Innovative pedagogial practices in three nordic countries
                        Network for IT-research and competence i...
F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G



 Innovative practices with I...
F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G



 The Nordic Countries
  Den...
F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G



    Policy initiatives

Finl...
F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G



 From policy to the classrom...
F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G



    Curriculum initiatives

...
F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G



 Student outcomes

  Huge i...
F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G



 SITES 2006 - teachers
  Te...
F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G



 Curriculum goals
 “In your ...
F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G



 Visons - mean scores
      ...
F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G



 Teachers´ use of ICT

  Fi...
F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G



 Prediction analysis




16....
F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G



 Prediction analysis

  Bac...
F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G



 Prediction analysis

  Bac...
F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G



 Prediction analysis

  Bac...
F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G



 Educational background and
...
F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G



 Regular or periodical use

...
F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G



 Students not exposed to ICT...
F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G



 Teacher Specific Practices w...
F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G



 Teacher Specific Practices w...
F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G



 Important Exception

  Ove...
F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G



 Pedagogical Practice-

  P...
F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G



   Visions and Practice

Den...
F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G



 ICT-Use and Life-Long

  P...
F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G



 ICT-Use and Life-Long




 ...
F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G



 Conclusions

  Policy and ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

AERA 2009: Innovative pedagogial practices in three nordic countries

582 views

Published on

Secondary analysis of SITES 2006 data

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
582
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Good afternoon everbody. My name is Geir Ottestad. I am from Norway, representing the Network for IT-research and competence in education - that is abbreviated ITU. We are located at the University of Oslo and have a National mandate for research and development in the field. I am going to talk about innovative pedagogical practices in three nordic countries, their differences and similarities within the SITES 2006 framework. KLIKK
  • Most often when I´m talking to norwegian teachers, it seems quite clear to me that what they actually perceive as innovativeness is highly bound to their local context and their personal skill level. Some are quite advanced, promoting for instance the use of wikis within a storyline pedagogy, others are still marvelling on the moving images within Microsoft Photostory. Is it then difficult to compare teachers within nations, or between nations?

    The SITES M2 study found, that you can compare and this was refined into the sites 2006 framework as

    traditional orientation,
    life-long learning orientation and
    connectedness.

    Practices belonging within the categories of life-long learning orientation, and connectedness are thought to be supporting the development of 21st century skills, and are in the SITES Framework conceptually considered as innovative

    Notice the little boat struggeling to escape the Ice, and how my daughter tries to innovate on how she can reach it without getting wet. Eventually she did. Get the boat that is. Unaided by computers! Picture taken i Oslo a few weeks ago, just as a contrast to San Diego bay....
  • Finland, Denmark and Norway were the three nordic countries that participated in the SITES 2006 survey.

    First. The Nordic countries are often thought to share similar cultural and social values and traits,
    We do all have strong welfare systems, we have high GDPs, we have technological savvy populations, we have a common language base - except from Finland, we have quite ethnic homogenous populations, we have a tradition on open borders and cooperation

    and we have strong national organisation of school systems. Most kids goes to public school, and education are free in most cases.

    The pictures here are actually taken from all three countries - and you can guess which is from where
  • I´m not going in detail on this slide - but it can be summarized as showing that all three countries have strong policy initiatives that has been followed up with money and action plans.

    Finland has seen various initiatives on ICT in education since the 1990-s. The first overarching initiative from 2000 demanded comprehensive strategic planning for all educational institutions and included plans and visions for infrastructure, competence building, content and pedagogical use of ICT

    This programme was followed up with “The Information Society Programme for Education, Training and Research 2004-2006” which put focus on three areas: knowledge in the information society, contents and operating environment.

    The supreme goal here were quote: «Appropriate use of ICT in learning and in teaching is part of everyday school life. ICT is used widely and appropriately in research. Electronic materials are of a high quality, pedagogically justified, serve different user groups and are available openly»

    This is not too different from the visions of the Norwegian \"Programme for Digital Literacy 2004-2008\". Here it is stated that in 2008, Norway shall have an infrastructure, an organization and a culture placing its education system among the leading in the world in development and pedagogical use of ICT in teaching and learning.

    In Denmark the focus has been heavily on access to hardware: co-founding with local authorities, 100 million euros were spent on modern computers in primary and lower secondary education. Learing with IT were explicit stated though, in the 2001 strategy.



  • In order to achieve inclusion of ICT in regular pedagogical practice, more or less explicit demands should be phrased in the schools’ curriculum, or in the framework for the curriculum. Voogt and Pelgrum {, 2005 #2} found that generally the change towards the information society entails changes in the design and implementation of educational curricula, addressing an understanding of the need to develop novel competencies and lifelong capabilities that are not addressed in the traditional curricula.

  • In Finland the new National Core Curriculum for Basic Education from 2004, moving curricular work and ICT strategies to municipalities and schools . Decisions on curriculum and instruction are made by local schools and teachers.
    This shift of authority has also taken place in Norway. The Norwegian curriculum reform “The Knowledge Promotion” from 2006 has given greater freedom to each individual school in choosing their desired pedagogical platform and learning resources. The Knowlegde promotion also makes schools legally responsible to foster the students basic skills: reading, writing, arithmetics, oral expression AND, quote «the ability to make use of information and communication technology»

    In Denmark, the use of ICT has been inscribed in national curriculums since the mid 90´s, and is constantly undergoing reforms and refinements towards compehensive pedagogical use.



  • So, we have the situation of huge investments in ICT in schools in all three countries, - of course leading to expectations on student outcomes, we have various initiatives and curriculum reforms focusing on teaching with ICT, and we have policy alignment towards 21st century skills and the knowledge society.

    And still Finland is doing so much better in the PISA and other test. Actually a decline in PISA scores on reading literacy in Norway were recorded from 2000 to 2006.

    This is leading to the understanding, on a Policy level, that it is the quality of ICT usage, rather than quantity that will determine the contributions of technology on student outcomes. This puts focus on the teachers and their practices, and this is were SITES 2006 data can contribute empirically.
  • To narrow down on the vast supply of information found in SITES 2006, the data is taken from two main sections of the study. The first section describes what the teachers say they would like to achieve in their pedagogical practice, which, in the context of SITES 2006, refer to the teachers’ visions. These visions are measured in terms of support to various statements concerning curriculum goals.

    Second is what the teachers say they are doing, referred to as practice with ICT and measured with an instrument that digs into the teachers teaching practice.



  • Figure 1 shows the difference in mean scores for teachers in the three countries. Differences in means within subjects and between countries are significant (T-test).

    The figure shows that Norwegian teachers are inclined to relatively favour goals within the Life-long learning category stronger than Danish and Finnish teachers. But most strikingly are the similarity between the strength which goal orientations are expressed, and the similar internal relationship between the goal orientations. A tentative conclusion from this section is that analysis of curriculum-goal orientation is not a fruitful way to assess differences between teachers in the three Nordic countries and that teachers in all countries are inclined towards 21st century pedagogy as well as innovative visions on their instructional practice

  • In order to get a closer understanding of the differences between the teachers from the three countries regarding their use of ICT, a filter questions from the survey provides a springboard to further analysis and breakdown. Responding to the question “Do you use ICT in the teaching and learning activities of the target class?” the teachers answered yes or no. Observe that the question stresses the pedagogical use of ICT with the students.

    The results indicate that the Norwegian math teachers by far are the teacher group that reports of most pedagogical ICT users, even if we assume that missing respondents otherwise have answered “No”. The Finnish teachers are more or less divided in two groups of similar size, with the Finnish math teachers providing the largest group of non-ICT using teachers. The Danish teachers have a clear majority of ICT-users.

  • An effort was made to predict the outcome on the variable presented in Table 2 by other background variables from the teacher data. The teachers’ age, gender, their experience in years as teachers, their level of education, if they hold an advanced degree in math or science, and if they have acquired a teaching licence were tested. But the analysis yielded a meagre result, with R2 ranging between 0.017 and 0.049 and very few significant coefficients.

    One possible interesting finding from this analysis is a very weak but significant declining tendency in pedagogical use of ICT for Finnish teachers with a Bachelors’ degree or higher in math or science. To further elaborate upon this weak tendency, we have to look to other large international assessment studies. In recent debate, struggling to explain the poor Norwegian and Danish test results in PISA, PIRLS and TIMMS, one explanatory factor has been that the Finnish teachers in general has a higher level of education in the subjects they are teaching. It is claimed that this higher level of education, leads to a sharpened focus on the subject in question and an autonomous research based pedagogy However, treat this as mere suggestions from the data... as we can se in the next slide KLIKK

  • An effort was made to predict the outcome on the variable presented in Table 2 by other background variables from the teacher data. The teachers’ age, gender, their experience in years as teachers, their level of education, if they hold an advanced degree in math or science, and if they have acquired a teaching licence were tested. But the analysis yielded a meagre result, with R2 ranging between 0.017 and 0.049 and very few significant coefficients.

    One possible interesting finding from this analysis is a very weak but significant declining tendency in pedagogical use of ICT for Finnish teachers with a Bachelors’ degree or higher in math or science. To further elaborate upon this weak tendency, we have to look to other large international assessment studies. In recent debate, struggling to explain the poor Norwegian and Danish test results in PISA, PIRLS and TIMMS, one explanatory factor has been that the Finnish teachers in general has a higher level of education in the subjects they are teaching. It is claimed that this higher level of education, leads to a sharpened focus on the subject in question and an autonomous research based pedagogy However, treat this as mere suggestions from the data... as we can se in the next slide KLIKK

  • An effort was made to predict the outcome on the variable presented in Table 2 by other background variables from the teacher data. The teachers’ age, gender, their experience in years as teachers, their level of education, if they hold an advanced degree in math or science, and if they have acquired a teaching licence were tested. But the analysis yielded a meagre result, with R2 ranging between 0.017 and 0.049 and very few significant coefficients.

    One possible interesting finding from this analysis is a very weak but significant declining tendency in pedagogical use of ICT for Finnish teachers with a Bachelors’ degree or higher in math or science. To further elaborate upon this weak tendency, we have to look to other large international assessment studies. In recent debate, struggling to explain the poor Norwegian and Danish test results in PISA, PIRLS and TIMMS, one explanatory factor has been that the Finnish teachers in general has a higher level of education in the subjects they are teaching. It is claimed that this higher level of education, leads to a sharpened focus on the subject in question and an autonomous research based pedagogy However, treat this as mere suggestions from the data... as we can se in the next slide KLIKK

  • We see that results do confirm that huge differences in educational levels persist between the teachers from the three countries. Only between 10 and 14 percent of the participating Danish teachers reports to have a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in mathematics or science, compared to about half the Norwegian teachers and more than 95 percent of the Finnish teachers.

    Two conclusions can be drawn from this table. First, the average Finnish teacher is much more likely to have completed higher formal training within either one of the two subjects than teachers in Denmark or Norway. Second, the use of ICT does not seem to be correlated in any sense with the possession of a degree in any of the two subjects. The results are very similar if not almost identical for both users and non-users of ICT within both subjects in all three countries.


  • The SITES 2006 survey contained an international option designed to describe features of a particularly satisfying pedagogical experience conveyed by teachers with extensive experience with pedagogical use of ICT. To filter out the non- or less experienced teachers, the respondents were asked to state if they used ICT in the class regularly on a weekly basis or often, or if they used ICT extensively in confined periods (e.g. project work).

    More than 75 % of the Norwegian and Danish teachers felt qualified to respond to the international option, compared to only about 58 % of Finnish science teachers and about 23% of the Finnish math-teachers. This result alone indicates that pedagogical use of ICT is more widespread among the Danish and Norwegian teachers than the Finnish.


  • As we saw i the last slide, most ICT-using teachers are using ICT pedagogically just in periods. However the extensiveness of this usage, it indicates that ICT is not included in the regular pedagogical practice most students are participating in on a daily basis. This is contrary to the policy statements and goals made in all three countries, and serve the purpose of reminding us of the complexity school reforms are facing.

  • Twelve practices were scrutinized, all useful to complement the broader picture of visions, and practice-orientation within the framework of pedagogical orientations.
  • Some exceptions are to be found, i.e that it is more common among all the Finnish teachers to use ICT to collaborate with parents or caretakers, or that more Danish science teachers utilize ICT to organize and support team-building and collaboration among the students. These exceptions does not disturb the over-all picture of Norwegian teachers as the relatively largest group reporting pedagogical use of ICT on a broad sample of practices.
  • Second, over 60% of Finnish science used ICT to “help/advise students in exploratory and inquiry activities”, compared to 50,5% in Norway and 40,4% in Denmark.

    This item is of particular interest as it points directly to the debate on how the extraordinary Finnish science results in PISA were achieved. It is claimed that Finnish teachers through their education are putting focus on experimenting and modeling in the subjects. Also the national curriculum separates the subject science into the disciplines physics, chemistry and biology from grade 7. This combination of curricular and pedagogical priorities makes for two (of many) important factors for explaining the Finnish success.

    The data from SITES 2006 seems to support these conclusions. First, it points to how Finnish teachers are putting their priorities in when they are utilizing ICT pedagogically: the very process of scientific reasoning is at locus. Second, the results show that the weight on exploratory and inquiry-based activities is at the core of the pedagogy propagated by the Finnish teachers.

  • The items conserning the teachers practice are also used in order to make the constructs regarding the teacher’s pedagogical practice-orientation. Combined with the construct for the teachers visions (or curriculum goal orientations as it is called), this yields interesiting results. KLIKK
  • This is the results for the mathematics teachers in the three countries. Results for Science teachers are quite similar

    All teachers promote a vision of their pedagogical orientation where lifelong learning goals are ranked highest. But when the same teachers are reporting on their practice, traditional orientated practice is prevailing. The mean score for connectedness orientation is also declining from curriculum goal-orientation to reported practice.

    This tendency is also present for most of the participating countries in SITES. Norway, Finland and Denmark is still standing out, with teachers that promotes visions of a life-long learning orientation. Reform-oriented and egalitarian school systems and school policies can possibly explain this tendency as a political correctness amongst the teachers. Another way to see these results is to look at the teachers as lacking resources or constricted in some way to put their visions into action.

  • One interesting question is if the teachers that are using ICT according to the Table 2 above, are more likely to promote visions of lifelong learning than their non ICT-using colleagues.

    Both policy in the Nordic countries and the framework for several international studies, among those SITES 2006, are more or less explicit connecting the pedagogical use of ICT with the assumed benefits of a 21st century pedagogy. From this assumption one can draw the conclusion that ICT-using teachers are more inclined to promote visions of life-long learning orientations than non-ICT using teachers.

  • ICT-using teachers are indeed promoting visions of life-long learning orientation higher than their non-ICT-using colleagues. This is a tendency in all three nations, in both subjects, but strongest for Science teachers.
  • We have so far seen that all the three nations have launched huge policy and investment programmes to promote digital literacy and readiness for the information age and that teachers’ pedagogical use of ICT in the three countries are not differing very much from each other. ICT are most widespread in traditional oriented practices, and generally more Norwegian and Danish teachers report to use ICT than the Finnish teachers. The Finnish teachers are in the lead when the uses of ICT specifically concur with their strong tendency to promote a inquiry-based pedagogy. All teachers in the survey promotes stronger visions on 21st century pedagogy than they are they are doing in real practice, and there is a very interesting tendency of teachers that use ICT to stronger promote visions within a life-long learning perspective.

    Generally the question if or if not a teacher is inclined to use ICT in a pedagogical manner, is not correlating with personal background variables. Possibly, this findings support a view of pedagogical use of ICT as partly rooted in the organisational traits of schools and policy frameworks of school systems.

    This leads to understand that pedagogical use of ICT relies on a complex interchange between teachers and the school organisation.


  • AERA 2009: Innovative pedagogial practices in three nordic countries

    1. 1. Innovative pedagogial practices in three nordic countries Network for IT-research and competence in education (ITU) Geir Ottestad University of Oslo, Norway
    2. 2. F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G Innovative practices with ICT  Local context  Embedded in local communities of practice  Dificult to compare?  SITES M2: similar understandings of innovation  SITES 2006 16. april 2009 AREA 2009, San Diego, CA www.itu.no
    3. 3. F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G The Nordic Countries  Denmark  Finland  Norway  Similar but dierent  Welfare systems  High GDP  High level of technology penetration  Language  Homogenous 16. april 2009 AREA 2009, San Diego, CA www.itu.no
    4. 4. F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G Policy initiatives Finland Norway Denmark The Information Programme for ICT in Municipal Society Programme Digital Literacy primary and lower for Education, 2004-2008 secondary Training and education Research 2004-2007 2004-2006 ICT in Norwegian education 2000 - 2003 Denmark´s National strategy for strategy for education, training education learning and research in the and IT: We must information society move on 2001 for 2000-2004 16. april 2009 AREA 2009, San Diego, CA www.itu.no
    5. 5. F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G From policy to the classrom  Curriculum development at the core  Information society raises demands to design of curriculum (Voogt Pelgrum, 2005)  Novel competencies  Life-long learning 16. april 2009 AREA 2009, San Diego, CA www.itu.no
    6. 6. F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G Curriculum initiatives Finland Norway Denmark National Core Knowledge Incremental Curriculum for Basic Promotion 2006 reforms since Education 2004 1990-s 16. april 2009 AREA 2009, San Diego, CA www.itu.no
    7. 7. F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G Student outcomes  Huge investments in ICT in schools last decade  K12 Student-Computer ratios from 1-1 to approx 6-1  Finland outperforming all other countries in PISA  Norway declining in PISA-scores from 2000 to 2006 in reading literacy  Now: Quality in focus  Pointing to the teachers  SITES 2006 teacher data 16. april 2009 AREA 2009, San Diego, CA www.itu.no
    8. 8. F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G SITES 2006 - teachers  Teachers´ pedagogical visions  Teachers´ pedagogical practices 16. april 2009 AREA 2009, San Diego, CA www.itu.no
    9. 9. F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G Curriculum goals “In your teaching of the target class in this school year, how important is it for you to achieve the following goals?” 16. april 2009 AREA 2009, San Diego, CA www.itu.no
    10. 10. F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G Visons - mean scores !  Norwegian teachers favour Life-long learning realtively stronger 16. april 2009 AREA 2009, San Diego, CA www.itu.no
    11. 11. F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G Teachers´ use of ICT  Filter Question: «Do you use ICT in the teaching and learning activities of the target class?» 16. april 2009 AREA 2009, San Diego, CA www.itu.no
    12. 12. F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G Prediction analysis 16. april 2009 AREA 2009, San Diego, CA www.itu.no
    13. 13. F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G Prediction analysis  Background variables  Age  Gender  Experience as teachers  Level of education  Advanced degree in math/science  Possesion of teaching licence 16. april 2009 AREA 2009, San Diego, CA www.itu.no
    14. 14. F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G Prediction analysis  Background variables  Age  Gender  Experience as teachers  Level of education  Advanced degree in math/science  Possesion of teaching licence  .... failed to yield results 16. april 2009 AREA 2009, San Diego, CA www.itu.no
    15. 15. F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G Prediction analysis  Background variables  Age  Gender  Experience as teachers  Level of education  Advanced degree in math/science  Possesion of teaching licence  .... failed to yield results  Possibly exception: weak but significant tendency of lower use for higher educated Finnish teachers. 16. april 2009 AREA 2009, San Diego, CA www.itu.no
    16. 16. F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G Educational background and  Huge dierences in teachers´ levels  No correlation to use of ICT 16. april 2009 AREA 2009, San Diego, CA www.itu.no
    17. 17. F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G Regular or periodical use  Filter Question II: regular or extensive use of ICT 16. april 2009 AREA 2009, San Diego, CA www.itu.no
    18. 18. F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G Students not exposed to ICT  Most ICT-using teachers are using ICT pedagogically just in periods.  ICT is not included in the regular student practice  Contrary to the policy statements and goals made 16. april 2009 AREA 2009, San Diego, CA www.itu.no
    19. 19. F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G Teacher Specific Practices with  12 items concerning use of ICT  Similiar to the items on Teachers´ visons  Can be organised under the labels of traditional, life-long learning and connectedness 16. april 2009 AREA 2009, San Diego, CA www.itu.no
    20. 20. F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G Teacher Specific Practices with  Relatively more Norwegian teachers report use of ICT in most of the specific practices  Exceptions:  Most Finnish teachers use ICT to collaborate with parents or caretakers  Most Danish science teachers utilize ICT to organize and support team-building and collaboration among the students. 16. april 2009 AREA 2009, San Diego, CA www.itu.no
    21. 21. F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G Important Exception  Over 60% of Finnish science teachers used ICT to “help/advise students in exploratory and inquiry activities”, compared to 51% in Norway and 40% in Denmark.  Possible PISA connection? 16. april 2009 AREA 2009, San Diego, CA www.itu.no
    22. 22. F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G Pedagogical Practice-  Practices categorized:  Traditionally important  Life-long learning orientation  Connectedness  Same procedure as with the Teachers´s visions 16. april 2009 AREA 2009, San Diego, CA www.itu.no
    23. 23. F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G Visions and Practice Denmark Vision Practice Finland Vision Practice Norway Vision Practice 0 1 2 3 Traditional orientation Lifelong-learning orientation Connectedness orientation Mathematics teachers Pedagogical orientation from curriculum orientation and practice. Norway, Finland and Denmark 16. april 2009 AREA 2009, San Diego, CA www.itu.no
    24. 24. F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G ICT-Use and Life-Long  Policy and discourse:  connecting pedagogical use of ICT with assumed benefits of a 21st century pedagogy  Are ICT-using teachers more positive towards visions of life-long learing? 16. april 2009 AREA 2009, San Diego, CA www.itu.no
    25. 25. F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G ICT-Use and Life-Long  Suggests connection in all three nations 16. april 2009 AREA 2009, San Diego, CA www.itu.no
    26. 26. F O R S K N I N G S- O G K O M P E T A N S E N E T T V E R K F O R I T I U T D A N N I N G Conclusions  Policy and investments are quite similar  ICT mostly used in traditional practices  Most Norwegian and Danish teachers are users  Use is mainly constrained to periodical work  Finnish teachers most active with ICT in inquiry-based pedagogy  Visions diers from realities  ICT-using teachers promotes life-long learning 16. april 2009 AREA 2009, San Diego, CA www.itu.no

    ×