also confirmed in the study by Lepik, Loogma, and Talts (2014), who conducted interviews with 25 teachers. They identified seven strategies how teachers’ dealt with curriculum reform. Enthusiastic acceptance of changes appeared when teachers felt that their autonomy increased and new opportunities were opened. However, all the other behavioral strategies resulted in unacceptance or merely formal acceptance. Some of the teachers (i) changed their practices because of the formal requirements, (ii) adapted the new expectations to their own needs, (iii) did not see the changes or felt that the changes should be implemented by other teachers, (iv) ignored the changes and followed their own pedagogical approach, (v) ignored the changes because they felt that applying them was difficult or unnecessary, or (vi) felt that the changes were not in accordance with their own personal values and moral understanding. Thus, implementing changes in the educational system is quite difficult if there is a scarcity of resources, if high self-efficacy and relatedness are characteristic of less than one fifth of the teachers, and if many strategies teachers use are related to not accepting the changes introduced through educational reforms. One of the actions taken to achieve the necessary changes is changing the teacher education programmes. These changes are introduced in detail in the following section. TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Teacher education programs and, especially, the methods used in teaching and reflection to support professional development have been viewed as key factors in changing teachers’ beliefs and practices. For a long time, teachers’ in-service courses have been of high interest in Estonia. The courses have focused on practical topics that are relevant for teachers. At the same time, interest in initial teacher education has been relatively low for many years in Estonia and has only started to increase in recent years. In order to improve teacher education programs in Estonia, several studies have been carried out in recent years to understand (1) the motives of candidates to start teacher education, (2) how to provide teacher education that prepares students 39

Ä. LEIJEN & M. PEDASTE

sufficiently for real work, and (3) how to introduce them to adequate tools for further professional development (e.g., Krull et al., 2013). In addition, several European research and development projects have resulted in new methods and products that are integrated into teacher education. For instance, in the ACTTEA project (http://acttea.ut.ee/), a video-supported guided-reflection method was developed for supporting action-oriented knowledge construction (see also Leijen et al., 2014; 2015); in the WatchMe project (http://www.project-watchme.eu/), a framework for supporting the development and assessment of core practices of teaching during student teachers’ school practicum period was developed (see also Hunt, Leijen, Malva, Slof, & van der Schaaf, 2015; Krull & Leijen, 2015); in the Go-Lab (http://www.go-lab-project.eu) and Ark of Inquiry (http://www.arkofinquiry.eu) projects, a framework for applying and supporting collaborative inquiry-based learning has been designed (see also Pedaste et al., 2015) in which teachers have a new role with increased autonomy and students have more responsibility for setting their learning goals and choosing their learning methods. The University of Tartu launched a completely new teacher education approach in 2013. One of the main aims of the implemented changes was to better connect theoretical studies with the practical work of teachers. This aim was addressed from two dimensions, as suggested by Grossman, Hammerness, and McDonald (2009). First, the traditional divide between foundations and methods courses was challenged by developing larger courses taught by teams of different teacher educators. These teams include teaching staff from different faculties and institutes. Second, the common gap between theoretical courses and school practicum was bridged by changing the whole concept of school practicum. In the University of Tartu, school practicum is usually carried out in a school belonging to the Network of Innovation Schools of the University of Tartu (see Pedaste, Pedaste, Lukk, Villems, & Allas, 2014). This network of schools shares common values regarding teaching and learning and teachers’ professional development. The new courses and school practicum are described in more detail in the following sections. NEW CORE SUBJECT COURSES IN TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMMES

Teacher education studies in the University of Tartu are divided into three modules: teachers’ core pedagogical courses, practice, and didactics (see Figure 1). In addition, all student teachers go through subject studies and conduct pedagogical research that ends with writing a thesis or presenting the findings in an exam. The main improvements were made recently in the core pedagogical courses and practice. There are four core courses: Teaching and Reflection, Designing Learning and Instruction, Teacher’s Identity and Leadership, and Communication and Feedback in School. The core subject courses integrate thirteen important topics (four general and nine specific) of teachers’ professional standards and are implemented throughout the teacher education studies. The practice supports all core subject courses. 40

PEDAGOGICAL BELIEFS, INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES, AND OPPORTUNITIES

Figure 1. Components of teacher education professional studies in the University of Tartu

Teaching and Reflection is the most extensive course (10 ECTS), stretched over three semesters to support the professional development of student teachers. In the first semester, students get acquainted with the psychological aspects of learning and study reflection methods to start actively reflecting on their own professional development during their studies and school practicum. The second semester is dedicated to studying the diversity of learners and understanding how the learning environment can be adapted to students with special educational needs. In addition, the student teachers learn how to use modern methods to enhance learning and adapt the learning environment through integrating digital devices. The third semester is intended for learning how to conduct educational research and supervise students in their research projects. It also helps student teachers gain the basic knowledge needed for their own theses. The Designing Learning and Instruction course (6 ECTS) integrates the principles of learning and instruction with the planning and evaluation of the learning process. Students are engaged in the analysis of educational theories and practices as well as the national curriculum and teachers’ professional standards. In the design process, the diversity of learning environments, curriculum content, and learners is taken into account. Teacher’s Identity and Leadership (4 ECTS) is a course for preparing student teachers for taking on the professional role of teachers as leaders in and outside 41

Ä. LEIJEN & M. PEDASTE

of school. Various ethical and moral dilemmas are discussed, and the legislation concerning the educational system is analyzed. Discussions on class-level leadership and the professional development of teachers also form an important part of the course. The fourth course, Communication and Feedback in School (4 ECTS), is focused on communication skills training in which student teachers act out different practical situations in schools. These are video recorded and later analyzed. For example, they learn how to listen, ask questions, and lead effective discussions. STUDENT TEACHERS’ PRACTICE

The renewed student teachers’ practice starts at the beginning of the teacher education studies and runs parallel to the university courses, allowing the creation of many assignments that help student teachers connect university courses with the practical experiences. Very importantly, the volume of practice has also been increased from 15 ECTS to at least 24 ECTS in all curricula. All these changes aim to increase the meaningfulness of teacher education and preparing students for the real-life work of teachers. This also helps make teacher education more attractive for student candidates. The student teachers’ practice (see Figure 1) is divided into three parts. The most important change is that a continuous pedagogical traineeship is introduced—a school practicum consisting of two parts, one supporting the competences gained in the core subject courses (6 ECTS) and the other supporting courses in didactics (3 ECTS). The student teachers start observation assignments early on in their pedagogical studies in parallel to the university courses and later continue with teaching together with the school teacher (responsibility is gradually handed over to the student teacher). This means that the practicum is closely linked with the university courses—the assignments are often given during the courses and later discussed in seminars. The continuous pedagogical traineeship is conducted throughout two study years. It also contributes to student teachers seeing a holistic picture of the teaching profession, as they will be involved in several activities during a school year. This professional development activity is supported by a mentor who is a practicing school teacher. The mentor supports and guides two or three student teachers, and they meet on a regular basis to discuss how to build links between theory and practice and support the development of their professional identity. The second new type of practice is pedagogical practice in university labs (2 ECTS to support the core subject courses and 2 ECTS to support didactics). It is a type of practicum where student teachers practice teaching assignments with no real learners present. This practice is conducted before the main pedagogical traineeship (11 ECTS), a traditional type of school practicum that allows a student teacher to actively take on all the different roles of a teacher. Finally, this school practicum should also show that a student teacher has achieved all the 42

PEDAGOGICAL BELIEFS, INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES, AND OPPORTUNITIES

competencies described in the new professional standards for teachers and that he or she is able to autonomously design, conduct, and analyze the learning process in school. STUDENT TEACHERS’ FEEDBACK ON THE CHANGED TEACHER EDUCATION

To assess the extent to which theory and practice have been connected in the renewed teacher education, Malva (2015) circulated a CATE questionnaire (Hammerness, Klette, & Bergem, 2014) among student teachers at the end of their third semester. The questionnaire consisted of 36 questions that measured the following subscales: (1) links to practice; (2) using theory; (3) research methods; (4) perceived coherence between courses; (5) opportunities for connecting different parts of the programme; and (6) perceived coherence between field experiences and courses. By this stage, the first round of students studying in the renewed curriculum had passed the pedagogical subjects module. There were 106 student participants (76 percent of the cohort) in the study. The results showed that most of the students (76 percent) perceived coherence among the different courses regarding ideas and conceptions about teaching and learning, although they also noted (75 percent) that university teachers experienced difficulties in knowing what was specifically taught in other subjects. Most of the students (65 percent) also agreed that what they learned in their school practicum was well linked with what they learned in their coursework. In regard to linking theoretical studies to practice, an overwhelming majority of the students (91 percent) reported having opportunities to examine different documents that teachers have to use in their work (e.g., curricula). Opportunities for examining transcripts of real classroom talk (23 percent) and for examining samples of students’ work (29 percent) were rated lowest. Although 82 percent of the students agreed that they had opportunities for analyzing different educational theories, only 57 percent reported using those theories to analyze their own teaching practices. These findings are encouraging, as they show that the intended changes have been realized to a large extent. We can also see that collaboration between the teaching staff needs to be further supported and the artefacts of everyday instructional practices more readily incorporated into the core pedagogical courses. Furthermore, we need to help our student teachers see the practical value of theoretical frameworks and better guide them in making the best use of them for their own learning. CONCLUSION

Our overview of the current situation and the past has demonstrated that Estonian teachers’ beliefs toward the socio-constructivist approach to learning and instruction have changed, but their practices are still quite traditional and their self-efficacy does not seem to support the successful implementation of educational innovations. One of the reasons might be that teachers’ autonomy has not received sufficient 43

Ä. LEIJEN & M. PEDASTE

support; therefore, their willingness to adopt changes and their self-efficacy should be supported much more. The challenges described above and actions taken serve as our guide to achieving changes in practice through the continuous professional development of teachers. First, we have to support schools’ and teachers’ autonomy in order to strengthen teachers’ positions and the attractiveness of the profession in society. Second, we need to guarantee the resources needed to implement the renewed initial teacher education that supports the socio-constructivist approach. In addition, this approach should be applied in teachers’ continuous professional development. Third, there is a need to foster collaboration among teachers to increase their feelings of relatedness, an important factor in boosting their feelings of self-efficacy. If these three changes are sufficiently supported, the teaching profession and teacher education become more attractive in society, and the instructional practices will be adjusted in line with the beliefs that the teachers already have. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This research was supported by the Estonian Science Foundation (No ETF9221). REFERENCES Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world’s best-performing schools systems come out on top. London: McKinsey & Company. Beijaard, D., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. D. (2000). Teachers’ perceptions of professional identity: An exploratory study from a personal knowledge perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 749–764. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the selfdetermination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. Eesti elukestva õppe strateegia 2020. (2014). Haridus- ja teadusministeerium, Eesti Koostöökogu, Eesti Haridusfoorum. Web-based materials. Retrieved from https://www.hm.ee/sites/default/files/ strateegia2020.pdf [Estonian Lifelong Learning Strategy 2020. Ministry of Education and Research, Estonian Cooperation Assembly, Estonian Education Forum.] Hammerness, K., Klette, K., & Bergem, O. K. (2014). CATE: Teacher education survey. Oslo: University of Oslo and Department of Teacher Education and School Research. Hunt, P., Leijen, Ä., Malva, L., Slof, B., & van der Schaaf, M. (2015). Performance-based competency requirements for student teachers: A validation study. In INTED2015 Proceedings (pp. 309–317). IATED Academy. Krull, E., & Leijen, Ä. (2015). Perspectives for defining student teacher performance-based teaching skills indicators to provide formative feedback through learning analytics. Creative Education, 6(10), 914–926. Leijen, Ä., Allas, R., Pedaste, M., Knezic, D., Marcos, J. J. M., Meijer, P., Husu, J., Krull, E., & Toom, A. (2015). How to support the development of teachers’ practical knowledge: Comparing different conditions. The European Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 1205–1212. Leijen, Ä., Allas, R., Toom, A., Husu, J., Marcos, J. J. M., Meijer, P., Knezic, D., Pedaste, M., & Krull, E. (2014). Guided reflection for supporting the development of student teachers’ practical knowledge. The European Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 112, 314–322. Lepik, M., Elvisto, T., Oder, T., & Talts, L. (2013). Õpetajate üldpedagoogiliste uskumuste struktuur ja tüüpprofiilid. In E. Krull, A. Leijen, M. Lepik, J. Mikk, L. Talts, & T. Õun (Eds.), Õpetajate professionaalne areng ja selle toetamine (pp. 248–273). Talinn: Eesti Ülikoolide Kirjastus. [The

44

PEDAGOGICAL BELIEFS, INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES, AND OPPORTUNITIES structure and typical profiles of teachers’ general pedagogical beliefs. In E. Krull, A. Leijen, M. Lepik, J. Mikk, L. Talts, & T. Õun (Eds.), Teachers’ professional development and how to support it (pp. 248–273). Talinn: Estonian Universities Press.] Lepik, M., Loogma, K., & Talts, L. (2014). Õpetajakutse transformatsioon ühiskonnas: Toimetulekustrateegiad, pedagoogilised uskumused ning tööidentiteet. In E. Krull, Ä. Leijen, M. Lepik, J. Mikk, L. Talts, & T. Õun (Eds.), Õpetajate professionaalne areng ja selle toetamine (pp. 227–234). Talinn: Eesti Ülikoolide Kirjastus. [Transformation of the teaching profession in society: Coping strategies, pedagogical beliefs and work identity. In E. Krull, Ä. Leijen, M. Lepik, J. Mikk, L. Talts, & T. Õun (Eds.), Teachers’ professional development and how to support it (pp. 227–234). Talinn: Estonian Universities Press.] /RRJPD. 1HPHUåLWVNL66HSWHPEHU± Constructing model of teachers’ innovative behavior in school environment: Secondary data analysis from TALIS survey. European Conference on Educational Research (ECER2013), Main Conference, Istanbul. Retrieved from http://www.eera-ecer.de/ecer-programmes/conference/8/contribution/21913/ Malva, L. (2015). Teooria ja praktika sidusus ning õppeainete koherentsus Tartu Ülikooli õpetajakoolituse kutseõpingute õppekavades. Magistritöö, Haridusteaduste instituut, Sotsiaal ja haridusteaduskond, Tartu Ülikool haridusteaduste instituut (24t) MA 432. [The coherence of the courses and theory and practice in the teacher education programs in Tartu University. Master Thesis in the Institute of Education, Faculty of Social Sciences and Education, University of Tartu Institute of Education (24t) MA 432.] Mikk, J., Kitsing, M., Must, O., Säälik, Ü., & Täht, K. (2012). Eesti PISA 2009 kontekstis: tugevused ja probleemid. Programmi Eduko uuringutoetuse kasutamise lepingu aruanne. Tartu. [Estonia in the context of PISA 2009: Strengths and problems. Eduko programme research grant – Final report. Tartu.] Retrieved from https://www.hm.ee/sites/default/files/eesti_pisa_2009_ kontekstis.pdf Pedaste, M. (2012). Vananenud ja mittetöötava kutsestandardi peab asendama uuega. Õpetajate Leht, 25, 12–13. [The obsolete and flawed occupational qualification standards must be replaced by new ones. Teachers’ Weekly, 25, 12–13.] Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. Pedaste, M., Pedaste, K., Lukk, K., Villems, P., & Allas, R. (2014). A model of innovation schools: Estonian case-study. The European Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 112, 418–427. Pedaste, M., Villems, P., Allas, R., Pungas-Kohv, P., & Toome, H.-L. (2013). Tartu Ülikool õpetaja identiteedi kujunemise toetajana. In G. Kangilaski, M.-L. Parder, & T. Pisuke-Roos (Eds.), Väärtuspõhine kool. Eesti ja maailma kogemus (pp. 297–308). Tartu: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. [University of Tartu as a supporter of the development of teachers’ identity. In G. Kangilaski, M.-L. Parder, & T. Pisuke-Roos (Eds.), Value-based school. Estonia’s and international experience (pp. 297–308). Tartu: Foundation of the Estonian Language.] Pianta, R. C., LaParo, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) manual, K-3. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing Company. Poom-Valickis, K. (2003). Õpetajate professionaalse arengu uurimine: kuidas muuta eelarvamuslikud tõekspidamised arengupotentsiaaliks. In E. Krull & K. Oras (Eds.), Õpetajate professionaalne areng ja õppepraktika. Õpetajakoolitus IV (pp. 95–109). Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus. [Studying teachers’ professional development: Transforming biased beliefs into development potential. In E. Krull & K. Oras (Eds.), Teacher professional development and student teachers’ school practice. Teacher training IV (pp. 95–109). University of Tartu Press.] Poom-Valickis, K., & Oder, T. (2013). Õpetajate metafoorides peegelduv arusaam oma rollist. In E. Krull, Ä. Leijen, M. Lepik, J. Mikk, L. Talts, & T. Õun (Eds.), Õpetajate professionaalne areng ja selle toetamine (pp. 274–303). Talinn: Eesti Ülikoolide Kirjastus. [Teachers’ metaphors reflecting their perceptions of their roles. In E. Krull, Ä. Leijen, M. Lepik, J. Mikk, L. Talts, & T. Õun (Eds.), Teachers’ professional development and how to support it (pp. 274–303). Talinn: Estonian Universities Press.]

45

Ä. LEIJEN & M. PEDASTE Saks, K., Leijen, Ä., & Täht, K. (2016). Inglise keele kui võõrkeele õppijate õpistrateegiad ja nende mõju õpitulemustele. Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri, 4(1), 279–308. [Learning strategies of learners of English as a foreign language and the impact of these strategies on the learning outcomes. Estonian Journal of Education, 4(1), 279–308.] TALIS Survey. (2013). The OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS). Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/talis.htm Uibu, K., Kikas, E., & Tropp, K. (2011). Instructional approaches: Differences between kindergarten and primary school teachers. Compare, 41(1), 91–111. Uibu, K., Padrik, M., & Tenjes, S. (2016). Keelelis-suhtluslik mudeldamine: õpetajate hindamine vaatluse ja õpilaste emakeeleoskuse põhjal. Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri, 4(1), 226–257. [Linguisticcommunicative modelling: Teachers’ evaluation based on observation and students’ native language skills. Estonian Journal of Education, 4(1), 226–257.] Viirpalu, P., Krull, E., & Mikser, R. (2014). Investigating Estonian teachers’ expectations for the general education curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 16(2), 54–70.

Äli Leijen Institute of Education University of Tartu Estonia Margus Pedaste Institute of Education University of Tartu Estonia

46

HANNELE NIEMI, JARI LAVONEN, ARTO KALLIONIEMI AND AULI TOOM

4. THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN THE FINNISH EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM High Professional Autonomy and Responsibility

ABSTRACT

The aim of this chapter is to introduce the main features of the Finnish educational system and how they are related to teachers’ work. The chapter describes teachers’ professional autonomy and responsibilities in the Finnish schools. Many cornerstones, such as equity, for example, have remained principle to organizing education and schooling, but multiple societal changes and changing conceptions of teaching learning and knowledge set new demands for teachers. Currently, the Finnish educational system is in the middle of significant reforms at all levels of education that bring many demands to teachers’ pre- and in-service training. This chapter summarizes the key elements of the reforms and reflects on how teachers and schools could be supported in the midst of these reforms and how they could become learning communities both for students and teachers. Keywords: teacher’s professional autonomy, responsibility, educational reforms, schools as learning communities THE CONTEXT OF TEACHERS’ WORK IN FINLAND

A purposeful policy aimed at equity, a high level of education for all, and excellent teachers has been identified as the main reason for Finnish educational success (Laukkanen, 2007; Niemi, 2014; Sahlberg, 2011). Niemi and Isopahkala-Bouret (2012) summarized the major features of the Finnish education system that influence teachers’ work. Their analysis reveals that Finnish education policy has four main principles that guide all the activities throughout the education system. These principles are equity, high-quality education to all learners, flexible educational structures, and life-long learning integrated into all levels of education. Equity in education is a constitutional right that means providing equal opportunities to every learner regardless of their social, ethnic, and economic backgrounds (Finnish National Agency for Education [FNAE], 2017). According to this policy, students should have equal opportunities to learn; thus, education,

© KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2018 | DOI 10.1163/9789004372573_004

H. NIEMI ET AL.

including books, meals, and health care, is free to all students during basic education (Laukkanen, 2008; Sahlberg, 2011; Niemi, Toom, & Kallioniemi, 2016). After basic education, students have multiple possibilities for further education, for example, in upper secondary or vocational education, and then in polytechnic or university education. This is also provided freely to them. High-quality education for all with special needs support is necessary. The basic education system is based on a strong inclusive ideology and support strategies for different learners. The main principle is that learners should be supported as early as possible in order to overcome learning difficulties. Teachers need expertise in recognizing students’ needs for special support. If the standard aids given to all students are concluded to be insufficient based on multi-professionally conducted pedagogical assessments, intensified support is organized according to an individual learning plan (Vainikainen, 2014). Students are moved into special classes or schools only in extreme cases; usually, they are provided with support within their own classes. Every teacher is responsible for identifying a student’s needs and making plans for that student’s growth. This often happens in collaboration with special needs teachers, social workers, nurses, and school psychologists. Flexible educational structures allow learners to continue their educations, even in cases of failure. The entire student population completes nine years of basic education, and the educational system provides different routes for completing secondary education. After compulsory basic education, graduates opt for general or vocational upper-secondary education. Both forms usually take three years and give eligibility for higher education. Vocational education and training is popular in Finland; almost 50 percent of the relevant age group starts vocational upper-secondary studies immediately after basic education. The biggest fields are technology, communications, transport, social services, health, and sports. Therefore, upper-secondary education and training has a dual structure, but both routes lead to higher education. Lifelong learning is integrated into all levels of the system, from early education to adult education. The aim of each level of the educational system is to prepare students to continue their studies. Students must be ready to continue studying at the next level of education, so schools are expected to support learners’ personal growth (Niemi & Isopahkala-Bouret, 2012). In basic education (grades 1–9), there is no streaming or tracking. Teaching happens in mixed-ability groups, so teachers must take care of different learners and identify which kinds of special support students need. They must make a great number of pedagogical decisions every day, and they communicate about students’ learning problems with parents, special needs teachers, social workers, and nurses. Teachers must also act as partners in multi-professional groups for students’ wellbeing. They are responsible for much more than simply providing teaching content. The general objective of Finnish non-selective 9-year basic education (primary and lower-secondary school, or pupils between 7 and 16 years) is to support pupils’ growth toward humanity and ethically responsible membership in society and to provide them with the knowledge and skills needed in life. Moreover, the instruction 48

THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN THE FINNISH EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM

aims to promote equality in society and the students’ abilities to participate in education and to otherwise develop themselves during their lives (Basic Education Act 628/1998). The Finnish day-care and pre-primary educations are based on an integrated approach to care, education, and teaching, the so-called “educare” model. Learning through play is essential. Pre-primary education is systematic education and is provided in the year preceding the start of compulsory education. FINNISH TEACHERS BETWEEN AUTONOMY AND RESPONSIBILITY

The Finnish National Agency of Education (FNAE) is responsible for the implementation of the national education policy by preparing a national framework curriculum. The core curriculum (e.g., FNBE, 2004, 2014) discusses values, learning, learning environments, and general goals and aims, such as learning the twenty-firstcentury competences (Vahtivuori-Hänninen et al., 2014). Furthermore, it describes the general aims and subject-specific objectives. The aims and objectives describe the core competences to be learned in each subject, as well as cross-curricular themes. The curriculum lists basic concepts in each subject, but the list is just a suggestion, not obligatory. Therefore, the aims and objectives are the most central aspects of the curriculum—there is no traditional syllabus. However, local education providers— the municipalities—have broad autonomy. They are responsible, along with teachers, for planning local curricula, organizing assessment and grading, and using these data to evaluate how well the goals in the curriculum have been met. The role of a principal or a head teacher is important in school development and, moreover, in the implementation of educational policy at the local level (Lavonen, 2007). A productive, flexible interaction exists between partners at the national, municipal, and school levels. Local partners, such as parents and other stakeholders, are invited to contribute. This long-term process has a central role in school improvement and development. According to the PISA 2012 School Questionnaire (OECD, 2012), 62 percent of the participating schools in Finland reported that a principal and the teachers were responsible for curriculum policy. The corresponding percentages were 68 percent in Australia, 48 percent in Singapore, 47 percent in Canada, 44 percent in the United States, and 28 percent in Shanghai. Preparing the local curriculum has a central role in school improvement and development. A unique characteristic of Finnish education is its culture of trust (Toom & Husu, 2012; Halinen, Niemi, & Toom, 2016). Education authorities and nationallevel education policymakers trust professional teachers, who know, together with principals, headmasters, and parents, how to provide the best education for children and adolescents in a certain district. Schools and teachers have been responsible for choosing learning materials and teaching methods since the beginning of the 1990s, when the national-level inspection of learning materials was terminated. Moreover, there have been no national or local school inspectors since the late 1980s. Teachers are valued as professionals in curriculum development, teaching, and assessment at all levels (FNBE, 2004, 2014). 49

H. NIEMI ET AL.

The teaching profession in Finland has always enjoyed great public respect and appreciation (Simola, 2005). Parents also trust the school, its teachers, and the quality of the work it undertakes, as recognized in the PISA 2012 school questionnaire data (OECD, 2012). According to this data, only 4 percent of Finnish schools reported being subject to constant pressure from parents. The corresponding percentages were 60 percent in Singapore, 36 percent in Australia, 35 percent in the United States, 32 percent in Canada, and 20 percent in Shanghai (OECD, 2013). The Finnish education evaluation system has been described as enhancement/ improvement-led evaluation (Kumpulainen & Laukkanen, 2012; Niemi & Lavonen, 2012). Evaluation is performed for the sake of improvement, not ranking. The teachers’ work is not determined by high-stakes testing or outside control. In Finland, there is no standardized testing. The evaluation system aims to determine which kinds of improvements are needed for better learning outcomes, and local education providers (municipalities) are responsible for the quality of educational services and assessment methods. Finland has had a long-standing policy of teacher-conducted assessment, and teachers are considered to be at the core of assessment by implementing and mediating assessment procedures (cf. Kumpulainen & Lankinen, 2012). This internal, teacher-conducted assessment policy also supports teachers in modifying their classroom practices. The focus on internal assessment is also seen in the PISA 2012 School Questionnaire (OECD, 2013b): 70 percent of Finnish teachers feel that student assessment is their responsibility. The corresponding percentages were 70 percent in Australia, 58 percent in Canada, 49 percent in Singapore; 40 percent in the United States, and 33 percent in Shanghai. This internal assessment and Finnish teachers’ autonomous role in assessment are supported by the Finnish education policy and context. According to Krzywacki, Koistinen, and Lavonen (2012), the autonomous role of teachers influences the way assessment is integrated as part of teaching and learning in Finnish classrooms: teacher-conducted assessments are improving teaching and learning inside the classroom, not producing school rankings and ensuring adherence to a standardized syllabus. Teachers also use enhancement-led evaluation in student learning. This means that formative evaluation methods are used to decide how to support various learners. Toom and Husu (2012) write: “Added to this, the task of assessment is to help pupils form a realistic image of their learning and development.” It is also stated that pupil assessment forms a whole, in which on-going feedback from the teacher plays an important part. With the help of assessment, the teacher guides the pupils in becoming aware of their thinking and actions and helps them understand what they are learning. WHAT IS CHANGING AND WHAT IS LASTING?

The Finnish education system allows teachers a great deal of professional freedom, but it also makes the profession very demanding. From 2014 to 2016, it has had significant national core curriculum reforms for both basic education and high 50

THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN THE FINNISH EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM

schools. These reforms aim at strengthening students’ twenty-first-century skills and providing life-skills to all learners. These reforms have consequences for the teachers’ role, and new practices should be integrated with the leading principles of the education system. New national core curriculum for pre- and primary education was accepted in 2014, and schools started with their local curricula in August 2016. The early education core guidelines were accepted in 2016. Upper-secondary schools (high schools) also have new principles of teaching and learning. Learning is defined in the new core curricula (NCCBE, 2014) as a goal-oriented behavior based on the student’s prior knowledge, skills, feelings, and experiences (Vitikka et al., 2016). The student is an active player (or agent) who learns how to set goals and solve problems both independently and with others. In addition to learning, the student learns to reflect on the learning processes, experiences, and emotions and at the same time develops new knowledge and skills. At its best, learning awakens positive emotional experiences and the joy of learning and is a creative activity that will inspire the development of their own expertise. Learning is an integral part of an individual’s comprehensive life-long growth and provides building material for a good life. The learning principles are focused on twenty-first-century skills and students’ active learning. Collaborative methods are also emphasized. The aim is that dialogical and interactive ways of working promote the involvement and participation of students. The new core curriculum for basic education contains some changes that might have given rise to the misunderstanding of abolishing separate school subjects in international discussion. The national core curricula are still subject based, but in order to meet the challenges of the future, the focus is on transversal (generic) competences and work across school subjects. Collaborative classroom practices, where pupils may work with several teachers simultaneously during periods of phenomenon-based project studies, are emphasized. The pupils should participate each year in at least one such multidisciplinary learning module. These modules are designed and implemented locally. The core curriculum also states that the pupils should be involved in the planning. The key aim of the new curricula is guiding students to have transversal competences (T1–T7), which have been defined for 7 areas: ‡ T1 Thinking and learning to learn: Students should learn to make observations and seek, evaluate, edit, produce, and share information and ideas. They are encouraged to face unclear and conflicting information and also to seek innovative answers. Playful, gamified learning, physical activities, and experimental approaches are recommended to use in teaching and learning. ‡ T2 Cultural competence, interaction, and self-expression: Students are growing up in a world where cultural linguistic, religious, and philosophical diversity is part of life. It is important that they learn a respect for human rights. They also are expected to learn how to communicate, modify, and create culture. They should be familiar with their culture and traditions and understand their significance for wellbeing. 51

H. NIEMI ET AL.

‡ T3 Taking care of oneself and managing daily life: School should promote health, safety, and human relationships and help students in areas of mobility and transport. Students act in the technologically intensive daily life and need to learn how to manage personal finance and consumption and take care of their own and other people’s lives. ‡ T4 Multiliteracy: Students need the competence to interpret, produce, and make value judgements across a variety of different texts. They should learn to interpret the world around themselves and to perceive its cultural diversity. ‡ T5 ICT Competence: Technological skills are important civic skills. ICT skills are part of multiliteracy. This competence area also includes responsibility in using ICT, skills for information management and creative work, as well as skills for interaction and networking ‡ T6 Working life competence and entrepreneurship: Students need positive attitudes toward work and working life, and they should understand the significance of the competences acquired in school and in leisure time for their future careers. They need also collaboration with actors outside the school. ‡ T7 Participation, involvements, and building a sustainable future: Students take part in planning, implementing, assessing, and evaluating their own learning, joint school work, and the learning environments. The main aim is that they learn to work together and that school leads them toward democracy, decision-making, and responsibility. The task of the school is to guide students to become aware of the significance of their choices, ways of living, and actions, not only for themselves, but also for their local environment, society, nature, and promoting a sustainable future. These aims rest many responsibilities on teachers to support students in life. Teachers’ work is not only limited to classrooms; their responsibilities cover working in networks and with many societal partners. According to the new curriculum framework, it is extremely important that the learning environments reflect that children are living in a complex and globalized world that is filled with and modified by different digital tools (ICTs), media services, and games. It emphasizes that the competences enable students to grow as active members of society. Moreover, it emphasizes that students should be guided and encouraged toward the independent, critical search and use of information. TEACHER EDUCATION IN FINLAND FOR THE FUTURE

There is a long tradition in Finland to educate primary and secondary school teachers at universities in 5-year master’s level programs. In fact, there has been a 40-year tradition of educating primary/elementary teachers (Grades 1–6) and a tradition of more than 100 years of educating secondary teachers (Grades 7–12) in masterlevel programs at universities. Primary teachers teach almost all the subjects at the primary level, whereas secondary teachers typically teach two subjects in the lowerand upper-secondary schools (Jakku-Sihvonen & Niemi, 2006). 52

THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN THE FINNISH EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM

Primary teachers are educated in the Faculties of Education in eight universities. Secondary teacher education is organized in cooperation between the Faculty of the specific discipline and the Faculty of Education. Secondary student teachers take a major and a minor in the subjects they intend to teach, and they participate in undergraduate courses in the subject department. These courses help students develop a deep understanding of subject-matter knowledge and concepts as part of the conceptual framework of the subject (Lavonen et al., 2007). An essential characteristic of primary and secondary teacher education in Finland is an emphasis on research orientation (Jakku-Sihvonen & Niemi, 2006; Toom et al., 2010). In research orientation, the student teachers learn how to consume and produce educational knowledge within their pedagogical studies. Students consume educational, research-based knowledge when they combine theory and experience or interpret situations during their teaching practices. Student teachers experience the research studies and theses as well as teaching practicum highly relevant for their future work as teachers, since during these studies they are challenged to utilize the theoretical knowledge and understanding in the challenges related to teaching and learning (cf. Saariaho et al., 2015; Niemi & Nevgi, 2014; Toom, 2010). This type of knowledge is needed at the local-level broad planning of teaching and in the development of teaching and school operations, as well as in the assessment of teaching and learning. The core in both primary and secondary teacher education is pedagogical studies. During their pedagogical studies, students are encouraged to combine educational theories, subject knowledge, and their personal histories. Students’ subject knowledge, knowledge about teaching, and learning in specific subjects and school practices are integrated into their own personal pedagogical views. According to the curriculum, students should, for example, be aware of the different dimensions of the teaching profession (social, philosophical, psychological, sociological, and historical bases of education), be able to reflect broadly on their own personal pedagogical view or assumptions on their own work, and have the potential for lifelong professional development. Today, teacher education is one of the most attractive training programs at the universities. For example, at the University of Helsinki, only 5 percent of the applicants are accepted to the program. In the neighboring countries of Sweden and Norway, teacher education is among the last choices of prospective students! There are several reasons why teacher education is attractive in Finland (Lavonen, 2016): teachers have been educated in 5-year master’s-level programs at traditional universities over the last 40 years; teachers are considered academic professionals, the same as other university degree holders; school site operations are supportive of the professionalism of teachers and their collaboration; and the national education policy and its implementation, such as a strong quality culture and the teachers’ role in the assessment for professionalism of teachers. To respond to the new challenges for schools and teachers’ work, a Finnish Teacher Education Forum was established by the Ministry of Education in 53

H. NIEMI ET AL.

February 2016, aiming to foster the renewal of teacher education as a part of the national reform program. The aims of the Teacher Education Forum are to prepare a development program for teachers’ pre- and in-service education (life-long professional development), to support the implementation of the program, and, moreover, to create the conditions for the renewal of Finnish teacher education through development projects. The program should describe what kind of teacher education and continuous professional development are necessary to ensure that teachers are able to support students in the classroom in learning the competencies (knowledge, skills, and attitude) needed today, tomorrow, and in future. The task of the forum was to support teacher education institutes in creating environments and courses where student teachers have the opportunities to become familiar with new pedagogy, learning environments, and the digitalization of teaching and learning for life-long professional development. The teacher profession, in a broad sense, includes societal connections, collaboration, interaction, and quality work to support students in learning twenty-first-century competences. In order to overcome the challenges related to teachers’ competences, the Finnish Teacher Education Forum set holistic competence goals for teachers’ pre- and inservice education and continuous life-long professional development. The current forms of the holistic aims are described in Table 1. Holistic Aims for Teacher Education A quality teacher should have: A broad and solid knowledge base ‡ Subject matter knowledge, pedagogical and pedagogical content knowledge, contextual knowledge; ‡ Interaction skills, skills for collaboration in different networks and partnerships (experts at school, family, society); ‡ Knowledge about learning and diversity among learners (special needs, multicultural backgrounds); ‡ Competence to act as an autonomous professional who can plan, implement, and assess his/her own practices and students’ learning; ‡ Competence to act in various digital (digital skills) and physical (including out of school) learning environments; ‡ Professional ideology, including a shared understanding of professional values and ethics codes (ethical conduct toward (i) students, (ii) practices and performance, (iii) professional colleagues, (iv) parents and community); ‡ Research skills (skills to consume research-based knowledge); ‡ Awareness of the different dimensions of the teacher profession: social, philosophical, psychological, sociological, and historical basis of education and schools’ societal connections; 54

THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN THE FINNISH EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM

‡ Awareness about the different cross-curricular topics, such as topics related to human rights and democracy, entrepreneurship education, sustainable development, and globalization; ‡ Competence to act in the role of an “adult” in a classroom. Expertise in generating novel ideas and education innovations ‡ A positive attitude toward continuous change, which requires tolerance of uncertainty and new and innovative ways of thinking; ‡ Willingness to create a positive atmosphere supportive of creative processes and curiosity, risk-taking related to classroom teaching and learning, and creation of educational innovations and, moreover, awareness of the importance of this attitude for creative outcomes; ‡ Competence for the implementation of creative processes, generation of ideas, and evaluation of ideas related to classroom teaching and learning and the creation of educational innovations; ‡ Research skills (skills to produce research based knowledge). Competence for the development of their own and the school’s expertise ‡ A supportive attitude towards different occupational groups; ‡ Self-regulation skills and skills for control over the work (skills for selfassessment); ‡ Competence for working in networks and teams, like multiprofessional teams at the school site; ‡ Competence in curriculum design and as an innovator for pedagogical approaches and learning environments; ‡ Ability to facilitate, coach, mentor, or train other teachers; ‡ Competence to reflect on their own personal pedagogical views (reflection for, in, and on action); ‡ Competence to use assessment outcomes for school development and the ability to develop the school culture in different networks and partnerships with students, parents, other experts, and stakeholders; ‡ Competence for the development of their own expertise through reflective activities, research-based knowledge, mentoring, in-service training, and seminars and workshops and is also willing to use this competence. PROFESSIONAL NEEDS FROM TEACHERS’ PERSPECTIVES

Toom and Husu (2012) have also found that, although Finnish teachers have strong master’s-level educations, pedagogical knowledge, and theoretical understanding of their work, pedagogical action and decision-making in practical classroom situations are very demanding. Current research on Finnish teachers has shown that interaction with pupils in socially and pedagogically challenging situations constitutes the core 55

H. NIEMI ET AL.

of teachers’ pedagogical wellbeing but also creates stress and exhaustion. Success in both pedagogical goals and more general social goals seem to be fundamental preconditions for teachers’ experienced pedagogical wellbeing and satisfaction in their work. Teachers’ working environments in Finnish schools have become more heterogeneous, and teachers feel that challenges related to their pupils’ backgrounds, diversity, differences in schools, and the role of schools have increased, and, thus, the implications for their teaching and for their pupils’ learning has become more significant and more difficult. Up until recent years and even now, Finnish teachers have been relatively satisfied with their work at schools. In Finland, we have not experienced serious attrition from the teacher profession, a surprising lack of teachers, or turnover intentions or changes of profession after the first years at school, and this is clearly a different situation than in both European and international contexts. Only recently, Finnish researchers, the Finnish Teacher Education Forum (Ministry of Education and Culture) and the Trade Union of Education (OAJ), have explored Finnish teachers’ and especially early-career teachers’ competences, needs, and wellbeing in the profession from the viewpoint of teachers themselves, as well as from school principals (e.g., Harju & Niemi, 2016; Heikonen et al., 2016). By exploring the needs from multiple perspectives, it is possible to receive a more comprehensive picture of today’s school as a working environment and the teachers’ professional competencies required by it (cf. Toom, 2017). It is a necessary basis for understanding the current situation and for improving teacher education and mentoring structures and, thus, operations, innovations, and developments at school. The empirical results of the recent studies (Harju & Niemi, 2016; Heikonen et al., 2016; Lehtonen et al., 2017; Allas et al., 2016) show that the needs and concerns of newly qualified teachers who have worked in the teacher profession a maximum of five years are related to the social aspects and challenges of teachers work, especially to the interactions with pupils inside and outside the classroom, collegial interactions and co-teaching, and collaboration with parents. These relate to the core elements of classroom management and co-regulation of collaboration that become realized when teachers work. The Finnish new teachers’ needs for support were especially related to pupils’ holistic support and work occurring outside the classroom. More precisely, new teachers wished to receive more support or mentoring for acting in surprising conflict situations, for example, when school bullying occurs or when trying to find a constructive solution to a dilemma. Many aspects of competence can only be developed through participating in activities in the working community (Knight, 2002). Thus, support at a school level is needed to foster new teachers’ confidence to act in the complex situations encountered at schools. Newly qualified teachers found some pedagogical tasks and instructional responsibilities difficult, and they especially perceived differentiating one’s teaching and modifying instruction to meet the needs of individual pupils really challenging. Finnish teacher education offers basic knowledge and skills for planning, conducting, and assessing instruction, but it might not necessarily provide enough tools to teach 56

THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN THE FINNISH EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM

a heterogeneous group of pupils with different needs. Differentiation and modifying teaching according to pupils’ needs requires a deep knowledge of the pupils and a thorough understanding of the possibilities to teach them effectively. It also requires diagnostic competencies to identify pupils with specific needs, understand how to support them, and be able to organize this in a pedagogically meaningful way within the group. In heterogeneous classes, multifaceted knowledge and skills, as well as cooperation with colleagues, are often needed to support every pupil’s learning effectively. Managing this kind of classroom activities may be especially difficult. Pre-service teacher education might provide theoretical knowledge about special and multicultural education, but even more practical training, experimentation, and modelling these kinds of practices is necessary. There are studies revealing that teachers have a sense that they do not necessarily have the relevant competences to do their work, and they are not always aware of the impact and possible consequences of their actions and decisions (Husu & Tirri, 2001, 2007). We may see that when teachers are allowed to work as responsible professionals, they also need support in their work and in the process of creating their evidence for improvements. The role of principals has become very important in the Finnish system. They have pedagogical leadership and a strong influence on how open and supportive their school climate is. THE SCHOOLS AS LEARNING COMMUNITIES

In-service teacher education has many different forms in Finland. Officially, there are three mandatory in-service training days for every teacher each year, but these can be used in very different ways depending on local decisions. However, in many schools, teachers use much more time for their professional development. According to the TALIS review (OECD, 2013), Finnish teachers have less in-service training than teachers in other countries. This may be a real result, but it may also be a consequence of projects that are not purely traditional in-service training but more school-based development projects. In the Finnish educational system, local providers, the municipalities, or cities are responsible for educational services. The local provider is also responsible for the quality of educational services at the local level, and school development and teachers’ professional learning are often integrated. Teachers’ employers must provide resources for teachers’ in-service training. Local providers can work together with state-funded projects of the Ministry of Education and Culture and the Finnish National Board of Education, both of which have funding calls for educational staff development. The municipality or city and its local schools can also have a contract with universities and their further education centers or private providers. They can also provide local and school-based training using teachers’ expertise and peer-to-peer learning. The memorandum of the Advisory Board for Professional Development of Education Personnel (Hämäläinen, Hämäläinen, & Kangasniemi, 2015) discussed the challenges and development 57

H. NIEMI ET AL.

needs for the professional development of education personnel in the coming years. The aim was to ensure that teachers are provided with systematic and sustainable support for their development. The Finnish National Board of Education (FNBE) (Rajakaltio, 2014, p. 5) emphasized the following core values for the development of teaching profession competences: ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

Life-long learning Knowledge and research-based orientation Effectiveness Anticipation of future needs and competences in education

The teaching profession is a learning profession, and teachers are expected to develop their work and profession throughout their careers. Finnish teacher education is based on a strong research orientation. This reflective and critical knowledge creation approach is also important for in-service training. In Finland, there is a strong movement away from individual in-service training days toward more longlasting development projects and programs that could be more sustainable in their effects. FNBE (Rajakaltio, 2014) outlined that staff training must integrate the latest research, knowledge from education evaluations, new knowledge creation, and competence development. Most universities have education centers for teachers’ in-service training. It is important that the research-based and research-informed orientation of preservice teacher education continues and that teachers can learn the most up-to-date knowledge of their subject matters, as well as pedagogy, through in-service training. The BA and MA programs have been planned to give teachers the theoretical and professional competences for managing their work in schools. University centers’ in-service training provide more projects and longer development processes than short courses. The aim is that teachers critically reflect on their own work and create small, design-based action research projects through which they learn new competences and also share new ideas with their colleagues. The goal is for inservice training to have a positive effect on students’ learning and motivation, as well as teachers’ own professional growth and wellbeing. The Advisory Board for Professional Development of Education Personnel proposes that state-funded professional development should implement the following principles: ‡ Collect and combine the orientation and mentor training supporting the initial phase of teachers’ careers and other necessary continuing education for new teachers transitioning from studies to work into a nationwide working entity. ‡ Reinforce teachers’ research-oriented work. ‡ In cooperation with their stakeholders, the higher education institutions will develop long-term programs to enhance the professional development of education personnel and new specialist trainings starting in 2015. 58

THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN THE FINNISH EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM

‡ Create a clear model of the education path that enables local variations; the model will support the different career needs of managers and principals. ‡ Support the generation of peer-to-peer networks, ensuring learning the professional competence required of the profession. These aims outline state-funded in-service training that is only a complementary subvention to the local providers’ organized in-service training. However, they reflect the trends that have been establishing more holistic programs and projects. The earlier day-based and short-course-based trainings are no longer valid in school communities that must face very complex situations. Different teachers also have different needs, and that should be taken into account at local levels. SUMMING UP

Finnish society is facing many societal and cultural changes, such as migration, multiculturalism, ageing, family structure changes, and development of technology. Schools are becoming very demanding and complex environments. Teachers have to manage all these changes and take an active role in raising serious questions about what they teach, how they teach it, and the larger goals toward which they are striving. Teachers need to view themselves as public intellectuals who combine conception and implementation, thinking and practice in the struggle for a culture of democratic values and justice. Teachers have a right and an obligation to articulate educational needs and challenges in the society they serve. The changing conditions and the high demands of the teaching profession’s emerging new requirements requires that teachers’ professional development be supported and that teachers can grow in the high-standard profession. REFERENCES Basic Education Act 628/1998. Retrieved from http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1998/ en19980628.pdf Cruickshank, D. R., & Haefele, D. (2001). Good teachers, plural. Educational Leadership, 58(5), 26–30. Darling-Hammond, L., & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining “highly qualified teachers”: What does “scientifically based research” tell us? Educational Researcher, 31(9), 13–25. FNBE (Finnish National Board of Education). (2014). A draft of the national core curriculum for basic education. Helsinki: National Board of Education. Retrieved from http://www.oph.fi/ops2016 FNBE (Finnish National Board of Education). (2004). National core curriculum for basic education 2004. Helsinki: National Board of Education. Hietajärvi, L., Tuominen-Soini, H., Hakkarainen, K., Salmela-Aro, K., & Lonka, K. (2015). Is student motivation related to socio-digital participation? A person-oriented approach. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 171, 1156–1167. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.226 Jahnukainen, M. (2011). Different strategies, different outcomes? The history and trends of the inclusive and special education in Alberta (Canada) and in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55(5), 489–502. Jakku-Sihvonen, R., & Niemi, H. (Eds.). (2006). Research-based teacher education in Finland: Reflections by Finnish teacher educators (Research in Educational Sciences 25). Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association.

59

H. NIEMI ET AL. Kärnä, P., & Rautopuro, J. (2013). Mitä on oppimistulosten taustalla [In Finnish]. In A. Räisänen (Ed.), Oppimisen arvioinnin monet käytännöt. Raportit ja selvitykset 3/2013 (pp. 87–211). Helsinki: National Board of Education. Krzywacki, H., Koistinen, L., & Lavonen. J. (2012, July 8–15). Assessment in Finnish mathematics education: Various ways, various needs. Paper presented in 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education, COEX, Seoul. Krzywacki, H., Lavonen, J. M. J., & Juuti, K. (2013). There are no effective teachers in Finland—only effective systems and professional teachers. In O.-S. Tan & W.-C. Liu (Eds.), Teacher effectiveness. Singapore: Centage Learning. Kupari, P., Välijärvi, J., Andersson, L., Arffman, I., Nissinen, K., Puhakka, E., & Vettenranta, J. (2013). PISA12 ensituloksia (Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriön julkaisuja 2013:20). Helsinki: Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriö. Laukkanen, R. (2008). Finnish strategy for high-level education for all. In N. Soguel & P. Jaccard (Eds.), Governance and performance of education systems (pp. 305–324). Dordrecht: Springer. Lavonen, J. (2007). National science education standards and assessment in Finland. In D. Waddington, P. Nentwig, & S. Schaze (Eds.), Making it comparable (pp. 101–126). Berlin: Waxmann. Lavonen, J. (2013). Building blocks for high quality science education: Reflections based on Finnish experiences. LUMAT, 1(3), 299–313. Lavonen, J. (2016). Educating professional teachers through the master’s level teacher education programme in Finland. Bordón, 68(2), 51–68. Lavonen, J., Krzywacki-Vainio, H., Aksela, M., Krokfors, L., Oikkonen, J., & Saarikko, H. (2007). Pre-service teacher education in chemistry, mathematics and physics. In E. Pehkonen, M. Ahtee, & J. Lavonen (Eds.), How Finns learn mathematics and science (pp. 49–67). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Ministry of Finance. (2016). Europe 2020 strategy: Finland’s national reform programme. Helsinki: Ministry of Finance Publications. Muijs, D. (2006). Measuring teacher effectiveness: Some methodological reflections. Educational Research & Evaluation, 12(1), 53–74. Niemi, H., & Lavonen, J. (2012). Evaluation for improvements in Finnish teacher education. In J. Harford, B. Hudson, & H. Niemi (Eds.), Quality assurance and teacher education: International challenges and expectations. Oxford: Peter Lang. Niemi, H., Toom, A., & Kallioniemi, A. (2012). Miracle of education: The principles and practices of teaching and learning in Finnish schools. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. OECD. (2013). PISA 2012: Results in focus: What 15-year-olds know and what they can do with what they know. Paris: OECD. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-resultsoverview.pdf Ouakrim-Soivio, N., Rinkinen, A., & Karjalainen, T. (Eds.). (2015). Tulevaisuuden peruskoulu (Opetusja kulttuuriministeriön julkaisuja 8:2015). Retrieved from http://www.minedu.fi/export/sites/ default/.OPM/Julkaisut/2015/liitteet/okm8.pdf?lang=fi http://www.minedu.fi/export/sites/default/OPM/ Julkaisut/2015/liitteet/okm8.pdf?lang=fi Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Simola, H. (2005). The Finnish miracle of PISA: Historical and sociological remarks on teaching and teacher education. Comparative Education, 41(4), 455–470. Statistics Finland. (2016). Special education. Retrieved from http://www.stat.fi/index_en.html Stronge, J. H., & Hindman, J. (2003). Hiring the best teachers. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 48–52. Taajamo, M., Puhakka, E., & Välijärvi, J. (2014). Opetuksen ja oppimisen kansainvälinen tutkimus TALIS 2013. Yläkoulun ensituloksia (Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriön julkaisuja 2014:15). Helsinki: Opetusja kulttuuriministeriö. Vahtivuori-Hänninen, S. H., Halinen, I., Niemi, H., Lavonen, J. M. J., Lipponen, L., & Multisilta, J. (2014). A new Finnish national core curriculum for basic education (2014) and technology as an integrated tool for learning. In H. Niemi, J. Multisilta, L. Lipponen, & M. Vivitsou (Eds.), Finnish innovations and technologies in schools: A guide towards new ecosystems of learning (pp. 33–44). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

60

THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN THE FINNISH EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM Williamson, M. E., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (2004). Testing student learning, evaluating teaching effectiveness. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press.

Hannele Niemi Faculty of Educational Sciences University of Helsinki Finland Jari Lavonen Faculty of Educational Sciences University of Helsinki Finland Arto Kallioniemi Faculty of Educational Sciences University of Helsinki Finland Auli Toom Centre for University Teaching and Learning Faculty of Educational Sciences University of Helsinki Finland and Institute of Education University of Tartu Estonia

61

THEO WUBBELS AND JAN VAN TARTWIJK

5. DUTCH TEACHER AND TEACHER EDUCATION POLICIES Trends and Ambiguities

ABSTRACT

One of the main challenges for the Dutch education system is upholding the number and quality of teachers. In this chapter, we will first describe the Dutch educational system, including the results of international comparative studies and the constitutional freedom of education as a background for the teacher’s position. Then we will move to an overview of reforms in Dutch education in the previous decades that have impacted the rhetoric on the position of teachers and describe recent policy plans for improving teaching and teacher education. We conclude with showing the ambiguities in trends and policy plans of taking teaching seriously as a profession, on the one hand, and detailed regulation of teachers’ work and teacher preparation and competence requirements on the other. We conclude that the rhetoric about teachers and teacher educators in the Netherlands is a plea for higher professionalism of both groups, but in practice, policies might also induce deprofessionalization. Keywords: innovation; reform; teacher education policy; teacher learning, deprofessionalization INTRODUCTION

The Dutch government identified upcoming teacher shortages, with the related and pressing issues of controlling teacher quality and retention, as a main challenge facing the educational system (Commissie Leraren, 2007; Meesters, 2003). Aside from early attrition and retirement, one of the reasons for the shortage is that, as in many countries, the number of people aspiring to become teachers is too low. As a consequence, serious shortages of secondary teachers are already manifesting in subjects such as physics, mathematics, chemistry, informatics, and German language and are predicted in the near future for primary education teachers (UWV, 2015). Underlying reasons for the low popularity of the teaching profession are, amongst others, that teachers themselves often complain about their working conditions, including the workload, and that the teachers’ voices have too often been ignored in various educational innovations at the national level (cf. Commissie

© KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2018 | DOI 10.1163/9789004372573_005

T. WUBBELS & J. VAN TARTWIJK

Leraren, 2007; Commissie Parlementair Onderzoek Onderwijsvernieuwing, 2008). Furthermore, complaints about the level of mother tongue and mathematics skills of primary teacher education graduates and the content knowledge of secondary teacher education graduates have been prominently present in the newspapers and have regularly led to questions in the parliament about the competence of teachers. EDUCATION IN THE NETHERLANDS1

The Dutch Educational System In the Dutch educational system, primary schools provide education for children aged 4–12. The first two years are rather play oriented. The more systematic schooling begins at age 6. During primary school, the children’s development is monitored using validated tests and teacher observations. Some of these tests play a role in the evaluations of schools by the inspectorate. The observations and tests are used to underpin a teacher’s advice at the end of grade 8 about which secondary education stream will suit the child best. These streams in secondary education vary in the degree of academic difficulty and length of study. Slightly over half of the students attend a four-year secondary education program that prepares students for secondary vocational education (VMBO; Preparatory Secondary Vocational Education). The second stream is a five-year program preparing students for higher professional education, which is attended by about 30 percent of the students (HAVO; Higher General Secondary Education). The third stream is a six-year program preparing students for university education (VWO; Preparatory Scientific Education). It is attended by about one-fifth of the students. In all three streams in secondary education, students choose a number of subjects. At the end of the final year, students take standardized tests in most of these subjects and in the compulsory subjects of mathematics, Dutch, and English. The tests are developed by a governmentsponsored organization, and all schools are required to administer them among their students. The results on these tests count for 50 percent of the final exam result. The other 50 percent is based on grades for tests, projects, etc., which are developed and graded by the schools themselves. After secondary education, students can continue their education in specific types of tertiary education. VWO graduates typically enroll in a three-year bachelor program at one of the 13 Dutch research universities, which only admit students with a VWO or an equivalent foreign diploma. HAVO graduates typically enroll in a four-year bachelor’s program in higher vocational education, which are provided for by one the 37 hogescholen (which are also referred to as Universities of Applied Sciences). VWO students can also enroll bachelor’s programs at hogescholen. After their bachelor’s program, most students at research universities will also take a one- or two-year master’s program. Students at the hogescholen can do that too, but they first need to successfully finish a bridging program. Master’s programs at the hogescholen are more expensive because they are not funded by the government. Most graduates of hogescholen will enter the 64

DUTCH TEACHER AND TEACHER EDUCATION POLICIES

labor market after their bachelors’. VMBO students typically enroll in programs for middle-level vocational education (MBO; Medium level Vocational Education), which are provided by one of the about forty Regional Education Centers (ROC). These MBO programs are usually three years in length. There are no national exams for tertiary education. The national Inspectorate of Education monitors the quality of education, both public and private. It has the right to evaluate schools according to national standards regarding, among other things, the quality of the lessons, the achievement levels of the students, and the internal quality assurance system of the school. In secondary schools, the exam results play an important role in these evaluations, but when evaluating these results, other factors are taken into account, such as the students’ ability levels and backgrounds and the number of students that leave the schools without a diploma or who would continue their education in a lower level of academic ability stream. When schools are evaluated negatively several times in a row, the government can close them down. In tertiary education, the quality of education is monitored by the Dutch-Flemish Accreditation Organization. When this organization concludes that the quality of programs is too low and no improvement in one or two years is shown, then the government will no longer fund the program and the institution is no longer allowed to grant the degree. The Quality of Dutch Education While there are concerns in the Netherlands about some recent declines in students’ scores on international tests, the scores of Dutch students remain high in comparison to many other countries. Dutch students score well above the international average in tests of reading, particularly at the primary level. On a recent PIRLS reading skill test, for example, the Netherlands ranked 10th in the world and 7th in Europe, with only a marginal decline since 2006 (Mullis, Martin, Foy, & Drucker, 2012). In mathematics, the position is 10th in the world and 3rd in Europe (OECD, 2012). For mathematics, however, the decline in student scores in recent years is significant. Results on international tests show that the Dutch educational system is performing rather well for the mainstream students and the lower end of the ability continuum but that the ablest students are doing relatively less well (Meelissen et al., 2012; Mullis et al., 2012). Finally, in the recent PIAAC study (OECD, 2013), the competence levels of Dutch adults appeared relatively very high. This high level of competence is combined with high levels of societal equity. For example, over 90 percent of the adults master basic ICT competences as compared to 67 percent in some other European countries. This result illustrates that the Netherlands (as the Nordic countries) has been able to create an environment where the population gets ample experience with daily ICT use. As in secondary education, the Netherlands specifically is successful in raising the level of the adults at the lower proficiency end, but Dutch adults also master the highest proficiency level relatively frequently. 65

T. WUBBELS & J. VAN TARTWIJK

Although Dutch education is doing quite well on a number of educational outcomes, the overall confidence in education is lower than expected given these outcomes (Jonker, 2012). Freedom of Education Characteristic for the Dutch education system is the guarantee for freedom of education in article 23 of the constitution (Grondwet voor het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, 2008). The second paragraph of this article partially reads: “Providing education is free, taking into account the government’s supervision of education and the government’s care for the competence and morality of teachers.” The interpretation of this article is a topic of debate because, on the one hand, freedom is proclaimed, but on the other hand, two elements of the government’s supervising role are mentioned. Not up for debate is that schools, private or public, have the right to the same financial support from the government. In practice, this freedom of education means that when, for example, a group of parents can show the government that a school they want to start will attract a sizable number of students, they will get money to fund the school. For over 100 years, the government has funded public and private schools equally, and all these schools are free of costs to pupils. There are more private than public schools. Roman Catholic and Protestant schools each represent about 30 percent of all primary schools, and there also are some Islamic, Jewish, and Hindu and some Montessori, Dalton, and Waldorf schools. One-third of the primary schools are ‘public’ schools, implying that they need to cater to the general public’s needs (Ministerie van Onderwijs, 2014). Interestingly, religious schools, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, were rather active in catering to the needs of Islamic parents. At the secondary level, about two-thirds of the schools are private schools as well (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2015). Although these percentages may seem rather high, the degree to which many of these private schools in primary and secondary education draw upon religious values or beliefs varies considerably from minimal to strong. While some private schools may have a strong identity and curriculum based in a particular religion, this is not the case for the majority. Thus, many of these private schools very much resemble public schools in daily practice. As a consequence, many parents, students, and teachers who are not religious themselves will choose to be taught or teach in Roman Catholic or Protestant schools because they appreciate the quality of the education, the school culture, or the venue. Private schools can ask specific competencies of teachers, but this is seldom done. Also, the care for the teacher’s competence and morality as elements in the constitution is not much debated. The competences teachers need to have are described by law (Wet op de beroepen in het onderwijs, 2004). Teacher unions play an important role in proposing to the government what these competencies should be, but it is the government’s responsibility to decide on these. In the present version of the law, seven competence areas are prescribed: competence in interpersonal relations with students, in pedagogy, in content and content-specific pedagogy, 66

DUTCH TEACHER AND TEACHER EDUCATION POLICIES

in organization, in collaboration with colleagues, in collaboration with the school environment (e.g., parents), and in self-reflection and professional development. Such competence descriptions have been operationalized further and differentiated for primary and secondary education. Teacher education institutions are required to prepare teachers according to these competencies. Funding for schools and care for teacher competence are not disputed, but what the phrase ‘supervision of the government’ means is a topic of sometimes heated debate. This debate focuses on striking the balance between the inspectorate of education’s standards for the quality of education, which have a very real impact on what is happening in school, and the school’s freedom to make pedagogical choices. At the moment, these recurring debates conclude that the government is allowed to set outcome standards for both primary and secondary education, but that schools are free in how to reach the outcomes. Schools are also free to give teachers, students, or parents a say in this. In practice regarding outcomes, the government developed and administered examinations at the end of each of the three streams of secondary education. How schools prepare students to pass these examinations is up to the schools. One of the control mechanisms is that when a considerable share of the students of a school does not pass the final secondary exams, the inspectorate will publish negative reports about the school, and in the end, the government may stop funding such a school. A similar process is seen in primary education, where results on the tests that are used to monitor the students’ progress can also be used by the inspectorate to monitor the quality of education. Given the schools’ freedom to develop and deliver the curriculum that will enable students to master the requirements for the final exams, the role of the teacher is, in principle, very important. In practice, however, commercial schoolbook publishers are key to what is happening in classes. These publishers hire teachers and teacher educators to develop and write student books and curriculum guides for every topic from the exams. Schools can usually choose between several student books, and schools, usually the teachers, decide on which one. Depending on the school policy, teachers may also develop curriculum materials themselves, and frequently, teachers (or departments in secondary education) adapt materials to better fit their own teaching preferences. The teachers’ daily practices are shaped not only by the requirements of the level students should reach at the end of primary and secondary education but also by the wishes of parents and the public opinion that sometimes are enforced by governments’ actions. An example is the recent debate on introducing evidence-based anti-bullying programs and a role for schools and teachers in preventing bullying by law, which may result in an obligation for schools to implement evidence-based anti-bullying programs. In principle, the freedom of education is a good basis for teachers’ and principals’ ownership of education and, thus, is a starting point for high teacher job satisfaction. In practice, however, the way the government controls education (e.g., through exams) doesn’t give most teachers that feeling of ownership. 67

T. WUBBELS & J. VAN TARTWIJK

Teacher Preparation In the Dutch system, both research universities and hogescholen offer teacher education programs. The teacher education programs of the hogescholen prepare students for teaching in primary, vocational, and the lower grades of secondary education. These four-year programs at the bachelor’s level aim at students with no background in the discipline, mainly students directly out of high school. Some hogescholen also provide additional programs at the master’s level that have a stronger focus on disciplinary knowledge. More and more staff of hogescholen is involved in practice-oriented research. Traditionally, research universities provide two types of teacher education programs for teaching in the upper grades of HAVO and VWO. Staff of these programs are usually involved in all kinds of research projects. The first type of program lasts one year and is aimed at students that already hold a master’s degree in a discipline related to the school subject. These programs focus on methods of teaching the subject and general educational and pedagogical content. One key feature of these programs is that many students complete the clinical part of the program with a teaching job for which they are paid a regular salary. The second type of program takes two years and is at the master’s level. It combines teacher preparation courses with courses that focus on the discipline to be taught. Since 2009, research universities also offer teacher preparation for the lower grades of secondary education. As part of a bachelor’s degree program in a discipline, students can take electives in education, pedagogy, and subject-specific pedagogy that grant them a teaching certificate. Because of the expected shortages of teachers, alternative routes were developed to attract academically qualified individuals into teaching as well as to recruit older entrants, such as those who might be interested in a career change into teaching (Ministerie van Onderwijs Cultuur en Wetenschap, 1999; Tigchelaar & Korthagen, 2004). EDUCATIONAL REFORMS

In the last twenty-five years, the Netherlands has witnessed three major reforms in secondary education. None of these reforms are considered successful today, which has had a negative impact on how the public and politicians perceive and experience education and educational reform (Commissie Parlementair Onderzoek Onderwijsvernieuwing, 2008). The Reforms The first reform was referred to as the basisvorming (basic curriculum) and was implemented from 1993 onward. In this reform, 14 subjects were introduced with standardized goals that had to be covered in the first three years of secondary education for all students. The original goals of this reform were to pay more attention 68

DUTCH TEACHER AND TEACHER EDUCATION POLICIES

to the development of skills in the curriculum and to postpone the streaming of children at the age of twelve until fourteen. However, the reform became the topic of a heated debate, and only a weak version of the original plans was implemented: all students had to take the 14 subjects and reach the common goals, but they would do that within streams for which they were selected at the age of twelve. The second reform, which was implemented in 1998, involved a reform of the curriculum in the last two years of HAVO and the last three years of VWO to better prepare students for studying in higher education. One element of this innovation was that schools could implement the studiehuis (study-house), which many schools did. The studiehuis was a radical shift in the pedagogical approach in classes toward student-independent and self-responsible inquiry and study and away from factual, teacher-led learning. Underlying this reform were theoretical notions derived from constructivism that aimed at active and self-regulative learning (Simons, 2000; Simons, van der Linden, & Duffy, 2000). For teachers, it meant a shift in their role from being the sources of knowledge to acting as supervisors, coaches, and facilitators of learning. The third reform, in 1999–2002, involved a reorganization of the lower levels of secondary education, combining junior general secondary education (MAVO, Medium General Secondary Education) with lower vocational education in one stream with the aim to create more pathways for students in these schools. This combination is the current VMBO that we discussed above. Despite the good intentions of these reforms, the implementation was problematic. The basisvorming particularly met with much resistance and ultimately was abolished in 2006. When it was proposed, many school leaders and teachers were positive about the studiehuis, but in practice, it turned out difficult to implement (cf. van Veen, Sleegers, & van de Ven, 2005). Furthermore, although schools were free to implement the studiehuis or not, many teachers did not feel they had a say in if and how this reform was implemented (Commissie Parlementair Onderzoek Onderwijsvernieuwing, 2008). The third reform, combining junior general secondary education with lower vocational education in one stream, was the most successful of the three reforms, although at first the image of the new VMBO-stream was rather negative because it was perceived as a school type for students who couldn’t succeed in the other levels. Another reason for this negative image was that a number of violent events occurred at VMBO schools that attracted a lot of attention from the media. The Teacher in the Spotlight The number and intensity of government-introduced reforms led to critical responses from parents, students, and teachers. The association Beter Onderwijs Nederland (BON: Better Education Netherlands) was founded with the aim to change the balance of power in education in favor of teachers and parents. As a consequence, politicians called for a parliamentary committee that was commissioned to investigate the implementation process and results of the reforms and to formulate guidelines 69

T. WUBBELS & J. VAN TARTWIJK

for future governmental educational policies (Commissie Parlementair Onderzoek Onderwijsvernieuwing, 2008). Based on the literature, their own research, and hearings, this committee concluded that while there had been considerable political support for the innovations, the implementation of the reforms had been much too top-down, and that, as a consequence, many teachers felt that the innovations were forced upon them. The parliamentary committee recommended that these kinds of reforms should never be implemented again without support from the educational field and, more specifically, from the teachers. Just before publication of the report of parliamentary research on the educational reforms, a committee installed by the minister reported on the future of the teaching profession (Commissie Leraren, 2007). This committee also observed that teachers had not been sufficiently involved in the design of the reforms, with negative effects for the success of the innovations and the satisfaction of teachers with their jobs. This committee advocated a stronger position of the teachers, for example, by introducing a professional register for teachers and developing criteria for excellence in teaching. Although these recommendations were taken seriously, and for some years every government plan had to be tested against these recommendations, teachers certainly aren’t always put into the lead. A recent example is the task force that was installed by the secretary of state for education with the aim of developing a plan for the curriculum to be taught in schools in the future. Although two teachers and a school leader were members of this task force, the majority of the members came from outside primary and secondary education, for example, a CEO from industry and a professional trend watcher. This task force started with a ‘national brainstorm’ about the content of the curriculum. The chair of this committee was quoted on the government website: I see, for instance, that a large number of the 17,000 reactions [to the brainstorming call] comes from professionals from within and outside of education. Great, but I also am very keen on hearing the vision of entrepreneurs and scientists. Above all, I am curious about the vision of students and their parents. Education is after all not the property of the teachers, it prepares for life itself. (‘Platform #Onderwijs2032 officieel van start,’ 2015) NEW INITIATIVES

Several policy initiatives have been taken to counter the perceived lack of quality in the Dutch educational system, both for pre- and in-service teacher education. We describe the plea of the Council of Governing Bodies of the Schools for Primary Education for more research-university-based teacher education programs and for establishing regional knowledge centers, government policy plans to ensure that at least 30 percent of the teachers has a masters’ degree, and plans for strengthening the regular teacher education programs. 70

DUTCH TEACHER AND TEACHER EDUCATION POLICIES

Strengthening the Academic Level of Primary Education The Council of Governing Bodies for Primary Education started a campaign in 2013 to strengthen the academic quality of their schools and their personnel (PO-raad, 2014). They felt that quality improvement of the schools was needed, specifically for high-ability students, because the Dutch educational system doesn’t perform very well for the ablest students (Meelissen et al., 2012; Mullis et al., 2012). The council, for example, wanted to introduce in their schools more data-driven analyses of the educational processes and to develop improvements based on such analyses. Furthermore, the introduction of evidence-based teaching practices, in combination with teaching arrangements that are tailor made by the teachers themselves, were seen as a necessary strategy for better primary education. A lack of knowledge in the schools about such evidence-based practices and recent knowledge developed in educational research was felt. This movement recently became even more pressing because a new law required school boards to offer education for all students, including students with special needs who, in the Netherlands, usually visit special education needs schools (Wet passend onderwijs, 2012). Involving research universities in primary education was considered a way to realize the intended quality improvement. Until recently, the main involvement of research universities in primary education were the research that several departments of education carry out in primary education schools and offering primary teacher education programs jointly with the hogescholen. Graduates of these programs receive two degrees: one for teaching in primary education and one university bachelor’s degree. The council rightly observed that the number of students was very small: only 5 percent of the student teachers for primary education are trained in joint programs of universities and hogescholen. A number of reasons were suggested for this low percentage. A first reason is the lower status of bachelor’s programs offered by the hogescholen: bachelor’s programs at the research universities are only accessible for students with a VWO diploma, the diploma for the ablest students, whereas students with a VWO or a HAVO diploma can enroll programs at hogescholen. As a consequence, many VWO students (and their parents) feel that enrolling programs at hogescholen means taking a program that is below the potential of VWO students. A second reason is that the ablest students often feel that teacher education programs are not challenging them enough academically. These analyses led the Council of Governing Bodies to commit themselves to strengthening the quality of primary schools as workplaces for all teachers and specifically for higher-educated teachers. This would include, for example, higher salaries for teachers trained at the research universities and letting them carry out additional tasks, such as taking up the role of content or pedagogical specialist who could be consulted by their colleagues or having a role in quality assurance and improvement or practice oriented research. Furthermore, the council asked the research universities to develop teacher education programs for primary education independently from the hogescholen. 71

T. WUBBELS & J. VAN TARTWIJK

The council also asked the universities to develop academic centers for carrying out educational research in which primary school teachers and researchers from both the universities and hogescholen would collaborate. The research centers should give the primary schools access to recent scientific knowledge and help them carry out research for the benefit of the schools. This is needed because the impact of research in the schools is often perceived as low (van Tartwijk, 2011). This last initiative fit very well with the advice of several committees that advocated collaborative efforts of schools, universities, and hogescholen in regional knowledge centers with the aim to bridge the gap between research and practice (Commissie Nationaal Plan Toekomst Onderwijswetenschappen, 2011; Commissie Sectorplan Onderwijswetenschappen, 2014; Onderwijsraad, 2011). By offering more challenging teacher education programs, it is hoped that more VWO students will be attracted to teacher education. In turn, the graduates of such teacher education programs would be able to introduce recent scientific knowledge into the schools and enable schools to improve themselves through practice-oriented research. The Teaching and Teacher Education Policy of the Government In 2013, the government published a policy plan for teaching and teacher education for the period 2013–2020: “The teacher makes the difference” (Ministerie van Onderwijs Cultuur en Wetenschap, 2013). Teacher education seems more prominently visible in this plan than the teacher and the school. For the latter, the plan advocates strengthening the learning and developing capacities of the schools through, for instance, firming the human resource capacity of the schools in order to make the school a better place for teachers. This includes, among other elements, professional development opportunities, career paths, and autonomy for teachers and school leaders, for example, by liberating schools from pressing government rules. Through the collaboration of schools and teacher education programs, not only the transfer of knowledge to schools but also the relevance of the teacher education programs should be improved. Furthermore, initiatives of teachers and their organizations to improve the status of teaching as a profession are encouraged. This includes campaigns for a better image of the teacher in society, higher teacher self-esteem, and a higher participation in professional development. Most strikingly, the government wants to require teachers to keep track of their professional development activities in a register for certified teachers. This register and the obligation for teachers to participate in it will be enforced by law, thus withdrawing the initiative from the teachers. For teacher education, the policy plan emphasizes the need for higher academic levels of students entering teacher education programs, more academically challenging programs, and higher academic knowledge of teacher education graduates. Because Dutch policy traditionally emphasizes the right of everyone who passes a matriculation exam of secondary education to enter freely into 72

DUTCH TEACHER AND TEACHER EDUCATION POLICIES

higher education, putting requirements on the students before entering teacher education is highly disputed. Therefore, the suggested measures do not in fact aim for entrance standards for the programs but for requirements for passing the first year of the programs. The requirements apply for the pedagogical and for the academic competences, but only the latter are enforced—students must pass exams in mathematics and mother tongue in order to be allowed to continue their studies in the second year. It is left to the teacher education institutions whether and how they assess the pedagogical competences. Interestingly, the government is aware that higher requirements might introduce teacher shortages, as was the case about 20 years ago when another minister introduced mathematical competence as a prerequisite for entering the primary teacher education programs. Instead of relieving this requirement after one year, as happened 20 years ago, now the government hopes to attract new candidates and late callings to the profession by offering flexible and attractive training opportunities. For many years, the government has emphasized that the education of teachers in all levels of education from primary to universities should be strengthened, and this is also part of the recent policy plan. As part of this plan, the government aims to considerably enlarge the number of primary and secondary teachers with a master’s degree. Arguments for this policy are that it will stimulate teacher professional development and that international comparisons show that the percentage of teachers with a master’s degree correlates with the quality of education (the ministry’s plan refers to Barber & Mourshed, 2007). A master’s degree is presumed to have a positive impact on the quality of education because research skills are trained in master’s programs, and teachers with a master’s degree are better able to use research evidence in education (Onderwijsraad, 2006). The policy plan of the Association of Hogescholen (Vereniging Hogescholen, 2015) states that developing a research attitude is an essential part of all teacher education programs because such an attitude and associated competences are vital for professional teachers who innovate their own teaching continuously and adapt their teaching to societal demands. Furthermore, the government wants all graduates to demonstrate mastering a knowledge base for teaching when concluding their training. Regarding the knowledge base, the policy plan of the Association of Hogescholen supports that a certain starting level of knowledge should be guaranteed; however, this plan advocates that the emphasis on such levels should be in good balance with the attention in teacher education on socialization, pedagogical expertise, and personal development. Here the association builds on Biesta’s (2009) three types of educational aims: socialization, qualification, and subjectification. Finally, an important point of action is the level of teacher educators, both individually and at the level of teacher education institutions. At the individual level, a register for teacher educators already exists, but until now, only a low percentage of teacher educators is registered, and it was not strongly oriented toward continuous professional development. The government now encourages teacher educators to register. This implies fulfilling the criteria for professional preparation, practical 73

T. WUBBELS & J. VAN TARTWIJK

experience, and reflection and self-improvement. In addition, reregistration after some years has been introduced to further encourage continuous professional development. At the institutional level, the hogescholen prioritize increasing the number of teacher educators with master’s degrees and PhDs. At the research universities, all teacher educators already have master’s degrees, and many of them also have PhDs, but increasing the number of PhDs is desired. Projects for Teacher Induction and Teacher Learning In addition to these general policy trends, several innovative projects are emerging, such as teacher induction programs and professional learning communities of teachers. The government has recently funded all research universities for projects to help schools inducting their beginning teachers in the profession and the specific school. In most of these projects, the universities support schools with the induction, including meetings of the beginning teachers in a school under the guidance of an experienced colleague, classroom observations of the beginning teachers by peers and experienced colleagues with feedback, and school introduction activities led by experienced colleagues. A research component investigates whether teachers in these programs develop faster toward the competence level of experienced teachers and perhaps even develop more advanced competences (Van de Grift, 2007; van de Grift, van der Wal, & Torenbeek, 2010). Also, the monitoring of teacher attrition is part of the research to see if their attrition is lower than in schools without induction projects. All universities also are funded for projects to support professional learning communities in schools. These communities take a topic to work on in the school for one year, usually leading to professional development, for example, through lesson study projects (Dudley, 2013). These projects are monitored by research as well. AMBIGUITIES IN TEACHING AND TEACHER EDUCATION POLICY PLANS

In the government policy plan, we can see ambiguities and even a paradox. On the one hand, it is advocated that teachers should be researchers of their own practice, and, on the other hand, a list of required teacher competencies is formulated, of which the ‘core’ teacher competences are sufficient content knowledge and pedagogical skills. The ambiguity here is that because the time that can be invested in a teacher education program is limited, every now and then a choice between these two aims will have to be made. Furthermore, for teachers who have just started teaching independently, their first concerns are coping with classroom management issues and being effective in instruction (Veenman, 1984). Therefore, for teacher education programs, it is rather challenging to convince students of the importance of improving their research skills in this stage of their development, which very often has negative consequences for the evaluation of the teacher education program and specifically the research assignments. 74

DUTCH TEACHER AND TEACHER EDUCATION POLICIES

Asking teachers to become a stronger professional group is a paradoxical prescription or injunction (an instruction to do something that is rendered impossible by the instruction itself; Watzlawick, 1993). Distinct characteristics of a profession are a substantive body of knowledge that is acquired through systematic training, a professional association that certifies practitioners, including criteria for their professional development, societal recognition of the profession’s authority, and a service orientation to be framed in a code of ethics (Greenwood, 1957). Such a group organizes itself and develops criteria for membership and for adequate professional development. When a group does these things when asked by someone else, this might be interpreted as a sign of obedience instead of professionalism. This question of the government asks teachers as a group to do something that they would need to do by themselves, without having been invited, when they would act as a professional group. That the government puts the foundation of a register into a law is a further sign that they do not trust the teachers as a group to show the professionalism that the government wants them to have. Similarly, the fact that the government prescribes by law what the teacher competencies should be is also a sign of lack of trust in the self-regulating power of the teachers as a professional group. A final ambiguity we want to mention is related to the prescription by the government of a knowledge base for teacher education. The government wants to encourage professionalism of teacher educators, what could include designing appropriate teacher education programs based on an evidence-informed knowledge base about teaching. The government apparently does not have high esteem for the teacher educators’ professionalism and does not trust them sufficiently to be able to work without supplying them with the prescribed knowledge base that graduates should acquire. To conclude, we can observe that the rhetoric about teachers and teacher educators in the Netherlands is strongly pointing toward a plea for higher professionalism of both groups. We can also see that in practice, policies about teachers and teacher educators are a mix of steps toward both the professionalization and deprofessionalization of teachers. NOTE 1

Parts of this section are based on Hammerness, van Tartwijk, and Snoek (2012).

REFERENCES Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world’s best-performing school systems come out on top. London: McKinsey & Company. Biesta, G. J. J. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 33–46. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. (2015). Onderwijsinstellingen; grootte, soort, levensbschouwelijke grondslag. Retrieved from http://statline.cbs.nl/ Commissie Leraren. (2007). Leerkracht! Den Haag: Ministerie van OCW.

75

T. WUBBELS & J. VAN TARTWIJK Commissie Nationaal Plan Toekomst Onderwijswetenschappen. (2011). Nationaal plan onderwijs/ leerwetenschappen. Retrieved from http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/rapporten/ 2011/02/10/nationaal-plan-toekomst-onderwijswetenschappen.html Commissie Parlementair Onderzoek Onderwijsvernieuwing. (2008). Tijd voor onderwijs. ‘s-Gravenhage: Sdu. Commissie Sectorplan Onderwijswetenschappen. (2014). Sectorplan onderwijswetenschappen: Wetenschap voor het onderwijs. Retrieved from http://www.vsnu.nl/files/documenten/Domeinen/ Onderwijs/Sectorplan_onderwijswetenschappen.pdf Dudley, P. (2013). Teacher learning in lesson study: What interaction-level discourse analysis revealed about how teachers utilised imagination, tacit knowledge of teaching and fresh evidence of pupils learning, to develop practice knowledge and so enhance their pupils’ learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 107–121. Greenwood, E. (1957, July). Attributes of a profession. Social Work, 2(3), 45–55. Grondwet voor het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, Artikel 23 C.F.R. (2008). Hammerness, K., van Tartwijk, J., & Snoek, M. (2013). Teacher preparation in the Netherlands: Shared visions and common features. In L. Darling-Hammond & A. Lieberman (Eds.), Teacher education around the world (pp. 58–79). London: Routledge. Jonker, J. (Ed.) (2012). Countries compared on public performance. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau. Meelissen, M. R. M., Netten, A., Drent, M., Punter, R. A., Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2012). PIRLS- en TIMSS-2011: Trends in leerprestaties in Lezen, Rekenen en Natuuronderwijs. Nijmegen/Enschede. Retrieved from https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/5143965 Meesters, M. (2003). Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Paris: OECD. Ministerie van Onderwijs, C. E. W. (2014). Kerncijfers 2009–2013. Den Haag: Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap. Ministerie van Onderwijs Cultuur en Wetenschap. (1999). Maatwerk voor morgen: Het perspectief van een open arbeidsmarkt. Den Haag: SDU. Ministerie van Onderwijs Cultuur en Wetenschap. (2013). Lerarenagenda 2013–2020: De leraar maakt het verschil. Den Haag: Ministerie van Onderwijs Cultuur en Wetenschap. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Drucker, K. T. (2012). PIRLS 2011 international results in reading. Boston, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College. OECD. (2012). PISA 2012 results in focus: What 15-year-olds know and what they can do with what they know. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD. (2013). OECD skills outlook 2013: First results from the survey of adult skills. Retrieved from Retrieved from http://skills.oecd.org/OECD_Skills_Outlook_2013.pdf Onderwijsraad. (2006). Naar meer evidence based onderwijs [Towards more evidence based education]. Den Haag: Onderwijsraad. Onderwijsraad. (2011). Ruim baan voor stapsgewijze verbetering [Clear the way for stepwise improvement]. Den Haag: Onderwijsraad. Platform #Onderwijs2032 officieel van start. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/ actueel/nieuws/2015/02/12/platform-onderwijs2032-officieel-van-start. PO-raad/VSNU (2015). Verkenning:een universitaire lerarenopleiding voor het basisonderwijs. Utrecht/ Den Haag: PO-raad/VSNU. Simons, P. R. J. (2000). Towards a constructivistic theory of self-directed learning. In G. A. Straka (Ed.), Conceptions of self-directed learning (pp. 155–170). New York, NY: Waxman. Simons, P. R. J., van der Linden, J., & Duffy, T. (2000). New learning: Three ways to learn in a new balance. In P. R. J. Simons, J. van der Linden, & T. Duffy (Eds.), New learning (pp. 191–208). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Tigchelaar, A., & Korthagen, F. A. J. (2004). Deepening the exchange of student teaching experiences: Implications for the pedagogy of teacher education of recent insights into teacher behavior. Teaching and teacher education, 30(4), 665–679. UWV. (2015). Onderwijs. Sector beschrijving [Education. Description of the sector]. Amsterdam: UWV, Afdeling Arbeidsmarktinformatie en -advies.

76

DUTCH TEACHER AND TEACHER EDUCATION POLICIES Van de Grift, W. (2007). Quality of teaching in four European countries: A review of the literature and application of an assessment instrument. Educational Research, 49(2), 127–152. Van de Grift, W., Van der Wal, M., & Torenbeek, M. (2010). Ontwikkeling in de pedagogisch didactische vaardigheid van leraren in het basisonderwijs. Pedagogische Studieën, 88(6), 416–432. Van Tartwijk, J. (2011). Van onderzoek naar onderwijs of de kunst van de toepassing. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht. Van Veen, K., Sleegers, P., & Van de Ven, P. (2005). One teacher’s identity, emotions, and commitment to change: A case study into the cognitive-affective processes of a secondary school teacher in the context of reforms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 917–934. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VD8-4GM4609-1/2/ 8ff74eaabbab815b0bd8a7f4bf228588 Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 54(1), 51–67. Vereniging Hogescholen. (2015). Opleiden voor de toekomst. Den Haag: Vereniging Hogescholen. Watzlawick, P. (1993). The language of change: Elements of therapeutic communication. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company. Wet op de beroepen in het onderwijs, Staatsblad 344. (2004). Wet passend onderwijs, Staatsblad 533 (2012).

Theo Wubbels Utrecht University Utrecht, The Netherlands Jan van Tartwijk Utrecht University Utrecht, The Netherlands

77

CHRISTOPHER BEZZINA

6. TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN MALTA Liberalizing the Way We Learn

ABSTRACT

Like many other societies, Malta is undergoing major changes that are affecting our traditional and conservative social fabric, such as migration, multiculturalism, and the concept of family, together with other developments such as the impact of technology on our lives. This is having a direct impact on the way we currently conceptualize schools and, more so, the education we provide. As a result, schools are becoming extremely demanding and complex environments. At the same time, teachers are faced with what Helterbran describes as “prescriptive, teacher-proof curricula and instructional strategies driven by politically mandated forces” (2008, p. 124), further augmented by top-down teacher accountability that is driven by standardized tests and external international testing. These demands and pressures have raised a clarion call to review how we conceptualize the professional development of teachers. This chapter starts off by acknowledging these challenges and, after describing current provision, argues for liberalizing professional learning so that school leaders and teachers can manage and control their own learning, even if they have to function in a context of restricted autonomy. It calls for a respect for teaching as a profession that allows space and time for teachers to engage in transformative learning from within. Keywords: professional development, support for teachers, teacher learning INTRODUCTION

The quality of education has slowly but surely become a major issue in Malta. A series of reforms, especially over the last 15 years (Ministry of Education, 2001; MEYE, 2005; MEEF, 2011), have highlighted how important it is to clearly understand the role that teachers have to play if quality improvement is to be achieved. More so, it is becoming obvious that teachers’ ongoing professional development has to be taken seriously and addressed strategically rather than left as a haphazard exercise (Bezzina, 2002). The quality of education is heavily dependent on the quality of the staff, their motivations, and the leadership they experience. In this

© KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2018 | DOI 10.1163/9789004372573_006

C. BEZZINA

regard, Walter et al. (1996, p. 41) noted that “the quality of teaching depends on the quality of the teachers, which, in turn, depends on the extent of the quality of their professional development.” This chapter provides an overview of the current professional development practices and procedures in Malta. Three sections are developed in the discussion, namely: A definition of professional development in the Maltese context; facilitating structures supporting teachers’ work; and current challenges that teachers need to address. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE MALTESE CONTEXT

Before exploring the area of professional development, I would like to briefly discuss the individualistic nature of the teaching profession. This serves as a backdrop for a better understanding and critique of the need to adopt more transformative processes of learning that see teachers engaging in collaborative approaches to professional development. As Anderson argues (2004, p. 114), teaching is a solitary profession with teachers spending a considerable amount of time isolated in the classroom. Teachers work in lonely circumstances, and it is difficult for them to articulate what they know and to share what they have learned through their own practices with others (Attard Tonna & Calleja, 2015). The individualistic nature of teaching and the lack of the social dimension embedded within it precludes it from improving its efficiency and effectiveness through facilitated coordinated action (Putman, 1993). This coordinated action can be developed when teachers come together to engage in a professional discourse, one that allows them to challenge the way they do things, thus helping each other to question actively, critically, and reflectively (Gordon, 2004). Although there is a lot of research that supports teacher collaboration (Crowther et al., 2011; Reeves, 2008), there are few facilitating structures that help teachers to develop a common educational purpose, collaborative planning, experimentation, and critique of their practices. But what is the local context like? The professional development of teachers is usually characterized by three phases: the pre-service phase, the induction phase, and the continuing professional development phase. A study of the Maltese context shows that the initial teacher education (ITE) of prospective teachers is currently the sole responsibility of the Faculty of Education at the University of Malta. Prospective teachers can follow one of two routes: the Bachelor of Education (B.Ed. [Hons]) three-year degree or a one-year postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) course. The faculty has, over the years, reviewed its courses to address the challenges of the teaching profession, with the introduction of courses that address the various concerns facing teachers (e.g., inclusive education, gender, ethics, and technologyenhanced learning). Faculty members have, through various initiatives, explored ways and means of improving the ITE programs, including seminal work in the areas 80

TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN MALTA

of assessment and portfolios, an improved program linking theory with practice, improved links with schools and the education authorities, reviewing teaching practice assessment sheets, and mentoring courses, to mention but a few (Bezzina, 2008; Bezzina & Camilleri, 2001). At the same time, the faculty encourages and supports undergraduate and postgraduate studies in various areas that Maltese and foreign students can pursue. These courses provide the opportunity for graduates to develop the knowledge, skills, and attributes needed to tackle issues that are pertinent to their professional and/or personal needs. However, there are two types of continuing professional development (CPD) for teachers: Professional education entails the widening of a teacher’s theoretical and research perspectives by undertaking advanced studies at the university (e.g., postgraduate certificate, diploma, master’s and doctoral degrees). The university also provides a variety of courses aimed at enhancing the professional skills and aptitudes of participants. Professional training is aimed at the development of teachers’ knowledge and skills relating to daily work (e.g., INSET courses, workshops, and seminars). The education authorities and, more recently, the Institute for Education are the main agents that provide teachers and other educators varied opportunities to extend their knowledge bases and skills in specific areas. Teachers in Malta tend to engage mostly in the INSET type of CPD, since this leads to a formal recognition of the improvement and development of knowledge and skills (OECD, 2015). A collective agreement between the Maltese government and the Malta Union of Teachers currently regulates the provision of the ongoing professional development of teachers, both in the State sector and the Church sector (MEEF, 2010). Once teachers graduate and are employed as Newly Qualified Teachers (NQTs) they must follow a two-year induction program. This period is a legal requirement. In fact, the 2006 Education (Amendments) Act Cap. 327, part III, para. 24 (2e), requires two years of supervised experience in a registered school. The 2010 agreement between the government and the Malta Union of Teachers, para. 21 (1), states that all employees shall be expected to follow an induction process, not necessarily during school hours. The ethos of the induction programs is based on the premise that NQTs may face a daunting task as they seek to establish themselves in their chosen career paths. The Education Directorates recognize the need for support required by NQTs at this stage. Hence, an induction program has been developed consisting of two distinct yet mutually supportive components: mentoring and appraisal. Mentoring provides professional support, while appraisal provides professional guidance and leads to the confirmation of permanent employment after the first year of service as an NQT. NQTs benefit greatly from the structured support by more experienced and specifically trained peers as they face new roles, challenges, and responsibilities. The Directorate for Quality and Standards in Education (DQSE) provides training courses for prospective teacher mentors as well as for Induction Coordinators (ICs), who help to coordinate the whole process at a school level. The Directorate for Educational Services (DES) is, thus, providing the support of an experienced and 81

C. BEZZINA

trained colleague who helps the NQT to settle down in the classroom, at school, and into the teaching profession. Appraisal is carried out through the Performance Management and Professional Development Plan (PMPDP), which is intended as a tool that “allows its user to identify the targets of one’s professional practice at the beginning of one’s career, as well as the professional development requirements to improve further” (QAD, 2012, p. 1). Indeed, induction is rooted in the teacher’s need for ongoing professional development. Mentoring and appraisal, as the two pillars of the induction program, are both meant, each in its own way, to stimulate and sustain professional development. The induction program provides the NQT with the opportunities to discuss his or her professional and personal development with the mentor and the appraiser; get in touch with his or her aspirations, concerns, and fears; learn about new contexts, roles, and responsibilities; reflect on practice and lessons learned, aimed at continuous professional growth; and learn to work collegially. During these two years, the NQTs have to fulfil a number of obligations prior to receiving their permanent warrant to teach, namely: 1. Attend the three-day induction seminar organized by the QAD, normally held in September prior to the beginning of the scholastic year; 2. receive and/or participate in a minimum of four mentoring classroom observation visits, two in the first term of employment and one in each of the subsequent terms; 3. participate in a minimum of three formal meetings with their mentor, one per term; 4. attend the final evaluative seminar, normally held in July; and 5. compile their first-year PMPDP. The probation period and induction program last one year. Probation is concluded with the college principal’s positive final recommendation in the first year PMPDP document, following the head of school’s recommendation and the confirmation of fulfilment of the induction requirements. One may apply with the Council for the Teaching Profession (CTP) for a permanent warrant on presentation of proof of: ‡ Fulfilment of induction requirements, and ‡ two years of supervised practice in a registered school. Those who successfully complete the induction phase then join the teaching profession on a permanent basis and would avail themselves of the varied CPD opportunities provided by both the state authorities and/or other providers. CPD is also legally binding and takes place within particular structures that will be dealt within the next section. FACILITATING STRUCTURES SUPPORTING TEACHER DEVELOPMENT

The collective agreement mentioned above binds teachers in state and church schools to engage in INSET on a regular basis. Teachers in independent schools may also 82

TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN MALTA

choose to attend these courses, but often, these schools prefer to organize in-house staff development. Teachers are obligated to pursue at least one course per year with the possibility of pursuing another program on a voluntary basis. The duration of these courses is usually 12 hours. The professional development courses on offer by the Directorates for Education tend to fall under a top-down structure and address issues mainly at the systems level that principally relate to policy and government-initiated reforms. Such sessions are held either during the three days of INSET in the beginning of July, just before the summer recess, or in September, prior to the commencement of a new scholastic year. Apart from these INSET courses, educators at school levels are assigned between 52 and 80 hours for professional learning on an annual basis. This includes structured sessions for teachers in their respective year groups; at the primary level, curriculum meetings run for 90 minutes per week; departmental meetings at the secondary level run for 45 minutes per week. There are also formal meetings during the term to discuss either college and/or school issues that are reflected in the school development plan. Furthermore, during the school year, other CPD sessions may be organized by the respective Directorates. Educators at all levels may also avail themselves of European Commission initiatives, such as Erasmus exchange programs and Grundtvig programs. Educators in Malta are also provided a one-time monetary allowance to participate in three annual CPD sessions, held after school hours for academic qualifications held beyond what is required for a given post (refer to Key Data on Teachers and School Leaders in Europe, EURYDICE, 2013). Teachers and educators at all levels can avail themselves of financial support to further their studies at the post-graduate level. However, as Attard Tonna (2015) notes, although teachers are free to engage in other professional development opportunities once they satisfy their own INSET obligations, the way CPD is structured by the Directorates, usually in the form of inservice training, allows for limited flexibility. Although the INSET courses provide teachers with varied opportunities to extend their knowledge and skills in specific areas, generally such courses are held during the same period of time teachers are undertaking their own compulsory INSET. Moreover, if professional learning opportunities like seminars and workshops are held during school hours, it is not always possible for teachers to be released from their teaching duties so they could attend. Linked to these site-based managed professional development sessions, horizontal arrangements of INSET have become increasingly more popular over the last five years or so, and schools and colleges are periodically organizing school-based or in-house INSET specifically targeting school-related issues/teacher needs. Another arrangement that has been introduced in primary schools is a staggered organization of INSET throughout the scholastic year (though not exceeding the twelve-hour duration). These activities focus on particular areas that have been identified by teachers and embraced in the school’s development plan (SDP). Such plans allow schools to identify their needs and develop action plans to address them. 83

C. BEZZINA

This resonates with the reform context that, while being highly centralized, allows schools and their teachers room to maneuver. As noted by the Eurydice report of 2008, the level of autonomy in Malta is one where “central (top-level) public authority sets out a general framework outlining the main features of curricular content, which are then worked out in greater detail … [by] … teachers in schools” (2008, p. 70). However, teachers have been used to teaching in relative isolation, and the reforms that have been proliferating since the late 1990s call for practices that are constantly increasing the need for teamwork. The Education Act of 2006 highlighted the need to strengthen structures at the central level with the intent of supporting schools and their needs. The Department for Curriculum Management was set up. Through this department, education officials visit schools and mainly teachers to help them address issues pertinent to subject matter, teaching and learning strategies, and other day-to-day concerns. These same officials run regular INSET training sessions that teachers and school leaders can attend on a compulsory and/or voluntary basis. The E-Learning Department provides ongoing support and motivation to integrate the use of technology into the learning process. A third department, the Quality Assurance Department (QAD), was also set up. The QAD has the responsibility of supporting, monitoring, and ensuring that national college and school aims and targets are achieved. Their brief, as noted in the document The External Review: The Integrated School Improvement Framework (2014), allows education officials to relate to the recommendations made and offer support if and when needed. The external review is primarily “an instrument that supports and empowers schools in their ongoing quest to improve their practice and their outcomes” (QAD, 2014, p. 5). The external review is also an instrument for accountability and conformity with national standards and aspirations. As noted in the QAD document, “a successful and useful external review is situated precisely in the delicate and dynamic balance between these complementary functions of support and accountability” (p. 5). The document clearly explains the external review parameters, articulating step by step what happens before, during, and after the review has been undertaken. The QAD’s main aim is to provide guidelines for better implementation of the schools’ development plans; it is helping schools build internal capacity so that they can undertake their own internal audits. They assess schools in three main areas, namely educational leadership and management, learning and teaching, and school ethos. Therefore, it measures what the head of school does in relation to a set of criteria and indicators. The results that come from the work carried out by the QAD help the members of the school in order to address areas for improvement and development. This issue of accountability is a delicate one. Given that teachers have worked in a context of isolation and enjoyed the freedom of instruction (Eurydice, 2008), it is not easy to engage in practices that require teachers to share their pedagogies with others. Through the varied engagements of teachers at the school/college level, we are seeing a move away from such practices to ones of collaboration. 84

TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN MALTA

The external reviews also focus on classroom observation with the intent of providing feedback on what teachers are doing across specific subjects so as to improve practices. So far, there is only anecdotal evidence to show whether this approach is proving effective. The argument of this chapter is that Malta needs to make a concerted effort to ensure that policy and practice come together and that this can be achieved if we ensure that CPD promotes teacher collaboration. These are the challenges that will be discussed in the next section. CURRENT CHALLENGES FACING TEACHERS

Introduction and Implementation of Educational Reforms With the introduction of the National Curriculum Framework (NCF) launched in the beginning of the 2012–2013 scholastic year and the introduction of benchmark tests for the transition from primary to secondary schools during the 2010–2011 scholastic year, it is argued that teachers need to develop new skills and strategies to work with mixed-ability classes and to remain abreast of the many reforms concurrently taking place. The NCF, in essence, promotes the key elements aimed at providing a holistic education for all children, namely: ‡ “The support of all learners to achieve and succeed, whatever their backgrounds, needs and aptitudes; ‡ A clear focus in colleges and schools on meeting the needs of all learners through increased curricular autonomy; ‡ The creation of active, inclusive learning communities which put learning and learners at the heart of all that they do and are accountable to their stakeholder; ‡ Learning which is active, personalized, relevant and purposeful” (MEEF, 2011, p. 8). The NCF also promotes “A seamless progression through the early, primary, and secondary years in the skills and competences required for lifelong learning, and assessment and evaluation which use information and feedback formatively to inform planning for improvement” (MEEF, 2011, p. 8). Both statements imply that teachers need to develop specific skills and strategies in formally evaluating their students’ progress in a more holistic and consistent manner than has been happening up until now (Attard Tonna, 2015). Despite the desire to shift the way we engage with the student as a learner and the way assessment is carried out (just to mention two of the several demands being made on teachers), the research shows that teachers still feel doubtful about how to go about mixed-ability teaching and new assessment practices (Borg & Giordmaina, 2012). In-service training in differentiated instruction and in assessment is not being offered on a national level, and the process for the introduction of the NCF and other 85

C. BEZZINA .

reforms are heavily criticized on the basis of insufficient consultation with teachers and lack of time to allow schools and teachers to assimilate the changes. Another issue that is presenting the education authorities with a major challenge is the way that the reforms highlight the importance of more decentralized governance structures and more collaborative engagements at the school level and reality speak otherwise. Although efforts are being made through the college system for schools to become more autonomous, this is not always reflected in the organization and provision of continuing professional development programs for the teachers concerned. Teachers are being asked to participate in INSET courses practically determined by others or to minimally contribute to INSET, leaving them uninvolved in the decision-making processes regarding these courses. As a result, they may be subjected to forms of INSET and CPD experiences that do not necessarily respond to their particular needs. This transmission type of CPD supports what Kennedy (2005) describes as a technocratic, skill-based view of teaching and one that does not promote teacher professionalism (Day, 1999). It is this interventionist approach (Armour & Yelling, 2004) that needs to be challenged. In fact, the latest OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), which included 72,190 participants from 24 countries (1,142 of the teachers from Malta), showed that a great majority of teachers (92 percent) are frequently involved in informal dialogue with their colleagues to improve their teaching. Teachers prefer engaging in sessions that they themselves are directly involved in creating. This approach helps to counter the concern raised in the 2008 Eurydice report on the notion of “collective responsibility.” While the move to decentralize is very much needed, and designing CPD programs that are effective is necessary for improving the teaching and learning process, the report notes that “newly acquired collective responsibility actually reduces the capacity of individual teachers to take their own decisions. … Teachers are obliged to co-operate” (2008, p. 12). Given the pressures emanating from national and international test results, the move toward discussing teaching and learning practices together with a development of a competencebased curriculum can be argued to be leading to a situation where teachers have no discretion or autonomy at all. Attitudes and Images Regarding the Teaching Profession and Teacher Education Another area that we need to engage with is how the teaching profession is perceived and whether teaching is seen as an attractive profession. The Faculty of Education within the University of Malta, being responsible for initial teacher education, has sought to understand and explain prospective teachers’ reasons for choosing this profession and how their choice correlates with past experience in schools, social backgrounds, and professional maturation. Student teachers come to an ITE course with a host of experience accumulated during their school years, and unlike those joining careers such as law, architecture, or engineering, they have already been exposed to what it is like to teach. Their experience acts as a frame of reference for their 86

TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN MALTA

self-image as future teachers (Camilleri Grima & Mallia, 2002). Studies by Schembri (1990) and Mallia (1998) reveal that university students of higher class origins tend to opt for higher-status professions. An analysis of the parental occupational background of student teachers conducted by Schembri (ibid.) and Mallia (ibid.) shows that the majority of student teachers came from parents occupying manual jobs. There seems to be a diffused mentality that teaching offers a route for upward social mobility (Camilleri Grima & Mallia, 2002, in Tomorrow’s Faculty Today, 2015, p. 55). Attraction to joining a profession is also conditioned by the way the profession is perceived by people and society in general. One can easily argue that over the years, the level of respect that the teaching professional had in society has eroded. While teaching is becoming more complex, demanding, and stressful and the teaching profession is considered socially important, the social esteem of the teaching profession is relatively low (Bezzina & Portelli, 2006; Borg & Giordmaina, 2012). Maltese studies show that while the value and social contribution that education is given is high, this is not matched by respect and prestige (Portelli, 2004). Some recent studies show the anger, frustration, and alienation that teachers have because of the growing demands that the teaching profession is facing with limited support (Borg & Bugeja, 2015; Cutajar, 2015). Furthermore, the social media often portrays the negative side to the profession and hardly mentions the inroads made by teachers, at times even in the most challenging of circumstances. CONCLUDING REMARKS

This chapter has tried to give a fair review of the current situation facing the professional development of teachers in the Maltese islands. While the policies see a drive to decentralize greater responsibilities to the school sites and to encourage schools to take responsibilities for their own development, most reforms are dictated by the view that professional development is heavily reliant on central direction, and the main form of teachers’ professional development supports a technocratic, skills-based view. This has created a paradoxical situation, one where teachers have a limited influence in determining the professional development agenda. Teachers need to be given the time and space to take the initiative and work at collaborating within and across schools. Transformative models of professional development that are teacher-led are within our grasp. The fact that teachers are required to have between 52 and 80 hours per annum for professional learning is quite significant. The education authorities need to allow schools to take ownership of these hours, allowing and supporting them to take the initiative and form communities of practice that they deem appropriate. While moving to systems that are more transformative in nature may be costlier in the end, we have to acknowledge that they will have an impact on empowering the teachers that need to work together. We need to work toward the goal that Peter Senge (2006) set over a decade ago when he argued that “…people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive 87

C. BEZZINA

patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together” (p. 3). A technicist approach to professional development will not achieve this. Research studies (Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Pearson & Moomaw, 2005) on motivation at work suggests that highly motivating conditions are present when teachers: ‡ Find their work lives to be meaningful, purposeful, relevant, and significant, and when they view the work itself as being worthwhile and important; ‡ have reasonable control over their work activities and affairs and are able to exert reasonable influence over work events and circumstances; and ‡ experience personal responsibility for the work and are personally accountable for outcomes. Meaningfulness, control, and personal responsibility are attributes of teachers that need to be taken seriously if we want them to have a substantial, positive influence on their classroom practices and student achievement (Garet et al., 2001). There is still much to learn as we look at professional development from a different perspective. This calls us to challenge the existing centrally driven perspective to more collaborative and transformative practices that place teachers at the center of the learning process. REFERENCES Anderson, L. W. (2004). Increasing teacher effectiveness (2nd ed.). Paris: UNESCO. Armour, K. M., & Yelling, M. R. (2004). Professional development and professional learning: Bridging the gap for experienced physical education teachers. European Physical Education Review, 10(1), 71–94. Attard Tonna, M. (2015). The let me learn professional learning process as part of the CPD teachers in Malta. In C. Calleja & C. Johnston (Eds.), A learning paradigm: Informed knowledge of the learning self (pp. 119–140). Malta: Horizons. Attard Tonna, M., & Calleja, C. (2015). Teacher professional development and social networking: A case study of a professional learning experience. In C. Calleja & C. Johnston (Eds.), A learning paradigm: Informed knowledge of the learning self (pp. 101–118). Malta: Horizons. Bezzina, C. (2002). Rethinking teachers’ professional development in Malta: Agenda for the twenty-first century. Journal of In-service Education, 28(1), 57–58. Bezzina, C. (2008, February 22). Challenges for creating an ideal teacher education programme: A personal perspective. Keynote Address presented at the Faculty of Education Seminar Teacher Education – Past, Present & Future, The Old University, Valletta. Bezzina, C. (2015). Case study Malta: Professional autonomy, accountability and efficient leadership and the role of employers’ organizations, trade unions and school leaders (pp. 49–70). Secondary Education Council of the Netherlands (VO-raad), European Federation of Education Employers (EFEE), European Trade Union Committee for Education (ETUCE), European Commission. Bezzina, C., & Camilleri, A. (2001). The professional development of teachers in Malta. European Journal of Education, 14(2), 157–170. Bezzina, C., & Portelli, V. (2006). The teacher 2000 project in Malta: Exploring teacher motivation, satisfaction and health in the secondary sector. Malta: Faculty of Education, University of Malta, Salesian Press. Borg, M., & Bugeja, S. (2015). The management of change in a context of reform (Unpublished B.Ed. (Hons.) Dissertation). University of Malta, Malta.

88

TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN MALTA Borg, M., & Giordmaina, J. (2012). Towards a quality education for all: Every teacher counts: The college system in the state school sector: A study of its impact as perceived by college principals, members of school senior management teams, and personnel in the various teaching grades. Malta: Malta Union of Teachers. Camilleri Grima, A., & Mallia, M. J. (2002). Becoming a teacher, 1–15. In C. Bezzina, A. Camilleri Grima, D. Purchase, & R. Sultana (Eds.), Inside secondary schools: A Maltese reader. Malta: Indigo Press. Crowther, F. (2011). From school improvement to sustained capacity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Cutajar, M. (2015). An analysis of inter-school working in state-maintained colleges in the Maltese Islands (Unpublished PhD thesis). University of Bath, Bath. Day, C. (1999). Developing teachers: The challenges of lifelong learning. London: Falmer Press. Directorate for Quality and Standards in Education. (2013). Induction for newly qualified teachers handbook: Quality assurance department, Malta. Retrieved from http://education.gov.mt/en/ education/quality-assurance/documents/qad-review-school_imp/2_handbook_9sep13.pdf Eurydice. (2008). Levels of autonomy and responsibilities of teachers in Europe. Retrieved from http://www.eurydice.org Eurydice. (2013). Key data on teachers and school leaders in Europe. Retrieved from http://www.eurydice.org Faculty of Education. (2015, January 29–30). Tomorrow’s faculty today. Faculty of Education Conference, University of Malta, Mt. St. Joseph, Targa Gap, New Dolmen Hotel, Malta. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945. Giorgio, F. (2001). Factors that influence Maltese students to become teachers (Unpublished B.Ed. (Hons.) Dissertation). University of Malta, Malta. Gordon, S. P. (2004). Professional development for school improvement: Empowering learning communities. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Helterbran, V. R. (2008). Professionalism: Teachers taking the reins. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 81(3), 123–127. Kennedy, A. (2005). Models of continuing professional development: A framework of analysis. Journal of In-Service Education, 31(2), 235–250. Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 741–756. Laws of Malta. (2006). An act to amend the education act, cap. 327, also known by its short title ‘education (Amendment) Act, 2006.’ Malta: Department of Information. Mallia, M. J. (1998). Training for the other side of the bench: The experience of B.Ed. (Hons.) undergraduates in Malta (Unpublished M.Ed. dissertation). University of Malta, Malta. Ministry of Education. (2001). National curriculum on its way: Strategic plan. Malta: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education, Employment and the Family. (2010). Agreement between the government and the Malta Union of teachers. Malta: Ministry of Education, Employment and the Family. Ministry of Education, Employment and the Family, Malta. (2011). Towards a quality education for all: The national curriculum framework 2011. Consultation document 1 executive summary. Malta: Ministry of Education, Employment and the Family. Ministry of Education, Youth and Employment. (2005). For all children to succeed: A new network organization for quality education in Malta. Floriana: Ministry of Education, Youth and Employment. Mule Stagno, G. (2001). Occupational satisfaction, motivation and general health among Maltese educators (Unpublished M.A. (Psychology) dissertation). University of Malta, Malta. OECD. (2015). Education at a glance 2015: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2015-en Pearson, L. C., & Moomaw, W. (2005). The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress, work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(1), 37–53. Portelli, V. (2004). Exploring teacher motivation, satisfaction and health in the secondary sector (Unpublished B.Ed. (Hons.) dissertation). University of Malta, Malta.

89

C. BEZZINA Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. American Prospect, 4(13), 35–42. Quality Assurance Department. (2012). Guidelines on how to use the performance management and professional development plan for newly qualified teachers in their first year of practice. Malta: Ministry of Education and Employment. Quality Assurance Department. (2014). The external review: The integrated school improvement framework. Malta: Directorate for Quality and Standards in Education. Reeves, D. B. (2008). Reframing teacher leadership: To improve your school. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Schembri, C. (1990). Students at the University of Malta: Origins and orientation (Unpublished M.Ed. dissertation). University of Malta, Malta. Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of learning organizations. Sydney: Random House. Walter, J. M., Wilkinson, M., & Yarrow, A. (1996). Facilitating professional development through the study of supervision and instructional change. British Journal of In-Service Education, 22(1), 41–54.

Christopher Bezzina Department of Leadership for Learning & Innovation Faculty of Education, University of Malta Msida, Malta and Department of Education Uppsala University Uppsala, Sweden

90

GERALD K. LETENDRE

7. TEACHING IN THE USA Decentralization, Inequality, and Professional Autonomy

ABSTRACT

The U.S. teaching force presents some unique paradoxes. American teachers are among the most highly educated in the world yet lack professional autonomy. American teachers feel that their profession has a poor reputation, but they generally love their schools. Although the U.S. has a highly decentralized educational system, teachers report less involvement in school decisions than in nations with centralized systems like Japan. And, although the U.S. produces a disproportionate share of education research, action research (defined as published studies where teachers have an active research role) remains marginalized. These paradoxes can be linked to specific organizational and cultural factors such as a strong culture of local school control, a politically divisive national culture, and the growing influence of international comparisons and bench-marking. This chapter focuses on the period from 1985 to 2015—a thirty-year period that includes such major events as the publication of A Nation at Risk, and the authorization of the Every Student Succeeds Act. I discuss four long-term phenomena that have special import for teaching: (1) the evolution of a professional administrative profession; (2) state-level standard-setting for teacher education and certification; (3) an educational research sphere largely disconnected from teachers; and (4) long-term, pervasive social and educational inequality. Keywords: decentralization, professional development, professional autonomy OVERVIEW

The publication of A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) ushered in a new era in American politics in which education, and teachers, were increasingly viewed in the context of international comparison and economic competition. The political motivation for portraying American education as in a constant state of crisis has been well analyzed (Berliner & Biddle, 1995; Vinovskis, 2009). But both conservative and liberal politicians have continued to use the crisis motif as a way to push educational reforms, including the most recent (2015) Every Student Succeeds Act. This politicized atmosphere, which

© KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2018 | DOI 10.1163/9789004372573_007

G. K. LETENDRE

includes attacks on public schools and teachers’ unions and repeated attempts to privatize basic education, has resulted in the teaching profession being somewhat demoralized (Santoro, 2011). There has been a long-term decline in students pursuing undergraduate majors in education (Sawchuck, 2014) and recurrent episodes of teacher shortages. The long-term effects of the efforts to privatize public education, along with the standards and accountability movement, have eroded U.S. teachers’ professional status. If we look more carefully, particularly from a cross-national perspective, the U.S. teaching force presents some unique paradoxes. American primary and early secondary teachers are some of the most highly educated in the world—about 98 percent attain the master’s degree (ISCED 5A) (OECD, 2014, p. 261). Yet, many teach outside their fields of expertise compared with other nations (Akiba, LeTendre, & Scribner, 2007), and U.S. teachers’ salary levels do not reflect a longterm reward for professional development (Akiba, Chiu, Shimizu, & Liang, 2012b). American teachers perceive their profession as having a poor reputation, but they generally love the schools they work at. Although it is a highly decentralized system, teachers report less involvement in school decision making than in highly centralized systems (e.g., Japan). And although the U.S. produces a disproportionate share of academic teacher-related research, action research (defined as published studies where teachers have an active research role) tends to be secluded within teacher education journals (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005). These paradoxes can be linked to specific organizational and cultural factors that have continued to affect the teaching force and often provide significant barriers to long-term professional development. This situation can be explained by an examination of four major factors: specialized administration, state-level control, de-coupling of knowledge generation, and longterm growth in social inequality. These factors have played a large historical role in shaping the teaching profession in the U.S. In this chapter, I will first provide an overview of the current status of teaching, focusing on two main themes: the differentiation of work roles by grade and the nature of pre-service and professional development in teachers’ working lives. In the next section, I will analyze four major long-term trends that have affected the nature of teaching and teachers’ work in the U.S.: (1) the evolution of a distinct, professional administrative profession (principals and superintendents); (2) state and local-level control and the difficulties this poses for standard-setting for teacher education, certification, and professional development; (3) the growth of an educational research sphere largely disconnected from teachers’ work; and (4) the impact of long-term, growing social inequality on teachers’ abilities to form cohesive professional identities. In the conclusion, I also note that, despite these effects, there are several positive factors that add dynamism to the U.S. case. The factors facilitating teachers’ work and innovation include dynamic experimentation in local contexts, ‘high-quality’ schools that promote a professionalized vision of teaching, and vibrant subject-specific research

92

TEACHING IN THE USA

that continues to innovate and improve instructional materials and identify effective instructional practice. CURRENT STATUS OF TEACHING

Basic demographic characteristics of the teaching population are readily available electronically from the United States’ National Center for Education Statistics (https://nces.ed.gov/). With over four million teachers (Ingersoll, Merrill, & Stucky, 2014, p. 3), teaching is one of the largest mass professions in the U.S. and has grown significantly in the last 20 years. Zumwalt and Craig (2005) note that in the longterm, the teaching force has been predominantly female and largely white. While the public school student population has become increasingly diverse in the last 20 years, the teaching force has not kept pace. Ingersoll et al. (2014) state that “The percent of all teachers who belonged to minority groups increased from 12.4 percent in 1987–1988 to 17.3 percent in 2011–2012” (p. 17). Despite this gain, the percentage of non-white students in the population has grown much faster, leaving a considerable gap between the percent of minority students and minority teachers in the U.S. Zumwalt and Craig (2005) also note that teaching has traditionally been a route of upward mobility for children from working-class homes, although increasingly, many new teachers have college-educated parents. During the late 1980s up through about 2007, the average age of teachers increased (giving rise to worries about future teacher shortages) but has fallen off significantly since then (Ingersoll et al., 2014). It might be argued that high percentages of teachers leaving the profession account for this shift, but Ingersoll et al. (2014) argue that in terms of years of experience, the teaching force has become bi-modal with a large number of new teachers and a large number of veteran teachers. Much has been made of the high turnover/dropout rate in teaching, and a variety of factors assessed (Borman & Dowling, 2008; Gray & Taie, 2015) suggest more modest attrition rates than many other studies have suggested, finding that after four years, only 17 percent of teachers in the 2007–2008 cohort were not teaching. What this means is that the interaction of personal attributes and working conditions lead to higher rates of leaving the profession among some sub-populations (Kohli, 2016; Redding & Smith, 2016). As in many countries, the profession of teaching suffers from stereotypes and lack of awareness of differentiation within the profession. Although each state in the United States has distinct certification requirements for elementary and secondary education (with some having distinct requirements for early childhood or middle grades as well), teachers tend to be lumped together without a clear differentiation in the public eye. The presence of movements like Teach for America exemplifies this cultural predisposition, suggesting that any grade within elementary or secondary education can essentially be taught by any graduate of a four-year college (i.e., a bachelor’s degree holder). This stereotyped view of teaching as a comparatively

93

G. K. LETENDRE

low-skill, generalized profession stands in sharp contrast to the actual work, training, and certification of teachers (Cochran-Smith & Fries, 2001). Work Roles by Grade Structure At the earliest end of the spectrum, the U.S. has witnessed large growth in infants and toddlers enrolled in pre-school programs, along with the increasing provision of kindergarten as part of the elementary school offerings. Early childhood/Pre-k teachers focus heavily on socio-emotional skill development as well as basic literacy. Certification standards vary widely between states, with some making clear differentiation between care providers and educators and others having few clear standards. Several organizations advocate for research and teacher education standards at this level: the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER), the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), and the Council for Professional Recognition. As shown in Tobin, Wu, and Davidson’s (1989) study, teachers at this level tend to focus heavily on inculcating social norms via direct intervention. Olmsted and Weikert’s (1989) work in this area suggests significant variations in size, curriculum, and student-teacher ratio based on the socio-economic level of the surrounding community. At the elementary level, the majority of teachers are employed in public elementary schools. There is no set number of grades for elementary schools, and U.S. elementary schools may exhibit a variety of grade configurations, though most typically include grades 1–5. In the past, teachers in the earliest grades tended to place greater emphasis on socialization, shifting focus to basic academic skill attainment as children progressed through the grades (Anderson-Levitt, 2001); however, work by Farkas (2003) has motivated many to advocate that teachers focus on core academic skills in pre-school. Teachers typically teach in an “egg crate” organizational structure, where each class is typically overseen by a single teacher. Overtime, it has become increasingly common for para-professionals, special education teachers, and even parent volunteers to participate in the classroom (Valli, Croninger, & Walters, 2007). The middle grades (upper elementary/lower secondary) present a complex mixture of organizational forms and certification levels in the U.S. There is no single unified organizational form or set of requirements for this level, although advocates of best practices in the middle grades have identified key concepts, such as the use of inter-disciplinary teams and the importance of specific certification, at this level (Edwards, 2015; Felner et al., 1997; Flowers, Mertens, & Mulhall, 2003). Academic subject specialization begins in the middle grades, and teachers’ work moves toward a subject specialist model, although interdisciplinary cooperation is often encouraged. For example, scholars like Elizabeth Cohen and Rachel Lotan have advocated complex multiple-ability group-work curriculum for use at the middle grades level (Cohen, 1994; Cohen & Lotan, 2014). The U.S. has largely abandoned vocational/technical high schools, and the comprehensive high school is the dominant organizational form in all 50 states. 94

TEACHING IN THE USA

Teachers at the high school level are supposed to be academic-area specialists and would ideally have subject-specific certifications. Subject certification has been linked to increased student achievement (Goldhaber & Brewer, 2000). At this level, teachers often affiliate with subject-area organizations (e.g., the National Teachers of Science Association). Within the K-12 public school system, there is a clear transition over the grade span from generalists who have significant emphasis on socio-emotional learning to subject-area specialists, some of whom may have advanced degrees. The level of interaction between teachers, whether at the grade- or subject-level, varies considerably from district to district, and the most salient factor affecting teachers’ work may be district funding and the poverty of the surrounding community. Pre-Service and Professional Development Teacher preparation programs in the U.S. have been repeatedly criticized for providing inadequate training that does not prepare student teachers for the classroom (Kramer, 1991). However, as Shimahara and Sakai (1995) point out, this is exactly the same situation as in Japan—a country with a well-regarded teaching force and whose students traditionally score quite highly on international tests. Politically motivated attacks on teacher training aside, such as the rankings provided by the National Council for Teacher Quality (see Fuller, 2014), pre-service education in the U.S. has significant weaknesses in that the quality varies in the extreme (Seidel & Whitcomb, 2015). A wide-range of institutions offer teacher preparation programs, and each state sets slightly different standards for teachers (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005). This makes it hard to assess the quality of education of any given teacher. A lack of clearly defined attributes of what constitutes a quality education in teacher training further hinders teacher preparation programs (Darling-Hammond & Rothman, 2011), and a focus on academic research in the top-ranked universities tends to further confound the issue. As Seidl and Whitcomb (2015) note, within a single state, teacher preparation programs show a remarkable range of variation in emphasis and focus. Comparatively, the U.S. teaching force is well educated. About 98 percent of U.S. teachers have a bachelor’s degree (e.g., ISCED level 5B, the uniform designation for educational certificates used by the OECD), compared to about 90 percent of teachers internationally (OECD, 2014, p. 263). And although teaching out-of-field remains an issue in some locales (Ingersoll & Perda, 2010), about 75 percent of U.S. teachers have studied the subject they currently teach, as compared to 70 percent internationally (OECD, 2014, p. 266). Long-term teacher professional learning has been empirically linked with improved student achievement among middle school math teachers (Akiba & Liang, 2016), and most states require teachers to engage in some kind of professional development in order to maintain their teaching certificates. Many districts will pay for or provide partial compensation for teachers who engage in professional development activities. Wei, Darling-Hammond, and 95

G. K. LETENDRE

Adamson (2010, p. 11) estimated that in 2008, about 80 percent of all teaches had participated in some kind of professional development related to their subject. While nearly all states require teachers to engage in professional development activities in order to continue their status as certified teachers, the range and content of these opportunities varies from highly commercialized online products to highlevel, prestigious internship-like awards. Thus, teachers are active in seeking out professional development, but it is not clear if they have access to effective professional development studies in school reform (Bryk, Gomez, Grunow, & LeMahieu, 2015) and improvement science (Lewis, 2015). Both indicate that beyond the teachers themselves, school leaders play a critical role in developing effective professional development programs for teachers. Without the support of school or district leaders to search for, pay for, and create release time for high-quality professional development, it is difficult for teachers, on their own, to organize this kind of professional development. Thus, U.S. teachers may experience markedly different opportunities for professional development depending on where they teach, as compared to teachers in smaller, more homogenous, and better supported national systems such as Hong Kong and Singapore (Jensen, Sonnemann, Roberts-Hull, & Hunter, 2016). Finally, compared to teachers in countries like Japan, U.S. teachers have a weakly developed professional trajectory (Akiba & LeTendre, 2009). As I will discuss below, there are no clearly defined leadership roles for teachers to assume as they gain experience working in schools, other than making a break with teaching and moving into professional administration. This is also reflected in teacher salaries. While new teachers in the U.S. do comparatively well compared to their peers internationally, the pay for 15-year veterans ranks near the bottom among developed countries (Akiba, Chiu, Shimizu, & Liang, 2012a, p. 175). The lack of clear pay incentives and a structured career path are impediments to teachers’ sense of professional fulfillment and motivation to continue long-term professional development. CONTEXTUAL FACTORS

Teachers’ lives are highly influenced by the organizational and community context in which they work. Over several decades, a rich body of ethnographic work has looked at how teachers respond to racial and class diversity (Heath, 1983; Rosenfeld, 1971; Schofield, 1989) and their own identity vis-à-vis students (Spindler, 1987), as well as how schools influence both teacher and student self-identity (Eckert, 1989; Grant & Sleeter, 1996; Lortie, 1975; Page, 1991). The social and administrative climate of schools has been shown to have significant repercussions on teacher motivation and performance, as well as on extrinsic rewards like salary (Firestone & Pennell, 1993; Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2002; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005). Four facets of the U.S. system make it distinct from other nations and broadly shape the ways in which teachers do their jobs. In the next sections, I will discuss how each of the following shapes the experience of teachers: distinct teacher and 96

TEACHING IN THE USA

administrative professions, state-level standards and certification processes, the dominance of academic research, and massive social inequalities. Teachers, Not Administrators School leaders play a critical role in teacher hiring as well as in supporting the ongoing development of teachers (Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, & Easton, 2010). This tendency is comparatively stronger in the U.S., where school principals and district superintendents (the key leaders at the local level) are largely trained and recruited via a distinct professional track from teachers. Many national systems are predicated on organizational models where a head of school administers the school after a substantial teaching career (20 years or more). While most American school leaders tout their time in the classroom, school leadership is defined as a separate professional track with distinct certification and expectations. Most school leaders spend only a few years in the classroom before entering this separate track. The division between teachers and administrators can be traced back to the progressive era when the creation of an efficient and rationalized science of school administration was seen as an antidote to the haphazard, heterogeneous admixture of school policies (Cremin, 1964; Tyack & Cuban, 1995). The development of distinct certification requirements for school administrators helped to establish consistency in a system where local school boards held enormous power and contributed to a patchwork of rules and routines. However, rather than pursuing a path of convergence, where teachers were trained to take on progressively greater leadership roles, education and certification process for school administrators versus teachers diverged, resulting in two distinct school professions. The difference between the U.S. and other systems is highlighted by comparisons with systems like Japan. In Japan, teachers progress through a highly standardized set of roles—homeroom teacher, grade head, curriculum head, and head teacher— before being eligible for the principalship. While the U.S. and Japan share a strong history of teacher unionization, Japan never developed a distinct track for school administrators. Although most U.S. principals have some experience teaching, the average number of years teaching in 1993 was about 10.5 (Hammer & Rohr, 1993), suggesting that U.S. principals have relatively short careers as teachers compared to other nations. Within schools, this division of teaching and school administration professions creates a culture of managers (principals) and employees (teachers) that subordinates teachers’ roles as leaders and reduces their effectiveness in managing schools. This is because the principal’s work includes not only budgeting, scheduling, and other procedural work but includes hiring new teachers, providing teacher evaluations, and acting as a leader in developing the schools’ educational objectives. Significant reforms have attempted to increase the integration of teachers, but the very need to promote the concept of teacher leadership indicates just how weakly institutionalized leadership roles for teachers are in the U.S. 97

G. K. LETENDRE

As we have shown in previous research (LeTendre, Baker, Akiba, Goesling, & Wiseman, 2001), U.S. teachers tend to spend more of their time teaching than their Japanese or German counterparts. The result is a strong cultural and organizational expectation that teachers just teach. The egg-carton classroom structure of American schools remains the norm and further serves to isolate teachers. While there is a strong cultural tendency to romanticize teachers who assert charismatic leadership and challenge the system (for example, the life and activities of Hymie Escalante, a charismatic mathematics teacher who had remarkable success in working to raise the achievement of students in a low-income Los Angeles neighborhood is documented in the film Stand and Deliver), this has not translated into widespread support for teacher leaders. For most U.S. teachers, the only viable route toward a more advanced professional status is to pursue administrative (principal) or academic (teacher educator) training and take on a new career role. Severe Decentralization and Political Conflict American teachers also face two other broad factors that impede their ability to organize and construct viable professional identities for themselves: decentralization and political conflict. The U.S. school system is famously decentralized. Having one of the oldest national constitutions in the world, individual rights to education are not mentioned as they are in many other national constitutions (Boli & Meyer, 1987). The lack of a clear federal role for education has resulted in long-term tension between states and the federal government over many educational issues, including teacher certification and professional development (Earley, 2000). And as the public school system has grown and expanded, educational policy has become increasingly politically contested. Especially from 1983 on, as Berliner and Biddle (1995) have argued, political manufacturing of crises in education has been used to re-frame the debates about education and has opened the way for a variety of actors to arise and claim a legitimate stake in arguments about educational improvement. The question of federal or state jurisdiction over schools has historically been adjudicated by the Supreme Court. In general, the Court has interpreted the constitution to mean that control over education, with key exceptions, is controlled by the states. In many famous cases, including among others freedom of speech, religion, or racial segregation, the Supreme Court has decided that federal intervention is justified. It is telling to note that the states themselves have organized at the national level, creating the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). This is not a federal organization but, rather, a non-profit organization for leaders of state departments of education that provides research and policy recommendations for education. That regionally elected or appointed officials, the heads of their state educational administrations, have seen the need to independently organize is perhaps the best example one can present to illustrate how decentralized the U.S. educational system is. Decentralization affects teachers in several ways. It creates complicated sets of rulings and legal precedent that means that school administrators need extensive 98

TEACHING IN THE USA

knowledge of school law and so further accentuates the divide between teachers and administrators. These court cases overlap with increased federal policy initiatives (e.g., Title IX). Over the last century, the federal role in providing funds for education has significantly increased. Because most schools have come to rely heavily on federal funds, this has allowed the federal government to govern schools by requiring compliance with specific policies in order to receive federal funds. Again, successful school administration requires a detailed knowledge of these rules and their interpretations, making a separate administrative sphere of competence critical to running schools. Within this complex system of policy, court precedent, and state or federal administration, teachers themselves have organized unions and associations to advocate for teachers’ rights, pay, and other important issues. A period of significant union activity in the 1970s resulted in substantially superior contracts for teachers and the creation of a mass professional identity. Two national organizations, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, represent teachers (and other educational workers) and have partnered to lobby for important federal legislation. However, these two organizations diverge on some important issues, including whether or not to accept principals and other administrators into the organization. Mehta (2013, p. 5) notes that while the number of organizational actors involved in educational politics has increased, teacher unions continue to play a key role: “Detailed studies of education politics have suggested that since 1980 the number of groups involved in educational reform has multiplied, with business being only one group among many that have sought to make a greater claim over education. The most important of these groups are the teachers’ unions…” Mehta also acknowledges that union efforts were not able to halt the spread of the accountability movement within American education. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) marked an aggressive attempt of the federal government to assert control over schools. The initially popular Common Core Standards was also an attempt to move standards setting to the federal level. Thus, under the Bush and early Obama administrations, federal authority increasingly eroded teacher autonomy (Superfine, Gottlieb, & Smylie, 2012). The passage of the Elementary and Secondary Schools Act (ESSA) in 2016 reasserted decentralization and significantly limits powers of the Secretary of Education. Both teachers’ unions (the National Educators Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) supported the passage of ESSA, as well as did some conservative, anti-government lawmakers. This case illustrates the complex relationships and temporary political alliances that can dramatically alter the course of teacher-related policies in the U.S. Decentralization creates a divided political field of action. Within a given state, teacher unions may have made major gains in terms of pay and health care through collective bargaining agreements, even though they have not always been able to effectively influence federal policy agendas. In other states, political forces may overcome the hard-won gains teachers have fought for. In recent history, most notably 99

G. K. LETENDRE

in Wisconsin, teacher unions have suffered significant political setbacks and been the target of sustained political attacks at state and national levels (Smith, 2013). The severe decentralization of the U.S. system creates a situation in which teachers must politically mobilize at both the state and federal levels simultaneously and in which school leaders need detailed knowledge of policies, laws, and court decisions in order to function. Decentralization also presents another significant barrier to teacher professional development: it has impeded teachers’ ability to create unified standards for teacher education and certification. The byzantine mishmash of state standards for teacher education and teacher certification has resulted in a complicated set of cross-state agreements that significantly inhibit the development of a coherent set of teacher standards and core competencies for teaching (Seidel & Whitcomb, 2015). This means that teachers have not been able to assert control over and set standards for their own training and certification in same way that the legal and medical professions have. Teacher education programs were initially developed as a separate, lower-status type of tertiary education (Cremin, 1964) before becoming incorporated into general university or college programs. Teacher education has been the target of severe political attack (Kramer, 1991) and the object of significant contestation. In the absence of a strong teacher organization that defines and sets standards, other organizations have arisen and increasingly sought to influence policies around teacher education, certification, and standard setting. The Holmes Group Report (1986), produced by a group of academic deans and chief academic officers, tried to identify and improve teacher education and set up a set of standards for the profession (Labaree, 1992). More recent attempts by conservative-oriented groups like the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) similarly take aim at teacher education and attempt to impose sets of standards on the teaching profession. In an insightful review of the politics around teacher education, Cochran-Smith, Piazza, and Power (2013) note that a range of critics have converged on the policy theme that “teacher education is broken and needs to be fixed” (p. 7) and typically use the gap in access to qualified teachers as evidence to support their reforms. Yet, as Cochran-Smith et al. (2013) show, major accountability reforms backed by groups like NCTQ tend to exacerbate the “deprofessionalization of teacher educators and teachers” (p. 21) and likely leave the effects of social inequality unchanged. Academic Hegemony over Professional Knowledge Teachers in the U.S. have also had difficulty articulating a shared body of knowledge or defined area of technical competence critical to the development of professional communities (Lieberman & Miller, 2008). The U.S. produces a disproportionate share of educational research in the world, and the U.S. is home to the largest share of educational journals. This hegemony has been criticized from the perspective of international researchers who see a domination of the U.S. model (Chabbott, 2007) 100

TEACHING IN THE USA

often forcibly exported to other nations (Steiner-Khamsi & Stolpe, 2006). What is less well recognized outside the U.S. is the degree to which teachers have become marginalized from the production and consumption of academic research. The demise of teacher colleges and the integration of education schools into universities resulted in the drive for pure academic forms of educational research. During the 1950s through the 1970s, scores of teachers colleges were incorporated into four-year colleges (Labaree, 2008). During the same period, the rise of educational psychology as a field and the divergence of specialized expertise in subject-matter pushed knowledge generation within education and its sub-fields further and further away from issues that were of immediate concern to teachers. Educational research has become the purview of researchers, not practitionerresearchers. This is particularly evident in fields like science education, where one researcher writes: A National Research Council Committee that explored the weak relationship between research and practice in education (1) concluded that, in contrast to medicine and agriculture, education researchers have few opportunities to identify the specific problems of practice that can serve as productive starting points for programs of research and development. (Donovan, 2013, p. 318) Scientists recognize that teachers are a critical part of improving education, but typically frame the issue as one of motivating or connecting teachers in ways that support the agendas of academic researchers (Council, 2014). The gap or chasm between academic research and practitioner knowledge is readily acknowledged, and several schemas, such as translational science or improvement science (Lewis, 2015), have been advanced over the years to overcome this obstacle. Each new wave of scientific reform seems to discount or set aside older models, such that, as Snow (2015, p. 461) has recently written, a new set of principles is needed. Yet, as Snow states, these new ideas make clear that previous schemas, such as action research, need to be set aside. While many nations have seen the development of robust action research networks (the U.K.) or the development of a substantial role for teachers in basic classroom instructional research (Japan, New Zealand), the U.S. struggles to find ways that can link or create partnerships between academics in its research-intensive universities and teachers in the public schools. As Bryk (2015) noted: “Unfortunately, no professional infrastructure currently exists for educators to collaborate in the systemic development and testing of changes and to generate and synthesize practice-based evidence” (p. 473). Research in specific subject areas or topics continues to be dominated by researchers with priority focusing on advancing academic knowledge. This requires that such knowledge be translated in order for it to be useful to teachers. In the process, teachers are relegated to the role of consumers of research, not co-producers of useful, practical knowledge. While many projects over the years have attempted to bridge this gap, little progress has been made in validating the knowledge that teachers have or institutionalizing inquiry or research as a critical part of the teachers’ job. 101

G. K. LETENDRE

Zeichner (1995) also argued that the divide between teacher research and academic research had failed to address some of the most important issues facing teachers and specifically used social inequality as a prime example. While many academics have analyzed various aspects of social inequality in U.S. schools (Jencks et al., 1972; Lucas, 1999; Oakes, 1985), very little of this research has translated into effective strategies that teachers can use. While educators everywhere struggle with issues of social inequality (Schmidt, Burroughs, Zoido, & Huang, 2015), the disparities facing U.S. teachers are of an order of magnitude higher than their counterparts in most developed democracies. Social Inequality In 1992, Jonathan Kozol published the influential book Savage Inequalities (Kozol, 1992). This book and a subsequent video vividly depicted the extreme differences in quality of education created by the U.S. system of local funding. The decentralized nature of education, again, creates barriers for the provision of adequate educational resources. The poorest school districts not only have less money than the richest but are consequently more dependent on state and federal funding, making them more vulnerable to changes in policy. The effect of these funding differences is further amplified by racial and ethnic dynamics in the U.S. The impact of social inequality on teachers in the U.S. is potentially more dramatic than in other developed nations, given the huge differences in associations between poverty and indicators of teacher quality (Akiba et al., 2007). U.S. teachers average more than “30 percent of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes”—the highest in the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) conducted by the OECD in 2013 (OECD, 2014, p. 274). The elimination of segregation in the U.S. (Brown V. Board) initiated a brief period of increasing educational equality, particularly racial equality, in access to education. These dramatic changes resulted in significant white flight from many schools, and a subsequent pattern of racial/social class differentiation in residence patterns that dramatically affected the funding of school districts (Bischoff & Reardon, 2013). Local school districts are dependent on local property taxes to pay for school costs, and so racial/social class differences in home wealth (Krivo & Kaufman, 2004) create major differences in per-pupil funding for students. This long-term pattern of increasing social inequality affects teachers in multiple ways. Teachers in the poorest schools must educate large numbers of students with significant poverty-related issues at the same time that they have far fewer resources than teachers in the richest districts. The effects of poverty and school performance are compounded over time (Ready, 2010). Schools in the poorest areas also experience high levels of teacher attrition (Hanushek et al., 2002) and rapid shifts in school leadership (Fuller & Schrott, 2015). The result of these savage inequalities is a multi-tiered system where teachers in the richest districts can pursue advanced degrees and attain a higher social status 102

TEACHING IN THE USA

than teachers in the poorest districts. This pulls the teaching profession apart by creating radical differences in opportunities for professional development. The monitoring schemes enacted under legislation like No Child Left Behind failed to promote the professional development of teachers in the poorest schools, and there is some evidence to suggest that the long-term impact has been an increase in inequality (Hursch, 2007). CONCLUSION

Like teachers the world over, U.S. teachers face a rapidly changing world where information technologies and a globalized economy presents constant change. The U.S. teaching force is, overall, highly educated, but the most educated and experienced teachers tend to be heavily concentrated in the most affluent districts. The traditions of professional development and teacher education developed in the post-war period have been increasingly dismantled through the effects of federal law and the advocacy of organizations that promote the privatization of education (Zeichner, 2010) and are further hindered by a lack of research and effective strategies that directly address the challenges they face. Because of a weak tradition of teacher leadership and a weakly defined professional trajectory, teachers in the U.S. have found it difficult to establish a strong professional identity and to take control of the standards and certification processes that determine entry into the teaching profession. Political efforts to reform schooling in the U.S. have tended to focus on just certain aspects of a teacher’s work (e.g., instructional practice), and both academics and policymakers seem to have lost sight of the fact that teachers do much more than teach (Goodlad, 2004). Koppich and Esch (2012, p. 80) note that U.S. policymakers have been searching for optimal policies to improve teaching. But as many have noted, this typically focuses on links to student achievement. In the decentralized U.S. system, federal policy initiatives like Race-to-the-Top have pushed states and districts to adopt measures to evaluate teachers but have rarely provided funds to support teacher inquiry or provide teacher professional development. Advocacy groups with specific political agendas for teachers (e.g., the Gates Foundation and the National Center for Teacher Quality) have come to play a major role in shaping the political agenda and debates on educational quality but rarely incorporate the views or voices of teachers. Because teacher leadership and teacher-initiated research (action research) have not been strongly institutionalized within the academy, it will continue to be difficult for teachers in the U.S. to lay claim to a discreet body of professional knowledge that they control. The long-term trajectory for teachers’ professional development will continue to be influenced by political battles and the evolution of social inequality. Continued attempts to force market-oriented reforms will likely result in lower educational levels and less professional development for teachers. Long-term increases in social inequality will mean that teachers in the poorest schools will 103

G. K. LETENDRE

continue to face difficult teaching conditions and will likely have little opportunity for significant professional development. Without the development of a strong movement for teacher-leadership and teacher-led reform, American teachers will continue to experience difficulties in attaining the status and rewards common to other professions. REFERENCES Akiba, M., Chiu, Y.-L., Shimizu, K., & Liang, G. (2012). Teacher salary and national achievement: A cross-national analysis of 30 countries. International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 171–181. Akiba, M., & LeTendre, G. (2009). Improving teacher quality: The U.S. teaching force in global context. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Akiba, M., LeTendre, G., & Scribner, J. (2007). Teacher quality, opportunity gap, and national achievement in 46 countries. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 369–387. Akiba, M., & Liang, G. (2016). Effects of teacher professional learning activities on student achievement growth. Journal of Educational Research, 21(1), 1–12. Anderson-Levitt, K. (2001). Teaching culture. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Berliner, D., & Biddle, B. (1995). The manufactured crisis. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Bischoff, K., & Reardon, S. (2013). Residential segregation by income, 1970–2009. In J. R. Logan (Ed.), Diversity and disparities (pp. 208–233). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Boli, J., & Meyer, J. (1987). The ideology of childhood and the state: Rules distinguishing children in national constitutions, 1870–1970. In E. A. Thomas (Ed.), Institutional structure. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Borman, G., & Dowling, N. M. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 367–409. Bryk, A. (2015). Accelerating how we learn to improve. Educational Researcher, 44(9), 467–477. Bryk, A., Gomez, L., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Bryk, A., Sebring, P., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Chabbott, C. (2007). Carrot soup, magic bullets, and scientific research for education and development. Comparative Education Review, 51(1), 71–94. Cochran-Smith, M., & Fries, M. K. (2001). Sticks, stones, and ideology: The discourse of reform in teacher education. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 3–15. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 15–25. Cochran-Smith, M., Piazza, P., & Power, C. (2013). The politics of accountability: Assessing teacher education in the United States. The Educational Forum, 77(1), 6–27. Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. (Eds.). (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum/American Educational Research Association. Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35. Cohen, E., & Lotan, R. (2014). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Council, N. R. (2014). Exploring opportunities for STEM teacher leadership: Summary of a convocation. Washington, DC: Planning Commitee on Exploring Opportunities for STEM Teacher Leadership. Cremin, L. (1964). The transformation of the school: Progressivism in American education, 1876–1957. New York, NY: Vintage.

104

TEACHING IN THE USA Darling-Hammond, L., & Rothman, R. (2011). Teacher and leader effectiveness in high-performing systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Donovan, M. S. (2013). Generating improvement through research and development in education systems. Science, 340(19), 317–319. Earley, P. (2000). Finding the culprit: Federal policy and teacher education. Educational Policy, 14(1), 25–39. Eckert, P. (1989). Jocks and burnouts: Social categories and identity in the high school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Edwards, S. (2015). Preparing new teachers for contemporary middle grades schools. Middle School Journal, 44(4), 14–20. Farkas, G. (2003). Racial disparities and discrimination in education: What do we know, how do we know it, and what do we need to know? Teacher College Record, 105(6), 1119–1146. Felner, R. D., Jackson, A. W., Kasak, D., Mulhall, P., Brand, S., & Flowers, N. (1997). The impact of school reform for the middle years: Longitudinal study of a network engaged in turning points-based comprehensive school transformation. The Phi Delta Kappan, 78(7), 528–532. Firestone, W., & Pennell, J. (1993). Teacher commitment, working conditions, and differential incentive policies. Review of Educational Research, 63(4), 489–525. Flowers, N., Mertens, S., & Mulhall, P. (2003). Lessons learned from more than a decade of middle grades research. Middle School Journal, 35(2), 55–59. Fuller, E. (2014). Shaky methods, shaky motives: A critique of the national council of teacher quality’s review of teacher preparation programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(1), 63–77. Fuller, E., & Schrott, L. (2015). Building and sustaining a quality STEM teacher workforce: Access to instructional leadership and the interruptions of educator turnover. In G. LeTendre & A. Wiseman (Eds.), Promoting and sustaining a quality teacher workforce (pp. 333–366). New York, NY: Emerald Group Publishing. Goldhaber, D., & Brewer, D. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school teacher certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(2), 129–145. Goodlad, J. I. (2004). A place called school. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Grant, C., & Sleeter, C. (1996). After the school bell rings. London: Falmer Press. Gray, L., & Taie, S. (2015). Public school teacher attrition and mobility in the first five years: Results from the first through fifth waves of the 2007– 2008 beginning teacher longitudinal study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Hammer, C., & Rohr, C. (1993). Teaching, administrative, and other work experience of public school principals. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/web/93452.asp Hanushek, E., Kain, J., & Rivkin, S. (2002). Why public schools lose teachers. The Journal of Human Resources, 39(2), 326–354. Heath, S. (1983). Ways with words. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Hursch, D. (2007). Exacerbating inequality: The failed promise of the No Child Left Behind act. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 19(3), 295–308. Ingersoll, R., Merrill, L., & Stucky, D. (2014). Seven trends: The transformation of the teaching force. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Ingersoll, R. M., & Perda, D. (2010). Is the supply of mathematics and science teachers sufficient? American Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 563–594. doi:10.3102/0002831210370711 Jencks, C., Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane, M. J., Cohen, D., Gintis, H., Heyns, B., & Michelson, S. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in America. New York, NY: Harper Colophon Books. Jensen, B., Sonnemann, J., Roberts-Hull, K., & Hunter, A. (2016). Beyond PD: Teacher professional learning in high-performing systems. Washington, DC: National Center on Education and the Economy. Kohli, R. (2016, March). Behind school doors: The impact of hostile racial climates on urban teachers of color. Urban Education, 53(3), 307–333. Koppich, J., & Esch, C. (2012). Grabbing the brass ring: Who shapes teacher policy. Educational Policy, 26(1), 79–95.

105

G. K. LETENDRE Kozol, J. (1992). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York, NY: Harper Perennial. Kramer, R. (1991). Ed school follies: The miseducation of America’s teachers. New York, NY: Free Press. Krivo, L., & Kaufman, R. (2004). Housing and wealth inequality: Racial-ethnic differences in home equity in the United States. Demography, 41(3), 585–605. Labaree, D. (1992). Doing good, doing science: The Holmes group reports and the rhetorics of educational reform. Teachers College Record, 93(4), 628–640. Labaree, D. (2008). An uneasy relationship: The history of teacher education in the university. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. F. Nemser, & J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring issues in changing contexts (3rd ed., pp. 290–306). Washington, DC: Association of Teacher Educators. LeTendre, G., Baker, D., Akiba, M., Goesling, B., & Wiseman, A. (2001). Teacher’s work: Institutional isomorphism and cultural variation in the U.S., Germany and Japan. Educational Researcher, 30(6), 3–16. Lewis, C. (2015). What is improvement science? Do we need it in education? Educational Reseacher, 44(1), 54–61. Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2008). Teachers in professional communities: Improving teaching and learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lucas, S. (1999). Tracking inequality: Stratification and mobility in American high schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Mehta, J. (2013). How paradigms create politics: The transformation of American educational policy, 1980–2001. American Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 285–324. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk, the imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. OECD. (2014). TALIS 2013 results: An international perspective on teaching and learning. Paris: OECD Publihsing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264196261-en Olmsted, P., & Weikert, D. (Eds.). (1989). How nations serve young children: Profiles of child care and education in 14 countries. Ypsilanti, MI: The High/Scope Press. Page, R. (1991). Lower-track classrooms: A curricular and cultural perspective. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Ready, D. D. (2010). Socioeconomic disadvantage, school attendance, and early cognitive development: The differential effects of school exposure. Sociology of Education, 83(4), 271–286. doi:10.1177/0038040710383520 Redding, C., & Smith, T. (2016). Easy in, easy out: Are alternatively certified teachers turning over at increased rates? American Educational Research Journal, 53(4), 1086–1125. Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., & Kain, J. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417–458. Rosenfeld, G. (1971). Shut those thick lips. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Santoro, D. (2011). Good teaching in difficult times: Demoralization in the pursuit of good work. American Journal of Education, 118(1), 1–23. Sawchuk, S. (2014, October 21). Steep drops seen in teacher-prep enrollment numbers. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/10/22/09enroll.h34.html Schmidt, W., Burroughs, N., Zoido, P., & Huang, R. (2015). The role of schooling in perpetuating educational inequality: An international perspective. Educational Researcher, 44(7), 371–386. Schofield, J. (1989). Black and White in school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Seidel, K., & Whitcomb, J. (2015). Exploring novice teachers’ core competencies. In G. LeTendre & A. Wiseman (Eds.), Promoting and sustaining a quality teacher workforce (pp. 197–238). New York, NY: Emerald Group Publishing. Shimahara, N., & Sakai, A. (1995). Learning to teach in two cultures. New York, NY: Garland Publishing. Smith, W. (2013). Framing the debate over teacher unions. Mid-Atlantic Education Review, 1(1), 17–26.

106

TEACHING IN THE USA Snow, C. (2015). Rigor or realism: Doing educational science in the real world. Educational Researcher, 44(9), 460–466. Spindler, G. (1987). Beth Ann – A case study of culturally defined adjustment and teacher perception. In G. Spindler (Ed.), Education and cultural process. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Steiner-Khamsi, G., & Stolpe, I. (2006). Educational import: Local encounters with global forces in Mongolia. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Superfine, B., Gottlieb, J., & Smylie, M. (2012). The expanding federal role in teacher workforce policy. Educational Policy, 26(1), 58–78. Tobin, J., Wu, D. Y., & Davidson, D. H. (1989). Preschools in three cultures: Japan, China and the United States. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Valli, L., Croninger, R., & Walters, K. (2007). Who (else) is the teacher? Cautionary notes on teacher accountability systems. American Journal of Education, 113(4), 635–662. Vinovskis, M. (2009). From a Nation at Risk to No Child Left Behind. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., & Adamson, F. (2010). Professional development in the United States: Trends and challenges. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council. Zeichner, K. (1995). Beyond the divide of teacher research and academic research. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 1(2), 153–172. Zeichner, K. (2010). Competition, economic rationalization, increased surveillance, and attacks on diversity: Neo-liberalism and the transformation of teacher education in the U.S. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1544–1552. Zumwalt, K., & Craig, E. (2005). Teachers’ characteristics: Research on the demographic profile. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education (pp. 111–156). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gerald LeTendre Harry Lawrence Batschelet II Chair of Educational Administration USA

107

MINGYUAN GU

8. CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS FACED BY CHINA’S TEACHERS IN THE ERA OF GLOBALIZATION

ABSTRACT

Education is an eternal theme of human development, while teacher is not born to be a specialized profession until the modern society. With the development of new technology, teacher’s traditional roles are nowadays facing more and more challenges. Modern teachers are expected to be not only the organizers and designers of the educational process, but also mentors and partners of students in the learning process. Teacher education in China is also taking many reforms to promote their professional development, such as to increase the degree lever requirement, to established MOE’s teacher professional standards, to provide more in-service training, to encourage the research based teaching and etc. Although China has a tradition of respecting teachers and valuing education, stronger social support system is expected to be established for teacher development in the near future. Keywords: Chinese education, teacher education, globalization THE ORIENTATION OF A TEACHER’S ROLE

Development and Challenges of a Teacher’s Occupation Education is an eternal theme of human development. As society emerged, in order to survive and develop, one generation passed their survival and life experience on the next: education in its purest form. There was no specialized teacher then. Not until improvements in productivity and the rise of surplus production did teachers specifically engage in education. However, teachers did not belong to a specialized profession but, rather, their group was composed of wise men like Socrates and Plato in ancient Greece and Confucius and Mencius in ancient China. Following the Renaissance, the rise of the third class and the popularization of education after the industrial revolution led to the establishment of schools, called normal schools, specializing in training teachers. However, at that time, not only could graduates of normal school become teachers, but all knowledgeable people could serve in the role. This was the case until, in 1966, the ILO (International Labor Organization) and UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization), in the Recommendation Concerning the Status of Teachers, proposed that © KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2018 | DOI 10.1163/9789004372573_008

M. GU

Teaching should be regarded as a profession: it is a form of public service which requires of teachers expert knowledge and specialized skills, acquired and maintained through rigorous and continuing study; it calls also for a sense of personal and corporate responsibility for the education and welfare of the pupils in their charge. (UNESCO, 1966, Art. III, p. 6) Since then, the new concept of teacher’s professionalization developed. With the rapid growth of science and technology, especially in the era of globalization and information, the role of teachers encountered serious challenges. In the past, teachers imparted knowledge and moral beliefs. Czech educator Johann Amos Comenius, the European father of education, believed that the responsibility of teachers was to grow and develop “the seeds of knowledge, virtue and devotion,” which were endowed by heaven, of human beings. Han Yu, a famous Chinese educator in the Tang dynasty once said: “It is propagating doctrines of the ancient sages, teaching and solving the confusion of others makes one person a teacher.” Imparting knowledge and further cultivating human morality, teachers become the incarnation of the knowledge. However, the voluminous and constantly updated knowledge of the current world has brought a huge challenge to teachers. Some scholars believe that the total amount of knowledge today doubles every five years. In the current context, knowledge is rapidly changing, and teachers cannot necessarily teach all human knowledge to the students. In addition, the development of information technology and the popularity of the internet enables students to acquire knowledge from a variety of media. Teachers are no longer the only carrier of knowledge, nor the authority of knowledge. So, what is the teacher’s role? Do we need teachers anymore? This is the first question educators need to answer. In the era of information and the internet, some people say that students can acquire knowledge from a variety of media without instructions from teachers. However, information does not mean knowledge, and knowledge does not mean wisdom and virtue. What we should realize is that immature children are not capable of identifying good or bad aspects of information and that we need teachers to help them choose and recognize information with strategies that would enable them not to get lost in the surging wave of information. Our society is made up of human beings, and the dialogue between man and machine is no substitute for interpersonal communication. The exchanges between teachers and students and exchanges among students themselves are indispensable to their healthy growth and future development. In this way, the teacher is the soul of education, and as long as there is education, there must be teachers. So what role do teachers play in the process of education? And how do we define the teacher’s role? These are some urgent issues in Chinese debate. In my opinion, there are six simultaneous roles that a teacher needs to play. Teachers should be the designer of the learning environment. Teachers should design an appropriate learning environment for each student. Modern education is increasingly student-oriented, meaning that it is the responsibility of teachers to fully 110

CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS FACED BY CHINA’S TEACHERS

understand the potentiality of students and enable them to become fully actuated. As each student’s talents and interests are not the same, teachers should design a learning curriculum and learning plans for them based on a full understanding of each student. IT provides the conditions for individualized learning; teachers should use it to offer a good learning environment for each student so that they can happily learn and succeed within such an environment. Teachers are the organizers of the learning process. Personalized learning for the student does not mean separation from the group and an entirely self-learning set up. Learning together with peers and discussing and communicating with them yields significant benefits for students. Teachers play the role of organizers in the process of students’ joint learning. They organize students into learning teams and help them hold various activities together. Teachers are the helpers of students’ learning experiences. Students will encounter difficulties and all kinds of problems during the learning process, and they need the help of a teacher. Teachers should make full use of IT and interact with students frequently to better understand those difficulties and problems so they can offer help in a timely manner. Teachers are the partners of students in study. They can learn and gain new knowledge together. Today, ever-changing scientific and cultural knowledge pushes teachers to constantly learn in order to keep up with the times. Students can obtain information through various media, and if teachers do not continue learning, they will soon become unable to communicate with students. Therefore, teachers should learn together with students and become their partners, guiding them in the process of joint learning. Teachers act as wisdom enlighteners for students. A teacher should not only guide students to obtain useful information and increase their knowledge but also cultivate students’ critical and creative thinking abilities. Teachers should focus on the development of students’ intelligence when they are in school so that students are equipped with self-learning, practical, and innovation abilities. As the American scholar Bruner (1973) said: We may be able to see students’ academic achievements as the most general goals of education; however, it should be clearer, what it means here is not only achieving excellent academic outcomes, but also helping each student get the best intellectual development. (p. 6) Teachers are key influencers of students’ morality. The fundamental task of education is to turn a natural person with biological characteristics into a person who is adapted to society with appropriate moral qualities. Teachers should not only impart knowledge but also foster students with high moral quality and a sense of responsibility to serve society and its people. On March 2012, the OECD published a report entitled Preparing Teachers and Developing School Leaders for the 21st Century: Lessons from Around the World. It describes the experience of “Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills” 111

M. GU

which “brought together more than 250 researchers across 60 institutions worldwide” (Schleicher, 2012, p. 34). It pointed out that in the twenty-first century, the student must master the following four skills: (1) thinking skills, including creativity, critical thinking, problem solving, decision-making, and learning ability; (2) working skills, including communication and collaboration ability; (3) tool-using skills, including information technology and information literacy; and (4) life skills, including how to be a citizen, how to cope with the profession, and how to burden personal and social responsibility. The report states: “Changes in the demand for skills have profound implications for the competencies which teachers themselves need to acquire to effectively teach 21st century skills to their students” so that they could “become lifelong learners” and “cannot easily be replaced by computers” (Schleicher, 2012, p. 35). The Professional Qualities Teachers Should Have Since the ILO and UNESCO proposed the concept of the professionalization of teachers in 1966, experts from all countries have been exploring the issue of teachers’ professional development. In summary, the professionalization of a teacher needs to meet the following requirements: 1. Owning high-level professional knowledge and technology skills. Teachers must master the professional knowledge and technology skills of the discipline that they teach. 2. Long-term professional development and training. For mature and specialized professions such as medicine and law, training is long term, and, in addition to learning the theory, emphasis is put on clinical practice so that students learn problem-solving skills in practice. The teaching profession also needs long-term cultivation and training. 3. Owning strong professional ethics. Any job has professional ethics, and those of the teaching profession are particularly important since it is the occupation that cultivates humans. Teachers are role models for students. Teachers’ professional ethics include dedication, a love for all students, and a rigorous attitude toward their work. 4. The capability to constantly enhance professional development. Rapid developments in science and technology will make anyone lag behind in terms of professional development if they stop learning. Teachers have to continue learning and should have an awareness of lifelong learning and constantly improve their professional levels. 5. A high degree of autonomy. The professionals should have independence in matters of professional judgment and behavior. Teachers should be able to independently design and arrange educational activities, constantly reflect on themselves, and sum up their learning in order to become research-based teachers. 6. Professional organizations and self-regulation codes. To be a professional career, teaching needs to have its own professional organization and establish its own self-regulation codes for daily work references. 112

CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS FACED BY CHINA’S TEACHERS

On the basis of the above requirements, the OECD put forward the following types of ability that twenty-first-century teachers should possess: (1) “Teachers need to be well-versed in the subjects they teach in order to be adept at using different methods and, if necessary, changing their approaches to optimize learning”; (2) “They need a rich repertoire of teaching strategies, the ability to combine approaches, and the knowledge of how and when to use certain methods and strategies”; (3) “The strategies used should include direct, whole-group teaching, guided discovery, group work, and the facilitation of self-study and individual discovery. They should also include personalized feedback”; (4) “Teachers need to have a deep understanding of how learning happens, in general, and of individual students’ motivations, emotions and lives outside the classroom, in particular”; (5) “Teachers need to be able to work in highly collaborative ways, working with other teachers, professionals and para-professionals within the same organization, or with individuals in other organizations, networks of professional communities and different partnership arrangements, which may include mentoring teachers”; (6) “Teachers need to acquire strong skills in technology and the use of technology as an effective teaching tool, to both optimize the use of digital resources in their teaching and use information-management systems to track student learning”; (7) “Teachers need to develop the capacity to help design, lead, manage and plan learning environments in collaboration with others”; (8) “Teachers need to reflect on their practices in order to learn from their experience” (Schleicher, 2012, p. 38). THE TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT OF TEACHERS

The Establishment of the Chinese Normal Education System China is a country that attaches great importance to education, and it established a relatively complete education system as early as 3,000 years ago. However, at that time, there was no special institution to carry out teacher training. Teachers always comprised learned officials or intellectuals who could not serve the court. In ancient Chinese old-style private schools, a few students learned China’s classical works led by a teacher, and in senior academies, some learned intellectuals led groups of students to explore knowledge. At the end of nineteenth century, China introduced a Western education system that emphasized modern science and implemented a class teaching system, which made the establishment of a normal school that specifically trained teachers possible. The first normal school for training teachers opened in Shanghai in 1897. When Sheng Xuanhuai established the Nanyang Public School, he realized that qualified teachers were the premise for talent cultivation. Therefore, he established the normal college for training teachers in the Nanyang Public School. Subsequently, the Imperial University of Peking, established in 1898, was the predecessor of the modern Peking University. In 1902, the normal school was set up within the Imperial University of Peking, the predecessor of Beijing Normal 113

M. GU

University. Since then, China has established both secondary and higher normal education, and they have had a combined history of over 100 years. After the founding of the People’s Republic of China, the government paid great attention to teacher education, gradually setting up a three-level teacher education system that included secondary and university stages, namely, kindergarten and primary school teachers from secondary teacher schools; junior high school teachers from higher teacher colleges; and high school teachers from normal universities. Each province, municipality, and autonomous region has a normal university and a number of teachers’ colleges, each region has a higher normal school, and almost every county has a secondary normal school. Continuing education after teachers take up a position has a parallel system in which each of the provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions and areas should have a Teachers’ Training College (renamed Institute of Education after the Cultural Revolution) and every county has established a teacher training school. These schools are mainly responsible for the improvement of in-service teachers’ skills. By the 1960s, the establishment of the pre- and post-career normal education system had been completed. Although it has been severely damaged in the Cultural Revolution, the normal school system has now largely recovered. By 1989, there were 256 higher normal schools with 492,057 enrolled students, and 1,044 secondary normal schools with 684,627 enrolled students. Through more than a decade of development, these schools trained many qualified teachers, providing a guarantee for the implementation of the popularization of the China’s compulsory education and mass education in the last decade of the twentieth century. The Reform and Development of Teacher Education By the 1990s, with the development of science and technology and the national economy, this type of normal education system could not cater to the demands of national economic and educational development. The requirements of teachers’ professionalization in particular have made the reform of the normal education system necessary. Some academics have declared that the concepts used by normal education and the whole normal education system is far behind the times. It only focuses on pre-service training and ignores in-service training. At the same time, requirements for teachers to graduate from different stages are low, especially for secondary normal teachers, who were found to have lower levels of knowledge than high school graduates. Because of the intensive appeal for enhancing the quality of the teaching degree, a structural reform was begun in the normal education field. In June 1999, the CPC Central Committee and the State Council issued The Decision to Deepen Education Reform and Promote Quality Education, proposing the encouragement of comprehensive universities to participate in the training of primary and secondary school teachers and the establishment of teaching

114

CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS FACED BY CHINA’S TEACHERS

colleges in qualified comprehensive universities. The purpose of encouraging the participation of comprehensive universities was to improve the qualifications of the teachers. Also, since the 1990s, China’s higher education entered a period of development and integration. Colleges and universities began to merge and reorganize. Especially with the popularization of higher education, many local normal universities have been transformed into comprehensive colleges or universities. China’s teacher education is in a transition period characterized by three goals: 1. To improve teachers’ education level. Kindergarten and elementary school teachers should possess higher education qualifications. Cancelling secondary normal schools, teachers are to be trained in higher normal colleges, teachers’ colleges, and normal universities. At the same time, M.Ed. and D.Ed. degrees are set to further improve the professional level for primary and secondary school teachers. 2. To change the previous separation of teachers’ pre-service education and postcareer training by integrating the two processes. In the past, pre-service training was carried out by teacher’s colleges for the purpose of degree education, while post-career training was organized by administrative departments of education and implemented by colleges of education and teacher training schools at all levels—a system that lacked a unified plan. Now the combination of pre-service and postcareer training makes teacher education more unified and integrated. Post-career training is also basically put onto normal colleges and normal universities, which makes teachers’ professional training more specialized in universities and is helpful for teachers in learning cutting-edge subject development, the latest educational methods, and new achievements in cognitive science to promote teachers’ professional development. 3. To transform the previous closed normal school system into an open teacher’s education system, which means that all higher education institutes can participate in teacher training. At the same time, China established a teacher’s national examination and teacher’s qualification certificate system so that graduates from any colleges or universities can be teachers as long as they pass national examinations for teacher qualification. The purpose is to involve high-level comprehensive universities in teacher training so as to improve teachers’ professional levels. Current Situation of the Development of China’s Primary and Secondary School Teachers According to the statistical data released by China’s Ministry of Education in 2014, China has 209,900 kindergartens, 201,400 elementary schools, 52,600 junior high schools, 25,700 senior high schools and 2,000 special schools (see Figure 1; MoE, 2014). 115

M. GU

Figure 1. The quantity of schools of different types and levels in China’s fundamental education

Figure 2. The quantity of full-time teachers of different types and levels of schools in China’s fundamental education

Nationwide, there are 14 million kindergarten, primary, and secondary school teachers, including 2.08 million kindergarten teachers, 5.63 million elementary fulltime teachers, 3.49 million junior high school full-time teachers, and 2.53 million senior high school full-time teachers. Among them, there are 1.66 million regular high school full-time teachers, 8,020 adult high school full-time teachers, and 858,400 secondary vocational education school full-time teachers (see Figure 2; MoE, 2014). The number of Chinese female teachers is far more than that of Chinese male teachers, but with the increase of the school stages, the number of male teachers is also increasing. By the end of 2014, the female teachers occupied 97.94 percent of the preschool education teachers, 62.13 percent of the elementary school teachers, 116

CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS FACED BY CHINA’S TEACHERS

Figure 3. The proportion of teacher’s genders of different types and levels of schools in China’s fundamental education by 2014 (Source: unpublished MOE working paper)

52.58 percent of the junior high school teachers, 50.61 percent of the senior high school teachers, and 72.7 percent of the special education teachers (see Figure 3). The primary and secondary school teachers are divided into three categories according their professional development levels: junior, regular, and senior. The kindergarten teachers should refer to the job titles of the primary school teachers. In order to encourage and reward outstanding teachers, the country set up an Outstanding Teacher award. Now there are about 18,000 outstanding on-the-job teachers across the country, about 0.13 percent of the total teaching body.1 Teachers’ Professional Standards In 2012, the Chinese Ministry of Education established Kindergarten Teachers’ Professional Standards, Elementary School Teachers’ Professional Standards, and Secondary School Teachers’ Professional Standards, making requirements to the profession of kindergarten teachers, primary school teachers, and secondary school teachers respectively. The fundamental philosophy of Chinese teachers’ professional standards can be summed up in four keywords: ethics priority, student orientation, ability focused, and lifelong learning, which are the soul of teachers’ professional development. This philosophy is embedded in the following three-level indicator system (see Figure 4). The first level includes three dimensions: professional concept and 117

M. GU

ethics, professional knowledge, and professional ability, which are more general requirements for being a qualified teacher. The second level includes 15 specific indicators under the umbrella of the above three dimensions. For professional concept and ethics, four indicators are included: (1) Professional comprehension and understanding; (2) Attitude and behavior toward young children/ students; (3) Attitude and behavior toward education and teaching; and (4) Selfcultivation and behavior; For professional knowledge, four indicators are included: (1) Knowledge of the development of child/student education; (2) Knowledge of early childhood care and education/knowledge of primary and secondary school education and subject teaching; (3) Knowledge of the subject of primary and secondary school; and (4) General knowledge. And for professional ability, seven indicators are included: (1) Establishment and utilization of the kindergarten environment/education and teaching design of primary and secondary school; (2) Organization and child care of the daily life in kindergarten (only for kindergarten); (3) Support and guidance of game activities (only for kindergarten); (4) Planning and implementing of kindergarten education activities/organizing and implementing the primary and secondary school education

Figure 4. Professional standards for Chinese kindergarten, primary and middle school teachers

118

CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS FACED BY CHINA’S TEACHERS

and teaching activities; (5) Encouragement and evaluation; (6) Communication and cooperation; and (7) Reflection and development. The third level explains more specifically the detailed requirements under the umbrella of the above 15-second lever indicators. Due to the different features of kindergarten, elementary school, and secondary school, the requirements on the third level differ; there are 62 specific professional indicators for kindergarten teachers, 60 for elementary school teachers, and 63 for secondary school teachers. Due to space limitation, the third level requirements are not discussed here. This is a policy put in place by the Chinese government to strictly control teachers’ entry qualifications, regulate teachers’ behavior, and promote teachers’ professional development. Since then, the Ministry of Education has successively issued Principals’ Professional Standards of Compulsory Education, Teachers’ Professional Standards of the Secondary Vocational School, and other documents further improving the construction of a system for China’s teachers’ professional standardization. Teachers’ Professional Development Approach In the environment of constantly changing scientific and cultural knowledge, teachers have to study unceasingly to adapt. At the same time, the development of education science, psychological science, and brain science require teachers to constantly improve their levels of specialization. Currently, there are four approaches to China’s teachers’ professional development. ‡ Policy requirements: the Chinese government sets regulations for teachers to accept continuing education at least once every five years in a planned way. Since 2010, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Finance have put 550 million RMB into implementing a National Primary and Secondary School Teacher Training Program, including 50 million RMB for the National Training Program Primary and Secondary School Teachers Exemplary Project and 500 million RMB for the National Training Program Midwest China Rural Backbone Teachers Training Project. Furthermore, teachers can voluntarily apply for a M.Ed. or D.Ed. professional university degree. ‡ Teaching and research system: the government encourages teachers to conduct research on educational practice and improve their professional levels through reflection and learning education behavior so as to become research-oriented teachers. Most primary and secondary schools constitute teaching and research sections according to different disciplines. They gather together to share experience in teaching and work out more appropriate ways to teach, which are good opportunities for teachers to improve their teaching ability, especially for young teachers. Local departments of education administration also set up a Teaching and Research Office, and the office members are composed of experienced senior teachers. They 119

M. GU

often go to school to guide teachers’ teaching work, to help teachers understand the requirements of national curriculum standards and the teaching content so as to improve teaching methods and ability. Many provinces and cities also establish senior teacher’s studios, in the form of the master taking an apprentice, to train young teachers. ‡ Cooperation between universities and primary and secondary schools: The intervention of the university is an important element of teachers’ professional development. Normal universities in all places try to establish experimental bases or teacher development schools in primary and secondary schools, and college teachers conduct teaching research with teachers from primary and secondary schools to combine theory and practice, ultimately to improve primary and secondary teachers’ professional levels. In the process of teacher training, we must improve the teacher students’ understanding of and responsibilities in education and teach them how to love students and put professional ethics first. Only loving education work and each student can make them good teachers. ‡ International communication and cooperation: international exchanges and cooperation is a current trend in education. Chinese teachers attach great importance to contact with foreign teachers. In addition to education cooperation between governments, many local education departments and schools organize visits abroad for teachers. All kinds of international education conferences and exchanges between academics provide international experience to assist in teachers’ professional development. A SOCIAL SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR TEACHERS

China Has a Tradition of Respecting Teachers and Valuing Education Chinese society has always attached great importance to education. There are two reasons for that: The ruling class has always declared that it will rule the country by virtue and educate citizens. After the Han dynasty, each dynasty took over the country by force but ruled the country by culture and education. The ancient philosopher Xunzi said, “If a country is going to be prosperous and strong, it will definitely respect their teachers; if a country is going to decline, it will definitely disrespect their teachers.” The imperial examination system did not select candidates by their family status, so commoners could also participate in the examination system. Although most of them were not selected, at least there was a hope that through serious learning, everyone could change their lives. The ideas of “men who excel in study can make a good official career” and “learning to acquire an official position” were very popular in civil society. In ancient China, no matter whether they were poor or rich, everyone was willing to let their children be educated if the conditions allowed. Once candidates passed the examination, they would credit this success to 120

CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS FACED BY CHINA’S TEACHERS

their teachers and give them more respect. As a tradition, the candidates would also see their chief examiners as their teachers. Valuing education leads to respect for teachers. In China, the idea of “A teacher for one day is a father for all one’s life” puts teachers in a position that is as important as that of a parent. Because the emperor chose Confucianism as the only mainstream philosophy for China after the Han dynasty, Confucius was put in a great position of maintaining the feudal rule. Confucius was a teacher through most of his career, so teachers became the last member of the “Heaven-Earth-Sovereign-Parent-Teacher” group under the glory of Confucius. In almost all the classics and philosophical canon, a teacher’s dignity is very important. For example, in Records of Education, the writer proposes that “valuing knowledge only comes after respecting teachers.” The teachers are the disseminators of knowledge, and only through respecting teachers can the purpose of spreading knowledge be achieved. In On Teachers, Hanyu reduces the teachers’ job to three points, which are “moral cultivating, skill teaching and confusion clarification,” also emphasizing the respect of teachers. Since then, this tradition has never disappeared. Policy Support for Teachers The Chinese government attaches great importance to teachers. In 1985, the Ninth Standing Committee of the Sixth National People’s Congress passed a bill of the State Council on establishing Teachers’ Day. Since them, September 10 was set as Teacher’s Day each year. The country rewards a batch of outstanding teachers each year, and the leaders of the country also take part in various activities together with these teachers. On Teacher’s Day in 2014, President Xi Jinping visited Beijing Normal University. He proposed that “good teachers possess four things”: ideals and faith, morality, solid knowledge, and a heart of kindness. This message has encouraged the current generation of teachers across China. In order to attract outstanding young people to the education profession, since 2007, China has carried out a “normal education students for free” policy in six normal universities directly affiliated with the Ministry of Education. Those students who are willing to be primary and secondary school teachers, especially in the countryside, may be exempt from tuition and living costs. They may also study for an M.Ed. after two years of working. A lot of local normal universities have also followed this policy. From 2007 to 2013, six normal universities under the administration of the Ministry of Education had recruited 72,000 free-of-charge students. So far, there are 22 provinces carrying out the local students’ free education pilot and about 30,000 students and college graduates go to teach in the primary and secondary schools in the countryside each year. Half of Chinese primary and secondary schools are in the countryside where living conditions are hard and there is a lack of teachers. For supplementing the quantity and improving the quality of rural teachers, Chinese government carried out a “Teachers in Special Position” policy, which means recruiting volunteers to 121

M. GU

teach in the countryside for three years on graduating from college. After it, they can select other jobs freely, or stay on in teaching. This policy played an important role in building the pool of rural teachers. Now there are 500,000 teachers in specific positions who have been recruited so far. Take Guizhou province in the China’s Western region as an example. By the end of 2014, Guizhou had recruited 70,232 teachers in special positions, including 48,932 central teachers in special positions and 21,300 local teachers in special positions. They are serving in 500 rural schools in 73 counties, occupying 23 percent of the whole teachers’ body in the compulsory education stage. They are a powerful force of rural schools in Guizhou province, being honored as a “blood-exchange generation” of rural teachers. In 2015, I met several young teachers in special positions when I was conducting an investigation in a rural area of Pingjiang county, Hunan Province, they have already been working there for three years, while still chose to stay in the positions. They told me, local children were very cute and really in need of them, so that they were loath to part with these children. Some of them even got married there and wished to serve as a rural teacher for the whole life. Nowadays, there are about 3.3 million rural teachers in China and they have made a great contribution to rural education under hard conditions. In order to improve their working and living conditions, in May 2015, the general office of the State Council issued the Support Plan for Rural Teachers (2015–2020). This plan tries to gradually form a situation of “having access to the countryside, being able to stay in the countryside, and teaching well in the countryside” through measures of expending the supplementary channel of rural teachers, improving the material benefits of rural teachers, setting up a uniform standard for urban and rural staff, promoting the turnover of qualified teachers from urban to rural areas, and establishing an award system of rural teachers. By 2020, the government expects to build a wellqualified rural teachers’ team that is willing to stay and dedicate themselves to the countryside, providing a guarantee of teacher resources for basically achieving the modernization of education. One should remember that China has a large population, and there are more than 12 million primary and secondary school teachers. For geopolitical reasons, China’s economic and social development is very uneven from place to place. Therefore, a variety of channels and methods should be adopted for teacher training and development in order to cope with such an imbalance. For example, in east area of China, the quantity of teachers in various subjects is enough and most of them are highly qualified, while in the west area of China, the story is totally different. Many schools there are lack of art and P.E. teachers. Therefore, the central government encourages the eastern areas to support the western areas. Many teachers working in the eastern areas are sent to teach in the western areas for one year. And during the winter and summer vocations, many normal universities would like to send their faculties to train local teachers as volunteers and improve their professional levels.

122

CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS FACED BY CHINA’S TEACHERS

Social Support for Teachers Teachers’ work requires the understanding and support of society, especially the trust and support of their students’ parents. Combining family and school education is a key factor to greatly strengthen the power of education, because parents can help teachers educate their children outside the classroom as well as providing more information about students’ performances in family. Therefore, teachers should not only immerse themselves in school classroom teaching, but pay attention to the communication with parents. Besides, the media also plays an important role in education. Children get a lot of useful information from various media, especially television and Internet. But admittedly, there is a lot of unhealthy content in the current media, especially on the Internet. Therefore, media organizations should take social responsibility for the healthy growth of our descendants, playing its role in their education. In addition, social opinion should create an atmosphere of respecting teachers and valuing education. There are many contradictions in the educational field, and as the social public opinion, it should analyze different situations comprehensively instead of sweeping, encourage reform instead of criticizing, and positively promote advanced deeds in the educational field so as to boost morale. Therefore, in today’s multicultural environment, teachers need to shoulder their responsibility together with other players in society to better educate the children. NOTE 1

The data comes from MOE’s working paper, which is unpublished.

REFERENCES Bruner, J. S. (1973). ᮉ㛢䗷〻 [The process of education]. к⎧ѝഭк⎧Ӫ≁ࠪ⡸⽮ [Shanghai, China: Shanghai People’s Publishing House]. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (MoE). (2014). 2014 ᒤ‫ޘ‬ഭᮉ㛢һъਁኅ㔏䇑 ‫ޜ‬ᣕ [Statistical communique on national education development in 2014]. Retrieved July 30, 2015, from http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/gzdt_gzdt/s5987/201507/t20150730_196698.html Schleicher, A. (Ed.). (2012). Preparing teachers and developing school leaders for the 21st century: Lessons from around the world. Paris: OECD. UNESCO. (1966). Recommendation concerning the status of teachers. Retrieved July 3, 2015, from http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_ID=13084&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

Mingyuan Gu Beijing Normal University China

123

EE-LING LOW

9. THE CHANGING ROLES OF TEACHERS AND TEACHER LEARNING IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY The Singapore Story

ABSTRACT

The Singapore education system had gone through several pivotal changes since our independence in 1956 in order to meet the societal needs of the nation and to stay relevant with times. The focus of education progressed from developing foundational knowledge of literacy and numeracy skills towards instilling values and attributes in each child. Results from the internationally benchmarked tests in 2015, the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS), have shown that the high performance of Singapore students is largely due to the country’s teachers and their roles in the system. However, as the world move towards the twenty-first century, the roles and responsibilities of teachers will have to change. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the changing roles of the teacher in the twenty-first century and how teacher education and professional development in Singapore has changed in tandem in order to ensure that the teacher is adequately prepared and supported to meet the challenges of twenty-first-century classrooms and schools. Innovations in policy and practice will be highlighted and the strong systemic coherence that helps ensure that research-informed policies are implemented with fidelity will be showcased. Keywords: Singapore, teacher training, twenty-first century, pre-service training, professional development PREMISES AND CURRENT FACTORS STRUCTURING THE TEACHER’S ROLE

The demands of the twenty-first-century globalized, inter-connected, and highly digitized society and workplace requires a radical change in the traditional role of the teacher worldwide. The case in Singapore is no different. Education has played a pivotal role in the nation-building of the relatively young city-state and country that achieved independence only 52 years ago in 1965. With no natural resources apart from its people, the investment in education was deemed critical for the survival of the nation. Central to ensuring the success of the education system is the teacher

© KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2018 | DOI 10.1163/9789004372573_009

E.-L. LOW

factor, and the teacher’s role has always been tied to the important mission of nation-building. Still today, even as the country has moved from the status of third world to first in a matter of a few decades post-independence, and with educational achievement that ranks the country among the top few in the world as measured by internationally benchmarked tests, the role of the messaging by the Education ministry is still centrally tied to nation-building. Educational collateral bear taglines such as “Teachers: molding the future of the nation” and “Teachers: shaping the future of the nation, one at a time.” Long before the recognition by international consulting firms like McKinsey and Co. came up with the proposition that “the quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers” (Barber & Mourshed, 2007), the nation’s founding father, the late Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, asserted that the teacher is “the most important digit” (Tan, Low, & Hung, 2017) in the education system. Teacher education in Singapore began in 1960 via the humble beginnings of the teachers’ training center. Today, the nation’s sole teacher education institute, the National Institute of Education, is situated in a top-ranked research-intensive university the Nanyang Technological University. The Singapore teacher education and professional development journey is one that is characterized by careful selection and recruitment, rigorous preservice preparation, and deliberate and structured mentoring for beginning teachers. Competitive remuneration packages and differentiated career tracks ensure maximal retention rates. Holistic teacher evaluation is done via an annual appraisal, which is used as a coaching and mentoring tool for identifying areas of professional development and for the identification of the potential leadership pool for the profession. This chapter describes the changing roles of the teacher in the twentyfirst century and how teacher education and professional development in Singapore have changed in tandem in order to ensure that teachers are adequately prepared and supported to meet the challenges of twenty-first-century classrooms and schools. Innovations in policy and practice will be highlighted, and the strong systemic coherence that helps ensure that research-informed policies are implemented with fidelity will be showcased. What Is the Teacher’s Role About? As outlined above, since Singapore attained independence 52 years ago, the role of teachers has been tied centrally to nation building, as the country has no natural resources except for its people. Today, this message about teaching being tied to nation building still rings true, as the current collaterals for teaching still talk about teachers shaping the future of the nation, one student at a time. Many educational initiatives have appeared on the national agenda in response to the changing demands of society and the economy, but the centrality of education toward the role of nation building has been unequivocal. According to the Ministry of Education’s website (https://www.moe.gov.sg/ about), they are committed to building up a high-quality professional teaching 126

THE CHANGING ROLES OF TEACHERS AND TEACHER LEARNING

workforce with teachers who are “exemplary in conduct and commitment, up-to-date in skills and knowledge.” The role of teachers is also clearly designated to be that of “mentors and role models” to their students “through word and deed.” Additionally, teachers are also charged with the responsibility of citizenship education in terms of helping to build a sense of commitment and belonging to Singapore in students and are seen to be “custodians of societal values” (Tan, 2015). A good example of this may be found in the Teachers’ Pledge, which teachers take at the point of entry into pre-service education, known as the Teachers’ Compass Ceremony, and at the point of graduation from pre-service at the Teachers’ Investiture Ceremony. Note that one central mission is to guide students to become “good and useful citizens of Singapore.” Teachers’ Pledge: We, the teachers of Singapore, pledge that: We will be true to our mission to bring out the best in our students. We will be exemplary in the discharge of our duties and responsibilities. We will guide our students to be good and useful citizens of Singapore. We will continue to learn and pass on the love of learning to our students. We will win the trust, support and co-operation of parents and the community so as to enable us to achieve our mission. (MOE, n.d.a) (Source: https://www.moe.gov.sg/about#sthash. jLalRjgW.dpuf) What Is at the Core of Teacher’s Work? Why Is It Important? At the core of a teacher’s work is enabling the learner to learn. This underpinning philosophy of teacher education delivered by the National institute of Education where attributes of the twenty-first-century teaching professional are articulated as three values paradigms (NIE, 2009, p. 45). Further explanation of this model that characterizes the core of the teacher’s work is articulated in Lee and Low (2017). The teacher’s core professional role is to place the learner at the center of his or her work. Consequently, teachers need to be aware of learners as individuals, and teacher education involves helping student teachers to understand the diverse needs, academic profiles, and developmental trajectories of their learners. Equally central to the teacher’s role is to have a strong sense of the purpose of teaching and the identity of the teacher. Research literature points to clear evidence that teachers who possess a strong sense of identity are likely to stay longer in the profession (Tricarico, Jacobs, & Yendol-Hoppey, 2015). Teachers who have a strong sense of identity also uphold their roles as professionals and are driven to continually learn in order to be able to deliver high standards of teaching in the classrooms. The drive to continually learn takes on a new significance in the twenty-first century, which is characterized by knowledge expansion and an accelerated rate of change. As a professional, a teacher strives to update his or her knowledge and use this knowledge to suit a variety of teaching contexts and to cater to diverse student profiles. 127

E.-L. LOW

Finally, an important role of teachers in Singapore is about service to the community and fraternity of teachers. In this role, teachers are seen as mentors and stewards who mentor and provide apprenticeships necessary to groom their peers in their growth from novice to experienced teachers. Who Defines the Teacher’s Role? How? Why? The role of teachers is defined primarily by the Ministry of Education (MOE), which plays a central administrative role for all government schools and a strong advisory cum supervisory role in all other schools. There are some 366 schools in Singapore, about 182 primary schools and 154 secondary schools (MOE, 2016). Most of these schools, even if they are classified as independent schools, are still accountable to the Ministry of Education, even if they exercise autonomy with regard to teacher employment and deployment of roles and the design and enactment of the curriculum. Both the compact geographical size and the size of the education system in Singapore, with about 366 schools divided into 30 cluster zones and about 33,105 education officers, makes it easy for the MOE to support the schools and teachers in terms of funding, which covers pre-service teacher education, beginning teacher induction, and continuous professional development. As documented in Lee and Low (2017), the MOE serves as the lead agency that introduces policy initiatives based on the changing social and economic demands of the country, the constant monitoring of both the local and international landscape, and feedback from key stakeholders to education, such as industry leaders, university academics, school leaders, parents, members of the community, and students. These policies help to realize the desired outcomes of education that are enacted into the national curriculum and delivered by the teachers in schools. Therefore, it is fair to conclude that teachers’ roles in Singapore are collectively determined by the Ministry of Education and the school leaders in tandem with the nation’s articulated desired outcomes of education. How Are Teachers Prepared? In What Kind of Pre-Service Teacher Education Program? Why? The National Institute of Education (NIE) is the sole teacher education institute in Singapore, and it provides all levels of teacher education programs, such as initial teacher preparation, in-service professional development, and higher degree (graduate) programs. NIE has the national responsibility of providing pre-service teachers with the necessary competencies to deliver the national curricula and programs in schools that are aligned with the national goals and education initiatives. The programs are developed and constantly enhanced in consultation with both MOE and the schools to ensure that there is systemic alignment with government policies and practices in schools. 128

THE CHANGING ROLES OF TEACHERS AND TEACHER LEARNING

In Singapore, teachers are recruited by the MOE, and all aspiring teachers need to successfully complete the pre-service teacher education programs offered at NIE. The NIE may also be regarded as the sole teacher accreditation institute in Singapore that certifies that teachers are ready to enter the teaching workforce if they have successfully completed their pre-service programs. The design and delivery of pre-service teacher education programs in the NIE are very much anchored on a three-pronged set of values, which are interlinked with the core of teachers’ work—a clear and unequivocal focus on learner-centeredness, developing in teachers a strong sense of teacher identity, and encouraging them to contribute actively back to the fraternity and the profession, for example, as mentors to novice teachers when they are experienced teachers. The NIE offers an essentially university-based model of teacher education with theoretical courses taught on campus and the clinical practice (practicum) component offered in schools, both locally and for the non-final practicum positing, with the possibility of having an international practice teaching stint abroad. The three main programs offered are the 4-year undergraduate programs, the 2-year diploma programs for non-graduates, and the 16-month postgraduate diploma in education programs, which mainly used to be delivered in 12 months. The undergraduate program is a 4-year program that leads to a bachelor of arts (education) or a bachelor of science (education) degree. Honors degrees may be awarded to student teachers who have excelled in their studies. In 2014, the NIE introduced a new scholar program called the NTU-NIE Teaching Scholars Program (TSP), a program which is accompanied by an enhanced BA/BSc (Ed) program designed to provide students with the global competencies to be education leaders of the twenty-first century. The programme offers a unique opportunity for both personal development and international exposure in interdisciplinary training through seminars, conference presentations, research assignments and mentorships, internships, and overseas programmes. Graduates of TSP will be well-equipped with intellectual rigour, strong leadership skills and global perspectives—ready to fulfil their aspirations in education and make their contribution in shaping the future of the nation. The curriculum of TSP is designed to help TSP Scholars acquire practical experience from industry and thought leaders on best practices and management insights globally as well as to sharpen analytical skills and develop their research expertise. These enriching lessons will provide a broad spectrum of knowledge and skillsets that will inspire confidence in our TSP Scholars and enable them to handle situations within the classroom and beyond. (Director, NIE, TSP webpage) The key features of enhancement include the introduction of both an academic as well as an education research project, internships with industries within and outside the education fraternity, opportunities to engage in service learning outside of Singapore, participation and/or presentations at local and international conferences, a semester exchange in an international partner institute of higher learning to 129

E.-L. LOW

pursue coursework, or a chance to participate in an international practicum stint and mentorship by an expert faculty in their disciplinary major. Additionally, all TSP scholars are also provided with residence on campus to tap into the residential campus experience as another opportunity to enhance the depth and breadth of their educational exposure. As for the diploma programs, students are either enrolled in the general or the specialization tracks. The programs usually last for either one or two years, depending on their tracks of study. The Diploma (General) Students are prepared to teach English, mathematics, and science, with an option to switch science with art, music, or social studies. The top 25–30 percent of diploma graduates from these programs may be offered the opportunity to continue to the degree program on an accelerated basis, where they would join in the second year of study. The post-graduate diploma in education (PGDE) program is for students who already possess a degree and would like to pursue a teaching career but without a teaching qualification. This program has been enhanced from a 12-month program to a 16-month program. Key enhancements include the strengthening of student teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) through the addition of schoolrelevant content courses for the primary track students, an additional number of academic units assigned to curriculum studies (CS) courses, providing a deeper understanding of learners and the learning process via enhancing the educational psychology courses, and offering a greater understanding and appreciation of teacher professionalism and the calling of a teacher in Singapore. To ensure that Singapore’s teachers are ready for the demands of the twenty-first century, the NIE also provides them with a values-driven program taught through the formal curriculum as well as through experiential learning platforms. For instance, students from all three programs will take part in two core programs, Group Endeavors in Service Learning (GESL) and the Meranti Project. In GESL, student teachers take part in community projects of their choice, while the Meranti Project is a two-day personal and professional development workshop that brings the student teachers through a process of self-reflection of their reasons for becoming a teacher and to help them envisage their possible future roles as teachers. All university-based teacher education preparation programs struggle with the need to balance between theoretical programs and the practical skills required of a teacher in the classroom. This is especially true in twenty-first-century schools, where the focus is on differentiated learner profiles and catering to individual student learning needs. Hence, the NIE places an emphasis on providing student teachers with strong theoretical foundations and sufficient practice to translate those theories into practice. Students will go through a series of practice teaching stints of field or clinical experience in schools. Throughout their pre-service preparation, they are encouraged to have an inquiring mindset so that they can reflect, learn from their experiences, use different pedagogical tools, and participate in action research that can help them enhance their practice. Students are also encouraged to record their learning journeys in and out of NIE in their Professional Inquiry into Practice (PIP) 130

THE CHANGING ROLES OF TEACHERS AND TEACHER LEARNING

electronic portfolios, which are designed to be a learning portfolio while at preservice, a showcasing portfolio when they are out for clinical practice and in their beginning teaching years, and a professional teaching portfolio as they transition from beginning/novice to experienced teachers. The Graduand Teacher Competencies (GTCs) articulated by NIE sets the professional standards, benchmarks, and goals for graduands at the exit of their pre-service programs. The GTCs form the expected competencies that graduating student teachers are expected to acquire in terms of professional practice, leadership and management, and personal effectiveness. They also outline areas for further professional development of teachers that can take place in partnership with schools and with the Ministry’s Academy of Singapore teachers (AST). CONTEXTUAL FACTORS: FRAMING STRUCTURES REGULATING THE TEACHER’S ROLE

Societal Needs as Contributors to the Teacher’s Role As mentioned at the outset of this chapter, the role of the teacher has always been tied centrally to the important role of nation building. In meeting the societal needs of the nation and ensuring relevance to the times, the Singapore education system has gone through four iterations since our independence in 1965 (Goh & Gopinathan, 2008). A brief description of the four iterations will now be presented as examples of how the Singapore education system proactively responds to economic and social changes. These four phases of education have also been covered in Lee and Low (2017) and Tan and Low (2016). Survival-driven education (1965 to 1978). Singapore attained independence in 1965. The years following that were a period when the country faced both economic and social challenges. Unemployment was widespread and literacy rates were low. The aim of education at that time was to develop the foundational knowledge of literacy and numeracy skills in every student, which in turn increased their chances of employment. Although this model worked well, the number of students dropping out of school was high, and this affected the manpower needs for the country. Hence, the next action step for Singapore as a developing country was to decrease the school attrition rate and ensure that education provided sufficient numbers of skilled workers to meet manpower needs. Efficiency-driven education (1979 to 1997). In 1979, three education pathways were created to fit the different profiles of students, each pathway allowing students to better cope with their curriculum at a pace more suited to their academic abilities. The new system allowed the slower-progressing students to complete their primary and secondary educations in longer timeframes. Through this move, the attrition rate was significantly reduced. Vocational education was also implemented in this phase to equip students with technical skills that were necessary for the many new industries that were flourishing in the country. 131

E.-L. LOW

Ability-driven education (1997 to 2012). As the world transformed from an industrybased to a knowledge-based economy, the goals of education in the country also changed. It moved toward encouraging creativity and innovation in every child and to developing their individual talents. It was also in this period that higher-order thinking skills were emphasized in schools. One of the more well-known slogans in this phase was “Thinking Schools, Learning Nation,” (Goh, 1997) and this essentially encapsulated the main foci of the ability-driven phase of education. Student-centric and values-based education (2012 to present). By this phase of development, the focus of education has moved toward instilling each child with values and attributes that are important for them to thrive in the twentyfirst-century environment. These values and attributes are aligned with four key education outcomes for the students: (a) being a confident person, (b) being a selfdirected learner, (c) being an active contributor, and (d) being a concerned citizen. All educational programs, pedagogies, and assessment practices were redesigned and aligned in order to ensure that students had the opportunities to develop these attributes in the classroom. The Singapore education system is a responsive system that is always moving forward. It moves according to the needs of society at different phases. Teachers are viewed as professionals, not unlike doctors and lawyers, and are constantly encouraged to improve themselves by engaging in lifelong professional development. Curriculum Defining the Teacher’s Work: Responsibilities and Freedom The curriculum content of the teacher’s work is guided by the Desired Outcomes of Education (DOE), which are formulated by the MOE. Apart from curriculum content, the DOE also provides direction in the adoption of different pedagogies, refinements of assessments, professional development of teachers, and the preparation of new teachers. The DOE lists the values and attributes that teachers in Singapore would like their students to have upon the completion of different stages of their formal education. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the four desired outcomes that MOE hopes every twenty-first-century Singaporean student will achieve are being a confident person, being a self-directed learner, being an active contributor, and being a concerned citizen. These goals provide the basis for the planning of the national curricula and co-curricular activities. Evaluation and Assessment of Teacher’s Work The Ministry of Education uses its own customized evaluation tool, the Enhanced Performance Management System (EPMS), as a holistic means of appraising teacher performance. The appraisals are conducted annually and follow a cycle of goal formulation, review, and final summative assessment of the teacher’s annual

132

THE CHANGING ROLES OF TEACHERS AND TEACHER LEARNING

performance. Unique to the Singapore system, teachers can choose to develop their careers along the teaching, leadership, and specialist tracks according to their strengths and aspirations. Using the EPMS, reporting officers can determine professional development needs, promotion prospects, and annual performance grades. The appraisal parameters in the EPMS also allow for self-evaluation, coaching and mentoring, and performance-linked recognition. The EPMS lays out Key Result Areas (KRAs), which are essentially competency-based indicators that are categorized into three clusters: student outcomes, professional outcomes, and organizational outcomes. The competencies are further divided into individual attributes (e.g., professional values and ethics), professional mastery (e.g., student-centric, values-driven practice), organizational excellence (e.g., visioning and planning), and effective collaboration (e.g., interpersonal relationships and skills). The EPMS helps teachers identify their strengths and teaching abilities, determine their choices of career tracks, develop personal training and development plans, and articulate innovations and other contributions. The EPMS also forms the basis for coaching and mentoring. Through target setting conducted at the beginning of the school year, a mid-year review that is formative in nature, and a year-end review that is summative in nature, the entire process helps identify areas for improvement and maps pathways for professional and career development. Evaluation results based on EPMS eventually determine the teachers’ suitability for promotion, performance grades, and bonus compensation. Evaluation in schools is generally done in an educative and developmental way. Teachers and their reporting officers discuss not only performance but also gaps and areas where improvements may be needed. After these conversations, teachers write their own evaluations, in which they address questions pertaining to their thoughts and plans for the future. The evaluations help the teachers take stock of their performances throughout the year and inform the areas in which they need to work harder. The Appreciation Toward Teachers’ Work Regulates Teachers’ Role and Work EPMS is the basis for performance-linked recognition. It aids in retaining good teachers and growing the competencies of teachers through encouraging innovative teaching methods. In Singapore, performance is linked to monetary compensation, such as salary adjustment and performance bonuses, as well as non-monetary means, such as the Outstanding Youth in Education Award (OYEA), the Caring Teacher Award (CTA), and the President’s Award for Teachers (PAT). The MOE implemented a new Education Scheme of Service in April 2008 to reward and retain outstanding teachers. Under this new scheme, new salary ranges, variable merit increments, higher performance bonuses, additional annual bonuses, and a one-off salary increment were created. Teachers can also expect more recognition in the form of outstanding contribution awards (OCAs).

133

E.-L. LOW

FACILITATING STRUCTURES: SUPPORTING FACTORS OF TEACHERS’ ACTIVE ROLE AND WORK

Individual Commitment toward Teachers’ Work—Call to Teach Singapore has spared no effort in making teaching a highly attractive profession. In order to attract the best, the MOE is offering sponsored tuition and additional stipends for pre-service preparation, competitive salaries, and diverse career tracks that suit individual aspirations. In general, teaching as a career also enjoys high social status and respect from the public. When surveyed, pre-service teachers in Singapore cited altruistic, intrinsic, and extrinsic factors for choosing a career in teaching, with the majority being motivated by intrinsic reasons (Low, Lim, Ch’ng, & Goh, 2011). The reason most cited by the pre-service teachers was linked to the altruistic motive of the “interest in teaching.” Many of them talked about the intangible rewards of teaching, such as teaching to make a difference, teaching to care for young people, and teaching as a calling. The need to “make a difference in a student’s life” and the fact that teachers are now able to inculcate values in students is a big draw to teaching for many of those surveyed. Other teachers cited their own positive school experiences as factors that motivated them to become teachers. Many said they wanted to emulate a teacher who had “influenced my life” and described how they wanted “to care for students, (like) how my teacher cared for me.” This engendered the aspiration in some teachers “to make things better in the future for others, for the future students.” There were also those surveyed who talked about teaching as a calling. For some of them, teaching “was just something that I always knew that I wanted to do.” Others described how teaching had always been a dream “since I was in Primary Three, I think I have always wanted to become a teacher.” Teaching is a profession that has always relied on the altruistic motivations of entrants. The fact that it is meaningful work that could make a difference in people’s lives is a huge draw to those who hope to contribute directly to shaping the next generation. Singapore recognizes this and provides the support for aspiring teachers through financial incentives and professional development opportunities so that teachers can focus on imparting knowledge and skills and fulfill their callings to teach. Collegial Collaboration Collaboration occurs often in school and involves the entire faculty, from the principal and senior management to each and every teacher, often beyond departmental-level boundaries. There are learning opportunities where teachers will sit down together to discuss their lessons, and senior management will also join in to listen, discuss, share their ideas and experiences, and contribute their expertise. At times, the teachers also discuss research and ways to innovate and improve teaching and learning. Schools 134

THE CHANGING ROLES OF TEACHERS AND TEACHER LEARNING

set aside such time regularly for professional learning and sharing, and they are taken seriously as developmental opportunities. There are also platforms for collaboration across schools. Teachers participate in Networked Learning Communities (NLCs) where they work collaboratively on professional areas of interest. Examples are NLCs that are role-specific (e.g., NLCs of School Staff Developers and NLCs of Allied Educators) and NLCs that are formed to work on specific interests (e.g., NLCs that look into Lesson Study). Management and Shared Leadership on the School Level In Singapore, there are differentiated career tracks that allow for teachers to progress according to their strengths and aspirations. This provides teachers with various routes for advancement and leadership. In other words, although every school still has the principal as the main school leader, there is more distributed leadership being shared across different roles and positions (Spillane, 2005). The differentiated career pathways are necessary, first, to ensure younger teachers are also given opportunities to lead, second, to develop all teachers according to their individual strengths and proclivities, and third, to help retain teachers by providing them with meaningful leadership opportunities in their areas of expertise and skill. The career tracks available are the teaching track, leadership track, and senior specialist track (Figure 1). Movement along each of these tracks involves deepening levels of expertise, accomplishment, and experience, and represents an expanded opportunity to lead in a particular domain.

Figure 1. Different career tracks for teachers (MOE, n.d.b)

For instance, as teachers move up the teaching track, they can assume teacher leadership roles to serve as mentors to teachers with less teaching experience. In the senior specialist track, teachers can develop deep knowledge and skills in specific areas, such as curriculum, planning, and educational technology. This leadership role usually takes them to the Ministry headquarters, where they are actively engaged in developmental work for all the schools in Singapore. The leadership track remains 135

E.-L. LOW

focused on school administration, and potential leaders are thoroughly prepared through development programs to take on school leadership roles. An Active Position in the Curriculum Processes and School Development Almost all teachers are very much involved in research and innovation projects in schools to improve teaching and learning to meet the needs of the students. Schools set aside time for teachers to discuss and implement their projects. This collaborative work taps into the knowledge and expertise of teachers as well as to support from educational experts, both internal and external. Different topics are selected for these research and innovation projects, ranging from areas like curriculum and assessment to classroom management and lesson planning. Inter-departmental or inter-disciplinary collaborative groups are also common. At times, senior teachers also conduct workshops to share teaching strategies. Discussions among teachers often take place afterward to reflect on the usefulness of these strategies and how they can be customized for their own students and subjects. Through these sessions and professional learning activities, the entire school can be exposed to new ideas and can be developed as a whole. Teachers get together to consider innovations and contribute to make improvements, playing active roles in school processes and organizational development. In-Service Teacher Education Programs To provide for in-service teacher education, the Teachers’ Network was started in 1998 to support teacher-initiated development through sharing, collaboration, and reflection. The Teachers’ Network was re-conceptualized to be the Academy of Singapore Teachers (AST) in 2009. The AST was tasked with spearheading the professional development of Singapore teachers via a teacher-led culture of professional excellence and focuses on teacher capacity-building. It offers a wide range of courses, activities, resources, and expertise. To ensure that all teachers participate in learning and development, the MOE put organizational structures for professional learning in place, such as training entitlements, funding for MOEorganized courses, and an online portal providing one-stop access to learning, collaboration, and resources for all MOE staff. Schools have in turn shown tremendous support for in-service learning by building dedicated periods into the timetable for teachers to engage in professional learning communities and creating spaces for learning and sharing. The NIE also works in collaboration with the AST to conduct teacher leadership programs in accordance with the MOE’s goal of in-service teacher development and the AST’s professional development aims. The NIE offers a variety of workshops to support teachers’ professional advancement needs and enhance teacher learning. Some examples are workshops in curriculum and assessment in line with policy changes or new MOE

136

THE CHANGING ROLES OF TEACHERS AND TEACHER LEARNING

initiatives. Additionally, the NIE also offers degree, diploma, and post-graduate programs for school leaders, senior teachers, and content specialists. The importance of in-service teacher training is further emphasized by the fact that every school has a School Staff Developer (SSD), an experienced teacher whose role is to ensure that the training and development programs offered to the school are customized to the needs of the teachers and support the learning aims of the school. The SSD works with all teachers to draw up individual development plans for each of them and also works with other middle managers to mentor and coach teachers in areas of capacity development. In doing so, the SSD plays an important role in helping every teacher develop professionally and continually and in establishing a culture of collaborative learning in the schools. To ensure the systematic implementation of professional development for all teachers, the Teacher Growth Model (TGM) was developed as a learning framework with five desired teacher outcomes: the Ethnical Educator, the Competent Professional, the Collaborative Learner, the Transformational Leader, and the Community Builder. The skills and competencies necessary for growth and development are listed under each outcome so that teachers know what needs to be acquired. Schools are free to use a variety of modes to carry out learning and development, such as courses, mentoring, e-learning, learning journeys, reflective practice, and research-based practice. Mentoring: Structured Mentoring Program (SMP) Singapore schools have a systematic framework in place for school-based mentoring for all beginning teachers known as the Structured Mentoring Program (SMP). The SMP is typically overseen by the school staff developer and school leaders. The SMP aims to formally standardize induction and mentoring practices across all schools to enable beginning teachers to learn with the support of a more experienced colleague. Through the SMP, mentoring and induction have become school-wide practices that benefit all teachers and encourage growth. School-level mentoring is especially crucial to beginning teachers. Experienced teachers act as mentors to provide beginning teachers with guidance and coaching so that they can effectively transfer their learning in pre-service training to their classrooms and acquire practical knowledge and skills in teaching (AST, n.d.). Mentors themselves need to understand that the goals of mentoring are threefold: to induct the beginning teachers into the school community; to ensure beginning teachers’ professional development; and to help beginning teachers achieve their personal and professional aspirations. To ensure mentors are well-trained, the Skillful Teaching and Enhanced Mentoring (STEM) program was launched in 2011. The objective of STEM was to discover good practices for the mentoring of beginning teachers and to level up the quality of teaching across schools. As part of STEM, the Mentor Preparation Program (MPP) was developed with the New Teacher Center in the United States. It focuses on the 137

E.-L. LOW

professional development of selected mentors, preparing them with the mentoring language, tools, and processes necessary for supporting beginning teachers. Mentors serve in three different capacities in the schools. First, the mentor coordinator is the one who leads the school’s mentoring program, acts as the “mentor for mentors” (Goodwin, Low, & Darling-Hammond, 2017) and drives the staff development program. Second is the mentor who is typically an experienced teacher and who supports the beginning teacher professionally and helps them to improve their competencies. Third, the specialized mentor is the one who helps the beginning teachers build knowledge and expertise in particular disciplines. The success of the SMP can be seen through TALIS results, which indicate that among all countries in the study, Singapore has the highest ratio of teachers serving as mentors (39 percent) or who currently have an assigned mentor (40 percent), in contrast to the TALIS averages of 14 percent and 13 percent, respectively (OECD, 2014). In addition, 85 percent of the mentees are assigned to mentors who teach the same subject, compared to the TALIS average of 68 percent (OECD, 2014). Besides the mentoring system in place in all schools, beginning teachers are also assigned a buddy, usually someone who is teaching the same subject. The mentor focuses on helping the beginning teacher in the aspects of teaching and pedagogy, while the buddy serves as a more immediate contact to help the beginning teacher adapt to the school in areas such as handling administrative matters and adapting to the department or school, as well as providing emotional support by being a friend and a listener. CONCLUSION

In this chapter, the Singapore story shows an intentional effort to re-think the goals and priorities of preparing teachers for twenty-first-century classrooms. There is extreme systematic coherence and goal alignment within the system, such that national education initiatives are formulated and translated into policies determining the type of teachers being recruited and guiding the design and enhancement of pre-service teacher education and professional development programs. The ultimate goal is to produce the desired twenty-first-century teaching professional that can develop students with the desired attributes of twenty-first-century learners to function effectively in the twenty-first-century global society and workplace. The main challenge of the twenty-first century is the ability to solve unprecedented problems that confront the world in an age where information transfer and technological advancement are taking place at breakneck speed. Education systems must endeavor to produce global and local citizens who are adaptable enough to take on jobs that have yet to be created as new economies emerge from the new knowledge created. To do so, teachers must allow students maximal exposure to solve real-world learning outside the confines of the classroom and via digitally enabled, simulated forms of reality.

138

THE CHANGING ROLES OF TEACHERS AND TEACHER LEARNING

REFERENCES Academy of Singapore Teachers (AST). (n.d.). Beginning teachers’ induction programme (BTIP). Retrieved from https://www.academyofsingaporeteachers.moe.gov.sg/professional-growth/professionaldevelopment-programmes/moe-teacher-induction-framework Goh, C. B., & Gopinathan, S. (2008). The development of education in Singapore since 1965. In S. K. Lee, C. B. Goh, B. Fredriksen, & J. P. Tan (Eds.), Toward a better future: Education and training for economic development in Singapore since 1965 (pp. 12–38). Washington, DC: The World Bank. Goodwin, A. L., Low, E. L., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Empowered educators in Singapore: How high-performing systems shape teaching quality. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lee, S. K. & Low, E. L. (2017). Singapore’s education system: Some key success factors. In O. Lee & T. Kroksmark (Eds.), The world’s best teaching (pp. 187–213). Lund: Studentlitteratur. Low, E. L., Lim, S. K., Ch’ng, A., & Goh, K. C. (2011). Pre-service teachers’ reasons for choosing teaching as a career in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 31(2), 195–210. Ministry of Education (MOE). (2016, October). Education statistics digest 2016. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/publications/education-statistics-digest/esd2016.pdf Ministry of Education (MOE). (n.d.a). About us. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/about Ministry of Education (MOE). (n.d.b). Career information. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/ careers/teach/career-information National Institute of Education (NIE). (2009). TE21 report: A teacher education model for the 21st century. Singapore: National Institute of Education. National Institute of Education (NIE). (n.d.). Teaching scholars programme. Retrieved from http://tsp.nie.edu.sg/message.htm OECD. (2014). Singapore: Key findings from the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS). Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/TALIS-2013-country-note-Singapore.pdf Spillane, J. P. (2005). Distributed leadership. The educational forum, 69(2), 143–150. Tan, O. S. (2015). Teacher polices: Global best practices for developing the teaching profession: Teacher symbolism (pp. 81–90). Retrieved from http://www.wise-qatar.org/sites/default/files/asset/document/ wise-research-2-nie-11_17.pdf Tan, O. S, & Low, E. L. (2016). Singapore’s systemic approach to teaching and learning twenty-firstcentury competencies. In F. M. Reimers & C. K. Chung (Eds.), Teaching and learning for the twentyfirst century (pp. 25–68). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Tricarico, K. M., Jacobs, J., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2015). Reflection on their first five years of teaching: Understanding staying and impact power. Teachers and Teaching, 21(3), 237–259. doi:10.1080/ 13540602.2014.953821

Ee-Ling Low National Institute of Education Nanyang Technological University Singapore

139

HANNELE NIEMI, AULI TOOM, ARTO KALLIONIEMI AND JARI LAVONEN

10. THE TEACHING PROFESSION AMID CHANGES IN THE EDUCATIONAL ECOSYSTEMS

ABSTRACT

This chapter summarizes the main themes that emerged in the individual articles of the book. Even though the contexts of the presented countries differed, the primary questions from each were quite similar. Many reflections focused on teachers’ professional autonomy, their voice in reforms, and their pedagogical leadership in both centralized and decentralized systems. Solutions varied, depending on the system, but a common theme was that high expectations and many tensions related to teachers’ professional roles and their contributions to educational systems exist. Teachers’ work has expanded both in and outside classrooms along with the requirements to support students’ learning of twenty-first-century skills and competencies. Therefore, teachers need to learn new methods and establish new partnerships with other teachers and educational actors, including administrators. Teachers’ professional work requires autonomy and support. It also requires that their viewpoints be considered when reforms are planned so that they have opportunities to take leadership roles in and ownership of their own work. The chapter concludes by stating that teachers are part of educational ecosystems; therefore, we must identify, analyze, and manage educational systems and their subsystems and understand what comprises teachers’ roles within the systems. Teachers’ work depends on macrolevel systems as well as institutional cultures; however, they are also actors who influence those systems and processes. Keywords: professional autonomy, teachers’ voice, leadership, educational system, educational ecosystems INTRODUCTION

The chapters in this book provide strong evidence that the role of teacher is changing all over the world. Teachers are in a middle of societal and technological changes. The authors of the various chapters in this book look at the changes from different educational contexts and describe how teachers are expected to prepare the next generation of citizens to be able to live and work in a future that is unpredictable and requires continuous learning and new meta-skills in changing conditions. Many of

© KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2018 | DOI 10.1163/9789004372573_010

H. NIEMI ET AL.

the authors reflect in a similar fashion as Leijen and Pedaste in Estonia on the fact that the knowledge capital of citizens is the most important force driving knowledge economies. The political, social, and economic advancements of any country heavily depend on how well they develop and tap into the intellectual potential of their youth. We can see that in many countries the abilities of students are seen from the viewpoint of their future working lives, and educational systems strive through major reforms to prepare their students for occupations in the twenty-first century. However, students in schools should not be viewed only as future workforces. Education is also needed for the students’ own lives. The task of schools is also to provide them with competencies to manage their own learning and grow as active citizens. In most countries, schools curricula are being reformed towards supporting the learning of twenty-first-century skills (cf. Voogt & Roblin, 2012; Griffin, Care, & McGaw, 2012). Lee and Tan state in their analysis of future skills that despite their varied emphases on frameworks of twenty-first-century skills definitions educators all mention some common skills, such as creativity, innovation, critical thinking, problem solving, communication skills, collaboration, information and digital literacy, conflict resolution, and social and inter-cultural skills. These skills are often given the following labels: twenty-first-century skills, competencies, core competences, transversal or generic skills. The new curriculum reforms have changed the way teachers are perceived. Teachers are expected to teach academic contents, but at the same time, they are now responsible for a whole host of wider, complex and often also multidisciplinary objectives. Consequently, education is important for the well-being of children of different ages. For example, it is known that quality education could have a strong impact on the reducing the numbers of unemployed young people the rates that they drop out of formal education (Berger & Fisher, 2013). We may ask how teachers can meet these goals? What kinds of pedagogies are required to teach these skills and in which kinds of curricular conditions could these pedagogies be utilised. In the chapters of this book, many themes related to the teachers’ role and tasks are connected to the changing conceptions of the teaching profession. The questions of professional autonomy, teachers’ voice in reforms, and teachers’ pedagogical leadership in centralized or decentralized systems need urgent attention in most countries. TEACHERS’ PROFESSIONAL AUTONOMY

Autonomy is one of the most important features in high level professions, such as medicine or professions related to the law. It is also a key factor in the teaching profession, but the degree to which teachers have autonomy varies. In some countries like Finland teachers have autonomy to design local curriculums, choose learning materials and decide teaching and assessment methods. In many other countries teachers are more controlled by national standards, students’ high-stake testing, and teachers’ professional assessments. 142

THE TEACHING PROFESSION AMID CHANGES IN THE EDUCATIONAL ECOSYSTEMS

Professional autonomy has many faces. Referring to Goe, Bell, and Little’s (2008) conceptualization, we agree that the professionalism and effectiveness of a teacher is typically approached through analyzing (a) the knowledge base of a professional teacher (the input approach), (b) the process or interaction that occurs in the classroom between the teacher and students (process approach), or (c) the outcomes of the teaching and learning process, such as students’ learning outcomes measured by national tests or graduation rates (the output approach). The first one, the input approach mainly considers teachers’ capacities to work as high-level professionals in schools. It often means high-level teacher education and support systems in schools to empower teachers in their work. The basis of autonomy is created already in pre-service teacher education (cf. Toom et al., 2017). The term “knowledge” is interpreted broadly in this context and is close to “competence” or “skill.” This knowledge base supports the broad planning, organization, and evaluation of teachers’ own instructional practices, student learning and learning outcomes. Broad planning encompasses the planning of local curriculums down to the planning of a single lesson. According to this input, professional teachers have a versatile knowledge base, allowing them to act as autonomous professionals. However, teacher autonomy does not only refer to an individual teacher and his/her competence to act autonomously but also to whole education context. In order for teachers to be autonomous school level factors and cultural and education policy factors should be supportive of this autonomy (Müller, Norrie, Hernández, & Goodson, 2010). For example, the nature of leadership, quality work, collaboration culture and the structure of networks and school-society-family partnerships are important school level factors that could support teachers’ autonomy. Moreover, cultural and education policy factors could support teacher autonomy and they include the state level education context, this includes considerations such is if the country follows a more accountability policy or it trusts teachers and does not rely on heavy inspection and testing. Singapore has invested a lot on teacher education and they have excellent learning outcomes in their schools. Finland is also a country where teachers go through a high quality 5-year academic programme. However, even though Singapore and Finland seem to be similar in emphasizing high quality teacher education, there are major differences in their output evaluation methods. In Singapore, national tests and standards are also driving forces for getting high quality learning outcomes. The Finnish system is based on trust and teachers are supported to use their professional capacities in schools without testing or inspection. Sample-based assessments are utilized only for development purposes, and their results are never published publicly. Consequently, in different education contexts teacher autonomy and teacher control could influence the quality of students’ learning outcomes. During their teacher education, teachers have to learn how and why the context and quality of work support or push teachers to implement high quality education. In the U.S., teachers have to cope with the intense pressures of a testing culture. the focus there being more on outputs than inputs. 143

H. NIEMI ET AL.

Leijen and Pedaste, when examining the Estonian context raised the question of why the teaching profession does not seem more attractive and teachers’ work is not more innovative. They came to the conclusion that one of the reasons might be that teachers’ autonomy has not received sufficient support; therefore, the willingness of teachers to adopt changes and their self-efficacy should be supported much more. They stress that the autonomies of schools and teachers autonomy should be strengthened in order to enhance teachers’ positions and the attractiveness of the profession in society. They also claim that more resources are needed for teachers’ continuous professional development. In the case of Malta, Bezzina claims that schools are becoming extremely demanding and complex environments. At the same time, teachers are faced with what Helterbran describes as “prescriptive, teacher-proof curricula and instructional strategies driven by politically mandated forces” (2008, 124), further augmented by top-down teacher accountability driven by standardized tests and external international testing. These demands and pressures have raised a clarion call to review how we conceptualize teacher professionlaism and the professional development of teachers. Bezzina argues for liberalizing professional learning so that school leaders and teachers could manage and control their own learning, even if they have to function in a context of restricted autonomy. This calls for a respect for teaching as a profession that allows space and time for teachers to engage in transformative learning from within. In all countries examined, teachers are tied to national educational goals and aims, but there are big differences in the extent to which teachers are allowed to work as real professionals. There are also big differences in how teachers learn to act in these kinds of roles already during their pre-service teacher education, and how they are supported in their role to work as independent professionals. This contradiction seems to grow if teachers are expected to work innovatively while developing teaching and learning in schools, but they lack the support and working conditions that are the critical features of a high-level professional community. HOW TEACHERS’ VOICES ARE HEARD?

Educational reforms are reality in all countries that have been described in the chapters of this book. There seem to exist big differences in how much teachers are involved and heard in the educational reform processes. The common problem in many countries is that reforms are top-down processes, and teachers feel that the innovations they produce were forced upon them. These kinds of experiences are known all around the globe. The Dutch authors, Wubbels and van Tartwijk describe a case where teachers’ voices were neglected in the national education reform in the Netherlands. A parliamentary committee recommended afterwards that these kinds of reforms should never be implemented again without support from the educational field and, more specifically, from the teachers. The committee set up by the minister of education reported that teachers had not been sufficiently involved in the design 144

THE TEACHING PROFESSION AMID CHANGES IN THE EDUCATIONAL ECOSYSTEMS

of the reforms, with negative effects for the success of the innovations and the satisfaction of teachers with their jobs. This committee advocated a stronger position of the teachers, for example, by introducing a professional register for teachers and developing criteria for excellence in teaching. What is the teachers’ voice and in which ways could it be heard? It may also be difficult to be reached and heard. The Maltese author, Bezzina of the individualistic nature of the teaching profession. Teaching is a solitary profession with teachers who spend a considerable amount of time isolated in the classroom. Due to the characteristics of the work, teachers work independently in lonely circumstances, and it is difficult for them to articulate what they know and to share what they have learned through their own practices with others (Attard Tonna & Calleja, 2015). He argues that the individualistic nature of teaching and the lack of a social dimension embedded within it precludes it from improving its efficiency and effectiveness through facilitated coordinated action (Putman, 1993). It would be necessary for teachers to come together to engage in a professional discourse, and so allow them to challenge the way they do things, thus helping each other to question actively, critically, and reflectively (Gordon, 2004). In order to attain a high quality professional status in society, teachers should have the capacity to let their voices be heard in educational processes. This will not happen if teacher do not have opportunities to grow as professional experts. The Maltese studies have shown that while education is prized for its high value and social contribution, this is not matched with respect and prestige (Portelli, 2004). Teachers can react with anger, frustration and disengagement to reforms due to the growing demands of the teaching profession. Their reasons may be related to limited support (Borg & Bugeja, 2015; Cutajar, 2015), but also to the teaching culture that has not allowed teachers to articulate their voice as professionals. CENTRALIZATION—DECENTRALIZATION OF EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS

Decentralization in education gives power to the local level. That is a typical feature in the Finnish educational system. Schools are responsible for the local curricula, which are designed by teachers and principals. Teachers have the freedom to choose which teaching and assessment methods they apply and what teaching and learning materials they use. The leading principle is that they make choices and decisions in line with the curricular goals that support various learners’ growth in the best possible way (Halinen & Järvinen, 2008). Collaborative planning is one part of the quality processes in Finnish schools. Moreover, the schools and teachers should be active in analysing the implementation based on different types of feedback. Interestingly, decentralization does not automatically mean teachers’ power or educational leadership. The American case described by LeTendre shows that decentralization can also become a significant barrier to teacher learning and professional development. The administration system at the local level can shift 145

H. NIEMI ET AL.

teachers’ leadership to the school administration. The chapter from the U.S. context describes how the division between teachers and administrators can make teachers powerless. Within schools, this division of teaching and school administration professions creates a culture of managers (principals) and employees (teachers) that subordinates teachers’ roles as leaders and reduces their effectiveness in managing schools. This is because the principal’s work includes not only budgeting, scheduling, and other managerial work, but includes also hiring new teachers, providing teacher evaluations, and acting as a leader in developing the schools’ educational objectives. Moreover, quality assurance is the responsiblity of the principals and other managers in the education administration outside the school. Education and certification processes for school administrators versus teachers have diverged, and this has resulted in two distinct school professions. Significant reforms have attempted to increase the integration of teachers, but the crucial need to promote the concept of teacher leadership indicates just how weakly institutionalized teachers’ leadership roles are in the U.S. This means that teachers have not been able to assert control over and set standards for their own training and certification in the same way as, for example, the legal and medical professions have. The Singaporean system is highly centralized. The system has invested a lot in teachers’ professional development. Low, the author of the Singaporean case, emphasizes that teachers need a strong sense of the purpose of teaching and the identity of the teacher. Teachers who have a strong professional identity also uphold their roles as professionals and are driven to continually learn in order to be able to deliver high standards of teaching in the classroom. As professionals, teachers strive to update their knowledge and use this knowledge. Teachers’ roles in Singapore are collectively determined by the Ministry of Education and the school leaders in line with the nation’s articulated and desired outcomes of education. In the Singaporean case, it seems that teachers are supported in many ways in their work, which brings a positive viewpoint to centralized systems. THE CONCEPT OF SCHOOL IS CHANGING

All the chapters from different countries claim there a huge change in teachers’ work. They also describe tensions and their solutions involved in how teachers’ professional role contribute to the educational systems. The twenty-first-century competencies are included in most countries’ school curricula and they set high demands on teachers. The work is expanding from classrooms to wider contexts. The OECD’s report (2009) on effective teaching recommends that it is useful to distinguish between teaching competences and teacher competences. Teaching competences are focused on the role of the teacher in the classroom and are directly linked with the ‘craft’ of teaching, including professional knowledge and skills mobilized for action (Hagger & McIntyre, 2006). Teacher competencies imply a wider, systemic view of teacher professionalism on multiple levels, including the individual, the school, 146

THE TEACHING PROFESSION AMID CHANGES IN THE EDUCATIONAL ECOSYSTEMS

the local community and professional networks. For example Finland and Estonia are emphasising in their new teacher education strategies or curricula new types of competencies emphasising the teachers’ role as creative designers of learning environments and competences which are needed in the collaborative development of school sites and operations. Based on an OECD Report (2001, p. 119), Lee and Tan describe scenarios for the role of schools in the future societies. The two scenarios of “de-schooling” and “re-schooling” can be identified already in many societies. The “de-schooling” scenario emerges through the “widespread establishment of non-formal learning networks, facilitated both by ICT and a ‘network society’ environment” (OECD, 2001, p. 119). On the one hand, there could be widespread dissatisfaction with the school systems from the public. On the other hand, the ubiquity of computers and the internet will allow students to access and share information freely. This scenario is in tune with the themes of the lifelong learning agenda, emphasizing flexibility and individualization. It stresses cooperation rather than competition. To a certain extent, this scenario is already visible society progresses towards the “network society. The “Re-schooling” category involves schools functioning beyond their traditional academic teaching role and assuming the role of social centres. There will be more of a partnership between schools and the community. The boundaries between formal and informal learning will become blurred, and there will be more emphasis on adopting lifelong learning skills. These two scenarios radically change teachers’ roles within and outside classrooms. The teacher’s role may be really different depending on the educational system. Without professional autonomy and support, it would be very difficult to aim at objectives that are very open, wide, complex and emphasize processes instead of mere outcomes or products. Teachers need new methods and also new partnerships between teachers and other educational actors including administration. Isolated, undervalued teachers or teacher proof curricula will not work in the circumstances where twenty-first-century skills and competencies are in focus. Teacher’s professional work needs autonomy and support. It also requires that the viewpoints of teachers are taken into account when reforms are planned and teachers have opportunities to take leadership roles in their own work. This does not happen in isolation. The only ways to change educational conditions and structures are partnerships and interconnectedness within the teaching profession. TOWARDS EDUCATIONAL ECOSYSTEMS

The ecosystem concept has recently been expanded to include more human contexts, especially social structures. A high level of interconnectedness and interdependence and the flow of information are the most important features of the ecosystem concept in biology. Human systems in the same way as natural environments, we can lose their functionality and resilience if some of the actors take control and exert their power and authority over others, and if communication only flows in one direction as 147

H. NIEMI ET AL.

it does in a top-down strategy. The system only functions well when all its different parts work together. Human ecosystems are led, intervened in and developed by humans and human actions. We must be aware of how different actors influence the system. We must identify the barriers and obstacles that should be overcome in order to make educational ecosystems functional. It requires that we identify, analyze and manage educational systems and their subsystems and understand what makes up the teachers’ role in the systems. Teachers’ work depends on macro-level systems as well as institutional cultures, but they are also actors who influence those systems and processes. We can learn from earlier studies (e.g. Walpole et al., 2016; Schwinda et al., 2016) that natural ecosystems that are impacted by human actions can have serious dysfunctions and imbalances, as we have learned from the many reports on climate change. The same is true for educational ecosystems. We can see that the partners and actors in these systems are often not interconnected. Many reports from different countries have highlighted the dire consequences systems if teachers are not heard and supported in their profession. We may ask how the systems can be developed to make teachers’ work meaningful and respected. The work done by teachers is a huge resource in economies, and as they are allowed to work as real professionals they can make their best contributions to their students and society. REFERENCES Attard Tonna, M., & Calleja, C. (2015). Teacher professional development and social networking: A case study of a professional learning experience. In C. Calleja & C. Johnston (Eds.), A learning paradigm: Informed knowledge of the learning self (pp. 101–118). Malta: Horizons. Berger, N., & Fisher, P. (2013). A well-educated workforce is key to state prosperity. Washington, DC: Economic Analysis and Research Network (EARN). Retrieved from http://www.epi.org/publication/ states-education-productivity-growth-foundations/ Borg, M., & Bugeja, S. (2015). The management of change in a context of reform (Unpublished B.Ed. (Hons.) Dissertation). University of Malta, Malta. Cutajar, M. (2015). An analysis of inter-school working in state-maintained colleges in the Maltese Islands (Unpublished PhD thesis). University of Bath, Bath. Goe, L., Bell, C., & Little, O. (2008). Approaches to evaluating teacher effectiveness: A research synthesis. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Gordon, S. P. (2004). Professional development for school improvement: Empowering learning communities. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Griffin, P., Care, B., & McGaw, E. (2012). The changing role of education and schools. In P. Griffin, B. Care, & E. McGaw (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 1–15). Dordrecht: Springer. Hagger, H., & McIntyre, D. (2006). Learning teaching from teachers: Realising the potential of schoolbased teacher education. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Halinen, I., & Jarvinen, R. (2008). Towards inclusive education: The case of Finland. Prospects, 38, 77–97. Helterbran, V. R. (2008). Professionalism: Teachers taking the reins. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 81(3), 123–127. Müller, J., Norrie, C., Hernández, F., & Goodson, I. (2010). Restructuring teachers’ work-lives and knowledge in England and Spain. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 40(3), 265–277.

148

THE TEACHING PROFESSION AMID CHANGES IN THE EDUCATIONAL ECOSYSTEMS OECD. (2001). Education policy analysis. Paris: OECD. Portelli, V. (2004). Exploring teacher motivation, satisfaction and health in the secondary sector (Unpublished B.Ed. (Hons.) Dissertation). University of Malta, Malta. Schwinda, J., Gilardia, K., Beasleyb, V., Mazeta, J., & Smitha, W. (2016). Advancing the ‘one health’ workforce by integrating ecosystem health practice into veterinary medical education: The envirovet summer institute. Health Education Journal, 75(2), 170–183. Toom, A., Pietarinen, J., Soini, T., & Pyhältö, K. (2017). How does the learning environment in teacher education cultivate first year student teachers’ sense of professional agency in the professional community? Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 126–136. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2016.12.013 Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299–321. doi:10.1080/00220272.2012.668938 Walpole, S. C., Pearson, D., Coad, J., & Barna, S. (2016). What do tomorrow’s doctors need to learn about ecosystems? Medical Teacher, 38(4), 338–356.

Hannele Niemi Faculty of Educational Sciences University of Helsinki Finland Auli Toom Centre for University Teaching and Learning Faculty of Educational Sciences University of Helsinki, Finland and Institute of Education, University of Tartu Estonia Arto Kallioniemi Faculty of Educational Sciences University of Helsinki Finland Jari Lavonen Faculty of Educational Sciences University of Helsinki Finland

149

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

Christopher Bezzina is Professor of educational leadership at the Faculty of Education, University of Malta. He is currently Deputy Dean and Head of the Department of Leadership for Learning & Innovation, and since 2016 a member of the Department of Education at Uppsala University, Sweden. He has taught and done consultancy work both locally and abroad in countries such as Albania, Belgium, Cyprus, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, the Seychelles and the United States. He is a Commonwealth Scholar and Fulbright Scholar. He is visiting professor at the University of Bologna, Italy. Dr. Bezzina has published in the areas of professional development and leadership in various peerreviewed journals, including a number of books. He is involved in various European and international educational institutions, and serves on a number of editorial boards. Dr. Bezzina is Vice President of the Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration and Management. Mingyuan Gu, Professor, is a distinguished professor at Beijing Normal University and a member of the National Education Advisory Committee, the Emeritus President of the Chinese Society of Education. He is one of the founders of comparative education in China, and has a significant impact on Chinese educational policy making and school practices. His research fields cover basic education, comparative education, teacher education and etc. Jukka Husu, PhD, is Professor of Education and Vice Dean at the Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Turku, Finland. His research focuses on teachers’ pedagogical knowledge, reflection, and ethical judgment in teaching. He has published extensively in internationally refereed journals and in edited books. Professor Husu is a member of the International Editorial Board of Teaching and Teacher Education. Together with Jean F. Clandinin, he has recently edited The Sage Handbook of Research on Teacher Education. Arto Kallioniemi, ThD, is Professor of Religious Education (2001–) at the University of Helsinki. Since 2017, Kallioniemi holds the UNESCO Chair on Values, Dialogue and Human Rights. Dr. Kallioniemi specializes in researching RE in multicultural societies. He has published several articles in RE teacher education and RE’s task in societies. In addition, he has also written many articles related to education for diversity. He has contributed to many EU projects. Furthermore, he has served seven years as the Chair of Finnish Association in Subject Pedagogy. Jari Lavonen, PhD, is a Professor of Science Education (2003–) and Director of the Department of Teacher Education, University of Helsinki, Finland. His main 151

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

research interests lie in science teaching and learning and use of ICT in education. He has published, together with other researchers, 142 scientific papers in refereed journals and scholarly books, 129 other articles, and 166 other publications. He has been a director (PI) of 18 research projects with external research funding, and he has supervised 20 PhD theses. He has been active in the international research community and active in international collaboration, for example in Peru, Norway and South Africa. Wing On Lee is Distinguished Professor of Education at Zhengzhou University, China. He was previously Chair Professor of Comparative Education and a Vice President at the Open University of Hong Kong. He has also served as Dean of Education Research and Professor of Education at National Institute of Education, Singapore; Vice President (Academic) & Deputy to President, Acting President and Chair Professor of Comparative Education, Founding Dean of the School of Foundations in Education, Head of two Departments and Centre for Citizenship Education at the Hong Kong Institute of Education; Professor of Education at the University of Sydney; and Founding Director of Comparative Education Research Centre at the University of Hong Kong. Prof Lee is a world-renowned scholar in the fields of comparative education and citizenship education. He has published some 30 books and over 170 journal articles and book chapters. He is a former President of the World Council of Comparative Education (2010–2013) and has served as Honorary Professor in many esteemed universities, including the University of Hong Kong, University of Sydney and Beijing Normal University. Äli Leijen, Dr., is a Professor of Teacher Education at the Institute of Education of the University of Tartu, Estonia. She is also the head of the Institute of Education and the coordinator of the doctoral education programme in Educational Sciences. Her main research themes are student teachers’ professional development, supporting students’ metacognitive processes in different contexts, development of professional identity, ICT for supporting pedagogy, and characteristics influencing doctoral education. She is an active member of several research organizations, e.g. EARLI, AERA, ISATT. Currently she is an Executive Committee member of EARLI. She is also a founding member of the Estonian Young Academy of Sciences. Gerald LeTendre is the Batschelet Professor of Educational Administration at the Pennsylvania State University and editor of The American Journal of Education. His recent books include The Routledge International Handbook of Teacher Quality (2017) with M. Akiba; Promoting and Sustaining a Quality Teaching Workforce: Conflict, Convergence and Consensus (co-edited with A. Wiseman, 2015); and Improving Teacher Quality: The U.S. Teacher Workforce in a Global Context (co-authored with M. Akiba, 2009). In 2016 he held a Fulbright research

152

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

fellowship at Sophia University in Tokyo where he conducted research on selfinitiated teacher professional development and online learning in Japan. Ee-Ling Low, Professor, PhD, is the Chief Planning Officer, Director’s Office at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. She obtained her PhD in Linguistics from the University of Cambridge, UK under the University’s Overseas Graduate Scholarship award. She won the Fulbright Advanced Research Scholarship in 2008 which she spent at Boston College. She played a leading role in the conceptualization of the NIE Strategic roadmap: towards 2017 and the development of the Teacher education for the 21st century (TE21) model. In 2012, she was awarded the Public Administration Medal (Bronze) by the President of the Republic of Singapore. Hannele Niemi, PhD, Professor of Education (1998–) at the University of Helsinki. Since 2017, Niemi holds the UNESCO Chair in Educational Ecosystems for Equity and Quality of Learning. Niemi was the Vice-Rector responsible for academic affairs at the University of Helsinki in 2003–2009. She has published hundreds of articles and tens of books on education and teacher education in Finland (e.g. Finnish Innovations and Technologies in Schools, 2014; Research-Based Teacher Education in Finland, 2006; and Education as a Societal Contributor, 2007) and contributed to many international education publications. She has published in over ten languages. She has contributed to many European Union and OECD projects as an expert or researcher and served as a keynote lecturer of teacher education in more than 30 international forums. Margus Pedaste, Dr., is a Professor of Educational Technology at the Institute of Education of the University of Tartu where he is leading the Centre for Educational Technology. He is also the head of Pedagogicum, which is a consortium of all UT’s faculties for coordinating teacher education. On the national level he is leading the Council for Professions in Education. His main research themes are educational technology, science education, inquiry-based learning, technology-enhanced learning and instruction, digital competences, and learning analytics. He is an active member of several professional associations, e.g. EARLI, AERA, IEEE. Currently he is the Vice-Chair of IEEE Estonian section. Jennifer Pei-Ling Tan is Senior Research Scientist (Learning Sciences Lab) and Assistant Dean (Knowledge Mobilisation) at the Office of Education Research, National Institute of Education Singapore. She specialises in technology-mediated pedagogical innovations aimed at assessing and fostering 21st century literacies and dispositions in learners. She leads a portfolio of competitively funded research projects that sees her working closely with schools and policymakers to design, implement and evaluate a suite of web-based collaborative learning and formative

153

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

learning analytics initiatives to promote collaborative creativity and criticality in young people. Dr Tan holds doctorate and master degrees in Philosophy, Education and Business. Jan van Tartwijk, PhD, is professor of education in Utrecht University, The Netherlands. Auli Toom, PhD, Professor of Higher Education, is the Director of the Helsinki University Centre for University Teaching and Learning at the Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki. She is also the director of PsyCo (Psychology, Learning and Communication) doctoral programme. Dr. Toom holds adjunct professorships at the University of Helsinki and University of Eastern Finland and is Visiting Professor at University of Tartu, Estonia. Her research focuses on teacher’s pedagogical knowing, agency and teacher education as well as the scholarship of teaching and learning. She investigates student learning of knowledge work competencies, pedagogies and digital technologies supporting learning in the contexts of upper secondary and higher education. She leads and co-leads several research projects on teacher education and higher education. She is the Executive Editor of Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice. Her research articles have appeared in several scientific journals and edited books. She is a regular keynote speaker and facilitator at national and international educational conferences and seminars. She has also worked as an expert in many international teacher education researches and development projects. Theo Wubbels, PhD, is an emeritus professor of education and former dean in Utrecht University, the Netherlands. Currently he is president of the European Educational Research Association. His main research interests developed in his career from the pedagogy of physics education, via problems and supervision of beginning teachers and teaching and learning in higher education to studies of learning environments and especially interpersonal relationships in education. His most recent work focuses on multicultural classes, assessment of teacher interpersonal behavior, teacher learning and teacher cognitions about interpersonal relationships. He published widely in international journals and edited several books in Dutch and English.

154