Evaluation of Teacher Education Programs by Students and Graduates

The purpose of this research was to do a repeated cross-sectional research on class teachers who study in the 4th year and also graduated at the Faculty of Education, University of Turku between the years of 2000 through 2004. Specifically, seven research questions were addressed to target the main purpose of the study: How do class teacher education masters’ degree senior students and graduates rate “importance; effectiveness; and quality” of training they have received at the Faculty of Education? Are there significant differences between overall ratings of importance; effectiveness and quality of training by year of graduation, sex, and age (for graduates) and sex and age (for senior students)? Is there significant relationship between respondents’ overall ratings of importance; effectiveness and their overall ratings of the quality of training and preparation they have received? Are there significant differences between graduates and senior students about importance, effectiveness, and quality of teacher education programs? And what do teachers’ [Graduates] believe about how increasing work experience has changed their opinions of their preservice training? Moreover the following concepts related to the instructional activities were studied: critical thinking skills, communication skills, attention to ethics, curriculum and instruction (planning), role of teacher and teaching knowledge, assessment skills, attention to continuous professional development, subject matters knowledge, knowledge of learning environment, and using educational technology. Researcher also tried to find influence of some moderator variables e.g. year of graduation, sex, and age on the dependent and independent variables. This study consisted of two questionnaires (a structured likert-scale and an open ended questionnaire). The population in study 1 was all senior students and 2000-2004 class teacher education masters’ degree from the departments of Teacher Education Faculty of Education at University of Turku. Of the 1020 students and graduates the researcher was able to find current addresses of 675 of the subjects and of the 675 graduates contacted, 439 or 66.2 percent responded to the survey. The population in study 2 was all class teachers who graduated from Turku University and now work in the few basic schools (59 Schools) in South- West Finland. 257 teachers answered to the open ended web-based questions. SPSS was used to produce standard deviations; Analysis of Variance; Pearson Product Moment Correlation (r); T-test; ANOVA, Bonferroni post-hoc test; and Polynomial Contrast tests meant to analyze linear trend. An alpha level of .05 was used to determine statistical significance. The results of the study showed that: A majority of the respondents (graduates and students) rated the overall importance, effectiveness and quality of the teacher education programs as important, effective and good. Generally speaking there were only a few significant differences between the cohorts and groups related to the background variables (gender, age). The different cohorts were rating the quality of the programs very similarly but some differences between the cohorts were found in the importance and effectiveness ratings. Graduates of 2001 and 2002 rated the importance of the program significantly higher than 2000 graduates. The effectiveness of the programs was rated significantly higher by 2001 and 2003 graduates than other groups. In spite of these individual differences between cohorts there were no linear trends among the year cohorts in any measure. In respondents’ ratings of the effectiveness of teacher education programs there was significant difference between males and females; females rated it higher than males. There were no significant differences between males’ and females’ ratings of the importance and quality of programs. In the ratings there was only one difference between age groups. Older graduates (35 years or older) rated the importance of the teacher training significantly higher that 25-35 years old graduates. In graduates’ ratings there were positive but relatively low correlations between all variables related to importance, effectiveness and quality of Teacher Education Programs. Generally speaking students’ ratings about importance, effectiveness and quality of teacher education program were very positive. There was only one significant difference related to the background variables. Females rated higher the effectiveness of the program. The comparison of students’ and graduates’ perception about importance, effectiveness, and quality of teacher education programs showed that there were no significant differences between graduates and students in the overall ratings. However there were differences in some individual variables. Students rated higher in importance of “Continuous Professional Development”, effectiveness of “Critical Thinking Skills” and “Using Educational Technology” and quality of “Advice received from the advisor”. Graduates rated higher in importance of “Knowledge of Learning Environment” and effectiveness of “Continuous Professional Development”. According to the qualitative data of study 2 some graduates expressed that their perceptions have not changed about the importance, effectiveness, and quality of training that they received during their study time. They pointed out that teacher education programs have provided them the basic theoretical/formal knowledge and some training of practical routines. However, a majority of the teachers seems to have somewhat critical opinions about the teacher education. These teachers were not satisfied with teacher education programs because they argued that the programs failed to meet their practical demands in different everyday situations of the classroom e.g. in coping with students’ learning difficulties, multiprofessional communication with parents and other professional groups (psychologists and social workers), and classroom management problems. Participants also emphasized more practice oriented knowledge of subject matter, evaluation methods and teachers’ rights and responsibilities. Therefore, they (54.1% of participants) suggested that teacher education departments should provide more practice-based courses and programs as well as closer collaboration between regular schools and teacher education departments in order to fill gap between theory and practice.

Schools as Oral Health Promoters – Evaluation of National Sweet Selling Recommendation and Oral Health Education Material

The aims were to find out 1) if schools’ oral health practices were associated with pupils’ oral health behaviour and whether 2) the national sweet-selling recommendation and 3) distributing oral health material (OHEM) affected schools as oral health promoters. Three independently collected datasets from Finnish upper comprehensive schools (N=988) were used: longitudinal oral health practices data (n=258) with three-year follow up (2007 n=480, 2008 n=508, 2009 n=593) from principals’ online questionnaires, oral health behaviour data from pupils participating in the national School Health Promotion Study (n=970 schools) and oral health education data from health education teachers’ online questionnaires (2008 n=563, 2009 n=477 teachers). Oral health practices data and oral health behaviour data were combined (n=414) to answer aim 1. For aims 2 and 3, oral health practices data and oral health education data were used independently. School sweet selling and an open campus policy were associated with pupils’ use of sweet products and tobacco products during school time. The National Recommendation was quite an effective way to reduce the number of sweet-selling schools, but there were large regional differences and a lack of a clear oral health policy in the schools. OHEM did not increase the proportion of teachers teaching oral health, but teachers started to cover oral health topics more frequently. Women started to use OHEM more often than men did. Schools’ oral health policy should include prohibiting the selling of sweet products in school by legislative actions, enabling healthy alternatives instead, and setting a closed campus policy to protect pupils from school-time sweet consuming and smoking.