7/29/2019 HanneleNeimeEng_2.pdf http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hanneleneimeeng2pdf- 1/19 Summary of working papers HHannele Niemi Summary of working papers 75 Niemi, H. 2011. Educating student teachers to become high quality professional – A Finnish case. CEPS )Centre for Educational Policy Studies( Journal. Accepted in April 2011 for publishing, 1 )1( 43-65. Niemi, H. & Jakku-Sihvonen, R. )2006(. Research-based teacher education. In Jakku-Sihvonen, R and Niemi, H. )Eds.( Research- based teacher education in Finland – reections by Finnish teacher educators. Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association 2006, 31-50. Niemi, H. & Kynäslähti, H. & Vahtivuori, S. )2012( Towards ICT in everyday life in Finnish schools: seeking conditions for good prac- tices. Learning, Media and Technology. Vol. 00, No. 0, Month 2012, 1–15 )in print( Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. )1995(. The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. Ragland, B. B. )2006(. Positioning the practitioner-researcher: Five ways of looking at practice. Action Research, 4)2(, 165-182. 2( Robertson, S & Dale, R, )2007( “Comments on the pre-nal version of the draft papers of the three consultants )Leney, Niemi and Rickinson( on the links between research, policy and practice.” Nesse. Graduate School Education - University of Bristol. Scardamalia, M. )2002(. Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith )Ed.( Liberal education in a knowledge society )pp. 67-98(. Chicago: Open Court. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. )2003(. Knowledge building. In Encyclopedia of education )2nd ed., pp. 1370-1373(. New York: Mac- millan Reference, USA. Schűller, T. )2006( ‘International policy research: ’evidence’ from CERI/OECD’, In: Ozga, J., Seddon, T. & Popkewitz, T. )Eds( Educa- tion Research and Policy. London: Routledge, 78-90. Schön, D. A. )1991( The Reective Turn: Case Studies In and On Educational Practice, New York: Teachers Press, Columbia University. Sebba, J. )2004( Developing an evidence-based approach to policy and practice in education. In Thomas, G. and Prong, R. )eds.( Evidence Based Practice in Education. Maidenhead: OUP/McGraw-Hill Slavin, R. )2002( ‘Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher’, 31,7, 15-21. Slavin, R.E. )1997( Co-operative learning among students. In Stern, D., & Huber, G. L.)eds.( Active learning for students and teachers. Reports from eight countries. OECD. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 159-173. Säljö, R. )2010(Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: technologies, social memory and the performative nature of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26 )1(: 53–64. Thomas, G. )2004( What is evidence? Introduction. In Thomas, G. and Prong, R. )eds.( Evidence Based Practice in Education. Maid- enhead: OUP/McGraw-Hill Thomson, P. ) 2010( Whole school change: a literature review, 2nd edition. Creativity, Culture and Education Series. Newcastle upon Tyne: Arts Council E ngland. Visser, M. J. )2004(. Implementing Peer Support in Schools: Using a Theoretical Framework in Action Research. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psycholo gy.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Niemi, H. 2011. Educating student teachers to become high quality professional – A Finnish case. CEPS )Centre for Educational PolicyStudies( Journal. Accepted in April 2011 for publishing, 1 )1( 43-65.
Niemi, H. & Jakku-Sihvonen, R. )2006(. Research-based teacher education. In Jakku-Sihvonen, R and Niemi, H. )Eds.( Research-
based teacher education in Finland – reections by Finnish teacher educators. Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association 2006,
31-50.
Niemi, H. & Kynäslähti, H. & Vahtivuori, S. )2012( Towards ICT in everyday life in Finnish schools: seeking conditions for good prac-
tices. Learning, Media and Technology. Vol. 00, No. 0, Month 2012, 1–15 )in print(
Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. )1995(. The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Ragland, B. B. )2006(. Positioning the practitioner-researcher: Five ways of looking at practice. Action Research, 4)2(, 165-182.2( Robertson, S & Dale, R, )2007( “Comments on the pre-nal version of the draft papers of the three consultants )Leney, Niemi and
Rickinson( on the links between research, policy and practice.” Nesse. Graduate School Education - University of Bristol.
Scardamalia, M. )2002(. Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith )Ed.( Liberal education in
a knowledge society )pp. 67-98(. Chicago: Open Court.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. )2003(. Knowledge building. In Encyclopedia of education )2nd ed., pp. 1370-1373(. New York: Mac-
millan Reference, USA.
Schűller, T. )2006( ‘International policy research: ’evidence’ from CERI/OECD’, In: Ozga, J., Seddon, T. & Popkewitz, T. )Eds( Educa-
tion Research and Policy. London: Routledge, 78-90.
Schön, D. A. )1991( The Reective Turn: Case Studies In and On Educational Practice, New York: Teachers Press, Columbia University.
Sebba, J. )2004( Developing an evidence-based approach to policy and practice in education.
In Thomas, G. and Prong, R. )eds.( Evidence Based Practice in Education. Maidenhead: OUP/McGraw-Hill
Slavin, R. )2002( ‘Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher’, 31,7,
15-21.
Slavin, R.E. )1997( Co-operative learning among students. In Stern, D., & Huber, G. L.)eds.( Active learning for students and teachers.
Reports from eight countries. OECD. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 159-173.
Säljö, R. )2010(Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: technologies, social memory and the performative
nature of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26 )1(: 53–64.
Thomas, G. )2004( What is evidence? Introduction. In Thomas, G. and Prong, R. )eds.( Evidence Based Practice in Education. Maid-
enhead: OUP/McGraw-Hill
Thomson, P. ) 2010( Whole school change: a literature review, 2nd edition. Creativity, Culture and Education Series. Newcastle upon
Tyne: Arts Council England.
Visser, M. J. )2004(. Implementing Peer Support in Schools: Using a Theoretical Framework in Action Research. Journal of Community
Teacher’s preparation and qualication to transfer to a knowledge based-society
- with a special reference to Finnish experiences
Summary of working papers 74
Jyrhämä, R. )2006( The Function of Practical Studies in Teacher Education. In Jakku-Sihvonen, R. & Niemi H. )eds( Research-basedteacher education in Finland – reections by Finnish teacher educators. Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association 2006, 51-70.
Kansanen, P. )2003( Teacher education in Finland: current models and new developments. In M. Moon, L. Vlãsceanu & C. Barrows
)Eds.( Institutional approaches to teacher education within higher education in Europe: current models and new developments. Bucha-
rest: Unesco-Cepes, 85 – 108.
Kazakova, N. )2001( Innovation, universities and changing environment in modern Russia, Paper presented at the “The future if in-
novation studies” Eindhoven, 20-23 September.
Kozma, R. )2008(. Comparative analyses of policies for ICT in education )pp 10883-1096(. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek )eds.(, Interna-
tional handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education. Berlin: Springer Science.2008
Kozma, R. )ed.( 2003. Technology, innovation, and educational change. A global perspective. A report of the Second Information Tech-
nology in Education Study. Module 2. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
Law, N., Kankaanranta, M. & Chow, A. 2005. Technology supported educational innovations in Finland and Hong Kong: A tale of two
systems. Human Technology Journal 1 )2(, 111–116.
Law, N., Pelgrum, W. J. & Plomp, T. )eds.( 2008. Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world. Findings for the IEA SITE 2006
study. The University of Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre.
The LUMA Centre. The national LUMA Centre for developing of science and math teaching. University of Helsinki. http://www.
helsinki./luma/
Marston, G. & Watts, R. )2003( ‘Tampering with the Evidence; A Critical Appraisal of Evidence-Based Policy-Making’, The drawing
board: An Australian review of public affairs, 3,3,143-163.
McCormick, R. )2003( ‘Reliable evidence for policy making in complex settings’, Paper presented to EMINENT IV Conference, Ge-
neva, 9-10 October 2003.
Niemi, H. )2007( Assistance to preparation of communication from the European Commission on the relationship between research,
policy and practice in the eld of education and training in Commission staff working document, Towards more knowledge-based
policy and practice in education and training {SEC)2007( 1098}. Bryssels.
Niemi, H. )2008(. Research-based teacher education for teachers’ lifelong learning. Lifelong learning in Europe. 13 )2008( : 1, pp. 61-
Dick, B. )2006( ‘Action research literature 2004-2006: Themes and trends.’ Action Research, 4)4(, 439-458.Elliott, J. )2001( ‘Making evidence-based practice educational´, British Educational Journal 27, 5, 2001
Etzkowitz, H. )2003( Innovation in Innovation: The Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. Social Science Infor-
mation, Vol. 42, No. 3, 293-337.
European Commission )2004(. Joint Interim report: Implementation of Education and Training 2010. Work programme, WG A. “Im-
proving the Education of teachers and trainers”.
European Commission )2007( Commission staff working document Towards more knowledge-based policy and practice in education
and training. SEC)2007( 1098. Brussels.
European University Association )2007(. Creativity in higher education. Report on the EUA creativity project 2006-2007. Brussels:
The European University Association
Eurydice )2007(. Survey. Questions to Eurydice network: The relationship between research, policy and practice in education and train-
ing. March-April. Eurydice, Brussels.
Frankham, J., & Howes, A. )2006(. Talk as Action in “Collaborative Action Research”: Making and Taking Apart Teacher/Researcher
Relationships. British Educational Research Journal, 32)4(, 617-632.
Gibbons, M. Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. & Trow, M. )1994( The New Production of Knowledge. London:
Sage.
Gibbons, M., )2005( Choice and responsibility: Innovation in a new context. Higher Education Management and Policy, Vol. 17, no.1,
pp. 9-21.
Greco, L., Landri, P., Tomassini, M. & Wickham, J. )2005( The development of policy relevance in European social research, In: Kuhn,
M. &. Remoe, S.O. )Eds( Building the European research area. Socio-economic research in practice, New York: Peter Lang 177-237.
Hammersley , M. )2004( Some questions about evidence-based practice in education. In Thomas, G. and Prong, R. )eds.( Evidence
Based Practice in Education. Maidenhead: OUP/McGraw-Hill.
Hemsley-Brown, J. & Sharp, C. )2003( The Use of Research to Improve Professional Practice: a systematic review of the literature.
Oxford Review of Education, 29)4(, 449-471
Issitt, M., & Spence, J. )2005(. Practitioner Knowledge and Evidence-Based Research, Policy and Practice. Youth & Policy,
Jackson, D. )2006( Networked Learning Communities. Setting school-to-school collaboration within a system context. Centre for Stra-
tegic Education. Seminar Series Paper 159. Victoria; Centre for Strategic Education.
Jakku-Sihvonen, R. & Niemi, H. )Eds( )2006( Research-based Teacher Education in Finland. Turku: Finnish Educational Research As-
relevance of information from research and other evidence sources.When promoting research and evidence-based practice, it is not enough that teachers are provided with information about research,
offering it as a top-down process. They need the competence to acquire different kinds of evidence, which informs their practice and
decisions. It seems that without research, methodological studies and experiences of research processes, it is very difcult to internalise
an evidence-based orientation.
Working conditions at schools must allow teachers to grow as professionals. The teaching profession should offer an intellectually and
morally challenging career which have a real status in society. Precondition is that representatives of teaching profession have a capac-
ity to work as professionals, and they also have time, space and resources to act like professionals. In many cases this demands better
salaries and /or new salary systems and administrative structures which encourage and support teachers to develop their own profes-
sional practice.
Advancing cooperation and continuous learning among practitioners requires high quality research community who gives its contribu-
tion with internationally recognized research and through communication and collaboration with practitioners and decision-makers.
Cooperation must not lower ambitious scientic aims but it may enrich research designs and methodologies. We need a new generation
of researchers who have understanding of knowledge creation in cooperative projects. However, this requires new kinds of research
projects, where time and other resources are reserved for collaboration. Researchers need funding in which new methods and time al-
locations are recognized, and practitioners need resources in their local contexts to be partners. The latest EURYDICE survey )2007(
revealed that no European country has any research component in teachers’ work load. In some countries teachers are allowed to be
partners in research projects. We have to see, that evidence and research based practice cannot occur without funding, infrastructure and
human resources.
Networking and cooperation are important components of the teaching profession and these should be integrated with teachers’ pre and
in- service education and implemented in teachers’ daily work. Working with other teachers and professionals provides synergy when
applying evidence-based approaches. Networking processes need also supportive infrastructure and moderators. Co-operation of prac-
titioners and researchers promotes action research and other long-term developmental processes.
Principals and local school leaders are key persons in promoting research and evidence-based practice in schools. The crucial question
is how school leaders can Organizing school based development and mediating relevant evidence to teachers and promote quality assur-
ance and encourage teachers to create evidence for school improvement. Promoting networking with other schools
If the teaching profession aims to have a high professional status, teacher education must prepare teachers to work using research and
evidence-based approaches in their work. This is possible only if they have the competence to use different kinds of evidence, includ-
ing the evidence that research provides. They must have also the capacity to carry out action research in their classrooms and schools.
learning, their professional development implies that teachers:• continue to reect on their practice in a systematic way;
• undertake classroom-based research;
• incorporate into their teaching the results of classroom and academic research;
• evaluate the effectiveness of their teaching strategies and amend them accordingly; and
• assess their own training needs.”
Teachers are in different phases in their career and they need different support in their professional development. The need of a con-
tinuum of the whole career long education for teachers is coming more and more important. In this continuum research-based activities
can play an important role.
Figure 4. Integration research with the continuum of teacher education for the whole teaching career.
For development of professional capacity practitioners need a community in which learning of new ideas and practices can be promoted.
This concerns also teachers as researchers and when they are creating knowledge in their own arenas.
8. Who creates a knowledge-based society – how can teachers can give their contribution?
Niemi )2007; 2008( has analysed conditions for promoting evidence-based practice in education and training. No information source or action in itself can promote evidence-based action. The main factors can be summarized by the following components )Figure 5(: )1(
research competence and research capacity building starting at the pre-service level of teacher education, )2( working conditions which
promote evidence-based practice, )3( the quality of evidence and research, )4( effective delivery of and easy access to evidence, )5( an
evaluation culture, which gives space for contextual factors and practitioners’ knowledge, and )6( collaborative professional networking.
Teacher’s preparation and qualication to transfer to a knowledge based-society
- with a special reference to Finnish experiences
Summary of working papers 68
Figure 3. Elements of a professional development system )Borko, 2004, p. 4(
This kind of model has been implemented in a Finnish project for math and science teaching. The LUMA Centre )http://www.helsinki.
/luma/( is another example of cross-boundary activities connecting research and teachers’ work in schools. It is serving science teach-
ers, students and researchers. The centre is coordinated by the Faculty of Science in the University of Helsinki promoting the teaching
of biology, chemistry, geography, mathematics, physics and technology and enhancing interaction between schools, universities and
business and industry. The aim is cross-disciplinary co-operation. The LUMA Centre also seeks to encourage children and young people
to become involved in scientic activities. The name LUMA comes from the words referring to science and mathematics )LU= Luon-
nontieteet in Finnish, science in English, MA= Matematiikka in Finnish, mathematics in English(.
Research has been integrated into the activities of the LUMA Centre. Disseminating new research ndings is a key in supporting
teachers’ lifelong learning. This is done with the help of LUMA Science Fairs and summer courses, and by offering the opportunity to
take part in research and to follow new developments through the newsletter, the webzine Luova and Master’s theses published by the
resource centres.
The LUMA Centre encourages teachers to play an active role in developing their own teaching using the latest research and being also
an action researcher in their own schools. Teachers are provided with news of the latest new research knowledge, they become with fa-
miliar “this month’s researcher”, they have information of science and education conferences and events. The Centre organises also an-
nual conferences, workshops and summer courses for teachers. The main principle is that researchers and teachers are working together.
LUMA websites provides support )in Finnish, partly also in Swedish and English( for teachers of mathematics and science It includes
information on experimental work and modelling, contains a questions section, latest research news and provides information on edu-
cational opportunities. The website also illustrates materials and tools for science teaching. The sites and support cover activities from
early education to higher education. The purpose is to provide teachers with new knowledge in sciences and pedagogy.
The LUMA Centre invites also pupils to work with researchers. They can joint to virtual clubs on the web or participate science days
or camps. Young pupils may work with club assignments also with their parents. Pupils have also access to video master classes of
physics by the best researchers in League of European Research Intensive Universities )LERU( through so-called LERU-Kids –project..
LUMA-newsletters are delivered to 70 000 teachers, students teachers and those who are interested to develop science teaching. Eachyear 2000-3000 teachers and 1200-1500 pupils participate in conferences or other events. Activities connect pre and in-service teacher
education. Student teachers are integrated in all activities.
)http://www.helsinki./luma/(
The European Commission ’published a document Improving the Quality of Teacher Education )Commission of The European Com-
munities, 2007a( emphasizing the importance of reective practice and research in teachers’ work: “…as with members of any other
profession, teachers have a responsibility to develop new knowledge about education and training. In a context of autonomous lifelong
Teacher’s preparation and qualication to transfer to a knowledge based-society
- with a special reference to Finnish experiences
Summary of working papers 64
• In our late modern societies, there are many forums of learning which may be called learning spaces.
• Working life and work organizations are important learning spaces.
• Technology enriched learning tools and spaces with mobile technology, Web 2.0 applications, social media and all digital resources
create a powerful arena for learning, both in the formal and informal settings of education.
These scenarios set urgent needs for teaching profession and schools. The recent research has revealed that the major question in schools
is not technology as itself. The most important is how it is integrated with learning and teaching, and used pedagogically in a meaningful
way. We have to ask what kind of additional value new technology provides to learners and teachers. It means assessing the following
topics:
• How do different technological learning solutions provide additional value to learning outcomes?
• How do different technological learning solutions provide additional value to advancing of sharing and collaboration?
• How do different technological learning solutions provide additional value to teachers when advancing sharing and collaboration in
their professional development?
• How do different technological learning solutions provide additional value to pedagogy when providing 21st century skills to learners?
A recent research project )Niemi & Kynäslähti & Vahtivuori, 2012( was seeking how information and communication technology can
be applied in everyday life in Finnish schools. It revealed that many components of practices overlap and support each other. According
to the results integration of ICT in everyday life requires both pedagogical and organizational qualities. This conrms very much what
Kozma )2008( has presented earlier. Both elements have a strong value component: empowering student centred learning and teaching
culture, supportive leadership, and open communication aiming at sharing and cooperation. Seeing schools as sense-making communi-ties )Thomson, 2010( helped us to interpret how schools had implemented ICT.
Schools which effectively used ICT also had a strategy that was planned together by school principals, teachers and often stakeholders
as well, such as parents.
An important fact was that the strategy is not only a document, but more or less a joint expression of purpose and vision.
This means meaning-making and acting in parallel directions in many areas and on many levels of the system. We can speak about
ICT as being integrated into the culture of a school. This involves leadership that supports teachers’ growth in their efforts to learn new
competences for the educational use of ICTs even in uncertain circumstances and to develop curriculum which takes care of different
learners. The main results are summarized in Figure 2.
Many of the results support the ideas that are stressed when speaking about schools’ role in promoting 21st century skills, particularlyin promoting collaboration and sharing learning culture )Kozma et al., 2003; Law et al., 2005; 2008; Smeds et al. 2010(.
Roger Säljö )2010( has claimed that ICTs transform our conceptions of what learning is. Referring to him the research could nd that
ICT changed the whole school community towards more the communicative ecology of our daily practices )Niemi & Kynäslähti &
Vahtivuori, 2012(.
The main results have been summarized in the following gure.
Figure 1. Knowledge creation as an interactive process.
When seeking new ways for knowledge creation as an interactive process we see that schools and teacher education could be partners
in “virtuous knowledge sharing” )European University Association, 2007, p.21(. This notion is built on the conviction that creative
knowledge production is a sharing process. Virtuous knowledge sharing proposes that two very different sectors – academe and soci-
ety at large – join forces in the quest for knowledge and problem solving. It suggests creating a pool of very diverse talents, expertise
and experiences, which would be well equipped for tackling a wide range of questions and problems. Virtuous knowledge sharing is
closely connected with the idea of “engagement” )Gibbons, 2005; Bjarnason & Coldstream, 2003(. This paradigm refers to a genuine
interchange and two-way communication process, in which higher education institutions, academic research, practitioners and local or
regional stakeholders work in joint knowledge creation projects.
5. Teachers as problem solvers
Teachers are working on conditions where they must nd, observe and understand complexity of educational processes and face the
evidence that is coming from different sources. They also need to be open to acquire and assess local evidence. Scardamalia and Bere-
iter )e.g. 2002; 2003( have examined behaviour of experts. The feature that really distinguishes experts from others is their approach to
new problems. The pattern recognition and learned procedures that lead to intuitive problem solving are only the beginning. The expert
invests it in what Bereiter and Scardamalia call progressive problem solving, that is, tackling problems. That increases expertise rather
than reducing problems to previously learned routines.
Many researchers have stressed that expertise is the integration of different kinds of knowledge. Davenport and Prusak )1998( have
found that an expert needs codied knowledge and organised ofcial and literally transferable knowledge. In addition, the develop-ment of expertise needs role models, observing experts, tacit knowledge, a social network and even good stories of successful practice.
Davenport and Prusak )1998( point out that experts’ knowledge is deep personal knowledge which has been tested in practical situations
6. Teachers and knowledge creation using new technology
The concept of the knowledge society includes also people’s capacity to use new technology for learning and knowledge production.
The concept of learning has gone through a multilayered process of redenition. Learning is seen as an active individual process, where
learners construct their own knowledge base. Learning is also increasingly seen as a process based on sharing and participation with
different partners in a community, and is viewed as a holistic constructing process which is interconnected with learners’ emotional,
social and cultural premises. New learning technology is integrated with changes in learning and knowledge production. The concept“life-long learning” is more a life course process and we are learning in different situations and life areas which are cross-boundary with
the following features:
• Learning and knowledge is no longer only a monopoly of the school, or not even of the university.
largely academic, interests of a specic community. By contrast, Mode 2 knowledge is carried out in a context of application. Mode 1 is
often disciplinary while Mode 2 is in most cases transdisciplinary. This division also helps to understands how teachers can be partners
in academic knowledge creation. Since then a new concept “Triple Helix” has also come into discussion. It goes even further and wants
to bring universities, industry and governments work together in interdisciplinary networks and exible structures in order to answer to
social needs in society )Greco et al. 2005; Kazakova 2001(. It is an interactive partnership with different stakeholders. In teacher educa-
tion it can be joint research projects with higher education institutions, schools, enterprises or cultural institutions. Etzkowitz )2003(
argues that we have a shift in society and univerisieties. It arises from both the internal development of the university and external in-
uences on academic structures associated with the emergence of ‘knowledge-based’ innovation. At the same time there are also many
critical voices warning that this entrepreneurial paradigm is a threat to the traditional integrity of the university and there is a danger to
lose its role as independent critic of society.
Teachers as representatives of knowledge profession should be aware of different modes of knowledge, both advantages as well as
threats of these different approaches. Teachers need research based knowledge but they also have a right and obligation to assess and
reect what works. They need evidence. It means assessing why it is worthwhile to apply something in their work? Evidence is coming
from different sources. Evidence can be based on research reports and studies or thematic reviews of research. An urgent issue is what
is a quality of evidence and on which kind of evidence we can trust )e.g. Marston & Watts, 2003; Thomas,2004; Agalianos, 2006(. We
can have evidence through national and local evaluations and other systematic data gatherings. Sebba )2004( introduces three types of
evidence in current policy-making: national surveys conducted by governmental departments, inspection data, and research evidence
from externally commissioned project or programs.
Evidence can also grow from observations and experiences of experts, policy-makers and practitioners in their own elds )e.g. Issitt
& Spence, 2005(. Hammersley )2004( argues that this evidence does not necessarily emerge from systematic investigation but it still
can be important, and even more important. There are also many voices that stress the role of practitioners in assessing the relevance
of evidence. When practitioners are informed through evidence, regardless of its origin )research or e.g. observations(, they have right
and obligation to assess its relevance. Robertson and Dale )2007( remark that users must judge what works when applying evidence
into practice. There is always a specic context and they have to ask, not only what works, but for whom, under what circumstances
and so on. Application, thus, depends upon a mix of evidence and judgement, and that this is a dynamic process, in which the teacher or
policymaker is also attuned to the effects and consequences and uses this knowledge to loop back into the process.
Teaching profession, as all high standard professions, needs the best available academic knowledge in order to full its commitmentsin society. Teacher education is multidisciplinary and it comprises many demanding tasks. Teachers have the important duty of open-
ing pathways to different learners into knowledge and skills. Teachers have to be familiar with the most recent knowledge and research
about the subject matter. They also have to know how the subject matter can be transformed in relevant ways to benet different learners
and how it can help learners create foundations on which they can build lifelong learning. They should have a thorough understanding
of human growth and development, and they need knowledge of the methods and strategies that can be used to teach different learners.
This means that teachers need the latest research results of pedagogical knowledge. In addition, teachers have to be familiar with the
curricula and learning environments in educational institutions. They also should know about learning in non-formal educational
Teacher’s preparation and qualication to transfer to a knowledge based-society
- with a special reference to Finnish experiences
Summary of working papers 60
Research based refers to a systematic investigation through which scientic community produce new knowledge for education and
training. The recent situation is diffuse. Research in education has received a lot of criticism from policy-makers and practitioners.
In educational eld research-based approach is more unsystematic and scattered than e.g. in health care )especially clinical services(,
criminal justice, welfare policy )focus on social security benets(, housing, transport )focus on roads policy( and urban policy. Boaz &
Ashby & and Ken Young )2002, p. 7( summarise current deciencies why educational research is not serving policy or practise: Much
research is considered less than robust, there are paradigm wars, eclectic methods competing rather than complementing, large data-
sets are analysed but there is relatively little true experimentation, fragmented research community, no accessible database of research
evidence )but fresh initiatives underway(, few systematic reviews. Some educational researchers have proposed very experimental and
controlled models for educational research for having more cumulative knowledge )e.g. Slavin 2002(. These suggestions have raised
very controversial opinions among education researchers.
The need of research is obvious but policy-makers and practitioners question its value to provide real help to problems in practice )e.g.
Hemsley & Brown 2003; Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Australia, 2000(. The educational phenomena are multi-
layered and multidisciplinary. The most studies inform only from a very narrow perspective. The knowledge coming from research is
often incoherent and scattered, particularly if they are single studies without connection to larger a research project design or research
program. There is a need of research on education but access to it and apply it into practice face many barriers.
Berliner )2002( and McCormick )2003( remark that educational research is the hardest science of all when striving for research- and
evidence-based policy and practice because of enormous complexity of educational phenomena. Berliner writes:
“Our science forces us to deal with particular problems, where local knowledge is needed. Therefore, ethnographic research is crucial, as
are case studies, survey research, time series, doing experiments, action research, and other means to collect reliable evidence for engag-
ing in unfettered argument about educational issues. A single method is not what the government should be promoting for educational
researchers. It would do better by promoting argument, discourse and discussion” )Berliner, 2002, p. 20(.
Even though educational research cannot provide direct applications to teachers there are many ways how it can inform or led teachers’
work. It provides necessary foundational knowledge about teaching and learning to the profession. Teachers need knowledge of stu-
dents’ development, recent scientic results in subject matters and information how different students learn and why they do not learn.
There is a clear need to improve educational research but it is inefcient if teachers do not have capacity to understand how knowledgeis created through research. They must have basic knowledge of research methods and some competence to evaluate relevance and qual-
ity of research result. They need scientic literacy. Without this skill they are only actors who are applying orders coming outside their
practice. They need scientic literacy in order to understand on which grounds they can build their work. Without this understanding
they have very little opportunities to learn new and question earlier knowledge and practices.
Gibbons et al )1994( opened an important scenario to scientic knowledge creation when the proposed that scientic knowledge created
through different modes. Gibbons introduced Mode 1 and Mode 2. In Mode 1 problems are set and solved in a context governed by the,
In knowledge-based societies, research- and evidence-based policy and practice have become an urgent requirement. Decisions and
development should be based on the best available knowledge. The OECD and the European Union have promoted this approach in
different sectors of society, calling different disciplines to give their contribution )e.g. Schűller, 2006(. Research- and evidence-based
practice concerns also schools and teacher education )European Commission, 2007(.
There are a lot of variations how teacher education has been organized in different countries. We also have many opinions whether
teacher education should be evidence- or research-based and why should teachers have experiences of research work in their training?
Their work in schools is very practical and teachers need many other abilities than research skills. Why should student teachers study
scientic research methods if they do not work as researchers in their profession?
The aim of this article is to explore what is teachers’ role in a knowledge-based society and how teacher education can promote a transfer
process to a knowledge society. The article also reects on how Finnish teachers and teacher education has been organised and imple-
mented for promoting the knowledge-based society. The article also presents what conditions for teaching profession and teachers’ work
are needed when moving towards to the knowledge- based society.
2. Research- and evidence-based practice in education
The European Union has set several working groups to promote teaching profession and its attractiveness. Teachers are seen as key
agents for economic, social and cultural purposes. However, the reality is that teaching profession has very low status in most countriesand teacher education is not a real choice for talented students. Some exceptions exist and on the top of this issue there is Finland where
teacher education is one of the most popular programs in universities )Kansanen, 2003, pp. 86 – 87; Niemi, 2011(. Many European
Union’s working groups of teacher education have emphasized that the teaching profession should be seen as a demanding academic
career and teachers need capacity to learn all the time in their work. Teachers are responsible for knowledge base in society and they
have a big inuence on a new generation’s capacity to face future challenges.
. Changing concept of knowledge
The concept of knowledge has changed from earlier static, transmitted contents to the knowledge that is ever renewable and often
construed jointly together with other learners. The latest research on learning considers learning as an active individual process, wherelearners are constructing their own knowledge base. Learning is also increasingly seen as a process based on sharing and participation
with different partners in a community )Slavin, 1997; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995(. Knowledge is socially
shared, and emerges from participation in socio-cultural activities. The contents and processes are intermediating. The academic con-
tents and teaching processes must not be seen as separate or exclusive. They are complementary in the teaching profession.
In order to understand knowledge creation in teaching profession we have to see what connections knowledge creation has with “re-
search-based knowledge” and “evidence-based knowledge”. Both concepts have raised much tension in educational communities.
Teacher’s preparation and qualication to transfer to a knowledge based-society
- with a special reference to Finnish experiences
Summary of working papers 58
• Vice-rector, University of Helsinki, responsible for academic affairs, 2003–2008, 2008-2009
• Vice-Chair of Consistorium )Senate( of University of Helsinki, 2003–2008, 2008-2009
• Dean, University of Helsinki, 2001–2003, Faculty of Education
• Vice-Dean, University of Helsinki, 1998–2000, Faculty of Education
• A member of Consistorium of University of Helsinki, 2001–2003
• Vice-member of Consistorium of University of Helsinki, 1998–2000
Head of Department
• University of Helsinki, 1998–2000
• University of Tampere, 1996–1998
Faculty Member
• University of Helsinki, 1998–2003• University of Tampere, 1996–1998
• University of Oulu, 1990–1991
Major scientic expertice
• Reviewer of the research proposal. National Institute of Education. Singapore.
• Assessor of the ECRP VI Proposals, ESF, 2010.
• Reviewer of research proposals for the call of Norwegian Educational Research 2020, UTDANNING2020, 2009, The research Coun-
cil of Norway.
• Reviewer of research proposals for higher education )2008( and comprehensive and secondary school education )2009(, Portugal.
• Invited expert to assist the European Commission DG for Education and Culture to prepare communication and staff working docu-ment on the relationship between research, policy and practice in the eld of education and training, 2007.
• Member of the focus group to develop European framework for teacher/trainer competences and qualications. European Commission
- Directorate General for Education and Culture, 2004–2005.
• Member of the international review team in the assessment of quality of research in educational sciences in the University of Jy-
väskylä, 2005-2006.
• Chair of the national network of multidisciplinary research on learning, 2005–2008, 2009-2010.
• Member of the Steering Committee of Teaching and Learning Research Programme U.K., 2004–2008.
• Chair of the national coordination group of the Bologna process in educational sciences and teacher education, 2003–2006.
• Scientic director of the national research program “Life as Learning”, Academy of Finland, 2002-2006.• Director of EU project ”LEARNINGSPACE – Crossboundary European Scenarios on Learning” )2001–2003(.
• Member of the Advisory Board for revising student selection to universities, Ministry of Education, 2003–2004.
• Member of the Preparatory Committee for the Bologna Process in Finland, Ministry of Education, 2002–2003.
• Chair and reviewer of the quality of education research in Estonia 2002-2003
DR Niemi is a member in many boards, is a keynote speaker in many conferences and has many publications
Licentiate of Philosophy )1975(, Major in education, minor pedagogy of religion instruction
• Master of Philosophy )1974(, Major in education, minors in psychology, social psychology, sociology
Major in pedagogy of religion instruction, minors in six other disciplines in theology
Pedagogical education
• University of Helsinki: Qualication of secondary schools )1978(Adult education institution, Luther College: Qualication of teachers for adult education institutions )1976(
Adult education institution, Orivesi College: Qualication of rectors for adult education institutions )1979(
• Teaching skill examinations in universities: Teaching skills have been examined in professorship or university lecturer post review
processes in the universities of Helsinki, Oulu, Turku and Tampere 1987.
Employment record
• Installation of J C Koh Professorship )Honorary(, National Institute of Education, Nayang Technological University, Singapore2010.
• Installation of Honorary Professorship, University of Bucharest, Romania, 2010.
• Stanford University, Visiting Scholar2010
• University of Helsinki, Professor of Education 1998– • University of Helsinki, Vice-rector, Full time post )2003–2008, 2008-2009(
• University of Tampere, Department of Teacher Education: Professor of Education 1993–98
• University of Turku, Department of Teacher Education in Rauma, Professor of Education 1992–93
• Michigan State University, Visiting professor 1.8.1989–31.12.1989
• University of Oulu, Department of Teacher Education, Professor of Education 1988–1991
• University of Helsinki, Department of Education and Teacher Education, Professor and
• Associate Professor of Education )acting( 1986–88
• University of Helsinki, Senior Lecturer 1979–1988
• Adult education institution, Luther College, Teacher 1975–79• University of Joensuu, Department of Education in Savonlinna, Senior Lecturer 1.1.–31.8.1975
• University of Helsinki, Department of Education, Assistant 1974
• Lower and upper secondary school of Pohjois-Helsingin yhteiskoulu, Teacher of Religion and Psychology 1972
Major administrative tasks in universities
• Member of The Helsinki University Collegium, University of Helsinki )2010-2014(