Finland knows how to train teachers

Too often development discussions merely comprise a number of opinions from people and groups with different interests, while less waterproof evidence is presented. Academic research on education and teacher education does not get enough publicity when schooling alternatives are considered or development policies pursued. 

University-based research is the most sophisticated and advanced method to get reliable information for just about any topic and phenomena. 

It is often said the noisiest opinion is the correct opinion, but there are a growing number of research papers that prove otherwise. 

Recently, Chalk Talk paid attention to the analysis on Thailand teacher education made by a professor from Finland. Much was left unsaid, like the various school-university connections and the progressive amount of international research on teacher education that, for example, the Faculty of Education at Chulalongkorn University has been performing for a few years. 

In post doctoral-level research at the university, four faculty-member international research groups have studied the motivation and learning in basic Thai education, leadership and learning characteristics in relation to teacher education and teacher education curricula in the country. 

As a result of the research outcomes, several workshops and seminars as well as in-service training for teachers have been arranged nationally. Research workshops are running and larger research programmes, together with other units, have been launched to study and analyse teacher education practices in Thailand.

Elementary and subject teacher education curricula of Chulalongkorn University have been analysed and studied comparatively with one of the often-mentioned “good” teacher educations: Finnish academic teacher education. Paradoxically enough, differences in this study rose from similarities and vice-versa. While both “cases” educate their future teachers in five-year university programmes and seemingly trust their students’ academic competencies, there are also differences that should be carefully |considered once reformist policies are launched – to avoid miscellaneous trends or narrow-minded dead ends.

Regarding future skills, development and quality assurance, Thai teacher students are requested to fulfill “learners’ desirable characteristics” given by the national higher education administration. They are standardised to guarantee quality, which is a positive indicator as such. 

In Finland, there is no such requirement, with skill-based development growing freely over the study years as students develop and find new kinds of competence connections. Consequently, quality assurance is more centred on the growth process of students than a ready checklist. 

On the other hand, this kind of open-minded and innovative approach sets higher requirements for teacher educators at universities. The “no student left behind” policy in Finland was largely founded on the constant development of university-based teacher-education programmes and not on the status quo.

In addition to previous focuses, research skills and teaching practices have crucial roles in both country’s teacher-education programmes. 

The differences come from the implementation of the programmes. While Finnish teacher students get used to applying research to improve their professional development and learning environment for different kinds of learning, Thai students view action research as part of their obligations and not so much as a development tool. A valuable opportunity for further development would be wasted if the research findings were not utilised.

Third, both teacher-education faculties have a field-school network outside the university in the cities in which they operate. However, their academic approaches to quality assurance are different again. 

Finns have trained their field-school mentors to follow the teacher-education curricula and skill-development ideas in teaching, allowing free research opportunities in the classroom environment. 

This kind of mentor training is largely not done in Thailand, while the options for classroom research tend to depend on the supervisors’ attitudes. Consequently, a young and promising teacher student may enter an environment where their new, modern and evidence-based ideas are resisted or even rejected. 

Given the negative feedback, the attractiveness of future teacher-student professional development will look a lot less rosy very soon.

These few examples show that the educational “coin” has two sides. The opinion-based side only dominates the public discussion, because everyone believes their opinion is right. Research will arrive a bit late, but the pile of evidence will determine what solutions are the most sustainable. 

The use of research to enhance a school and teacher-education programmes is here to stay. Environments change and so do the students, but students now and in the future will not be motivated without evidence-based proof that they are in an excellent, sustainable environment. In fact, they are already asking for think-tank alternatives on campus.

 

Visiting Professor Jyrki Loima, PhD, Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University

[email protected]