Category Archives: reflection

Course about technology-enhanced learning at workplace – reflection

This term had I new problem-based course with the IT-management master students about technology-enhanced learning at the workplace. Students in that course work mainly in public institutions – ministries as a IT managers.

The initial idea of the course was to  to support the enhancement of the knowledge and skills of the students to plan, implement and evaluate the technology-enhanced informal learning in the organization. Technologies that would support the workplace learning were planned to be technologies developed in Learning Layers.

Following phases were planned for the course: a) Students conduct the survey for finding out what kind of technology-enhanced learning practices can be identified in their organization, what could be changed and what kind of challenges can be faced with the focus on implementing technology for supporting learning; b) Students  design the technology-based learning activities and possible scenarios with the technological prototypes in the organization; c) Students evaluate the technology-enhanced learning scenarios with the technological prototypes.

The reality was a bit different, mainly of two reasons: the planned technologies were not in the state as initially planned and secondly, the institutions, where students are coming from, are quite restricted, so planning any new technologies is like.. impossible. I was encouraging them to imagine and dream that if it could be possible, how would you do then..

Most of them chose the technologies that the organization is already using, but not purposely. Most of the employees in their organizations are knowledge consumers who read newsletters, follow intranet or e-mails and never contribute to the organizational level knowledge. So they designed their scenarios with the focus on knowledge sharing and documenting the professional practices. As a result it turned out to be really interesting. Some of the evaluations of the scenarios with their colleagues turned out to be really successful, because they took the scenarios into real plan for the near future.

In the end of the course we had short reflection about the course. The main thing what they said was that next iteration of the course should not be about designing and evaluating so much, because it is more “managers’ issue” and less “IT-issue”. But they are more “IT-persons”. They would like to hear more about concrete technologies that are used in different SMEs, larger organizations for supporting learning, knowledge sharing. Based on the different research results, I could introduce the learning and knowledge sharing practices that work in different organizations. So, lets see.

For myself the course was extremely pleasant experience. I’ve never had such a group of learners and I’m glad I had a chance to teach them and to learn from them.

Update – I wrote short description of the course to Learning Layers Open Design Library as well, can be found here.

 

Advertisements

My PhD dissertation is defended

In the second half of the August I defended my PhD dissertation “Learning and Knowledge Building for Teachers’ Professional Development in an Extended Professional Community”. My thesis can be found here. Thesis was supervised by Dr. Kai Pata from Tallinn University. Dr. Äli Leijen from Tartu University and Dr. Merja Bauters from Aalto University were my opponents and Dr. Anoush Margaryan from Glasgow Caledonian University was pre-reviewer. Thank you for all.

My thesis proposes learning and knowledge building practices for teachers in a socio-technical system. Theoretically I relied on the concepts of self-directed learning and organizational learning. I also used the Nonaka’s and Takeuchi’s knowledge conversion SECI model for manipulating and managing the practices in individual and organizational level. The theoretical foundations of socio-technical systems and e-portfolio was second building block of the theoretical part. Thirdly the implementation aspects of the knowledge development tools in organization were relied on. Design-based research that involved the stakeholders from schools, universities and teachers’ association was the methodological grounding of my thesis.

As a result I provide the gaps in current teachers professional development in terms of self-directed learning and collaborative knowledge building in the community. Next I propose the technical scenarios that can be followed when implementing such practices for teacher education. Thirdly the implementation model for the extended professional community is proposed and finally the validated learning and knowledge practices are proposed with the identified scaffolding aspects.

In general I had quite quick process of PhD studies, only four years. I think I had several enablers that supported me. Firstly the project IntelLEO, which gave me the context, timeline, theoretical support, but also the freedom to focus on my own research. Secondly my dear supervisor who was by my side for all those years and provided me the support that can’t be expressed. Thirdly my kids. If I had not been on my maturity leave, but worked with full position, this would have been much longer process. Doing my research while kids had napping time was much more comfortable way for finishing PhD.

After two weeks I am almost able to say that my defense was quite nice. There are some things that still bother me, but I have to live with it now. I did not manage to answer all the questions and I was too emotional during my last words, but what can I do – that’s me.

Anyway – done! I am open to new challenges!

Selle kevade magistritööd

Homme esitavad viis minu magistranti oma magistritööd kaitsmisele. Ma pole väga kogenud juhendaja, mul on siiani olnud vaid üks magistant, kuid läbi tiheda koostöö need viis tööd ka valmis said:

1. Triinu Pääsik – tema viis läbi tegevusuuringu, mille raames disainis, rakendas ja evalveeris veebipõhiste aktiivõppe rakendamise stsenaariumeid. Tema töö tulenes vajadusest toetada õpetajaid rakendama aktiivõppe meetodeid veebipõhiselt, kuna tänased õpilased (tema uurimuses 5.klass) on arvutikasutajad, küll aga kasutavad nad arvutit peamiselt meelelahutuseks ning vajavad tuge, et õppe eesmärkidel arvutit kasutada. Tulemuseks olid valideeritud ainetepõhised stsenaariumid, et julgustada teisi aineõpetajaid veebipõhiselt aktiivõppe meetodeid kasutama;

2. Siret Lahemaa – Siret viis läbi juhtumiuuringu uurides käsitööõpetajate virtuaalset praktikakogukonda. Tema töö probleemiks on see, et kuigi õpetajate virtuaalseid kogukondi justkui on ja tehnoloogia areng soodustab nende teket, on siiski suureks probleemiks kogukondade aktiivsus ja jätkusuutlikkus. Uurides käsitööõpetajate kogukonda kui juhtumit, viis ta läbi küsimustiku ja intervjuud, et leida, kuidas õpetajad tajuvad virtuaalse praktikakogukonna mõju oma professionaalsusele ja millised on nende ootused kogukonnale. Tulemuseks proovis Siret välja pakkuda võimalused käsitööõpetajate virtuaalse praktikakogukonna näitel, kuidas tagada kogukonna suutlikkus;

3. Siret Piir – Siret pakkus osalusdisaini põhimõtteid järgides e-portfoolio funktsionaalsused eDidaktikumi keskkonnale. Sireti töö algas juba varem, mil eDidaktikumi keskkond ei olnud veel arendusplaanides, kuid me lõpuks leidsime tema tööle praktilise väljundi eDidaktikumi näol. Sireti töö tulenes probleemist, et täna ei ole Eesti õpetajal (või õpetajakoolituse tudengil) väga häid võimalusi oma professionaalse arengu portfoolio loomiseks, mis toetaks nii pädevusehaldust, erinevate vaadete loomist, kogukonna toetust kui ka refleksiooni toetavaid elemente. Siret analüüsis põhjalikult olemasolevaid e-portfoolioid, viis läbi osalusdisaini raames intervjuud kahes etapis – kõigepealt selgitas välja vajadused ja ootused e-portfoolio suhtes ja seejärel evalveeris enda poolt välja pakutud e-portfoolio funktsionaalsuseid. Tema töö andis praktilise väärtuse eDidaktikumi arendajatele esimese prototüübi kujul, millest nüüd edasi minna;

4. Nele Sarrapik – Nele töötas tegevusuuringu raames oma organisatsiooni jaoks välja e-kursuse, rakendas seda ja viis sisse evalveerimise käigus muudatused. Tema töö kerkis praktilisest vajadusest enda organisatsiooni jaoks välja töötada e-kursuse näidis, mis hõlmaks endas erinevat tüüpi funktsionaalsuste kasutamist nende õpikeskkonnas Ilias, mitmekesiste õpiülesannete ja -meetodite kasutamist. Praegu on küll organisatsioonis kõik võimalused olemas e-õppe rakendamiseks, aga instruktoritel puuduvad vajalikud oskused ja Nele töö tulemusel välja pakutud e-kursuse disaini järgimine on üks võimalus, kuidas toetada instruktoreid oma e-kursuseid ümber disainida.

5. Veroonika Tuul – Veroonika kaardistas oma töös täiskasvanute koolitajate haridustehnoloogilisi pädevusi. Organisatsioonid ootavad üha enam, et täiendkoolitus liiguks e-õppe rakendamise suunas, samas aga pole teada, milline on täiskasvanudkoolitajate haridustehnoloogiliste pädevuste tase e-õppe ettevalmistamiseks, rakendamiseks ja hindamiseks. Kasutades kombineeritud meetodit, viis Veroonika läbi küsimustiku ja intervjuud, et analüüsida koolitajate enesehinnangut oma haridustehnoloogilistele pädevustele. Tulemuseks tõi välja Veroonika täiskasvanute koolitajate haridustehnoloogiliste pädevuste enesehinnangud ja pakkus Veroonika välja koolituskava täiskasvanute koolitajatele nende haridustehnoloogiliste pädevuste arendamiseks.

Kõik tööd on erinäoga, kõik magistrandid on omamoodi. On olnud keerulisemaid hetki, aga üldiselt ei ole mul kellelegi neist midagi ette heita. Viimased umbes 1,5 kuud on olnud meil kõigil karm ja tihe koostöö. Ma ei saa öelda neist kellegi kohta, et huvi oleks olnud väike ja ma pidin kedagi tagant surkima. Kui ma aus olen, siis ma isegi lootsin kevade alguses, et keegi viiest siiski kukub välja, et viiega lõpuni minna on karm. Samas viimasel nädalal, mil tööd oli tehtud palju, ei oleks ma lubanud enam kellelgi loobuda ja õnneks keegi ei soovinud ka.

Ma saan alles nüüd aru paljudest asjadest olles ise nii juhendaja rollis kui juhendatava rollis (kuna doktorantuur on põneval lõpusirgel). Ma saan aru, et:

a) milline ajaraiskamine on olnud saata oma juhendajale poolikud töid stiilis a la vaata nüüd, ma seal metoodikas kirjutasin seda täpsemaks. Mulle juhendajana ei meeldinud neid kirju saada, ma tahtsin tervikuid lugeda, ma käisin koguaeg uurimisküsimusi jms üle lugemas, mulle ei meeldinud lugeda mingeid lõike (või vaid ühte osa tööst, nt teooria);

b) ma olen selline juhendaja nagu on minu juhendaja, ma olen selle stiili täiesti ülevõtnud. Ma hoolin ja hoian. Ma loengi laupäeva hilja õhtul kahte magistritööd. Ma parandan kirjavigu. Me pendeldame tööga edasi-tagasi mitmeid korda nädalas. Ma annan peaaegu kohe tagasisidet. Ma olen vahel järsk (ja nüüd ma saan aru, miks minu juhendaja minuga vahel järsk oli), aga üldine hoiak on soe. Nii on käitunud minuga minu juhendaja. Ja nii hakkasin käituma mina. See on küll väsitav endale, aga ma ei kujuta enam teisiti ette, kui ma olen juba selle rolli endale võtnud.

Ma väga loodan, et neil töödel läheb kenasti. Tõesti loodan. Sest tegelikult ma tean, et ma olen siiski kogenematu juhendaja ja ikka pelgan, et kuigi ma tegin kõik, mis ma jaksasin, oskasin ja jõudsin – kas sellest piisas?

Preparing the manuscript

The process of professional growth is hard. I probably present my PhD manuscript to the pre-defence commission in two weeks. If it will be accepted and my two opponents should find it suitable, I will probably have the pre-defence in the end of the August or in the beginning of the September. The hard and difficult thing is here that after each day working with my manuscript and articles, I feel that I am not ready. The question is not about one more month or week or day or year. It seems that I will be never ready. I am reading my previous articles that have been already published and I wish I could re-write them all. I am reading my current papers that are in the process of submission and I am not happy with them. I re-correct my manuscript daily, although it is already with my critical friends who may give me some suggestions before sending the manuscript to the commission.

Few years ago I prepared my first high-level journal article and it was tough process. The article was written for more then a year and the submission + publishing process lasted even longer. My dear supervisor told me that if the process of publishing articles in the high-level journals would be easy, then why aren’t we and our colleagues doing it constantly? Now I know what did she mean. The process is difficult, time consuming and frustrating. First of all you have to write a really good article which is difficult. Then you have to wait till it goes under the review, comes from the review and decision has been made. Some journals are really constructive and quick. But for instance one of our article has been under review almost for a year. I would like to add those articles to my thesis and I don’t want to wait for so long. And even more exciting is the issue that after you have been waiting for the decision about the article for months, then it is “not accepted” with the review that is full of criticism.

The criticism is another thing that has been difficult to handle. On one hand if my supervisor or some of my colleagues is criticizing me (it is not appropriate verb actually, it should be something like “having constructive conversations with me), then sometimes I tend to take it personally. On the other hand it was difficult to get used to the reviews from the people I don’t know and who sometimes seem just mean. I am better now, reviews does not make me cry anymore. Last article of mine (the most important one in my thesis) was rejected with very good and useful review. I am still grateful for those reviewers, because thanks to them my thesis got a new perspective. But I am not so good at handling those discussions with my colleagues or supervisor and I sometimes may cry. Because I translate the sentence “this article is not clear yet” to the claim “oh, you are still so stupid”.

The supervising has been funny process as well. I think that I am the only one who may chat through Skype (because there are hundreds of km between us and we both have a little kids at home) whenever it feels like. For instance most of my study-peers has the supervisor some professor who does not have time to meet them more than 1-2 times a year, they are alone and do not feel the support. But probably they never argue or become moody with their supervisors. I am so familiar with my supervisor that probably have become sometimes even impolite with my attitude “i know what is best for me”. She has been so patient with me. And she knows that I always return to her because she knows better than me what is best for me. On the other hand, probably she is the only supervisor in the world who has time and wish to focus so much on someone’s thesis. She very thoroughly reads and comments and I have never heard about such supervisor. I strongly recommend her.

In general, yes, I feel that I am more unintelligent compared with the times when I started. Sure, now I know what is the SECI model and I remember when I was writing that blogpost and it makes me laugh now, but.. I have realized that there are so many things that I don’t yet. There are so many things that i don’t know how to do them. And as a paradox, I look at my previous articles and I would like to modify them, because I know so much more now.

I think it concludes my fairs that I have faced during the past years. I am close to the end, I am terrified because I am afraid of my defense. I have really enjoyed the process so far and I have been inspired by so many people, books, articles and I feel I have so much to do.

I can’t imagine where the time flows – recent activities

Anyway. I skipped the LAK12 course, although I followed the course to the end, but I did not perform the tasks and so on. But I practiced learning analytics a lot at the same time. That was necessary for my thesis. I analyzed the logging-data from the Elgg system and that was extremely difficult task. But it gave the good overview how the learning analytics could be implemented and why is it good and needed in educational settings. My main aim of this LAK12 course was to get ideas how to teach the learning analytics to our master students and I still have gap here. But it is more caused by the lack of time and because I have not had chances to focus on the preparation of the course so far.

I prepared the article to the ECTEL conference that based on the teachers’ training course conducted in the portfolio-based learning environment. But I withdrew it today. It is my last article of my Phd project and should contain the main message, but I was not pleased with the final result. I was not even happy with the idea that it will be conference paper and not journal one. So now I take some time to work with it.

I have passed all the courses in TLU and I have to finalize my last article. Then I should start writing the analytical part and conclusion of my Phd project. I was a bit confused if I should defend in Tallinn or in Turku. But after discussing with my supervisors I have decided to defend in Tallinn.

Then I have some other articles as well that should be finalized and responded to the reviews. IntelLEO-related activities should be presented and local project is waiting for my contribution.. I don’t want to think about it.

Tomorrow I have presentation at the conference of E-University of Estonia. There I introduce the theoretical learning and knowledge building model in teacher professional development.

State of the art of my Phd project

I was applying for one scholarship and therefore I had to prepare thorough research plan. It became as real as possible. What I was wondering when I was writing this is that what is the so-called subject of my PhD project. If someone asks, what is your project about, I usually answer: teacher professional development with e-portfolio, sometimes I add teachers’ knowledge building with e-portfolio or something that. But I was thinking that actually I am focusing a lot on learning organizations, workplace learning, knowledge conversion model and teacher development is like a context and e-portfolio like a medium.. What I mean is that I am emphasizing the implementation of knowledge conversion phases, provided by Nonaka and Takeuchi, in order to keep individual and organizational knowledge dynamically changing, that influences the development of organization and individuals. Just the context that I put this model and medium that supports the implementation of it, is teacher education and extended organization here is school-university partnership.

Anyway, I formulated following research questions and goals:
Goals and research questions
The aim of my thesis is to develop the technologically supported LKB model in cross- organizational settings for teacher education in order to support teacher professional development. In order to accomplish the aim of my thesis, I plan to find answers for the following research questions:
1. How does the LKB activities support the development of self-directive competences of teachers and influences their motivation to develop themselves professionally?
2. How do the members of extended professional community of educators perceive that their knowledge influences and is influenced by the development of organizational knowledge?
3. What kind of technologically supported LKB methods and scenarios would be used by the extended community members of educators?
4. Which aspects influence the implementation of technologically supported LKB model in teacher education context in individual level?

Methodology
Research design
In order to accomplish the aim and to answer the research questions, I will rely mainly on design- based research elements. Wang and Hannafin (2005) have defined design-based research as methodology aimed to improve educational practices through systematic, flexible, and iterative review, analysis, design, development and implementation, based upon collaboration among researchers and practitioners in real-world settings and leading to design principles or theories. The study has follwing phases:
a) Identifying the problem and mapping the current situation in teacher education field in the context of using technology for supporting teachers’ knowledge building activities. Teachers from school, pre-service teachers, novice teachers, school supervisors and university lecturers will be interviewed in this process. This phase gives an input for research question 3 and 4;
b) Together with stakeholders from teacher education field, developed LKB model will be validated. Model will be presented as scenarios in different teacher education context and stakeholders analyze them together with researchers. Phase gives an input for question 3 and 4;
c) Technologically supported LKB model will be tested with teachers in two phases: early prototypes of services and full prototypes of services. Data will be collected by the semi-structured interviews, questionnaire and analysis of the users’ log-information. Phase gives an input for research questions 1, 2, 3, 4.
d) LKB model will be implemented longitudinally in e-portfolio system with the pre-service teachers in school practice context. Scenarios and methodology for portfolio-based school practice will be developed together with university school-practice unit and researchers. Data will be collected by the semi-structured questionnaire, analysis of reflections in weblog and semi- structured interview in the end of the trial. Trials take place in spring 2010, 2011, 2012 and into process school supervisors, pre-service teachers and university will be involved. This phase gives an input for research questions 1, 2, 3, 4.
e) In collaboration with teachers, application of e-portfolio functionality will be designed to Koolielu environment. Scenarios and workflows will be designed by the researcher and evaluated by the teachers. Data will be collected by the semi-structured interviews during the design-sessions. This phase gives an input for the research question 3.

Therefore my project has three methodological approaches. First I identify the problem and map the situation. Then with the design-based approach I’m developing together with stakeholders different scenarios and methodologies for interventions. The next approach involves different trials with teachers in different contexts like pre-service studies and accredidation, And finally my research tries to evaluate how does the theoretical model with technological application influences teacher’s professional development.

As the result of the doctoral thesis, I will provide a) theoretical LKB model for teacher training context; b) description of technology application that would support developed LKB model in teacher training context; c) implementation quidelines that would support the using of technology supported LKB model.
a) Development of theoretical LKB model (2009 – 2011):
i) Meta-analysis of the SECI model will be conducted in order to deepen the theoretical baseline of the research and to analyze what are the applications of SECI model. Article about it will be ready by the February 2012.
ii) Theoretical LKB model have been developed and validated with seven experts from teacher education field. Article “Implementing A Technology-Supported Model for Cross-Organisational Learning and Knowledge Building for Teachers” published by the European Journal of Teacher Education in winter 2012.
iii) heoretical LKB model validated in technology-supported accreditation context. Results presented at CSEDU11 and in ICWL11 conference
iv) Technology-supported LKB model in cross-organizational setting will be tested in Octo- ber 2011 -January 2012 with 20 Estonian teachers. The goal is to evaluate in what way the SECI phased related activity sequences are taking place in cross-organizational LKB model and how are different IntelLEO services supporting the activity sequences related with SECI phases. Article about the results will be ready by the spring 2012.
b) Description of technology application for supporting LKB model (2011-2013):
i) Aim is to study how implementing e-portfolio in teacher education context supports pro- fessional development. Longitudinal study with pre-service teachers has been conducted in spring 2010 and 2011 and another trial takes place in spring 2012. Some trials will be additionally designed for 2012. Article about trials will be ready by the autumn 2012.
c) Implementation guidelines of LKB model in technological settings (2011-2013):
i) Based on data of testing the technology-supported LKB model, I plan to analyze what in- fluences the implementation of the model in teacher education context. I would like to study through the motivational specter what is the need for training and by whom, what facilitation aspects are needed, what barriers might be faced. Article about implementa- tion process will be ready by the summer 2012

Sounds realistic 🙂 But what is even more important – sounds interesting, I am fond of my research and current experiment that has not been very successful, is really important to me and I have strong ownership with it. Feedback is welcome.

Tagasivaade kursusele Haridustehnoloogia praktika

Kirjutasin septembris oma ootustest õppejõuna kursusele “Haridustehnoloogia praktika“. Kümme nädalat kestnud praktika on läbi, üliõpilased teevad kokkuvõtteid ja mina ka.

Tundsin end sellel kursusel nagu sõitmas mäest üles – mäest alla. Kõigepealt olin ma elevil – nii enda, kursuse kui ka üliõpilaste pärast. Seejärel jõudsin ma arusaamale, et üliõpilased ei ole elevil, neile on see siiski kohustuslik õppetöö. Pisut valmistas mulle meelehärmi ka see, et mõned üliõpilased ei tulnud lõpuni minuga kaasa, nende praktikapäevikud sisaldasid vähest vajalikku. Kui meelehärmi-etapp mööda sai, kasvas jälle elevus, sest tajusin, kuidas paar üliõpilast hakkasid end haridustehnoloogina tundma ja sellena ka käituma. Vahepeal jäid sissekanded soiku ning aktiivselt oma tegevusi peegeldavaid üliõpilasi oli vähe. Seejärel aga tõusis huvi magistritööde ning praktika vahelise sose vastu ja see viis jälle emotsioonid üles. Ühesõnaga meeleolukas kursus.

Kindel on see, et oma ootuseid ma ei täitnud. Ma ei suutnud tekitada dialoogi üliõpilaste vahel, vaid üks üliõpilane hoidis silma peal teiste tegemistel, lisaks tuleb veel kaaslaste poolt partner-hinnangu andmine. Ma ei suutnud kaasata tagasisidestamise protsessi praktikakohapoolseid juhendajaid, kuigi ma korduvalt palusin seda. Tagasisidestamisesse polnud jooksvalt kaasatud ka eriti eksperte (va paaril korral), kuna sissekanded õppedisainist tulid suhteliselt kaootiliselt. Küll aga kaasan ma õppejõud tagasisidestamisse praktika lõpus, kui esitatakse aruanded. Ootus, et keegi ehk saab kasu magistritöö jaoks täitus osaliselt, sest mõned neist siiski teemad lõpuks registreerisid ja kes rohkem ning kes vähem asja siiski ettevõtsid. Ma ei oska hinnata, kas praktika tegevuste üle peegeldamine kuidagi mõjus tõhusamalt üliõpilastele, kuigi halvemaks see ilmselt ka midagi ei teinud. Lisaks ei oska ma hinnata, kas minu olemasolust oli neile kasu või kahju, sest eksperthinnaguid ma ei andnud, niisama lugesin neid ja küsisin juurde küsimusi, mis mind huvitasid.

Minu jaoks osutus kõige keerulisemaks muuta praktika efektiivseks nende jaoks, kes on aastaid sama tööd teinud, teevad seda suurepäraselt ning olid praktikal oma praeguses ametikohas. Järgmiseks korraks mõtlesime me rakendada eelpraktikat, mis tähendab, et ka kõige parem haridustehnoloog väljub korraks oma mugavustsoonist ja läheb vaatama teise asutusse, teise haridustehnoloogi juurde, millist tööd teeb ja kuidas teeb.

Teine asi oli tagasisidestamine. Algselt oli mõeldud, et lisaks minule annab tagasisidet ka magistritöö juhendaja ja praktika praktiline osa on seotud magistritööga. Esimesel seminaril sain ma üllatuse osaliseks, et keegi ei plaani kaitsta ja praktikat oma magistritööga siduda. See tähendas automaatselt, et magistritöö juhendaja kui kaastagasisidestaja kadus ära ja kuigi ma proovisin kaasata õppejõude tagasisidestamisse, siis reaalsuses oli see natuke keeruline sissekannete kaootilisuse tõttu. Seetõttu järgmine kord peaks tagasisidestamise jagama koordinaatori ja põhiõppejõudude vahel (siduma osad ained ja praktikaülesanded paremini) olgu see seotud magistritööga või mitte.

Kolmas asi oli praktikakoha poolsete juhendajate kaasamine, mis ebaõnnestus täielikult.

Mida ma ise saaksin paremini teha? Järgmine kord püüan kogu praktika teisti üles seada, et on eelpraktika ja põhipraktika ning süsteemselt läbi mõtlema ülesanded nii, et tagasisidestada saavad ka põhiõppejõud.