Subject teacher education as a prisoner of its own tradition : Experiments in mathematics and science to break out of the routine

Subject teacher education as a prisoner of its own tradition Experiments in mathematics and science to break out of the routine Harry Silfverberg Introduction In Finland, mathematics, physics, chemistry and information technology are usually referred to as mathematical subjects. This chapter introduces four reforms concerning the subject teacher education programmes in the mathematical subjects carried out in the School of Education at the University of Tampere during the last two decades. Each of these reforms in their own way challenged the traditional ideas of what type of structure the subject teacher education programme should and could have, what contents it should have, and which institutions should be responsible for the Eero Ropo & Riitta Jaatinen (eds), Subject Teacher Education in Transition: Educating Teachers for the Future Tampere: Tampere University Press, 181–201. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-359-016-8 182 Harry Silfverberg eero ropo & riitta jaatinen (Eds) administration of each sector of the education. In this chapter, my aim is to examine, as objectively as possible, the motives leading to the onset of these development projects, the basic ideas behind the projects and the life course of each project. Some of the projects are still ongoing, some of them have ended and others will end soon. However, one must remember that although projects end, many of their innovative background ideas continue their lives in some other form in the practices of the institution. As far as the completed projects are concerned, we also examine the reasons leading to the end of the projects despite having had quite a general agreement on the value and innovativeness of the experiments. The contents of the curriculum for subject teacher education are checked and modified at intervals of two or three years, the purpose of which is to renew the entire curriculum of the teacher education unit. Nevertheless, from earlier curricula, one can notice that the basic structure of the curriculum has remained almost unchanged for a surprisingly long time. Subject teacher education has a strong tradition that seems to resist changes that may be too radical but perhaps changes that would be necessary and perhaps even de rigueur. For a long time, slightly more than one third of the pedagogic studies (60 ETCS) has consisted of basic studies in (general) education, about one third teaching practice, and the rest, i.e. slightly less than one third, consists of subject didactic studies. However, several different issues have created pressure to change subject teacher education – even quite radically – and especially in mathematical subjects. The pressure has targeted both reforming the structures of subject teacher education programmes and developing the contents of individual courses within the programme. The pressures for change have been caused, among other things, by the following issues: First, throughout the 1990s, we were unable to obtain a sufficient number of students for the teacher training programmes in the mathematical subjects as they were recruited from our own university only. Each year, just a few students completed pedagogical studies to Subject teacher education as a prisoner of its own tradition 183Subject teacher education in transition qualify as subject teachers of mathematics, physics or chemistry. The same trend was also evident in other Finnish universities. Together with the department of mathematics, we decided that we needed to make the recruitment of prospective teachers in mathematics, physics and chemistry more attractive, one way or another. At the same time, there was an imbalance in the study modules for the mathematical subjects offered at the Tampere University of Technology (TUT) and the University of Tampere (UT). The students of mathematical subjects in UT completed all of their studies in physics and chemistry in TUT, the students at TUT, on the other hand, were only offered a few courses at UT. The negotiations between the universities concluded in an agreement which guaranteed that the students at TUT had the possibility to complete pedagogical studies in mathematical subjects at UT within an agreed quota. Second, since the end of the 1990s, the comprehensive schools with both primary and lower secondary schools in them became increasingly common in Finland (cf. Rajakaltio 2011). According to Statistics Finland in 2018 a total of 2,234 comprehensive schools were in operation, 20 per cent of which were joint schools comprising grades 1 to 9. The comprehensive schools, comprising grades 1–9, are supervised by the same administration, and the core curriculum has been planned to ensure the students’ transition from the primary school to the lower secondary school goes as smoothly as possible. One of the objectives of the unification is to enable as many teachers as possible to teach at both the primary and lower secondary levels, accoding to their expertise. The problem the Finnish teacher education system encounters here is the fact that our teacher education programmes do not usually qualify student teachers to teach in the entire comprehensive school. Primary teacher education programme qualifies graduates to work only as class teachers at the grades 1 through 6 and subject teacher education programmes qualify to teach at the grades 7 through 12 those subjects that the teacher has made 60 ECTS points or more. The purpose of the AIKAMA programme, 184 Harry Silfverberg eero ropo & riitta jaatinen (Eds) a new type of teacher education programme developed in the faculty, was to meet this challenge especially. Third, according to several studies (e.g. Juuti et al. 2010; Merenluoto et al. 2003; Pehkonen 2011), the prospective primary school teachers’ knowledge of mathematics during that time was insufficient. The weak competence in mathematics led to a situation where too few students specialized in mathematics. By developing the Didactical Mathematics study module (25 ECTS), together with the department of the mathematics at the University of Tampere, we tried to encourage prospective primary school teachers to choose mathematics as a minor subject in their degree. We also encouraged them to reconsider their attitudes according to which university level mathematics is insuperably difficult for them. Fourth, we also looked for a satisfactory solution to the problem of the main subject: At that time, the major subject in master’s degrees at Finnish universities could (and still can), in fact, be either mathematics or educational sciences but not mathematics education. A solution to this problem was sought from two directions: First, we proposed that the faculty of education allow stronger emphasis on mathematics education in the optional part of the curricula in B.Ed. and M.Ed. degrees. The main subject would still be educational sciences. This gradual process to strengthen the status of mathematics education and research therein in our faculty eventually led to the establishment of the above-mentioned AIKAMA teacher education programme. The major subject of the nationally unique programme was education, and the compulsory minor subject was mathematics. After the AIKAMA programme had been carried out for a few years interest among a group of Nordic researchers of mathematics education sparked. The group decided to start, as Nordic cooperation, a Master of Arts programme with the didactics of mathematics as its main subject. The Nordic Minister Council funded the planning of the project and in the year 2010 the Joint Nordic Master Programme on Didactics of Mathematics, NORDIMA was established in cooperation Subject teacher education as a prisoner of its own tradition 185Subject teacher education in transition with a consortium of five universities from Norway, Denmark, and Finland. Since the beginning of the planning of the programme, the teacher education unit of the Faculty of Education at the University of Tampere was one of the partners in the consortium. The Nordic Graduate School of Mathematics Education (NoGSME) served as a natural channel to further studies in the research of mathematics education. Pedagogical studies for engineering students Normally, the pedagogical studies in the Faculty of Education are organized in cooperation with the faculties of the University of Tampere, i.e. the faculties provide the major subject studies for secondary (and tertiary level) teachers. In addition to the faculties at the University of Tampere, the Tampere University of Technology, too, has offered an option (for about 20 years now) to engineering students to complete pedagogical studies as a minor subject in their MSc degree. The students’ teaching practice is carried out at the University of Tampere teacher training school and in several other secondary and tertiary level institutions in the Tampere region, in cooperation with the Faculty of Education of the University of Tampere. The students have mathematics, physics, chemistry or computer science as their major subject in the Master of Science in Technology degree, which they study at the Tampere University of Technology. To get the qualification for the teacher’s profession,they also have to include in their degree 60 ECTS credits of pedagogical studies offered by the Faculty of Education at the University of Tampere. To be attractive on the labour market, most students have one or more extra subject from the above-mentioned mathematical subjects as their minor subject(s). The rest of the degree consists of studies in technology. In recent years, the student quota for this programme has been set at 25. 186 Harry Silfverberg eero ropo & riitta jaatinen (Eds) So far, there has not been any formal evaluation of the programme, but the students compile a portfolio where they evaluate their professional growth during the pedagogical studies. The portfolios give valuable information on the students’ professional growth and on their views concerning the parts of the programme which function well or perhaps not so well. On the basis of portfolios, almost all students have been considerably satisfied with the programme. No doubt, cooperation between the partners is the cornerstone of the success of the programme. On the one hand, the University of Tampere has developed the pedagogical studies module to meet the needs of engineering students. On the other hand, the Tampere University of Technology has developed the Master of Science in Technology degree to fulfil the needs of both the degree in engineering and the teaching qualification in mathematical subjects. Most importantly, both parties of the programme have considered the cooperation advantageous to themselves. The programme has been popular and, consequently, it has been possible to recruit gifted students to study the STEM subjects, i.e. science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Graduates have been well employed. Educational institutions have willingly employed people who, in addition to the subject knowledge of pure mathematics and science, have the knowledge to apply these subjects in engineer sciences and other fields in society. The programme is unique in Finland. Parallel to the traditional view that school subjects are taught separately, much attention has currently been given to the view that emphasises closer integration within subjects. Discussion about the STEM or SMET subjects (science, mathematics, engineering, technology) (Stohlmann, Moore & Roehrig 2012) began in the United States, but it is also widely spreading in the European discourses of subject teaching nowadays. The intention of this perspective is to connect science and mathematics, especially within the frame of engineering and technology. Looking back, from the beginning of Subject teacher education as a prisoner of its own tradition 187Subject teacher education in transition the project we tried to integrate SMETsubjects in teacher education, even though integration was not discussed to the extent it is discussed nowadays. Establishment of the AIKAMA master programme and the Joint Nordic Master Programme in Didactics of Mathematics, NORDIMA Having mathematics as a compulsory minor subject and focusing studies in the major subject on mathematics education, the AIKAMA subject teacher’s master programme started in 2002 and finished in 2016. From the very beginning, it attempted to meet the needs of society and teachers specialising in teaching at comprehensive schools. The objective of this programme was not only to provide students with expertise in their own subjects and teaching but also to work as educational specialists in comprehensive schools. In the programme, the main subject was education, and the students who graduated from it received a master’s degree in education. The studies in mathematics required of the subject teacher in the comprehensive school formed the compulsory minor subject in the students’ degree. Depending on the students’ choice of minor subject(s) and those offered in the master’s degrees, the programme rendered qualifications to work either as a primary school teacher or as a subject teacher in the comprehensive school, or even in upper secondary school. The main advantages we expected from this type of programme were the following: 1. Emphasis is on the entire comprehensive school; 2. Appropriately selected advanced studies in the main subject (education) bring added value to the pedagogical studies required of subject teachers; 188 Harry Silfverberg eero ropo & riitta jaatinen (Eds) 3. The duration of the teacher education (usually about five years) gives extra time to the students to develop their identity as teachers as compared to the established way of carrying out the pedagogical studies for subject teachers in one or two years; 4. The programme application process is economic as it is arranged in connection with the already existing application process in primary school teacher education. 5. The programme makes it possible to get double qualification, i.e. the qualification of a primary school teacher and that of a subject teacher. (cf. also Kohonen 2005). During the ten years when new students were accepted into to the programme, it became very popular. In the last few years, when it was still possible to apply to the programme, the number of applicants exceeded the admission quota by more than 15 times. One doctoral dissertation (Portaankorva-Koivisto 2010) was completed in association with the project. Portaankorva-Koivisto conducted a narrative study on the AIKAMA students’ professional growth processes in becoming mathematics teachers. In her thesis for Master of Education, Pääkkönen (2012) carried out the overall evaluation of the programme. According to Pääkkönen, the teachers who had graduated from the AIKAMA programme and already worked as teachers were mainly satisfied with the education in the AIKAMA programme. However, some teachers had experienced that their colleagues had found it strange that the mathematics teachers had graduated as Masters of Education instead of Masters of Science. The Joint Nordic Master Programme in Didactics of Mathematics, NORDIMA, was established in the Faculty of Education in the spring of 2010 in cooperation with a consortium of five partner universities from three Nordic countries: Norway, Denmark, and Finland. The partners in the project include the University of Agder, Kristiansand; the Danish School of Education; Aarhus University, Campus København; the University of Copenhagen, København; Subject teacher education as a prisoner of its own tradition 189Subject teacher education in transition Åbo Akademi University, Vasa; and the University of Tampere, Tampere. In the beginning, the programme was partly funded by the Nordic Council of Ministers and the agreement was made for the years 2010–2016. The University of Agder in Kristiansand, Norway is the main partner of the University of Tampere. The first year of the studies is carried out in the University of Tampere, the second year in the University of Agder. If the first year of studies is carried out in Agder and the second in Tampere, the studies taken at the University of Tampere are determined according to a personal study plan. The purpose of the programme was to gain the following benefits: 1. The Nordic master programme in the didactics of mathematics will through the use of combined expertise and opportunities create Nordic synergy in an area of research where most of the environments are small and vulnerable. 2. The Nordic master programme in the didactics of mathematics will be built on high-quality research and run by teachers and supervisors who are active researchers in mathematics education. 3. A common Nordic solution for a master programme will offer the entire Nordic educational system with experts in mathematics education and will be unique in the Nordic countries. The programme consisted of 120 ECTS. The bulk of the courses consisted of the didactics of mathematics, but to some extent other types of courses could be included, for example, in mathematics or science education, depending on the previous studies of the individual student. In any case, the master’s degree rendered qualifications in the area of mathematics education. It was suggested that some courses be core courses and compulsory, but most courses were optional. The board of the Nordic master’s programme was responsible for accepting students, coordinating the application process, maintaining the quality of the programme, ensuring that 196 Harry Silfverberg eero ropo & riitta jaatinen (Eds) important part of the local and national supply of teacher education possibilities. When the programme began, its attractiveness was doubted. Nevertheless, in the last few years, the student quota reserved for it has become full without problems. The programme has a clear profile, and it produces teachers who are well employed in the teaching profession. The integration of the universities and along with it, their intensifying cooperation will make this teacher education programme an even more natural of the teacher education options. Then, it is perhaps possible, better than before, also to utilise the synergic advantages with the teacher training in vocational education. The fate of the AIKAMA and NORDIMA projects has, instead, been their gradual shutdown. The main reason for this relates to the strategic decision of the university to make the master programmes into wider aggregates than before and to finish the programmes with a minimal number of students. When the faculty carried out these strategic decisions, such things as the innovativeness of the individual programme, the good feedback from students or the programmes, the justifiable significance regarding the educational policy were not sufficient grounds to deviate from the general strategy of the entire university. When it was decided to terminate the AIKAMA programme, the NORDIMA programme also lost its significance at the same time, at least partly because its main recruiting base – which, in any case, was too narrow - disappeared. The fact of the matter is that the AIKAMA subject teacher education programme, in which education was the major subject, suffered from a sort of identity problem during its entire life course. Many of those teachers who had themselves completed the traditional subject teacher education or otherwise had committed to its background thoughts were not able to accept the fact that AIKAMA primarily aimed at offering students strong expertise in educational sciences and, in addition, to proficiency in mathematics that was qualifying and sufficient for teaching mathematics at the comprehensive school Subject teacher education as a prisoner of its own tradition 197Subject teacher education in transition and upper secondary school levels. Those who strongly criticized the programme argued that just the opposite should be essential in subject teacher education, i.e. a good knowledge of mathematics and sufficient professional skills in pedagogy. The education ended up in the crossfire for both ideological and labour union political reasons. On the one hand, the representatives from primary school teacher education considered the programme a subject teacher education programme and did not permit it in their own “territory”, and on the other hand, the subject teachers shunned it because of its emphasis on the educational sciences and not on the mathematics itself. At the pedagogic level, an attempt was made by the Didactic Mathematics study module to strengthen the compatibility of teaching university mathematics courses with the objectives of teacher education in the AIKAMA programme and, at the same time, to persuade students in primary school teacher education to choose the mathematics as a minor subject in their bachelor and master’s degrees from the outset. The reduced resources in the department of mathematics and the Faculty of Education have depleted possibilities to offer Didactic Mathematics courses. At the same time, the ending of the AIKAMA programme has essentially reduced the need for the courses profiled in this way. My view is that there are parties responsible for teacher education at the university who often protect their own interests and ideological views trying to retain existing old structures, even if the change in the educational structures within the society would clearly require changes both in the structures and the contents of the teacher education. Subject teacher education, especially, has been in a subordinate position, both locally and nationally, in the field of the entire teacher education, which has made its developing efforts difficult. Having and maintaining subject teacher education is generally admitted and considered extremely important for the university and its subject departments. However, the development of subject teacher education has not been seen as an important goal for the community, because 198 Harry Silfverberg eero ropo & riitta jaatinen (Eds) the education has fulfilled its task in its current form also, at least satisfactorily. The projects which I introduced above have made attempts to reform subject teacher education to better respond to the challenges of the changing Finnish basic education. The challenge to bring subject teacher education and primary school teacher education closer to each other exists. Fortunately, the thoughts behind these attempts were allowed to lead their free life for some time and some of them even stayed alive. Unfortunately, however, in the more general process of change in higher education, subject teacher education in many respects had to settle down and to return to a role of a prisoner of its own tradition. Subject teacher education as a prisoner of its own tradition 199Subject teacher education in transition References Abramovich, S. & Brouwer, P. 2003. Revealing hidden mathematics curriculum to pre-teachers using technology: the case of partitions. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology 34(1), 81–94. Ball, D. L. & Bass, H. 2000. Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach: knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (ed.) Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing, 83–104. Ball, D.L. & Bass, H. 2003. Making mathematics reasonable in school. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin & D. Schifter (eds.) A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 27–44. Juuti, K., Kallioniemi A., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., Tainio, L. & Uitto A. (eds.) 2010. Ainedidaktiikka moninaistuvassa maailmassa. Ainedidaktiikan symposium 2010. Helsingin yliopiston opettajankoulutuslaitoksen tutkimuksia 332. Kohonen, V. 2005. Aineenopettajakoulutuksen kehittämisen mahdollisuuksia. In R. Jakku-Sihvonen (ed.) Uudenlaisia maistereita: kasvatusalan koulutuksen kehittämisenlinjoja. Jyväskylä: PSkustannus, 277–298. Merenluoto, K., Nurmi, A. & Pehkonen, E. 2003. Luokanopettajaksi opiskelevien matematiikkauskomukset ja matemaattiset valmiudet. In P. Räihä, J. Kari & J. Hyvärinen (eds.) Rutiinivalinnoista laadukkaisiin valintastrategioihin. Vuoden 2002 opettajankoulutuksen valintakoeseminaarin loppuraportti. Jyväskylän yliopiston opettajankoulutuslaitoksen tutkimuksia 77, 50–60. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. 2006. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record 108(6), 1017–1054. Pehkonen, E. (ed.) 2011. Luokanopettajaopiskelijoiden matematiikkataidoista. Helsingin yliopisto. Opettajankoulutuslaitos. Tutkimuksia 328. Poranen, J. & Haukkanen, P. 2012. Didactic Number Theory and Group Theory for School Teachers. IMVI, Open Mathematical Education Notes 2, 23–37. 200 Harry Silfverberg eero ropo & riitta jaatinen (Eds) Poranen, J., & Silfverberg, H. 2011. Didaktinen matematiikka: Sanoista tekoihin, teoista sanoihin. In H. Silfverberg & J. Joutsenlahti (eds.) Tutkimus suuntaamassa 2010-luvun matemaattisten aineiden opetusta, Matematiikan ja luonnontieteiden opetuksen tutkimuksen päivät Tampereella 14.–15.10.2010. Poranen, J. & Silfverberg, H. 2013. ´’Didactization´’ of University Level Math Courses – Building Bridges Between School and University Mathematics. Paper presented in the conference ECER 2013, “Creativity and Innovation in Educational Research”, Istanbul, Turkey 10–13 September 2013. [Extended abstract retrieved in April 8th 2020]. Portaankorva-Koivisto, P. 2010. Elämyksellisyyttä tavoittelemassa. Narratiivinen tutkimus matematiikan opettajaksi kasvusta. Dissertation. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 1550, Acta Electronica Universitatis Tamperensis 996. University of Tampere. Pääkkönen, S. 2012. ”Valitsin AIKAMA-koulutuksen, koska se yhdisti alusta alkaen kasvatuksen ja matematiikan”. TaY:n matematiikan aineenopettajan koulutuksen käyneiden kokemuksia koulutuksestaan ja työelämästä. Pro-gradu –tutkielma. Kasvatustieteiden yksikkö. Tampereen yliopisto. Rajakaltio, H. 2011. Moninaisuus yhtenäisyydessä. Peruskoulu muutosten ristipaineissa. Dissertation. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 1686, Acta Electronica Universitatis Tamperensis 1151. University of Tampere. Silfverberg, H. 2004. DGS and CAS as tools supplementing each other in an inquiry task “Locus curves” In J. Boehm (ed.) Proceedings TIME2004, 14–17 July 2004, Montreal, Canada. Silfverberg, H. 2012. The repertoire and structure of different types of functions recalled by student teachers. In G.H. Gunnarsdóttir, F. Hreinsdóttir, G. Pálsdóttir, M. Hannula, M. Hannula-Sormunen, E. Jablonka, U. T. Jankvist, A. Ryve, P. Valero, & K. Wæge (eds.) Proceedings of Norma 11, The Sixth Conference on Mathematics Education in Reykjavík, May 11.-14. 2011. Reykjavik: University Press of Iceland, 577–586. Subject teacher education as a prisoner of its own tradition 201Subject teacher education in transition Silfverberg, H., & Joutsenlahti, J. 2014. Prospective teachers’ conceptions about a plane angle and the context dependency of the conceptions. In C. Nicol, S. Oesterle, P. Liljedahl, & D. Allan (eds). PME 38/ PME-NA 36 Proceedings Vancouver, Canada July 15-20, 2014: of the 38th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics and the 36th Conference of the North American Chapter of Psychology of Mathematics Education: Vol. 5, 185–192. Retrieved from http://www.pmena.org/pmenaproceedings/PMENA%2036%20 PME%2038%202014%20Proceedings%20Vol%205.pdf in April 8th 2020. Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J. & Roehrig, G. H. 2012. Considerations for Teaching Integrated STEM Education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research 2(1), 28–34. Simonson, M. 2006. Design-Based Research. Applications for Distance Education. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(1): vii–viii. Statistics Finland. Retrieved from https://www.stat.fi/til/kjarj/2018/ kjarj_2018_2019-02-12_tie_001_fi.html in April 8th 2020. Stylianides, G.J. & Stylianides, A. J. 2010. Mathematics for teaching: A form of applied mathematics. Teaching and Teacher Education 26, 161–172. 202