Advertisement

Teaching as a Master’s Level Profession in Finland: Theoretical Reflections and Practical Solutions

  • Pertti Kansanen
Chapter
Part of the Professional Learning and Development in Schools and Higher Education book series (PROD, volume 10)

Abstract

In the Finnish teacher education system, teachers (in grades 1–12) pass a master’s degree in the university. In this chapter, the most important theoretical aspects that underpin the Finnish teacher education programmes are described and analysed, and we consider why it may be called research-based teacher education. The primary class pre-service teachers write their master’s thesis in ‘education’, while the secondary subject pre-service teachers write it in their ‘main subject’ within their own faculty (mathematics, physics, history, language, religion, etc.). Teacher education is considered from two perspectives or strata. The first deals with everyday practice and can be called a basic level of teacher education; the other stratum may be called a conceptual level of teacher education. An organising theme, a research-based approach, is applied as an integrative principle throughout the programme. It is built on evidence of research, teachers’ pedagogical thinking, and close theory-practice relation. University practice schools have an important role connecting practical experiences with theoretical studies. These schools and their teachers, mentors of student teaching at the same time, are specialised in teacher education and work closely with the supervisors of the university department. The system is supported with a model of peer-group mentoring in order to facilitate adaptation into the profession at the beginning of the career.

Keywords

Teacher Education Teaching Practice Pedagogical Content Knowledge Teacher Education Programme Class Teacher 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Allison, C. B. (1995). Present and past. Essays for teachers in the history of education. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  2. Bengtsson, J. (1993). Theory and practice: Two fundamental categories in the philosophy of teacher education. Educational Review, 45(3), 205–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bengtsson, J. (1995). What is reflection? On reflection in the teaching profession and teacher education. Teachers and Teaching, 1(1), 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berliner, D. (2000). A personal response to those who bash teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(5), 358–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berliner, D. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berliner, D. (2005). The near impossibility of testing for teacher quality. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(3), 205–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biddle, B. J., Good, T. L., & Goodson, I. F. (Eds.). (1997). International handbook of teachers and teaching. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  8. Calderhead, J. (1984). Teachers’ classroom decision-making. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  9. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 2–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (Eds.). (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Washington, D.C.: AERA and Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Cochran-Smith, M., Feiman-Nemser, S., McIntyre, D. J., & Demers, K. E. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring issues in changing contexts (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Eddy, D. (2005). Evidence-based medicine: A unified approach. Health Affairs, 24, 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fitzgibbons, R. E. (1981). Making educational decisions. An introduction to philosophy of education. New York: Hartcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  14. Gage, N. L. (1994). The scientific status of research on teaching. Educational Theory, 44, 371–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Galluzo, G. R., & Pankratz, R. S. (1990). Five attributes of a teacher education program knowledge base. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(4), 7–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Griffiths, R. (2004). Knowledge production and the research-teaching nexus: The case of the built environment disciplines. Studies in Higher Education, 29(6), 709–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guhl, E., & Ott, E. H. (1985). Unterrichtsmetodisches Denken und Handeln. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  18. Handal, G., & Lauvås, P. (1987). Promoting reflective teaching. Supervision in practice. Milton Keynes: Open University.Google Scholar
  19. Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Heikkinen, H., Tynjälä, P., & Jokinen, H. (Eds.). (2012). Peer-group mentoring for teachers’ professional development. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Howey, K. (1996). Designing coherent and effective teacher education programs. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 143–170). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Hytönen, J. (1995). The role of school practice in teacher education. In Kansanen (Ed.), Discussions on some educational issues VI (pp. 77–83). Research Report 145. Department of Teacher Education, University of Helsinki (ED394958)Google Scholar
  23. Jakku-Sihvonen, R., & Niemi, H. (Eds.). (2006). Research-based teacher education in Finland. Research in Educational Sciences, 25. Turku: Finnish Educational Research AssociationGoogle Scholar
  24. Jakku-Sihvonen, R., & Niemi, H. (Eds.). (2007). Education as a societal contributor. Reflections by Finnish educationalists. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  25. Jyrhämä, R. (2006). The function of practical studies in teacher education. In R. Jakku-Sihvonen & H. Niemi (Eds.), Research-based teacher education in Finland—Reflections by Finnish teacher educators. Turku: Finnish Educational Research AssociationGoogle Scholar
  26. Jyrhämä, R., & Syrjäläinen, E. (2011). ‘Good pal, wise dad and nagging wife’—and other views by teaching practice mentors. In A. Lauriala, R. Rajala, H. Ruokamo & O. Ylitapio-Mäntylä (Eds.), Navigating in educational contexts. Identities and cultures in dialogue (pp. 137–149). Rotterdam: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Kaestle, C. F. (1993). The awful reputation of education research. Educational Reseacher, 22(1), 26–31.Google Scholar
  28. Kansanen, P. (1991). Pedagogical thinking: The basic problem of teacher education. European Journal of Education, 26, 251–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kansanen, P. (2001). Using subjective pedagogical theories to enhance teacher education. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 29(3), 268–286.Google Scholar
  30. Kansanen, P. (2004). The role of general education in teacher education. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 7(2), 207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kansanen, P. (2007). Research-based teacher education. In R. Jakku-Sihvonen & H. Niemi (Eds.), Education as a societal contributor (pp. 131–146). Frankfurt-am-Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  32. Kansanen, P. (2010). HORRIBILE DICTU: The success story of the Finnish school system. In A. Liimets (Ed.), Denkkulturen. Selbstwerdung des Menschen. Erziehungskulturen (pp. 95–110). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  33. Kansanen, P., Tirri, K., Meri, M., Krokfros, L., Husu, J., & Jyrhämä, R. (2000). Teachers’ pedagogical thinking: Theoretical landscapes, practical challenges. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  34. Kindsvatter, R., Wilen, W., & Ishler, M. (1992). Dynamics of effective teaching (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  35. Kleven, T. A. (1991). Interactive teacher decision-making—still a basic skill? Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 35, 287–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. König, E. (1975). Theorie der Erziehungswissenschaft. Band 1. Wissenschaftstheoretische Richtungen der Pädagogik. München: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
  37. Krokfors, L. (2007). Two-fold role of reflective pedagogical practise in research-based teacher education. In R. Jakku-Sihvonen & H. Niemi (Eds.), Education as a societal contributor (pp. 147–159). Frankfurt-am-Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  38. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Labaree, D. F. (1997). How to succeed in school without really learning. The credentials race in American education. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Labaree, D. F. (2003). The peculiar problems of preparing educational researchers. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Maaranen, K. (2009). Practitioner research as part of professional development in initial teacher education. Teacher Development, 13(3), 219–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Maaranen, K. (2010). Teacher students’ MA Theses—A gateway to analytic thinking about teaching? A case study of Finnish primary school teachers. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 54(5), 487–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McCourt, F. (2005). Teacher man. A memoir. London: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  44. Meyer, H. (1980). Leitfaden zur Unterrichtsvorbereitung. Frankfurt am Main: Cornelsen Verlag Scriptor.Google Scholar
  45. Niemi, H., Toom, A., & Kallioniemi, A. (Eds.). (2012). The miracle of education: The principles and practices of teaching and learning in Finnish schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  46. Paschen, H., & Wigger, L. (Eds.). (1992). Pädagogisches Argumentieren. Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag.Google Scholar
  47. Penso, S., & Shoham, E. (2003). Student teachers’ reasoning while making pedagogical decisions. European Journal of Teacher Education, 26(3), 313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Prange, K. (2008). Review of the book: Ricken, N. (2007). (Hrsg.). Über die Verachtung der Pädagogik. Analysen—Materialien—Perspektiven. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 54 (3), 438–441.Google Scholar
  49. Rantala, J., Salminen, J., & Säntti, J. (2010). Teorian ja käytännön ristiaallokossa—luokanopettajan koulutuksen akatemisoituminen ja sen heijastuminen opettajaksi opiskelevien praktisiin valmiuksiin. In A. Teoksessa, A. Kallioniemi, A. Toom, M. Ubani, & H. Linnansaari (Eds.), (toim.), Akateeminen luokanopettajankoulutus: 30 vuotta teoriaa, käytäntöä ja maistereita (pp. 51–76). Kasvatusalan tutkimuksia 52. Jyväskylä: Suomen kasvatustieteellinen seuraGoogle Scholar
  50. Richardson, V. (1994). Conducting research on practice. Educational Researcher, 23(5), 5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  52. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  53. Shavelson, R. J. (1973). What is the basic teaching skill? Journal of Teacher Education, 24, 144–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sroufe, G. E. (1997). Improving the ‘awful reputation’ of education research. Educational Researcher, 26(7), 26–28.Google Scholar
  55. Terhart, E. (Eds.). (2000). Perspektiven der Lehrerbildung in Deutschland. Abschlussbericht der von der Kultusministerkonferenz eingesetzten Komission. Weinham und Basel: Beltz.Google Scholar
  56. Toom, A., Kynäslahti, H., Krokfors, L., Jyrhämä, R., Byman, R., Stenberg, K., Maaranen, K., & Kansanen, P. (2010). The experiences of research-based approach of teacher education: Suggestions for the future policies. European Journal of Education, 45(2), 339–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Westbury, I., Hansen, S.-E., Kansanen, P., & Björkvist, O. (2005). Teacher education for research-based practice in expanded roles: Finland’s experience. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49(5), 475–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Young, L. J. (2001). Border crossing and other journeys: Re-envisioning the doctoral preparation of educational researchers. Educational Researcher, 30(5), 3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations