Perspectives for optimizing the student teachers’ school practicum by learning Dutch, Estonian and Finnish principles and experiences of teacher education

Author(s):

Edgar EdgarIngrid Raudsepp

Conference:

ECER 2010

Network:

10. Teacher Education Research

Format:

Paper

Session Information

10 SES 02 C, Research on Programmes and Pedagogical Approaches in Teacher Education

Paper Session

Time:

2010-08-25

11:15-12:45

Room:

AUDITORIUM XI, Päärakennus / Main Building

Chair:

Isabel Rots

Contribution

During last decades many outstanding teacher educators have repeatedly emphasized the importance of pedagogical school practicum as a major component of pre-service teacher education (Zeichner, 1990; Brouwer & Korthagen, 2005; Jyrhäma, 2006; and others). The quality of the pedagogical school practicum has become one of the most frequently discussed issues among teacher educators. However, comparative analyses of trends, traditions and principles underlying content and organization of pedagogical school practice in different countries have not yet deserved sufficient attention of teacher educators. This study is aimed at rectifying this deficiency from the point of view of Estonian teacher education by comparing and analyzing underlying principles, content, and organization of pedagogical school practicum for pre-service preparation of subject teachers in Estonia, Finland and The Netherlands.

Yet, for comparing approaches to providing student teachers with pedagogical school practice in countries with different cultural background and traditions it is important to understand how the nature and role of the pedagogical school practice was conceived in the recent history of teacher education. To this end, the foundation of normal schools in the 18^th century and their evolution into contemporary practice schools at teacher education faculties of universities is surveyed. The evolution of Finnish normal schools into contemporary university practice schools id taken as an example. For a deeper understanding the role and requirements to the content and organization of the pedagogical practicum as the component teacher pre-service education it is analyzed in terms of its potential impact on the development of student teachers’ practical knowledge. This knowledge, conceived as consisting of two prototypes – knowledge and beliefs and cognitive interactions, underlies teachers’ decision-making in planning, delivery and reflective phases of instruction (Meijer et al., 1999; Schepens, et al., 2007). The school practicum should provide student teachers with necessary conditions for promoting their professional decision-making capabilities in all these three phases along with integration of theoretical ideas with practice. The ideal solution would be a sandwich-like combination of theoretical and practical studies alternately, which is very difficult to implement in practice.

Method

A comparative analysis of documents (for example Kansanen, 2003; Õpetajakoolituse, 2000; Snoek, 2003, 2009; Snoek & van der Sandemn, 2006) reflecting underlying principles, content and organization of the pedagogical school practice for prospective subject teachers in Estonia, Finland and The Netherlands was carried out in two stages. First, the main features and characteristics of school practice systems in these countries were reconstructed. Next, the main differences of the three practice systems were compared in terms of their main characteristic dimensions like status of the practice school or basis (in terms of the relationship with the university providing teacher education), volume and structure of practicum, observation of principles of teacher education as declared in the related curricula, supervision of student teachers by school teachers and university tutors, authenticity of learning environment, and teacher students’ accountancy of their practical studies.

Expected Outcomes

It was found that the pedagogical school practice has conceptually different bases in Finland and Estonia but principles underlying teacher education are unified nationwide in the both countries. Instead, a variety of approaches characterizes Dutch teacher education. The majority of practice schools are based on similar principles as in Finland but also a trend for founding schools of professional development is emerging. The biggest difference between Estonian ideology of teacher education and Finnish and Dutch systems appears in ways of linking theory with practice. If the Estonian approach relies on the principle of applying theory to practice, then in Finland and The Netherlands the integration of theory and practice is seen as the leading principle. Theory and practice are considered as equally important factors in teachers’ professional development, and university faculties and practice schools are seen as equal partners in their contribution to the pre-service teacher education. Switching from the dominating theory to practice paradigm to the paradigm of integration of theory and practice in Estonia means that the current partner schools where university faculties organize student teachers pedagogical practice, should gradually be replaced with practice schools fully responsible for organizing student teachers school practice in cooperation with universities.

References

Brouwer, N. & Korthagen, F. (2005). Can teacher education make a difference? American Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 153-224. Haridus- ja teadusministeerium. (2000). Õpetajate koolituse raamnõuded [ Framework guidelines for teacher education]. Vastu võetud Vabariigi Valitsuse 22. 11. 2000. a määrusega nr 381, Tallinn. Haridus- ja teadusministeerium. (2008). Eesti õpetajahariduse strateegia 2008-2013 [Strategy of Estonian teacher education for 2008 – 3013]. (Strateegia põhitekst heaks kiidetud töörühma poolt 25. juuni 2008 seminaril Rakveres). Aadressil http://www.hm.ee/index.php?03236 (külastatud 8.11.2008). 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. (51–69). Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association. Kansanen, P. (2003). Teacher education in Finland: current models and new developments. In Moon, B., Vlasceanu, L., & Barrows, L. C. (Eds.) Institutional approaches to teacher education within higher education in Europe: Current models and new developments. (85-108). Bucharest: UNESCO-CEPES. http://www.helsinki.fi/~pkansane/Cepes.pdfhttp://www.helsinki.fi/~pkansane/Cepes.pdf (visited on 27 August, 2008). Snoek, M. & van der Sanden, J. (2006) Teacher Educators Matter. How to influence national policies on teacher education? A position paper of the Dutch Association for Teacher Educators on the education of teachers in The Netherlands. Retrieved November 14, 2009, from http://www.kenniscentrumonderwijsopvoeding.hva.nl/content/kenniscentrum/lereneninnoveren/documenten/teachereducmatter_english.pdf Snoek, M. (2003). Scenarios for Dutch Teacher Education. A Trip to Rome: coach bus company or travel agency? European Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp 123-135 Zeichner, K. (1990). Changing directions in the practicum: looking ahead the 1990s. Journal of Education for Teaching, 16 (2), 105–132.

Author Information

Edgar Edgar

University of Tartu

Faculty of Sociology and Education

Tartu

Ingrid Raudsepp

University of Tartu, Estonia

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.