2006:47 R

Degree projects in the new teacher training programmes

The appraisal has been entrusted to 14 subject experts, organised as 7 assessment pairs. Of the 14 assessors 8 are professors and the other 6 senior lecturers. Each assessor has reviewed 16 papers which have also been appraised by the other member of each pair. Each of them has then reviewed an additional 10 papers. Altogether, 364 appraisals have been made. Quality assessment has been based on seven aspects: links with research, formulation of problems, theoretical awareness, methodology, theory-empiricism, use of language and compliance with formal requirements as well as the level of difficulty of the subject undertaken. Each aspect has been assessed on a scale of five. In addition the assessors have made their overall judgement of the paper. Here too a scale of five has been used, in which 1 = fail, 2 = doubtful pass, 3 = pass, 4 = pass with credit and 5 = excellent. It was also possible to include a comment and/or a feature in the assessment of each paper. The academic standard was also reviewed by a separate assessor.

Every year thousands of degree papers are produced in the course of teacher training programmes in Sweden. This requires the services of a large number of supervisors and examiners with advanced academic qualifications. In the selection appraised a large proportion of the supervisors (58 per cent) and examiners (91 per cent) had PhD´s. It is evident that as far as possible the higher education institutions endeavour to ensure that teachers with research qualifications are involved in the courses that include these degree papers. In view of the fact that the proportion of teachers with PhD´s in teacher training programmes overall is relatively restricted, this prompts questions about what effects this may have on the provision of teachers with PhD´s for other elements of the programmes, on the numbers of students each supervisor is responsible for and also the possibility of being supervised by a teacher who is qualified in the specific subject area of each paper.

A typical paper in a teacher training programme has been written by two women and comprises just over 30 pages. The papers are based on a qualitative methodology and the data has been collected through interviews. The premises and references to theory and to research primarily involve various forms of secondary literature, for example Swedish works from the reading lists. Tables and diagrams are rarely used for the presentation of results. A typical paper will have been considered of pass standard by the assessors, which is also the grade it was given. There are rarely problems with the use of language and formal requirements or with the organisation of the paper, on the contrary the majority of the papers were considered satisfactory from this point of view. The same is true of the selection of the problem, which is often linked to future careers and/or some current subject. The problems that are highlighted and that can be identified even in typical papers relate, for instance, to normativity, their theoretical foundations and the critical capacity of the students. This also includes the frequent use of a qualitative methodology, or more precisely interviews.

Of the papers that have been awarded the grade of pass in the teacher training programmes there are only a small proportion that the assessors considered were overall of fail standard (4 per cent) and none that they rated excellent. On the other hand a relatively large number of the papers that were awarded the grade of pass were considered by the external assessors to be either doubtful passes or passes with credit. For a number of reasons this is hardly surprising. On the one hand grades are awarded on the basis of more than overall assessment of the quality of the paper, so that some differences are partly to be expected. For instance the grade given for a paper is for both the product and the process leading up to it. In addition the scale used for the overall appraisal of the papers as a whole is more detailed than the one used for awarding grades, which allows a greater degree of precision in assessing those of pass standard. Some variations can, however, be discerned between the papers awarded pass with credit in the teacher training programmes and the overall assessment of the external reviewers. On the whole the shift was downwards.

The limited sample used in this study provides no basis for generalisation, nor was it intended to. The aim has rather been to focus on a number of problems and issues that have implications for further developments of degree papers. For this reason in the concluding chapter of the report we indicate a number of questions that have been raised and that could also constitute central areas for development:

• The predominance of qualitative methodologies seems to restrict the scope open to students to formulate new findings. The range of methodologies needs to be enlarged,
• Shortcomings in the theoretical grounding of certain aspects as well as in links with research indicate a need for concretisation of the way in which theory and empiricism can be linked to each other in the process of analysis and interpretation.
• From the material two models clearly emerge - a production model and a consumption model. The latter is used mainly in the nursing programme. In the sample of papers appraised links to both national and international research are strong in those that use the consumption model. These two models give rise to questions about what focus different papers could adopt and how the models could enrich each other.
• Documents from the higher education institutions indicate that a great deal is being done to improve the degree papers in courses. Measures have been adopted to improve their formal qualities and this does not primarily seem to be where a basis could be sought for further improvement of the quality of independent work. Study guides, grading criteria and various forms of Internet-based support are offered at virtually every higher education institution. The documents show that training is being offered for supervisors, quality appraisals and evaluations are being undertaken and meetings arranged to enable staff to discuss work with the papers. In this connection, at a number of higher education institutions discussions are being held about the need to further clarify what is expected of the students and how papers are to be assessed. We have also been able to observe a somewhat different standpoint, which instead of laying down more unambiguous criteria rather concerns the possibility of professional dialogue about the papers. As we see it, this is a question of the relationship between control and autonomy for both students and teachers.