working while teaching, learning while working: students teaching in their own class
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [University of Tasmania]On: 28 November 2014, At: 12:06Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Education for Teaching:International research and pedagogyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjet20
Working while teaching, learning whileworking: students teaching in theirown classLeena Krokfors a , Riitta Jyrhämä a , Heikki Kynäslahti a , AuliToom a , Katriina Maaranen a & Pertti Kansanen aa University of Helsinki , FinlandPublished online: 22 Jan 2007.
To cite this article: Leena Krokfors , Riitta Jyrhämä , Heikki Kynäslahti , Auli Toom , KatriinaMaaranen & Pertti Kansanen (2006) Working while teaching, learning while working: studentsteaching in their own class, Journal of Education for Teaching: International research andpedagogy, 32:1, 21-36
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607470500510928
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
12:
06 2
8 N
ovem
ber
2014
Working while teaching, learning while
working: students teaching in their own
class
Leena Krokfors*, Riitta Jyrhama, Heikki Kynaslahti,Auli Toom, Katriina Maaranen and Pertti KansanenUniversity of Helsinki, Finland
This paper examines the context of teacher education in which certain students work as teachers
whilst at the same time they study in a teacher education programme. The two phenomena that are
discussed are the integration of theory and practice, and learning while working. These are located
in the wider framework of teachers’ pedagogical thinking, and research-based teacher education.
The paper reports on students’ experiences of the success of integrating theoretical studies in their
work as teachers and the related issue of how a student’s everyday grasp of classroom practice has
been taken into account in their studies. The paper also raises the issue of the university–school
relationship through students’ estimations of the impact that their participation in teacher
education has brought to the school in which they work and other key aspects of the university–
school relationship.
Introduction
Although the number of applicants to teacher education in Finland is exceptionally
high, there is occasionally, especially regionally, a shortage of teachers. The situation
concerns especially teachers who are responsible for grades 1–6 and they are the
focus of the article. A result of this shortage is uncertified teachers working in
schools. A number have already been teaching for some time and, for personal
reasons, have not had the opportunity to study for the teacher’s certificate. In 2001
the University of Helsinki were required by the Ministry of Education to prepare
40% more class teachers every year for six years so as to address this situation. As a
result the number of students accepted onto the university’s teacher education
programmes have been increased from 100 to 140 per year, of which 40 belong to
the multimode programme.
There are three special tasks identified by the Ministry: to educate competent
teachers, to develop the methods of teacher education and to investigate these
*Corresponding author. Department of Applied Sciences of Education, PO Box 9, FIN-00014,
University of Helsinki, Finland. Email: [email protected]
Journal of Education for Teaching
Vol. 32, No. 1, February 2006, pp. 21–36
ISSN 0260-7476 (print)/ISSN 1360-0540 (online)/06/010021-16
# 2006 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/02607470500510928
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
12:
06 2
8 N
ovem
ber
2014
continuing educational and developmental processes. Bearing in mind the number
of uncertified teachers a multimode teacher education programme has been
established in order to offer the possibility to study for the certificate while working
in the school (cf. Kynaslahti et al., in press). The purpose of this procedure, on the
one hand, is to meet the requirements of adult students and, on the other hand, to
develop the programme of teacher education at the university. Thus we have
enrolled adult students who, although uncertified, do have classroom experience, are
working in the school, and are daily responsible for a class.
Laczko-Kerr’s and Berliner’s (2002) study supports the assertion that teachers
who have experienced a form of traditional teacher education at the university are
educated for a more rigorous and longer period and are of a higher quality than those
educated in alternative ways. From this point of view, it is of central importance to
keep the multimode programme as a coherent part of the traditional teacher
certification programme. The aim of this alternative certification programme is to
provide teachers with the same competence as the traditional programme, using the
same teacher education paradigm and curriculum, but with alternative modes of
study. We aim to retain the high quality of the programme whilst at the same time
developing the methods it used. The aim has three objectives. First, to develop
general methods of distant education to be applied into teacher education. Second,
to investigate these methods and apply them to the traditional teacher education.
Third, to develop our traditional teacher education programme in a more flexible
direction.
In this multimode teacher education programme the students work as ordinary
teachers in their schools during their university studies. From the point of view of the
schools they can keep the teachers at work. From the point of view of the individuals
this means an opportunity to study, especially for those whom full-time studying has
been impossible. The connection between work and studies is consciously made use
of; and so the integration of theory and practice is realized in the authentic context of
the school. The situation is interesting from the perspective of reflective teaching
(Schon, 1983; Bengtsson, 1995) and also from the perspective of the reciprocal
relation of a teacher’s work and teacher education. The combination of a teacher’s
work and teacher education studies is here called ‘studying in one’s own class’.
This article is a part of a more extensive project called ‘Multimode Teacher
Education in a Virtual University’ and here we analyse the relation between the
teacher education studies and work, as experienced by the students. We want to
discover if their studies have been useful in the students’ daily work as class teachers
and if the students’ daily work as class teachers has been taken into account in their
studies.
Background to the inquiry
The research-based approach to teacher education
The objective of Finnish teacher education is to educate autonomous and reflective
teachers who are able to make use of research in their work and who can be
22 L. Krokfors et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
12:
06 2
8 N
ovem
ber
2014
characterized as pedagogically thinking teachers. The way to this goal is through a
research-based approach. Teachers’ pedagogical thinking requires them to be able to
conceptualize everyday phenomena, to look at them as part of a greater totality and
to justify decisions and actions made during the instructional process. Becoming a
reflective teacher presupposes studies in three crucial content areas: theoretical
studies of education, studies in content knowledge and in pedagogical content
knowledge (as well as in practice, including student teaching) (Kansanen et al.,
2000; Kansanen, 2003).
Theoretical studies of education make the students familiar with the concepts of
the instructional process. By means of the concepts identified it is possible to reflect
on the experiences and react on the momentary activities in practical situations. The
focus of this kind of reflective analysis is the whole process of teaching–studying–
learning. During this process teachers are continuously making educational
decisions. In order to be able to make rational decisions teachers need ways to
justify them and arguments based on reason. In addition, intuitive justification is
often mixed with rational argumentation in this process (Kansanen et al., 2000,
pp. 155–170). In this sense conceptualization means a continuous interaction
between theory and practice.
Becoming trained in research-based thinking begins from the very beginning of
the studies by reading research literature, writing essays and portfolios and becoming
familiar with research methods. In this way the students get the opportunity for self-
directed reflection and to develop a personal practical theory of the instructional
process. The adult students coming to the multimode teacher education programme
have already acquired their conceptions of the teaching–studying–learning process
by working as uncertified teachers. It is assumed that the students recognize during
their studies the structure and quality of their own conceptions of the instructional
process. This takes place, on the one hand, by reflecting on their own teaching
experiences and, on the other hand, by theoretical studies. One of the main points in
this development is learning to understand the difference between normative and
descriptive arguments in justifying decisions.
The viewpoint of the adult in education is emphasized more in the multimode
teacher education programme than in the standard programme, owing to the
teaching experiences, age and general experience of life that the students bring with
them. The multimode group is a special group in many respects and many of its
members have experienced former studies in education. Because of this fact part of
their study is in-service teacher education by nature. In many cases this means faster
insight into the elements of the instructional process as well as into their
interrelations. It is possible for them, to a certain extent, on the one hand to link
up the theoretical material with their everyday work. On the other hand, with
practical knowledge meaningful questions may be elevated to theoretical discussion.
Our experience suggests that pedagogical skills seem to develop slower than the
academic knowledge base. However, multimode teacher education students may
develop both side-by-side because of the pedagogical understandings these students
have obtained in their work as uncertified teachers.
Students teaching in their own class 23
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
12:
06 2
8 N
ovem
ber
2014
Integrating teacher education with a teacher’s work
In the literature referring to teacher education there are some examples concerning
the integration of practical work and theoretical studies. These include reports on in-
service teacher education (Grundy et al., 2001), mentors supporting student
teaching (Martinez & Coombs, 2001) and mentoring in general (Carter & Francis,
2001), as well as students visiting their familiar classes (Graham & Thornley, 2000).
These examples differ, however, from our multimode teacher education because our
students are not beginners or inexperienced in teaching. They are not students who
after many years of theoretical studies are moving to the practical studies in teacher
education, nor are they teachers who have come to complete their former teacher
education studies. They have experience in teachers’ work but are inexperienced as
students in teacher education.
In those teacher education systems in which a school-based approach is applied
the concept of ‘partnership’ has been discussed. As Penney and Houlihan (2003,
p. 242) point out, the concept can be criticized because of its vagueness, its poor
theorizing and the context specific character of empirical studies. Despite these
weaknesses, the concept provides an interesting viewpoint to the school–university
relationship which could relate to our multimode programme. Furlong and his
colleagues (Furlong et al., 1996) present a continuum between ‘integration’ and
school-centred teacher education. This relates to the three models of university–
school partnerships that they found in their research as follows:
(1) Collaborative partnership. According to this model, students are exposed to
different kinds of educational knowledge, a part of which is derived from a
teacher education institution and another part from school. Students are
expected to criticize what they learn in school and compare it with what they
learn in the teacher education institution and vice versa.
(2) HEI-led partnership (‘HEI’ referring to higher education institution). In this
model schools are used as a resource for teacher education in providing learning
opportunities for students, Furlong et al.’s ‘integration’ model. Interestingly, in
our programme students carry out assignments given by university teachers in
their own classes. Indeed, they utilize their own work in school in their
university studies. On the other hand, integration is an essential concept for the
basic approach that we follow in our teacher education, namely, research-based
teacher education, by which we mean the integration of educational theory and
practice. Our view of integration is, however, reciprocal. Integration in our
context has to refer to a two-way process in which theory is utilized in practice
and there are efforts to use experiences gained in practice to benefit theoretical
studies. In the course of studying in one’s own class the students integrate their
daily work with their teacher education studies that are going on at precisely the
same time. The direct connection to work is also utilized in the group
discussions between the students and teacher educators. In that sense,
integration in our understanding remains much more a collaborative model
than that of ‘HEI-led’.
24 L. Krokfors et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
12:
06 2
8 N
ovem
ber
2014
(3) Separatist partnership. According to this model, there is no systematic attempt to
bring teacher education institution and school together. Here, integration is
something that students themselves have to achieve (Furlong et al., 1996).
The concept of partnership also includes the issue of which partner is responsible for
the education that is carried out in the classroom. Jones investigated partnerships in
two school-based teacher education systems in England and Germany. She found that
in England partnership was defined on the basis of contractual arrangements that
existed between school and teacher education institution, while in Germany partner-
ship pointed to the relationship between a mentor and a student teacher. As Jones
(2001, pp. 83–85) describes the situation, in England the pupils are ‘on loan’. Student
teachers do not teach their own class but that of some other teacher, for example, the
class of a mentor. In Germany the situation is different. A student teacher teaches their
own class, so bearing total responsibility and being paid for the job.
In the Finnish context the situation more closely resembles the German system.
The student teachers of our multimode programme work as autonomous teachers
bearing the sole responsibility for their work with the class. This approach follows
Borko’s claim that a teacher’s own classroom provides a powerful context for their
learning (Borko, 2004, p. 7). In our case partnership is embedded in the student/
teacher in that: (1) a (student) teacher of a school is at the same time a student of a
teacher education institution and (2) a student (teacher) is also a sovereign teacher
of a school. Although one of the teachers of a school has a contract and acts as a
mentor, that role is, however, secondary to the role of the supervisor of the teacher
education institution of the university. The supervisor visits the schools in which the
students work. Within this system we do not see the kind of danger of disconnection
that Sutherland, Scanlon and Sperring report, which was one of the reasons why ‘a
new school–university partnership’ was developed in Australia to ensure that teacher
educators in general were not removed from the profession and current professional
practice of school teachers (Sutherland et al., 2005, pp. 79–80).
This discussion of the concept of partnership has shed some light on how studying
theory (in teacher education) relates simultaneously to practice working (as a teacher)
and it has identified some interestingly different kinds of understandings of the concept
of integration. However, we must keep in mind Penney and Houlihan’s warning about
the context specific character of the empirical studies which, for example, in the case of
Furlong and his colleagues, refer to educational policy and practice in England.
Another conceptual approach is provided by learning while working. This can
often be seen as informal learning that takes place outside the educational
institution. In the informal learning theory (see, for example, Marsick & Watkins,
1990), learning while working is seen as the opposite of learning in school.
According to this view, learning is a side effect of work, it is not purposive activity.
However, that is certainly not the case while studying as a teacher/student in one’s
own class. In this case there are two kinds of connection to formal education: (1)
studying is part of university studies, and (2) the working context, school, redefined
as an educational institution for the teacher. Learning is not seen as a side effect
either but as a result of purposive activity.
Students teaching in their own class 25
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
12:
06 2
8 N
ovem
ber
2014
In our project learning whilst working is part of formal education. Honkonen has
outlined this connection by stating that the institution goes to the working place and
workers act as students or students as workers. The students are physically and
through the curriculum at their work places (Honkonen, 2002, p. 39). As to studying
in one’s own class this is a feature of the virtual university where the relationship
between the university and the surrounding society can become closer than the
traditional more distant relationship (Jyrhama, 2003). In speaking of teachers as
students or students as teachers we also speak of an integration between university
studies and work.
The relationship between work and learning may be understood at three levels: (1)
work, (2) working community, and (3) working organization. Studying in one’s own
class refers clearly to work, teachers’ work in particular. A central question is
whether multimode teacher education is seen as an intervention into the world of the
school, which was not our objective when we initially planned the programme. Thus
our multimode teacher education was not directed to the development of the
schools, although some student assignments refer to the whole school context. On
the other hand, the schools rarely grasp how to utilize the new link to teacher
education that comes through the teacher/student. For that reason the development
of the organization through the programme is questionable, as neither the university
nor the school are addressing this issue. The viewpoint of the working community is
also problematic, as there is no guarantee that the new knowledge acquired by the
student would be introduced to their colleagues. The student’s development and
learning may be locked into the student’s own class.
The mutual discussion among the students may, however, connect to certain
features of learning that Jarvinen et al. (2000, p. 103) characterize by stating that what
is important is not merely learning while working, because working as such does not
bring about learning. What is essential is the reflection on deeds and actions as well as
sharing experiences with others. This kind of reflection refers to the community of the
students. The students work in different kinds of school and working contexts that
encourage reflection and the sharing of experiences. The role of the working
community is not, however, totally lacking. In the advanced practicum that takes
place at the end of the studies the student gets support from the mentor who is one
of the teachers in their school. Likewise participating in the teacher education
programme may have aroused interest among the colleagues in the school as well
and this may lead to pedagogical discussions and updating of knowledge in the
community of teachers. Our previous results (Kynaslahti et al., in press) suggest that
this kind of interest has occurred. We followed Mezirow’s ideas to combine
deliberative action with critical reflection. In addition the individual’s approach to
activity in the community of the school leads to communicative learning, as well as to
mutual understanding of the working community (Mezirow, 1990, pp. 5–10).
The basics of the multimode programme
By a ‘multimode programme’ in this article, we refer to a combination of several
forms of studying and teaching. These include face-to-face meetings on campus or at
26 L. Krokfors et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
12:
06 2
8 N
ovem
ber
2014
a distant site, video-conferencing and network-based activities, such as recorded
lectures presented on the Internet, and the use of WebCT and email. A student’s
work as a class teacher somewhere in Finland is also an essential part of the studies.
The pedagogical concept is one that brings together educational theory and the
everyday life at school and in the classroom.
What might be termed ‘standard’ Finnish teacher education combines theory and
practice by arranging theoretical studies and practical periods as modules following
each other. Students practice in either university training schools, which are
specialized in supervision and mentoring, or in so-called field schools which are
ordinary schools. However, in the multimode programme, a student works without
officially certified ‘competence’ with their own class. Many of the students have
taught the class for years, or at least worked in the same school for a long time. The
teacher/student assumes total responsibility for the education in the class, including
the home–school relationship. As a staff member, the teacher/student is a member of
the school community, taking a full part in the development of the school. Naturally,
the circumstances are more real than in traditional teacher education and they
provide increasing opportunities for practice-based theory building and for the
development of pedagogical thinking skills. Here the pragmatic nature of the theory–
practice interaction is emphasized and the conceptualization of actions and practice
is the basis of the theory and model building (Zeichner & Noffke, 2001).
Multimode teacher education began in the early 1990s, when methods of distance
education were brought to teacher education for the first time in Finland.
Traditional on-campus studying was blended with off-campus learning, often
facilitated by the use of information and communication technology (Falck et al.
1997). Today, this kind of mixture is often called blended learning (Whitelock &
Jelfs, 2003). Multimode teacher education programme can be seen as a variation of
the concept of blended learning. The basic idea is simple: it refers to mixing different
pedagogical elements to achieve a flexible totality. Apparently, blended learning is
still a somewhat vague concept. However, it has attracted significant attention in the
practical field (Kerres & de Witt, 2003). Blended learning provides a promising
ground for the academic field, as well as placing the idea of multimode education in
a wider conceptual framework of teacher education.
The multimode teacher education programme that is discussed in this article
was established in the autumn of 2001 and the number of students has increased
to 120 students. The studies follow the ordinary curriculum of class teacher
education and are arranged in multimode form. The face-to-face studies take
place during the weekends and in the summer. Information technology is
continuously utilized by using WebCT, video-conferencing, web-based lectures
and email. The students taking part in this study differ as a group from the
regular class teacher students in some respects. The students are older, the
average age being about 35 years. One condition for acceptance to the studies is
teaching experience of at least two years. This means that the students are usually
substitute teachers without a certificate, although many have university
qualifications of one kind or another.
Students teaching in their own class 27
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
12:
06 2
8 N
ovem
ber
2014
The heterogeneous composition of adult students is also a challenge for the
planning of the study programme. One means of taking this into consideration is to
resort to a personal curriculum for each student, with the variety and richness of
their life experiences utilized in the studies. These come forth in various discussions
and group work. To utilize the working experience of the students is challenging
while their way of combining earlier experience with the content of the studies varies.
The aim is to give room for the students to reflect on their own cases and to develop
their own practical theories of teaching. Our students are more autonomous and also
lonelier than the regular students—lonelier in that sense that they do not meet their
fellow students daily. Mutual communication is realized in face-to-face studies
where joint studies of the students are favoured. In certain courses on-campus
studies have been increased according to the wishes of the students.
In sum, the combination of a teacher’s work and studying—studying in one’s own
class—is interesting from two viewpoints. The first is the viewpoint of research-based
teacher education because the students as teachers in their own classes are genuine
reflective teachers during their studies. The second is the viewpoint of studying while
working as a teacher that is supposed to bring about learning while working.
Research task and methods
We have so far discussed the relationship between teacher education and teachers’
work, through a system that encourages the integration of learning with work. A
wider theoretical perspective concerns research-based teacher education which is the
main organizing theme for Finnish teacher education. Teacher’s pedagogical
thinking, in turn, is an essential part of the research-based approach of teacher
education. The reality of the everyday life of studies/work integration is now revealed
through the cases of three students’ practicing in their own class. The research
design is illustrated in the Figure 1.
In order to find out how well the programme has succeeded regarding its main
theme, we carried out an investigation in which we asked the students about their
experiences of integrating theory with practice.
Figure 1. Research design
28 L. Krokfors et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
12:
06 2
8 N
ovem
ber
2014
First, the students who began their studies in the autumn of 2003 were asked to
write an essay about their view of themselves as teachers. Following an analysis of the
essays, a questionnaire with open-ended questions was employed to gain answers to
the following research questions:
1. How have the studies been useful in the students’ daily work as class teachers?
2. How has the students’ daily work as class teachers been taken into account in
their studies?
The number of respondents was 31. The main method used was qualitative contentanalysis. Expressions were analysed according to the meaning they included. Theseexpressions were read and re-read following the principles of the hermeneuticalcircle. Two researchers had the main responsibility of data analysis, one for eachresearch question. The preliminary interpretations were brought to the meetings ofthe research group to be discussed and further elaborated upon. These meetingstook place twice a week over several months. Between the meetings the tworesearchers worked with the elaborated analysis. At the end of this process weachieved an interpretation which could be called the findings of the research. Theresearch was conducted when the students were at the beginning of their studies. Wecan, of course, question how well they were able to evaluate the integration betweenwork and studies at such an early stage of studies. Our assumption was, however,that at the beginning of their studies the students were more aware of the changesthat the teacher education studies were to bring them.
We continued the analysis with the findings of the data of the previous research
(Kynaslahti et al., in press) so as to have as thorough an examination of the phenomena
as possible. While the research questions, presented above, look upon on the whole
multimode programme, the previous research focussed on only one part of the studies,
the final practicum. The data mainly included interviews of students and mentors
and student portfolio writings. This further analysis provided an opportunity for
triangulation. It shed light on how that particular part of the studies, with its
mentoring at the local level, supported the idea of integrating studies and work.
We deal here with the interface between the multimode programme and working
in one’s own class through the concepts of integration and learning while working.
The analysis sharpens the focus on the perspective of practicing in one’s own class,
which is part of the wider framework of the research, to include a teacher’s
pedagogical thinking and research-based teacher education.
Findings
Students trying to benefit from teacher education in their work
When analysing the answers of the first research question the unit of analysis was
expression, which was designated as an activity, a state of affairs or change, such as:
(the programme) has increased my knowledge—has made me more conscious—have
improved my self-respect—I rely on my own possibilities—have given me new ideas—
no time to realize them—I try to put them to use—I’ve got food for thought—I’ve
got teaching methods—I’ve used materials immediately—have improved my
Students teaching in their own class 29
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
12:
06 2
8 N
ovem
ber
2014
self-confidence—cooperation with colleagues and parents has become better—my work
in the classroom has become more structured—I have searched for innovations and
meaningfulness—thoughts concerning teachers profession has started to grow
[change]—there have been concrete things—I’ve got ideas—I’ll put them to use in
future—influences began to filter through to the practical work
These expressions could be categorized according to how well the integration had
succeeded during classroom practice. Attention was also paid to the way
respondents had expressed their own intentions when trying to benefit from studies
in work. In the following we will report how these expressions were processed.
The first category included expressions such as ‘ideas have been delivered’, ‘I have
been informed’ and ‘there have appeared concrete things’ which implied that there
had been some effort made in the teacher education programme to help students
integrate theory with practice. These kinds of expressions did not reveal the
intentions of the students, but indicated input on behalf of the programme.
The second category pointed out that students had made significant effort to
benefit from the programme, as indicated by the extract ‘I have absorbed
impressions’, ‘I try to benefit’ and ‘sought out new things’. Students’ intentions
were obvious. They sought a link between theoretical studies and their own work.
The third category concerned a change in the students. Students’ pedagogical
thinking had evidently developed and, having benefited from their studies, there was
a chance for a change in their work. This category, however, did not reveal whether
any change had actually taken place, as indicated by expressions ‘I am aware of new
[pedagogical] things’ and ‘my [pedagogical] thinking has been developed’.
The fourth category also concerned a change such as ‘my classroom performance
has been enriched’ and ‘I increasingly reflect my doings’. The students said that they
had gained something from their studies which could be applicable to their everyday
work. There were two sub-categories of the change, tools and thinking.
Pedagogical tools. The students reported that they used new teaching methods which
had been introduced in the courses. Sometimes these methods were subject specific
consisting of the characteristics of subject didactics. They had also received tools for
investigating their own work, including socio-metric measuring methods. Several
answers dealt with teaching materials which the students had received in their
studies and which they had used. That was seen as immediate input by the
multimode programme. The numerous assignments which students were expected
to carry out in their class also worked as teaching materials.
The prepared materials, for example, in math and in geography, have been in use
immediately. The tasks are also material for my work. (Respondent 6)
The respondents also reported on more detailed contribution that the teacher
education programme had brought about in their classroom working. These could
be characterized as tips. In the entrance interviews for the programme the applicants
often express their desire to receive tips that they believe teacher education is able to
provide. In that sense, the programme has fulfilled their expectations, as Respondent
16 confirms in stating, ‘I’ve got good and practical tips, and it has been nice to test
30 L. Krokfors et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
12:
06 2
8 N
ovem
ber
2014
them in my own class. First of all, it has been nice to notice them functioning’.
However, it is questionable if this result integrates theory and practice as it seems
more to deal with how best practice is delivered by experts to novices.
Several of the respondents reported a change in their pedagogical thinking. Students had
noticed that their pedagogical thinking had developed and that it had an effect on
their teaching. They were more conscious of this aspect of their thinking than before
and reflected consciously on the content, methods and other salient concepts of
teaching and learning. Thus Respondent 27 said, ‘I reflect almost all the time, on
whether I have done it right or could I do this better’. and Respondent 7 stated, ‘My
work in the classroom has become more varied, structured and systematic. I’ve
understood the aims, values and curriculum, and it has helped me to focus my
teaching and it has given me confidence to concentrate on some things’.
There were also students whose work as a teacher had not changed although the
teacher education programme had provided opportunities for it. At one level they
had adopted new ideas which they could have applied into their teaching but at
another level something held them back. Mostly it was the lack of time. Working and
studying at the same time was so demanding that students were not always able to
plan or carry out their teaching work sufficiently, and opportunities for change were
missed. We have a small paradox here. The multimode programme is based on the
ideas of benefiting from studies in work as well as benefiting from work in studies. It
seems that when these two are brought together they need time to build a reciprocal
benefiting structure. The students were aware of this missed opportunity and even
felt some guilty over it.
The fifth category dealt with self-assurance and changes in teacher personalities.
According to our earlier results, many of the students formerly felt inferior in their
teacher communities, when working without being officially recognized as
competent. Studying in the multimode teacher education programme changed this
situation, building self-confidence.
These results relate to the various intentions of the multimode teacher education
programme, relating to teaching, studying and learning (categories one, two and
three, respectively). This learning possibly inspired a student’s work as a teacher,
resulting in changes in classroom practice and pedagogical thinking (category four),
with the student’s confidence as a teacher also growing (category five).
These findings confirm that in addition to the active characteristics of learning
becoming visible, the students came to understand the instructional process as a
totality. The findings support our understanding of the instructional process as a
totality, consisting of teaching, studying and learning. The independent character-
istics of these three parts and the relations between them are essential (Uljens, 1997;
Kansanen, 1999).
Teacher education trying to benefit from students’ work
In Research Question 2—how has a teacher’s daily work been taken into account
within their studies?—the responses were initially divided into three main categories:
Students teaching in their own class 31
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
12:
06 2
8 N
ovem
ber
2014
(1) daily work has been taken into account very well/well; (2) daily work has been
taken into account somewhat; and (3) daily work has not/has hardly been taken into
account. The largest response was located in the first category (17), with the second
category having 6 and the third 4. Therefore, it is possible to say that a clear majority
of students felt their daily teaching work was sufficiently taken into account in their
studies.
Based on this realization, the responses were subsequently re-categorized
according to how the daily work had been taken into account. This analysis resulted
in three new categories: (1) assignments; (2) discussions; and (3) reflection. In the
assignments category students explained that they had been able to carry out the
required study assignments that were connected to their own teaching. These
responses refer to very concrete matters, which the students state they have been
able to do. The assignments category included, for example, exercises concerning
subject didactical or pedagogical topics, with Respondent 3 stating, ‘In essay
writings and in other assignments I try to integrate studies and practice. It would be
foolish not to try to benefit from practical knowledge even if some text book sees the
matter in another way’.
In the reflection category the students’ answers related more to their personal
thought processes, which they had processed in their minds, such as: ‘I can ‘‘link’’
studies to my work and vice versa’ (Respondent 10). Finally, in the discussions
category the students indicated that they had discussed matters dealing with their
teaching work with each other and shared their ideas, an opportunity they clearly
appreciated and would have liked developed further.
Based on our analysis, it is possible to say that according to student experiences
the multimode teacher education has taken into account the fact that most of the
students work as teachers, and it has been used as an educational tool. Mostly, this
has taken place through concrete assignments dealing with subject matter, pupil
knowledge or didactical exercises. Peer discussions and personal or group reflection
seem also to be quite prominent in multimode teacher education.
Deepening the interpretation
The previous sections of the paper concerned students’ experiences of the theory–
practice integration on a general level. We will now look more closely at a specific
part of the studies, the final practicum which has previously been under investigation
(Kynaslahti et al., in press) in order to triangulate two independent data sets and
interpretations concerning them. The data of that study included interviews with
three students and two mentors as well as student portfolios. During the period of
their studies a student works independently in their own class, but in the final
practicum their work is supervised by a university lecturer and is mentored by a
colleague in the local school.
In the previous data set we found that the student teachers had a kind of a dualistic
role which concerned their twofold expertise. They mediated between the theoretical
approach and local expertise, which concerned the knowledge of the school context.
32 L. Krokfors et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
12:
06 2
8 N
ovem
ber
2014
The student teachers had brought many new ideas to the school and started
pedagogical discussions concerning some basic pedagogical issues. In one example a
student teacher and her mentor debated educational issues. The student teacher
approached the issues from a theoretical point of view, while the mentor had a more
practical orientation to the issue. The student teacher felt that the mentor
maintained some distance from the academic life of the university and thus did
not understand all the pedagogical ideas that the student teacher wanted to put into
practice. In this case, she had expertise that the local mentor lacked.
When looked at from the point of view of supervising in general the student
teacher was a certain kind of expert with special knowledge. They knew the school,
its pedagogical atmosphere, pupils, parents, the local community and other such
contextual issues, and had a mastery beyond that of their supervisor. As a result,
student teachers are, in practice, a mediator between the academic world of teacher
education and the local context, mediating higher education to the school, and
school pedagogy to the university.
The final practicum is one example of how theory and practice meet. It provided a
student with an opportunity to defend their pedagogical decisions to a university
lecturer based on their knowledge of a particular pedagogical context, their own class
and school. It also offered the student an occasion to justify their pedagogy to the
local mentor referring to theoretical educational knowledge that the student had
gained in teacher education.
Conclusions
The multimode teacher education programme with its aspect of learning while
working is a special example of the variety of relationships between university and
school. Theoretical periods and practice periods do not alternate but students
teaching in their own class are both working while teaching and, hopefully, also
learning while working. This process was also observed in the results. Students’
undertakings in integrating theory and practice appeared as a process of teaching,
studying and learning. Some change in classroom practice had also occurred in
addition to the change in students’ pedagogical thinking. We regard this immediate
relation between study and work valuable. An important challenge is how to reduce
the students’ hectic workload in the way that they could be able to put in use what
they have learned in teacher education studies in their classroom practice, in other
words, to provide them with time to reflect and to plan their work. A multimode
teacher education programme confirmed that motivation to study in spite of
awkward circumstances will stay high and attitudes towards studying will stay
positive. This kind of teacher education, according to the students’ self-evaluation,
programme seems to be rewarding and leads to learning.
A key focus of this article in discussing the school–university partnership was the
concept of learning while working, also known as workplace learning and work-
based learning. This is not a typical approach to discuss teacher education.
However, we treat learning while working as a promising concept for what Borko
Students teaching in their own class 33
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
12:
06 2
8 N
ovem
ber
2014
(2004) called teacher learning. For example, we detect a correlation between the
theory of teachers’ pedagogical thinking and the theory of learning while working, an
issue which is worth elaborating further.
An important question concerns how to develop the university–school relation-
ship. The role of the working community and the larger working organization, the
school, in this enquiry was secondary. There was no contract between the teacher
education institution and the school. In that sense, our case could be positioned at
the school-centred end of the continuum of Furlong and his colleagues (1996) as an
example of university–school partnership. However, as our results show, schools are
not involved in teacher education. Taking the position at the other end of the
continuum, the HEI-led relationship would then be appropriate. Then again, our
case does not completely fit the picture. Schools do not just provide opportunities
for the learning of student teachers. A typical case is that a person has worked in a
school without official teacher competency before they have entered teacher
education and they carry on the work in the very same school after beginning the
studies. Our case positions itself somewhere at the collaborative part of the
continuum. We treat integration as a reciprocal feature mediating between
university and school.
A particular aspect of this mediation was the students’ role. Students acted as
mediators between the academic world of teacher education and the pedagogical
reality of school life. According to our results, it may cautiously be concluded that
participating in teacher education increases activity also in one’s own school,
although the schools do not show any particular interest of benefiting from the
opportunities the students provide.
Studying for a formal certificate also seems to strengthen the self-confidence of the
students. According to our additional data, many students had a feeling of inferiority
while working as an unqualified teacher. Participating in teacher education seems to
decrease that feeling and this appears to lead to a more active development of one’s
own work as well as one’s own school.
The average age of teacher education students has increased in Finland. The
majority of the students had some experience of teachers’ work before they entered
the studies. Many of them have also studied previously. This brings challenges for
teacher education, in particular how to organize education in a rational way so that
students’ previous knowledge is taken into account. Our results indicate that a
multimode approach provides one solution to service the needs of a heterogeneous
student enrolment.
This multimode approach can be called an alternative route to educate future
teachers. However, we want to create distance from those alternative certification
programmes which can be characterized as ‘quick training’ with a low status. In
our programme, the studies may be short for those students who have
experienced a large number of earlier studies when they enter the programme.
However, generally speaking, to study in the multimode programme is at least as
demanding as it is in the traditional teacher education and there is no indication
that the status of those who have completed teacher education in a multimode
34 L. Krokfors et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
12:
06 2
8 N
ovem
ber
2014
way would have a lower status as compared to teachers coming from the
traditional route.
Notes on Contributors
Leena Krokfors (Ph.D.) is Professor of Education in the Department of Applied
Sciences at the University of Helsinki. Her main research interests concern
research on theories and paradigms of teacher education, teaching in general and
teachers’ pedagogical thinking.
Riitta Jyrhama (Ph.D.) is Senior Lecturer and Adjunct Professor in the Department
of Applied Sciences at the University of Helsinki. Her main research interests
concern teachers’ pedagogical thinking and teaching practice supervision. Riitta’s
special expertise focuses on justifying of pedagogical decisions.
Heikki Kynaslahti (Ph.D.) is Senior Researcher and Adjunct Professor in the
Department of Applied Sciences at the University of Helsinki. His research
interests focus on media education, distance education and learning while
working.
Auli Toom (M.A. in Education) works as assistant and researcher at University of
Helsinki, Department of Applied Sciences of Education. At the moment she is
preparing her doctoral dissertation. Her major research interest is teachers’ tacit
pedagogical knowing.
Katriina Maaranen (M.A. in Education) is a doctoral student and works as an
assistant and a researcher at the University of Helsinki, Department of Applied
Sciences of Education. Her research focuses on research-based multimode teacher
education.
Pertti Kansanen (Ph.D.) is Professor Emeritus of Education in the Department of
Applied Sciences at the University of Helsinki. His special research interests
include, ethics of education and comparison of German didactics with American
research on teaching.
References
Bengtsson, J. (1995) What is reflection? On reflection in the teaching profession and teacher
education, Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 1(1), 23–32.
Borko, H. (2004) Professional development and teacher learning: mapping the terrain, Educational
Researcher, 33, 3–15.
Carter, M. & Francis, R. (2001) Mentoring and beginning teachers’ workplace learning, Asia-
Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 29(3), 249–262.
Falck, A., Husu, J., Kronlund, T., Kynaslahti, H., Salminen, J. & Salonen, M. (1997) Distance
education in school environment: integrating remote classrooms by video conferencing,
Distance Education, 18(2), 213–224.
Furlong, J., Whitty, G., Whiting, C., Miles, S., Barton, L. & Barrett, E. (1996) Re-defining
partnership: revolution or reform in initial teacher education?, Journal of Education for
Teaching, 22(1), 39–55.
Graham, S. & Thornley, C. (2000) Connecting classrooms in pre-service education: conversations
for learning, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 28(3), 235–245.
Students teaching in their own class 35
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
12:
06 2
8 N
ovem
ber
2014
Grundy, S., Robison, J. & Tomazos, D. (2001) Interrupting the way things are: exploring new
directions in school/university partnerships, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 29(3),
203–217.
Honkonen, R. (2002) Tyossa oppimisen retoriikat—Teknisen funktionalismin korvaajia vai
taydellistajia? [The rhetoric of learning at the workplace—replacing or complementing
technical functionalism], in: R. Honkonen (Ed.) Koulutuksen lumo: Retoriikka, politiikka ja
arvioint arviointi [Magic of education: rhetoric, politics and evaluation] (Tampere, Tampere
University Press).
Jones, M. (2001) Mentors’ perceptions of their roles in school-based teacher training in England
and Germany, Journal of Education for Teaching, 27(1), 75–93.
Jyrhama, R. (2003) Class teacher education in a virtual university—an academic programmeme,
learning through work, EDUCATION-LINE, http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/
00003440.htm (accessed 26 June 2005).
Jarvinen, A., Koivisto, T. & Poikela, E. (2000) Oppiminen tyossa ja tyoyhteisossa. [Learning at work
and in working community] (Helsinki, WSOY).
Kansanen, P. (1999) Teaching as teaching–studying–learning interaction, Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, 43(1), 81–89.
Kansanen, P. (2003) Studying—the realistic bridge between instruction and learning. An attempt
to a conceptual whole of the teaching–studying–learning process, Educational Studies, 29(2/
3), 221–232.
Kansanen, P., Tirri, K., Meri, M., Krokfors, L., Husu, J. & Jyrhama, R. (2000) Teachers’
pedagogical thinking. Theoretical landscapes, practical challenges (New York, Peter Lang).
Kerres, M. & de Witt, C. (2003) A didactical framework for the design of blended learning,
Journal of Educational Media, 28(2–3), 101–113.
Kynaslahti, H., Kansanen, P., Jyrhama, R., Krokfors, L., Maaranen, K. & Toom, A. (in press)
The multimode programmeme as a variation of research-based teacher education, Teaching
and Teacher Education.
Laczko-Kerr, I. & Berliner, D. C. (2002) The effectiveness of ‘Teach for America’ and other
under-certified teachers on student academic achievement: a case of harmful public policy,
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(37), http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n37/ (accessed 26
June 2005).
Marsick, V. J. & Watkins, K. (1990) Informal and incidental learning in the workplace (London,
Routledge).
Martinez, K. & Coombs, G. (2001) Unsung heroes: exploring the roles of school-based
professional experience coordinators in Australian preservice teacher education, Asia-Pacific
Journal of Teacher Education, 29(3), 275–288.
Mezoriw, J. (1990) How critical reflection triggers transformative learning, in: J. Mezirow
& Associates (Eds) Fostering critical reflection in adulthood. A guide to transformative and
emancipatory learning (San Francisco, Jossey–Bass).
Penney, D. & Houlihan, B. (2003) Higher education institutions and specialist schools: potential
partnership, Journal of Education for Teaching, 29(3), 235–248.
Schon, D. (1983) The reflective practitioner: reframing the theory and practice of education (New York,
Basic Books).
Sutherland, L., Scanlon, L. & Sperring, A. (2005) New directions in preparing professionals:
examining issues in engaging students in communities of practice through a school–
university partnership, Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 79–92.
Uljens, M. (1997) School didactics and learning. A school didactic model framing an analysis of
pedagogical implications of learning theory (Hove, East Sussex, Psychology Press).
Whitelock, D. & Jelf, A. (2003) Editorial, Journal of Educational Media, 28(2–3), 99–100.
Zeichner, K. & Noffke, S. (2001) Practitioner research, in: V. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of
research on teaching (Washington, DC, American Educational Research Association).
36 L. Krokfors et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
asm
ania
] at
12:
06 2
8 N
ovem
ber
2014