Ph.D.
JARI LAVONENReception:
Wednesday 16-17 room 431
Department of Teacher Education, University of Helsinki
Centre for Research and Development in the Pedagogy of Mathematical Sciences
P.O. Box 38 (Ratakatu 6 A)
FIN-00014 UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI
FINLAND
+ 358 9 191 28138 (work)
+ 358 9 274 2521 (home)
+ 358 500 601 257 (nmt)
+ 358 9 191 28114 (fax)
JARI.LAVONEN@HELSINKI.FI (e-mail)
- MA, University of Helsinki, 1984
- Teacher Diploma, University of Helsinki, 1984
- Lic. of Phil., University of Helsinki, 1991
- Doctoral thesis in science education, University of Helsinki, 1996
- Lecturer in Physics and Chemistry,
University Teacher Training School, 1985 - 1992
- Senior Lecturer in Science (physics and chemistry) education,
University of
Helsinki, Department of Teacher Education, 1992 -
My work includes:
- research and development work in science education,
- organising and implementing pre- and in-service teacher training workshops and
courses on teaching methodology and how to utilise modern information and
communication technology in physics and chemistry education as well as giving
workshop on new teaching practices for pre-service teacher trainers, and
supervising their teaching practice,
- developing new curricula, new teaching materials and teaching practices and
experimenting with them in class, reporting the results of the experiments so
that they can be implemented in ordinary school.
Since 1985 I had organised over 500 in-service training courses and workshops for teachers in the sciences mainly in the fields of chemistry and physics (special emphasis on developing teaching methods and utilisation of computer aided teaching techniques). Moreover I am a textbook and teaching materials designer: Co-author of total of 43 textbooks in physics and chemistry for primary and secondary level schools; Prepared teachers' manuals (19) and guidebooks on utilisation of information and communication technologies in teaching chemistry and physics (10).
I work in the area of science and technology education. My areas of research include MBL in school laboratory, teaching and learning electronics, learning programming and teachers inservice education.
Currently I am making research work inside the modern learning environment project, LUONTI (1995 - 2000). The project was founded in autumn 1995 with the view that the MICT (Modern Information and Communication Technology) will lead to a situation, where teaching no longer distributes individual facts, but helps students effectively to collect, process, and evaluate information, as well as to structure large areas of knowledge. The Empirica measurement system for Science Education project (the EMSE) and Empirica Control for Technology Education, the ECTE project are examples of the projects inside the LUONTI project. The general goal is to provide new, innovative and versatile learning materials and equipment for science and technology education. It means that computer programs, interfaces and sensors for school laboratories, teachers’ guides, and some textbooks for schools have been developed. There is also an in-service training programme for teachers demonstrating the versatility of the approaches.
Inside the Empirica Control for Technology Education (ECTE) project we organise a teaching experiment for 34 eighth-grade students in a learning environment designed to promote active and co-operative learning. The learning environment was described by the Open Market metaphor and was equipped with kits, interfaces and computers using a visual programming tool, Empirica Control, developed by us. Data gathered by videotaping teacher interviews and observations during a teaching experiment showed clearly that the learning was active and co-operative. Students learned to use the programming tool autonomously in their technology projects. Teacher support was however needed and it seemed important for him/her to introduce to the students such things as handbooks, planning tools and ideation technique.
Earlier I was a leader of a Get Electronics Project, the GEP in years 1995 - 1997. The GEP tried to develop new approaches to teach and learn the basics of electricity and electronics in Finnish upper comprehensive schools. The aim of the project was to support science and technology teachers in three main areas: (i) planning and implementing courses in the basics of electricity and electronics; (ii) preparing study materials including a kit for experimenting with electricity and electronics; and (iii) developing modes of interaction between industry, and science and technology instruction in schools. In the evaluation of the project the effectiveness of the project was investigated i.e., whether those 120 teachers taking part in the project actually arranged courses using the themes, and how the teachers appreciated our co-operation with industry. The results of the evaluation showed that the GEP was successful in helping to develop the teaching of basics of electronics and electricity. The study also confirmed that a reform aiming at promoting working methods of experimental science in teaching will be boosted if the participating schools and teachers are supported by providing study materials. The study further verified that important factors when introducing an educational innovation in schools include clarification of the aim and purpose of the innovation in co-operation with the users of the materials, as well as further development of the materials in collaboration with them. A reform project as such is not capable of changing school, teaching, and learning-not without teachers and students working together. The study also showed that if more than just one teacher from a school participate, this would be beneficial to the reform project. Social interaction is characteristic to developmental processes as it is to all types of learning; learning and development is co-operative also in the teaching profession. The study seemed to confirm that training in a development project is better if it is carried out in two reciprocal modes: distance and contact teaching. This will keep up participating teachers' interest and enthusiasm; and learning and developing professional skills might become cumulative.
Other research interests are:
MBL:
- http://www.malux.edu.helsinki.fi:8080/kirjasto/mbl/
Technology education:
- Creativity
in Design and Technology Education: A Case Study in the
Education of Primary School Teachers
Abstracts: http://www.malux.edu.helsinki.fi/tiedotus/henkilokunta/main.htm
I am working in the area of science and technology teacher education with both primary school student teachers and upper secondary school student teachers (subject teachers). I have been active in developing method for utilising information and communication technology in science (physics and chemistry) education and preparation of guidebooks for curriculum development, utilising information and communication technology in science education and utilising different models of teaching in science education and teacher education.
Primary school teachers are teaching all subjects (e.g, math, design, music, science) at grades 1 - 6 (pupils 7 - 13 years old). All primary school teachers receive their initial training in 9 universities (in Finland). For example about 80 teachers graduate every year at the University of Helsinki. Education or pedagogy is the main subject of primary teacher students at the University of Helsinki. The study programme (160 credits) normally takes four years to complete and students obtain the M.Sc. degree. Me lectures and group activities gives 1 to 3 of the 35 credits allocated for the students’ basic studies in the various primary school subjects, including the pedagogy and integration of these subject areas.
Subject teachers (e.g., mathematics, physics and chemistry teachers) are teaching subject (e.g, physics) at grades 7 - 9 (pupils 12 - 15 years old) in upper comprehensive school and at grades 10 - 12 (students 15 - 18 years old) in high school. All subject teachers receive their initial training in 7 our universities in Finland. For example about 50 physics teachers graduate every year in whole Finland and about 15 of them at the University of Helsinki. The duration of training takes 5 years on average, and students obtain the M.Sc. degree, for which they need 160 credits minimum (one credit equals one week of 40 studying hours). Master thesis is written in subject, e.g., physics.
For example the basics of physics are studied during the first two years together with students of other physical sciences, such as theoretical physics and geophysics. After that students study advanced courses, which are different for physics teacher students and other physics students. Physics for teachers includes 4 courses: Basics of Educational Physics, the Structure of School Physics, the History of Physics and the Advanced Laboratory Course for Physics Teachers. Physics teachers always take at least one other subject (35 credits), such as mathematics, chemistry, and computer science at the university.
Subject teacher students study the pedagogical studies at the Department of Teacher Education of the university. These studies amount to a total of 35 credits and they include general pedagogy (12 credits), pedagogy of subject (e.g., physics) (10 credits), teacher training in the Teacher training college (13). Studies in general pedagogy consist of educational philosophy and psychology, general education (models of teaching, evaluation,), adult education, methodology in education and training of social skills. Studies in pedagogy of subject (e.g., physics) consist of lectures, groupwork and seminar. The paper (B.Sc. thesis) which is made in seminar has to be done according to principles of educational research. The subject (e.g., physics) teacher students train their teaching skills on the guidance of college physics teachers. During the training in the college the physics teacher students are working in co-operative groups according to the principles of peer coaching. They are also writing portfolios with the aim to help their reflective thinking.
The goal of the pedagogical studies can be described with the metaphor of the Professionally Thinking Teacher, who observes relevant pedagogical theories and not only his/her own experience when making decisions in the singular teaching/learning situations. This is a more demanding form of reflective thinking and here in Finland it relates back to the school of Koskenniemi (1978, 197-198; 223-226). A professionally thinking teacher has a number of tools at his/her disposal. There are different theories and theoretical or practical models, and metaphors to help the teacher to tackle the problems of each unique teaching/learning situation. It is actually the ability to include outcome of educational research through theories or otherwise, that makes a teacher a truly academic professional. It is considered important, that a teacher (student) does not think of a single teaching method to solve all pedagogical problems in the classroom. In the metaphor there are some parallels to the "Toolkit" metaphor as used for instance by Nichols & al. (1997). The metaphor can be compared also with the idea of models of teaching as advocated by Joyce & al. (1996).
We think that the general approach to reflective thinking (cf. e.g. Cruikschank, 1987; Taggart & Wilson 1998) does not focus on the use of pedagogical theories or research results in a way suggested here. For example findings in educational psychology show that powerful learning is active, co-operative, cumulative, constructive, situated, goal-oriented and self regulatory. In Finland this research-oriented focus has been advocated on the basis of the professional level (M.Ed.) of teacher education.
The concept of learning environment was widely introduced in Finland in the beginning of 1990 to underline the new roles of a teacher and a student. The teacher was supposed to be transformed from a disseminator of knowledge to a person who is a tutor, a coordinator and a facilitator or a consultant of a learning environments, who guides and supports students' learning. Correspondingly, a student was seen as an active organizer of his or her own structure of knowledge, skills (e.g. creative, co-operative and especially cognitive skills), and personality in real study context. Therefore an Open Market model -metaphor for teacher education was developed. This metaphor is used especially for the modern teaching/learning environment rich in information technology and laboratory equipment etc. and with global connections over Internet.
Cruickshank, D. Reflective Teaching. The Preparation of Students of Teaching. Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators.
Joyce, B., Weil, M. & Showers, B. 1996. Models of teaching. 5th ed., Boston : Allyn & Bacon.
Koskenniemi, M. 1978. Opetuksen teoriaa kohti. Helsinki: Otava
Nichols, S., Tippins, D. & Wieseman, K. 1997. A "Toolkit" for Developing Critically Reflective Science Teachers. Research in Science Education 27(2), 175-194.
Taggart, G. & Wilson, A. 1998. Promoting Reflective Thinking in Teachers. 44 Action Strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Member of the National Curriculum Development Committee
Member of the National Matriculation Examination Committee years 1998-
Board of the department 1998 - 2000
Curriculum design groups in years 1996, 1998, 2000
Secretary of the strategy group for Information and communication technology in
Educational Faculty 1994, 2000.
.
Reward for developing Information and communication
technology in university teaching, Rector of the University of Helsinki, 1999.
Reward for developing models of teaching, Federation of Finnish Electrical and Electronics Industry, 1999
Gold badge of merit, Association for Finnish Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and
Computer Science Teacher Association, 2000
I am author of several textbooks on science teacher education and for schools. Therefore writing textbooks is one of my hoby. Moreover I am a brewer and interested in gardening. Of course I am playing with my children Juhani and Liisa.
Juhani
Liisa