The Hungarian Institute for Educational Research and Development has the leading role in coordinating the whole project. Our task is to facilitate the synergy between development processes of different HEI consortiums related to Central Hungarian and convergence region project components. We interpreted this task as a facilitator and moderator role, which aims to make possible the participant TE institutions to share their development experiences, and to present and discuss the results together. We thus organized expert groups from representatives of the involved teacher training universities.
As the responsible for the national coordination component of TÁMOP 4.1.2B our institute has a moderate budget related to the project. We use these financial resources to organize workshops where TE institutions have opportunity to share their own development experiences. In parallel we give TE institutions clear orientations through targeted researches and developments. The mentioned workshops provide an opportunity to disseminate and discuss the results of these targeted tenders as well. This is an important element of our implementation strategy. Due to the autonomy of higher education institutions and the fact, that the consortiums lead their own, mostly independent tenders under the umbrella of TÁMOP 4.1.2B Project, as coordinators we are in a very sensitive position.
Our approach is inspired by implementation models which interpret policy change as synthesis of top-down and bottom-up processes (Sabatier, 2005, Fazekas and Halász, 2005). In this project we tried to give top-down inputs through the targeted researches and developments, but we also created and managed different professional communication forums for participating institutions to bring in and share their own developments, experiences and difficulties.
3. Theoretical consideration behind our coordination activity
Our coordination actions are based on consideration of a broader perspective of European and Hungarian higher education changes. As an EU and EHEA member state Hungary currently implements its national qualification framework. Of course the Hungarian Qualification Framework is based on learning outcome approach, which expects HEIs to apply a new understanding of teaching and learning, and related to that expects them to develop a new, complex way of curriculum design in their study programs, which is different from the traditional solution. According to Adam, learning outcomes are multipurpose tools. At the international level learning outcomes play a central role in translating the qualifications of different member states to a common language and through that help to provide real transparency. At the national level they are tools for describing the national qualification system, and to help improve quality assurance and development through level descriptor based standards. At institutional level they have a vital role in designing the learning-teaching processes, in validation procedures and in quality assurance of study programs as well. As Adam writes: "learning outcomes are at the heart of a paradigm change that is impacting on all sectors of European education" (Adam, 2008)
The learning outcome based curriculum design is strongly student and process centered. The first step is to describe the appropriate learning outcomes, which are “statements of what a student is expected to know, understand and/or be able to demonstrate after completion of a process of learning” (Kennedy, 2007). According to Biggs, it is very important to ensure the alignment between the intended learning outcomes, the learning activities and the evaluation of the students (Biggs, 2007). The study programs in this approach are aligned, constantly evolving systems with well-designed learning-teaching processes. It is a huge difference compared to a traditional, faculty and course centered approach.
Learning outcomes are usually described through competences. The – more or less fuzzy – concept of competences emerged from the world of human resource management and human resource development (Delamare le Deist and Winterton, 2005). Of course it is not a coincidence. In the knowledge based society the economy has a stronger connection with education than ever before. It means that in certain areas Education has begun to use the terms and concepts of the world of work. It is also unsurprising that in learning outcome based curriculum design the communication and cooperation with the world of work became vital. Thus – if they take the learning outcome approach seriously – HEIs must intensively cooperate with external actors.
It means that individual actors in higher education as well as the whole HE organization must act differently – much more opened and conscious – than before and it hardly affects the teacher education institutions. Therefore – wherever we could – we tried to support these changes through our coordination activity.
4. Questions and difficulties emerged during the project
Probably the first question emerges in a complex teacher education development project is related to the interpretation of teacher education itself. How can we characterize the teacher education?
What should be its position in the higher education organization? As we previously mentioned the
complex knowledge production processes in our society based on interdisciplinary teamwork. The teacher education itself can also be seen as a manifestation of these processes. Teacher training is a complex task, because the teacher candidates must be prepared to work for an education system, which meets the demands of today's and even tomorrow's society and economy. Of course teacher education – besides the needs raised by wider social context – must take into consideration the professional and individual aspects as well. This task can only be solved within an intensive interdisciplinary and intersectoral collaboration.
Following from that emerges the next question: what are the main characteristics and organizational needs of a learning outcome based TE program? Teacher education meets the above described requirements only in the case, when we are able to involve other actors of society beside the existing expertise of the TE. As we discussed earlier the knowledge based social context and the learning outcome based approach generally fosters the intersectoral and interdisciplinary cooperation in curriculum design. However teacher education has a unique position regarding to interdisciplinarity. A variety of different faculties necessarily take part in TE activities of a higher education institution. Their work must be well aligned to provide a coherent learning experience for TE students. TTCs – which are according to a new Hungarian legislation operating in Hungary since September 2013 – can have an important role in that coordination. On one hand this means that a TTC needs to organize the TE activities of the concerned faculties within the university organization. On the other hand they have to integrate the knowledge of the non-academic areas which areas involve the world of primary and secondary schools and also a wide variety of affected economic and social groups. In this case these external actors represent the world of work for prospective teachers.
Drótos described the program-director model as the solution for contradiction between the traditional disciplinary oriented structure of universities and the interdisciplinary demands of the knowledge society (Drótos, 2009). The model has two main elements. First it describes a study program as a responsibility and accountability unit. It means, that resources and managerial responsibilities are assigned to program directorates, but also makes them responsible for the use of these opportunities. The second element is the matrix organization structure, which creates the opportunity for organizational units with different specialization principles - in this case for the faculties/departments and the program directorates – to cooperate as equal partners in developing and working on the study program. A Teacher Training Centre can be described as a program directorate for a really complex study program. Of course TTC needs resources, authority and autonomy to operate as equal partner for faculties/departments, and the newly formed TTCs have great issues with that. It is worth to mention here Bela Pukánszky’s study (Pukánszky, 2012), who reacted quickly to the TTC establishing regulations. The study shows that a similar system was already organized in the Hungarian higher education in the Early 1900s, which could not work properly due to the lack of new authorities, which are still missing today. As the current legislation itself is quiet laconic, we can identify a variety of solutions in Hungarian HEIs for describing the role of TTCs in the structure of the university organization, but these solutions do not answer the above mentioned essential problem related to resources, authority and autonomy.
As we previously mentioned we are in a very sensitive position. the Hungarian Institute for Educational Research and Development is not the leader of the TÁMOP 4.1.2B project, just the responsible organization for the national coordination component. There is no hierarchical relationship between our institute and the participating TE institutions; we are equal partners in this project, which in our opinion is a good setting for cooperation. Of course that means that we do not have direct influence on the project processes of other participating institutions, or on their inner organizational structure. We must use softer, more sophisticated tools to orient our partners. We created an environment for continuous discussion, and to foster the participating HEIs development processes through different targeted researches and developments.
5. Targeted researches and developments conceptualized by national coordination component
Five major targeted research and development (R&D) activates have been initiated by the Hungarian Institute for Educational Research and Development related to this project. One of these (1) aims to establish and recommend operational standards for TTCs under the leadership of the Hungarian Accreditation Committee. The proposal based on the overview of related international good practices and on the analysis of Hungarian experiences. We expect that as a result of this R&D a clear set of criteria will unfold for the quality development of TTCs and TE study programs they coordinate. If this proposal can prevail, the position of TTCs in teacher education universities likely will be strengthened.
Besides the good functioning teacher education system the images in the society related to teachers and the teaching profession are also important. Thus we launched an R&D, which examined the social perception of teacher profession in different countries, and related to that revealed the strategies
these countries use for popularization of the teacher profession (2). The results can be good sources for the related Hungarian developments of the future.
We also have a leading role in the creation of an e-database for teacher education related researches (3). We would like to collect data about all study programs of Hungarian teacher training universities as well and make this information available through the e-database. The research register besides storing researchable and statistically processable contents, also offers opportunities for networking through creating research and/or training cooperation and for strengthening the relationship between public education and teacher education through the inclusion of public education related contents (e.g. practices, problems and issues).
We initiated a further R&D, in which requested TE institutions examined their own TE study program to find out how the crosscurricular areas represented in Hungarian National curriculum appear in it (4). They all develop strategic plans built upon the results of their self-evaluation, to orient their further developments. The findings and the strategies will be presented and discussed soon at a conference organized by our institute.
The latest legislative changes occurred during our project made it necessary to lunch our fifth R+D at the field of vocational education TE as well (5). The initiative aims to reveal the organizational needs related to the new legislation as well as the relation of the institutional level VET curriculums to the national curriculum.
6. Results so far
The previously mentioned five targeted activities initiated by the Hungarian Institute for Educational Research and Development are progressing well. We have recently supplied the first finished background studies related to the R&D aims to establish operational standards for TTCs. The international analysis of social perception of and popularization strategies for teacher profession has been done. The online interface for the research and study program register is also ready, and the uploading with data by TE institutions is about to begin. The fourth R&D related to the appearance of the national curriculum crosscurricular areas finishes soon. The VET-related R&D is now under preparation.
In parallel with our initiatives the development processes of partner TE institutions are also progressing well, and interesting outcomes were obtained related to them. Many institutions developed actual contents. Program elements, learning materials, trainings have been developed, tested and shared through different conferences and workshops organized by the developer consortiums or by our institute.
The question of mentor teachers is a recurring issue in the projects of our partner TE institutions.
The training for mentor teachers – which is a relative new TE supporting function in our public educations– is required by law; however the legislation does not describe the nature of this new function in detail. Thus multiple initiatives emerged related to this topic within the TÁMOP 4.1.2B project. The experts at the University of West Hungary developed their own good practice, and they are ready to share it with other TE institutions. At the University of Pannonia a specific study program has been designed for mentor teachers as well.
Eörvös Loránd University has another interesting development related to the expanded, one year school practice. The concept they developed (Czető et alI, 2015) presents the connection between the one year school practice at the end of the initial teacher training and the shorter practices take place earlier in TE programs. Their study highlights the problems of the current legal regulations, for example the lack of career socialization practices. They interpret the expanded practice as part of the continuous professional development of teachers. The practice in this concept is enriched with the focus on innovation, research and competence development which is consistent with the needs of the knowledge based society and the previously described learning outcome approach as well.
As we have seen the cooperation between the participating institutions was a mainly good experience for our partners. The participants gave positive feedback on our workshops, and they seemed to be excited about the new opportunities related to reconsidering their TE programs on a learning outcome based approach. Of course they identified different financial, organizational and time management difficulties related to it. For us it was a really interesting experience to work with these experts. As facilitators of the interinstitutional dialogue we learned a lot about the nature and functioning of teacher education and teacher educators. We are motivated to share our experiences on this special facilitator role as broad as possible.
References
Adam, S. (2008): Learning Outcomes Current Developments in Europe: Update on the Issues and Applications of Learning Outcomes Associated with the Bologna Process, Bologna Seminar:
Learning outcomes based higher education: the Scottish experience, 21 - 22 February 2008, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland
Allen, J. and van der Velden, R. (Eds. 2007): The Flexible Professional in the Knowledge Society:
General Results of the REFLEX Project, Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market, Maastricht University
Barber, M. and Mourshed, M. (2007): How the world’s best-performing schools come out on top McKinsey&Company.
Biggs, J. B. and Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university. Open University Press/Mc Graw-Hill Education.
Delamare le Deist, F. and Winterton, J. (2005): What Is Competence? Human Resource Development International 8. 1. sz. 27-46. p.
Drótos György (2009): Integrált szakmai és gazdasági felelősség a felsőoktatási intézményekben – Az oktatási programigazgatói modell In: Drótos György – Kováts Gergely (szerk.): Felsőoktatás-menedzsment, AULA Kiadó, Budapest, 109-133.
Fazekas Ágnes and Halász Gábor (2012): Az implementáció világa. Az európai uniós forrásokból megvalósított magyarországi oktatásfejlesztési beavatkozások empirikus vizsgálatának elméleti megalapozása. ELTE PPK, Felsőoktatás-menedzsment Intézeti Központ, Mauscript (http://www.impala.elte.hu/produktumok-i-munkafazis/)
Czető K., Orsolya K., Kopp E., Mészáros Gy., Rapos N., Tókos K., Seresné Busi E. (2015): Javaslat az osztatlan tanárképzés gyakorlati rendszerének átgondolására és a jelenlegi gyakorlatok alapelveinek és funkcióinak meghatározására, Manuscript (http://www.ppk.elte.hu/wp- content/uploads/2015/04/Javaslat-az-osztatlan-tan%C3%A1rk%C3%A9pz%C3%A9s-gyakorlati-
rendszer%C3%A9nek-%C3%A1tgondol%C3%A1s%C3%A1ra-%C3%A9s-a-jelenlegi- gyakorlatok-alapelveinek-%C3%A9s-funkci%C3%B3inak-meghat%C3%A1roz%C3%A1s%C3%A1ra.pdf)
Kennedy, D. (2007): Writing and UsingLearning Outcomes, A Practical Guide, University College Cork (UCC)
Pukánszky, B. (2012) Paradigmák, viták és szervezeti legitimáció – A tanárképző központ történeti előzményei. In: Sokszínű pedagógiai kultúra. Selye János Egyetem, Tanárképző Kar, Komarno, 132-143.
Sabatier, P. (2005) From Policy Implementation to Policy Change: A Personal Odessy In: Gornitzka, A., Kogan M. and Amaral A. (eds.): Reform and Change in Higher Education, Analysing Policy Implementation 17–35. p.
Santiago, P., Tremblay, K., Basri, E., Arnal, E. (2008): Tertiary Education for the Knowledge Society, OECD Thematic Review of Tertiary Education: Synthesis Report, Volume 1 of 3, OECD