Session Information
SES B 08, Paper Session
Paper Session
Contribution
After obtaining the "catastrophic PISA-study results" (Gudjons, 2007: 8) Germany was shocked like in Sputnik times (Terhart, 2002: 17). The PISA-study particularly criticised the unequal chances for pupils: There is no other OECD-country, in which the link between social background and school achievement is higher than in Germany (Baumert and Köller, 2005: 9).
Children of parents with an academic background attend three times more often to a Gymnasium than children of working class or migration background. Klafki (2002: 58) writes that the German school does not achieve its social requirement which is to provide equal life- and growth-chances for pupils. Hence, it could be argued, that the increasing monetary gap between poor and rich segments of the German population is linked to the bad performance of the education system.
In contrast to Germany, Finland was a "PISA-winner" in 2000, 2003 and 2006. After Japan, Finland shows the lowest disparity between social background and success in school (Baumert and Köller, 2005: 12). This achievement is a result of specific policies: to provide equal chances for all is the outspoken aim of the Finnish Ministry of Education (Pohjonen, 2002: 16). Finland´s PISA-success is also a result of an excellent teacher-education and the generous public fundings of schools. Furthermore, Finnish schools have implemented supporting-systems based on respect and well-being and operate teaching and learning along constructivist principles (see Reich, 2008; Cope and Kalantzis, 2008; Spitzer, 2002; Dewey, 1991).
In this study I will analyse how the Finnish and German school-systems handle cultural changes and their influence on student´s chances from a perspective of teachers. Teachers are regarded as experts in everyday-school life and are directly affected by educational policies and circumstances.
Furthermore, according to Meuser and Nagel (1991: 443) teachers are "responsible for the use of methods and the individual support of students" and they know about the conditions in schools to support children. This study tries to systematically assess teacher´s opinions in order to better understand the differences and similarities of the German and Finnish school systems with regard to the issues raised above.
The following questions guided the research: What are the possibilities to individually support students at school? How do teachers evaluate their students? What are the crucial challenges in teacher´s work? Do teachers feel to be appropriately educated and skilled for doing their job? How do teachers see themselves?
The research aims at demonstrating how school-systems are reacting on heterogeneous learning groups and growing cultural changes. I expect to find out deeper explanations and facts for having a PISA-"winner" and a PISA-"failure" by analysing these two countries based on the experiences of teachers.
The results can show how every student can be supported during changing times and can furthermore be used to formulate and achieve improvements for Germany and other countries.
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Baumert, J. and Köller, O. (2005) ´Sozialer Hintergrund, Bildungsbeteiligung und Bildungsverläufe im differenzierten Sekundarschulsystem`, in Frederking, V., Heller, H. and Scheunpflug, A. (ed.): Nach PISA. Konsequenzen für Schule und Lehrerbildung nach zwei Studien, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2007) Research Methods in Education, 6th edition, London and New York: Routledge. Dewey, J. (1991) ´Experience and Education`, in The later Works 1925-53, Vol. 13, Carbondale/Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press. Gudjons, H. (2007): `Beruf: Lehrerin – Wandlungen – Widersprüche – Wunschbilder`; Pädagogik: vol 9, 2007, pp. 6-10. Hentig von, H. (2003) Die Schule neu denken. Eine Übung in pädagogischer Vernunft, Weinheim/ Basel: Beltz. Kalantzis, M. and Cope, B. (2008) New Learning, New York: Cambridge University Press. Koch-Priewe, B., Stübig, H. and Hendricks, W. (ed.) (2002) Wolfgang Klafki: Schultheorie, Schulforschung und Schulentwicklung im politisch- gesellschaftlichen Kontext, Weinheim and Basel: Beltz. Meuser, M and Nagel, U. (1991) `Experteninterviews – vielfach erprobt, wenig bedacht. Ein Beitrag zur qualitativen Methodendiskussion`, in: Garz, D. and Kraimer, K. (ed.): Qualitativ-empirische Sozialforschung, Opladen. Mühlfeld, C. (ed.) (1981) ´Auswertungsprobleme offener Interviews`; Soziale Welt, vol. 32, pp. 325-352. Pohjonen, Petri (2002) Lernen am Arbeitsplatz in Finnland. Bildungssystem in der Zuständigkeit des Zentralamtes für Unterrichtswesen, Helsinki: Hakapaino Oy. Prenzel, M, Artelt, C., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Hammann, M., Klieme, E. and Pekrun, R. (ed.) (2007) PISA 2006. Die Ergebnisse der dritten internationalen Vergleichsstudie, Münster: Waxmann. Reich, Kersten (2008) Konstruktivistische Didaktik. Lehr- und Studienpool mit Methodenpool, 4th edition, Weinheim/Basel: Beltz. Spitzer, M. (2002): Gehirnforschung und die Schule des Lebens, Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag. Terhart, E. (2002) Nach PISA. Bildungsqualität entwickeln, Hamburg: Europäische Verlagsanstalt (eva). Weinert, F. E. (2000) `Lehr- Lernforschung an einer kalendarischen Zeitenwende: Im alten Trott weiter oder Aufbruch zu neuen wissenschaftlichen Horizonten?´: Unterrichtswissenschaft, vol. 28 (01), pp. 44-48.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.