Professionalization of teaching

The professionalization of teaching is dependent to economic and political pressures, which aimed to improve education systems through the teacher’s performance. It has grown significantly since the end of the 1980s, in several social contexts. Therefore, research on the knowledge of teachers has been developed in order to define the nature of the knowledge that should be the basis of teaching.

The movement to professionalization of teaching in the 1980s and 1990s was characterized by three main objectives (^{Tardif, 2013}): improving the performance of the education system, moving from function to profession, and building a knowledge base (Knowledge Base) for teaching. Therefore, placing initial teacher training in a professional perspective implies questioning the development of both their skills and their identity. The professionalization is built by, and in, identity development, dependent on recognition of the skills and knowledge produced by others. A professional training for teachers, unlike professional training, contributes to identity building (^{Wittorski, 2007}).

Current professional training model

The professionalization of teaching gives a central place to practice as the gravity center of training programs. The practical training (internships) has been on the basis of the professional model development of teacher training in several social contexts since 1980 (^{Morales Perlaza, & Tardif, 2015}).

The professional training model which currently dominate in the teacher training orientations all over the world is that of the professional, practitioner “reflexive” or “reflective”; also that of the social actor and the person (^{Paquay, 2007}). This model offers a vision of professional practice as an original and relatively autonomous space for learning and training for practitioners (^{Tardif, Lessard, & Gauthier, 1998}). This implies a refocusing of vocational training on practice.

The knowledge transmitted by training institutions should be designed in close relation with the practice environments (schools) by setting up new professional training systems that promote a constant back-and-forth between practice and training, between professional experience and research, between university teachers and trainers (^{Tardif et al., 1998}).

The current professional training model is based on the idea of a training continuum, through which phases of work and development must alternate throughout the teaching career. The professional training begins before university, crystallizes in university training, and is validated when entering the profession. The training then continues during working life (^{Tardif et al., 1998}).

The current conception of teacher considers that no initial training program can produce a fully qualified teacher, and when designing such a program one should define what would be “desirable” and “achievable” for future teachers to learn before the exercise of their profession (^{Morales, 2012}).

Knowledge Base: problematic of teaching professionalization

In a social context, the knowledge forming the basis of training is governed not only by research in this field, but also by the governance of training. The professions and knowledge are therefore part of specific historical and institutional contexts, and depend on supervisory authorities who control them (^{Lang, 2009}). They are transformed into training standards or skills benchmarks that frame initial and professional training.

In teacher training, the formalized knowledge resulted from research on knowledge, but determined in a historical and political context of supervision of teacher training (^{Lussi Borer, 2015}). The formalized knowledge governed by training policies in a given context became contextual. This knowledge is translated into skills repositories that frame training, assess teachers' skills, and ensure rationality and consistency between programs (^{Paquay, 2012}).

The most problematic characteristic in teaching is the 'desirable and achievable' knowledge that teachers should acquire, namely their “Knowledge Base”. Although the development of such base for the teaching profession has been one of the major proposals of the main professionalization principles, educational researchers and decision-makers have paid less attention to this aspect.

The knowledge base translated into training programs resulted in the institutional work that reflects different conceptions of training. In teaching, the problematics related to the knowledge base are complex, and then are an important issue that slows down the obtaining of professional status.

We present some problematics on the following:

Difficulties exist in conceptualizing or explaining teachers' knowledge, because the meaning of this notion is not clear (^{Tardif et al., 1998}), and we have not yet succeeded in establishing a common vision of profesional knowledge of teachers, which may correspond to mental representations, personal beliefs, tacit rules of action, practical arguments, skills, knowledge of action, etc.. There are therefore as many conceptions and definitions of teacher knowledge as there are lines of research on the question (Tardif, 2013).

So what knowledge is found at the base of the teaching profession? What are the sources of this knowledge? Do teachers produce knowledge? Is it really knowledge resulted from practice or rather from beliefs, unfounded certainties, and schemes of action? Are these skills or abilities? If teachers produce knowledge in their practice, how can it be objectified? How to incorporate them into training programs?

According to ^{Altet (1996}), the classifications of teachers' knowledge are numerous and vary according to research paradigms and disciplines. ^{Tardif (2000}) made a classification by determining nine main conceptions of teacher knowledge, which are grouped into three areas: traditions of psychological inspiration (behaviorist, cognitivist, studies of teacher thought, and phenomenological), traditions of sociological inspiration (ethnographic and interactionist approaches, the sociology of professions, and socio-critical approaches), and traditions on school knowledge (the disciplinary tradition, and research around knowledge to teach and knowledge to teach).

The classifications proposed here show the interest of researchers in defining the knowledge of teachers, and in establishing a knowledge base for the profession. These classifications demonstrate the complexity and plurality linked to the definition of this knowledge. At least, research on teachers' knowledge has led to two important conclusions:

a) The “formal” knowledge provided from training institutions remains outside the teachers, who neither select nor produce this knowledge present in training programs, already produced by research in educational sciences. Teachers consider this knowledge to be far removed from their daily practice. Teachers are considered as producers of knowledge only in the case of practical knowledge or experience (informal knowledge) which is important for the exercise of their profession.

b) The experiential knowledge’s are at the center of the teaching profession, and are the basis of their competence. The so-called external knowledge’s, resulting from teacher training, research, programs or other expertise, are reinterpreted according to the specific constraints of the teachers' work (^{Tardif, 2013}). The rationalization and access to experiential knowledge (or practical knowledge) are still problematic.

Identifying and understanding practice is a central concern of educational research today; for decades they have been the cornerstone of work on human action in various professions (^{Maubant, 2007}). The question of specific professional knowledge is essential for a professional group (^{Lang, 2009}), which means that the knowledge’s of teachers remain the central issue in research aimed at the professionalization of teaching.

However, the definition of the knowledge forming the base of the teaching profession is complex because of the interactive nature of the work, which requires not only the mobilization of knowledge, but also of various skills and abilities. This is why we will speak of a knowledge base (^{Verloop, Van Driel, & Meijer, 2001}) as a plurality of teachers' knowledge, which should be at the base of the teaching profession, and which come from several sources (Formal and Informal). "Informal" knowledge’s are that coming from the practice, the life history, and the personality of each teacher.

Problematic and et methodology

The central concept of this study, professional knowledge, is understood in the light of the neo-Weberian approach, as knowledge having several dimensions by becoming: i) formal knowledge institutionalized through research and university training; ii) political knowledge that is integrated into training through the role of the state and the establishment of training standards; iii) contextual knowledge in space and time; iv) knowledge transformed by the various actors; and v) critical knowledge that would enable teachers to understand their mission as professionals, to judge their social role, and to judge the relevance of the knowledge and the tasks imposed on them.

We are particularly interested in the first dimension, i.e. the formal nature of professional knowledge. The other dimensions, although difficult to identify in our study, were nevertheless taken into account during the discussion.

Our study therefore consists in analyzing and comparing university teacher training programs and RCET training systems that transmit formal knowledge. We wanted to know whether, despite a trend towards professionalization in both places, the training programs differ from each other, not only in terms of training structures, but also in terms of content. To do this, we will identify the professional knowledge supposed to be transmitted in university programs and those provided at RCET, and the importance attributed to each type of knowledge.

Through this study, we wanted to answer certain research questions, namely:

1. How professional knowledge’s are designed in training programs?

2. Are there ways of linking theoretical and practical courses? What is the place of internships? What is the place of research?

3. Are there differences between what teachers are supposed to learn depending on the context or, on the contrary, it is a uniform knowledge base visible between these two different contexts? Where are the differences?

We have adopted a methodology based on the comparative and descriptive approach to teacher training in two different places. Considering the organization of the knowledge present in the training programs in the university and RCET, we try to draw a precise portrait of the professional knowledge forming the base of the teachers training in these establishments.

Not considered the informal knowledge, the typology of ^{Tardif and Borges (2009}) for the analysis of formal professional knowledge in training programs seems to be relevant as a starting point for the comparative study according to a deductive approach, because this typology used for the comparison of training programs in different contexts allows a general abstraction that can be applied to the analysis of training programs at university and at RCET.

Reminder on teacher training in Morocco

Before 2011, the teachers training was distributed according to the school education cycles over 34 Teachers training centers (TTC), 13 Regional educational centers (REC), 7 Normal superior schools NSS, and two NSS technical education (^{Ouasri , 2019}; ^{Lahchimi, 2015}). The institutional status of these institutions, as well as the lack of academic autonomy from the state and their unchanged curricula have negatively affected the quality of teachers and their ability to meet the needs of a changing society. The teacher training system had suffered from the lack of coordination between the different institutions involved in training, and the diversity of teacher training modalities adopted in the NSS, REC, and TTC.

The National Charter for Education and Training (Superior Counsel of education and training, 2000) reserved an important place for teachers training, making the link between the commitment of teachers and the renewal of school through three orientations: the quality of teachers training, the integration of training establishments and their affiliation to the university, and the need for in-service teachers training. However, the political and ideological battle constantly waged by the concerned actors has delayed by about ten years the establishment of teachers training as advocated in the Charter. As for the emergency plan (2009-2012), it adopted four measures: definition of criteria and selection process; establishment of university education courses (UEC), creation of RCET by bringing together TTC and REC following the ministerial decree (2011), and implementation of a continuing training strategy.

In Europe, and elsewhere, the training of teachers placed in the higher education system is organized by a faculty or an education department within a university. European countries, within the framework of the Bologna ^{Declaration (1999}), have undertaken to make comparable their university qualifications. Teachers training have therefore undergone a movement towards the "universitarisation/professionalization" of teaching professions training. What about the Moroccan context?

Teaching training between RCET and Universities

From the year 2018-2019, universities (NSS and disciplinary faculties) have been involved in initial teachers training by setting up the university courses in education (UEC). Thus, teachers training are now dispersed between universities and RCET responsible for formational training. Morocco was therefore involved in two parallel but diphase movements of teacher training: professionalization (RCET) and universitarisation (UEC).

The dysfunction of coordination between the establishments concerned by the training raises serious questions: are the training courses, initial and professional, dispersed between two different places, complementary? Do the universitarisation and professionalization of teachers training emanate from the same strategic vision (choice)? What are the organizational, pedagogical, and professional challenges to be raised in order to move to the contemporary model of teacher training? Is there a clear conception of professional knowledge in the training programs and devices adopted in the two training places?

The problematic of teachers training concerns both professional training systems at RCET and initial university training programs; these two entities are developing each other’s without being integrated in one identity. Does the establishment of university courses in education imply the beginning of a rapprochement between the two entities? Will it contribute to complementarity between university and professionalization of teacher training?

In the following, we try to carry out a comparative study of the programs and devices adopted in the two training places. To do this, we analyze certain provided activities, the methodological benchmarks, and the skills targeted for initial training and professional training.

The professionnalisant training in RCET

The RCET institutions, not yet affiliated to the university, are under the supervisory of the ministry of school education and professional training which requires the training mechanisms, and therefore the professional knowledge present in these programs in the absence of effective contributions of professor-researchers and trainers of RCET.

The evolution of teachers training from a system based on independent establishments (NSS, REC and TTC) towards the RCET in which training is implemented according to a normalized educational policy took place, at the beginning, in a difficult context. On the one hand, the NSS specializing in the training of high-schools teachers have been deprived of the training of these categories of teachers by becoming university establishments (2009). On the other hand, the RCET are charged, among other missions, with the training of primary, collegial, and high school teachers. The educational research not yet fully structurated in the RCET, without adoption of the LMD system, which prevents professor-researchers from carrying out educational research, which is fundamental in the process of professionalization initiated in the RCET.

Regarding the training engineering, the decree creating the RCET (February 2011) set the duration of training at one year in two spaces, RCET and schools, at the rate of 26 hours per week. The training takes place according to the modular system (40%) alternating with practice (60%) made in schools. The training is based on the skills and alternate approach according to the "practice-theory-practice" paradigm.

The alternance “Work-study training”, as a fundamental concept at the center of professional training, allows the articulation between theoretical and practical knowledge, all essential in teacher training. It consists of a back and forth according to the reflective and dynamic paradigm of practice / theory / practice logic: the theory allows practice to be formalized, and this can also be requisitioned in view of lived experiences. Work-study training contributes to professionalization via a dialogue no longer between the two poles, theoretical and practical, i.e. between teachers and schools trainers, but also between trained teachers. A 'flexible' work-study program is therefore designed at the RCET according to the objectives, the training time which varies from year to year, the function of each work-study period, the actors concerned by the training, and the methods of execution.

The RCET training system (pedagogical guidelines framework document, 2011) has set several skills to be developed during teacher training. By adopting the typology of ^{Tardif and Borges (2009}), we can classify certain skills according to the following areas of knowledge:

• Educational sciences (one 30-hours module): Educational sciences Field (ESF)

• Didactics (a 30-hours module), learning planning (a 30-hours module), and TICE (a 30-hours module): Discipline Didactics Field (DDF).

• Management of learning (two modules of 60 hours), and evaluation of learning (one module of 30 hours): Psycho-pedagogical training Field (PPF).

• Complementary training (four modules of 120 hours): Reference disciplines field (RDF), which includes the content of the knowledge to be taught.

• Professional situations in a school environment represent 60% of the training duration, with the internship reports: Practical training and internships (PTI).

Beyond the areas defined by ^{Tardif and Borges (2009}), other skills are part of the training system adopted at RCET:

• Educational research spread over the research methodology (a 30-hours module) and the completion of an end-of-study project.

• Legislation and ethics of the profession, and school life (a 30-hours module)

• Analysis of practices, a 30-hours module

• Educational production, a 30-hours module.

The last two modules have been adopted in training since 2017-2018. Practice analysis activities and didactic production take place within the framework of "workshop presentations"; these modules with internship reports (portfolio) aim to further consolidate the professionalizing dimension of teaching training at RCET.

Each module is built around a professional skill that should be acquired at the end of each module. The training system is based on four types of assessment: written assessment; oral interview; professionalizing situations, and professional situations in the context of taking responsibility in an establishment.

The training system is inspired by the professional training model which offers a vision of professional practice as an original and relatively autonomous space for learning and training for practitioners (^{Tardif et al., 1998}). The aim of the training plan is to move trained teachers from mastering knowledge and know-how to their implementation in didactic situations and their appropriation by the students. The training in RCET is therefore oriented towards more professionalization, so as to train teaching professionals capable of thinking and acting in an autonomous and responsible manner, capable also of building their identity (^{Wittorski, 2008}).

After a phase of synergy devoted to solving the transitory problems of training, organization and operation, the RCET have succeeded in building a 'professional identity' different from those of the old establishments (TTC, REC, NSS), at the level of the systems training, which are now in alternation and more focused on practice. Teacher training takes place at RCET in a diversified educational and scientific environment with certain links and synergies. However, the most important synergy is that which should be established by linking the RCET to universities, not only to have more pedagogical, professional and scientific independence, but also to build consistency and complementarity between the contents of initial training and professionalizing in the same place of training within the framework of a normalized educational policy.

It should be noted that despite the difference between the objectives of initial training (university) and professional training (RCET), several pedagogical difficulties were raised, including redundancies of activities between initial and professional training, already claimed by the majority of trained teachers (^{Lahchimi, 2015}). The training of teachers at RCET also suffers from several shortcomings at the organizational level (^{Ouasri, 2019}; Lahchimi, 2015):

- Coordination problems between RCET and schools concerning professional situations (PTT), which affects the principle of work-study, and weakens the quality of professionalization;

- The conflicting interpretation of the decree creating the RCET between the powers, central supervisory and regional system;

- Internal management of RCET, between the main offices and their annexes, which sometimes leads to under-exploitation of resources;

- The absence of a policy of continuing training and scientific and educational research within the RCET.

Initial university training

The reforms taking place concern the establishment of university courses in education (three years), and the university diploma recognized as a license in Educational Sciences. However, the university training of teachers raises certain questions concerning the course of studies in relation to practical training, and the most important is that in relation to the professional knowledge provided in the university training. The general architecture of the university education courses, Bachelor of Education (BE) - Primary Education Specialty, for example, makes it possible to retain five main areas of knowledge defined as follows:

• Reference disciplines field (RDF), which forms the knowledge content to be taught at primary level (750 H)

• Discipline didactics field (DDF), methods and approaches 1 (PPO) and 2 (APC), TICE 1 and TICE 2 (750 H).

• Educational sciences field (ESF): includes educational sciences and sociology of education (100 H).

• Psycho-pedagogical training field (PPF): (Developmental psychology and educational psychology; Facilitation techniques, Docimology and evaluation) (150 H)

• Practical training and internships (PTI): School immersion course 1, School immersion course 2 (100 H)

The five major areas of knowledge defined according to the ^{Tardif and Borges (2009}) typology were raised from the teacher training program within the framework of the Bachelor of Education (BE). Additional knowledge is added with 150 H (Physical and sports education and psycho-socio-motor development, Plastic education and psycho-socio-motor development, Professional ethics and education in values).

The analysis of the program organization over three years shows that 95% of the program is devoted to academic studies (1900 hours) and that only 5% is dedicated to professional training (100 hours). The total time reserved for teaching each area of knowledge shows that:

- The initial training is desired in the development of disciplinary knowledge and didactic knowledge.

- The psycho-pedagogical training, which requires a better understanding of the learning ways of school populations being increasingly diverse, is weak. It needs to be included further to ensure knowledge of cognitive processes, assessment, classroom management, as well as an integrated use of library resources.

- The practical training (internships at the end of S5 and S6) was not seen as an essential dimension of initial training, neither in terms of duration, nor by considering the principle of work-study, an essential concept in any vocational training in teaching.

The nature of teachers' knowledge and the difficulty of knowing them really are fundamental issues in teacher training at the university. As already explained, the part devoted to experience knowledge of teaching (practice) must be large at the level of initial training, which should result in a large percentage dedicated to practical training in the programs (^{Bourdoncle, 1993}).

The conception of learning by doing, by trial and error, and by observation, should be the subject of serious debate in the education and certification of university teachers. In fact, is a long and formal university training, including both disciplinary and professional training, necessary to train teachers? Could an alternative, short training based only on the knowledge to be taught at school be sufficient? What is the place of pedagogy in initial training if its formal nature of professional knowledge is still being questioned?

The reform taking place can be characterized as not being completely inserted in the movement of professionalization of teaching. As we have discussed, the movement of professionalization of teachers advocated the need to renew their initial training (university) in order to valorize new content in addition to bringing theory and practice (^{Anadón, 1999}). In addition, the establishment of the UEC has not been accompanied by the establishment of university education departments, since the conditions necessary for their effective functioning (funding, recruitment of staff) have not yet been ensured. It follows that:

- The supervision of university education courses is currently provided by research professors from faculties not specialized in education.

- The absence in the university of a debate on professional knowledge, the skill sets that had to be acquired by teachers at the end of initial training, the duration of training, the professional training paradigm, and so teacher certification, i.e. the assessment of acquired skills.

- The debates on training focus only on the importance or not of training teachers at the university, but not on the how: what knowledge to include in this university training, considering the new conception of professional training, resulting from the movement of professionalization of teaching, which means that students divide their time between practical training (integrated or work-study internships) and more theoretical training which comes from university courses.

According to ^{Perrenoud, Altet, Lessard, and Paquay (2008}), two knowledge types circulate in these two training places: knowledge resulting from practice and professional experience, and knowledge resulting from research, i.e. formalized and organized knowledge in more or less coherent logic within a training curriculum. The organization of these two knowledge types is already a central issue in the implementation of university teacher training programs.

The question of the knowledge which must be integrated into the initial training of teachers, their organization as well as their hierarchy, has given rise (and still gives rise to) many debates (^{Tardif and Borges; 2009}). To include them in a training curriculum, this knowledge, which can come as much from practice as from research, must be formalized, depersonalized and theorized in order to become transmissible, reproducible and teachable.

The questions on the initial training of teachers as well as the debates on the content necessary for the training, on their respective weight, on the length of the training, on the place of knowledge from experience versus theoretical knowledge from research, and on the current model of professionalism, mean that the professionalization of teacher training in Morocco faces several challenges.

For exemples, what do we know about the knowledge of teachers, and thus the knowledge base in teaching? What formal knowledge should be included in university courses? What weight should be assigned to each type of knowledge? What is the link between theory and practice? What educational and didactic knowledge? Should we include knowledge about the school, about the context, on the students, on educational policies, and on the school curriculum?

Distinguished from traditional faculties by their expertise in teacher training, the NSS actually parts of universities, have not been able to stand out in their pioneering mission, which, in our opinion, is based on:

- An integrative vision of the training offer in which research plays a central role: the components of the training and research systems are inseparable.

- A professionalizing requirement which places didactics, educational sciences and practical training at the heart of reflection on professional knowledge with a view to building a knowledge base, which still is a major issue in the professionalization of teaching.

- Adoption of educational approaches making it possible to identify specific training devices and programs, professional knowledge, and activities according to the current professional training model, that of the professional, reflective or reflective practitioner, that of the social actor and the person (^{Paquay, 2007}). Such a model should consider professional practice as an original, relatively autonomous space for learning and training for practitioners (^{Tardif et al., 1998}).

Towards universitarisation/professionalization of teaching professions

The reforms initiated since 2000 have changed the institutional framework for teacher training in Morocco, which has led to the integration of NSS into the university, the creation of RCET for professional training, and the establishment of university courses in education for initial teachers training. Is the idea of ​​the professionalization of teaching and, thus of teachers training, one of the main vectors of these reforms (^{Carbonneau and Tardif, 2002}).

The entry of the university logic in the professional training of the teaching professions induces scientific, pedagogical, didactic, epistemological, even psychological and sociological issues that had to be understood and mastered in order to be able to train in teaching according to the current model of training.

Are professor-researchers in disciplinary faculties aware of these issues? This is the central question that can be answered relatively by professor-researcher-trainers in view of their professional field: teaching work, professional training, and scientific and educational research. Actually, only the RCET have professor-researchers-trainers capable to put scientific and educational research at the service of professional training, in order to build professional knowledge, and identify the knowledge base that is the problem of the teaching training.

But, it is difficult to conduct research and educational innovation, and put them at the service of professional training in RCET, not affiliated with the university; because educational research, important in professional training, can only be advanced in structures within the university. We can therefore overcome this problem of professional training only by transforming the RCET into university institutions (faculties, schools of education and training, to be merged with the NSS). The university context, with more academic and professional freedom, will certainly allow RCET professor-trainers to develop professionalization, and link it with university education, to achieve consistency and complementarity between the two universitarization/ professionalization processes of teaching professions.

The universitarization/professionalization of teachers training cannot be done according to international trends (Bologna Declaration) without the affiliation of RCET to the university, so that the universitarization of training may be able to respond to real needs and current teachers training. The need to adapt to the provisions of the National Charter for Education and Training (2000), to the practices of developed countries, and to the development of educational sectors and departments in universities imply a profound institutional reform in the teachers training policy in Morocco.

The establishment of university courses in education (UEC) suffers from many shortcomings due to the lack of an educational heritage of professional teaching training in the university; which negatively affects the process of universitarization and professionalization of teachers training. The creation of higher education and training schools (2018-2019) is not accompanied by the recruitment of specialists in education and didactics, who can contribute to the development of training programs and devices, and ensure the Master’s and Doctorate studies in educational sciences and didactics.

It is a good idea for professionals to include advances in educational research in training programs. It is a question of questioning the universitarization of teachers training from the angle of professionalization and work-study training. These concepts should be deepened in order to show how they could be integrated into a university professional training.

Perhaps, there would be such tensions linked to the universitarization of professional training and to the professionalization of university training content and strategies. It is the articulation between the aims of scientific research and those of professional training, i.e. between knowledge and professional knowledge, which should be called upon to meet the challenge of designing professional university training.