SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Teacher Education and Educators / 2026 / Volume: 15 Issue: 2

Socio-Ecological Perspectives and the Hierarchy of Collaboration in Finnish Preparatory Education

Tatsiana Shestunova(University of Helsinki)0000-0003-0415-6208
Sirkku Latomaa(Tampere University)0000-0002-6552-6543
Maria Ahlholm(University of Helsinki)0000-0002-4497-5050
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-08-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results show that teachers frequently exchange teaching materials and discuss students’ learning and well-being, whereas more structured forms of collaboration, such as joint lesson planning and co-teaching, remain rare.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examined collaboration among Finnish preparatory education teachers to support newly arrived immigrant students.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Using a mixed-methods design, we analysed survey data from 308 teachers to explore their collaborative practices.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results show that teachers frequently exchange teaching materials and discuss students’ learning and well-being, whereas more structured forms of collaboration, such as joint lesson planning and co-teaching, remain rare.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:teacher collaboration · preparatory education · socio-ecological framework

Abstract

This study examined collaboration among Finnish preparatory education teachers to support newly arrived immigrant students. Using a mixed-methods design, we analysed survey data from 308 teachers to explore their collaborative practices. A socio-ecological perspective was combined with a novel hierarchy of teacher collaboration to capture how individual, institutional, and systemic factors shape everyday professional interaction. The results show that teachers frequently exchange teaching materials and discuss students’ learning and well-being, whereas more structured forms of collaboration, such as joint lesson planning and co-teaching, remain rare. Key barriers include time limits, geographical isolation and weak institutional support. The findings suggest that collaboration in preparatory education is uneven and often confined to lower levels of engagement. By integrating socio-ecological and hierarchical perspectives, the study clarifies why deeper collaboration is difficult to sustain and provides practical implications for teacher education, school leadership, and policy development aimed at strengthening collaborative capacity in linguistically diverse school settings.

🔖

Cite This Article

Shestunova, T., Latomaa, S., Ahlholm, M. (2026). Socio-Ecological Perspectives and the Hierarchy of Collaboration in Finnish Preparatory Education. Journal of Teacher Education and Educators, Volume: 15 Issue: 2. https://ajindex.com/articles/1514031

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (35)

  1. Akinyi Obondo, M. (2018). Teachers of newcomer immigrants in provincial schools in Sweden: A quest for culturally responsive teaching in the era of homogenization. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education, 12(3), 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/15595692.2017.1414794
  2. Aronson, J. (1995). A pragmatic view of thematic analysis. The Qualitative Report, 2(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/1995.2069
  3. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
  4. DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2013). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work. Solution Tree Press.
  5. Finnish National Agency for Education. (2022). Primary and lower secondary education in Finland. https://www.oph.fi/sites/default/files/documents/Primary%20and%20lower%20secondary%20education%20in%20Finland-2022-Net-RGB_0.pdf
  6. Forte, A. M., & Flores, M. A. (2012). Potenciar o desenvolvimento profissional e a colaboração docente na escola. Cadernos de Pesquisa, 42(147), 900–919. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-15742012000300014
  7. Haapaniemi, J., Venäläinen, S., Malin, A., & Palojoki, P. (2021). Teacher autonomy and collaboration as part of integrative teaching – Reflections on the curriculum approach in Finland. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 53(4), 546–562. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2020.1759145
  8. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. Teachers College Press.
  9. Hedman, C., & Magnusson, U. (2021). Introductory classes for newcomer primary school students in Sweden: Pedagogical principles and emotional understanding. Multicultural Education Review, 13(1), 85–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/2005615X.2021.1890309
  10. Heino, H., & Jauhiainen, J. S. (2020). Immigration in the strategies of municipalities in Finland. Nordic Journal of Migration Research, 10(3), 73–89.https://doi.org/10.33134/njmr.345
  11. Hiltunen, M., Mikkonen, E., & Laitinen, M. (2020). Metamorphosis: Interdisciplinary art-based action research addressing immigration and social integration in Northern Finland. In G. Coutts & T. Eça (Eds.), Learning through art: International perspectives (pp. 380–405). International Society for Education through Art (InSEA).
  12. Kangasvieri, T., Huhta, A., & Kalaja, P. (2023). Motivoimalla monikieliseksi maailmankansalaiseksi [Motivation as a way of becoming a multilingual global citizen]. In A. Pitkänen-Huhta, K. Mård-Miettinen & T. Nikula (Eds.), Kielikoulutus mukana muutoksessa – Language education engaging in change (pp. 30–53). AFinLA-teema no. 16. AFinLA. https://doi.org/10.30660/afinla.126744
  13. Kini, T., & Podolsky, A. (2016). Does teaching experience increase teacher effectiveness? A review of the research. Learning Policy Institute. https://doi.org/10.54300/625.642
  14. Lakkala, S., Galkienė, A., Navaitienė, J., Cierpiałowska, T., Tomecek, S., & Uusiautti, S. (2021). Teachers supporting students in collaborative ways – An analysis of collaborative work creating supportive learning environments for every student in a school: Cases from Austria, Finland, Lithuania, and Poland. Sustainability, 13(5), Article 2804. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052804
  15. Lavonen, J., Mahlamäki-Kultanen, S., Vahtivuori-Hänninen, S., & Mikkola, A. (2020). A collaborative design for a Finnish teacher education development programme. Journal of Teacher Education and Educators, 9(2), 241–262. https://www.jtee.org/a-collaborative-design-for-a-finnish-teacher-education-development-programme/
  16. Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509–536. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146819009100403
  17. McLeroy, K. R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., & Glanz, K. (1988). An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly, 15(4), 351–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019818801500401
  18. Mora-Ruano, J. G., Heine, J.-H., & Gebhardt, M. (2019). Does teacher collaboration improve student achievement? Analysis of the German PISA 2012 sample. Frontiers in Education, 4, Article 85. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00085
  19. Nagel, B., & Partelow, S. (2022). A methodological guide for applying the social-ecological system (SES) framework: A review of quantitative approaches. Ecology and Society, 27(4), Article 39 https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13493-270439
  20. Niemi, H. (2015). Teacher professional development in Finland: Towards a more holistic approach. Psychology, Society & Education, 7(3), 279–294.
  21. Norozi, S. A. (2023). The important building blocks of newcomer immigrant students’ education in the Norwegian context. Frontiers in Education, 7, Article 1084053. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1084053
  22. Rautaparta-Pennanen, K., Kekkonen, M., Collin, K., Böök, M. L., & Rönkä, A. (2024). Interprofessional collaboration in family support in low-threshold open meeting places for families in Finland: Professionals’ narratives. International Journal of Social Pedagogy, 13(1), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444.ijsp.2024.v13.x.011
  23. Rummler, K. (2014). Foundations of socio-cultural ecology: Consequences for media education and mobile learning in schools. MedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung, 24, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.21240/mpaed/24/2014.07.10.X
  24. Schleifer, D., Rinehart, C., & Yanisch, T. (2017). Teacher collaboration in perspective: A guide to research. Public Agenda.
  25. Scoular, C., Duckworth, D., Heard, J., & Ramalingam, D. (2020). Collaboration: Definition and structure. Australian Council for Educational Research. https://research.acer.edu.au/ar_misc/39
  26. Shestunova, T. (2022). Teachers’ challenges in preparatory classes: A socio-ecological perspective. Teachers and Teaching, 28(4), 496–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2022.2062750
  27. Sinkkonen, H.-M., & Kyttälä, M. (2014). Experiences of Finnish teachers working with immigrant students. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29(2), 167–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2014.891719
  28. Stokols, D. (1996). Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion. American Journal of Health Promotion, 10(4), 282–298. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-10.4.282
  29. Tajic, D., & Bunar, N. (2023). Do both ‘get it right’? Inclusion of newly arrived migrant students in Swedish primary schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 27(3), 288–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1841838
  30. Taylor, B. B., Wingren, M., Bengs, A., Katz, H., & Acquah, E. (2023). Educators’ perspectives related to preparatory education and integration training for immigrants in Finland. Teaching and Teacher Education, 128, Article 104129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104129
  31. TENK. (2023). The Finnish code of conduct for research integrity and procedures for handling alleged violations of research integrity in Finland 2023. Publications of the Finnish National Board of Research Integrity TENK 4/2023. https://tenk.fi/sites/default/files/2023-11/RI_Guidelines_2023.pdf
  32. The Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 19–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12301
  33. Venäläinen, S., Laimi, T., Seppälä, S., Vuojus, T., Viitala, M., Ahlholm, M., Latomaa, S., Mård-Miettinen, K., Nirkkonen, M., Huhtanen, M., & Metsämuuronen, J. (2022). Kielellisiä taitoja ja koulunkäyntivalmiuksia: Valmistavan opetuksen ja oman äidinkielen opetuksen tila ja vaikuttavuus -arviointi [Linguistic skills and capacities to attend school – evaluation of preparatory education and instruction in the student’s own mother tongue]. Finnish Education Evaluation Centre FINEEC. https://www.karvi.fi/fi/julkaisut/kielellisia-taitoja-ja-koulunkayntivalmiuksia-0
  34. Webs, T., & Holtappels, H. G. (2018). School conditions of different forms of teacher collaboration and their effects on instructional development in schools facing challenging circumstances. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 3(1), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-03-2017-0006
  35. Woodland, R., Lee, M. K., & Randall, J. (2013). A validation study of the Teacher Collaboration Assessment Survey. Educational Research and Evaluation, 19(5), 442–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2013.795118