The Professional Learning of Finnish Primary Teachers During the COVID-19 Pandemic: What Have They Learned?

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a global threat for education throughout the previous years. At the beginning of the pandemic, as part of measures to slow down the spread of the virus, education providers around the world were forced to no longer provide face-to-face teaching in schools. At the peak of the first wave in April 2020, more than 90% of all enrolled learners worldwide were affected by school closures that lasted on average 54 days at primary level and 63 days at secondary level across countries (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2021), contributing to documented learning losses (e.g. Maldonado & De Witte, 2021). In Finland, schools were closed in mid-March 2020, with restrictions remaining in place until mid-May 2020 (Finnish Government, 2020). The sudden shift to a distance teaching (DT) environment posed an unprecedented challenge for teachers around the world (Carrillo & Flores, 2020; König et al., 2020; Scully et al., 2021).

According to the OECD (2022a), as vaccines became widely available and many of the restrictions imposed in the early stages of the pandemic were lifted, education began to improve gradually and largely returned to “normal” in most countries by 2022. In Finland, following the 2-month national DT period in 2020, the subsequent school years (2020–2021 and 2021–2022) in primary education were largely conducted as contact teaching (CT) nationwide. Nevertheless, teachers’ challenges were not limited to the DT period. Teachers were also perplexed by school reopenings and the return to CT: for example, teachers have had concerns about practical issues (Kim et al., 2021) and their own safety when returning to schools (Wakui et al., 2021). In general, the pandemic and challenges related to it have added an essential and prominent requirement for teachers’ professional learning [TPL]. The rapidly and constantly changing uncertain conditions have emphasised the significance of informal TPL in particular, that is, unstructured learning that lacks explicit, organised and systematic support (Jansen in de Wal et al., 2014; Van Eekelen et al., 2006). The pandemic has been described as a stimulus for substantial change and an innovative approach to education and teaching (Ellis et al., 2020; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2020), and it has prompted the introduction of new forms of educational delivery and support (OECD, 2022b). However, critical perspectives suggest that, despite these developments, teachers have not fundamentally transformed their teaching practices (Reich, 2021).

This paper contributes to the teacher professional learning (TPL) literature by investigating primary teachers’ professional learning during the COVID-19 pandemic in Finland. In contrast to most studies on teachers’ experiences during the pandemic, which collected data during school lockdowns or shortly after reopening (e.g. Fray et al., 2023; Havik & Ingul, 2022; Heikkilä & Mankki, 2023; Qvortrup et al., 2022; Ryan et al., 2024), this study allows teachers to reflect on their learning over a longer time span. This extended perspective offers a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the professional outcomes that emerged from sustained uncertainty. Accordingly, the study is guided by the following research question: What did Finnish primary teachers learn during the two years of the pandemic?

This inquiry is particularly relevant because Finnish teachers are regarded as a cornerstone of a highly respected education system, often ranked among the best in the world (e.g. OECD, n.d.). They have been characterised as having a high degree of professional autonomy and a strong sense of responsibility for their pupils’ well-being and learning (Mikkilä-Erdmann et al., 2019). During the pandemic, Finnish teachers employed a variety of teaching approaches to support pupil learning, emphasising lesson design, student-teacher relationships, classroom routines, and instructional control (Mankki, 2022). Focusing on primary teachers is especially significant, as pandemic-related challenges were often more pronounced in primary education than in higher education contexts (Allen et al., 2020). Overall, the study provides forward-looking insights into teachers’ professional learning during crises. While the COVID-19 pandemic posed substantial disruptions to schooling, similar disruptions are likely to recur, given the increasing frequency of pandemics and climate-related disasters such as wildfires, heat waves, floods, and earthquakes (Smith et al., 2014; United Nations, 2020). Understanding how teachers learn and adapt under prolonged uncertainty is therefore essential for preparing education systems for future challenges.

Teachers’ Professional Learning

Professionals are required to adjust their knowledge and skills to the constantly changing environment in which they work. Professionals in the field of education are also obligated by these expectations: throughout their careers, teachers are required to develop and adjust their practices in response to societal changes, educational reforms, and innovations (Hoekstra et al., 2009; Solheim et al., 2018). In this paper, the term professional learning is employed as it aligns with the conceptual foundation of the study by defining a wider range of activities and placing the responsibility for learning on teachers and their changing needs more fully than professional development, which is often restricted, referring to activities arranged for teachers (Durksen et al., 2017).

TPL is usually characterised as a series of complex developmental processes that take place after a teacher has completed initial teacher education (Niemi, 2015; Postholm, 2012). According to Avalos (2011) TPL is a “process, which requires cognitive and emotional involvement of teachers individually and collectively, the capacity and willingness to examine where each one stands in terms of convictions and beliefs and the perusal and enactment of appropriate alternatives for improvement or change” (p. 10). TPL includes comprehending and actively engaging in learning opportunities that enhance teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and self-regulatory skills (Richter et al., 2011). Opfer and Pedder (2011) define TPL as a professional growth that actually results in modification of teaching practices to improve the learning of pupils.

TPL is considered formal when it includes organised events, structured environments, credits or certificates, prescribed learning frameworks and a specified curriculum with learning objectives (Jansen in de Wal et al., 2014; Richter et al., 2011). In contrast, informal professional learning, which is not restricted to a particular setting and where the responsibility for, and control of, learning lies with the learner, has been described, in many cases, as the only option for TPL (Van Eekelen et al., 2006). Teachers continuously learn by reflecting on, discussing, and sharing their experiences from everyday classroom practices, even in the absence of systematically organised support for TPL (Postholm, 2012; Solheim et al., 2018). Nevertheless, informal workplace learning is nuanced and complex, often unintentional and even implicit, which makes its precise definition challenging (Tynjälä, 2008).

Separating individual and collective TPL activities is another typical classification of TPL. Hargreaves (2009) states that “teachers can only really learn once they get outside their own classrooms and connect with other teachers” (p. 98). Accordingly, collaboration with co-workers has been recognised as the most effective type of TPL (Durksen et al., 2017). Yet, scholars have described individual and collective TPL processes as equally important, supplementary and interrelated to each other (Opfer & Pedder, 2011; Solheim et al., 2018) – also during emergency circumstances (Mankki & Räihä, 2022). Still, the outcomes of collective TPL are often considered more impactful, as groups have greater potential than individuals to drive school- and system-level transformation and to ensure that development efforts become sustained, collective endeavours (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012). Teachers’ engagement in both individual and collective TPL is influenced by multiple, interconnected contextual factors, including school culture and climate (Postholm, 2012), leadership (Solheim et al., 2018), and working conditions (Hoekstra et al., 2009).

The Necessity for TPL During the Pandemic

DT, which was globally introduced during school lockdowns at the beginning of the pandemic, sets major requirements for teachers, requiring them to adapt their instructional practices, including pedagogical approaches, lesson materials, assignments, and assessments (Barbour, 2015; Singh & Hardaker, 2014). Effective DT requires teachers to understand how to use digital instructional formats in teaching, in contrast to classrooms, where the use of information and communications technology (ICT) can still be at least somewhat non-essential (Carrillo & Flores, 2020; Scully et al., 2021). Nevertheless, barriers to utilising technology in teaching that are created by factors such as inexperience of, attitudes towards, and the complex relationship with technology, have been identified (Nazari & Seyri, 2023; Singh & Hardaker, 2014).

The digital leap, marked by the rapid adoption of numerous new pedagogical solutions and digital tools (OECD, 2021), has significantly influenced teachers’ identity construction from various perspectives, including their beliefs, emotions, self-images, and agency (Nazari & Seyri, 2023). According to a pre-pandemic literature review by Singh and Hardaker (2014), the need to change methods when shifting to DT may lead teachers to a fear of losing control over their teaching. Analogously, during the school lockdowns, many teachers reported challenges in maintaining confidence in the quality of their instruction (Fray et al., 2023; Phillips et al., 2021) and described the transition to DT as making them “not feel like a teacher” (Kim & Asbury, 2020, p. 16).

Despite these challenges and the initial loss of agency, the new teaching environment created opportunities for growth. Research has shown that teachers were able to develop new forms of agency (Heikkilä & Mankki, 2023), demonstrate creativity (Fray et al., 2023) and remained committed to making learning meaningful for themselves and their students (Gudmundsdottir & Hathaway, 2020). DT facilitated learning beyond mere technological proficiency (Mankki & Räihä, 2022), fostering self-reflection, experimentation with innovative methods (Qvortrup et al., 2022), and greater adaptability (Ryan et al., 2024). Havik and Ingul (2022) found that teachers gained valuable insights into supporting students with attendance problems, for example by offering more individualised adaptations and fostering social interactions.

From a well-being perspective, teachers were required to adopt new coping strategies to meet the challenges of working conditions of the school lockdown period that undermined the traditional psychic rewards of teaching (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2020) and multiplied the sources of teacher stress (MacIntyre et al., 2020). Lack of psychological, temporal, or physical boundaries between home and work (MacIntyre et al., 2020), and competing responsibilities that ran parallel to teaching, such as helping their own children with assignments or taking care of vulnerable family members, placed teachers in a stressful situation (Kim & Asbury, 2020; Phillips et al., 2021).

School reopenings and return to CT caused heated debates worldwide, with considerable variation in strategies across countries (OECD, 2021). Teachers faced uncertainty and practical challenges related to the “new normal,” including classroom arrangements and student engagement (Fray et al., 2023). Many described feeling like “guinea pigs,” subjected to different distancing rules than the general population (Ryan et al., 2024). Wakui et al. (2021) found that school reopenings caused anxiety regarding teachers’ health, safety, and risk of infection. Beyond health concerns, teachers worried about practical issues, maintaining relationships, professional identity, and learning delays (Kim et al., 2021, 2023; Wakui et al., 2021). Overall, reopenings were marked by high levels of uncertainty, affecting both personal and professional lives (Kim et al., 2021). In Finland, a survey of over 2,000 teachers conducted by the Trade Union of Education in Finland (2021) found that 6 out of 10 teachers were considering leaving the profession due to work overload and excessive burdens. Implementing safety protocols, such as physical distancing and restricted recess areas, was described as “hard, challenging and practically impossible” (Löytömäki, 2021).

Methods

Results

In this section, the focus is on the primary teachers’ professional learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, which is illustrated through three domains: (1) coping strategies, (2) PK, and (3) TK. The order of the TPL domains is based on the prevalence in the data and detailed descriptions of each domain are presented in the following. Anonymised extracts from the data are included when necessary. The extracts were translated from Finnish into English by the author during the preparation of the manuscript.

Discussion

This study set out to investigate Finnish primary teachers’ professional learning over the 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic, offering a perspective that moves beyond the early phases of school lockdowns and reopenings. By enabling teachers to reflect retrospectively on their professional growth over an extended period, the study provides a richer and more comprehensive understanding of the lasting outcomes of a prolonged period of uncertainty. This approach aligns with theoretical perspectives that frame TPL as a career-long, iterative process requiring teachers’ cognitive and emotional engagement in examining their beliefs and practices and enacting alternatives for improvement (Avalos, 2011; Postholm, 2012).

The findings suggest that during the pandemic, TPL was oriented more towards coping strategies and pedagogical knowledge (PK) than towards technological knowledge (TK). While previous studies emphasised that the transition to distance teaching (DT) placed considerable demands on teachers’ technological competence (König et al., 2020; Mankki & Räihä, 2022; Scully et al., 2021), the results of this study suggest that the DT phase represented a relatively short-lived and now distant period within the wider pandemic experience. Once in-person teaching resumed, teachers shifted their focus away from technology and towards the persistent challenge of organising learning under unstable and rapidly changing conditions. This finding highlights the value of distant, retrospective reflection: it reveals that technological innovations were not the dominant or most enduring professional learning outcome of the pandemic, even though they were highly visible at its onset.

Teachers’ learning in PK was characterised by a shift towards short-term planning, readiness to adjust plans on short notice, and a renewed appreciation for classroom routines, student interactions, and a safe learning environment. This contrasts with earlier findings from the lockdown period, when teachers emphasised the importance of meticulous advance planning to make DT work (Mankki, 2022). Rather than representing a decline in professionalism, this shift illustrates teachers’ adaptive expertise: they developed strategies that allowed them to “survive the day” in a context of constant change. The findings also echo previous research suggesting that teachers have deepened their understanding of what is essential in teaching, placed greater value on predictability and structure, and strengthened their focus on pupil well-being and individualised support (Havik & Ingul, 2022). In addition, several teachers reported increased self-reflection on their teaching, classroom practices, and the well-being of their pupils. This resonates with findings by Qvortrup et al. (2022), who argue that the pandemic served as a catalyst for teachers’ reflective practice.

TPL related to coping strategies reflected significant shifts in teachers’ attitudes and practices aimed at safeguarding their own well-being – a dimension widely reported as being at risk during the pandemic (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2020; Kim & Asbury, 2020; Kim et al., 2021; MacIntyre et al., 2020; Phillips et al., 2021). Teachers reported that the uncontrollability and unpredictability of their work prompted them to develop greater flexibility, adaptability, and tolerance for uncertainty and setbacks skills that are not typically formalised but are characteristic of informal professional learning (e.g. Tynjälä, 2008; Van Eekelen et al., 2006). Such need for adaptability has also been emphasised in prior research, which has documented teachers’ feelings of being treated as “guinea pigs” (Ryan et al., 2024) and being left to manage uncertainty and practical challenges of the “new normal” with limited external support (Fray et al., 2023). These findings reinforce the notion that TPL must be understood as deeply embedded within its broader context: teachers’ professional growth during crises is shaped not only by individual initiative but also by the structural constraints and supports within their working environment (e.g. Hoekstra et al., 2009; Postholm, 2012).

This study has practical implications for education by offering insights into how teachers learn and adapt under prolonged uncertainty. The experiences of the participating teachers may inform future planning for school returns following any major disruption, helping schools maintain stability while supporting both teachers and pupils. Crucially, the knowledge and practices developed during the pandemic should not be forgotten once the emergency has passed; instead, they should be deliberately nurtured and refined to ensure that valuable innovations are not lost as schools return to normal. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge the significant fatigue accumulated by teachers during the pandemic years. As one teacher in this study explained in detail, she continues to struggle with the quality of her teaching (see also Fray et al., 2023; Kim & Asbury, 2020; Phillips et al., 2021) and finds it difficult to develop her practice. It is therefore essential to ensure that teachers not only remain in the profession after the pandemic but also have the motivation and energy required for TPL to continue improving their teaching. Additionally, reflections from in-service teachers should be considered when designing teacher education programmes. Although circumstances, safety regulations, and practices during the pandemic varied across countries, insights from diverse contexts should inform the comprehensive research used to develop teacher education programmes, ensuring that future teachers are well equipped to respond effectively to varied emergency situations.

The study had several limitations. When interpreting the results, it is important to consider whether this was the right time to summarise pandemic-related TPL. An attempt was made to locate the interviews in a stage where situation in schools was somewhat normalised, that is, when the restrictions and safety measures had largely been lifted. On the other hand, it was considered important that not too much time has passed from the most demanding stages of the emergency so that teachers could still fairly effortlessly recall and reflect on their professional learning during the period. Based on evaluations, the situation in education improved considerably in 2021 and has returned to “normal” in most countries during 2022 (OECD, 2022a), which can be considered to support the decision made about interview timing. Nevertheless, the timing-decision was based on intuitive judgement, and it should be noted that if the interviews had been carried out at a different time point, the content of TPL domains might have differed from those described in this cross-sectional study. In addition, teachers may not have been able to recognise or explicitly describe full details of their TPL during the pandemic due to the implicit nature of informal workplace learning (Tynjälä, 2008). Overall, the aim of the study was not to produce generalisable findings but to provide a careful qualitative analysis and offer meaningful insights into teachers’ professional learning during the pandemic.

Further research is needed to deepen understanding of TPL during this exceptional period. Much of the valuable pre-pandemic research disconnects TPL from activities in the complex teaching and learning environments in which teachers live (Jansen in de Wal et al., 2014; Opfer & Pedder, 2011). Therefore, additional research is required particularly on the informal learning embedded in teachers’ professional lives, which allows the capture of pandemic-related TPL as a whole. Due to the increasing frequency of pandemics (Smith et al., 2014) and climate disasters, such as wildfires, heat waves, floods, and earthquakes (United Nations, 2020), it is also crucial to turn attention towards teachers’ preparedness to encounter upcoming disruptions to education. By investigating teachers’ views on the successes and failures concerning, for example, guidelines and instructions they have received for arranging teaching, the support for teachers’ work can be enhanced when facing various upcoming crises. Still, scholarly attention should be directed to teachers and teaching in lower levels of education, in which the pandemic-related challenges in many ways have been greater than in the higher education sector (Allen et al., 2020).

In conclusion, by drawing attention to multifaceted TPL domains during the pandemic, the study demonstrates that the emergency provided not only challenges but also opportunities for TPL. In effect, it stimulated, if not massive changes and innovations in classrooms (see Ellis et al., 2020; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2020), at least moderate development in teaching through TPL. Therefore, it is possible to identify, behind the dark cloud of learning loss (e.g. Maldonado & De Witte, 2021), the pandemic-related TPL that may benefit teaching, learning and well-being in the future. Overall, the knowledge acquired should not be forgotten in the wake of the emergency. Conversely, the improvements should be consciously nurtured and refined so that they do not disappear while schools continue to recover and return to normal after the crisis.