Research focus

This presentation references the Strengthening Pre-Service Teacher Education in Myanmar (STEM) project to investigate aspects of an educational system which support enactment of quality design principles in pre-service teacher education programs. Over 2019-2021, the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) partnered with UNESCO to develop curriculum for Years 2 and 3 of Myanmar’s new four-year (Primary and Middle school) Education Degree Program. The STEM project informs a national strategy to close the qualifications gap between Myanmar’s Primary and Secondary teachers and drive educational system improvement. According to the Myanmar Ministry of Education (MoE) (2019 Jan), a teacher promotion system that “assigns less experienced and less qualified teachers to the lower grades” is likely to impact Myanmar students most significantly in the formative grades of their education yet have lasting consequences given that “achievement gaps in early grades are typically magnified over time” (p. 8).

Literature review

The international literature unequivocally shows that effective pedagogical practice is essential in improving student outcomes (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Hattie, 2012; Coe et al., 2014). Teaching quality has been identified by some as the single most important factor impacting learning (Louis & Wahlstrom, 2011; Hattie, 2003; Hayes et al, 2006). In Masters’ (in press) conceptualisation of a world class learning system, highly effective teaching interacts with other core elements of the system – including a quality curriculum, strong leadership of learning, informative assessment practices and comprehensive student support – to deliver a jurisdiction’s desired learning conditions and outcomes.

Increasingly, educational research and policy is redefining teaching as a learning profession (Wei., et al., 2009), with teacher development articulating along a career continuum. High performing education systems implement and monitor teacher quality frameworks, which are “transversal to most teacher polices” (European Commission, 2018, p. 19) potentially shaping pre-service teacher education, teacher recruitment, ongoing registration, professional learning and appraisal (Loeb et al., 2012; Timperley et al., 2007). Jurisdictions have sought to deepen teacher professionalism by developing standards or competency frameworks that outline the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values required by teachers to support student learning – often, at increasing levels of sophistication as is the case in Scotland, Belgium, Estonia and Latvia (Masters, in press; European Commission, 2018).

Competency frameworks serve as coherent structures to inform design of quality pre-service teacher education programs. In high performing systems, pre-service teacher programs also align with the curriculum and pedagogical frameworks that graduates will be expected to implement in their future classrooms (National Center on Education and the Economy, 2020). New competency-based school curriculum frameworks call for sophisticated pedagogical repertoires, including the ability to “form partnerships with students in mastering the process of learning and continuously evaluating where students are at in their learning” (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014, pp. 3 & 8).

International best practice recognises the importance of an integrated approach to building pre-service teachers’ content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, understanding of student learning and professional experience (Le Cornu, 2015). An integrated approach supports translation of knowledge into practice, countering the “theory-practice divide which is still seen to be problematic in many pre-service teacher programs” (Le Cornu, 2015, p. 7). Increasingly, action research – situated at the theory-practice nexus – is viewed as a valuable component of preservice teacher education programs, with teacher educators themselves fostering collaborative research partnership with schools and classroom teachers to address challenges in practice (e.g., Estonia [Masters, in press]). According to the European Commission (2018), “school-university partnerships, based on joint research inquiry and knowledge development, are effective settings for the development of adaptive expertise” (European Commission, 2018, p. 45).

Over 2019-2021, ACER worked collaboratively with UNESCO and MoE stakeholders to develop the Year 2 Professional Studies stream and 24 subjects across Year 3 Primary and Middle school tracks of a new pre-service teacher education program. In-country relationship and capacity building in the initial stages of the project enabled a shared commitment to a pre-service teacher education program that is aligned with key policy and curriculum frameworks; integrated across Professional Studies, Curriculum Studies and Practicum streams; and developmental in nature as pre-service teachers progressively build competencies over the program. The expansion of ACER’s responsibility in Year 3 curriculum development allowed a co-ordinated investment in the enactment of these principles in the design process. The key frame of reference for design of the new program is Myanmar’s recently implemented Teacher Competency Standards Framework (TSCF) (MoE, 2020 May). The Primary (KG to Grade 5) and Middle school (Grades 6 to 9) tracks are respectively aligned with the minimum requirements for Beginning Primary and Lower Secondary Teachers. Notably, an ACER-led validation study (MoE, 2020 Feb) of the TCSF found that while teachers displayed knowledge of and confidence in discussing the TSCF, “the level, nature and impact of implementation of the competencies remain unclear” (p. 41). While the MoE’s intention is to develop “Experienced, Expert and Lead indicators to support in-service teacher professional development” (MoE, 2020 May, p. 9), this finding has implications for the level of guidance that is needed for mentor teachers to adequately support pre-service teachers meet Practicum requirements, aligned with the competency standards. As detailed in the Curriculum Framework for Education Degree Colleges (EDCs) (MoE, 2019 Jun), the new program adopts a ‘spiral structure’, which sees pre-service teachers engage with the same themes over successive years at increasing levels of sophistication. A dedicated nomenclature signposts the developmental nature of the program, with Beginning Teacher competencies ‘introduced’ in Year 1, ‘developed’ in Year 2, ‘consolidated’ in Year 3 and ‘assured’ in Year 4. An overarching Learn–Apply–Reflect framing explicitly links learning and assessment experience across course streams (i.e, Professional Studies, Curriculum Studies and Practicum). An active and reflective student-centred pedagogy is at the heart of the STEM project’s goals. A focus on building deep understanding and the capabilities to transfer and apply knowledge in diverse and authentic contexts aligns with emphases in Myanmar’s new school curricula, as well as the new Assessment Policy for Basic Education (MoE, 2019 Sep).

A setting that allows robust alignment with teacher competency standards and wider educational curriculum and policy reform has enabled enactment of quality principles in designing Myanmar’s new pre-service teacher education program. The overarching spiral curriculum structure and the Learn–Apply–Reflect pedagogical framing intersects most powerfully in the TCSF portfolio. Across Years 2 and 3, pre-service teachers will compile a ‘developmental’ portfolio by reviewing and selecting artefacts, from Practicum, assessment tasks and class activities, to evidence learning in all TCSF domains. In Year 4, pre-service teachers will select and reflect on their most compelling artefacts in a ‘professional’ portfolio to demonstrate achievement of the minimum requirements for a Beginning Teacher. A whole of program nomenclature has been important in educating all stakeholders of the developmental nature of the program. Albeit that ensuring high quality practica is a challenge in pre-service teacher education programs globally (Le Cornu, 2015), emerging partnerships between Myanmar’s EDCs and schools has allowed more structured planning for pre-service teachers’ Practicum experiences. Expectations for Year 3 Practicum have been outlined in a series of handbooks for pre-service teachers, teacher educators, mentor teachers and principals. Year 3 pre-service teachers will be required to investigate aspects of their practice through a collaboratively design action research project that is enacted in the five-week Practicum. They will collect and review a range of data and share findings regarding the ways in which they were able to enhance their practice over time to impact student outcomes. The aim of the action research component, which will be more deeply embedded in Year 4, is to support pre-service teachers “to make connections between theory and practice, provide evidence of pedagogic decision-making, and express their emerging professional agency and identity in teaching cycles; and, ultimately, readiness for classroom practice” (Institute for Learning Sciences & Teacher Education, 2020, p. 3) – the hallmark of high-quality pre-service teacher education.

Coe, R., Aloisi, C., Higgins, S., & Major, L. (2014). What makes great teaching? Review of the underpinning research. Durham University and the Sutton Trust. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). European Commission. (2018). Boosting teacher quality: Pathways to effective policies. Publications Office of the European Union. Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. Pearson. Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Paper presented at the Australian Council for Educational Research. Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge. Hayes, D., Mills, M., Christie, P. & Lingard, B. (2006). Teachers & schooling making a difference: Productive pedagogies, assessment and performance. Allen & Unwin. Institute for Learning Sciences & Teacher Education. (2020). Graduate Teacher Performance Assessment (GTPA) Preservice Teacher Booklet. Australian Catholic University. Le Cornu, R. (2015). Key components of effective professional experience in initial teacher education in Australia. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. Loeb, S., Kalogrides, D., & Béteille, T. (2012). Effective schools: Teacher hiring, assignment, development, and retention. Education Finance and Policy, 7(3), 269–304. Louis, K., & Wahlstrom, K. (2011). Principals as cultural leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(5), 52. Masters, G. (in press). Building a world-class learning system: Insights from some top- performing school systems. Ministry of Education. (2019 Jan). MoE programs benefiting from World Bank Support. Additional Financing to the Decentralising Funding for Schools Project and Inclusive Access to Quality Education Project. Social assessment report. Ministry of Education. (2019 Jun). Curriculum framework for Education Degree Colleges in Myanmar. Department of Higher Education. Ministry of Education. (2019 Sep). National Assessment Policy for Basic Education. Department of Myanmar Examinations. Ministry of Education. (2020 Feb). Validation of the Myanmar Teacher Competency Standards Framework: Phase III, Case Study Report. Australian Council for Educational Research. Ministry of Education. (2020 May). Teacher Competency Standards Framework. Myanmar Final Policy Version. National Center on Education and the Economy (2020). The design of high-performing education systems: A framework for policy and practice. Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration (BES). NZ Ministry of Education. Wei, R., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. National Staff Development Council.