Introduction

Qualified and professional vocational teachers (VTs) are seen as one of the important factors in achieving the goals of the European Union (EU) in vocational education and training (VET), such as improving quality, attractiveness and competitiveness as well as enhancing cooperation (Cedefop, 2012; Duch, 2018; Maastricht Communiqué, 2004; Misra, 2011; Nielsen, 2010; Serafini, 2018). Achieving the EU VET goals has increased standardisation in many EU member states (Loogma, 2016). For example, since Estonia regained its independence, VET has had a wide range of reforms under the logic of a neoliberal labour market involving creating a legislative framework at multiple levels. Consequently, the Vocational Education Institutions Act (1995, 1998, 2013) and the Professional Act (2000, 2008) have been adopted, which have provided the basis for the establishment of a professional qualification framework. Based on this framework, professional standards and national curricula have been developed. Estonian VET reforms have also focused on making more efficient use of resources, and improving the social image, quality, timeliness and transparency of VET and ensuring access for everyone. Therefore, the network of VET institutions has been reorganised, new forms of VET (e.g. students without basic/comprehensive education, learners with special needs) have been introduced, learning environments have been modernised, cooperation between VET institutions and enterprises has been made more effective, and more flexible forms of learning have been introduced, including work-based learning and e-learning (Estonian Ministry of Education and Research, 2005, 2009; Loogma, 2016; Vocational Education Institutions Act, 2013). Increasingly, there is an emphasis on the need to increase learner-centredness and develop learners’ key competences in the context of lifelong learning to ensure better compliance with employers’ demands and reduce drop-out rates in VET (Estonian Ministry of Education and Research, 2009; The Estonian Lifelong Learning Strategy, 2014). In addition, since 1995, the introduction of the new concept of vocational teachers in Estonia has tightened the educational and qualification requirements for VTs, which has also diversified their tasks (Kutseõpetaja statuut, 1995). Currently, VT qualifications are assessed on the basis of vocational teacher professional standards at four levels, which contain detailed competences with descriptions of performance indicators to be met by the knowledge, skills and activities of VTs (Kutseõpetaja, tase 5, tase 6, tase 7, tase 8, 2021). As we can see, these changes in Estonian VET have been influenced by EU VET policies (Estonian Ministry of Education and Research, 2009; Loogma, 2016; The Copenhagen Declaration, 2002).

Under these circumstances, there is intense pressure on VTs to continuously develop their professionalism, including adjusting their current perceptions, behaviours and roles, in order to meet stricter demands, expectations and changes in VET, the labour market and society, as well as to help execute changes, solve problems and achieve goals in VET (Cedefop, 2012; Duch, 2018; Maastricht Communiqué, 2004; Misra, 2011; Nielsen, 2010; Serafini, 2018; Singh, 2011). Therefore, VTs have to first understand the need for, and importance and meaning of the changes (Spillane et al., 2002). Unfortunately, previous studies have shown that VTs experience and perceive changes differently (e.g. Boldrini et al., 2019; Vähäsantanen & Eteläpelto, 2009; Vähäsantanen et al., 2008); therefore, all educational reforms have not been implemented as planned (Fullan, 2007; Spillane et al., 2002).

Considering the above, the expectations require VTs to embrace a changing/new kind of professionality to manage their work in the demanding context of VET and the labour market. Although the regulatory documents (e.g. Estonian Ministry of Education and Research, 2005, 2009; Vocational Education Institutions Act, 2013; Kutseõpetaja statuut, 1995; Kutseõpetaja, tase 6, tase 7, tase 8, 2021) describe the requirements and expectations about what kind of professionals VTs should be, the problem is that regulatory documents do not reflect the knowledge of how VTs themselves perceive the demands and expectations placed on them, or how they experience the changes taking place in VET, and how they see their role and contribution to achieving the objectives of VET. Therefore, their personal perception of their professionalism can conflict with the requirements and expectations placed upon them, leading to job dissatisfaction, low commitment and lack of motivation. This, in turn, can hinder the achievement of VET objectives.

Previous studies have emphasised the need to explore the actual individual views, experiences and professional practices of teachers, which Hoyle (1974) has conceptualised as teacher professionality and which should shape and help redefine the actual professionalism of teachers (Evans, 2008; Evetts, 2011; Goodson, 2003). Despite the fact that the importance of VTs in VET has been emphasised, their professionalism and professionality have been studied remarkably little, and there is no clear concept of the VT profession (Duch, 2018; Misra, 2011; Nielsen, 2010). In addition, the concepts of teacher professionalism and professionality have mostly been studied in the context of general education teachers (e.g. Evans, 2008; Goodson, 2003; Hargreaves, 2006; Hoyle, 1974, 2001a, 2008; Simons & Ruijters, 2014). Previous studies of VTs have focused more on the narrower aspect of professionalism, involving elements such as their professional development (Andersson & Köpsén, 2015; Köpsén & Andersson, 2017; Serafini, 2018), identity (Vähäsantanen & Eteläpelto, 2009häsantanen et al., 2008), agency (Vähäsantanen, 2015), professional roles and work in changing contexts (Cort & Rolls, 2010; Hautz, 2020; Kats et al., 2010). It has been found that the work of VTs is fragmented between different types of tasks (Nielsen, 2010) and VTs have different perceptions of their professionality (e.g. Hautz, 2020; Köpsén & Andersson, 2017häsantanen et al., 2008). Therefore, it is not clear how various factors, including VET changes, can shape VTs’ perceptions of their professionality.

Hence, a comprehensive understanding of the professionality of VTs in the context of changes in VET is lacking. Based on a meta-study (see Cheung, 2015; Cohen et al., 2007), it is possible to present a more comprehensive understanding of the professionality of VTs and provide an empirical model using previous studies (Sirk et al., 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020; Sirk & Liivik, 2017). Therefore, the aim of this study is to formalise a comprehensive understanding through an empirical model of vocational teacher professionality in the context of VET changes based on the example of Estonian VET. Theoretically, this aim relies on Hoyle’s concept of teacher professionality (1974, 2008), which has been further developed by Evans (2008). In more detail, analysing the professionality of VTs in the context of changes in VET, the focus is turned to individual aspects of the work of VTs, which are related to such elements of their work as knowledge, skills, procedures, what they implement in their practice, and also how individual factors (e.g. self-efficacy, commitment) may influence or shape their professionality. The following research questions are posed:

  • Which changes in VET have affected the work of VTs the most?

  • Which factors shape the professionality of VTs?

  • How are VTs differentiated according to their professionality and the changes in VET?

Theoretical Framework

The Concepts of Profession, Professionalism and Professionalisation

Describing teaching as an occupation involves concepts like profession, professionalism, and professionalisation, as well as professionality, professional development and professional. Therefore, to better understand VET teacher professionality, the first of these concepts is explored below.

A profession indicates the status, position and power of one occupation in society (Hoyle, 2008; Noordegraaf & Schinkel, 2011; Schinkel & Noordegraaf, 2011) as a result of which one occupational group is distinguished from others (Hoyle, 1982; Ingersoll & Merrill, 2011). A profession with a historically high status carries economic (material value), social (legal power/authority given to representatives in society) and cultural (knowledge-based preparation) value (Schinkel & Noordegraaf, 2011), which provides the profession autonomy and self-regulatory power (Loogma, 2014). For an occupational group to be called a profession, it has to meet the characteristics of a profession, and professionalism can be seen in individuals that show or highlight those characterisitics (Schinkel & Noordegraaf, 2011). Therefore, professionalism describes the content and resources of a profession (Noordegraaf & Schinkel, 2011; Schinkel & Noordegraaf, 2011), referring to the required knowledge-based tasks and activities that belong to a profession and set out its functions, capabilities and sustainability (Loogma, 2014; van Ruler, 2005).

The process whereby one occupational group tries to achieve the specific characteristics of a profession, such as a better position and higher status in society, is called professionalisation (Hoyle, 1982, 2001a, b, 2008; Ingersoll & Merrill, 2011; van Ruler, 2005). At the level of the occupational group, this implies a diversified development of the content of professionalism (Schinkel & Noordegraaf, 2011). The aim is to achieve public recognition (Evetts, 1999; Freidson, 2001; Hoyle, 2001a, b, 2008) by improving reliable indicators; that is, the ability (science-based development of knowledge and skills) to ensure the quality of work (Hoyle, 2001a, b; Ingersoll & Merrill, 2011). At the individual level, professionalisation means membership of a particular occupational group, acquiring the necessary knowledge base (education) and adopting professional behaviour (Hoyle, 1982; Noordegraaf, 2007; van Ruler, 2005). As a result, one becomes a professional (Loogma, 2014). Being continuously professional is essential to professional development, which includes an individual’s initial professional training, an induction period and continuing development during a career, where knowledge and skills are upgraded, and new roles, responsibilities or practices are adopted, depending on changes in the field and the development of professionalism (Hoyle, 1982). Therefore, in the context of one occupational group, two facets of professionalisation can be seen, which influence each other: the development of professionalism as an occupational group and the continued development of the professionals within the occupational group (Hoyle, 2008). The professionalisation of VT in the EU has been seen as the updating, upgrading and development of competences that ensure everyday professional practice/action, taking into account the specificities of the profession (Misra, 2011; Nielsen, 2010).

On the other hand, understandings of professionalism change and depend on the historical-cultural and social context (Evans, 2008; Evetts, 2018; Hargreaves, 2006; Hoyle & Wallace, 2014). Therefore, professionalism is seen as dynamic, with no defined and ubiquitous general characteristics (Schinkel & Noordegraaf, 2011). The most common is the traditional or classical conception of professionalism, according to which an occupational group that can be called a profession is characterised by high status in society, self-regulation, autonomy and control over the content of its work, academic education, control over entry into the occupational group and a specific professional ideology (Freidson, 2001). On this basis, lawyers, doctors, and engineers, among others, have been considered professions (Freidson, 2001; Hoyle, 1982, 2001b; Ingersoll & Merrill, 2011; Noordegraaf, 2007; Noordegraaf & Schinkel, 2011), as they fulfil the criteria specific to the profession and the boundaries of their professions are clear (Freidson, 2001; Noordegraaf, 2007). The teaching profession has been seen as a semi-profession (Goodson, 2003; Hoyle, 2001; Ingersoll & Merrill, 2011), and its struggle for the status of a real profession has been one of the main features of the professionalisation of teachers (Hoyle, 2001b).

It has been acknowledged that a variety of societal, political, labour market (including internationalisation) and organisational changes affect the characteristics of traditional professionalism. For example, the external regulation of work (e.g. established standards, measurement of activities), auditing and control has increased (Evetts, 2018; Noordegraaf, 2007; Schinkel & Noordegraaf, 2011) and work has become more multifunctional, so that occupations may not be as clear-cut as traditional professionalism tries to present (Evetts, 2011, 2018; Noordegraaf, 2007; Noordegraaf & Schinkel, 2011).

Due to the changes, two strands of professionalisation have emerged in the development of professionalism: de-professionalisation and re-professionalisation. De-professionalisation refers to the regression of classic professions, which consists in the devaluation of their previous meanings, in particular in terms of a decline in autonomy (Evans, 2008; Ingersoll & Merrill, 2011; Loogma, 2014; Noordegraaf, 2007; Noordegraaf & Schinkel, 2011). In the case of re-professionalisation, there has been an attempt to reconceptualise professionalism in terms of social and economic changes (Evans, 2008; Evetts, 2011, 2018; Noordegraaf, 2007).

In the development of teacher professionalism, several researchers have attempted to define and describe the new/modern professionalism in teaching (e.g. Fullan, 2007; Goodson, 2003; Hargreaves, 2006; Hoyle, 2001b; Simons & Ruijters, 2014). It has been emphasised that the new professionalism of teachers should be democratic, open, inclusive and authoritative (Fullan, 2007; Hargreaves, 2006), shaped by committed professional teachers through communities (Hargreaves, 2006; Simons & Ruijters, 2014). These communities should be responsible for developing the teachers’ own culture, self-control, ethics and self-regulation, while also monitoring the quality of education and the practices implemented (Simons & Ruijters, 2014). In terms of content, teacher professionalism emphasises the quality of teaching and learning (Hoyle, 2001b; Simons & Ruijters, 2014), the complex tasks they implement (Glazer, 2008; Goodson, 2003) and teachers’ commitment to student well-being (Goodson, 2003; Simons & Ruijters, 2014). In a changing work environment, teachers must have freedom of choice, but responsibility and the ability to make thoughtful, justified decisions about teaching, curriculum and students must also accompany that freedom. By performing complex tasks and continuously improving the quality of teaching and learning in collaboration with colleagues, the status, prestige and authority of the teaching profession will increase, which in turn should support teacher autonomy (Hoyle, 2001b; Simons & Ruijters, 2014). Therefore, the nature of autonomy in the new teaching professionalism is manifested on the basis of multifaceted collaboration and collective decision-making (Vangrieken et al., 2017). While authority and autonomy have previously been seen as an attribute of professionalism (Freidson, 2001; Hoyle, 2001b), in the new professionalism of teachers, it is seen as a benefit achieved through quality teaching work (Simons & Ruijters, 2014).

Based on the new concept of professionalism, the teachers’ initial preparation must stem from a science-based education, but continuous professional self-development is essential to ensure continuing quality and should support the further professionalisation of the teaching profession (Hargreaves, 2006; Hoyle, 2001b; Simons & Ruijters, 2014). Professionalisation should take place collaboratively and be based on valid competence requirements/standards (Goodson, 2003; Hargreaves, 2006; Hoyle, 2001b; Simons & Ruijters, 2014). At the centre of the new teaching professionalism is the learning professional who learns collaboratively through sharing practices, seeking to relate them to theoretical knowledge and thereby construct new knowledge, but also vice versa, to make sense of new theoretical knowledge and apply it in practice (Simons & Ruijters, 2014). At EU level, teaching is a profession with an academic education in a lifelong learning context, where partnership and its dynamism are essential (Misra, 2011).

In summary, the new teaching professionalism highlights what kind of professional a teacher should be and what standards and expectations teachers should meet. At the core of the new teaching professionalism is a continuous process of professionalisation and collaboration that seeks to ensure quality and raise the status of the profession. Teachers must take responsibility for developing their own professionalism.

Teachers’ Professionality

Hoyle (1974) has distinguished professionalism and professionality in the professional lives of teachers, whereby teacher professionalism is a sociological concept that describes a broader socially constructed understanding (e.g. status) of the teaching profession (Hargreaves, 2006; Hoyle, 1974, 2008), and professionality can be viewed as the teachers’ own individual view of work which encompasses their actual knowledge, skills, procedures, experiences, understandings – what they implement in their practice and how (Hoyle, 1974, 2008). In this way, teacher self-efficacy, pedagogical beliefs, commitment, and individual aspects of teaching (Girardet & Berger, 2018), as well as the context of the work, can also describe and shape teacher professionality (Evans, 2008).

In his model, Hoyle (1974) differentiates between restricted and extended professionality. A teacher with restricted professionality is autonomous and acts individually. S/he is guided by a narrow, classroom-based perspective, which is related to the everyday practices of teaching without seeing her/his activities in the wider social and educational context. Her/his everyday teaching is mainly based on experience and intuition. As a result, self-development can also be limited. A teacher with extended professionality has a much wider vision or understanding of what education is and its role in society. This professional teacher values theoretical principles and knowledge of pedagogy in work, and acts creatively on this basis. S/he has a broader understanding of the work and role and a sense of responsibility in shaping the students’ lives. The extended professional acts collaboratively in teaching and decision-making. For example, the development of curricula, and the selection of methods and materials are carried out in a collegial context. Collaboration also takes place in broader activities that do not directly affect daily work, such as in networking and professional associations (Hoyle, 1974, 2008).

Hoyle presents these two opposing professionals as ideal models, which Evans (2008) has developed further, forming a continuum where these ideals represent the endpoints, but teachers may position themselves on the continuum at different points depending on their professional orientation. Evans (2008) has also argued that professionalism should consist of the individual views of members of the profession and reflect the professional’s actual activities, practices, experiences and understandings. This leads to different patterns of professionality, and therefore, professionalism (Evans, 2008).

Molla and Nolan (2020), like Hoyle, highlight two aspects of teachers’ professional practice – the objective and the subjective. The objective side is seen as the professionalism of teachers, which involves the systemic, political and institutional regulation of teachers’ actions (Molla & Nolan, 2020). The subjective side aligns with Hoyle’s approach to professionality, which encompasses the individual side of the work of teachers – their own perceptions, experiences, professional actions, values and attitudes as well as professional actions both individually and collectively. They also emphasise the interplay between the objective and the subjective sides because teachers’ actions are constrained (e.g. by environmental conditions) and constantly interact with the objective context of teaching (Molla & Nolan, 2020), which may influence (i.e. hinder and/or enable) teacher agency. Agency is understood as a teacher taking an active role in her/his professional context (Vähäsantanen, 2015). It is manifested in the ability to make decisions, adopt changes and act according to certain principles based on her/his professionality and the goals set in a given context (Molla & Nolan, 2020häsantanen, 2015). For example, some teachers are active in reflecting on the content, conditions and methods of their work or, more broadly, in trying to influence the content and organisation of educational change (Vähäsantanen, 2015). Such active engagement can influence changes in teachers’ professionalism (Duch, 2018).

Consequently, professionality characterises the teacher as an individual and professionalism, the professional/occupational group as a whole (Evans, 2008; Hoyle, 1974, 2008; Molla & Nolan, 2020). Simultaneously, professionality and professionalism are interdependent and need to be considered together. Therefore, professionalism is seen at the macro (society, state, labour market and occupational group), meso (organisation) and micro (professionals) levels (Evetts, 2003). Teacher professionality is in constant change, manifested, for example, in the adoption or emergence of new understandings (attitudes) and tasks, being linked in particular to factors influencing the work, experience, practice, organisation and so on. Therefore, teacher professionality and professionalism are complex and changing (Goodson, 2003, 69).

The Importance of Autonomy and Collaboration in Teacher Professionality

The above showed that autonomy and collaboration are key factors in the professionalism and professionality of teachers. Autonomy has been seen as a symbol of the status of professionalism (Freidson, 2001; Hoyle, 2001b), and collaboration as a tool to ensure the quality of professionalism (Simons & Ruijters, 2014). Simultaneously, they have been described as opposing factors. Therefore, they need to be explored in greater depth in the context of teacher professionality, and the essential links they have with teacher self-efficacy, pedagogical beliefs and commitment to work should be highlighted.

The importance of collaboration has been stressed in addressing extended professionality (Hoyle, 1974, 2008) and new professionalism (Fullan, 2007; Goodson, 2003; Hargreaves, 2006; Hoyle, 2001b; Simons & Ruijters, 2014). At the same time, collaboration has been seen to reduce autonomy as teachers lose control over their own teaching activities and the content of teaching is subject to control (Hoyle, 1974; Vangrieken et al., 2015) due to the need to comply with educational policy requirements and standards (Torres & Weiner, 2018) and prescribed curricula (Wermke & Höstfält, 2014), as well as teaching outcomes measured in terms of student learning outcomes (Erss, 2018; Glazer, 2008). All the requirements that teachers have to satisfy are like mechanisms of control, and to cope in this situation teachers need to collaborate more, and therefore move from an independent classroom to a dependent classroom (Hoyle, 1974, 2008). One of the reasons for this is that teachers become responsible for implementing collaboratively developed activities in an agreed way, which inhibits their freedom of action in the classroom (Erss, 2018; Hoyle, 1974).

Autonomy is known to play an important role in professional action and decision-making, and in teachers’ work, it has primarily meant finding the best solutions to problems based on their students (Evetts, 2002; Parker, 2015). A lack of autonomy reduces teacher job motivation, satisfaction and empowerment (Pearson & Moomaw, 2005, 2006), and can lead to frustration and stress, as well as a weakening of their professionalism (Pearson & Moomaw, 2006).

In contrast, the new autonomy of teachers has been found to be based on collaboration and collective decision-making (Erss, 2018; Pearson & Moomaw, 2005, 2006; Vangrieken et al., 2017), which enhances trust and authority in the teaching profession (Erss, 2018; Simons & Ruijters, 2014). Simultaneously, the nature of autonomy may be understood differently at the professional and individual levels (Pearson & Moomaw, 2005; Rønningstad, 2017), making teacher autonomy ambiguous, with different emphases at its core, such as individual, collective, and unsupervised activity (Erss, 2018).

Evetts (2002) argues that the term discretion should replace autonomy, as it better represents professional actions and decision-making based on the relevant legal norms (e.g. EU directives, professional standards for VT, school regulations), which can be considered restrictions. Notably, autonomy cannot be seen as a matter of free action alone (Wermke & Höstfält, 2014): individual and collegial decision-making among teachers should retain a certain discretion, within which justified decisions are taken, based on expertise, but guided by a binding framework, such as required legal norms (Evetts, 2002; Torres & Weiner, 2018; Wermke & Höstfält, 2014). Previous research has shown that some teachers perceive legal norms as an opportunity and that unfettered autonomy does not suit everyone, as some need more guidance and rules that can simplify and determine rather than hinder their work (Erss, 2018; Torres & Weiner, 2018). It has also been stressed that improvements in the quality of education do not depend on freedom or control, but on other aspects (Simons & Ruijters, 2014). Therefore, professional autonomy means teacher discretion, the scope of which depends on time and context (Wermke & Höstfält, 2014).

In the context of educational change, collaboration has become the universal way of responding and adapting to change and demands, as the demands placed on teachers (including VTs) and schools can only be met in collaboration with other actors, such as colleagues, businesses, different organisations and professional associations (Beverborg et al., 2015; Duch, 2018; Fullan, 2007; Hargreaves, 2006; Messmann et al., 2018; Misra, 2011; Runhaar et al., 2016; Vangrieken et al., 2015, 2017). Collaborative activity helps to make sense of change and its relevance to teachers’ work and professionality, and allows for a more coherent understanding of demands (Fullan, 2007; Spillane et al., 2002). Research has shown that teachers (including VTs) who belong more to collaborative and learning communities are more likely to adopt educational change and have a more positive attitude towards it (Fullan, 2007; Spillane et al., 2002; Vähäsantanen & Eteläpelto, 2009) and this has an impact on their self-efficacy, motivation (Beverborg et al., 2015; Durksen et al., 2017; OECD, 2014; Runhaar et al., 2016; Vangrieken et al., 2015) and job satisfaction (Taimalu et al., 2020). Moreover, collaborative networking helps teachers cope with stress and provides a safe community for problem-solving (Boldrini et al., 2019; Messmann et al., 2017äsantanen et al., 2008) and supports and expands the professional development of VTs (Andersson et al., 2018; Messmann et al., 2018; Runhaar et al., 2016). VTs who value self-development in networks also value individual learning or development, but not vice versa (Andersson et al., 2018).

Collaboration also influences teacher self-efficacy, which encompasses individual attitudes and beliefs and is expressed in the teacher’s ability to successfully carry out professional activities (Bandura, 1997), but is also linked to teacher self-confidence and self-awareness, which are revealed in teaching, classroom management, student engagement and influencing academic outcomes (Klassen & Chiu, 2010; OECD, 2014). Previous research has shown that teachers with high self-efficacy are better able to cope with complex and demanding pedagogical tasks and situations (Chesnut & Burley, 2015), set more demanding goals (Beverborg et al., 2015) influence student learning outcomes (Chesnut & Burley, 2015; Durksen et al., 2017), and are more successful in overcoming stress and avoiding burnout (Klassen & Chiu, 2010; OECD, 2014; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014). Teachers who are more collaborative and have higher self-efficacy are also more effective and innovative in their teaching (Runhaar et al., 2016), have better technology skills, and their students have better learning outcomes (Vangrieken et al., 2015). Teacher self-efficacy is also an important basis for the motivation to teach (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014), which influences the decision to continue in the profession, professional enthusiasm and behaviour (Durksen et al., 2017).

Teacher self-efficacy is associated with pedagogical beliefs and commitment to the profession, as well as their work (Chesnut & Burley, 2015; OECD, 2014). Pedagogical beliefs include personal beliefs about learning and teaching, reflecting teachers’ perceptions of what and how students should learn (Errington, 2004), and can be the result of a variety of factors (e.g. becoming a teacher, personal experience, formal preparation, self-development, etc.) (OECD, 2014). A primary distinction is made between traditional and constructivist pedagogical beliefs (Vinter, 2017). Traditional beliefs are reflected in the teacher’s understanding that teaching is primarily based on the direct transfer of knowledge from the teacher to the learner, leaving the learner in a passive role as a receiver of information. In contrast, constructivist beliefs based on the learner-centred approach are reflected in the teacher’s perception that learners are active knowledge creators. The focus is on the learner’s development of thinking and making causal connections through problem-solving, inquiry and/or collaborative learning (OECD, 2014; Vinter, 2017). For example, teachers who engage in collaborative professional self-development activities, such as research, peer observation, qualification programmes, conferences, networking, collaboration and mentoring, are more likely to apply innovative (Singh, 2011; Vangrieken et al., 2015) and activating methods in their teaching, tend to hold constructivist beliefs (OECD, 2014; Taimalu et al., 2020) and have higher self-efficacy (Taimalu et al., 2020).

Professional commitment is the voluntary desire and need of teachers to be involved in teaching and reflects their responsibility to the profession (Klein et al., 2014). Committed teachers demonstrate a strong commitment to the profession (Parker, 2015), enthusiasm and passion for teaching, and continuous professional development (Chesnut & Burley, 2015; Yildiz & Celik, 2017). This can be expressed through longer working hours, genuine care for students and colleagues (Chesnut & Burley, 2015), and a constant search for new ways of teaching (Chesnut & Burley, 2015; Yildiz & Celik, 2017). Professional commitment is also associated with job satisfaction, which includes satisfaction with the profession and the work environment with supportive leadership, positive social relationships with colleagues and collaboration (OECD, 2014; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014äsantanen et al., 2008). Teachers’ satisfaction with their work, tasks and environment increases their commitment and intention to continue teaching and reduces burnout (Chesnut & Burley, 2015; OECD, 2014).

Therefore, it can be concluded that collaboration is related to teacher self-efficacy, commitment (including job satisfaction), motivation and pedagogical beliefs, which in turn influence each other. In sum, these are important characteristics of teacher professionality.

Methods

Data and Participants

This meta-study re-analyses data from five empirical studies (Sirk et al., 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020; Sirk & Liivik, 2017) which have been previously combined in different ways and can now provide a more comprehensive view of the professionality of VTs. The five single studies carried out so far do not provide a comprehensive understanding of the nature of the professionality of VTs, but they provide results that allow us to answer the research questions and to achieve the aim of this study: to formalise a comprehensive understanding through an empirical model of vocational teacher professionality in the context of VET changes based on the example of Estonian VET.

The empirical data used in the previous studies were collected in two stages through a sequential combined research strategy (Creswell, 2012; Tashakkori & Newman, 2010). The strategy involved a qualitative phenomenological study (Creswell, 2013; Smith et al., 2009) followed by a quantitative cross-sectional survey (Creswell, 2012).

First, data were collected qualitatively, based on the nature of a phenomenological research strategy and using purposive sampling (see Creswell, 2013; Smith et al., 2009). This approach allowed a better description and understanding of the actual changes experienced in VET and their meanings in reindependent Estonia through the experiences of VTs (Sirk et al., 2016). VTs with at least 20 years of teaching experience were included in the purposive sample. A semi-structured interview guide with themes focusing on changes in the working lives of VTs was prepared for the individual interviews (Sirk et al., 2016, 2019). The individual interviews, which lasted 1–2 h, took place in 2014 and involved nine volunteer teachers. The teaching experience of the interviewees ranged from 23 to 47 years, and their ages from 52 to 72 years. Six of the interviewees were women, and the rest were men (Sirk et al., 2016). The results of this qualitative study served as one basis for the development of the following quantitative research instrument (Sirk & Liivik, 2017; Sirk et al., 2019, 2020).

Second, data were collected quantitatively based on the nature of cross-sectional research. This strategy is understood as a survey conducted at a specific time through which assessments, beliefs, opinions, attitudes and practices can be analysed (Cohen et al., 2007; Creswell, 2012). The quantitative study aimed to investigate the professionality of VTs and changes in their work, and their attitudes and practices regarding work life (Sirk & Liivik, 2017; Sirk et al., 2017, 2019, 2020). To collect the data, a questionnaire consisting of different parts was designed. The parts of the questionnaire focusing on changes in VET and the student population were developed based on the previous findings of the qualitative study (Sirk et al., 2016) and the analysis of documents on educational policy changes. The questionnaire sections exploring VTs’ pedagogical beliefs, commitment, self-efficacy, job satisfaction, collaboration in school and professional development were based on the TALIS, 2008 and, 2013 surveys and questions. The questions on professional development as various learning activities were also based on the results of a qualitative study (Sirk et al., 2016). Furthermore, to measure teacher autonomy in classroom activities, there were questions developed by Moomaw (2005). The survey was conducted in 2015 (Sirk et al., 2017, 2020).

All 37 Estonian VET institutions were included in the sample and 32 VET institutions (86.5%) agreed to participate. An e-questionnaire was sent out to 1,685 respondents, whose contacts were obtained from the vocational institutions’ websites, of which 501 VTs completed it voluntarily, representing 22% of the total population. Of the respondents, 87% filled in the questionnaire in Estonian, 65.5% were female, 73% taught vocational subjects and the remainder were general subjects. The average years of teaching experience of the respondents was 15 years (SD = 10.97), ranging from half a year to 48 years. In terms of age, the largest proportion of VTs (34%) were aged 55 and over, followed by 31% aged 45–54, then 21% aged 35–44, and the smallest proportion (14%) were aged under 34. Only 1.5% of the respondents had a doctoral degree, 58% a master’s degree, 23% a bachelor’s degree and 11% a higher professional education, while the remainder had vocational secondary education. In terms of institutional size, 60% of teachers worked in VET institutions with more than 700 students. The distribution of respondents was compared with that of the entire population of VTs in terms of age, gender, and county. The largest discrepancy in distribution was observed by county, and therefore the data were weighted by county. This process and the sample’s percentage of the total population provided the representative sample for the study (Sirk et al., 2017, 2019, 2020).

Data Analysis

In order to achieve the study’s aim and answer the research questions, this study is based on a meta-analysis, drawing on the results of five previous empirical studies (Sirk et al., 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020; Sirk & Liivik, 2017); therefore, a secondary data analysis is conducted (Cheung, 2015; Cohen et al., 2007).

Cohen et al. (2007, 291) have stated that “meta-analysis is, simply, the analysis of other analyses. It involves aggregating and combining the results of comparable studies into a coherent account to discover the main effects”. Meta-analysis allows both quantitative and qualitative identification of generalisations from different studies, as well as the discovery of gaps and new emphases in existing studies (Cohen et al., 2007). Using meta-analyses also stresses that the conclusions from multiple previous studies should reveal problems that a single study cannot answer. The main problem addressed in this study is that a comprehensive understanding of the professionality of VTs in the context of changes in VET is lacking. In addition, it is stressed that the questions posed by the study must be able to be answered on the basis of previously published findings (Cheung, 2015; Cohen et al., 2007). Therefore, adopting a meta-analysis allows the results of previous studies to be synthesised and provide a more comprehensive picture of the phenomenon under study (Cohen et al., 2007).

Meta-analysis can use a variety of data analysis methods (Cohen et al., 2007). Based on the research questions, the following steps are implemented in the analysis for this article.

First, a more holistic analysis of the VET changes perceived by VTs to have had the greatest impact on their work revealed differentiation among VTs based on their perceived needs for VET changes. The categorisation of perceived VET changes by teachers is based on VET priorities (Estonian Ministry of Education and Research, 2005, 2009; The Copenhagen Declaration, 2002). These changes perceived by Estonian VTs will be compared with the findings of other international studies.

Second, the nature of the professionality of VTs is described based on Hoyle’s conception of professionality as well as other relations with the characteristics and/or factors of VT professionality.

Third, cross-tables are used to analyse the differentiation of VTs that appeared in previous studies on the basis of VET changes and professionality. The statistical significance of the results is assessed by applying a Chi-Square test (Table 1). Based on this result – a more comprehensive understanding of VT professionality and the nature of professionalism – an empirical model is created (Fig. 1).

Results and Discussion

VET Changes that Have Most Affected the Work and Professionality of Vocational Teachers

The analysis of previous studies showed that the work of Estonian VTs and their working environment has been most shaped by the multifaceted standardisation of VET with collaboration, the prioritisation of openness through the student population, and image-building in VET. As a result, the work of teachers has become more complicated, complex, time-consuming and stressful (Sirk et al., 2016, 2020). Similar changes have been observed by VTs in other countries (e.g. Switzerland, Denmark, Austria, the Netherlands, Spain and Finland) (Boldrini et al., 2019; Cort & Rolls, 2010; Hautz, 2020; Kats et al., 2010; Molina et al., 2010äsantanen & Eteläpelto, 2009; Vähäsantanen et al., 2008). At the same time, VTs have different perceptions of the necessity of VET changes in their daily work, and this has led to differentiation (Sirk et al., 2020).

Multifaceted Standardisation

In the work of VTs, multifaceted standardisation has manifested itself primarily through the implementation of the qualification system, the creation of professional standards, and the reform of national and school curricula (Sirk et al., 2016, 2020; Sirk & Liivik, 2017). Teachers have evaluated this complex change as one of the most necessary changes in VET (Sirk et al., 2020), and the majority of them have also directly experienced the standardisation (Sirk & Liivik, 2017).

From the experience of the VTs, it can be concluded that the creation of professional standards and the national and school-based curricula based on them have ensured greater comparability and transparency in VET, allowing for the flexible mobility of learners between VET institutions. In addition, curricular changes have set clearer boundaries for the content of teaching, which has given VTs confidence, clarity and certainty in the subjects they teach and a better understanding of the expectations of employers, including the labour market in general (Sirk et al., 2016). As a result, everyday teaching has become more goal-oriented (i.e. based on learning outcomes), better integrated between specialist theory and practice (Sirk et al., 2016), and also general knowledge (Sirk et al., 2020). This change challenges the professionality of VTs because complex knowledge and skills have to be taught in a shorter period of time without compromising quality (Sirk et al., 2016). Consequently, based on the experiences and evaluations of VTs, it can be concluded that the standardisation of learning content has helped them to improve the quality of VET. Furthermore, upgrading the physical learning environment, including new tools and equipment, has also contributed to improving the quality of VET (Sirk et al., 2016; Sirk & Liivik, 2017).

In the context of teaching, VTs have highlighted moving towards learner activation in the learning process, as the dictation of the past has been replaced by more student engagement through discussion, hands-on activities (Sirk et al., 2016) and e-learning used in combination with other methods (Sirk et al., 2020). Despite this, there are opinions among VTs that the former traditional methods are more effective due to weaker learners (Sirk et al., 2016). A pattern emerges from the pedagogical beliefs of VTs that considers a constructivist approach to learning, where learning should be more based on learners’ independent analysis of problems and problem-solving, as the most important. But the traditional approach is also sufficiently highly valued (Sirk et al., 2020).

In Estonia, VET has undergone several reforms of professional standards, including curricula, in a short period, which has led VTs to perceive excessive haste and curriculum development becoming project-based without broader discussion and deeper analysis (Sirk et al., 2016). As a result, the most recent curricular change, where the transition to outcome-based learning took place, has not been clear for many VTs, and this change has been experienced only in the formulation of learning outcomes, which creates difficulties (Sirk et al., 2016) and a deeper understanding of the change has not been achieved (Spillane et al., 2002). This has led to dissatisfaction among VTs, who felt that previous professional standards and curricula were sufficiently meaningful and understandable. This curricular change also led to an increase in the proportion of independent work for learners, which meant that the work of VTs began to involve planning and feedback on independent work, which, according to experienced VTs, was not included in their working time. It has also resulted in a reduction in the length of the training period with an increase in the content taught. According to experienced VTs, this has an impact on the development of specialist skills in the students, as there is not enough time to develop some skills (Sirk et al., 2016). Studies of Finnish VTs have also shown that too much haste in implementing reforms without wider discussion and the involvement of VTs leads to confusion, inhibits making sense of the change and the committed implementation of the change, and creates conflicting feelings among VTs (Vähäsantanen, 2015häsantanen & Eteläpelto, 2009häsantanen et al., 2008). In addition, standardisation has increased the share of administrative tasks in the work of VTs (Sirk et al., 2016, 2020), which is experienced by more than half (63%) of the VTs surveyed (Sirk & Liivik, 2017). Increases in administrative work have also been observed by VTs in other countries (Dutschke, 2018häsantanen et al., 2008) but are not justified by standardisation. This increased amount of administrative work causes a reluctance in VTs because they feel a deep concern that teaching itself is increasingly of secondary importance to completing the administrative tasks in their professional work (Sirk et al., 2016). Therefore, it can be concluded that standardisation has, to a certain extent, supported the work of VTs, but since 2009, when the transition to outcome-based learning started (Loogma, 2016), standardisation has been perceived more negatively as it has started to overshadow teaching.

In the process of standardisation, the importance of collaboration has been highlighted in the everyday activities of VTs (Sirk et al., 2016, 2017, 2020). Among VTs, collaboration takes place through different activities and at different intervals (Sirk et al., 2017). VTs perceive the expansion of networks, a system of knowledge sharing between teachers, mentoring and increased involvement in school leadership as important in their work (Sirk et al., 2016), but only half of them have experienced this (Sirk & Liivik, 2017). Collaboration has overwhelmingly been supported by curriculum development (including the integration of subjects and development of common assessment criteria), in which VTs also more often participate (Sirk et al., 2016, 2020). In contrast, VTs are less often engaged in some types of professional collaboration (e.g. exchanging teaching materials with colleagues, sharing best practices, observing colleagues’ lessons, participating in various joint activities) (Sirk et al., 2017, 2020), although some VTs have experienced its benefits in their everyday work (Sirk et al., 2016). It can be concluded, therefore, that VTs more often participate in collaboration that is instigated, organised and supported in a top-down manner (Sirk et al., 2017, 2020), and VT initiated collaboration is less common. An important finding was that collaboration among VTs has become an important method of self-development and adapting to changes (Sirk et al., 2016, 2017, 2020), but VTs do not relate this with the requirements written into their professional standards (Kutseõpetaja, tase 6, tase 7, tase 8, 2021).

The VT profession has been consistently standardised (Sirk et al., 2016, 2020; Sirk & Liivik, 2017), but standardisation appears itself in the experiences of VTs through different meanings and evaluations. First, VTs have perceived that their professional profile is defined as a better integration of specialist theoretical knowledge and practical skills in the learning process. Second, most of the respondents have not noticed the implementation of VT professional standards in their work (Sirk et al., 2016; Sirk & Liivik, 2017) and the professional standard is not considered to be important for the assessment of their professionality (Sirk et al., 2020). Rather, VTs have experienced increased responsibility to teach students specialist knowledge and skills that meet employers’ expectations and are tested in professional examinations (Sirk et al., 2016). This has become a mechanism for the external control of the work of VTs, which has also been observed internationally (Nielsen, 2010), but few VTs accept this form of control (Sirk et al., 2020), as not everything related to the learners is dependent on them (Sirk et al., 2016; Sirk & Liivik, 2017). Therefore, VTs do not directly perceive that the tightening of formal qualification requirements has affected their professionality.

The Prioritisation of Openness in VET

The prioritisation of openness in VET has been revealed in the work of VTs, particularly in the diversification of the student population (Sirk et al., 2016, 2019; Sirk et al., 2020): both challenging youths and demanding adult students need to be taught (Sirk et al., 2016, 2019; Sirk & Liivik, 2017). VTs have different experiences of the changes (positive, negative and diverse) in the student population, which mainly depend on the teacher’s own age, pedagogical experience, school size and the nature of the student groups being taught (Sirk et al., 2019). Accordingly, the VTs who positively evaluated the changes in the student population were younger and had shorter teaching experience. They also taught fewer youths and in smaller VET institutions. VTs with negative experiences of the changes in the student population taught in larger VET institutions, taught more youths, had mainly between 6 and 19 years of teaching experience, and were aged between 35 and 54 years. VTs with diverse experiences taught student groups of different levels and ages and in different sizes of VET institutions, and mostly had more years of teaching experience (more than 20 years) and were older (Sirk et al., 2019). In contrast, in the Netherlands, female VTs in particular noticed the worrying aspects in learners, and teacher age and length of teaching experience did not play a role (van Middelkoop et al., 2017).

The most experienced VTs in Estonia have experienced deteriorating levels of basic knowledge and skills among youths (aged 15–19), which they attribute to the general education policy decision to reduce the practice of repeating classes in basic education (Sirk et al., 2016, 2019) and this has created a need for VTs to teach knowledge and skills which students have not acquired in basic education (Sirk et al., 2016). VTs have not understood this development as a VET policy priority that enables academically less able young people to participate in society and working life (Estonian Ministry of Education and Research, 2009). VTs have experienced a lack of motivation among young people, which they have explained in terms of youths making the wrong career choices and a poorly functioning career counselling system. This has required teachers to improve their skills to make the learning process more interesting and engaging, thereby stimulating student interest in learning. VTs have experienced and linked the social and personal problems of youths to changes in social processes and lifestyles, partly due to Estonia’s transitional period – the transition from one regime to another and the labour migration resulting from the opening of the borders (Sirk et al., 2016, 2019). According to the VTs, societal changes have reshaped people’s lifestyles and the meaning of the traditional family, and have reduced some parents’ responsibility and interest in their children’s future, including their studies (Sirk et al., 2016, 2019). Moreover, students with little family support drop out of education more easily (Sirk et al., 2016). In this situation, VTs are forced to provide more support to the learners in their daily social and personal lives and to take responsibility for shaping the youths’ lives (Sirk et al., 2016, 2019, 2020). This means the VTs have to assume the pastoral care role generally performed by parents and to accept the role of a ‘social worker’ (Sirk et al., 2016, 2019). Nevertheless, this role is perceived differently by VTs; some of them see the pastoral care of students as part of their professionality more than others (Sirk et al., 2019, 2020), and this depends on the VTs having higher levels of self-efficacy, commitment to the profession and scope of collaboration. Such VTs are more likely to perceive their role as including pastoral care for their students (Sirk et al., 2017, 2020). Similar changes in the student population have also been reported in studies from other countries (e.g. Boldrini et al., 2019; Cort & Rolls, 2010; Eiriksdottir & Rosvall, 2019; Kats et al., 2010; Molina et al., 2010; van Middelkoop et al., 2017), but little has been done to explain their causes. In some EU countries, these problems are more associated with students who have migrant backgrounds and lack a Western culture of learning (van Middelkoop et al., 2017), and this did not appear in the experience of Estonian VTs (Sirk et al., 2016).

The analysis reveals that VTs have positive experiences with motivated adult students who are aware of their career choices, eager to learn, self-directed learners and have higher expectations in terms of learning specialist knowledge and skills (Sirk et al., 2016, 2019). At the same time, adult students differ in terms of age, previous education and experience, and this has an impact on their learning. VTs have perceived different learning speeds among adult students, requiring them to be able to better differentiate their teaching methods (Sirk et al., 2019) and to use different types of learning tasks and materials (Sirk et al., 2016). Adult students also need to be given greater flexibility in the learning process, as they plan their learning alongside other commitments (work, family life, etc.) and may, therefore, often be absent but are self-directed enough to cope (Sirk et al., 2019).

Developing the Image of VET

The construction of the image, popularity and attractiveness of VET has become more obvious in the work of VTs in preparing students for vocational competitions. This, in turn, has added an internationalisation dimension to their work, as competitions take place outside Estonia and require the VT to have a higher level of professional knowledge and skill, and ability in foreign languages (Sirk et al., 2016). VTs have experienced this as an additional time-consuming task (Sirk et al., 2016), but it is also one of the compulsory parts of the work according to VT professional standards (Kutseõpetaja, tase 6, tase 7, 2021), which shows that some VTs are not aware of the requirements imposed on them by the state and that these are not checked in schools. Despite their efforts, VTs have experienced that the image of VET has remained unchanged compared to general education, and the status of their profession is low. Experienced VTs associated their status with rights, which were greater during the Soviet era and seemed to guarantee respect for the profession. Now, the changed circumstances demand different personal skills and qualities from VTs, as well as different behaviours. Working as a VT means presenting your profession in a positive light and taking pride in it, being committed and assertive, and earning respect from others through professionality (Sirk et al., 2016).

Differentiation of Vocational Teachers in the Context of Change and Factors Influencing it

The analysis revealed that there are differences of opinion among Estonian VTs on the need for change (Sirk et al., 2020), which has also been observed in international studies (Boldrini et al., 2019; Hautz, 2020äsantanen & Eteläpelto, 2009häsantanen et al., 2008). Therefore, based on their assessment of the necessity of change, Estonian VTs can be differentiated into three clusters: critics, supporters and moderate supporters of the reform policies.

On this basis, 25% of VTs are critical of the changes in VET. Critics consider that many of the changes in VET are not necessary for their work. They evaluate the collaboration and the implementation of a qualification system as slightly more necessary. They are most critical of changes in their professional assessment, which is largely based on learner support and learning outcomes. They also do not attach much importance to their own involvement in the management of the school and to their commitment to cultivating the students. The results also show that critics are not very self-aware and confident in teaching and supporting learners. In terms of pedagogical beliefs, they support traditional teaching beliefs more and constructivist teaching beliefs less (Sirk et al., 2020).

The next 24% of VTs consider the changes in VET that have taken place in their work to be necessary, so they are supportive of the changes. These teachers see all changes in VET, including changes in their professional assessment and the need to increase their commitment to the pastoral care of students as relevant in their work. They are more self-aware and confident in teaching and supporting learners and have stronger constructivist teaching beliefs (Sirk et al., 2020).

The remaining 51% of VTs consider the changes to be moderately necessary in their work (Sirk et al., 2020). These teachers evaluate the changes in VET as rather necessary in their work and consider collaboration, the implementation of a qualification system and their own involvement in the school management as more important. Compared with the critics, the moderates are more self-aware and confident in teaching and supporting learners and are more guided by constructivist teaching beliefs (Sirk et al., 2020).

The results also show that the evaluation of the VET changes among VTs is related to their self-efficacy, professional commitment, job satisfaction and also various collaboration and learning activities (Sirk et al., 2020). In other words, VTs who perceived change as more necessary in their work also assessed their self-efficacy in teaching, commitment and job satisfaction as being higher. Moreover, these VTs participate more frequently in various collaborative and learning activities as part of their self-development (Sirk et al., 2020). Thus, the results suggest that all of these factors are important and help to shape VT perceptions of the need for or importance of change. Studies of Finnish VTs have also revealed that collaborative activities have helped them to better understand the meaning of the change, supported adaptation, given them a more positive attitude and facilitated the implementation of the change (Vähäsantanen et al., 2008).

The Factors that Have Shaped the Professionality of Vocational Teachers

Analysing the professionality of VTs based on Hoyle’s model of teacher professionality has revealed three clusters of VTs, where the important differentiating factors in the context of changes in VET were the scope of collaboration, its diversity and frequency, and their various learning activities as self-development (Sirk et al., 2017). Therefore, the following clusters of the professionality of VTs emerged: extensively networked (27%), collaboration-detached (28%) and school-centred professionals (45%).

The first cluster consists of extensively networked professionals, who most often engage in a wider scope of collaboration, including inside and outside their school (Sirk et al., 2017). Compared to the VTs in the other clusters, they more often participate in both formal training and research-based collaborations and see their greater role in school leadership. While difficulties have emerged in the context of changes in student populations (Sirk et al., 2019, 2020), compared to others, extensively networked professionals perceive a greater role for themselves in shaping students’ lives through education. Despite extensive collaboration, they still feel autonomy in organising their teaching. These professionals are more satisfied with their job and results and more confident in their choice of profession. They also evaluate the status of VTs in society as higher, but this does not distinguish them from other clusters of VTs to a statistically significant level (Sirk et al., 2017).

The second cluster contains collaboration-detached professionals, who very rarely engage in collaboration compared to the other clusters. In particular, there is a contrast with extensively networked professionals. Nevertheless, these clusters do not differ in their perception of autonomy in organising teaching. Their role in school management is perceived as being more modest than that of the professionals in other clusters, but their influence in shaping the lives of students is perceived as equal to that of the school-centred professionals. Collaboration-detached professionals are less satisfied with their job and more uncertain about their choice of profession. Therefore, they would not choose this profession again. They also rate the status of VTs in society as the lowest (Sirk et al., 2017).

The third cluster is made up of school-centred professionals, who are located between the two previous professional groups and are the most numerous among our VTs. Their collaboration activities and practices take place mainly in their own school context. They see themselves as playing a greater role in school management than the collaboration-detached professionals, but they do not differ from them in perceiving their role in shaping the students’ lives. School-centred professionals perceive autonomy in the organisation of teaching to be slightly less than the others but still sufficient. In terms of job satisfaction and choice of profession, they are more similar to collaboration-detached professionals. According to their assessment of the status of VTs, they are located between the two clusters (Sirk et al., 2017).

Therefore, an important factor that can be identified from the findings is the collaboration of VTs, which, in the context of professionality, fosters a more positive and satisfied attitude towards their work and profession and supports continued professionalisation.

Conceptualising Vocational Teachers’ Professionality and Professionalism: Creating an Empirical Model

From the same database, two ways of clustering VTs emerged (Sirk et al., 2017, 2020), which raised the question of whether these clusters are related and would provide a more comprehensive basis for conceptualising the professionality and professionalism of VTs. Therefore, a cross-table analysis (Table 1) was applied, where these earlier clusters of VTs (Sirk et al., 2017, 2020) were analysed together. The results revealed that critics are more associated with collaboration-detached professionals. Second, supporters of the reform policies correlate with extensively networked professionals. Third, VTs who were moderate supporters of the reform policies were more linked to school-centred professionals (Table 1). The differences in the results revealed based on the Chi-Square test are statistically significant (χ²=110.21; p = 0.00).

Table 1 Cross-clusters of vocational teachers
Full size table

Therefore, based on the results obtained, three more comprehensive profiles of VTs can be highlighted, which have emerged in the context of VET changes (Fig. 1): (1) supporters of the reform policies and extensively networked professionals; (2) moderate supporters of the reform policies and school-centred professionals, and (3) critics of the reform policies and collaboration-detached professionals.

Accordingly, slightly more than a quarter of Estonian VTs consist of professionals who are supporters of the reform policies and extensively networked professionals. They are involved in a variety of collaborative and learning activities inside and outside schools. Based on Hoyle’s (1974) model of professionality, they resemble extended professionals but also learning professionals (Simons & Ruijters, 2014), as they acquire new knowledge and skills through high-level theoretical training and practical activities (Sirk et al., 2017). These professionals perceive their role in education in a broader sense. This manifests itself in shaping students’ lives and in a desire to participate in school management. In addition, they more often participate in collaborative networks outside school; for example, professional associations in the field and other organisations. Their perception of what is happening in the classroom is wider through sharing best practices with colleagues (including comparing teaching methods), observing and giving feedback on colleagues’ lessons, and participating in collaborative activities between different study groups. The development of the curriculum and their own teaching takes place in collaboration (Sirk et al., 2017). Collaboration is also seen by these professionals as one of the most essential changes in their work (Sirk et al., 2020; Fig. 1). Supporters of the reform policies and extensively networked professionals have higher self-efficacy and are more focused on innovative teaching, which is supported by their collaborative activities (Sirk et al., 2017, 2020). These professionals also have more positive work attitudes and commitment to their profession. Therefore, they might be the most successful in shaping the professionalism of VTs in a positive direction (Hargreaves, 2006; Simons & Ruijters, 2014). In other words, these professionals reveal continuous collaborative professionalisation across a wide scope (Hargreaves, 2006; Hoyle, 2008; Simons & Ruijters, 2014): they actively adapt to VET changes, and thereby influence the re-professionalisation of the professionalism of VT the most in its substantive renewal based on the changes (Duch, 2018; Evans, 2008; Evetts, 2011, 2018; Noordegraaf, 2007). Furthermore, it can be suggested that supporters of the reform policies and extensively networked professionals also have stronger and broader agency (Molla & Nolan, 2020häsantanen, 2015).

The second group, which is the largest, is made up of moderate supporters of the reform policies and school-centred professionals, and they are located between the two professional groups (Fig. 1). Their collaboration is more strongly linked to in-school initiatives (Sirk et al., 2017, 2020). They are moderately self-efficient and adapt to teaching innovations in a balanced way. Despite this, their moderate collaborative practice did not sufficiently support their job satisfaction and commitment to the profession to distinguish them from critics of the reform policies and collaboration-detached professionals, although they scored slightly higher on these characteristics (Sirk et al., 2017, 2020). Therefore, these professionals can be recognised as having moderate levels of agency (Molla & Nolan, 2020; Vähäsantanen, 2015), where both re-professionalisation and de-professionalisation aspects emerge. Therefore, those changes that are experienced more positively and which facilitate or support their work are considered part of their own professionality, while those changes that are perceived as negative, restrictive, and/or challenging to their work cause them to attempt to maintain their own practice unchanged (Sirk et al., 2020). Nevertheless, it appears that moderate supporters of the reform policies and school-centred professionals are more engaged in re-professionalisation, and therefore their professionalism is also renewed compared to critics of the reform policies and collaboration-detached professionals (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Professionality of vocational teachers

Full size image

The third group is made up of critics of the reform policies and collaboration-detached professionals (Fig. 1), who are almost detached from, or very rarely participate in, collaboration or different joint (including learning) activities (Sirk et al., 2017). This group of professionals consider changes that demand more collaboration as rather necessary, but they hardly participate in these activities (Sirk et al., 2020). These professionals also have lower self-efficacy, are less open to innovative teaching and more guided by traditional teaching, and need help adapting to or making sense of change. At the same time, activities which should support adapting to changes in their work are also missing (Sirk et al., 2017, 2020), making them not active professionals in the professionalisation process (Simons & Ruijters, 2014). They try to maintain their traditional roles and tasks (Sirk et al., 2020). This situation has affected their job satisfaction and commitment to the profession and has led to de-professionalisation (Evans, 2008; Ingersoll & Merrill, 2011; Noordegraaf, 2007; Noordegraaf & Schinkel, 2011; Pearson & Moomaw, 2006). In other words, specific changes tend to be perceived as limiting and are rejected in their work (Sirk et al., 2016), leading to the degeneration of VT professionalism. For example, they do not see the need for an external assessment of their work, which is mainly based on student support and learning outcomes, and on a qualification system for VTs (Sirk et al., 2020). One can argue that VTs belonging to this professional profile stand out for their restricted agency (Molla & Nolan, 2020häsantanen, 2015). Although these professionals are autonomous (Sirk et al., 2017), they cannot be equated with the restricted professionals presented in Hoyle’s (1974) model, as they perceive their own activities and contributions in education more broadly than what is confined to a classroom-centred perspective: these VTs perceive their role in shaping students’ lives through education (Sirk et al., 2017), but they nevertheless resist the duty of pastoral care of students in their professionality (Sirk et al., 2020).

According to Evans (2008), the professional profiles of VTs can be viewed on a continuum (Fig. 1). On the left, there are professionals who are critics of the reform policies and collaboration-detached professionals who wish to maintain their professionality unchanged. In the middle ground are moderate supporters of the reform policies and school-centred professionals trying to find balance in the changing circumstances. The right side of the continuum has the supporters of the reform policies and extensively networked professionals that constantly develop their professionality through collaboration. Based on Evans (2008), the professionality of VTs is shaped by various collaborative and learning activities associated with the teachers’ evaluation of the importance of the changes in VET, their understanding of their teaching practice and their attitude towards their roles (e.g. caring about or cultivating the students) but also their job satisfaction and commitment to the profession.

Hoyle’s (1974) model of professionality allowed us to open both collaboration and autonomy in the professionality of VTs. The three profiles of VT professionality revealed that collaborative VTs perceive autonomy in the organisation of teaching at the same level as collaboration-detached professionals (Fig. 1; Sirk et al., 2017). Therefore, while various collaborative activities have been seen as reducing teacher autonomy (Erss, 2018; Hoyle, 1974; Vangrieken et al., 2015) and as a mechanism of work control (Hoyle, 1974, 2008), this did not emerge in the case of the VTs. Consequently, autonomy and collaboration are not opposing dimensions in VT professionality (Sirk et al., 2017). Furthermore, previous studies have shown that a lack of teacher autonomy can reduce teacher job satisfaction (Pearson & Moomaw, 2005, 2006). The results of this study showed that autonomy did not increase job satisfaction and commitment to the profession – this role was fulfilled by collaboration. In short, the more collaborative VTs are, the more satisfied they are with and committed to their job and profession (Sirk et al., 2017). Therefore, a new sense of autonomy can be seen in more collaborative VTs (see Evetts, 2002; Pearson & Moomaw, 2005, 2006), which is based on collaboration activities and decision-making (Erss, 2018; Pearson & Moomaw, 2005, 2006; Vangrieken et al., 2017) but it does not preclude autonomy (Vangrieken et al., 2017). On the other hand, VT perceptions of autonomy vary (Sirk et al., 2017), and according to Evetts (2002), perhaps it would be better to use instead of autonomy the term ‘discretion’ – where decisions are made within a bounded framework. For example, the standardisation of learning content in VET has provided VTs with clearer boundaries and certainty in the topics they teach (Sirk et al., 2016) but has still left them a certain degree of freedom (or discretion) in organising their teaching (Sirk et al., 2017).

It has been pointed out that teacher professionality and professionalism influence each other (Evans, 2008; Hoyle, 1982, 2008), and that different patterns of professionality and, therefore, professionalism can coexist (Evans, 2008). Based on this premise, and looking at the three professional profiles of VTs with the teachers’ new professionalism, similar characteristics emerge with supporters of the reform policies and extensively networked professionals as well as moderate supporters of the reform policies and school-centred professionals. These VTs have perceived the opportunities and willingness to have a say in various school management issues, as well as opportunities to collaborate more widely, and thus, their professionalism is characterised by openness and democracy. The qualification requirements for VTs have been tightened, and they perform complex tasks, as highlighted by the new professionalism of teachers. The professionalisation of these teachers is characterised by more collaborative activities and different ways of learning, which include linking theory and practice (Sirk et al., 2016, 2017, 2020). VTs perceive a better quality of teaching (Sirk et al., 2016, 2020). In collaborative practice, they have retained freedom of choice in the organisation of teaching. It can be argued that the perceived freedom of choice is related to trust in their work (Erss, 2018; Simons & Ruijters, 2014), and they feel responsible for teaching students the specialist knowledge and skills they need (Sirk et al., 2016). Some VTs are more committed to caring for and cultivating students, but the majority of VTs see their role in shaping students’ lives through education (Sirk et al., 2017, 2019, 2020). In summary, all of these features are characteristic of the new professionalism of teachers (Fullan, 2007; Hargreaves, 2006; Goodson, 2003; Hoyle, 2001b; Simons & Ruijters, 2014).

Thus, collaboration is an important component of the new professionalism and professionality of VT, but is not related to the social status of the profession in the perceptions of the teachers (Goodson, 2003; Hoyle, 2001b). According to VTs, their assessments of the status of their profession in society do not differ despite their scope for collaboration (Sirk et al., 2017). However, irrespective of their status, a large proportion of VTs tend to be satisfied with and committed to their profession (Sirk et al., 2017, 2020), which is important in shaping the professionalism of VTs (Hargreaves, 2006; Simons & Ruijters, 2014). In contrast, in Estonia, there is no formal association established on the initiative of VTs to take responsibility for developing their professionalism (Hargreaves, 2006; Noordegraaf, 2007; Simons & Ruijters, 2014).

Conclusions

In summary, it can be concluded that, of the changes that have taken place in VET, the most significant influences on the professionality of VTs emerge from multifaceted standardisation with collaboration, prioritising openness through the student population and reputation building. The VTs themselves assessed the collaboration towards professional development and the implementation of a qualification system as the most important changes in VET. Changes in the assessment and qualification of the work of VTs are considered the least important. In addition, Estonian VTs have expressed different perceptions, evaluations and experiences of the changes in VET, and therefore different forms of collaboration and learning activities have been used to adapt to the changes, which together shape the professionality of VTs. Therefore, three profiles of VT professionality have emerged: (1) supporters of the reform policies and extensively networked professionals, (2) moderate supporters of the reform policies and school-centred professionals, and (3) critics of the reform policies and collaboration-detached professionals.

From the results, it can be concluded that VT collaborative practices have become universal ways to respond and adapt to changes and demands, but also influence VT self-efficacy, job satisfaction and commitment to the profession, and these are important determinants of VT re-professionalisation and retention in the profession (Chesnut & Burley, 2015; OECD, 2014). The wider scope of VT collaboration fosters more positive attitudes, satisfaction and commitment to their work and profession (Fig. 1). VTs with higher self-efficacy are better able to cope in demanding pedagogical situations and with new tasks and roles in a changing context, which is supported by the scope of collaborative learning activities inside and outside school (Sirk et al., 2020). Furthermore, collaborative activities help to make sense of changes in the professionality of VTs (Sirk et al., 2016, 2017, 2020), which has also been emphasised by other researchers (e.g. Fullan, 2007; Spillane et al., 2002; Vähäsantanen & Eteläpelto, 2009). The results indicated that lower commitment to the profession, job satisfaction, and a more critical attitude towards change lead to de-professionalisation (Fig. 1). It is therefore necessary to support and encourage collaboration between VTs both inside and outside schools as well as collaborative initiatives from the VTs themselves, which would increase their willingness to take responsibility for their professionality, and thereby develop their professionalism. Studies of VTs in other countries have also emphasised that VET institutions and educational organisations should provide more support to VTs to help them adapt to change and ensure their well-being (Boldrini et al., 2019; Messmann et al., 2017) and involve VTs more in decision-making (Boldrini et al., 2019häsantanen, 2015; Vähäsantanen & Eteläpelto, 2009häsantanen et al., 2008). Previous studies have also emphasised the need for collaborative support structures (Datnow, 2011; Fullan, 2007; Nielsen, 2010; Vangrieken et al., 2015), as it is optimistic to assume that the teachers themselves would look for opportunities to collaborate more widely (Hoyle, 2008). Supported collaboration, on the other hand, can foster teacher-initiated collaboration (Datnow, 2011), which in turn would foster greater teacher professionality and professionalism (Simons & Ruijters, 2014). Therefore, it is important that VET institutions create a collaborative learning culture within the organisation and thereby support the continued professionalisation of VTs (Runhaar et al., 2016).

This professionality model of VTs is created in the Estonian VET context but can provide a sound basis for other researchers studying VT professionality and professionalism.