Learning to teach in : historical contingency and professional autonomy

Janne Säntti (University of ) & Jaakko Kauko (University of Tampere)

Abstrac

This chapter demonstrates how the evolution of Finnish teacher education has been gradual and not linear with a major shift towards an emphasis on research skills as the central feature of teacher knowledge. The historical phases in the evolution of teacher education, which can be characterized as normative, pedagogic and research-based are connected to Finland’s general societal trajectories and education policy developments. There has been a strong tendency towards academisation or even scientification in the Finnish teacher education agenda, which has been powered by the involvement of professors of teacher education in shaping the key policy questions with moderate political intervention over recent decades.

These questions include visions of what constitutes a good or ideal teacher and what it means to teach effectively. The chapter concludes that teacher education has been searching for academic credibility to justify its position in the university, which has not previously been self-evident. I Introduction

The work of Finnish teachers in primary and secondary education is framed by a national core curriculum, which is decided at the national level and based on the education providers, usually municipalities, that draw up their own local curricula. However, in Finland teachers have a rather high degree of professional autonomy. On the one hand, this autonomy derives from the lack of strong managerial techniques to control the implementation of the curriculum, such as inspection or national standardised tests (Simola et al., 2009). On the other hand, this strong teacher autonomy is a result of historical processes that have formed the current practice in which classroom knowledge is ideally built case-by-case drawing on research yet organized according to the national core curriculum. In this sense, it is difficult to characterise the common knowledge of teachers without understanding the practice of building a teacher’s own research-based pedagogical practice theory.

Professional autonomy is reflected in how Finnish researchers describe the country’s teacher education as strongly research-based. According to Toom et al., the research base is built with the help of the interconnected nature of research and teaching in universities:

In Finland, research-based teacher education has four characteristics. First, the study

programme is structured according to the systematic analysis of education. Secondly,

all teaching is based on research. Third, activities are organised in such a way that

student teachers can practise argumentation, decision-making and justification while

investigating and solving pedagogical problems. Fourth, student teachers learn

academic research skills. (2010, p. 333)

Against this backdrop, to gain understanding of the main topic of this book, how teachers learn to teach and what their knowledge base is, we build knowledge on this context. We aim

to provide a historical perspective and examine how the changing institutional arrangements

have shaped Finnish teacher education. As such, this chapter makes no claims about what

happens inside a Finnish classroom and instead focuses more on teacher training in

universities and its ideals.

The need for contextual understanding has been exacerbated in the wake of the fame that

Finnish education has received internationally. Success in the PISA tests since 2000 has brought Finnish education to the limelight of the international community. The PISA discourse includes an idea of policy-making with visionary decisions that result in high performance in the tests, which we do not share. The OECD is active in supporting this narrative (OECD, 2015, 13). The idea of visionary planning does not gain support from neo- institutionalist research, which sees the institutional norms as stable and difficult to reform

(see, March & Olsen, 1989). To put this in to the context of schooling, Tyack and Cuban

(1995) noted that schools have a key role in changing reforms.

The Finnish PISA success has spurred many hypotheses about its source. One of the most

popular, and as some would argue, most transferable, explanations is teacher training

(Kansanen, 2014; Sahlberg, 2015). In contrast to highlighting the importance of research-

based skills of contemporary teacher graduates, other researchers (Simola, 2005; Säntti &

Salminen 2015) argue that behind the PISA success are teachers who have received their

education at the time when rather traditional teacher-centred teaching prevailed.1.

1 It is tempting to say that the Finnish PISA ranking has fallen since new types of teachers with research-based teacher education agendas have entered the profession; however, since there is no evidence to support this suggestion, that allegation is unfair This claim was made in a pamphlet published by a UK-based think tank (Sahlberg, 2015). Although the literature review in the booklet is rather well prepared, the conclusions are polemical. Although we can see that the Finnish PISA third ranking in mathematics, reading and science in 2009 slipped to twelfth in 2012 and was seventh in collaborative problem solving in 2015

(OECD, 2009; 2012; 2015), it is hard to prove claims of the teacher training role here due to the nature of the PISA survey, which concentrates on student performance. In addition to other reservations regarding PISA, there are uncertainties about how well the trend of adjacent scores can be interpreted (Rutkowski & Rutkowski, 2016) and PISA does not measure teacher performance. In a more general sense, the promotion of transferring policy reforms becomes difficult when we admit that education is embedded in the socio-historical conditions of a society (Salokangas & Kauko, 2016).

We seek distance from explaining the purported Finnish education success in this chapter and

instead track how teacher training has been shaped in the course of Finnish history and what

the role of political and academic decision-making has been. By drawing on earlier research

on the Finnish education system, we point out how teacher training in Finland has taken its

current form not only through careful planning but also as a co-effect of intertwining

historical trajectories and path dependencies.

In fact, what has been seen as effective teaching or the correct way to teach in Finland has

been shaped mainly by the interests of teacher educators, which in turn has supported

teachers’ academic credibility, especially after the Second World War. We conclude that

Finnish teacher education is characterised by the high degree of independence of the

profession. This development has gained strength on one hand from the historical

contingencies and on the other from the self-empowerment of teacher education through

academisation. This academisation process has been possible since Finnish teacher educators

have had the power to design teacher education according to academic principles in the situation where the political steering has been quite modest. Teachers themselves including elementary school teachers have increasingly gained full respect as academic actors. Below we tie our analysis to the relation between teacher training and its institutional context at the universities and the effects of political state steering.

II. Methodology

The analysis sought to trace the origins and evolution of current teacher education policy based on a review of earlier literature. There are two sets of texts. The first set provides information about the political and socio-historical context of schooling in different historical periods based on a history book series on Finnish education (Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura, (Finnish Literature Society), 2010-2013) and a representative selection of relevant journal articles.

The second set of texts includes key policy papers. First, there are official committee reports

(Committee report, 1967; Committee report, 1968; Committee report, 1969; Committee report, 1972; Committee report, 1975; Committee report, 1978; Committee report, 1979;

Committee report, 1989 and Committee report, 1991). From the early 1950s parliamentary- formed committees controlled Finnish education policy. These committees outlined the development of teacher education, made recommendations and issued explicit regulations.

From the 1960s the committees were staffed by educational experts who were professors of education (Matti Koskenniemi, Oiva Kyöstiö, Martti Takala and Erkki Lahdes), principals of teacher colleges or teacher training schools (Martti Ruutu and Jussi Isosaari), officials from the Ministry of Education or their colleagues from the National Board of Education (Veli

Nurmi and Jaakko Itälä). Later, especially in the 1990s, committees were replaced by evaluation groups (Educational studies and teacher education in Finnish universities, 1994; Universitas renovate. The report and proposals of the evaluation committee of the , 1993, Education towards the future, 1994; Teacher Education as a Future-moulding Factor, 2000; Teacher education, 2020, 2007). Unlike committees, these evaluation groups made recommendations that reflected the new-found autonomy of Finnish academic teacher education departments as a part of the University. The evaluation initiatives still came from the Ministry of Education.

Like committee groups, evaluation groups included such educational scientists as professors

Hannele Niemi and Juhani Jussila as well as foreigner evaluators such as professor Friedrich

Buchberger along with officials from the Ministry of Education and school principals.

Student representatives were included more intentionally in the evaluation groups. It seems that education professors were more strongly represented in the evaluation reports than in earlier committee reports.

III. Historical processes framing teacher training in Finland

The early years of the can be described as a process of secularisation and institutionalisation of education. Finland was part of the from the 13th century until the nineteenth century. Education during this time was church-led and teachers served as a lower-level clergy. Education prepared each estate to what was seen as important for accomplishing their tasks in the realm. After 1640, teacher training took place in the first academic institution founded in Finland, the Royal Academy of .2 In the 18th century

2 The didactics of John Amos Comenius were channelled partly to this education via the Bishop of Turku and the Vice-Chancellor, Johannes Gezelius the elder, however, his thoughts received criticism due to the attempts to maintain the orthodoxy of the reformation (Joutsivuo, 2010). Enlightenment ideas, humanism and philanthropism began to gain ground. The first pedagogical lectures took place in the 1780s; Swedish King Gustav IV Adolf founded the first teacher seminary in 1806. Between 1809 and 1917, Finland was an archduchy of Russia.

During Russian rule, the state took more control over education and contributed to both the institutionalisation and secularisation of education. Earlier secularisation reforms were blocked by the church but in the 19th century civil servant training was enhanced in addition to clergy training (Joutsivuo, 2010). As the state needed a larger work force during the late industrialisation of Finland from the 1870s-1880s, the responsibility for education provision was eventually changed from the church to the state and to the municipalities (Leino-

Kaukiainen & Heikkinen, 2011). During the decade from 1860 to 1870, the school system was reorganised into elementary schools or literally translated ‘folk schools’ (kansakoulu), and grammar schools (oppikoulu). The elementary school teachers were taught in four teacher seminaries and the city of Jyväskylä had the first in 1863. Grammar school teachers had Master’s degrees in their major (history, biology or languages) with additional pedagogical training. Some of private and state grammar school teachers also had doctorate degrees (Rantala, 2011, 275). Hence, the legacy of the pre-independence era was a dual system of academic and seminary instruction following the structural division of the education system.

The passage of universal suffrage in 1906 ended the estate system and reframed the political sphere. Finland gained independence from Russia in 1917 after which it faced severe difficulties in the shape of short and divisive civil war between the ‘whites’, a conservative

Finnish Senate supported by Germany and the ‘reds’, left-wing forces supported by the temporary communist regime of Russian. In addition to the scars of the civil war, this new, independent country was backward in terms of urbanisation and industrialisation and was also late in making education compulsory which did not occur until 1921. The main idea of the ‘founding father’ of elementary education, Uno Cygnaeus, was to make elementary education for everyone but in practice it became schooling for rural populations (Simola,

2002). Cygnaeus was influenced by such leaders in German pedagogy as Johan Heinrich

Pestalozzi and Friedrich Fröbel (Jalava, 2011). However, at the turn of the 20th century, teacher training became influenced by Johann Friedrich Herbart’s ideas, which seemed to fit both elementary and grammar schools. Herbart’s base was in psychology, drawing on students’ experience; however, his approach was not child-centred but rather teacher-led and target-oriented. Soon new ideas also came in the form of positivist and behaviourist paradigms in the following decades until the 1920s (Ahonen, 2011).

Post-war expansion and the emergence of the comprehensive school

Before the 1950s, most of the Finnish labour force was still working in agriculture and forestry. This focus was also reflected in the school institution since the school was expected to produce a new labour force according to the tradition. Thus, it is any wonder that up until the 1960s, the structure of the Finnish education system in the post-war era still reflected the system of the previous century. The Compulsory Education Act of 1921 had not yet been fulfilled completely in the eastern and northern parts of Finland, although in the 1940s the idea of compulsory education had gradually reached the furthest corners of the country

(Rinne, 1986; Simola, 2002). The first stage of the Post-war era curriculum presents the idea of the normative teacher. It includes moral orientation, calling and obedience to authorities.

Thus, teachers were expected to respect the tradition and cherish the common cultural values while being a role model for their students (Rinne, 1986; Säntti & Salminen, 2015). After the

Second World War, the growing service sector, industrialisation and the baby-boom increased the need for education and large age cohorts flocked to the compulsory schools.

Thus, there was a need for more teachers and especially teachers who could participate in the new kind of society that was to be modernised in a very short time (Ahonen, 2003; Rinne,

1986.)

However, for some decades, the old binary division, where elementary school teachers were educated in teachers’ seminars and grammar school teachers in the university, still prevailed.

Grammar school teacher education combined subject-specific studies, practical and pedagogical training in university-driven normal schools. For students, the grammar school was the preliminary stage for higher studies, which could lead to careers in administration and government. Thus, grammar school teachers reproduced their own backgrounds for the next generations. However, students also from lower social classes gradually began to enter this school level especially because of the baby-boom. This expansion also reflected the needs of the growing service sector and later the information society.

The teacher colleges or seminaries that produced elementary school teachers reflected not only patriotic and Christian but also provincial values. The atmosphere was more practical than academic. These folk school teachers were recruited from amongst the rural population and after their seminar education, they were expected to re-join their reference group. Thus, they had the same reproduction function as their colleagues in grammar school although it differed in content. The curriculum of the elementary school included preliminary studies of literacy and mathematics and practical studies like handicraft and agriculture. Where grammar school teachers reflected academic values, the elementary school teachers possessed a certain kind of craftsmanship and practical know-how that were appreciated in the agricultural society at the time (Rinne, 1986; Säntti & Salminen, 2015). Arguably the most important process shaping the future of the Finnish education system was the founding of the comprehensive school, providing equal nine-year compulsory education to all children. This also challenged the old dual teacher culture where teachers were educated in either teacher colleges or universities. The debates had begun already in the

1940s and 1950s and during the 1960s and 1970s a political compromise was reached when the majority of Finnish political forces reached an agreement about the need for comprehensive school (Kettunen et al., 2012). The expansion of higher education was a natural part of the comprehensive school reform and teacher training units were a means to support regional policy by keeping students in sparsely populated areas. This was especially important to the political centre which represented the interests of the provinces outside the traditional core areas of Turku and Helsinki. Furthermore, the regional expansion of universities had dispersed to form nine new universities outside the above-mentioned densely populated areas (Nurmi, 1990, 12; Rinne & Jauhiainen, 1988, 219-220; Säntti & Salminen,

2015).

Another important political decision was the university training of teachers. This decision was prepared through committee work. Committees had broad party and expert representation; therefore, they had broad influence on setting the agenda. The teacher training committee of 1973 (Committee report, 1975), consisting of teacher educators with professor

Erkki Niskanen as chairman proposed clearly that Finnish teacher education should be harmonised and the academic standards should be raised especially in class teacher education. In fact, the committee proposed in their temporary report (included in Committee report of 1975) that teacher qualification could be lower than a Master’s degree. In the

Committee report of 1978 the master’s thesis as it is currently known was not promoted in class teacher education. Instead, the report favoured various study projects that could be made a part of teacher training in schools and as group work but not as an independent research task.

At the end of the 1970s, the government had decided to eliminate most lower degrees; this paved the way for teacher education which was now also accepted as Master’s-level training in 1979 including elementary school teacher education (Simola & Rinne, 2010). A further change occurred in the 1970s and 1980s when the departments of educational science and teacher training, which still remained as separate departments, were included in the same

University faculties (Jauhiainen & Rinne, 2012, 121–123).

The grammar school teachers who were subject teachers and had subjects like history and biology as their major and their trade union opposed the idea of comprehensive school which meant having one school for all students. They were also sceptical about master’s-level teacher training and the promotion of educational studies in the first place. Gradually, the grammar school teachers’ trade union also accepted the idea of the comprehensive school.

This was guaranteed by the merging of different teacher unions under the Trade Union of

Teachers, which would now represent every teacher regardless of school level affiliation

(Jauhiainen & Rinne, 2012, 111–112). Nevertheless, the gradual process of creating the comprehensive school including academically trained teachers began to take effect in the

1980s. The last schools entered the comprehensive system in 1977 and the first master’s-level class teachers graduated in 1984.

The committee reports of the 1960s underlined that Finnish society was changing rapidly; this change also affected the agendas and contents of teacher education. Thus, it became clear that in teacher education major steps were needed. What is crucial in Finnish teacher education is that from the 1960s teacher educator committees have been explicit in their efforts to improve education. First, these committees have aimed to increase, piece by piece, the academic level of Finnish teacher education. Second, complicated and segregated teacher education was seen as a problem reflecting the old-fashioned, parallel school model that had been abandoned with comprehensive school. Gradually, the Finnish scholars, namely professors of education, assumed prominence in the committees. The so called “school man”, representing school administration who was afraid of the academisation of Finnish teacher education, lost influence or agreed with those representing the university. After this change it was easier to aspire to academic credibility and enhance research activities in teacher education. Autonomy also came with the academic mandate as teacher education departments with professors and quite clear academic agendas promoted the meaning of research. Finally, when the decisive change occurred in the 1970s with master’s-level reform, every Finnish teacher was given a university degree with research skills (Simola, 1996; Säntti, Puustinen &

Salminen, 2017).

Criticism, decentralisation and research-oriented teaching from the 1980s

By the 1980s, the comprehensive school had been established. As in many other countries, the late 1980s and the 1990s marked a shift in Finnish education towards a more market- driven system. The economic depression in the early 1990s, deepened by the fall of the

Soviet Union, which had been an important trading partner, created a backdrop for major political acts. A radical decentralisation of decision-making from the central government to the municipalities, for easier front-line budget cuts also shifted educational decision making to the local level (e.g., Simola, Rinne, Varjo & Kauko, 2013). The growing critique towards bureaucracy during the 1980s was also reflected in the criticism of teachers and their education; however, this decentralisation created conditions for teachers’ autonomy, which included remarkable decision making in curriculum and assessment issues for teachers. The central control of curriculum weakened after the dissolution of inspection and the quality control for education was in the hands of municipalities, which had very different policies for controlling the quality of teaching and education, if any. In addition, the non-existence of national student performance tests prevailed (with the exception of the matriculation exam for only part of the student population at the end of general upper-secondary education) (Kauko

& Varjo, 2008; Simola et al., 2009).

Some members of academia were sceptical of the position of teacher education in the university in the 1990s (Universitas renovata, 1993). The orientation of teacher education was considered too practical and the educational research produced by teacher educators was judged as restricted and minor. According to critics, the right place for teacher education was in the new polytechnic schools (Jauhiainen & Rinne, 2012; Säntti & Salminen, 2015). This criticism also exerted pressure on the professional image of teachers, which was seen as outdated. The modern teacher was not only a person who teaches in the front of his or her pupils but more of an educational expert and scientist who would develop working conditions and would be active in curriculum and assessment matters. This new kind of ‘change agent teacher’ can be found in the evaluation reports from the 1990s (see e.g., Education towards the future, 1994). This, in turn, paved the way for the fortification of scientific thinking in teacher education as a vehicle to renew the professional image of teacher educators (to research more) as well as school teachers (to develop more) in the field. The research-based tradition was strengthened most clearly at the University of Helsinki

(Westbury, Hansén, Kansanen & Björkvist, 2005), a change that Säntti and Salminen (2012) call “from classroom didactics to research-based reflection”. Indeed, during the 1990s and

2000s teachers have successfully been able to enhance their professional profile via scientific legitimisation (Jauhiainen & Rinne, 2012). The core idea of research-based ideology is that in teacher education the attention is on research competencies, which in practice means emphasising studies in research methodology. This “culture of method” (Doll, 2005; Autio,

2015) implies that means and tools are preferred over values, norms and other pedagogical issues. The idea is that these tools are relevant in dealing with everyday school issues and these tools can be updated (or sharpened) in the name of research-based ideology (see e.g.,

Kansanen, 2003). Some see that favouring this methodology over traditional pedagogical issues (characteristic to the philosophy or sociology of education) narrows pedagogical understanding (Kinos, Saari, Lindén & Värri, 2015). In sum, research-based action means that teachers’ acts in the school environment are based on careful pedagogical thinking and have some reference to educational research.

The fact that teachers were granted relative autonomy considering curriculum and assessment supported the idea of research-based ideology. Thus, the decentralisation of decision making presumed able and academically educated teachers who would not only be obedient vassals of a school administration but also rather autonomous decision-makers. This would be the aim of teacher education. In sum, the development in Finnish post-war teacher education has aimed to increase the professional status of teachers in connection with academic prestige. In addition, the stable and almost undisputed status of comprehensive school and quite recently the success of Finnish students in PISA assessments have created path-dependency and stability for their working environment; this has also helped to sustain the basic education structure in times of political criticism (Kauko, Corvalan, Simola & Carrasco, 2015). In the following we will focus on how has teacher education changed its doctrine, how teachers are expected to teach after they have passed their training and how these activities are connected to the historical trajectories pointed out in this section.

Table 1. Historical context of teacher training in Finland

Years Developments in the Teacher training education system development

1870-1944 Secularisation and Dual system of academic and

institutionalisation of education seminary instruction

1945-1960 Post-war expansion of the education Dual system with increased need

system of teachers

1960-1980 Comprehensive school Gradual cademisation of teacher

training

1980-2015 Criticism, decentralisation and Research-based teacher training

stabilisation

In the 1990s, evaluation groups replaced committees and international panels began to evaluate Finnish teacher education. Earlier committees had made binding concrete decisions about future practices in teacher education. Now, the new evaluative culture meant that autonomous teacher education departments were evaluated “afterwards” and only proposals were made. Although the strategy to develop teacher education was different, the message was the same: more theory, more research for both teacher educators and teachers in the field

(Sitomaniemi-San, 2015; Säntti, Puustinen & Salminen, 2017). Table 1 summarises the main thread described in this section and how the developments in the education system have been linked with the developments in the teacher training system.

At the same time as teacher training has responded to the new challenges in the education system, it has followed a trend towards more research.

One thread is quite visible to those who study Finnish teacher education in the post-war era.

This cord consists of a strong belief in theory and research and it has dictated what has been defined as effective and legitimate teaching (Simola, 1996; Sitomaniemi-San, 2015; Säntti,

Puustinen & Salminen, 2017). It is a matter of opinion whether Finnish teacher education hardly evolved between the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century but the change after the post-war period is breath-taking. The examination of the format of teacher training by the aforementioned committees and evaluation groups resulted in key policy documents recommending that teacher training be upgraded to the university requiring more years of academic studies, a process known as academisation with a strong foundation in educational research. The close alignment of the teaching profession with the university meant higher levels of education for teachers converting it to a highly specialised occupation driven by the idea of a teacher whose work and daily decisions in the classroom are based on education research. This research is not only done by scholars and practitioners but also teachers themselves are expected to participate in knowledge production (Teacher education 2020,

2007).

Given the historical context of the two different teacher training professions, described in the previous section, the academisation development was especially notable in elementary school teacher education. The change is visible in the policy texts. In fact, the convergence of two very different teacher cultures gave birth to a new research-based course which since then has shaped Finnish teacher education in recent decades and has been seen as central to teacher knowledge. As early as the 1960s, it was seen that jack-of-all-trades teacher in elementary school was to be replaced with an educational expert who could not only read scientific writing but also produce simple reports. Pedagogical knowledge displaced practical knowledge (Committee Report, 1967, 14; Committee Report, 1968, 9-11; Simola, 1996) On the other hand, the old grammar school teacher culture, which was based on subject studies

(history, biology, English or physics), received new impetus as the role of educational science was increased and cleared (Committee report, 1979). As a conclusion, the significance of educational science was clearly consolidated in both teacher sectors. Thus, it applied to both class teachers (earlier folk school teachers) and subject teachers (former grammar school teachers).

As noted in the previous section regarding the general degree reform, teacher education was at the right place at the right time. The central committee report of the 1970s (Committee report, 1972, so called FYTT) concluded that teacher education was an appropriate example of academic education as it had a concrete professional basis. At the same time, the legitimate scientific foundation was promised to be delivered. The prospects were good since every teacher group was now educated in universities all the way to the master’s degree. Ironically, it seemed that the scientific foundation of teacher education had to be fortified, when amongst the traditional disciplines, quite to the contrary, this basis was seen as problematic.

They were blamed for being too scholastic and cliquey (Committee report, 1972, 75-79).

For teacher education and teachers and especially for elementary school teacher education, the new discourse meant the commencement of the academisation process and the introduction of the pedagogically thinking teacher. The idea was to increase educational expertise in teacher education and the teaching profession. This would also mean raising its academic status (Simola, 1996; Toom et al., 2010). The old authoritarian teacher would be substituted with a broadminded and democratic actor with an academic stance and pedagogical awareness. (Committee report, 1969). Everyday situations and problems in classrooms appeared now as preliminary theoretical issues that should be handled with a theoretical mind set instead of tradition or rules of thumb based on personal experiences and knowledge. Thus, it would be impossible to say what one should do in a specific situation.

The idea was that theoretical education would give teachers tools to handle everyday pedagogical situations successfully.

The philosophy of Finnish teacher education is based on the notion of research. The leading idea in the research-based teacher education is the Personal Practical Theory, in the same sense as Elbaz (1981) refers to Practical knowledge as a basis for teachers’ acts. Korthagen

(2011) sees Personal Practical Theory as a cognitive network or using the same term Levin and He (2008) discuss the interaction between knowledge, beliefs and practices. In contemporary Finnish teacher training educators share the above-mentioned definition.

(Jyrhämä et al., 2008; Stenberg, 2014; Westbury et al., 2005.) The personal practice theory is an answer developed for the problem of theory and practice. Its central idea is that there is no one particular way to teach effectively but every teacher finds his or her own path in this regard. Thus, it is impossible to delineate more clearly what this Personal Practical Theory includes. The word ‘personal’ reflects the fact that this practical theory differs from teacher to teacher.

We interpret this research-based agenda to mean that every act, every lesson and every thought is based on research. This approach is widely accepted in Finnish teacher education departments and is certified by the fact that every Finnish teacher must complete a master’s degree that includes studies in research methodology and culminates in an independent master’s thesis. There are no fast-track teacher education programmes since universities have the full responsibility of the education of prospective teachers. (Kansanen, 2014;

Sitomaniemi-San, 2015; Toom et al., 2010; Westbury et al., 2005).

When considering the teaching profession, one interesting point is the relationship between theory and practice, which has been the perennial question of teacher education and touchstone of the usefulness of educational theory and the educational sciences. Too often, one can read studies presenting these two spheres as remote. Educational science is often seen as detached from the educational reality in schools (Biesta, 2007, 295; Broekkamp &

Van Hout-Wolters, 2007; Jörg, Davis & Nickmans, 2007; Korthagen & Kessels, 1999;

Labaree, 2000; Säntti, Puustinen & Salminen, 2017; Van de Ven and Johnson, 2006). The current principles of Finnish teacher education quite clearly state that it has found the solution and introduces itself as a model that successfully merges theory and practice. Thus, there is a continuous interaction of research and practice: “research, theory and practice are fused with the idea of research-based thinking as the connecting glue” (Westbury et al. 2005; see also,

Toom et al., 2010).

We have represented how Finnish teacher education is based on the idea of research-based thinking, which includes the ideas of Personal Practical Theory and a close relationship between teachers’ practice and theory. Next, we introduce an example that clearly exposes what these central themes mean in one specific teacher education programme.

The Subject Teacher Education Programme (STEP, 60 ECTS) is organized in English in the

Faculty of Educational Sciences at the University of Helsinki. The programme shares the agendas and contents with other subject teacher programmes. It also has the same research- based core as all the programmes of the faculty, such as class teacher, special education or early childhood education. Students attending the STEP have done, or are doing simultaneously, their major studies (like history, biology, mathematics or French) in their own departments. In the programme, students will obtain pedagogical competence to teach children, adolescent and also adults in schools and various adult educational institutions.

Studies are divided in basic and intermediate studies in the following way:

Basic studies (25 ECTS.)

● Psychology of Learning and Development 5 ECTS

● Planning, Implementation and Assessment of Teaching 10 ECTS

● Basic Practice 10 ECTS

Intermediate Studies (35 ECTS.)

● Learning Challenges 5 ECTS

● Social, Cultural and Philosophical Foundations of Education 5 ECTS

● Development of Teaching and Educational Institution 5 ECTS

● Advanced Practice 10 ECTS

● Teacher as a Researcher 10 ECTS

One finds immediately that one-third of the studies are teaching practices (Basic and

Advanced Practices). In these courses student teachers are actually teaching in schools, where they learn to plan, implement and assess teaching under the guidance of their instructor. In learning outcomes of the Advanced practice it is said that after the course students will be able to “take into account the maintenance and development of research-based knowledge and professional skills in their teaching”. In the learning outcomes it is also stated that the student will understand “The significance of reflection in teachers’ work and in the integration of theory and practice”. These learning outcomes clearly reflect a research-based agenda and the integration of theory and practice. Although this is the stage where students are up to their ears in practical issues, the learning outcomes emphasise theoretical matters.

Other courses in STEP, such as “Social, Cultural and Philosophical Foundations of

Education” or “Planning, Implementation and Assessment of Teaching” deal with various educational themes that are explicitly exposed in the titles. Finally, the course “Teacher as a

Researcher” indicates what is the basic idea of Finnish teacher education. After the course, students should be able to “justify the use of an investigative approach in their work as teachers and to work as critical education professionals who investigate and develop their work”. In this course, students will write their own minor research of some pedagogical theme they have chosen.

In these above-mentioned STEP courses students are expected to combine their knowledge of their major subject, education and subject didactics. The latter means that since each school subject has its own nature and knowledge formation, it should be taken into consideration when teaching. These three components will combine into a pedagogical practical theory of every individual student teacher. This in turn will help prospective teachers to “become experts in the planning, implementation, evaluation and development of teaching.” This sentence sums up the idea of an independent actor, who is also expert in curriculum and assessment matters according his or her own theory.

The STEP is a good example of Finnish teacher education, where the central tenets of Finnish teacher education (the integration of theory and practice, research-based agenda and pedagogical practical theory) are represented. These reflect the idea that a Finnish teacher is capable of working independently as an educator who will also investigate and develop his or her work in addition to instructional activities (Sitomaniemi-San, 2015; Säntti, Puustinen &

Salminen, 2017).

V Results organized according to the key issues

As summarised in Table 2 and discussed in the previous section, the starting point for teacher education was a normative teacher with patriotic and Christian values. Indeed, before Finnish independence the main discussions dealt with the roles of church and state. Church-led education and teacher training was first interested in maintaining reformist belief and sustaining the word order of the estates (nobility, clergy, bourgeoisie and peasants). These needs finally yielded to those of the state of first civil servants and then the educational requirements of industrialisation.

In the 20th century the division to ‘folk’ and grammar schools also marked the division between teachers and society. Albeit dissonant voices, two important compromises were formed and the latter was aided by historical contingencies: education was reformed in comprehensive terms and all teachers began to receive a university-level education. At the same time, the ideal of the normative teacher was questioned in the 1960s when the autonomically-thinking teacher was the new norm. Since then, teachers have been expected to study and absorb research results and not to rest their reasoning and action on tradition or personal preferences alone. These effects of the comprehensive reforms were locked-in by the institutionalisation of the comprehensive school, Finnish success in PISA evaluations and a radical decentralisation of education decision-making power to the municipalities. The coinciding ease of central control and the self-empowerment of teacher training have created favourable conditions for research-based teacher training. In the 1990s, the idea developed of a research-oriented teacher who was a truly professional and authentic agent equipped with all the knowledge to develop his or her own work after having received a fully academic education. This research- orientation agenda also contributed significantly to harmonise different teacher education programmes that were organized on the university level (Toom et al., 2010; Salminen &

Säntti, 2013).

All this has contributed to the Finnish teacher-training answer on how to teach efficiently: each teacher should have his or her own Personal Practical Theory, a framework used in different everyday situations in schools. This approach could be criticised as too broad with little to say about effective teaching. Also, teachers could be questioned whether or not teachers if they actually teach as they say they do (Levin & He, 2008). Another question that could be raised is whether everything goes in terms of Personal Practical Theory or if there a hidden curriculum agenda behind this idea. Are there any criterions to judge when this practical theory is, for example, pedagogically or politically injurious?

It is tempting to say that the Finnish PISA results are the consequence of the chosen research- based strategy in teacher education. Since it is about the whole ideology, clearly connected with teachers’ status, it is almost impossible to research how it affects separate actions and situations in daily school work. Thus, when one observes educational action, it is difficult to define accurately if there is research-based thinking in the background. Therefore, there is a need to study empirically the consequences of the research-based teacher education programmes; if some answers are needed, there must be a large-scale study (Kansanen,

2014).

Table 2. The development of the teacher training doctrine.

Historical context Guiding principles of teacher Research training references

The normative teacher

Swedish rule until 1809, estate Teachers as lower-level clergy. Joutsivuo, 2010 system, teacher training in the Maintaining the orthodoxy of the

Academy of Turku since 1640, Reformation. Later Enlightenment ideas, first teacher seminary 1806 humanism and philanthropism gaining

ground

Russian rule 1809-1917, school Teachers as civil servants. German Joutsivuo, 2010; reform in the 1840s, pedagogy (Pestalozzi, Fröbel); Academic Leino-Kaukiainen & industrialisation since 1870 and pedagogic (grammar school) or Heikkinen, 2011;

seminary teaching (folk school). Jalava, 2011; Rantala,

2011

Independence since 1917; First steps of academisation; Jyväskylä Leino-Kaukiainen &

Compulsory education 1921 teacher seminaries become pedagogical Heikkinen, 2011;

higher education institution in 1934; Säntti, 2011; Saari,

Educational sciences starting interest 2011

with positivism. The pedagogically thinking teacher

Post-war welfare state build-up Teacher training moved to universities; Ahonen, 2011, and education expansion 1945- Academisation gives room for Salminen & Säntti,

1980s constructivist pedagogy (Piaget, 2012, Säntti,

Vygotsky); Koskenniemi and Lahdes as Puustinen &

fathers of Finnish didactics Salminen, 2017

The research-based teacher

New public management Teacher training successfully able to Rantala et al., 2013; reforms late 1980s-2000s; enhance professional profile via Säntti & Salminen; criticism towards state scientific legitimisation and high Rantala, 2011; professions, budget cuts, organisation rate Jauhiainen & Rinne, decentralisation and municipal 2012, Säntti, autonomy Puustinen &

Salminen, 2017

2000-2010 PISA results, Development of research-based teacher Toom et al., 2010; criticism towards education, training Simola, 2005; Säntti, economic boost Puustinen &

Salminen, 2017

VI. Substantiated conclusions or warrants for arguments/points of view

Looking at the decisions that led to major teacher training reforms, the most significant ones were the political compromises made in committee and parliamentary work. These groups worked quite independently without strong political pressure. These reforms owe to the pressing needs stemming from historical dependencies and contingencies, demography, and industrialisation. Furthermore, another feature was that teacher training was not only an entity of its own but its development was linked to the general societal decisions, trends, and demands, as was the case with the degree reform.

The Finnish teacher agenda, which emphasises research-orientation and research methodology, has also influenced how to describe and tackle the challenges that every-day school life induces. Thus, theoretical knowledge is the key concept in resolving everyday teaching problems (Kansanen, 2003). This viewpoint has been also criticised. Firstly, according to critics, this research-based agenda has overruled other approaches such as caring. Secondly, the special contents, like educational philosophy or psychology, may have lost their reason. Thirdly, some voices are concerned whether teachers are actually expected to do research and publish in a scientific journal or are they merely semi-researchers

(Educational studies, 1994; Kinos, Saari, Linden & Värri, 2015, Puustinen, Säntti &

Salminen, 2015).

There has been a strong tendency towards academisation or even scientification in the

Finnish teacher education agenda which have been possible in the situation where the major questions and visions of the teacher profession have been answered mainly by educational scientists. These questions include visions of what kind of teacher is a good or ideal teacher and how he or she might teach effectively. The political guidance has been rather moderate during recent decades. We conclude that teacher education has been searching for academic credibility to justify its position in the university, which has not been self-evident. From this, it has ensured that also teachers must be explicitly academically oriented. As Labaree (2004) has stated, the status of teacher education is tightly connected to the status of teachers and schools. Whether this research-orientation has produced effective teaching is still to be answered, since there is no systematic and large-scale empirical study about the

consequences of this policy (Kansanen, 2014) nor is there research about whether or not

teachers themselves approve of this agenda.

VII. References

COMMITTEE AND EVALUATION REPORTS

Committee Report. 1967. Opettajanvalmistustoimikunnan mietintö [Report of the Committee

for the Planning of Teacher Training]. Helsinki: Ministry of Education.

Committee Report 1968. Opettajanvalmistuksen opetussuunnitelmatoimikunnan mietintö

[Report of the Curriculum Planning Commission for General Teacher Training (‘Basic

School’)]. Helsinki: Ministry of Education.

Committee Report 1969. Peruskoulunopettajakomitean mietintö [Report of the

Comprehensive school teacher committee]. Helsinki: Ministry of Education.

Committee Report 1972. Filosofisten ja yhteiskuntatieteellisten tutkintojen toimikunnan

mietintö [The committee report of the degrees in philosophy and social sciences]. Helsinki:

Ministry of Education.

Committee Report 1975. Vuoden 1973 opettajankoulutustoimikunnan mietintö [Report of the teacher education committee of 1973]. Helsinki: Ministry of Education. Committee report 1978. Luokanopettajan koulutusohjelman yleinen rakenne: kasvatusalan tutkinnonuudistuksen ohjaus- ja seurantaprojektin raportti [The general structure of class

teacher programme. The report of the project of Curriculum reform of education]. Helsinki:

Ministry of Education.

Committee report 1979. Aineenopettajien kasvatustieteellinen koulutus: kasvatusalan

tutkinnonuudistuksen ohjaus- ja seurantaprojektin raportti [The educational science in the

education of subject teachers: The report of the project of Curriculum reform of education].

Helsinki: Ministry of Education.

Committee Report 1989. Opettajankoulutuksen kehittämistoimikunnan mietintö. Kehittyvä

opettajankoulutus [Report of the teacher education development committee. Developing

teacher education]. Helsinki: Ministry of Education.

Committee Report. 1991 Opettajien kelpoisuustoimikunnan mietintö [Report of teacher

competence committee]. Helsinki: Ministry of Education.

Helsingin yliopiston arviointiryhmä. Arto Mustajoki et al. 1993. Universitas renovata.

Helsingin yliopiston arviointiryhmän raportti ja ehdotukset [Universitas renovata. The report

and proposals of the evaluation committee of the University of Helsinki]. Helsinki:

Yliopistopaino.

Buchberger, F., De Corte, E., Groombridge, B., & Kennedy, M. (1994). Educational studies

and teacher education in Finnish universities. A commentary by an international review

team. Helsinki: Ministry of Education, Division of educational and research policy, 14. Kasvatusala kohti tulevaisuutta. Kasvatustieteellisen alan tutkintojen arviointi- ja kehittämisprojektin loppuraportti. 1994. [Education towards the future. The closing report of the evaluation and development project of educational science degrees]. Helsinki:

Opetusministeriö.

Teacher Education as a Future-moulding Factor. 2000. International Evaluation of Teacher

Education in Finnish Universities, edited by J. Jussila & S. Saari. Publications of Finnish

Higher Education Evaluation Council.

Opettajankoulutus 2020. 2007. [Teacher education 2020]. Opetusministeriön työryhmämuistioita ja selvityksiä: 44. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino.

LITERATURE

Ahonen, S. (2003). Yhteinen koulu: tasa-arvoa vai tasapäisyyttä? [Common School: Equality or Leveling Off?]. Tampere: Vastapaino.

Ahonen, S. (2011). Millä opeilla opettajia koulutettiin? [With which education were teachers trained?] In A. Heikkinen & P. Leino-Kaukiainen (Eds.) Valistus ja koulunpenkki. Kasvatus ja koulutus Suomessa 1860-luvulta 1960-luvulle. Helsinki: SKS, 239-252.

Autio, T. (2015). The Present Educational Imaginary in Finland - Only Finnish? Journal of

Curriculum and Pedagogy 3(2), 67-71. Biesta, G.J.J. (2007). Bridging the gap between educational research and educational practice: the need for critical distance. Educational Research and Evaluation 13(3), 295-301.

Broekkamp, H., & Hout-Wolters,Van B. (2007). The Gap Between Educational Research and

Practice: A literature review, symposium, and questionnaire.” Educational Research and

Evaluation 13(3), 203–220.

Doll, W. (2005). The culture of method. In W. E. Doll, Jr., M. J. Fleener, D. Trueit & J. St. Julein

(Eds.), Chaos, complexity, curriculum and culture (pp. 21– 75). New York: Peter Lang.

Elbaz, F. (1981). The teacher’s “practical knowledge”: Report of a case study. Curriculum Inquiry

11(1), 43-71.

Jalava, M. (2011). XX. In Heikkinen, A., & Leino-Kaukiainen, P. (Eds). Valistus ja koulunpenkki:

Kasvatus ja koulutus suomessa 1860-luvulta 1960-luvulle. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden

Seura.

Jauhiainen, A. & Rinne, R. (2012). Koulu professionaalisena kenttänä. [School as a professional field]. In Pauli Kettunen & Hannu Simola (Eds.) Tiedon ja osaamisen Suomi. Kasvatus ja koulutus

Suomessa 1960-luvulta 2000-luvulle. Helsinki: SKS, 105–143.

Joutsivuo, T. (2010). Papeiksi ja virkamiehiksi. [Becoming Priests and Civil Servants.] In J. Hanska

& K. Vainio-Korhonen (Eds.) Huoneentaulun maailma. Kasvatus ja koulutus Suomessa keskiajalta

1860-luvulle. Helsinki: SKS, 112-183. Jyrhämä, R., Kynäslahti, H., Krokfors, L., Byman, R., Maaranen, K., Toom, A. & Kansanen, P.

(2008). The appreciation and realisation of research-based teacher education: Finnish students’

experiences of teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education 31(1), 1-16.

Jörg, T., Davis, B., & Nickmans, G. (2007). Towards a new complexity science of learning

and education. Educational Research Review 2(2), 145-156.

Kansanen, P. (2003). Teacher education in Finland: Current models and new developments. In B.

Moon, L. Vlăsceanu, & C. Barrows (Eds.), Institutional approaches to teacher education within

higher education in Europe: Current models and new developments (pp. 85-108). Bucharest:

UNESCO – Cepes.

Kansanen, P. (2014). Teaching as Master’s level Profession in Finland: Theoretical Reflections and

Practical Solutions. In O. McNamara, J. Murray & M. Jones (Eds.), Workplace learning in teacher

education: International practice and policy (pp. 279–292). New York: Springer.

Kauko, J., Corvalan, J, Simola, H. & Carrasco, A. (2015) Historical dynamics in Chilean and Finnish

basic education politics. In P. Seppänen, A. Carrasco, M. Kalalahti, R. Rinne & H. Simola (Eds.)

Contrasting Dynamics in Education Politics of Extremes: school choice in Chile and Finland. Sense.

Kettunen, P., Jalava, M., Simola, H. & Varjo, J. (2012). Tasa-arvon ihanteesta erinomaisuuden

eetokseen: Koulutuspolitiikka hyvinvointivaltiosta kilpailuvaltioon. [From the ideal of equality into an

ethos of excellence: Education policy from welfare state to competitive state]. In Pauli Kettunen &

Hannu Simola (Eds.) Tiedon ja osaamisen Suomi. Kasvatus ja koulutus Suomessa 1960-luvulta 2000-

luvulle. Helsinki: SKS, 25-62. Kinos J., Saari A., Lindén J., Värri V-M. (2015). Onko kasvatustiede aidosti opettajaksi opiskelevien pääaine? [Is the educational science truly the major subject of teacher students?]. Kasvatus

46(2), 176-182.

Korthagen, F. (2011). Making teacher education relevant for practice: the pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Orbis Scholae 5(2), 31-50.

Labaree, D.F. (2000). Educational Researchers. Living with a lesser form of Knowledge. In C. Day et. al (Eds.), Life and work of Teachers (pp. 55-75. London). New York: Falmer Press.

Labaree, D.F. (2004). The trouble with Ed Schools. New Haven and London: Yale University

Press.

Leino-Kaukiainen, P. & Heikkinen, A. (2011) Yhteiskunta ja koulutus. [Society and education]. In Anja Heikkinen & Pirkko Leino-Kaukiainen (Eds.) Valistus ja koulunpenkki.

Kasvatus ja koulutus Suomessa 1860-luvulta 1960-luvulle. Helsinki, SKS, 16-33.

Levin, B. & He, Y. (2008). Investigating the content and sources of teacher candidates’ personal practical theories (PPTS). Journal of Teacher Education 59(1), 55-68.

March, J. G. & Olsen, J.P. (1989). Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of

Politics. New York, NY: Free Press.

Nurmi, V. (1990). Maamme opettajakorkeakoulut. Kasvatushistoriallinen perustutkimus

[Finnish colleges of education. A basic study of history of education]. Helsingin yliopiston opettajankoulutuslaitos. Tutkimuksia 87. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto. OECD (2010). PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do. Student Performance

in Reading, Mathematics and Science. Paris: OECD. Available at:

http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/48852548.pdf

OECD (2012). PISA 2012 Results in Focus: What 15-year-olds know and what they can do

with what they know: Key results from PISA 2012. Paris: OECD. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf

OECD (2015). PISA 2015. Results in Focus. Paris: OECD. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/test/PISA%202015%20MS%20-

%20Released%20Item%20Descriptions%20Final_English.pdf

Puustinen, M., Säntti, J., & Salminen, J. (2015). Ylistystä ja toiminta-alttiutta – retorinen analyysi tutkimusperustaisen opettajuuden rakentamisesta Opettajankoulutus 2020- loppuraportissa. [Praise and receptive to action. Rhetorical analysis of Teacher Education

2020 report]. Kasvatus 46(1), 6–18

Rantala, Jukka (2011). Kansakoulunopettajat. [Folk school teachers] In Anja Heikkinen & Pirkko

Leino-Kaukiainen (Eds.) Valistus ja koulunpenkki. Kasvatus ja koulutus Suomessa 1860-luvulta

1960-luvulle. Helsinki: SKS,266-299.

Rinne, R. (1986). Kansanopettaja mallikansalaisena: opettajuuden laajeneminen ja

opettajuuden rekrytointimekanismit Suomessa 1851–1986 virallisen kuvausaineiston

ilmaisemana [Elementary school teacher as a role model: the expansion of teacher profession and recruitment of teachers in Finland 1851-1986]. Turun yliopiston kasvatustieteiden tiedekunta. A. Tutkimuksia; 108. Rinne, R. & Jauhiainen, A. (1988). Koulutus, professionaalistuminen ja valtio. Julkisen

sektorin koulutettujen reproduktioammattikuntien muotoutuminen Suomessa [Education,

professionalization and the state. The formation of reproductive professions in public sector

in Finland]. Turun yliopiston kasvatustieteiden tiedekunta. Julkaisusarja A, Tutkimuksia, 135.

Rutkowski, L. & Rutkowski, D. (2016). A Call for More Measured Approach to Reporting

and Interpreting PISA Results. Educational Researcher 45 (4), 252-257.

Saari, Antti (2011). Kasvatustieteen tiedontahto. Kriittisen historian näkökulmia

suomalaiseen kasvatuksen tutkimukseen. [Education and Will to Knowledge. A Critical

History of Educational Research in Finland.] Dissertation. Turku: Finnish Educational

Research Association. Research in Educational Sciences 55.

Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in

Finland? New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Sahlberg, P. (2015). Finnish Lessons 2.0. What can the world learn from educational change

in Finland? 2nd ed. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Salokangas, M. & Kauko, J. (2016). Borrowing Finnish PISA success? Critical reflections

from the perspective of the lender. Educação e Pesquisa, 41.

Salminen, J. & Säntti, J. (2013). Akateemisesta varjosta kansainvälistyvän tieteen valokeilaan: luokanopettajakoulutuksen kehitys 1960-luvulta 2010-luvulle Helsingin väliaikaisessa opettajakorkeakoulussa ja Helsingin yliopistossa. [From the shadow of academia to the limelight of international science: The development of teacher education from the 1960s to the 2010s in college of education and the university of Helsinki]. In J.

Rantala & M. Rautiainen (Eds.), Salonkikelpoiseksi maisterikoulutukseksi. Luokanopettaja- ja opinto-ohjaajakoulutusten akatemisoitumiskehitys 1970-luvulta 2010-luvulle (pp. 106-

128). Jyväskylä: Finnish Educational Research Association. Research in Educational

Sciences 64.

Simola, H. (1996). Didactics, pedagogic discourse and professionalism in Finnish teacher

Education. In H. Simola & T. Popkewitz (Eds.), Professionalization and Education (pp. 97-

117). Helsinki: Department of Teacher Education, University of Helsinki.

Simola, H. (2002). From Exclusion to Self-selection: Examination of behaviour in Finnish primary and comprehensive schooling from the 1860s to the 1990s. History of Education, 31

(3), 207–226.

Simola, H. (2005). The Finnish miracle of PISA: historical and sociological remarks on teaching and teacher education, Comparative Education, 41(4), 455–470.

Simola, H., Rinne, R., Varjo, J., Kauko, J. & Pitkänen, H. (2009). Quality Assurance and

Evaluation (QAE) in Finnish comprehensive schooling – a national model or just unintended effects of radical decentralisation? Journal of Education Policy, 24(2), 163–178.

Simola, H. & Rinne, R. (2010). Kontingenssi ja koulutuspolitiikka: vertailevan tutkimuksen teoreettisia edellytyksiä etsimässä [Contingency and education policy: searching for the theoretical starting points for comparative research]. Kasvatus, 41(4), 316–330. Simola, H., Rinne, R., Varjo, J. & Kauko, J. (2013). The paradox of the education race: how to win the ranking game by sailing to headwind. Journal of Education Policy, 28 (5), 612–

633.

Sitomaniemi-San, J. 2015. Fabricating the teacher as researcher: a genealogy of academic teacher education in Finland. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis E Scientiae Rerum

Socialium 157. Tampere: Juvenis print.

Stenberg, K., Karlsson, L., Pitkäniemi, H. & Maaranen, M. 2014. Beginning student teachers’ teacher identities based on their practical theories. European Journal of Teacher Education

37(2), 204-219.

Säntti, J. (2011). Opettajakorkeakoulut. [Teacher training colleges.] In Anja Heikkinen &

Pirkko Leino-Kaukiainen (Eds.) Valistus ja koulunpenkki. Kasvatus ja koulutus Suomessa

1860-luvulta 1960-luvulle. Helsinki: SKS, 269-272

Säntti, J., & Salminen, J. (2012). Luokkahuonedidaktiikasta tutkimusperustaiseen reflektointiin [From classroom didactics to research-based reflection]. Kasvatus 43(1), 20-30.

Säntti, J., & Salminen, J. 2015. Development of teacher education in Finland 1945–2015.

Hungarian educational research journal 5(3), 1-18.

Säntti, J., Puustinen, M. & Salminen, J. 2017. Theory and practice in Finnish teacher education: a rhetorical analysis of changing values from the 1960s to the present day.

Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice. Toom, A., Kynäslahti, H., Krokfors, L., Jyrhämä, R., Byman, R., Stenberg, K., Maaranen,

K., & Kansanen. P. (2010). Experiences of a Research-Based Approach to Teacher

Education: suggestions for future policies”. European Journal of Education 45(2), 331-344.

Tyack, D. & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering Toward Utopia a Century of Public School Reform.

London: Harvard University Press.

Van de Ven, A., & Johnson, P. (2006). Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of

Management Review 31(4), 802-821.

Westbury, I., Hansén, S.E., Kansanen. P., & Björkvist, O. (2005). Teacher Education for

Research-based Practice in Expanded Roles: Finland’s experience. Scandinavian Journal of

Educational Research, 49(5), 475-485.