42 Y. Li and F. Dervin Villegas-Reimers, E. (2003). Teacher professional development: An interna- tional review of the literature. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning. Wang, L. (2005). An analysis of in-service training models for foreign bilin- gual teachers—Case studies from the United States, Canada and Finland. Exploring Education Development, 21, 78–81. Wang, B. (2013). ITT: In service training for Finnish teacher project—Physics teachers as an example. Primary & Secondary Schooling Abroad, 5, 37–41. Watts, H. (1980). Starting out, moving on, running ahead or how the teach- ers’ center can attend to stages in teachers’ development. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. Weiss, I., & Pasley. J. (2006). Scaling up instructional improvement through teacher professional development: Insights from the local systemic change ini- tiative. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) Policy Briefs. Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 130–178.
3 Finnish Initial Teacher Education and CPD In an article from The Guardian entitled Professional development: what can Brits learn from schools abroad?, dated 8 October 2013, journalist Martin Williams examines CPD around the globe. He presents Phil Taylor, a scholar from Birmingham City University, who travelled to Finland to study CPD. We suppose that the discourses about Finnish CPD in the article are based on discussions with Taylor. Williams (ibid.) claims that Finland “Like Japan, […] has been praised for its advanced CPD and last year was top of Pearson’s interna- tional education rankings.” However, we disagree with Williams about the ‘fame’ of Finnish CPD as it is rarely mentioned in publications about Finnish education. The same goes with education export initia- tives. Williams continues: The CPD model is much less formal than the Japanese lesson studies, Taylor says. The differences are cultural, and deeply rooted, rather than systematic or policy driven, particularly in terms of teacher CPD. Taylor uses here what Abdallah-Pretceille (2003) and Dervin (2016) have referred to as ‘culture as an excuse/alibi’ (Whose culture in Finland? Who decides?). His argument falls short as he seems not to be © The Author(s) 2018 43 Y. Li and F. Dervin, Continuing Professional Development of Teachers in Finland, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95795-1_3
44 Y. Li and F. Dervin aware of e.g. deeper societal issues such as budget cuts for education in Finland since the 1990s (which have had an impact on CPD, amongst other things), the power of municipalities to decide (not) to offer CPD for teachers, etc. What is striking about Williams’ piece about CPD and Finland’s CPD is that he actually says very little about how CPD is organised, the issues faced by teachers in relation to CPD (“There is also an emphasis on high quality, university-based training and a research/enquiry orien- tation to practice development.”). He also mentions the typical rhetoric of teachers’ trust and autonomy to discuss CPD in Finland. As is often the case, when outsiders discuss Finnish education, they tend to rely on broad and second-hand information, which may not even be relevant to the specific context at hand (see Xing et al. 2017 about the CPD of Chinese principals in Finland). In discussions of CPD in Finland, the discussion often seems to be diverted towards ini- tial teacher education. In this chapter, before dealing with CPD in Finland, we feel it nec- essary to discuss several aspects of Finnish education that have a direct influence on CPD: the 2014/2016 core curriculum for basic education (our context of study), the role of teachers in this curriculum and initial teacher education. Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2014 (2016) In August 2016, Finnish schools started to implement a new Core Curriculum, which replaced the 2004 Curriculum. The Curriculum was somewhat lauded abroad and many ‘hoaxes’ were spread about it (e.g. school subjects were dropped). This new Curriculum was designed by the Finnish National Agency for Education, in cooperation with dif- ferent actors such as teachers, teacher educators, etc. The general pub- lic was also asked to give feedback to an online draft version of the Curriculum during the process of writing it. The Curriculum includes the objectives and core contents of different subjects, as well as the principles of pupil assessment, special-needs edu- cation, pupil welfare and educational guidance.
3 Finnish Initial Teacher Education and CPD 45 The purpose of the steering of basic education is to ensure the equality and high quality of education and to create favourable conditions for the pupils’ growth, development and learning. (NCC 2016: 15) The basic values of the Curriculum are: Uniqueness of each pupil and right to a good education; Humanity, general knowledge and ability, equal- ity and democracy. By offering a uniform foundation for local curricula, it is meant to enhance equality in education for all Finnish municipalities (ibid.). As such, based on the Core Curriculum local education authorities (munic- ipalities) and the schools themselves draw up their own curricula. Local needs and perspectives must be taken into consideration when draw- ing up local curricula. As we shall see, this leads to an idealised view of Finnish education in relation to equality/equity. However, we agree with Butler et al. (1997: 6): “(…) the idea of total equality is unreachable, and, also, that a society without any kind of exclusion would be a psychotic universe”. Of course, there is still a need to fight again and again against the multifaceted forms of inequalities and exclusion that we all face. The New Curriculum focuses on the following ideologies. Ideology is understood here as the representation of “the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence” (Althusser 1971: 162). This means in the case of the Finnish Core Curriculum for Basic Education that we are faced with ideological statements that have been negotiated as ‘ideals’, which represent certain agendas (mostly neoliberal: emphasis on individualism, sociality, success, competence, etc.), which may not correspond to the realities of what education is about: Increase meaningfulness of learning and holistic competences, Link up learning to real life phenomena, Enable individual learning paths, Enhance pupils’ participation and active role in learning, Strengthen social skills and collaboration, Make it possible for each and every pupil to experience success.
46 Y. Li and F. Dervin In the discourse of the NAE these aspects translate for example into: “The pupils set goals, solve problems and assess their learning based on set targets.” Again, a typical neo-liberal objective, for which the individ- ual learner becomes responsible after all (Barbot and Camatarri 2009). This kind of broad objective tends to disregard the students’ age, capi- tals, capacities, etc. It is also important to note that the use of technology is emphasised largely in the Curriculum. According to the NAE (2017), Games and other virtual environments should also be recognized more often as learning environments. Technology plays an increasingly signif- icant role in everyday school routines, thus allowing pupils to be more easily involved in the development and selection of their own learning environments. Pupils should also familiarise themselves with the fundamentals of pro- gramming in mathematics (ibid.). Finally, the Core Curriculum promotes the idea of transversal com- petences for each subject learn at school. These include: thinking and learning-to-learn, interaction and expression skills, multiliteracy (the abil- ity to produce and interpret variety of different texts) but also managing daily life and taking care of oneself, cultural competence, interaction and self-expression, working life competence and entrepreneurship as well as par- ticipation, involvement and building a sustainable future (NCC 2016). These skills are practised during the yearly multidisciplinary learning modules developed by each school. Very few criticisms of the New Core Curriculum have emerged abroad. However, within Finland, many educators have been critical of it. Scholars’ voices have also been raised to describe some of the prob- lems behind the Curriculum. Let us take an interesting example from early 2018. In a newspaper column dated 20 January 2018 (Maaseudun Tulevaisuus, The Rural Future Newspaper ) Emeritus Professor Liisa Keltikangas-Järvinen evaluates the content of the 2014 curriculum harshly, drawing the conclusion that inequality, especially in terms of social and gender differences, is expanding in basic education. She is critical of how Finland has basked in the PISA sun, believing that
3 Finnish Initial Teacher Education and CPD 47 it had the best education system and the best teachers in the world, without questioning these assumptions. When Finland started drop- ping in PISA rankings, parents were ‘blamed’ for not motivating their children, not creating the right attitude towards school, not encourag- ing them to read, etc. Keltikangas-Järvinen (ibid.) is very much criti- cal of the ideologies presented above and especially of the way pupils are understood to be in the curriculum: “s/he must be active, respon- sible and self-motivated and must set her/himself goals and finds ways to achieve them. They know their strengths and weaknesses and know how to make the right choice” (our translation). As asserted before, Keltikangas-Järvinen is critical of the simplistic idea that merely call- ing for autonomy will make pupils autonomous (an idea that has been discussed in autonomy studies for decades). She adds that relying on parents to support the students is dangerous as this can too easily increase inequality between those whose parents are interested in their education—and those who are not, between the parents who have the educational capitals to do so and those who don’t. Like autonomy, Keltikangas-Järvinen also reminds us that motivation does not hap- pen just like that or that it is through asking for it that it will occur. She is also critical of the overreliance on e.g. digitalization and the use of computer games that Finland is currently implementing to moti- vate boys who tend to lag behind in educational achievements. Finally, Keltikangas-Järvinen (ibid.) disapproves of the tendency to try to make education ‘fun’ to motivate students in Finland. She argues that ‘fun learning’ is not always an answer to deep learning. The Role of Teachers in the 2014 NCC Teachers are central in the 2014 NCC, although they are not presented as the only ‘sources’ of education. For instance, the role of parents, and the links between parents and schools are also highlighted. The duties of teachers are defined as below in the NCC (2016: 90): The teacher’s duties include monitoring and promoting the learning, work approaches and well-being of their pupils, ensuring the respectful
48 Y. Li and F. Dervin and fair treatment of each pupil, early recognition of potential problems, and providing guidance and support to the pupils. The teacher contributes to ensuring that the pupils’ rights to guidance and support in the areas of instruction and pupil welfare are realised. This requires interaction with pupils and guardians, mutual cooperation between teachers and, in particular, collaboration with the pupil welfare staff. The words ‘monitoring’, ‘promoting’, ‘guidance’ and ‘support’ are omni- present whenever teachers are discussed in the NCC, which gives an indication of their position and role in the schools. For example, in rela- tion to ICT, the NCC explains (2016: 58): The pupils together with the teacher consider why ICT is needed in stud- ying, work and society and how these skills have become a part of general working life competence. They learn to assess the impact of ICT from the perspective of sustainable development and to be responsible consumers. During their years in basic education, the pupils also gather experiences of using ICT in international communication. They learn to perceive its significance, potential and risks in a global world. One can clearly see a shift from “the sage on the stage” to taking a side position in the classroom, working with the pupils rather than giving them orders and being the only suitable voice in the classroom. Most of the teachers who were teaching when the NCC was imple- mented graduated and were qualified well before the Curriculum appeared. Needless to say that their knowledge and practices did not specifically correspond to the ‘new’ ideas proposed by the curriculum— although they might have been aware of them. So how does the NCC deal with the discrepancy between teachers’ skills and what is required of them with the new educational ideology? Surprisingly the NCC says nearly nothing about how to make sure that teachers are able to ‘monitor’, ‘promote’ (learning), and offer ‘guidance’ and ‘support’ in school. Only one paragraph (2016: 96) seems to do so: Schools also work together with other schools with the aim of promot- ing the development and coherence of instruction and reinforcing staff competence. Cooperation is also needed at the transition points of basic
3 Finnish Initial Teacher Education and CPD 49 education and as pupils move from one school to another. Good cooper- ation between schools also contributes to smooth provision of instruction for various linguistic and cultural groups, support for learning and pupil welfare. Being active in local, national and international networks pro- motes the development of pedagogy. Only two options seem to be offered here to help teachers cope with the (immense) changes: cooperation with other schools and being active in different kinds of networks to “develop pedagogy”. How can the new NCC be so quiet about CPD and teachers’ prepa- ration? How can teachers deal with multitasking and the new ways of working, which are imposed onto them? The ‘Wonders’ of Initial Teacher Education as an Answer? Let us start with some basic information concerning teachers in Finland. In what follows we use, amongst others, a report from the National Agency for Education (2016, http://www.oph.fi/download/ 185381_teachers_and_principals_in_Finland_2016_brochure.pdf ). First, we note that the number of fully qualified teachers is high in Finland (95% in basic education and 98% in upper secondary). In 2016 nearly all class teachers in basic education were fully qualified. Second, more than 40% of Finnish teachers are over 50 years of age— with less than 40% in basic education. Third, and maybe this is not specific to Finland, but most teachers are women, especially in basic education. Yet it is interesting to note that, for a country that often boasts about having reached a high level of gen- der equality, the majority of principals are men (National Agency for Education 2016). Finally, teachers have civil servant status and do a minimum of 14 hours per week. Teaching time varies according to subjects taught (Eurydice 2015: 23). To become qualified as a teacher in Finland one has to have a Master’s degree. Initial teacher education thus occurs at Finnish
50 Y. Li and F. Dervin Universities for five years. Students are selected competitively before their first year. During their studies in both pedagogy and subject studies for secondary teachers, which are said to be ‘research-based’ (Niemi et al. 2013), students write a thesis at the end of their Bachelor’s and of their Master’s (Niemi et al. 2012; Sahlberg 2011). According to Niemi (2015: 284): The aim is for teachers to internalize a research-oriented attitude toward their work. This means that teachers learn to take an analytical and open- minded approach to their work and that they develop teaching and learn- ing environments in a systematic way. The most important abilities they learn through research studies are critical thinking, independent thinking, inquiring, scientific literacy, and questioning phenomena and knowledge. Sahlberg (2018, n.p.) insists on the importance that Finnish ITT has played in educating “smart” teachers. For him the combination of sys- tematic ITT and freedom (i.e. the rhetoric around autonomy, trust, etc.) appears to be exceptional: The advantage of Finland over other countries at this point is that for the past 25 years we have trained a group of highly qualified teachers. Primary and secondary school teachers in Finland have at least a master’s degree diploma. So imagine a school with 5 primary teachers who grad- uated from universities and received systematic educational training in mathematics, for example. Then you give them freedom. This group of smart people will burst out much wisdom in teaching. Jyrhämä and Maaranen (2012: 98) share similar views with the previ- ous scholars when they explain that, during their education, teacher stu- dents “form a continually developing personal practical theory”. But we feel that one would need to look more carefully into these somewhat idealistic learning outcomes to understand what they really mean (e.g. critical thinking), and if they are developed beyond ‘asser- tions of learning’ and ‘education export’ propaganda (Dervin 2016). In her critical study of such discourses about Finnish teacher educa- tion, Sitomaniemi-San (2015: 136) shows how this doxa fabricates an autonomous teacher subject:
3 Finnish Initial Teacher Education and CPD 51 who is envisioned as being emancipated, empowered and activated through the insertion of science and research into teacher education curriculum and pedagogy. The autonomous teacher, in the discourse of research-based teacher education, is produced as a school reformer committed to change and renewal, a decision-maker committed to pro- fessionalism, an active and lifelong learner committed to continual per- sonal-professional development, and a scientific thinker ‘by nature’ that would appear as providing further grounds for the academisation and sci- entization of teacher education. Through the focus on research Finnish teachers are constructed as ‘mod- ernists’, ‘rationalists’. For Sitomaniemi-San (2015: 137) this also allows the authorities to “order the conduct of conduct”. In other words, research-based teacher education “can also be perceived as the means to fabricate particular kinds of teacher subjects and to govern ways of thinking and acting – specific ways of thinking and acting that come to be presented as the ‘evidence’ of teacher autonomy” (ibid.). This ‘sci- entific’ approach could indirectly reduce the autonomy of teachers by limiting their actions to rationality. One question that Finnish initial teacher education does not seem to answer is how and where teachers can find support once they are in the field. As we shall see later on, mentoring during induction of teachers is being developed in Finland (Niemi 2017) as well as strategies for teach- ers to define how and what they will develop in the future at least once a year. The project Ope Saa Oppia (Teachers learn; 2014; Heikkinen et al. 2015a, b) aimed to enhance induction practices for new teachers by observing current practices and making recommendations. The project working group made the following proposals (2015a, b: 9) for deci- sion-makers: “Political decision makers should appoint a national body with the responsibility to secure the continuum of teacher education together with a national network for the development of mentoring, and ensure adequate resources for the national network to develop mentor- ing.” The project report concentrates on mentoring as the main form of CPD but says nothing about long-term formal CPD. The end result appears to be rather short-sighted.
52 Y. Li and F. Dervin Student teachers also do two practicums in teacher training schools attached to universities during their studies. The teacher training schools staff are paid by universities and are actively involved in research. The stu- dents earn 180 credits for their Bachelor’s and 120 credits for the Master’s. As hinted at earlier, entry into teacher education is competitive. As such, less than a quarter of applicants are admitted (National Agency for Education 2016). Entry into kindergarten teacher education is at 16% while class teacher education at 11% (ibid.). It is first important to note the following about initial teacher edu- cation in Finland: “[t]he basic aim of every teacher education program is to educate competent teachers and develop the necessary professional qualities to ensure lifelong teaching careers for teachers” (Kansanen 2003: 89). Teachers are thus prepared initially to continuously “learn to learn to be a teacher”. Initial teacher education is said to guide teachers “to learn reflection as a way of thinking and as a tool for continuous professional development” (Toom and Husu 2016: 46). The Finnish approach to teacherhood (in pedagogical and identity terms) is very much in line with global pedagogical trends emphasising a high level of teacher autonomy. It is based on the assumption that teachers are compe- tent professionals with high expertise in their area (Aspfors and Hansén 2011; Heikkinen et al. 2012). Finnish teachers are said to play a role that is often described as “teacher leadership” (Niemi 2015: 291). Formal, non-formal and informal ways of developing as a teacher in areas important for implementing education policy and reforms are suggested to teachers in service. As Sahlberg argues (2011: 86) “many licensed graduates discover that there is a chasm between lecture-hall idealism and school reality” in Finland too. So how do new teachers, but also more senior ones, deal with the complexities of the new NCC imposed on the reality of classrooms? CPD in Finland: A Diachronic Review In their thorough and thought-provoking report on CPD during induc- tion and beyond, Heikkinen et al. (2015a, b) use (ironically) the fol- lowing quote from a report by the Teachers’ Committee in Finland (Opettajanvalmistustoimikunta ) in 1967, to introduce their study:
3 Finnish Initial Teacher Education and CPD 53 In our country, further training of teachers or even possibilities for post- graduate studies have not yet been satisfactorily organized. On the con- trary, the lessons learned during initial training seem to disappear. As we shall see the same problems remain in Finland today. In this section, we propose a short history of CPD. Two of the rare diachronic overviews available were written by Counsellor for educa- tion Martti Hellström (2012) and Hämäläinen et al. (2015: 29–32). Hellström, a former teacher and principal, worked in Finnish schools for 35 years. A Doctor of Education, Hellström has also taught in teacher education departments. Probably the oldest form of teacher CPD in Finland is summer stud- ies, whereby teachers follow summer courses at e.g. universities. This has been the most widespread way of CPD for the longest time in the coun- try (Hellström 2012). CPD became an important issue for the Ministry of Education in the 1970s, as a way of accompanying systematically reforms (Hämäläinen et al. 2015: 29). Finnish education was centralized at the time. In the 1972 Civil Servants’ Decree, VESO training days were introduced (3 days per year of CPD) (ibid.). In the 1980s a municipality would organise a 6-hour training for all municipal teachers together on a Saturday. The morning consisted of theoretical knowledge and the afternoon of more concrete aspects illustrating the theories (Hellström, ibid.). A decade later, teachers’ associations would organise the VESO- training days. Today some municipalities also consider sending teachers to the annual EDUCA fair, dedicated to educational issues in Finland, as a substitute for VESO-training (ibid.). Educational departments of municipalities were also established to support CPD. Alongside the Comprehensive School Reform, the Heinola Course Center, from the name of the town where it was situated, about 2 hours away from the capital city Helsinki, was created (later Opeko and Educode). It became the nationwide continuing edu- cation centre (Hämäläinen et al. 2015: 30). In the 1980s, CPD departments of Universities became also increas- ingly involved in more systematic teacher training (ibid.).
54 Y. Li and F. Dervin According to Hämäläinen et al. (2015: 31) the reforms of the 1990s and 2000s transformed the role played by the State in education, with decentralization generalizing. The State outsourced CPD increasingly to universities, consultants and private companies, for short- and long- term CPD. The very severe economic downturn of the 1990s cut CPD dramatically, as savings were needed in education. Since 1996, however, the National Board of Education opened competitive funding oppor- tunities annually for higher education institutions and other organiza- tions (Hämäläinen et al. 2015). Specific CPD projects were launched, such as the language learning diversification program, and teaching staff Information Technological skills. The LUMA centre1 was also set up. It aims to “inspire and motivate children and youth into mathematics, science and technology through the latest methods and activities of sci- ence and technology education. The aim is also to support the life-long learning of teachers working on levels of education from early child- hood to universities, and strengthen the development of research-based teaching” (www.luma.fi). In the 1990s many initiatives concerning CPD appeared. Hellström (2012) mentions the Akvaario-project (Aquarium project), which was led by world famous educator Pasi Sahlberg, amongst others. Between 1995 and 1998, the project concerned 12 municipalities and 42 schools (Hellström 2012). The idea was to help teachers to implement the then new curriculum by offering constant support through CPD. The Teacher-TV project (Opettaja-TV 1998) was broadcasted online and on public television to offer CPD to teachers. Free, the project was sponsored by the National Agency for Education. The project ended in 2012. It is also important to note that in 2008, the Heinola Course Center (renamed OPEKO), was sold to a private company and became EDUCODE. Currently there are many discussions around renewing teachers’ CPD. Some of these initiatives are discussed below. 1In 2017 the LUMA China Centre, modelled on the LUMA Centre Finland, was established at Beijing Normal University. The centre promotes science and technology education.
3 Finnish Initial Teacher Education and CPD 55 Specific Forms of CPD Different forms of CPD initiatives have taken place in Finland over the last decade. However, there is, to our knowledge, no research on these experiments. In what follows we review some of the most interesting initiatives. In the aforementioned article by Hellström (2012), the network of learning centres of the city of Espoo (near Helsinki) is described. At the end of the 2000s, a first learning centre for mathematics was set up by the municipality, whose aim was to support teachers’ CPD. Seduced by the idea of the centre, decision-makers developed other centres. There are currently 9 in the city, devoted to different school subjects and relevant topics for schools, for example: multiculturalism, well-be- ing, art education, special needs education. According to Hellström (ibid.), CPD is taking place through evening training sessions and benchmarking-days. In a Ph.D. defended at the University of Helsinki in 2016, entitled Kehittävä kollaboraatio. Uuden tiedon tuottaminen opettajien lähikeh- ityksen vyöhykkeellä (Developmental Collaboration. Teachers’ collabora- tive knowledge creation at the zone of proximal development ), Kuusisaari examines an increasingly popular form of CPD called the collaborative knowledge creation (peer-to-peer cooperation). Based on Vygotsky’s concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD: collaboration, interconnection between everyday practices and theoretical knowledge as well as change and new knowledge creation ), the study examines the influ- ence of CPD on home economics teachers who learn how to co-operate more in order to create more knowledge. She shows the importance of using but also critiquing new learning theories to support developing ideas further together successfully. Our critique towards this study is in agreement with Girvan et al. (2016: 131) who argue that: most of the current teacher development theories are based on classical cognitive and empirical learning theories and inquiry-based learning. The main representatives are John Dewey (New Center for Education), Jean Piaget (Cognitive Learning Theory), Vygotsky (Theory of Cultural History Development and Theory of Activities), which emphasizes the
56 Y. Li and F. Dervin impact of social interaction on cognitive development Influence, and community-centered educational philosophy. As such, no effort seems to have been made in Finland to examine alter- native ways of problematizing and thinking about CPD, or to make use of theories and ideas developed e.g. in the ‘periphery’. For example, the Keli (Exemplary Lesson Development) model of in-service teacher edu- cation in China, implemented within the broader program of Xingdong Jiaoyu (Action Education), which has been implemented since 2003 (Huang and Bao 2006; Gu and Wang 2003), could serve as an alterna- tive way of thinking about CPD. It is a form of school-based integra- tion of research and learning which aims at updating ideas of teaching/ learning, and designing new situations and improving classroom prac- tice (lesson planning, lesson delivery and post-lesson reflection, and lesson-re-delivery). A collaborative group (the Keli group) that consists of teachers and researchers is established through discussion between researchers and a group of interested teachers. A research question, relating to certain challenges arising, is raised and the relevant content area is selected for developing an exemplary lesson through discussion among this Keli group (Huang and Bao, ibid.). Keli includes the fol- lowing three phases: (1) Familiarization and Focusing; (2) The Cycle of Teaching, Reflection and Revision; (3) Disseminating the Keli process and the Exemplary Lesson. Another type of CPD based on shared expertise was developed in Finland in the 2000s. The main idea of this kind of training was that school teachers ‘train’ university teacher educators based on their pro- fessional everyday knowledge and university teachers would tell teach- ers about the latest research on different learning or methodological aspects, based on their own research findings. The idea was that co-op- erative seminars and pedagogical days would be arranged together every year. Both teachers and teacher educators could be trainers as well as participants in these events. School teachers could get study credits for the workshops and lectures and use these credits as part of their degree structures. These credits could also be used for teachers’ postgraduate studies or to compensate for compulsory CPD. Some examples of the
3 Finnish Initial Teacher Education and CPD 57 programmes offered included: Multicultural School, Talented pupils—a challenge for teachers; How to be a media-critical reader?; How to deal with and face parents? etc. (Niemi 2015). In a similar vein, Pöntynen and Silander (2015) describe a project between the department of teacher education from the University of Jyväskylä and the municipality of Ylösjärvi. In order to support teachers’ CPD and co-planning, student teachers from the university department take over the schools as substitutes. Finally, in her 2014 doctoral thesis Helin also looks into the educa- tional partnership between universities and schools, claiming that the link between these two ‘separate’ worlds should be a right and a duty for every single teacher. She argues that teachers should take obligatory courses during their career to ensure quality of their work. The scholar proposes four vertical continua for the improvement of CPD and the links between ITT and CPD, following the induction education: the research-based continuum, the practice-based continuum for working life needs, the partnership continuum and the updating continuum. Mysteries Around CPD? In January 2018, an article about teachers appeared in a local daily newspaper called Etelä-Suomen Sanomat (South Finland Newspaper). Entitled “Teachers’ harsh critique of change in special educa- tion”—“Views have to be taken seriously, especially since criticism has been so extensive” (5 January 2018), the article explains the challenges that teachers in the city of Lahti have experienced since special needs education classes had been suppressed for the inclusion model, which places students with special needs in mainstream classes. Based on a survey done by the local trade union, teachers are very critical of this move, which is meant to promote social justice and inclusion of all. Here are some of the comments shared by the teachers in the survey (ibid.): Teachers’ time is now mostly spent dealing with special needs students.
58 Y. Li and F. Dervin The workload of teachers has now exploded. A 10-hour workday is more of a rule than an exception. I can’t stand it anymore. I just can’t. I am thinking of changing jobs. We face more dangerous situations in class today. And teachers can’t make sure that other students are safe. Interestingly, when the interviewed teachers as well as the decision-makers discuss the resources that are needed to make it work and to avoid the aforementioned problems, technical and practical issues are only mentioned: more assistants, less students in the class. However, not a single word is uttered about the possibility of organising CPD to help teachers to work in inclusive environments, well-being, social justice, etc. There is an interesting saying in Chinese that can illustrate this issue: 头痛医头, 脚痛医脚 (When someone has a headache, the doctor only treats the head; heals the foot only when he has pain in the foot) This metaphor means that the causes of phenomena are not necessar- ily the same as their symptoms and manifestations; therefore, when we look for solutions and ways to improve things, we should adopt a systematic and comprehensive view. If we go back to the Achilles’ heel metaphor of this book, the fact that Achilles has a weak spot is not his fault, but his mother’s, who dipped him into the river. In a similar vein, the weak spots of Finnish education cannot be solved just by teachers themselves, decision-makers, school leaders, but also teacher educators need to offer proper solutions for the problems teachers encounters. We believe that investing in more teaching assistants and/or excluding some students do not compare to the potential power of CPD. Autonomy is a good thing (Barbot and Camatarri 2009)—depending on how it is defined and used—but merely calling for autonomy from a neo-liberal perspective, cannot replace proper training for autonomy! While initial Finnish teacher education has been praised worldwide, there is more variation in the availability of teachers’ CPD programs, Sahlberg (2011: 86) argues that “it is recognized that professional
3 Finnish Initial Teacher Education and CPD 59 development and in-service programs for teachers are not aligned with initial teacher education and often lack focus on essential areas of teach- ing and school-development.” Every year the National Agency for Education receives funding from the State to sponsor teaching staff’s CPD. The call for projects is usually launched in December for a month. Every year between 8 and 10 mil- lion euros are dedicated to CPD, for about 23,000 educators (http:// www.oph.fi/rahoitus/valtionavustukset/opetustoimen_henkilostokoulu- tus/103/0/opetustoimen_ja_varhaiskasvatuksen_vuoden_2018_valtion_ erityisavustukset_haettavissa). All levels of the curriculum are covered, and school psychologists, career advisers, teaching assistants can also apply. The application information is very detailed, but it concerns mostly technicalities (number of hours, types of cooperation, etc.). It explains briefly that CPD should help individuals to develop their own work and cooperation with others, pedagogy, working environments, and cultural diversity in schools (application information dated 14 December 2017, ). The trainings should be free but teachers should find ways of paying for other expenses such as accommodation, transport and to find a substitute (see Pöntynen and Silander 2015). Municipalities usually pay for these, although recruiting a substitute is a big financial issue. The sponsored projects should be long-term rather than short-term (minimum 27 × 45 minutes). There are no clear cri- teria (at least in the public information) as to how these courses are selected. Projects between EUR 20,000 and EUR 700,000 can be sponsored. The applications are submitted by institutions (providers, municipal- ities, universities, etc.) rather than by individual educators. The latter apply for a place in the sponsored trainings. A list of sponsored pro- jects for 2017 are to be found on the Agency website (http://www.oph. fi/download/182607_2017_rahoitetut_hankkeet.pdf ). The following courses received the largest amount of funding (over EUR 100,000): Ihmisoikeudet haltuun! (Human Rights!) Lukion vertaistutorien koulutus (Training for peer tutors in upper secondary)
60 Y. Li and F. Dervin Radikalisoituminen ja estremismi - syrjäytymisen ehkäisy kouluissa (Radicalization and extremism – prevention of exclusion in schools2) SOS - Sujuva ohjaus ja siirtymät (SOS – smooth guidance and transitions) Mocoma - Mooceista oma digipolku (Mocoma – From MOOCs to your own digital path) Lukioiden kehittyvä ja sähköistyvä arviointikulttuuri – arviointi ja itsearviointi tavoitteellisen (Development and digitalization of the eval- uation culture in upper secondary – setting goals in assessment and self assessment) Hyvinvointia ja turvallisuutta kasvua, oppimista ja koulunkäyntiä tuke- malla (Prosperity and security in education, school attendance and learning) OsaOppi V - Digipedagogiikka osaamisperusteisen oppimisen tukena (OsaOppi V – Digital pedagogy to support knowledge-based learning) LOISTO - Varhaiskasvatuksen kehittämisverkoston kehittämistoiminnan tukeminen (LOISTO – Development support through networking in early childhood education) Henkilökohtaistaminen ja erityinen tuki (Personalization and special support). These courses are to be offered by universities, universities of applied sciences, companies (e.g. Pro Practica LTD which specialises in teacher CPD). Regardless of the financial input from the State, in general, CPD practices are said to be diffuse and unsystematic, and one main reason is that CPD, previously funded by the government, is no longer free for education providers such as municipalities (Jakku-Sihvonen 2012). Besides the provision for CPD has been somewhat poorly coordinated 2From a critical intercultural perspective (Holliday 2010; Dervin 2016), this course is very prob- lematic. All the trainers are white Finnish people, whose voice is often heard in the media to talk about ‘Islam’. Not a single voice is heard from those who have experienced radicalization or extremism, especially from a minority perspective. What is more, there seems to be this implicit discourse that these issues only concern the ‘Other’ (migrants, Muslims), while there has been reports of young white Finns falling into the trap of radicalisation and extremism. If we sum up: White trainers explain to White teachers what the Other does and experiences.
3 Finnish Initial Teacher Education and CPD 61 (Sahlberg 2011: 86). It is important to note at this stage that there is no formal link between continuing education and promotion in Finland, nor is there a link between individual teacher’s age and seniority, and CPD. In a 2017 column in the teachers’ trade Union magazine (Opettaja, Teacher ), the Minister of Education lists the problems faced by Finnish education (amongst others: girls have better results than boys; socio-eco- nomic problems are growing). She then asks questions for the future of Finnish education: “Should schools get the latest technology?” And more relevant for our book: “do teachers get enough in-service training?” In their 2016 report, the National Agency for Education notes that 80% of basic education teachers participated in some form of CPD and 88% of upper secondary teachers. Yet less than 50% of the entire popu- lation of teachers have an individual training and development plan to support their professional development (versus 15% in 2012, ibid.). CPD is obligatory in Finland but no policy mandates content. CPD is thus part of the duties and rights of teachers. Teachers have the right to participate in these trainings with full salary benefits. Municipalities have an obligation to provide teachers with a minimum of three days of CPD every year (The Finnish National Agency for Education 2017). Teachers may participate in additional courses on their own initiatives (Collective Agreement for the Teaching Personnel 2014; Sahlberg 2011: 86). In the TALIS review of Professional Development practices in OECD countries (OECD 2013), Finnish teachers have less CPD than teachers in other countries. In their 2013 report, the OECD notes that a national programme for CPD had been launched by the Ministry of Education and Culture in 2010 to ensure systematic CPD of staff in Finnish schools. Called the Finnish Network for Teacher Induction, Osaava Programme (2010–2016), the programme supported municipalities to systematically and continu- ally develop the skills and knowledge of their teaching staff according to locally identified needs. In his report in Finnish for the Ministry of Education about the Programme called Good practices from the Osaava programme; Operating models for developing the competence of personnel in education and the opportunities provided by these models (2017), Kangasoja notes first of all that teachers’ CPD in Finland relies on the expertise of teaching
62 Y. Li and F. Dervin personnel themselves, and promotes networking. The report presents models and ‘good practices’ of CPD from 59 projects that were part of the programme. For instance, in some municipalities colleagues started to shadow each other for a day. The author claims that “The digital skills, quality work and well-being at work have been improved in the development models described in the report”. Our impression of the programme is a patchwork of projects, with somewhat narrow foci. We also find it difficult to identify long-term impacts of the different pro- jects and how they can form a more holistic picture of what has been achieved and learnt about CPD. In 2016 the Ministry of Education and Culture also appointed a Teacher Education Forum for the term 2016–2018 to support the development of both pre-service and in-service training for teachers (Opettajankoulutus foorumi ). About 100 experts gathered to work on a Teacher Education Development Programme. Students and teach- ers were also consulted. Part of the government key project, the back- ground to the Development programme is explained as follows in the brochure produced in English: The world’s most competent teachers. Finland has competent teachers. Teacher education is of high quality and attractive. We can be proud about it. However, future challenges and rapid changes in the society have presented the competent teachers and the teacher education with new challenges. The Teacher Education Development Programme responds to these chal- lenges. The programme outlines the objectives and measures that ensure that Finnish teacher education will remain strong, attractive and interna- tionally appreciated. Valuing the teacher education and teachers as well as teacher identity that creates new outcomes are important for the future of Finland. This brief description is interesting in the sense that it seems to blend in ‘education export’ discourses (“The world’s most competent teachers”, “we can be proud of it” and “The programme outlines the objectives and measures that ensure that Finnish teacher education will remain
3 Finnish Initial Teacher Education and CPD 63 strong, attractive and internationally appreciated ”—italics are ours) and ‘honest’ discourses about the needs to make some changes. The bro- chure is systematically distributed to ‘pedagogical tourists’ visiting the country, so it serves the purpose of promoting Finnish education but also to reassure ‘Finland fans’ about its future—hence the somewhat dif- ferent tones in the brochure. On the back of the brochure the government key project of knowl- edge and education is explained in more (critical) details: Competence acquired once during studies is not enough for the entire teaching career, as the work of teachers changes constantly. Teachers’ capabilities, personal willingness and possibilities for doing things together, networking, constant development of personal competence and learning are key to change. It is essential to have flexibility and abil- ity to apply one’s competence to a changing and renewing operating environment. The description also explains that “fragmented models for continuing training will not accomplish the desired change. Activities supporting teachers’ professional development must be managed, effective, system- atic and long-lasting.” The brochure also presents a list of 6 strategic guidelines for the development of teacher education and training: (1) Teacher’s competence into an entity (needs-based and goal-oriented; covers all stages of teach- ers’ career: admissions, basic education and introductory training, devel- opment of professional competence and training during the career); (2) Attractive teacher education with well-functioning structures, anticipation and successful student admissions (“students with the best capacity for acting as teachers will be selected in teacher training”); (3) Teachers as experts creating new pedagogical innovations—focus on the learners; (4) Strengthening teacher education through collaboration; (5) Developing educational institution and community with professional management and leadership; and (6) Strengthening the research-based teacher education. Interestingly most of these strategies for the future, have made Finland famous worldwide. It is thus surprising to see that they are pre- sented as ‘new’ in a sense.
64 Y. Li and F. Dervin Throughout the presentation of the 6 strategies, CPD is mentioned implicitly or explicitly. Most of the points made have been covered in the scientific literature on CPD (lifelong learning, induction, transpar- ency and coherence of CPD). It is also important to note that CPD seems to be used in a very broad sense. Different actors are discussed from teacher students to service providers: Teacher students begin building the paths of continuous learning during their studies. The teacher education units update the available opportunities for devel- oping competence during the career and evaluator training so that they correspond with the changes practices. The changes allow securing an opportunity for teachers to bring their competence up to date. Teacher education and education providers will improve the objectives and implementations of the development of teachers’ competence in network. Education providers will use regional or other coordinated network cooperation to enable the development of professional competence of teaching staff. Education providers and managers of educational institutions will reinforce their professional networks and introduce peer support models and mentoring activities in developing competence. Finally, higher education institutions are urged to do research on CPD. As a result of the Forum 15 million euros were awarded in grants for projects to develop teacher education and training. Twenty projects were selected in 2017 (http://minedu.fi/documents/1410845/4183002/ Teacher+Education+Development+Projects+2017.pdf/4d9358f9-4fde- 4000-ab02-60b2fd647098). Amongst these projects, only three relate directly to CPD. The first one deals with teacher educators’ CPD, and the second and third ones with teachers’ CPD. a. Professional development of teacher educators as part of research-oriented teacher education. Through action research, the project will create a struc- tured model—From Novice to Master—for the professional development of teacher educators. The objective is to create a dialogue between more
3 Finnish Initial Teacher Education and CPD 65 experienced teacher educators and those at the start of their teacher edu- cator’s career, especially as concerns the combination of theory and prac- tice. Another objective is to improve teacher education’s knowledge of the media world of students and pupils. Cooperation with the field school network and training schools will be utilised. b. Creative expertise—building bridges in teachers’ basic education and con- tinuing education (ULA ). Grounded in systemic thinking and research- based knowledge, the project will develop operating models for teacher education. Phenomenon-based and life-long learning will be supported in collaboration between universities and schools, while utilising hybrid learning environments and expertise from various disciplines. The focus is on cross-cutting themes in learning and teaching, such as multiliteracy and language awareness, the equal school, a research-minded approach to working, student motivation, and cross-curricular cooperation. c. Arctic Reformative and Exploratory Teaching (ArkTOP). The purpose of the ArkTOP project is to support the career-long development of teach- ers’ professional competence and to create an operating model based on teachers’ development plans in order to implement systematic, long-last- ing and field-oriented continuing education. In addition, various ped- agogical solutions for virtual teaching will be designed for providing high-quality teaching irrespective of geographical distances. The first project is important as teacher educators rarely either receive CPD themselves or are the targets of research on CPD. One wonders however how “teacher education’s knowledge of the media world of students and pupils” relates to the project (although it is of course an important topic). The second project means probably good but it does not say much about the meanings and perspectives on CPD, and the actual links with ITT. The third project appears to be well focused on CPD, by looking into teachers’ development plans. The rest of the pro- jects, which appear to be a somewhat random ‘smorgasbord’, deal with such issues as digitalization in schools and teacher education, inclusion, informal learning in teacher education, intercultural education, teach- ers’ professional interaction skills, teaching language oral skills, gender issues, etc. They are meant to contribute to the 6 strategic guidelines for the development of teacher education and training defined by the
66 Y. Li and F. Dervin aforementioned Teacher Education Forum. These projects focus at times on particular contexts (e.g. a given university or a region). Our impression of these projects is that of fragmentation: How do they fit and complement together? What is the broader picture? In other words, the resulting vision is that of ‘smaller’ issues based on individual Practitioners’ or researchers’ interests. We also note that all these pro- jects are led by Finnish teacher educators and researchers but that there does not seem to be any input from outside Finland. Foreign experts are used for some of the projects’ seminars and benchmarking visits to other countries are organised (e.g. University of Helsinki/University of Stockholm joint seminar in January 2018). However, in general, it appears that teacher education and CPD remain a Finnish issue for Finnish specialists (see opeosaa.fi). The main idea of this book is to push for an agenda of ‘working with each other’. The reality of CPD today appears to be very different from what is proposed in the Development Programme. CPD is based on the idea of supply and demand in Finland. Short-term training courses run from a couple of hours to three to five days. Longer-term courses are also available, e.g. 12 days over a period of 12 months. A very wide range of CPD is available from teacher education departments or other departments of universities, vocational teacher education col- leges, teacher training schools, summer universities and various private organizations. Universities offer CPD through their continuing edu- cation companies (e.g. Helsinki HY+, see next chapters). They apply competitively for funding to organise CPD (Sahlberg 2011: 88, see above). Programmes are also run by local school authorities, which, in many cases, represent the only CPD teachers receive annually: CPD is organised at the school where the teacher works and is financed by the municipality (so-called VESO-days during which teachers co-plan and take part in some form of training). In general, Guiden and Brennan (2017) note that VESO training days are not very popular amongst teachers because they feel the topics are not always relevant to them. Furthermore, these days take place outside working week (Guiden and Brennan 2017: 49). “Given that each municipality organises their own range of VESO training, there is considerable variation in content and standard of material provided” (Guiden and Brennan 2017: 42).
3 Finnish Initial Teacher Education and CPD 67 There is also variation in the organisation of other forms of training. For instance, the City of Espoo, close to Helsinki, organizes around 200 in-service programs per year for teachers at different levels of the curric- ulum. In 2012, these included e.g. information technology, pedagogy, environmental issues and proficiency in the contents of various school subjects. Municipalities usually allocate 200–220 euros per teacher annually for this kind of training, while government-funded profes- sional development linked to national priorities is co-ordinated by the Finnish National Agency for Education. The state-funded CPD for 2017 (time of writing) focused on the fol- lowing themes, which are all relevant to the 2014 NCC: • Competence-based approaches and learner-centredness; • Cultural diversity; • Digitalisation and ICT; • Leadership and school development; • Pedagogy, subject-specific and vocational competences; • Well-being and safety. The budget for this state-funded CPD in 2017 was about 9 million euro (Eurydice 2017) and 10 million for 2018. For self-motivated CPD, teachers may also get financial support in the form of a study grant from e.g. the European Union or the Nordic Council of Ministers (Heikkinen et al. 2012). Some staff at the NAE specialise in such initiatives and promote international mobility of teachers for CPD. The EU Erasmus+ initiative (2014–2020), which has a global budget of 59.4 million euros for all the EU countries and part- ners, is one of the major sponsor of international CPD. Teachers can apply through Key Action 1 and take courses on e.g. new innovations in education, intercultural/intergenerational education, pedagogy and didactics, special needs, etc. (examples of courses are available at www. schooleducationgateway.eu). The course must have a clear European dimension or promote a European dimension. According to the instruc- tions to course designers from the School Gateway website: “The course must provide a European dimension, both in the content and structure of the course. The European dimension can be activated in many ways,
68 Y. Li and F. Dervin such as by diversifying the profile of participants, creating multicul- tural groups, and finding an appropriate location for the course.” This description is quite broad and implicit, which might have an influence on how this ‘dimension’ is included in the course. However, the call for courses seems to have clear guidelines concerning what a ‘good quality course’ should be like: Be both engaging and interactive, facilitating a productive dialogue between participants; Focus on the development of teachers’ professional competences Offer a balance between theory and the practical application of approaches Select activities that are appropriate to the course duration and objectives Use a range of methods to deliver the course content in order to both engage participants in the sessions and inspire innovation in their future practice Show flexibility in the delivery of the course according to the needs of participants (e.g. languages, competence levels, previous experience) Provide a variety of means for participants to reflect upon and share their learning. It is interesting to note that Finland is amongst the EU countries which have the highest teacher mobility rates at 26.2% (Eurydice 2015: 87). In 2017 the NAE took part in a study conducted with other EU countries about the impact of international courses on teachers them- selves, school principals but also students and parents (total surveyed Finnish participants: 500; 56 schools covered in Finland). According to the report (New Perspectives on Everyday School Work ), 70% of the students thought that the lessons had become more interesting: more technology was used, and teachers shared their experience abroad. Parents also saw international CPD as an important way of developing their own children’s international perspectives (ibid.). The report also claims that teachers who did not take part in international CPD noticed
3 Finnish Initial Teacher Education and CPD 69 a difference when their colleagues returned. It is important to note here that this kind of report is problematic for several reasons and that we need to be careful with the conclusions drawn. First of all, they tend to be superficial, not digging enough into the meanings of participants’ assertions. For instance, the report draws the following general conclu- sions about the impact: On students: more interesting lessons, more modern technology, more interesting projects and homework, information about school work in another country, to work together with pupils from another country On parents: positive developments in schools, better learning outcomes, improvements in the quality of teaching On schools: School culture has become more open and tolerant, the international dimension has become more common in every day school life, they acquire new teaching methods, projects help them achieve their goals and develop their activities, networks result in new projects, interest in international activities increases On teachers: language skills, knowledge of different cultures, improved understanding of differences, international competences, new perspectives on their work, new teaching methods. It is also important to note that the NAE is the national representative of Erasmus+ for Schools in Finland and that they have an indirect pres- sure to prove that the money invested by the EU is well used and that it has a direct ‘provable’ impact. Impediments to CPD in Finland “Jotain tarttis tehdä toisin. Jotain tarttis keksiä” (“Something should be done. We need solutions ”) Pöntynen and Silander about CPD in Finland. (2015) “Täydennyskoulutus on monissa paikoin retuperällä” (“Professional devel- opment is in a grim state in many places.”) Head of Teachers’ Trade Union. (4 August 2016)
70 Y. Li and F. Dervin Based on a European study on the professional development of teachers (Hendriks et al. 2010) the problems met by Finland were highlighted as follow. As we have noted before, these problems have been identified long before 2010 and are still discussed today. There seems to be a need to unify CPD practices, and to find more methods for knowledge sharing. The most common barriers to partici- pation in CPD appear to be workload and a lack of time. The economic situation of municipalities and schools; e.g. lack of money for hiring supply teachers, and high participation fees and other expenses, were also identified (see Pöntynen and Silander 2015). The geography of Finland has been named as one of the challenges due to long distances that increase traveling expenses and, hence, may hinder participation. Eurydice (2015: 83) also notes that less experienced teachers have less access to CPD. Probably one of the most important impediments to CPD is the important role played by municipalities in Finnish education (decen- tralization). As mentioned earlier municipalities allocate money and resources for education in general, CPD included. According to the Head of the Teachers’ Trade Union in 2017: “municipality decision makers are kings when it comes to deciding how to use the money for education.” This has an influence on how money is spent and the pri- ority given to CPD. While some municipalities will have more money available from taxation, others have to make budget cuts, from which CPD often suffers (Sahlberg 2011: 87). Pöntynen and Silander (2015) also argue that too much CPD is tak- ing place through individual teachers’ initiative and that makes CPD more expensive. They explain that a one-day participation in CPD for a single teacher can cost over EUR 300, which is doubled if one takes into account travel, per diems and salary for a substitute. For them, individual training is also a waste of resources as it very rarely relates to the interests of the larger school community (ibid.). In 2008 the Ministry of Education appointed an Advisory Board for Professional Development of Education, whose aim was to exam- ine and improve teachers’ CPD. The Board published three reports in Finnish: 2011 Professional development for education personnel as a com- petence resource. A report on good practices and development measures in professional development for education personnel (2011), Systematic
3 Finnish Initial Teacher Education and CPD 71 and planned. The state, challenges and development needs of professional development of education personnel (2013) and Paths to Continuing Professional Development. The challenges and future of state-funded pro- fessional development of education personnel (2015). The reports were intended for those planning and implementing CPD in Finland. The report from 2011 (Hämäläinen and Hämäläinen) stipulates clearly that education personnel must “commit themselves to regular development of their own professional competence in co-operation with their employers”. The actions of the Board described in the report were centered around the Osaava programme (budget: 21 million euros) which aimed at improving educators’ professional competence through CPD. The target educators were: school leaders, full- and part-time hourly paid teachers (who do not necessarily have a Master’s or who are not qualified teachers), teachers aged over 55, and those who had no or very limited access or opportunity to participate in continuing train- ing. Good practices identified by the Board are presented in the report. Recommendations were also included (e.g. better ‘blending’ of initial and continuing teacher training). The second report from 2013 (Hämäläinen and Kangasniemi) pro- posed to diversify CPD in order to help educators whose backgrounds might be very different. According to the Board CPD thus must be “wide and competitive enough (…) for the entire duration of one’s working life.” The aforementioned issue of integrating ITT and CPD is once again put on the table. But the emphasis of the report consists of recommendations for the specific case of CPD of Swedish-speaking education personnel. The last report of the Advisory Board dates back from 2015 (Hämäläinen, Hämäläinen and Kangasniemi). It discusses the challenges and needs of CPD in Finland. Strategies and practices are suggested to enhance the quality of CPD: the creation of peer mentoring training of student teachers, recently graduated teachers and experienced teachers. According to the report, all new teachers should be peer mentored. Other measures were suggested: reinforcing teachers’ research-oriented work; higher education institutions should develop long-term programmes to enhance the professional development of educators; peer-to-peer networks must be supported. For the next term (2015–2019) the Advisory Board wished to concentrate on the links between ITT and CPD.
72 Y. Li and F. Dervin What is noticeable from these reports is that the Advisory Board has actively made recommendations and headed initiatives to make CPD more transparent and ‘useful’ in Finland. However, at the time of writ- ing, there was no indication of how these have been used by the author- ities. As we shall see the problems related to CPD are well known by the different educational actors, however steps need to be urgently taken. Heikkinen et al.’s (2015b) report on CPD is probably the most exhaustive, critical and realistic publication on the topic. The report was published in Finnish only. In what follows we summarize the most interesting findings of their study, especially in relation to impediments. The authors note, first of all, that Finland’s CPD strategy is not vis- ible in the way teachers’ CPD is organized, which gives the impression that development and updating are secondary. This often means that teachers lack interest and motivation in CPD. They also view CPD as fragmented, and teacher participation as “incidental and inconsistent” (ibid.). The strategies also fail to provide a clear perspective from both teachers’ and institutions’ point of view. The overreliance on ITT as a static and context-free way of learning to be a teacher is also criticized by the authors. They see in all these points a real conflict between rheto- ric and practices. Based on interviews with the main actors of CPD, Heikkinen et al. also note that the funding of CPD is too complex, overlapping and contradic- tory (ibid.). As such, many actors are included: The Ministry of Education, the NAE, and local authorities. This leads to a loss of time and resources. Heikkinen et al.’s (ibid.) study confirms that many teachers do not take part in CPD, apart from the compulsory VESO days and that the same (most motivated) teachers always attend courses and seminars (ibid.). They also demonstrate that CPD in Finnish schools relies increasingly on mentoring and the ‘work community’ (cooperation) (ibid.). Some of the teachers interviewed by the scholars are thus very critical of CPD: We are in educational institutions dealing with learning but learning does not extend to the own learning from staff. In the two following subsections, we take two detours before moving on to the crux of the study. These detours aim to help the reader get
3 Finnish Initial Teacher Education and CPD 73 a sense of how CPD is organised in one municipality (note that this only serves as an example) and to familiarize themselves with the discus- sions around CPD in the only national magazine for teachers in Finland (Opettaja, published by the Teacher Trade Union). Discourses of CPD are influenced by the locality and politico-economic situations, and thus need to be contextualised to give a sense of its complexity. Detour I. An Example of CPD Strategy and Practices: The Town of Kokkola (Western Finland) As asserted earlier, the role of municipalities is central in making CPD available for teachers and other educators in Finnish public schools. In this subsection we take the example of Kokkola, with a population of 47,000 (Statistics Finland 2017), a town and municipality located in Western Finland (part of the Central Ostrobothnia region, about 500 km from the capital city Helsinki). The town is bilingual (Finnish/Swedish). In what follows we present the work of the municipality in terms of CPD. This must not and should not be generalized to all municipali- ties in Finland. We consider what Kokkola does to be a very good (and rare) example of engagement with teacher CPD in the Nordic coun- try. The information below was identified on the municipality web- site, in Finnish (https://www.kokkola.fi/palvelut/opetus_ja_kasvatus/ taydennyskoulutus/fi_FI/taydennyskoulutus%20/). The Municipality Education Centre (sivistyskeskus ), whose decisions are made, like in other Finnish municipalities, by a local education and culture committee (sivistyslautakunta ), has a Professional Development Coordinator and an Assistant dealing with the municipality CPD. Teachers can take part in free or paid CPDs, get paid or unpaid and must be granted leave (with paid substitute or not). It is important to note, in order to make things more concrete, that the total budget for 2017 was EUR 79,000, or EUR 120 per teacher and teaching assis- tant. Although not all teachers will receive e.g. formal CPD beyond the VESO-days, it means that very little budget is available for extra CPD.
74 Y. Li and F. Dervin An official strategy for CPD, which we present below, was designed in 2016 (https://www.kokkola.fi/palvelut/opetus_ja_kasvatus/tayden- nyskoulutus/fi_FI/taydennyskoulutus%20/_files/93969176163845330/ default/taydennyskoulutusstrategia.pdf ). The strategy starts with the following statement (our translation): Teachers in elementary and upper secondary education and school assis- tants receive further training by developing their own professional field, getting acquainted with policy guidelines, supporting both the city’s stra- tegic choices and the development needs of the school system. Through supplementary education, the skills of teaching staff are devel- oped to meet the changing challenges of schoolwork. The aim is for each teacher to participate in a short-term training on topical themes annually and, in addition, to teach teachers in long-term education with the aim of increasing the educational level of the entire teaching staff to meet the current level of qualification. The strategy thus offers short-term and long-term training and educa- tion for all teachers to meet school, local, national educational interests and objectives. Teachers’ needs and potential application for the rights to CPD are dis- cussed yearly between the teachers and school leaders during the so-called “development discussions” (kehityskeskustelu ). The objective of the munic- ipality is to involve every single teacher in CPD every year (through three VESO-days, formal national trainings and others). The CPD coordinator at the municipality level is allocated a certain amount of money each year to meet these needs and wishes. The municipality has developed a sys- tem of CPD feedback which teachers should fill online, within two weeks after taking part in CPD. The form includes questions such as: How can you apply what you learned during CPD? What kind of material did you dis- tribute to your colleagues after CPD? Are you ready to share information you have received with other teaching staff as a trainer yourself? In 2017–2018 the three usual VESO-days were organised as well as one full-day of training, two evenings (3 hours each) and twelve hours of joint planning between teachers. These extra hours and days relate
3 Finnish Initial Teacher Education and CPD 75 to the so-called Competitiveness Pact that impacted teachers’ sal- ary and working time between 2016 and 2019 (see next sub-section). The municipality website gives details about the first VESO-day (23 September 2017, 9 a.m.–3 p.m.). The day consisted of workshops, joint lectures and discussion groups. Three workshops of 40-minute were available for each teacher. Teachers could choose between 27 sessions in each workshop (T: 81 sessions). Here is a list of session examples: The use of E-books in education Maintaining your voice as teachers and leaders Safe relations in school Happy atmosphere—improvisations Mindfulness and well-being at work Using Lego Mindstorms The use of robotics in coding lessons The use of 3D-printing in school The use of drama education Phenomenon-based learning Time management “I don’t want to go to school!” What shall we do then? The sessions were given by teachers, trainers, NGOs representatives, researchers, etc. In autumn 2017, the following training days were also organised (average: 3 hours): Welcoming new teachers to basic education Workshop for teachers of mathematics Using OneNote Using O365 – Sway, forms, mix First Aid Developing strong teaching
76 Y. Li and F. Dervin The municipality also offers to train mentors for new and less experi- enced teachers. These mentors are usual older and more experienced teachers. Once trained, the mentors meet their tutees during develop- ment discussions. They discuss how the school community and culture function, as well as professional relations. There is usually one mentor for 4–6 tutees. The mentorship programme started in Kokkola in 2003, when the school joined a research project entitled TeLL (Teachership— Lifelong Learning). In 2016–2017, 206 teachers were mentored. Finally, the municipality CPD website offers the possibility to the teachers to share their views on “the most important goals of peda- gogical development for the next four years.” Only six teachers had left comments and suggestions as of time of writing (January 2018). Although these can’t be generalized, we feel that the teachers make points about CPD which are worth sharing with our readers. One of the teachers shares her concerns about CPD that she views as time-consuming, “bizarre” and takes her away from what matters: the pupils. Another teacher asks for “working peace” (työrauha ) instead of the “constant pressure to develop”. The next teacher feels that more time for co-planning should be made available because she feels that “everything is done with compassion and… creativity disappears”. In a similar vein, a teacher calls for a stronger “sharing culture” (sharing good practices and methods). The latter also adds that she attaches “importance to the flex- ible use of different teaching methods and habits, so that each child and young person can develop according to their own potential”. These excerpts, which may sound anecdotal, seem to correspond to the general feeling that teachers, decision-makers and researchers, pay more attention to informal learning than formal and compulsory CPD in the Finnish context. With the current educational reforms in Finland, can one rely on informal learning only to improve education? Detour II. Discussions About CPD in Finnish Teachers’ Magazine (2017) In this subsection, we examine discussions around CPD in a profes- sional magazine in 2017 (year of writing).
3 Finnish Initial Teacher Education and CPD 77 First, 2017 marked an important year for teachers, like all employ- ees in Finland. The so-called Competitiveness Pact increased annual teachers’ working time by 24 hours, as well as reduced their holiday bonuses temporarily (EUR 700 in average). This was discussed in the Trade Union’s Teachers Magazine called Opettaja (Teacher ). In order to improve the competitiveness of labour and businesses, boost economic growth, and create new jobs, the Pact is meant to allow teachers to use the 24 extra hours for cooperation with other colleagues and CPD (Opettaja 13/2017, p. 12). Apart from one full article about CPD (13/2017), the 2017 maga- zine issues only contained brief information about CPD. The theme of the full-length article about CPD concerned a multicultural education training offered by a Finnish University that lasts for a year. The inter- viewed teacher teaches Finnish as a second language to migrant adults. The teacher justifies her registration for the CPD programme by claim- ing that she wanted to increase her scientific knowledge about the topic of multiculturalism in education. She explains how the CPD went (lec- tures, seminars, online work). She also discusses what has changed in her teaching after the course (e.g. she does not use English in the class anymore but only Finnish). She also learnt the importance to celebrate different cultures and languages in her lessons (13/2017, pp. 17–19). The short pieces of news identified in the magazine include (in chronological order, all translated from Finnish): An article about new principals being awarded a minor in leadership at a university CPD Centre after completing a course. (12/2017, p. 6) Two teachers talk about a course on school well-being that they have taken with a company called Positive Learning. The article resembles an advertisement. (13/2017, pp. 21–23) A representative of OAJ explains: “taking part in CPD reinforces teachers’ development. It is important that school leadership defines a clear ‘red thread’ concerning CPD for the whole school.” (7/2017, p. 22) An article presents local representatives of the teachers’ trade union and explains that OAJ is one of the most active providers of training. It provided 3524 hours of training through 358 different events in 2016. (6/2017, pp. 6–8)
78 Y. Li and F. Dervin In a column about the future of Finnish education the Minister of educa- tion Sanni Grahn-Laasonen lists important questions, one of them is about CPD of teachers (will they get enough in the future?). (6/2017, p. 31) Päivi Lyhykäinen, a trade union representative, claims that when students finish their teacher education they are not entirely ready and need CPD during the rest of their career. She believes that it is important to take into account the local needs of students when choosing CPD. (4/2017, p. 23) Full page about the CPD courses offered by the trade union. Some teach- ers explain what they learnt during them (courses about law and rights of teachers). (3/2017) Pause From this chapter, we can say that, although current legislations con- cerning CPD are favourable, the reality and practices seem to differ. One hidden discourse about CPD in Finland relies on myths about initial teacher education. Since the latter is ‘research-based’, there is a widely shared belief amongst decision-makers (but also maybe teachers and school leaders), that teachers are autonomous enough to make their own pedagogical decisions and to self-train (Niemi 2015). However, realities show that many teachers are in desperate needs of CPD, espe- cially to keep up with technology but also issues of well-being at school, diversity, etc. The National Agency for Education noted in 2016 that an increasing number of teachers have a training and CPD plan but this represents less than 50% of the teachers. Finally, the official fact that 80–88% (ibid.) teachers participate in some form of CPD does not inform us of (1) The quality of CPD (offer); (2) The length and investment in CPD. Our study offers some answers to these questions by looking into the main CPD providers in Finland. One important gap in knowledge about CPD in Finland is the qua- si-absence of the voice of Finnish teachers about it. In his review of CPD in Finland, the influential former teacher and Counsellor of Education Hellström (2012) asks the following important questions about CPD, based on his discussions with teachers:
3 Finnish Initial Teacher Education and CPD 79 Should it be compulsory or optional? Whose needs should be taken into account: The State, Municipalities, Schools or Teachers? Should CPD be theory-based or practical? Should CPD be short or long-term? How do we learn more during CPD? Alone or with the school community? Is it enough to listen, watch and listen or should we experience new things during CPD? Should CPD be face-to-face or online? Should CPD be about listening to ‘gurus’ or cooperating with colleagues? Should CPD be Top down or Bottom Up? Should CPD be the same for everyone or individual? Many of these questions have inspired us in designing interviews for the individuals we have talked to for this book. We have also added more questions concerning individuals (teachers, students, leaders) as these questions tend to concentrate on the training only. We are especially interested in the ways teachers perceive CPD as essential to the develop- ment of their career in education but also discuss its in-/direct effect on the whole society. We believe that this will allow us to provide our read- ers with new and original insights into teachers’ perceptions of CPD. References Abdallah-Pretceille, M. (2003). Former et éduquer en contexte hétérogène: pour un humanisme du divers [Education and training in heterogeneous contexts: Towards a humanism of the diverse]. Paris: Anthropos. Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and philosophy and other essays. New York: Monthly Review Press. Aspfors, J., & Hansén, S.-E. (2011). Gruppmentorskapets många ansikten – en metaanalys av möjligheter och utmaningar [Different perceptions of
80 Y. Li and F. Dervin group mentorship—A metaanalysis of opportinutiers and challenges]. In J. Aspfors & S.-E Hansén (Eds.), Gruppmentorskap som stöd för lärares pro- fessionella utveckling [Peer Group mentoring as support for teachers’ profes- sional development] (pp. 108–124). Helsingfors: Söderströms. Barbot, M. J., & Camatarri, G. (2009). Autonomie et apprentissage [autonomy in education]. Paris: PUF. Butler, J., Laclau, E., & Laddaga, R. (1997). The uses of equality. Diacritics, 27(1), 3–12. Collective Agreement for the Teaching Personnel. (2014). OVTES 2014–2016. Kunnallinen opetushenkilöstön virka- ja työehtosopimus [OVTES 2014–2016. Municipal teaching staff positions and contracts]. Retrieved from http:// flash.kuntatyonantajat.fi/ovtes-2014-2016/html/. Dervin, F. (2016). Is the emperor naked? Experiencing the ‘PISA hysteria’, branding and education export in Finnish academia. In K. Trimmer (Ed.), Political pressures on educational and social research (pp. 77–92). New York: Routledge. European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. (2015). The teaching profession in Europe: Practices, perceptions, and policies (Eurydice Report). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/edu- cation/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/184EN.pdf. Eurydice. (2017). Continuing Professional Development for Teachers Working in Early Childhood and School Education. Available at https://eacea.ec.europa. eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/continuing-professional-development- teachers-working-early-childhood-and-school-education-23_en. Girvan, C., Conneely, C., & Tangney, B. (2016). Extending experiential learn- ing in teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 129–139. Gu, L., & Wang, J. (2003). Teachers’ development through education action—The use of ‘Keli’ as a means in the research of teacher education model. Curriculum, Textbook & Pedagogy, 1, 9–15. Guiden, V., & Brennan, M. (2017). The continuous professional development (CPD) of Finnish primary school teachers—Potential lessons to be learned for Ireland. Irish Teachers’ Journal, 5(1), 39–54. Hämäläinen, K., Hämäläinen, K., & Kangasniemi, J. (2015). Osaamisen kehittämisen poluille: Valtion rahoittaman opetustoimen henkilöstökoulu- tuksen haasteet ja tulevaisuus [Knowledge development direction: A state funded education in-service training, challenges and future]. Helsinki: Opetushallitus. Heikkinen, H. L. T., Jokinen, H., & Tynjälä, P. (Eds.). (2012). Peer-group men- toring for teacher development. London: Routledge.
3 Finnish Initial Teacher Education and CPD 81 Heikkinen, H. L. T., Aho, J., & Korhonen, H. (2015a). Ope ei saa oppia. Opettajankoulutuksen jatkumon kehittäminen [The teacher does not know how to teach. Development of teacher education]. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän yli- opisto and Koulutuksen tutkimuslaitos. Heikkinen, H., Hästö, P., Kangas, V., & Leinonen, M. (2015b). Promoting exploratory teaching in mathematics: A design experiment on a CPD course for teachers. LUMAT (2013–2015 Issues), 3(6), 905–924. Hellström, M. (2012). In-service training of teachers in Finland. Available at pedagogiikkaa.blogspot.com/2012/05. Hendriks, M., Luyten, H., Scheerens, J., Sleegers, P., & Steen, R. (Eds.). (2010). Teachers’ professional development: Europe in international compar- ison: an analysis of teachers’ professional development based on the OECD’s Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Union viewed 01 Aug 2018, http://ec.europa.eu/education/school-education/doc/talis/report_en.pdf. Holliday, A. (2010). Intercultural communication and ideology. London: Sage. Huang, R., & Bao, J. (2006). Towards a model for teacher professional development in China: Introducing Keli. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(3), 279–298. Jakku-Sihvonen, R. (2012). Peruskoulusta perusopetukseksi [From basic education to basic teaching]. In R. Jakku-Sihvonen & J. Kuusela (Eds.). Perusopetuksen aika. Selvitys koulujen toimintaympäristöä kuvaavista indi- kaattoreista [Time for basic education. Report on indicators for the description of teaching environment] (pp. 44–51). Opetus- ja kulttuuri- ministeriön työryhmämuistioita ja selvityksiä 2012: 13. Helsinki: Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriö. Jyrhämä, R., & Maaranen, K. (2012). Orientation in a teacher’s work. In H. Niemi et al. (Eds.). Miracle of education (pp. 97–112). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Kangasoja. (2017). Good practices from the Osaava programme; Operating models for developing the competence of personnel in education and the opportunities provided by these models (Programme Report in Finnish for the Ministry of Education). Helsinki: MoE. Kansanen, P. (2003). Teacher education in Finland: Current models and new developments. In M. Moon, L. Vlasceanu, & C. Barrows (Eds.), Institutional approaches to teacher education within higher education in Europe: Current models and new developments (pp. 85–108). Bucharest: Unesco-Cepes. National Agency for Education. (2016). Teachers and principals in Finland. Available at http://www.oph.fi/download/185381_teachers_and_princi- pals_in_Finland_2016_brochure.pdf.
82 Y. Li and F. Dervin National Board of Education. (2016). National Core Curriculum for Basic Education. Helsinki: Opetushallitus. Niemi, H. (2015). Teacher professional development in Finland: Towards a more holistic approach. Psychology, Society & Education, 7(3), 279–294. Niemi, H. (2017). Towards induction: Training mentors for new teachers in Finland. In B. Hudson (Ed.), Overcoming Fragmentation in Teacher Education Policy and Practice (pp. 45–72). London: Cambridge University Press. Niemi, H., Toom, A., & Kallioniemi, A. (Eds.). (2012). Miracle of education. London: Sense Publishers. Niemi, H., Kynäslahti, H., & Vahtivuori-Hänninen, S. (2013). Towards ICT in everyday life in Finnish schools: Seeking conditions for good practices. Learning, Media and Technology, 38(1), 57–71. OECD. (2013). Teachers’ professional development. Europe in international com- parison. Paris: OECD. Opettaja. (13/2017). Helsinki: OAJ. Pöntynen, L., & Silander, T. (2015). Opettajat koulutuksessa - nappikau- pasta rohkeisiin ratkaisuihin [Teachers in training—The most daring solutions]. Available at https://www.sitra.fi/blogit/opettajat-koulutuksessa- nappikaupasta-rohkeisiin-ratkaisuihin/. Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons. What can the world learn from educa- tional change in Finland? New York, NY: Teachers College Press, Columbia University. Sahlberg, P. (2018). Teachers need a sense of mission, empathy and leadership. The Conversation (Z. Zhuoying), March 1, 2018. Available at https://www. jiemodui.com/N/90187. Sitomaniemi-San, J. (2015). Fabricating the teacher as researcher: A genealogy of academic teacher education in Finland. Oulu: Acta Universitatis Ouluensis. Statistics Finland. (2017). Population structure 31 December. Available at http://www.stat.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_vaesto_en.html. Resources from Official Statistics of Finland (OSF): Population structure [e-publication]. ISSN=1797–5395. Helsinki: Statistics Finland [referred: 1.8.2018]. Toom, A., & Husu, J. (2016). Finnish teachers as ‘makers of the many’. In Niemi et al. (Eds.). Miracle of education (pp. 41–55). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Xing, X., Dervin, F., & Fan, P. (2017). Truths, omissions and illusions in the era of marketization Chinese university leaders’ perceptions of Finnish edu- cation. Journal of the European Higher Education Area, 4, 33–50.
4 Data and Methodologies To our knowledge, this is the most exhaustive study on CPD in Finland. It is qualitative and does not aim to generalize for discourses and practices of CPD in Finland. However, we claim that the study gives a snapshot of the issues faced by the different actors in 2017. For the following analytical chapters, we rely on this set of data (Table 4.1). The collected data is multiform, from interviews to research diaries. The different types of knowledge production opted for are meant to complement each other. The interviews took place face-to-face with different actors involved in CPD in Finland: providers from universities, businesses; a repre- sentative of the Teachers’ Trade Union; a representative of the National Agency for Education; teachers from a rural school and from a broader spectrum as collected during the Annual Educa Conference in Helsinki. © The Author(s) 2018 83 Y. Li and F. Dervin, Continuing Professional Development of Teachers in Finland, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95795-1_4
84 Y. Li and F. Dervin Table 4.1 Types and sources of data Type Source Language Obtained when and where? Interviews – Main CPD providers in – English – Helsinki, Turku Finland (4) and Tampere – The National Agency – English (end of autumn for Education (1) 2017, early 2018) – Helsinki (January – Teachers in basic educa- – English 2018) tion in a small town (6) – (early January 2018) Online – Websites of all the CPD – Finnish – Autumn 2017 information providers for 2017 – Autumn 2017 News about CPD – Finnish Teachers’ – Finnish – 2017–2018 Autoethnography Magazine for 2017 (22 issues) – Notes, research diaries – Chinese, and discussions with English, each other Finnish The Interview as a Research Method Let us start by discussing the interview which appears to be the most widespread method of inquiry in research. Brinkmann (2014) defines the interview as follows: The interview is a conversational practice where knowledge is produced through the interaction between an interviewer and an interviewee (or a group of interviewees). It can be defined as a conversation that has “the purpose of obtaining descriptions of the life world of the interviewee in order to interpret the meaning of the described phenomena”. (Kvale and Brinkmann 2008: 3) The form of interview retained in our study was face-to-face interac- tion. Although the interviews were semi-structured, we made sure that the participants could feel the freedom to touch upon topics related to CPD that they wished to introduce. We also performed interviews that were meant to provoke participants, to try to dig under the ‘surface’ of their discourse about CPD. As such, interviews cannot be considered
4 Data and Methodologies 85 as the ‘truth’, as people negotiate meaning and realities together with the researcher (Dervin 2008; Rapley 2001; Brinkmann 2016). We felt it important, especially with the CPD providers, to test their discourses on the kind of CPD they provide and to unearth their potential hid- den agendas. As a reminder, most of the providers are businesses whose aims are to make money before all. In that sense, we disagree with Brinkmann (2014) who asserts that “(in most cases) research interview- ing involves a “one-way dialogue” with the researcher asking questions and the interviewee being cast in the role of respondent”. We did ask questions but also shared some of our views and views of other research participants to test the ‘solidity’ of the participants’ discourse, and thus identify multiple perspectives on CPD in Finland. We thus agree with Brinkmann (2016) when he proposes that “Qualitative interviewing must be considered not simply as a neutral instrument, capable of rep- resenting a “natural” human relationship, but rather as a social practice with a history that provides a specific context for human interaction and knowledge production”. Our approach to interviews was thus eth- nomethodological (examining how things are negotiated in a situated interaction of the interview) rather than phenomenological (describing the things talked about) (Brinkmann 2016: 525). Analysing the Interviews: Dialogical Discourse Analysis Following the interviewing sessions, the interviews were transcribed, and analysed by means of critical discourse analysis (Fairclough 2013; Dervin 2016), which allows us to look below the surface of written, visual and auditory choices in order to identify multiple realities, ideol- ogies, exaggerations, and constructions of CPD and Finnish education. This form of critical discourse analysis derives from the identification of elements used in the data to construct certain representations on CPD. This allows us to move beyond mere descriptions on the surface of the data, and to critically examine the discourses. Bakhtin’s Dialogism
86 Y. Li and F. Dervin (1982) but also methods from the interdisciplinary movement of research on the Dialogical Self (inspired by Bakhtin, Mead and Hegel) can be rewarding in this sense. Dialogism is based mainly on the argu- ment that otherness is at the centre of every single discourse. In other words, dialogue should be the basic unit of analysis when examining such dynamic and contextual phenomena as knowledge, society, and subjectivity (Gillespie and Cornish 2010: 15). Bakhtin’s theory places the concept of voice at the centre of discourse. Roulet (2011) summa- rizes the Russian philosopher’s ideas as follows: – There is constant interplay between multiple voices in discourse and society; – Any discourse is always associated with former discourses and voices; – Any discourse is always a reaction to previous discourses and thus enters into dialogue with these discourses; – Other persons are thus always present in what people say. Linguistically speaking, dialogism is marked by the apparition of certain linguistic markers or forms (pronouns such as we; reported discourses; passive voice). Certain phenomena such as irony, negation, and the use of discourse markers such as but all signal dialogism. By using a dialogical approach, we are able to identify the voices that seem to influence the participants when they reflect on CPD. What do they tell us about the current situation in Finland? What differences and similarities are there between what the different actors say about CPD? What does it tell us about the present and future of CPD in Finland, but also of Finnish education as a whole? Analysing the Other Data Sets Other sets of data (online information about CPD, news from Teachers’ Magazine) were analysed by means of Thematic Analysis. For Clarke (2014), Thematic Analysis is “a method for identifying and analyzing patterns of meaning (themes) in qualitative data”. It works very well with secondary sources such as online information and newspaper
4 Data and Methodologies 87 articles (Clarke 2014). The way Thematic Analysis works is by gener- ating codes, or interesting features, and then, analytically constructing themes from the data coding (ibid.). For Clarke (ibid.): “the researcher makes active, interpretative choices in generating codes and in construct- ing themes”. Criticality and reflexivity from the researcher’s perspective are essential, especially in the different stages of analysis (e.g. initial ana- lytic observations). Finally, the study is based on the analysis of paratexts related to CPD in Finland, a term used in literary interpretation to refer to material sur- rounding the main text (for example: a blurb on the back of a book or the illustration on the cover). Paratexts usually have a meaning and add to that of the text (e.g. a novel) (Åström 2014). They are nested within the main text like Russian dolls. In order to do so we use the somewhat uncomfortable approach of auto-ethnography to describe our position in relation to these phenomena, as critical researchers and thinkers in Finland and outside Finland (China). According to Ellis et al. (2010: 273–290) autoethnography is an approach that “seeks to describe and systematically analyze personal experience in order to understand cul- tural experience.” This approach treats research as political and social- ly-just (ibid.). Autoethnography thus represents a combination of autobiography and ethnography, using hindsight (Freeman 2004). According to Kiesinger (2002), autoethnography may be therapeutic for the researcher as s/he tries to make sense of themselves and their expe- riences, in our case, the potential influence of discourses of the ‘mira- cle’ of Finnish education. By using autoethnography we are aware of the current criticisms addressed to this perspective as being too emotional and biased, insufficiently rigorous and analytical (hooks 1994). Yet we do believe that the combination of the ‘emotional’ and the ‘scientific’ can help us to find answers to the following question: How unearth- ing and being aware of the mechanisms hidden behind discourses of CPD and ‘miraculous’ Finnish education, could empower other schol- ars in other contexts—these phenomena being ‘universal’ today? This quote from Slaughter also guides our thinking here: “Like all academics, in our heart of hearts, we believe that knowledge is power, and under- standing what is happening will enable us to change it” (Slaughter 2014: x).
88 Y. Li and F. Dervin References Åström, F. (2014). The context of paratext: A bibliometric study of the cita- tion contexts of Gérard Genette’s texts. In N. Desrochers & D. Apollon (Eds.), Examining paratextual theory and its applications in digital culture (pp. 1–23). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Bakhtin, M. M. (1982). The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press. Brinkmann, S. (2014). Interview. In: Encyclopedia of critical psychology (pp. 1008–1010). New York: Springer. Brinkmann, S. (2016). Methodological breaching experiments: Steps toward theorizing the qualitative interview. Culture & Psychology, 22(4), 520–533. Clarke, D. L. (2014). Analytical archaeology (Vol. 13). London: Routledge. Dervin, F. (2008). Métamorphoses identitaires en situation de mobilité [Identity metamorphosis in mobility contexts]. Turku: Turku University Press. Dervin, F. (2016). Interculturality in education: A theoretical and methodological toolbox. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2010). Autoethnography: An overview. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung, 273–290. Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Routledge. Freeman, M. (2004). Data are everywhere: Narrative criticism in the literature of experience. In C. Daiute & C. Lightfoot (Eds.), Narrative analysis: Studying the development of individuals in society (pp. 63–81). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Gillespie, A., & Cornish, F. (2010). Intersubjectivity: Towards a dialogical analysis. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 40(1), 19–46. hooks, B. (1994). Outlaw culture: Resisting representations. London: Routledge. Kiesinger, C. E. (2002). My father’s shoes: The therapeutic value of narra- tive reframing. In A. Bochner & C. Ellis (Eds.), Ethnographically speaking: Autoethnography, literature, and aesthetics (pp. 95–114). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2008). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rapley, T. J. (2001). The art(fulness) of open-ended interviewing: Some con- siderations on analysing interviews. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 303–323. Roulet, E. (2011). Polyphony. In J. Zienkowski, J.-O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Discursive pragmatics (pp. 208–222). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Slaughter, S. (2014). Foreword. In B. Cantwell & I. Kauppinen (Eds.), Academic capitalism in the age of globalization (pp. vii–x). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
5 Providers: Offerings and Critiques Who Organises CPD? In this first analytical section, we concentrate on what we consider to be the most important actors of CPD in Finland: the providers. As we can see in Table 5.1, most of the providers are sponsored by the NAE, the European Union or the Nordic Council of Ministers.1 As a reminder for 2017 the NAE Approved 153 CPD projects, for 8,726,000 euro (see Chapter 3). Some teachers also pay for taking CPD or they receive grants from private foundations. In examining the providers, our first interest was to review their CPD offers for primary and lower secondary teachers for the school year 2017–2018. Through what we qualify as ‘detective work’, we were able to identify a wide range of courses on different topics, and offered by very different companies. We should note that although these provid- ers receive most of their funding through competitive applications with 1The Nordic Council is the formal cooperative body between Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden as well as the Faroe Islands, Greenland and the Åland Islands. The Council is also involved in cooperation with the Baltic Countries, amongst others. © The Author(s) 2018 89 Y. Li and F. Dervin, Continuing Professional Development of Teachers in Finland, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95795-1_5
90 Y. Li and F. Dervin Table 5.1 List of funders for CPD Who funds/pays? Who applies, organises and does? National Agency for – CPD departments of universities, Education – Universities of Applied Sciences, – Municipalities (and groups of municipalities), European Union – Registered companies (related to education Nordic Council of Ministers Private foundations matters) Teachers Individual teachers, any educational institutions (Erasmus+) Individual teachers, any educational institutions (Nordplus for the Nordic and Baltic countries) Individual teachers, any educational institutions Pay by themselves the NAE, the NAE itself organises courses as well as the teachers’ trade union (self-sponsored). Based on an online search and snowball information from colleagues and practitioners, we were able to identify the following main and most influential providers, who will form the core of the following sections: The Finnish National Agency for Education: http://www.oph.fi/english. University Continuing Education Departments (private companies owned by Finnish universities): HY+ (University of Helsinki) https:// hyplus.helsinki.fi/; Brahea Centre (University of Turku) http://www.utu. fi/en/units/braheacentre/Pages/home.aspx. The Finnish Teachers’ Trade Union: OAJ http://www.oaj.fi/cs/oaj/ public. Professional development Companies: Educode (which belongs to the Finnish publisher EDITA Publishing Oy, a publisher of educational books, non-fiction, law books, business books, computer literature, with $16 million in annual revenue) http://www.educode.fi. Through the weekly teacher’s magazine issues (Opettaja ) from 2017 we were also able to identify the following minor institutions and compa- nies. As we are not including these in what follows we give an indica- tion of the kinds of services they offer for CPD:
5 Providers: Offerings and Critiques 91 (Universities) University of Eastern Finland, ADUCATE (motto “never stop learning”): Learning and teaching in digital environments training programme (60 cred- its, 2-year programme) EUR 3000; cooperation between home and school in multicultural and multilingual school environments; career advising. University of Lapland: call for Ph.D. applications, teachers’ pedagogical courses. University of Oulu (AIKOPA): playing in class; creating an effective and functioning school culture; Peace at school. University of Tampere: Working with multiculturalism in education (30-credit minor, one year and a half, EUR 1800). (Universities of Applied Sciences) Häme University of applied sciences: minor in Digiteaching (e.g.: media literacy, 3 credits); how to create a MOOC (e.g. planning a MOOC 2, credits). Jyväskylä University of Applied Sciences: major in digiteaching (30 credits); English as a Tool for Online Teaching (2–6 credits), creating a safe and common school community. Metropolia (Helsinki Region): Use of storytelling in multicultural edu- cation (4 credits). Tampere University of Applied Sciences: keys to digitalization (2 cred- its), Programming in primary school (3 credits). (Companies and associations) Anglolang Academy, UK: ad for applying for funding through Erasmus + to take in-service courses such as Content and Language Integrated Learning; Special Educational Needs (1 or 2 weeks). Basic education teachers’ association: summer courses such as Use of IPad, programming and robotics in basic education; office 365; use of digital environments in teaching, learn to read and write; Use of drama in the new curriculum; Art and design in the new curriculum; Sports in everyday school.
Search
Read the Text Version
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- 110
- 111
- 112
- 113
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 118
- 119
- 120
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 135
- 136
- 137
- 138
- 139
- 140
- 141
- 142
- 143
- 144
- 145
- 146
- 147
- 148
- 149
- 150
- 151
- 152
- 153
- 154
- 155
- 156
- 157
- 158
- 159
- 160
- 161
- 162
- 163
- 164
- 165
- 166
- 167
- 168
- 169
- 170
- 171
- 172
- 173
- 174
- 175
- 176
- 177
- 178
- 179
- 180
- 181
- 182
- 183
- 184
- 185
- 186
- 187
- 188
- 189
- 190
- 191
- 192
- 193
- 194
- 195
- 196
- 197
- 198
- 199
- 200
- 201
- 202
- 203
- 204
- 205
- 206
- 207
- 208
- 209
- 210
- 211
- 212
- 213
- 214
- 215
- 216
- 217
- 218
- 219
- 220
- 221
- 222
