Evaluation of primary and lower secondary teacher education

From autumn 2022 to December 2024, NOKUT conducted an evaluation of primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes for grades 1–7 and 5–10 (GLU 1–7 and GLU 5–10).

Content on this page

Purpose and background for the evaluation

The evaluation took place between autumn 2022 and autumn 2024. An important background for the evaluation is NOKUT's development project Advisory Panel for Teacher Education (APT) (2017–2020).

The purpose of the evaluation is to generate knowledge about the quality of primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes and contribute to quality development. We want to facilitate learning, identify challenges and advise on measures.

The purpose of the evaluation was also to contribute to the knowledge base included in the Ministry of Education and Research's white paper on professional education programmes. The white paper on professional education programmes was completed Easter 2024. Work on the framework plans took place in parallel with the report. Results from the evaluation may also be included in this work.

NOKUT's focus on teacher education programmes

The project is part of NOKUT's overall focus on teacher education in recent years, including the APT project for primary and lower secondary teacher education (GLU) and the mapping and evaluation of teacher education programmes. The project is part of NOKUT's work to evaluate, analyse and disseminate information about the quality of Norwegian study programmes. More information about NOKUT's evaluations of programme quality.

The Ministry of Education and Research has also devoted considerable attention to teacher education programmes, highlighted through Teacher Education 2025. National strategy for quality and cooperation in teacher education programmes.

Participation in the evaluation and observer status

The new five-year primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes are offered at 14 higher education institutions (HEIs) in Norway. All institutions except one participated in the evaluation: NOKUT agreed with Steiner University College that they took on an observer role in the evaluation, because their GLU programme was started later than all others. Steiner University College thus probably benefitted more from being an observer, since the evaluation largely focused on the fourth and fifth year of study, which had not yet been implemented at Steiner University College at the start of the evaluation.

Implementation of the evaluation

We put great emphasis on ensuring that the evaluation is useful for primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes and other relevant stakeholders, and that it can be used in further development work at the HEIs and in collaboration with other stakeholders. We therefore believe it is important to involve primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes, other relevant stakeholders and the expert committee in the design of the evaluation, including the choice of topic and approach.

Input meetings

In June 2022, we conducted digital input meetings with each institution that offers primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes and other important stakeholders. In these meetings, we asked for input on which topics it would be useful to look at in the evaluation, and the perspectives and expertise we should include in the evaluation's expert committee.

More information:

  • In the input meetings, we asked for input on which themes and questions the evaluation should focus on. We were particularly interested in knowing whether the four themes identified by the expert group in Transforming Norwegian Teacher Education (APT, 2020) could be relevant to look at in the evaluation, i.e. building research capacity, programme design and integration, partnerships and practical training, and the master's thesis and supervision. From the meetings, it became clear that most stakeholders still perceive the APT themes as relevant and at the same time very comprehensive. However, a couple of years have passed since the report was published and the picture of primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes that was drawn then, needs updated knowledge and nuances.

    Building research capacity

    A challenge related to the academic community's experience and knowledge from the practice schools emerged in the work to build research capacity in the programmes. Here, some institutions are struggling to recruit staff and put together an academic community with the dual expertise (i.e. research expertise and relevant experience and up-to-date knowledge from schools) they believe is needed to ensure practice-oriented and research-based teaching in the new five-year primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes.

    Programme design and integration

    Integration between subjects, subject didactics, pedagogy and practical training remains an important topic for teacher education institutions. From the input meetings, it became very clear that the degree and form of integration varies quite a lot from institution to institution and that institutions face different organisational challenges in their efforts to ensure coherent study programmes. Nevertheless, many were concerned with the "transition" from cycle 1 (first to third year of study) to cycle 2 (fourth to fifth year of study), which points to common challenges with the integration of research capacity throughout the study programme and progression towards the master's thesis. The teacher education institutions also request information about course offerings, course combinations and the number of courses at other institutions, as well as the level and scope of the various courses.

    Partnerships and practical training

    Collaboration with practice schools and progression in practical training were also perceived as relevant topics, but the input meetings provided a more nuanced picture of the situation than before, with great variation across institutions. Some institutions had come further than others, and the challenges varied considerably. Some had close co-operation with schools, with extensive partnership agreements, while others struggled to find relevant practical training for all their students. Nevertheless, the majority of the institutions shared some common challenges in this regard. In addition to the link between practical training and theory, the institutions were also very concerned about how the practical training period can be used as part of the preparation for the work on the master's thesis, and how to collaborate with the practice schools in the work on the master's thesis without overloading the schools. Many also requested information about how other institutions organise practical training, as well as the benefits and challenges associated with the quality and progression of practical training in different models.

    Master's thesis and supervision

    Most participants believed that the new five-year primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes were so new that it had been wise to wait a few years for a national evaluation of the quality of the work on, and structure for, supervision and assessment of the master's theses. The programmes needed more time to learn, to evaluate themselves and to develop in this area. Many representatives also mentioned that their institution is part of the National Network for Master's Supervisors in Teacher Education Programmes. Among other things, the network helped to establish arenas for collaboration and development of structures for supervision and assessment of master's theses and to facilitate competence development among master's supervisors within and across institutions. Nevertheless, the majority of participants believed that it was interesting to focus on how the programmes facilitate progression towards the master's thesis during the course of the programme and how they ensure its relevance for work in schools through evaluation. Many also wondered how other institutions use the practical training period as part of the preparation for the master's thesis and how they use the practice schools in their work on the master's thesis.

    Other topics

    We asked the participants whether there were other topics that could be important to address in the evaluation, such as the division of grades in 1–7 and 5–10 and admission requirements. While only a few felt that it would be useful to look at admission requirements in the evaluation, there was broad agreement that the division of grades, and what this means for the organisation, quality and relevance of primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes, is an important aspect that the evaluation should investigate. In addition to these topics, challenges related to internationalisation, interdisciplinarity, mobility in primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes (e.g. between study subjects), mobility within and between institutions, integration to and from primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes, the work and societal relevance of the programmes (especially the candidates' subject combinations and number of subjects), the transition from education to work in schools, funding, and the balance between institutional autonomy and micromanagement were also mentioned as part of the major quality challenges that primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes are working with.

    Strengths of the primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes

    We were also interested to know what actors with different perspectives at different institutions think are the strengths of the new five-year primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes. There was widespread agreement across institutions that the development of the primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes into master's programmes had many positive aspects. The majority said that the reform has given them the opportunity to educate teachers with a research perspective for the schools of the future. It is a strength for the profession that primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes are research-based, with a view to reflecting on one's own practice and being able to use research in relation to one's own practice. At the same time, a large number of participants believed that students receive good professional development and acquire good professional expertise through the programme. Many also saw specialisation and the fact that candidates acquire specialised insight into a limited subject area through the master's thesis as an absolute strength. Some also mentioned the focus on primary education (‘begynneropplæring’ in Norwegian) in GLU 1–7 as a strength for the teaching profession.

The expert committee

NOKUT's project group prepared a proposal for the composition of the committee based on the Principles for NOKUT evaluations (pdf) and input on what kind of experience, perspectives and expertise should be represented on the evaluation's expert committee. The programmes were given the opportunity to comment on the proposal.

More information:

    • It was desirable that the higher education sector is represented by staff in leading positions and teachers with varied academic backgrounds (pedagogy, humanities/social sciences and science) and teaching experience from GLU 1–7 and/or 5–10.
    • Representatives from the practice schools should be practice teachers, preferably with a combined position, and a school principal.
    • The expert committee should represent both small and large primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes and, if possible, the urban and rural perspective.
    • Several pointed out the need to safeguard the Sami and multicultural perspective in the committee, and that it would be an advantage if one of the members looks at primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes from a Nordic perspective.
    • Furthermore, there must be a student representative on NOKUT's expert committees. In this evaluation, it was considered as an advantage to have two students, one representing GLU 1–7 and the other GLU 5–10.

We recruited the following people to the evaluation's expert committee:

Elaine Munthe (chair) is Professor of Education, UiS. Munthe has previously chaired the Monitoring Group for the primary and lower secondary teacher education reform (2010–2015) and chaired the expert panel that evaluated Danish teacher education (2018). She is head of the Knowledge Centre for Education and programme chair of the Evaluation of the subject renewal (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training).

Randi Solheim is a professor of Norwegian didactics at NTNU. Solheim has extensive experience with teacher education at various levels and with practice-oriented research, including on writing instruction in schools and student teachers' work with subjects in the practice schools. She is also head of the national network for master's supervisors in teacher education programmes.

Randi Myklebust (deputy chair) is an associate professor of education at Volda University College. Myklebust works with pedagogy, multicultural pedagogy and Norwegian as a second language in primary and lower secondary teacher education. She has been a member of the advisory group for the development of the master's programme for primary and lower secondary teacher education and led the development of the PEL subject and the interdisciplinary master's course Norwegian as a second language and multicultural pedagogy at HVO.

Claus Michelsen is Professor Emeritus of Mathematics and Science Education at the University of Southern Denmark. Michelsen is chair of the Committee for the Novo Nordisk Foundation's Teaching Prizes, and he has been head of PhD education, vice-dean for education and head of the Laboratory for Coherent Education and Learning.

Marina Olsen graduated from the University of Tromsø with a master's degree in PPU, as well as a master's degree in Russian language and literature. She has studied Sami at the Sami University College, among others. As of today, Olsen is head of municipal education in Kåfjord municipality. Until the summer of 2023, she was acting head teacher at Olderdalen school in Kåfjord municipality, and previously head teacher at Manndalen school in the same municipality. She has also been the subject leader at Prestvannet school in the period 2020–2022 with responsibility for Sami, Kvensk and Finnish education in Tromsø municipality. Kåfjord municipality is one of the language management municipalities where pupils are entitled to education in Sami 1 or 2.

Pål Asp is an associate teacher at Egge primary school in Steinkjer. He has worked as a teacher since 1998 and has extensive experience from primary, secondary and upper secondary schools. In addition, he has over ten years' experience as a trainee teacher for the primary and lower secondary teacher education at Nord-Trøndelag University College (HINT) and Nord University. He holds degrees from NTNU, HINT and Nord University with a master's degree in special needs education.

Lars Syrrist has completed the new master’s degree in primary and lower secondary teacher education (GLU 1–7) at HINN and was leader of the student union for teacher education students Lærerstudentene 2022–2023. He has insight into the development of the programme and was an active student union representative locally. With many years of experience from Lærerstudentene, he is well acquainted with the challenges and opportunities associated with the implementation of GLU on a national scale.

As of autumn 2023, Vanja Antoinette Teigen Gulliksen is in her fourth year of GLU 5–10 in Porsgrunn. She has previously studied both religion and psychology. Since January 2022 she has also been the local team leader for Lærerstudentene in Porsgrunn.

Reference group

In addition to the expert committee, the evaluation also had a reference group. It consisted of one representative from each institution offering primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes, as well as representatives from student associations, trade unions and school owners. The reference group provided input and feedback in the evaluation process.

The first reference group meeting was held on 3 October 2022, where the group discussed proposed evaluation topics and questions.

The reference group
Institution Appointed representative Deputy
HiNN Anne Marit Vesteraas Danbolt Åshild Vassend Holm
NLA Aasfrid Tysvær Marit Helene Lie
Nord Gisle Pettersen Liv Iren Grandemo
HVL Bodil Kjesbo Risøy Merete Økland Sortland
Høgskulen i Volda Gunhild Verås Grimstad Eivind P. Hanevik
Høgskolen i Østfold Lin E. Sandhaug Ramberg Kjersti Berggraf Jacobsen
NTNU John Magne Grindeland Øyvind Bjerke
UiA Kristian Andersen Kristin Skoglund Robstad
Samisk Høgskole/Sámi allaskuvla Ylva Jannok Nutti Rauna Rahko-Ravantti
OsloMet Kirsti Marie Jegstad Emilia Andersson-Bakken
UiS Magne Ove Rogne Birgitte Tysdal
UiT Henning M. Sollid Rigmor Mikkelsen
USN Carl-Magnus Nystad Hjørdis Hjukse
UHR-LU Siw Skrøvset Hjørdis Hjukse
KS Marianne Lindheim
Utdanningsforbundet Gunn Gallavara Hanne Fehn Dahle
Forskerforbundet Kristin Ran Choi Hinna Jorunn Dahl Norgård
Pedagogstudentene Maria Johansen (GLU 1–7, OsloMet) Malene Riska-Morland (GLU 1–7, NLA)

Important milestones

When Activity
January 2023 Publication of the final evaluation themes and questions
February 2023 Draft self-assessment form sent to the reference group
6 March 2023 Questions for self-assessment and a request for documentation sent to the institutions
March 2023 NOKUT notified the institutions of the dates for site visits
March 2023 Surveys were sent to GLU students, graduated GLU students, teachers in primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes, practice teachers and school principals at practice schools
30 March 2023 Webinar about the self-assessment
22 May 2023 Deadline for submission of self-assessment
August 2023 Draft programme for site visits sent to the institutions
September 2023 The institutions received a draft of the memo which was prepared for the Ministry of Education and Research
October 2023 Memo submitted to the Ministry
October 2023 The institutions submitted a final list of participants in institutional visits to NOKUT
Nov 2023–Jan 2024 Digital site visits
Feb–Nov 2024 The committee worked on the assessment of the programmes and report writing
7 May 2024 Webinar for sharing experiences with the institutions, stakeholders and the committee
June 2024 The institutions received drafts of the final report's institutional chapters for review
December 2024 Institutions received the evaluation report for public comment
17 December 2024 The report was published and launched
28 April 2025 First follow-up seminar on the evaluation of primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes
Autumn 2026 Second follow-up seminar on the evaluation of primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes

Hearing about the proposal of evaluation themes and evaluation questions

The hearing documents were sent to all higher education institutions that offer primary and lower secondary teacher education, as well as stakeholders and research environments. The deadline for the hearing for the proposed evaluation themes and evaluation questions was 17 November 2022. We received 11 responses.

More information:

Evaluation themes and evaluation questions

The expert committee reviewed the input received during the hearing and agreed on the evaluation themes and evaluation questions. Evaluation themes are the overarching quality areas or aspects of the quality of primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes that the evaluation should generate knowledge about and contribute to further development. Evaluation questions are the overarching questions or issues that the committee must answer in the evaluation of primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes. Here is an overview of the evaluation themes and questions (pdf) (in Norwegian).

Collection of data and information

Self-assessment
The self-assessment consists of a number of open-ended questions to the institutions that offer primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes and are based on the evaluation themes and questions. The purpose of the self-assessment is twofold: to contribute to the evaluation's data basis by collecting information from different perspectives and to facilitate dialogue and reflections on important strengths, challenges and development opportunities across stakeholders in and around primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes.

To ensure that the self-assessment questions provide the committee with the necessary information to answer the evaluation questions and are understood equally across the primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes, self-assessment forms were developed together with the committee and drafts were sent to the external reference group.

We asked each institution that offers GLU to involve various stakeholders in responding to the self-assessment, such as academic staff, programme management, students and practice schools. By involvement, we mean discussing and answering the questions with the various stakeholders and submitting one collective response per institution. In addition to answering the questions, we asked the institutions to document their answers as far as possible. Examples of such documentation may include organisational charts, study plans and course plans, course and programme assessment reports, etc.

In March 2023, we organised a seminar about the institutions' self-assessments in order to inform the institutions about the committee's understanding of quality in primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes and the work they are expected to do, when responding to the self-assessment. The institutions also had the opportunity to ask questions.

See the self-assessment form (pdf) (in Norwegian) as well as Appendix A (pdf) and Appendix B (pdf) (both in Norwegian) the institutions were asked to respond to.

Surveys
We completed five surveys to gather information about the ways in which different actors experience primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes:

Reports on survey findings

All documents are in Norwegian, but summary in English is included.


Digital site visits
The purpose of interviews during the site visits is twofold. Information from the site visits should confirm and supplement what emerged from the institutions' self-assessments, documentation and surveys. The interviews can also create a space for dialogue between the expert committee and the evaluation participants on quality development within the evaluation themes.

The digital site visits were conducted from November 2023 to January 2024. Two members from the expert committee participated in each site visit, supported by NOKUT as the secretariat. During the site visit, the expert committee met with representatives from different parts of the primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes, including students, practice teachers, school principals, HEI teaching staff from different subjects, administrative staff and representatives from the HEI management.

Each site visit included one peer observer from another institution. The observation included all meetings during the visit, including those in the expert committee. We hope the observer initiative contributed to transparency in the evaluation and facilitated learning across the participating HEIs.

Overview of site visits November 2023–January 2024
Date Institution Observer
2–3 November OsloMet Univ. of Stavanger and Steiner University College
7–8 November Østfold University College Inland Norway University College
13–14 November Volda University College Østfold University College
16–17 November Sami University College / Sámi allaskuvla NLA University College
21–22 November Norwegian University of Science and Technology OsloMet
23–24 November University of Stavanger Norwegian University of Science and Technology
30 Nov–1 December Inland Norway University College University of Agder
5–6 December NLA University College Sami University College / Sámi allaskuvla
8–9 January Nord University Western Norway University of Applied Sciences
16–17 January University of South-Eastern Norway Nord University
23–24 January Western Norway University of Applied Sciences UiT – The Arctic University of Norway
25–26 January University of Agder Volda University College
30–31 January UiT – The Arctic University of Norway University of South-Eastern Norway

Compilation to the Ministry of Education and Research

NOKUT compiled a selection of preliminary results based on the self-assessments from the primary and lower secondary school teacher education programmes into a memo. The memo was a contribution to the Ministry of Education and Research's knowledge base in its work on the white paper on professional education programmes and the work on the framework plan for teacher education programmes. The memo consists of two parts. Part one is a summary of the institutions' responses to two of the sub-chapters of the self-assessment (pdf) (in Norwegian). Part two is a mapping of R&D activity in primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes, which the Nordic Institute for Studies of innovation, research and education (NIFU) conducted on behalf of NOKUT.

Final report

The final phase of the evaluation included the following milestones:

25 November 2024: NOKUT sent the draft of the final report to the institutions for review. The institutions could choose to submit a public statement, which would be published with the final report.

17 December 2024: The final report was launched at UiT – The Arctic University of Norway (Tromsø campus). The event was streamed.

The HEIs had the opportunity to appeal the evaluation on the basis of procedural errors or inappropriate discrimination. An institution cannot appeal against academic assessments in the report carried out by the expert committee. The deadline for appeals is three weeks from the publication of the final report. The appeal is handled by a committee consisting of three representatives from NOKUT's board of directors (chair, deputy chair and student representative). The committee may demand that the final report be rewritten or withdrawn.

Public statements from the institutions

Follow-up of the evaluation

NOKUT follows up on the evaluation's results and recommendations. The purpose is to create an arena for dialogue and reflection, and to contribute to further quality development through sharing of experiences. NOKUT's follow-up of the evaluation results is twofold:

A follow-up seminar 28 April 2025
We have invited representatives from the primary and lower secondary teacher education programmes who will be involved in the work of following up the evaluation internally. The seminar will focus on the participants’ reflection and discussion on the committee's recommendations at national and local level through plenary and small group discussions. The participants will also be asked to discuss how each HEI plans to engage in further quality development in light of the committee's recommendations.

Together with the institutions, NOKUT will plan a follow-up activity for 2026
This activity will be based on the discussions from the first seminar and will address the recommendations from the final report and the quality development that has taken place since the evaluation was carried out.

Contact NOKUT

If you have any input or inquiries, please contact project manager Eva Fetscher.

 

Go to the top of the page