Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Queensland University of Technology]On: 20 November 2014, At: 18:02Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Professional Development in EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjie20
Continuing professional developmentin context: teachers' continuingprofessional development culture inGermany and SwedenWieland Wermke aa Department of Didactic Science and Early Childhood Education ,Stockholm University , Stockholm, SwedenPublished online: 25 Dec 2010.
To cite this article: Wieland Wermke (2011) Continuing professional development in context:teachers' continuing professional development culture in Germany and Sweden, ProfessionalDevelopment in Education, 37:5, 665-683, DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2010.533573
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2010.533573
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Professional Development in Education
ISSN 1941-5257 print/ISSN 1941-5265 online© 201 International Professional Development Association (IPDA)
0.1080/19415257.2010.533573http://www.tandfonline.com
Continuing professional development in context: teachers’ continuing professional development culture in Germany and Sweden
Wieland Wermke*
Department of Didactic Science and Early Childhood Education, Stockholm University, Stockholm, SwedenTaylor and FrancisRJIE_A_533573.sgm(Final version received 3 August 2010)10.1080/19415257.2010.533573Journal of In-Service Education1367-4587 (print)/1747-5082 (online)Original Article2010Taylor & [email protected]
This article investigates the continuing professional development (CPD) culture ofteachers, and asks how it is influenced by properties of the school system. Itreports the results of a questionnaire study with 418 secondary teachers fromSweden and Germany. The results show highly significant differences betweenSwedish and German teachers’ practice of and beliefs in teachers’ CPD. Thisimplies a relevant effect of properties of the school system on the teachers’ CPD.The differences are explained by varying perceptions of sources of knowledge forCPD, the influence of different school governance instruments, and differenthistorically developed role definitions of teachers in both countries.
Keywords: teacher; continuing professional development; professional culture;comparative education
Introduction
In the past 20 years, governments have been concerned with the need to raise stan-dards of achievement and improve their positions in the world economic league tables.Thus they intervened more actively to improve the educational system, resultingamong other things in an increase of expectations for higher quality teaching. Teach-ers are required to be well qualified, highly motivated, knowledgeable and skilful, notonly at the point of entry into teaching but also throughout their careers (Day andSachs 2004). Therefore, teachers’ continuing professional development (CPD) is animportant part of school development, but to make teachers’ learning throughout theircareers more effective, a deeper understanding of teachers’ relation to learning and thefactors that influence it is necessary.
This article will examine the perspective of teachers in different contexts regardingtheir CPD in order to gain more understanding of factors that affect teachers’ devel-opment. In the literature there are several terms related to teacher development includ-ing teacher development, in-service education and training, and professionaldevelopment. Unfortunately these terms often have overlapping meanings and aredefined very differently by different writers (Bolam and McMahon 2004). Preferablythe term continuing professional development would be used because it distinguishesthe development of teachers throughout their careers, which will be investigated here,from their professional development during the teacher education and inductionphases. Nevertheless it still describes a broader range of developmental possibilities,
*Email: [email protected]
Vol. 37, No. 5, November 2011, 665–683
http://dx.doi.org/11
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 18:
02 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
2 W. Wermke
whereas in-service education and training often only means one-shot courses targetingthe transfer of certain content to teachers.
Considering CPD from the teachers’ perspective, several questions come intofocus, including what kinds of learning teachers prefer and which sources of knowl-edge they regard as important. Sources of knowledge offer teachers information andskills enabling them to solve problems and to improve their work. Connected to thesesources are actors who produce and offer this knowledge in order to influence schoolsand teachers’ work. Investigating which sources of knowledge teachers prefer for theirCPD can show which relationships teachers have to different actors in the schoolsystem. This can illustrate what influences and affects teachers’ work as well as towhat extent teachers are open to ideas from other professional fields. Furthermore,since teachers always work within an organisational framework of a school system,school governance also affects teachers’ CPD. It is compelling to inquire to whatextent teachers feel that curricula, national curriculum tests (NCTs), their educationand their own school principal affect their CPD.
All these issues lead to the following questions: Which sources of knowledge doteachers prefer for their CPD? How do certain particularities of the school systemaffect teachers’ CPD? Here it is particularly interesting to show: teachers’ perceptionof sources of knowledge; and the influence of school governance on their CPD.Understanding how and why certain properties of different school systems determinethe culture of teachers’ CPD can provide us with an awareness of how and why certainmodels of CPD are successful while others are not.
This article is based on the assumption that a professional culture of teachersexists. This culture is mainly based on the particularities of teaching heterogeneousgroups and is dependent on organisational frameworks at the school (Rosenholtz1989) and at the school system level (Broadfoot et al. 1993). The conditions underwhich teachers work differ with regard to factors such as socio-cultural characteris-tics, school forms or subjects, education and school governance. Therefore differentcultures or rather subcultures emerge (Feiman-Nemser and Floden 1991). Acceptingthe existence of a common professional culture leads to the recognition of a commonCPD culture of teachers. A concept of a CPD culture could contribute to more in-depth understanding of teachers’ CPD in different contexts. CPD entails learningdirected towards the development of the teaching profession (Day 1997, Villegas-Reimers 2003). This includes a perspective shift, from forms of CPD in one-shot after-noon courses that regard teachers as knowledge receivers in top to bottom relations,to seeing teachers as agents in a self-determined and individual professional develop-ment (Day and Sachs 2004).
An international comparison will provide perspectives concerning the influence ofthe school system on a CPD culture. By comparing different school systems, it can bedisplayed how organisational frameworks influence the professional practice of teach-ers. A German–Swedish comparison is particularly interesting here. Since the begin-ning of the 1990s, the school governance regimes used in both countries have beenalmost contrary to each other. Strategies that were implemented in Sweden at thebeginning of the 1990s have now begun to be implemented in Germany as ‘new steer-ing’ (neue Steuerung) (Bellmann 2006). On the one hand, ‘standard-based reforms’are envisaged to control the schools’ output through the setting of standards and theevaluation of schools. Competition strategies or so-called choice policies are in focus.This mainly means that quasi-markets are established within the educational system;
666
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 18:
02 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
Professional Development in Education 3
for example, by shifting from supply to demand financing (Lindensjö and Lundgren2000). Before this shift, in Germany centralised regulation of inputs like economicresources, detailed curricula or the professionalisation of teachers was emphasised;now, with the new model of school governance, governing by goals and results has –like in Sweden – become the new aim. There are also differences in the organisationof CPD in the two countries. The actors’ relations in the school systems have a differ-ent quality. Whereas in Sweden tight relationships between educational researchers,policy-makers and teachers exist (Carlgren and Kallós 1997), in Germany the relation-ships between those actors are rather loose (Bellmann 2006).
This article starts with the development of a concept of a CPD culture as part of aparticular professional culture of teachers. It will then describe the main differencesbetween Sweden and Germany as related to teacher education and school governance.Thereupon methods and instruments will be described and the results illustratedbelow. Finally, differences and similarities will be discussed.
The concept of teachers’ continuing professional development culture
The main idea of the concept of a common professional culture of teachers is theassumption that the same tasks and working conditions form individuals’ beliefs,practices and perceptions regarding a certain collective phenomenon called collectiveculture. This culture is dynamic; its members adopt it and develop it (Terhart 1996).Schein describes culture as:
a pattern of basic assumptions – invented, discovered or developed by a given group asit learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and integration – that hasworked well enough to be considered valid and therefore has to be taught to newmembers as the correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to those problems.(1985, p. 9)
Not only the working task itself and how it is handled from within a certain group, butalso the context in which the work takes place has an influence on this culture. Consid-ering the teaching profession, the conditions under which teachers work differ withregard to factors such as socio-cultural characteristics, school forms or school gover-nance. Through this, different cultures or rather subcultures emerge (Feiman-Nemserand Floden 1986). The bigger cultural contexts such as national cultures and historicalpatterns also have an important influence on such cultures as they affect intra-culturalphenomena; for example, processes, beliefs and behavioural patterns (Schriewer2003).
In order to examine the influence of the context in which teachers work, it isimportant to see the overall similarities of the teaching profession given by its taskimperatives. One particularity of the teaching profession are the numerous conflictsteachers have to handle (among many others on those, see Lortie 1975, Luhmann2002). A few of them are: teachers have to cope with the question of equality ineducation with pupils who all have different preconditions. The balance of the groupas well as individual needs must be continually taken into consideration. This leadsto an internal struggle over emotional proximity and distance. Work in the classroomis highly independent in its patterns but is strongly dependent on the environment ofthe school and the school system. One of the main problems of teachers’ work is thetechnology deficit of pedagogy (Luhmann 2002). There is no way of knowing
667
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 18:
02 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
4 W. Wermke
exactly what input (i.e. effort) yields what output (i.e. result). What is evident aboutteachers is that their knowledge is based on experience organised in cases (Brommeand Tillema 1995). Nevertheless, there is always an uncertainty that teachers have tocope with in their work (Rosenholtz 1989): uncertainty in a profession that highlyneeds emotional commitment but does not have any external gratification model thatreassures teachers when they wonder what they are doing and if they are doing itright (Lortie 1975, Munthe 2001). That is why teachers seek security in the class-room while seeing that their work has direct effects (Lortie 1975). Furthermore, dueto the technology deficit of pedagogy and eminence of learning by experience, thereis no linear induction into the profession. Therefore teachers have to survive anabrupt ‘sink or swim’ socialisation (Lortie 1975). All new input (e.g. by CPD, has tofit into this highly vulnerable and complex system. Teachers are able to defend thissystem, when it finally is functioning, easily against unwanted changes only byliterally closing the classroom door.
Here it is argued that teachers’ CPD is indeed part of their professional culture.Having the same working conditions and tasks, teachers evolve a pattern of basicassumptions. CPD is also dependent on the specific context (Day and Sachs 2004).For a long time, the understanding of teachers’ CPD was limited to short-term, after-school courses and in-service development with pre-cast content and models mostlyaimed at preparing teachers for top-down reforms. This is no longer a viable way todescribe teachers’ CPD. Day summarises CPD as consisting:
of all natural learning experiences and those conscious and planned activities which areintended to be of direct or indirect benefit to the individual, group or school and whichcontribute, through these, to the quality of education in the classroom. It is the processby which, alone and with others, teachers review, renew and extend their commitmentas change agents to the moral purposes of teaching and by which they acquire anddevelop critically the knowledge, skills and emotional intelligence essential to goodprofessional thinking, planning and practice with children, young people and colleaguesthrough each phase of their teaching lives. (1997, p. 4)
From this perspective, teachers are agents of their own development. Teachers facecertain tasks and certain organisational constraints, have to manage certain conflicts,want to have certainty and assurances, and want to develop and build up their profes-sional identity. This generates a certain culture of shared beliefs and practices influ-enced by the context. Relationships that teachers build with actors that offerknowledge for teachers’ development are part of this development culture as well.
This perspective suggests that CPD includes not only in-service education andtraining in the form of organised programmes but also every self-determined andsystematic development such as the independent reading of books and journals,attending university courses, programmes and conferences, as well as interaction withcolleagues and principals (Villegas-Reimers 2003). Still the most relevant sources forteachers are universities, state institutions for school governance, private or state insti-tutions for CPD, publishers of textbooks and teacher journals and indeed the teachers’own colleagues.
Teachers are agents of change. They build relationships to other actors in theschool system and they decide which models and ideas will sustainably be imple-mented in schools. A concept of teachers’ CPD cultures can contribute to a betterunderstanding of teachers’ learning and teachers’ change.
668
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 18:
02 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
Professional Development in Education 5
Some remarks on research about teachers’ CPD
In the era of accountability, CPD is seen as an important part of new school gover-nance ideologies like New Public Management or Human Resource Management(Day and Sachs 2004); therefore, research in this field has resulted in numerous casestudies about teachers’ CPD. Despite this prominence there are still several issues inresearch on the subject: first of all, a need for increased conceptualisation and theoriesof CPD and a need for conceptualising of the context (Bolam and McMahon 2004).
Concerning the conceptualisation of CPD, Adey et al. (2004) describe in theiroverview three theoretical strands in research on the subject: (i) The application ofgeneral theories of conceptual or attitude change in the beliefs and behaviours ofteachers. Here teachers’ CPD is conceptualised from a cognitive psychologicalperspective. It explains how teachers’ beliefs are changing and new understanding isconstructed (Borko and Putnam 1995). In order to change beliefs, teachers have toquestion their own current constructs (Bell and Gilbert 1996); (ii) The second strandis teachers’ reflection on practice. This reflection has to be theory-driven and basedon institutionalised feedback practices (Fullan 2001). Here the importance of reflect-ing on their own practice with colleagues is in focus. ‘Within the school, collegialityamong teachers as measured by the frequency of communication, mutual support, helpetc. was a strong indicator of implementation success. Virtually every research studyon the topic has found this to be the case’ (Adey et al. 2004, pp. 131–132). Schoolleadership also plays an important role here. The school principal fosters teachers’development, integrating them as equal partners in school development as well assupporting and appreciating the teachers’ own efforts (Hoy and Sabo 1997, Bryk andSchneider 2004); (iii) Numerous studies use theoretical assumptions on the intuitiveknowledge in teaching practice and name implicit knowledge as the base of intuitivebehaviour. This knowledge comes from training and, most of all, previous experi-ences. Here the explicit making of knowledge is in focus. Reflection is an essentialpart of the process by which teachers integrate their perceived needs of a situationwith their beliefs (Schön 1983). These three strands obviously depend much upon oneanother. But it can be challenged where in those strands the context of CPD is concep-tualised and which of those strands relate to teachers’ CPD in particular, instead ofteachers’ practices and beliefs in general.
The question of context relates to Bolam and McMahon’s (2004) postulation of theneed of more comparative data. They renew Guskey’s (1995) argument that the power-ful and often-ignored influence of context consistently thwarts efforts to find universaltruth in professional development. With a cultural perspective using a comparativemethod, this paper contributes to the building of conceptual frameworks for CPDincluding contextual factors. Even in times of converging school systems on the basisof a world polity (Meyer 2005, 2009), including an ideology of lifelong learning andnew public management, there are cultural and historical differences that give theimplementation of certain CPD models nation-specific forms (Steiner-Khamsi 2004).
If teachers are regarded as agents of their own development, studies that emphasisethe perspective of teachers are needed. Here a concept of a CPD culture is alsoproductive, because it relates individual features of the teachers to the context theteachers act in. Regrettably, at least in the German and Swedish research landscape,there are few studies investigating teachers’ own perspectives on CPD (Nilsson 2006,Heise 2007). This paper also wants to contribute to deeper understanding of this issue.
669
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 18:
02 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
6 W. Wermke
Context: Sweden and Germany
The Swedish school system is very decentralised and schools are therefore governedby their outcome. In the curricula, competences are formulated as goals and results.Teachers are expected to interpret the goals as well as the necessary steps to reachthose with their colleagues. Whether or not the goals have been reached is proved byNCTs (Lindensjö and Lundgren 2000). Teachers have complained about a lack ofguidance regarding subject content in the curricula. That is why the NCTs havebecome more and more a hidden curriculum (Waldow 2005). Focusing on results putspressure on teachers. In order to reach the goals and expected results, they tend tofocus their work rather on minimum performance goals. This increases the risk thatteachers ignore those pupils who perform much above the expected minimum (ArvolaOrlander et al. 2004). Curricula and national curriculum tests are developed by theNational Agency for Education (NAE, Skolverket). Here teachers also find support forworking with tests, goals and curricula. There is close cooperation between the NAEand educational researchers at the universities in order to legitimate school gover-nance and school reform through scientific research (Carlgren and Kallós 1997).
The guiding idea of teachers’ teacher education is that subject content knowledgehas to be an instrument for educating pupils with the competences they need to bedemocratic and economically useful citizens (Telhaug et al. 2006). Therefore, teachereducation has been more and more based on pedagogy and pedagogical contentknowledge. In subject education there is more emphasis on pedagogical knowledgethan on academic content (Claesson and Hultberg 2006). Teachers are expected toindependently upgrade their content knowledge in order to correlate school knowl-edge with their pupils’ changing environment and the development of the subject itself(Drakenberg 2001). Therefore, teachers have numerous resources for their develop-ment. Teachers are entitled to 13 days per school year for their CPD, and the principalhas financial resources for staff development. However, teachers’ CPD in Sweden ismore controlled. Principals control their teachers by allocating resources. The NAEplays a major role by producing information on and for schooling and teachers that isthought to guide teachers in their work in a decentralised school and therefore createa higher level of dependency (Berg 2000). This makes teachers’ CPD more uniform.Furthermore, CPD opportunities for teachers are market regulated. Therefore they areconstructed with the consideration that teachers and schools are customers.
Because of Germany’s federal organisation, its school system differs from onefederal state (Bundesland) to another. That is why all the information presented hereonly holds true for the sample of teachers from the state of Berlin, but the main trendsare also true for other states in Germany (Tenorth 2008). Schools in Germany, at leastuntil recently, have been centrally governed by ‘input’ regulations. In Berlin’s case,the Senat Department of School, Science and Research (Senatsverwaltung fürBildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung, equivalent to a Ministry of Education) regu-lates curricula, resource funding, teacher’s professionalisation, the employment ofteachers and the disposition of resources to certain schools. A state institute connectedto the Senat Department is responsible for the development of the curricula – theLandesinstitut für Schule und Medien (LISUM, State Institute for School and Teach-ing Material), which has its equivalents in all the other federal states of Germany –and the provision of in-service education and training for teaching staff, mostly in theform of short-term, after-school courses. There has been no close cooperation
670
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 18:
02 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
Professional Development in Education 7
between the Senat Department (policy-makers), universities and teachers. Althoughthe universities are also responsible for the CPD of teachers, there has not been anyeffort to focus on teachers’ work for a long time (Bellmann 2006). The guiding ideaof education has been a Bildungs-thought. Education has to cultivate pupils; that is,they have to learn common knowledge and means of understanding that are perceivedas important for the society (Tenorth 2008). Therefore, the content of the curricula isnot a vehicle for teaching competences for life, but has a cultural meaning for itself.
With the reforms of recent years, the school system has changed and become moreequivalent to the Swedish system. The perspective has shifted from education ofBildung to education of competences (Lundahl and Waldow 2009). On the one hand,standards-based reforms are considered to control the schools’ output through thesetting of standards and the evaluation of schools (Klieme et al. 2007). On the otherhand, competition strategies or so-called choice policies have been implemented. CPDhas now been decentralised and is organised by the teachers within the schools. Simi-lar to Sweden, it is regulated by the municipalities. School principals now have moreresponsibility, but still only very limited resources for their staff’s development.
Teachers’ professionalisation is very closely regulated and certified by state exam-inations. The first part of a teacher’s education is university based, with a strong focuson the academic content of single subjects (Blömeke 2004) that is closely connectedto the Bildungs-thought. Pedagogical content knowledge and pedagogy are verylimited in this phase (Merzyn 2005). In the second part of the education, teachers arepartly working at schools and partly are instructed in seminars with pedagogical focusled by expert practitioners (Lenhard 2004). Both parts are characterised by highlycompetitive and comprehensive examinations (Geeks 1990, Katzenbach 2005) andtogether take up to about 10 years (Terhart 2004).
The teachers’ CPD landscape in Germany is based on the teachers’ own initiative.CPD is compulsory but not controlled (Terhart 2004). There are plenty of opportuni-ties but most of them are not widely advertised and therefore not visible to teachers.That is why teachers prefer courses organised by their principal in the form of devel-opment days (approximately two to four times a school year). It remains to be seenhow the situation will be affected when the new decentralised system of teachers’CPD with more influence from the principals comes into effect. Still teachers perceivethe CPD system as being the same as before the reforms.
Methods and instruments
To ensure the comparability of data, both qualitative and quantitative methods havebeen applied. In the first part of the project, expert interviews were conducted withteachers and principals as well as with representatives of sources for CPD (i.e. educa-tional science, didactics, publishers of school books and educational journals, schooladministrations and teachers’ unions) in both Sweden and Germany. For the secondpart of this research project, a questionnaire for a quantitative survey was developed.The CPD culture of teachers is understood to be a summary of what they do for theirCPD as well as their beliefs and perceptions of different aspects of CPD.
In the first part of the questionnaire, teachers were asked how they had engagedthemselves in their CPD in the past school year (2007/08), apart from events organ-ised by their own school. Then teachers were asked how important they thoughtcertain sources of knowledge (universities, textbook publishers, etc.) were for their
671
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 18:
02 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
8 W. Wermke
CPD regarding content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical contentknowledge. The construction of the second part is based on Shulman’s (1986) modelof four components of knowledge that teachers apply in their work: content knowl-edge (knowledge concerning subject matter contents and scientific knowledge aboutthe subject); pedagogical knowledge (knowledge about classroom management);pedagogical content knowledge (knowledge about the transfer of content knowledge);and curricular knowledge (knowledge about curriculum, school and classroom organ-isation). The meaning of the term knowledge can be differentiated in the researchproject by using these categories. The first three domains have been summarised tothe scale: ‘importance of a source of knowledge’. Cronbach’s α for the scales aregood: importance of universities = 0.841; importance of NAE/Senat Department =0.868; importance of textbook publishers = 0.788; importance of unions = 0.868;importance of colleagues = 0.767; importance of LISUM = 0.836; importance ofprivate companies = 0.859. The character of the answers regarding the curricularknowledge domain differed distinctly from those of the other three domains. TheNAE and the Senat Department Berlin are the most relevant sources for curricularknowledge. Here, the organisational dependency of teachers becomes obvious: thelegal framework of curricula and regulations is provided by the state, both in Swedenand Germany. Apparently, curricular knowledge is not a matter of CPD, but rather amatter of school governance. It is not voluntary; rather, it is compulsory for teachers.For this reason, the instrument ‘importance of sources of knowledge’ is only based onthe first three knowledge domains, excluding curricular knowledge.
The next part of the questionnaire focused on teachers’ perceptions of certainsources of knowledge. This part is based on Bryk and Schneider’s (2004) consider-ation of teachers’ trust as a core resource of school improvement. Due to the assumedemotional aspects of CPD, relational trust is considered an appropriate instrument todisplay teachers’ perceptions of knowledge sources:
Trust is an individual belief or a common belief among a group of individuals thatanother individual or group (a) makes good faith efforts to behave in accordance withmany commitments, both explicit and implicit, (b) is honest in whatever negotiationspreceded such commitments, and (c) does not take excessive advantage of another evenwhen the opportunity is available. (Cummings and Bromily 1996, p. 303)
Bryk and Schneider (2004) put forward four factors that affect the development of trustpositively: competence (the trust in another person’s ability to contribute positively toreaching a certain goal); the understanding of another person’s personality andemotions (e.g. through actions which reduce the vulnerability of the other person);respect (the acknowledgement of a person’s particular role, considering and appreci-ating that person’s concerns); and integrity (obeying certain ethical and moral rules,authenticity, reliability and accountability). In this international comparison, only thefirst three aspects could be investigated because it was not possible to display teachers’perception of ‘integrity’, connected to moral and ethical rules as a value usable for bothcases. Therefore the instrument ‘trust in a source of knowledge’ is based on the firstthree factors. In the questionnaire, the teachers had the opportunity to answer: ‘I don’tknow’. For this reason N varies. Cronbach’s α for the scales are good: trust in univer-sities = 0.828; trust in NAE/Senat Department = 0.908; trust in textbook publishers =0.728; trust in unions = 0.850; trust in colleagues = 0.703; trust in LISUM = 0.855 (onlyGermany); trust in private companies = 0.817 (only Sweden). The scales are generated
672
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 18:
02 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
Professional Development in Education 9
from the mean value of the items that have not been answered ‘I don’t know’ and arenot missing. The quality of the group of teachers who did not answer one of the threeitems or answered ‘I don’t know’ on all items will not be analysed here.
Finally, considering a CPD culture of teachers that is affected by its nationalcontext, it also has to be assessed whether and how different school governanceregimes influence teachers’ CPD. Schools and teachers’ work are governed by docu-ments like curricula, outcome tests, resource distribution, teacher education andresponsibilities as well as the influence of actors within the school systems like super-intendents and principals. Since, as already described, education in Germany isgoverned on a federal state level, the term NCT for those tests that assess pupils attain-ing the goals of the curriculum on a national level is obviously not correct in the caseof Berlin. Here, teachers were asked about curriculum tests for the federal state ofBerlin, but since the meaning is the same, the term NCT will be used in the compari-son to make the text and figures readable. Teachers had to assess how much they agreewith various statements such as: ‘Open, competence-based curricula require frequentCPD’ or ‘National curriculum tests require frequent CPD’.
Sample
As already described above, in the German case differences exist within the politicalpractices of different states (Bundesländer), although the trends are the same acrossthe entire country. For practical reasons, the sample cannot contain all groups, so theresearch project first of all aims to show relations between teachers’ CPD culture anddifferent aspects on the school system level. The target groups of the study weresecondary school teachers at different types of schools (Haupt-, Real-, Gesamtschulenand Gymnasien) in Berlin and teachers from sixth grade to ninth grade at comprehen-sive schools in Stockholm. The guiding idea behind this choice was to have a sampleof teachers who focus on more subject-teaching in their daily work. Thus the differ-ences described in pedagogical focus between primary school and secondary schoolteachers (Luhmann 2002) and the differences between the German and SwedishGymnasiet which also offers occupational training can be ignored. Furthermore,teachers who live in big city areas are assumed to have access to all sources of knowl-edge and can therefore assess them.
The sample comprises 201 teachers in 16 schools in the county of Stockholm(Stockholms län) and 217 teachers in 13 schools in the federal state of Berlin. Theresponse rate was 50% in Stockholms län and 40% in Berlin. The survey wasconducted in Berlin in September 2008 and in Stockholm in October 2008. The miss-ing values in all parts were in only a very few items more than 5% and in all itemswere under 7%. According to Graham and others, 5% is the decision-borderline for oragainst an imputation of missing values (Graham et al. 2003). Below this borderline,no bias or severe loss of analysis power can be expected. For this reason, it has beendecided not to impute missing data.
Results
What teachers do for their CPD
The first question of the questionnaire was: ‘What did you do for your CPD in the lastschool year besides in-service development in your school?’ Teachers were asked
673
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 18:
02 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
10 W. Wermke
from a list of several alternatives to annotate what sources of knowledge they use,what kinds of courses they attend or whom they work with. When investigating partic-ipation in CPD, courses and cooperation with others, several differences are notable(see Figure 1). Highly significant differences exist between both cases concerningattendance at university courses and courses offered by textbook publishers. InSweden, universities provide training courses for in-service teachers; this is veryseldom done in Germany. Occasionally teachers have the opportunity to participate incourses at universities independently. Textbook publishers are of more importance forGerman teachers, even though the textbook publishers in both countries act in thesame way (as private companies with marketing strategies). LISUM and local author-ities that provide traditional CPD courses are also important for German teachers.Courses provided by the NAE, the Senat Department and unions do not play an impor-tant role.
Regarding cooperation and conferences, it was observed that working togetherwith colleagues is the most important aspect for teachers’ CPD in both countries, butin Germany it is even more important. Teachers rarely collaborate with researchers.They also take part in conferences or visit trade fairs, but this – on a lower level –happens more often in Sweden. German teachers read more than Swedish teachers,primarily scientific books and articles but also a good deal of material from textbookpublishers and the Senat Department. The Internet is important for teachers’ CPD.
To conclude, the most important sources of knowledge for both German and Swed-ish teachers are their colleagues, the Internet, books and articles on their work.However, German teachers are more self-reliant and appear to be more traditional intheir development. This means that their CPD is more isolated. Textbook publisherswho are specialised in teachers’ work are more common sources of knowledge inGermany than in Sweden. When it comes to courses, teachers use providers of CPD,like LISUM and textbook publishers, that mostly offer short-term courses with a focus
Figure 1. Voluntary and self-determined CPD.Notes: School year 2007/08: **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.
674
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 18:
02 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
Professional Development in Education 11
on a transfer of certain knowledge. The universities do not play a role at all, whereasin Sweden they do. There, teachers also attend congresses more frequently, althoughat a very low level. In both countries, the unions have little influence on teachers’ CPD.Figure 1. Voluntary and self-determined CPD.Notes: School year 2007/08: **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.
Which sources of knowledge are most important for teachers?
There are significant differences when teachers assess the importance of universitiesand the NAE/Senat in Germany and Sweden. Both are more important for teachers inSweden compared with Germany. For German teachers, textbook publishers are veryimportant; there is also a significant difference compared with their colleagues inSweden. LISUM and municipal professional development are for German teachers asimportant as textbook publishers. This illustrates their traditional understanding ofCPD. Not surprisingly, the teachers’ own colleagues are most important as sources ofknowledge in both countries. As Figure 2 shows, unions do not play an important rolewhen it comes to teachers’ CPD in either country. In Sweden, private companies areonly slightly more important than the unions and cannot reach the importance of theother sources.Figure 2. Importance of sources for teachers’ CPD.Note: **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.
Who do teachers trust?
Apart from their own colleagues, who are assessed as most trustworthy in both coun-tries, German teachers are rather reserved when they evaluate the different sources.LISUM/municipal CPD and textbook publishers have the highest ranking aftercolleagues. This contributes to the picture depicted (see Figure 3) about the impor-tance of the source that appears to be exclusively oriented towards teachers’ needs.Universities and the Senat Department are not assessed as very trustworthy. Here, abigger gap between source and teachers can be seen, and here we find the biggestdifferences compared with Swedish teachers. Teachers have much more trust in exter-nal knowledge sources in general, but in particular they trust more in universities andthe NAE, which also supports the findings in Figure 3. Private companies are assessedas being the worst sources. They seem to be too distant from the school. Regarding all
Figure 2. Importance of sources for teachers’ CPD.Note: **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.
675
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 18:
02 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
12 W. Wermke
sources in general, Swedish teachers seem to have more trust in other sources ofknowledge outside the school.Figure 3. Trust in sources for CPD.Notes: n = 388 (universities), 402 (school administration), 396 (textbook publishers), 378 (unions), 407 (colleagues), LISUM only for German teachers ( n = 209), private PD companies only for Swedish teachers ( n = 138). **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.
What effect does school governance have on teachers’ CPD?
Firstly, teachers in both countries were asked what influences NCTs have on theirCPD. In both countries NCTs give indications for teachers’ work [see (1) in Figure 4],and in both countries teachers do not see any positive influence on school develop-ment (3). Differences can be seen in the meaning of NCTs for teachers’ professionaldevelopment (2). In contrast to Swedish teachers, German teachers do not think thatNCTs are an accelerator for their development, or that NCTs should exist for everysubject (4). German teachers obviously rely on their own knowledge. This impressionis supported by the perceived influence of open curricula on CPD. For Swedish teach-ers, the open, undetailed curricula mean that there is more pressure for development(5), whereas teachers in both countries enjoy, or would enjoy, open curricula in orderto be able to develop independently (6).Figure 4. Influence of school governance on teachers’ CPD.Notes: TE, teacher education; NCT, national curriculum test. ** p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.Differences also occur in the influence of teacher education on the teachers’ CPD.For Swedish teachers, there is more necessity for CPD. They actually think that theydid not have enough pedagogy in their education (8) or enough content knowledge (9).Here again, German teachers appear more confident with the competence they havegained in their education. As for the question of whether the emphasis on performanceand assessment in their education generates reluctance to discuss their work withcolleagues or with experts (7), the relationship is the opposite. Even though Germanteachers do not totally agree with this statement, there is still a big difference in theeffect that this question has on Swedish teachers’ CPD.
As for the questions concerning which persons should have influence on theirCPD, teachers in both countries agree that they should coordinate their CPD witheach other (11) and that the superintendent should not have influence (14). Teachers
Figure 3. Trust in sources for CPD.Notes: n = 388 (universities), 402 (school administration), 396 (textbook publishers), 378(unions), 407 (colleagues), LISUM only for German teachers (n = 209), private PD companiesonly for Swedish teachers (n = 138). **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.
676
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 18:
02 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
Professional Development in Education 13
in Germany also agree that the principal (10) and the universities (13) should play aspecial role in teachers’ CPD. CPD should even be controlled by special plans atthe school (12). However, their Swedish colleagues think that this aspect is moreimportant.
Conclusion and discussion
This article has analysed an important part of teachers’ CPD culture by investigatingwhich sources of knowledge teachers prefer for their CPD, and how the school systemaffects teachers’ CPD. Here two sub-questions were in focus: How do teachers’perceptions of sources influence their CPD and how does school governance affectteachers’ CPD? The main findings are summarised in Figure 5.Figure 5. The CPD culture of German and Swedish teachers.The idea of a CPD culture of teachers is a productive way to describe what teach-ers do and think about their development in certain national contexts. Teachers havecertain attitudes towards sources of knowledge and they act as agents in their CPD.They choose certain offers and reject others. They also decide to undertake certainforms of learning: either alone or in courses, with colleagues or other persons. CPDcultures are different in Sweden and Germany. Regarding CPD, it does matter whethera teacher is German or Swedish. The learning of German teachers takes place moreoften in isolated settings and short-term courses. Swedish teachers are more group-oriented and attend university courses for longer periods. Some of the actors who
Figure 4. Influence of school governance on teachers’ CPD.Notes: TE, teacher education; NCT, national curriculum test. **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.
677
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 18:
02 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
14 W. Wermke
stand behind sources for teachers’ CPD in the school system have a great influence onteachers. In both countries, teachers rely mostly on their colleagues. This validates thefindings from research about good cooperation in schools being a very importantaspect of teachers’ development.
Regarding other actors within the CPD context, however, highly significant differ-ences exist. Swedish teachers are much more open to other sources. Teachers put moretrust in institutions like the NAE and the universities. In Germany, these relationshipscan rather be described as lacking. German teachers only trust their colleagues andthose sources that are close to them that might generate a more conservative attitudetowards the acceptance of research and reform. Furthermore, a producer–customerrelationship in CPD apparently generates a climate among teachers that is more recep-tive to ideas from outside the school. This is true both for the relationship of the actorsin the Swedish market-regulated CPD landscape and for the relationships betweentextbook publishers and teachers in Germany.
Regarding school governance, German teachers can be described as more autono-mous. The ‘new steering’ still only slightly influences their CPD. The impact of nationalcurriculum tests and open, competence-based curricula is much higher in Sweden. Here,teachers even wish to be guided much more in their CPD. Deficiencies in basic teachereducation and needs for CPD are not related to each other for German teachers.
Figure 5. The CPD culture of German and Swedish teachers.
678
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 18:
02 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
Professional Development in Education 15
The characteristics of the school system have an obvious effect on the CPD ofteachers. Swedish and German teachers differ in their CPD culture. Two researchprojects, one 20 years old and one very recent, can serve as explanations of the ideaof two different cultures in two different systems. At the end of the 1980s, Broadfootet al. (1993) compared French and English teachers with regard to whom they feltaccountable to and what they felt responsible for in their profession. The Englishschool system was at that time very decentralised with a good deal of decision compe-tence assigned to the principal and local authority superintendents. Teachers had greatpersonal freedom in their decisions and curricula and teacher education were veryopen, only governed by goals and results. French teachers worked within more regu-lated centralised structures. Curricula and teacher education were more focused onsubject content. Although the English teachers worked with more professional free-dom than their French colleagues, the lack of guidelines concerning content and thedirect accountability to results made them feel more insecure and more open to otherinfluences. The English felt accountable to almost every actor in the school systemand felt very responsible for the development of his or her pupils beyond their subject.Whereas the conservative French teachers felt very secure in their role, their referenceframework was detailed, curricula-based content knowledge; their role as teachers,they thought, was to transfer content knowledge to their pupils and was only account-able to the state.
English teachers represent the Swedish teachers of today; the situation of theFrench teachers has parallels with that of the German teachers. German teachers relyon their conservative understanding of their role as knowledge transmitters. They areused to acting freely in their classroom and they rely on the content knowledge fromtheir education and from the curricula. In contrast to Sweden and England, they basetheir subjects on content knowledge that is easier to assess than open-formulatedcompetences and education-for-life goals. In terms of CPD, this means that they feelmore secure with their knowledge and are therefore not very receptive to other sourcesof knowledge. Like English teachers, Swedish teachers seem to be under too muchpressure in their role definition as educators for life competences that are more diffi-cult to attain. Both groups feel highly accountable to the results of central evaluationssuch as national curriculum tests.
The idea of insecure Swedish teachers who therefore are more receptive towardexternal knowledge has been illustrated by a more recent study on teachers in the fourNordic countries during the reform decades since 1990, in which the Finnish teachersin particular appear interesting. Carlgren and Klette (2008) draw a picture of insecureSwedish teachers who have a good deal of professional freedom but are not able touse it. Although Finnish teachers also have very open structures, they feel more securein their teaching profession. They apparently rely on a conservative understanding oftheir role as highly educated, content-based knowledge transmitters (Simola 2005).Furthermore, it can still be questioned whether the managerialism of the past 20 yearshas any effect on Finnish teachers if there is still a lack of serious outcome control(Simola 2005). However, this gives them the opportunity to react more freely tochanges, with acceptance, adoption or even denial. This obviously makes them feelmore confident. Swedish teachers seem to feel too much pressure from outcome controlto be able to use their professional freedom (Carlgren and Klette 2008). They must bereceptive to everything. There seems to be nothing left to rely on, like a detailed curric-ulum or a common foundation of knowledge or cultural understanding for their
679
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 18:
02 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
16 W. Wermke
subjects. The problem here is that teachers are not receptive just because they are will-ing to develop further and because they are professionals. In this case, it is not recep-tiveness that is part of their CPD culture; it is insecurity. They are so receptive becausethey feel insecure. This uncertainty makes them too dependent to be freely actingprofessionals. Their wish for direct guidance and their reliance on national curriculumtests prove this point. But the results also show a very positive perception of othersources of knowledge. In Sweden, the NAE and the universities obviously succeed ingenerating a climate of trust that also encourages teachers to be open to new ideas.
In the German case, teachers’ professional culture is characterised by suspiciontoward knowledge from outside the school. Teachers are very reserved about sourcesthat are not their own colleagues or legitimated by them. Some sources also becomemore foe than friend. Private companies like textbook publishers exploit this situation.They use strategies whereby teachers feel respected and understood as professionals.The Senat Department and universities apparently do not succeed in giving them thesame feeling. This attitude might also be due to bad experiences in their teacher educa-tion (Katzenbach 2005, Merzyn 2005), or due to the many state examinations teachershave to go through in their career, which produce feelings of a negative dependency(Terhart 2004).
However, the picture depicted above also shows the historical dimension of suchcomparisons. Up until the 1980s in Sweden, the teaching profession was highly influ-enced by a long history of centralisation, where the state had formulated not only thecontent of schooling but also what was considered good teaching (Carlgren and Klette2008). This has probably formed the mentality of teachers, who historically haverelied on state institutions, even after the responsibility for school governance wasdecentralised and transferred to the municipalities. During this period, teacherschanged from being receivers of research to the objects of research (Carlgren 1998).Researchers and school administrators took over the monopoly of interpreting whatschools and teachers are. After a time, teachers might have been led to believe in thisconstruction as well. This also relates to Sweden’s belief in science and education asa salvation strategy. A special feature of Swedish society has been the idea of socialengineering, which meant faith in the power of the construction of society by scientificmethods (Henze 1998). These aspects might contribute to the trust Swedish teachershave in the universities as sources of knowledge. Finally, in Sweden there is a longtradition of cooperative learning and research.
Although German teachers have been working under more input-controlled condi-tions, they are accustomed to having more autonomy. After the experiences of NationalSocialism, when teachers were totally dependent on the state, West German teachersenjoyed a great deal of freedom. As long as they followed the goals and guidelines ofthe curricula and the constitution, teachers had plenty of pedagogical freedom (Cortinaet al. 2003). Here, it is interesting to investigate whether East German teachers differin their perception of sources for CPD. Research shows differences between East andWest German teachers, but also a large number of similarities. In his evaluation ofteachers in the eastern and western parts of Berlin during the 1990s, Gehrmann (2003)observed that the strongest difference was that teachers from the East were moreconservative in their attitudes concerning school structures. It is questionable whetherthere are still such differences after 20 years in a reunited Germany.
It can be concluded that the CPD cultures of teachers in both countries evolveddifferently. This can be regarded as a result of different types of school governance
680
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 18:
02 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
Professional Development in Education 17
and different perceptions of sources of knowledge. There are also different role defi-nitions of teachers in both countries that indicate the historical dimension of thiscomparison. Role definitions as well as role expectations and practices change overtime, but this change is slow. Old traditions linger on and affect the development ofthe profession.
AcknowledgementsThe author would like to thank all the teachers in Berlin and Stockholm who took part in thisstudy. The author warmly thanks Esther Fuhrmann for rating the questionnaires. The authorwould also like to thank Heike Schaumburg, Florian Waldow, Christian Lundahl, Eva Fors-berg, Barbara Schulte, Stefan Frohm and all colleagues in Berlin, Stockholm and Uppsala whoon several points helped to develop this research project further.
ReferencesAdey, P., et al., 2004. The professional development of teachers: practice and theory. New
York: Kluwer.Arvola Orlander, A., Eriksson, I., and Jedemark, M., 2004. Att arbeta för godkänt – timplanens
roll i ett förändrta uppdrag [Working for ‘pass’ – the meaning of the timetable in achanged task]. Stockholm: Stockholm University.
Bell, B. and Gilbert, J., 1996. Teacher development: a model for science education. London:Falmer.
Bellmann, J., 2006. Bildungsforschung und Bildungspolitik im Zeitalter der ‘NeuenSteuerung’ [Educational research and educational policy in an era of ‘new steering’].Zeitschrift für pädagogik, 52 (4), 487–504.
Berg, G., 2000. Steering in and steering out of the school. In: C. Day et al., eds. The life andwork of teachers. International perspectives in changing times. London/New York:Falmer Press, 195–209.
Blömeke, S., 2004. Erste Phase an Universitäten und pädagogischen Hochschulen [The firstpart of teacher education at universities and colleges]. In: S. Blömeke, ed. Handbuchlehrerbildung [Hand book of teacher education]. Bad Heilbronn: Klinkhardt, 262–275.
Bolam, R. and McMahon, A., 2004. Literature, definitions and models: towards a conceptualmap. In: C. Day and J. Sachs, eds. International handbook on the continuing profes-sional development of teachers. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press, 32–64.
Borko, H. and Putnam, R., 1995. Expanding a teacher’s knowledge base: a cognitive psycho-logical perpective on professional development. In: T.R. Guskey and M. Hubermann,eds. Professional development in education: new paradigms and practices. New York:Teachers College Press, 35–66.
Broadfoot, P., et al., 1993. Perceptions of teaching. Primary school teachers in England andFrance. New York: Cassell.
Bromme, R. and Tillema, H., 1995. Fusing experience and theory: the structure of profes-sional knowledge. Learning and instruction, 5 (4), 261–267.
Bryk, A.S. and Schneider, B., 2004. Trust in schools. A core resource for improvement. NewYork: Russell Sage Foundation.
Carlgren, I., 1998. Where did blackboard writing go? Journal of curriculum studies, 30 (6),613–617.
Carlgren, I. and Kallós, D., 1997. Lessons from a comprehensive school system for curricu-lum theory and research: Sweden revisited after twenty years. Journal of curriculumstudies, 29 (4), 407–430.
Carlgren, I. and Klette, K., 2008. Reconstructions of Nordic teachers: reform policies andteachers’ work during the 1990s. Scandinavian journal of educational research, 52 (2),117–133.
Claesson, S. and Hultberg, J., 2006. Behöver lärare ett ämne? Om ämnesval och vetenskapsidealinom en utbildning [Do teachers need a subject? About the choice of the subject and theideal of science in education]. Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige, 11 (1), 43–52.
681
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 18:
02 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
18 W. Wermke
Cortina, K., et al., 2003. Das Bildungswesen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland – Strukturenund Entwicklungen im Überblick [The educational system of the Federal Republic ofGermany. An overview of structures and developments]. Berlin: Rowohlt.
Cummings, L.L. and Bromily, P., 1996. The organizational trust inventory (OTI): develop-ment and validation. In: R. Kramer, and T. Tyler, eds. Trust in organizations. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage, 302–330.
Day, C., 1997. In-service teacher education in Europe: conditions and themes for developmentin the 21st century. Journal of in-service education, 23 (1), 39–54.
Day, C. and Sachs, J., 2004. Professionalism, performativity and empowerment: discourses inthe politics, policies and purposes of continuing professional development. In: C. Dayand J. Sachs, eds. International handbook on the continuing professional development ofteachers. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press, 3–32.
Drakenberg, M., 2001. The professional development of teachers in Sweden. Europeanjournal of teacher education, 24 (2), 195–204.
Feiman-Nemser, S. and Floden, R.E., 1986. The cultures of teaching. In: M.C. Wittrock, ed.Handbook on research on teaching. New York: Macmillan, 505–526.
Fullan, M., 2001. The new meaning of educational change. London: Routledge-Falmer.Geeks, L., 1990. Sozialisierungsphase Referendariat – Objektive Strukturbedingungen und ihr
Psychologischer Preis [Socialisation into the ‘Referendariat’. Impartial structures andthe psychological price to pay]. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
Gehrmann, A., 2003. Der Professionelle Lehrer. Muster der Begründung – EmpirischeRekonstruktion [The professional teacher. Patterns of explanation and empirical recon-struction]. Opladen: Leske und Budrich.
Graham, J.W., Cumsille, P.E., and Elek-Fisk, E., 2003. Methods for handling missing data.In: J.A. Schinka and W.F. Velicer, eds. Handbook of psychology: research methods inpsychology. Vol. 2. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 87–114.
Guskey, T.R., 1995. Professional development in education: in search of the optimal mix. In:T.R. Guskey and M. Hubermann, eds. Professional development in education: newparadigms and practices. New York: Teacher College Press, 114–131.
Heise, M., 2007. Professionelles Lernen jenseits von Fortbildungsmaßnahmen [Professionallearning beyond inservice training]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 10 (4),513–531.
Henze, V., 1998. Das schwedische Volksheim. Zur Struktur und Funktion eines politischenOrdnungsmodells [The Swedish ‘folkhem’. Structure and function of a political model].Berlin: Humboldt University.
Hoy, W.K. and Sabo, D., 1997. Quality middle schools: open and healthy. Thousand Oaks,CA: Corwin Press.
Katzenbach, D., 2005. Zwischen Entlastung und Professionalisierung. Supervision mitReferendarInnen für das Lehramt [Between relief and professionalization. Supervisionof teaching students in-service]. Die Deutsche schule, 97 (1), 49–63.
Klieme, E., et al., 2007. Zur Entwicklung nationaler Bildungsstandards. Eine Expertise [Onthe development of national educational standards]. Bonn: KMK.
Lenhard, H., 2004. Zweite Phase an Studienseminaren und Schulen [The second part ofteacher education seminars and schools]. In: S. Blömeke, ed. Handbuch lehrerbildung[Handbook of teacher education]. Bad Heilbronn: Klinkhardt, 275–290.
Lindensjö, B. and Lundgren, U.P., 2000. Utbildningsreformer och politisk styrning [Educa-tional reforms and political governing]. Stockholm: HLS.
Lortie, D.C., 1975. Schoolteacher – a sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of ChicagoPress.
Luhmann, N., 2002. Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft [The educational system of thesociety]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Lundahl, C. and Waldow, F., 2009. Standardisation and ‘quick languages’: the shape shiftingof standardised measurement of pupil achievement in Sweden and Germany. Journal ofcomparative education, 45 (3), 365–385.
Merzyn, G., 2005. Lehrerbildung – Ein Stiefkind der Universitäten. Niederes Ansehen,Interessen im Hintergrund, Ungünstige Folgen [Teacher education. A stepchild to theuniversities]. Die Deutsche schule, 97 (3), 342–350.
682
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 18:
02 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
Professional Development in Education 19
Meyer, J.W., 2005. Weltkultur. Wie die westlichen Prinzipien die Welt durchdringen [Worldculture. How the Western principles pervaded the world]. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.
Meyer, J.W., 2009. World society. The writings of John W. Meyer. G. Krucken and G.S.Drori, eds. New York: Oxford University Press.
Munthe, E., 2001. Professional uncertainty/certainty: how (un)certain are teachers, what arethey (un)certain about, and how is (un)certainty related to age, experience, gender, qual-ifications and school types? European journal of teacher education, 24 (3), 355–368.
Nilsson, I., 2006. Grundskollärares tankar om kompetensutveckling [Comprehensive schoolteachers’ thought on professional development]. Lund: Pedagogiska Institutionen.
Rosenholtz, S.J., 1989. Teachers’ workplace. The social organization of schools. New York:Teachers College Press.
Schein, E., 1985. Organisational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Schön, D.A., 1983. The reflecting practitioner. How professionals think in action. New York:
Basic Books.Schriewer, J., 2003. Problemdimensionen Sozialwissenschaftlicher Komparatistik [Issues of
comparisons in social science]. In: H. Kaelble and J. Schriewer, eds. Vergleich undTransfer. Komparatisitik in den Sozial-, Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften[Comparison and transfer. Comparisons in historical, social and cultural studies]. Frank-furt am Main/New York: Campus, 9–52.
Shulman, L.S., 1986. Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educationalresearcher, 15 (2), 4–14.
Simola, H., 2005. The Finnish miracle of PISA: historical and sociological remarks on teach-ing and teacher education. Comparative education, 41 (4), 455–470.
Steiner-Khamsi, G., 2004, The politics of educational borrowing. In: G. Steiner-Khamsi, ed.The global politics of educational borrowing and lending. New York: Teachers CollegePress, 69–74.
Telhaug, A.O., Mediås, O.A., and Aasen, P., 2006. The Nordic model in education: educationas part of the political system in the last 50 years. Scandinavian journal of educationalresearch, 50 (3), 245–283.
Tenorth, H.-E., 2008. Geschichte der Erziehung. Einführung in die Grundzüge ihrer neuzeitli-chen Entwicklung [The history of education. An introduction into the principles of itscontemporary development]. Weinheim: Juventa.
Terhart, E., 1996. Berufskultur und Professionelles Handeln bei Lehrern [Teachers’ profes-sional culture and professional practice]. In: A. Combe and W. Helsper, eds. Pädago-gische Professionalität. Untersuchungen zum Typus Pädagogischen Handelns[Pedagogical professionality. Investigating pedagogical practice]. Frankfurt am Main:Suhrkamp, 448–471.
Terhart, E., 2004. Struktur und Organisation der Lehrerbildung in Deutschland [Structure andorganisation of teacher education in Germany]. In: S. Blömeke, ed. Handbuch lehrerbil-dung [Handbook of teacher education]. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt, 37–59.
Villegas-Reimers, E., 2003. Teacher professional development: an international review of theliterature. Paris: UNESCO.
Waldow, F., 2005. Späte Sanktionierung – Formen und Funktionen der Leistungsmessung inSchweden [Late sanctions. Forms and functions of assessment in Sweden]. In: H. Döbertand H.-W. Fuchs, eds. Leistungsmessungen und Innovationsstrategien in Schulsystemen.Ein Internationaler Vergleich [Evaluation and innovation strategies in school systems].Münster: Waxmann, 25–137.
683
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 18:
02 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
