Phenomenal!

A Phenomenon-Based Approach Renewing Teaching and Learning

Editors: Mirja Tarnanen and Emma Kostiainen

This is an English translation of Ilmiömäistä! Ilmiölähtöinen lähestymistapa uudistamassa opettajuutta ja oppimista by ChatGPT, based on the terms of the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

Preface

Phenomenon-based learning as an approach to teaching and learning generates discussion and even sharply divides the views and understandings of professionals in the field. On the one hand, phenomenon-based learning is seen as an opportunity and as a way to develop competencies needed in the future; on the other hand, it is perceived as a threat to learning. It is important to discuss what we mean by learning and how it might be supported through different pedagogical approaches. It is equally important to study it.

We were drawn to creating this book by the question of the meaningfulness of learning. Why merely complete tasks, if one could become enthusiastic and inspired? Why go through content mechanically, if one could become committed and motivated in a way that carries through even the most difficult moments of learning? Why study only alone, if by negotiating and solving problems together one can halve the challenges of learning and double the experiences of success? Why take interest in others’ perspectives, especially when they are different and therefore challenging? Why begin with content, if one could instead grasp interesting real-life phenomena? What prevents it?

“What prevents it?” is a question we used generously in connection with the curriculum reform at our Department of Teacher Education. In the development work, especially in the initial phase, it proved easier to present counterarguments to change than to genuinely consider it—let alone become enthusiastic about it. For these situations, we invented the “What prevents it?” card, which could be raised in both larger and smaller meetings without even asking for the floor. It is difficult to assess its effectiveness, but at least as a community we moved forward and succeeded in carrying through an extensive curriculum reform based on phenomenon-based learning.

Phenomenon-based learning is a way of approaching even complex phenomena through inquiry-based learning and across subject or disciplinary boundaries. It supports the development of many skills needed both as citizens in an increasingly diverse society and as employees working in multidisciplinary collaboration. However, phenomenon-based learning challenges not only traditional ways of teaching and learning, but also the operating culture of the community itself. Do we act in ways that allow the idea of the curriculum to be realized in practice? Does the operating culture change if the curriculum changes? The relationship between operating culture and curriculum is examined in their articles by Peltomaa and Luostarinen; Kostiainen and Tarnanen; Luostarinen, Gillberg and Peltomaa; and Naukkarinen and Rautiainen.

For teachers, phenomenon-based learning may mean reworking their professional identity, since they may have to negotiate a new kind of relationship to their own teacherhood, to students, to the mission of the educational institution, and to their subject. From the learner’s perspective, phenomenon-based learning may challenge understandings of agency, as ways of learning change and the learner must take—or is given the opportunity to take

Phenomenon-based learning makes possible collaboration across subject boundaries, thereby building meaningful and natural bridges between them. When subject boundaries are crossed, one may encounter very strong beliefs about the boundaries of knowledge and academic disciplines. This concerns curricula, teaching within educational institutions, as well as the educational policy steering system. What are these boundaries actually about, and how can they be crossed from the perspectives of teacherhood, teaching, and learning? Learning-psychological questions are opened up in Kirsti Lonka’s article, and the theme of boundary crossing is illuminated in the articles by Hähkiöniemi, Kauppinen and Tarnanen; Peltomaa, Markkanen and Luostarinen; and Ojansuu.

The articles in this book have been anonymously peer-reviewed in accordance with the guidelines of the Finnish Federation of Learned Societies. Warm thanks to the two peer reviewers for their valuable comments that contributed to the development of the articles.

Thanks also to the Creative Expertise Project (ULA), within which this volume has been published. Creativity, courage, and teamwork inspire experimentation and research!

The authors of this book demonstrate that nothing prevents experimentation, research, and development. We did not seek perfect answers, nor did we find them — but meaningful ones, certainly, as illustrated by the quotation from one teacher student:

“I dare to state that phenomenon-based work enables learning in accordance with the objectives very well, and along the way also brings abundant opportunities for other kinds of learning, as well as a powerful sense of the meaningfulness of learning and of what has been learned.”

Jyväskylä, in the inspiring milieu of Ruusupuisto, on the Day of Light, February 3, 2020

Introduction

---

Phenomenon-Based Learning

Mirja Tarnanen & Emma Kostiainen

mirja.tarnanen@jyu.fi

University of Jyväskylä

Abstract

Phenomenon-based learning is one of the pedagogical approaches to learning. It offers the possibility of combining learner-centeredness with inquiry-based, collaborative, and cross-disciplinary learning. In phenomenon-based learning, experiences and everyday thinking serve as the starting point from which the studied phenomenon is explored and learned about by drawing on different school subjects and academic disciplines. The phenomenon should therefore be sufficiently diverse and challenging from a learning perspective. At its best, phenomenon-based learning can develop teamwork skills and collaborative problem-solving when phenomena are approached through inquiry-based learning methods in small groups. The teacher’s role, in turn, is to guide and support the progress of group processes. In phenomenon-based learning, assessment also focuses on the learning process, and responsibility for assessment is shared, since the achievement of objectives and the outcomes of phenomenon work are examined through both self- and peer assessment.

Keywords: phenomenon-based learning, inquiry-based learning, cross-disciplinary learning

---

The Future and Learning

In recent years, Finnish education—especially basic education and its teachers—has on the one hand been praised as the best in the world, and on the other hand has been at the center of public discourse on reform and the target of state budget cuts. Internationally, Finland has profiled itself as a country of high-quality and equitable education, where education belongs to everyone and where socio-economic or regional factors are, in principle, not obstacles to educational pathways. However, this beautiful image is being fractured by, among other things, declining learning outcomes, the growing number of boys who are disengaged from schooling, and the limited opportunities for continuing professional development among teaching staff (e.g., Jokinen et al., 2014; Vettenranta et al., 2015; OECD, 2019).

In addition, education is being pedagogically challenged at all levels through curriculum reforms or broader educational reforms: more joy, interactive learner-centeredness, and cross-disciplinary work in comprehensive school; deeper development of thinking skills and collaborative learning in upper secondary school; more workplace-based learning in vocational education; and more diverse assessment practices and study methods in higher education.

One line of argument in the discourse on educational development can be seen in the changes resulting from globalization, rapid technological advancement, sustainable development, and transformations in the labor market. At the center of this discussion is the question of what kind of society and working life education prepares individuals for, and what education will be needed for in the future. If the anticipated changes in working life materialize, what is learned, how it is learned, and where it is learned will be reassessed. In other words, if in the future an independent worker negotiates their work with colleagues based on their own goals and collegiality is defined by cognitive reciprocity and networks rather than by a given organizational structure, this will require individuals to be self-directed and responsibly committed, but also freer compared to traditional hierarchical and controlling organizational structures (Kilpi 2016). In such a case, education can no longer be strictly predictive; instead, citizens and workers are expected to engage in lifelong learning, which in itself is not a new idea.

Lifelong learning has for decades been connected in research literature, for example, to adult learning, learning communities, and the professional development of teachers (e.g., Candy 1991; Knowles 1970). However, how lifelong learning becomes concrete in operating cultures and pedagogical practices does not appear to be equally self-evident. It is also essential to consider what is meant by the relationship between formal and informal learning—if it is even meaningful to divide learning in this way at all. The issue concerns what is understood by learning environments, what, where, and how learning is recognized as learning, and how, for example, competencies acquired during leisure time are identified and utilized in formal environments, such as the school context.

Recently, there has also been frequent discussion about what is meant by generic skills and how they are developed across different subjects. Generic skills often refer to future skills or 21st-century skills. There are multiple classifications, but generally these skills consist of a broad combination of knowledge, abilities, modes of thinking, working methods and tools, and personal characteristics that are considered critical from the perspective of future working life and citizenship. These skills include, among others, critical thinking, problem-solving skills, argumentation, creativity, entrepreneurial initiative, communication skills, and collaboration skills. Sustainable development, globalization, understanding ecosystems, social responsibility, and well-being are also linked to visions of the future (Binkley et al. 2012). With increased mobility and digitalization, cultural sensitivity and multiliteracy—by which is meant the ability to produce, interpret, and evaluate spoken and written texts created through different semiotic systems—are also essential competencies for the future (e.g., Kalantzis & Cope 2016).

Future skills are based on the idea that teaching in schools should provide such competencies as are needed in a complex, knowledge- and information-intensive, networked, and digital society, but which education developed in the previous century does not provide. Future skills have, however, been criticized on the grounds that they cannot be taught or learned separately from content. There must therefore be substance—something about which to think critically, something to create, and something that forms the object of collaborative problem solving. But how should knowledge content to be learned be structured so that it can be addressed from the perspective of future skills?

It is clear that knowledge is increasing in all fields of science and knowledge production at such a pace that it is impossible to assume that anyone could master it, for example, across all existing school subjects. Especially if the starting point of school subjects is knowledge (knowledge of) as externally defined information written into textbooks and curricula, rather than knowing (knowledge about), which requires active knowledge construction, including the setting of goals and problems, self-regulation, and teamwork (Scardamalia & Bereiter 2006). The nature of knowledge and “truth” may also change rapidly; today’s knowledge may be shown to be incorrect next year. Not to mention the changes and possibilities for managing knowledge brought about by artificial intelligence. From this perspective, ways of handling knowledge become central. It seems important to learn how to process, structure, and use knowledge rather than merely to learn facts. How knowledge can be used in authentic environments is more essential than accumulating knowledge in an encyclopedic spirit. Nor is it meaningful to set knowledge and skills against one another; instead, it is essential to consider what kind of orientation toward what is to be learned is meaningful, how learning processes are supported so that learning actually occurs, and how learning is assessed in a meaningful way (Lonka 2015, 43).

Toward Real Life and Its Challenges

In recent decades, the gap between real life and educational institutions has been emphasized in discussions of learning by highlighting how real-life problems differ from the content-based and classification-oriented ways of structuring and teaching school subjects in a predetermined order. This type of approach—perhaps unintentionally—conveys the impression that this is also the proper order in which things should be learned. However, this is foreign to real life and partly also to scientific evidence about learning. For example, second and foreign language learning may be structured according to a normative description of language structure, even though actual language use is not. When using foreign languages, we cannot say to our interaction partner that they should refrain from using the past tense because it is only introduced in chapter ten of the textbook. And if they do use it, it is unlikely to prevent understanding their message due to many other contextual cues present in speech. Similarly, for example, learning biological concept categories from a textbook may remain abstract, vague and unstructured, even though we make observations about the surrounding natural environment as we move within it.

In teaching, however, it is possible to begin not from content but from real-life problems. There are several learner-centered approaches based on active knowledge construction that revolve around such real-life problems. As an introduction to phenomenon-based learning, we present three research-based approaches or applications of this kind: authentic learning, problem-based learning, and project-based learning. These can also be referred to as approaches to active learning.

Authentic learning refers to an instructional approach in which pupils and students investigate, discuss, and construct meanings for concepts related to real-life problems that are meaningful to them (Maina 2004). Authentic learning includes various teaching methods and pedagogical practices, but as an approach it is grounded in a constructivist view of learning, emphasizing the active role of the learner, the significance of prior knowledge and experiences, as well as problem solving and critical thinking. Authentic learning is considered to cut across all subjects and is therefore not subject- or discipline-specific from the perspective of learning. The underlying assumption is that when the authentic learning approach is applied, pupils and students are more motivated to learn new concepts and skills and thus gain better readiness for further studies and working life (e.g., Maina 2004; Rule 2006).

In problem-based learning, learning is regarded as more useful if it focuses on solving real-life problems rather than merely on theoretical treatment. In problem-based learning, students work in groups whose task is to clarify and seek solutions to a conceptually challenging problem that has usually already been created, often formulated in advance by the teacher or instructor, through different working phases. The phases begin with familiarizing oneself with the problem, analyzing and defining it, and identifying existing knowledge as well as the additional knowledge required. This is followed by information seeking, consulting other groups, and negotiating and formulating possible solutions. As in authentic learning, problem-based learning has been found to be more effective in terms of understanding the topic, activating prior knowledge structures, self-regulation, and problem-solving skills. It has also been shown to have a positive effect on planning learning and on attitudes (Barrows 1996; Hmelo-Silver 2004; Blackbourn et al. 2011).

Project-based learning is grounded in constructivist observations that learners achieve deeper understanding when they actively construct meanings based on their experiences and interact with the surrounding world, rather than engaging in passive, teacher-directed and textbook-centered activity (Krajcik et al. 2002). In project-based learning, central elements include posing questions, formulating hypotheses, explaining, reflecting, challenging others’ ideas, and testing new ideas. One possible model of project-based learning includes the following phases: 1) defining the question or problem to be solved, 2) investigating the question or problem in focus, 3) collaboratively finding a solution while utilizing technology, and 4) sharing concrete solutions in the form of various artifacts that reflect the group’s learning (Krajcik & Blumenfeld 2006; Krajcik et al. 2002).

What these approaches have in common is that they are not subject- or discipline-specific. Applications have been used and studied across different subjects and disciplines, for example in medicine, business, and educational sciences at the university level, as well as in various subjects in basic education (e.g., Barrows 1996; Blackbourn et al. 2011). In terms of their premises, they respond to the challenges for which content-based and teacher-directed instruction, along with its assessment practices, has been criticized for years (see also Lam et al. 2013). On the other hand, these applications have also been criticized. In project- and problem-based learning, learners’ experiences are central; according to critical viewpoints, students may not, due to their limited experiences, know what they should learn. There has also been concern that when using such approaches, the content of instruction must be reconsidered. It is often impossible to include as much content as in traditional linear and content-driven teaching (see also Ellis 2014). On the other hand, this avoids the “pedagogy of coverage” and superficial learning, such as limiting learning to memorizing and repeating factual information (see also Lonka 2015). If teachers have no prior experience acting as facilitators, for example in problem-based learning, the change in role may also feel challenging (Lam et al. 2013).

From an educational policy perspective, it is interesting to consider how curricula, learning materials, and school operating cultures support alternative approaches to learning. Although many schools carry out projects and students also learn in teams, overall the pedagogical operating culture has likely changed surprisingly little, given that the amount of knowledge about learning and awareness of educational institutional cultures has grown significantly through research. Curricula, too, have long been based on a socio-constructivist view of learning (e.g., Pohjola 2011; Lonka 2015).

When the current National Core Curriculum for Basic Education was published, public discussion referred to phenomenon-based learning, even though the curriculum framework speaks of multidisciplinary learning modules (FNBE 2014, 31). For example, in 2015 Finnish media reported: “Soon, school will not study subjects but phenomena” (Ranta 2015, IS 25.3.2015). The Washington Post (26.3.2015), in turn, headlined: “No, Finland isn’t ditching traditional school subjects” and presented the introduction of a phenomenon-based curriculum into Finnish basic education (Straus 2015). However, the National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (FNBE 2014) still contains all traditional subjects described separately by subject. Instead, the multidisciplinary learning modules are closest to phenomenon-based learning (FNBE 2014, 31). In current discussions, concerns have also been raised, for example, that phenomenon-based learning, in its excessive learner-centeredness and emphasis on self-direction, leaves pupils unsupported and favors children of highly educated parents (see, e.g., Lehto 2019, HS 2.10.2019). At the same time, the National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (FNBE 2014) clearly indicates that learning-to-learn skills, such as self-direction, are goals toward which pupils are guided and which require persistent practice. But what is actually meant by phenomenon-based learning? What new does it bring compared to project-based or problem-based learning? Is it a threat to subject-based organization? In the following, we examine phenomenon-based learning and describe it as an approach to learning.

Phenomenon-Based Learning – The Natural Integration of Subjects and Disciplines

“No phenomenon is a phenomenon until it has been observed as a phenomenon.”

(John Wheeler)

In phenomenon-based learning, the learner’s own insight and ability to perceive phenomena are central. What is essential is the process in which a person receives information through their senses and processes it selectively and interpretively based on their experiences, prior knowledge, and personal goals (Kauppila 2007, 37; see also Lam et al. 2013). For a phenomenon to exist from a learning perspective, it must therefore be observable. In its essence, nature, and characteristics, a phenomenon may be multifaceted; broadly understood, it may be cultural, mathematical, or physical, or it may be an event or a series of events. From the perspective of learning, a phenomenon is optimal when it is sufficiently diverse in terms of the content to be learned and the learning objectives, and when it can be examined by drawing on different academic disciplines or school subjects (Lonka et al. 2015).

In phenomenon-based learning, a phenomenon is something experienced or something that appears or becomes realized in people’s experiences. The starting point is that lived experiences are more important than our conceptual understanding, and that our relationship to a phenomenon is experiential rather than intellectual or rational (Østergaard et al. 2010, 28). Phenomenon-based learning involves studying a phenomenon in its authentic context through one’s own experiences as well as through different disciplines and concepts. In this way, it meaningfully combines experiential and conceptual dimensions (see Figure 1).

Crossing disciplinary approaches or subject boundaries is central in phenomenon-based learning because phenomena are often complex and multidisciplinary in nature. Understanding them and solving the problems associated with them is challenging or even impossible from the perspective of only one subject or discipline. In addition to multidisciplinarity and authenticity, phenomenon-based learning calls for working together, which may be referred to as teamwork or, more conceptually, collaborative learning or networked intelligence (Lam et al. 2013; Lonka et al. 2015). Collaboration enables the sharing of one’s own expertise, but also its construction in ways that would not be possible through individual work alone.

Collaborative or communal learning refers to the social nature of learning and to the idea that new knowledge is learned through interaction (Dillenbourg 1999; Lantolf & Thorne 2006). The roots of collaborative learning lie in Vygotsky’s (1982) sociocultural theory, which emphasizes the social nature of cognitive activity as well as the role of artifacts and tools in the development of human activity. Language is one of the key symbolic artifacts, as are materials and media. In addition to its social nature, learning is characterized by the zone of proximal development, in which a more skilled individual or expert assists a less skilled learner or novice to reach a level of development that would not be attainable alone (Dillenbourg 1999; Vygotsky 1982).

In phenomenon-based learning, collaborative learning means that a group works toward a shared goal and that the work includes principles and practices that help students function together purposefully and effectively (Jacobs, Power & Loh 2002). Working with a phenomenon requires communal problem solving, understood as a complex skill demanding both cognitive and social competence. It integrates various skills to be practiced, such as participation, perspective-taking, task regulation, social regulation, and knowledge construction, as well as often critical thinking and collaborative decision-making (Hesse, Care, Buder, Sassenberg & Griffin 2015). Fundamentally, group work concerns the development of a

In connection with phenomenon-based learning, the concept of networked intelligence is also used when referring to teamwork. This concept refers to the ability to combine the expertise of different individuals as well as sources and tools of knowledge (Lonka et al. 2015). In phenomenon-based learning, it is therefore natural, in addition to material sources of information, to turn to social sources of knowledge and to utilize the expertise of relevant specialists for understanding the phenomenon.

The previously introduced approaches—authentic learning, problem-based learning, and project-based learning—emphasize, at the beginning of the learning process, the importance of personal experience and prior knowledge (e.g., Pedaste et al. 2015). In phenomenon-based learning as well, learners’ own experiences of the phenomenon are central, and group members should become aware of their own everyday conceptions, since learning involves reshaping these toward a more scientific and holistic worldview (Lonka et al. 2015; see also, e.g., Lam et al. 2013). Whereas everyday thinking is characterized by short-sightedness, excessive generalization, and examining issues in isolation from their contexts, phenomenon-based study aims at critical discussion, skepticism, conscious selectivity, and justification instead of guesswork (Uusitalo 2001). Because in phenomenon-based learning the phenomenon is approached from the perspectives of multiple subjects or disciplines, the fact is accepted that there are several possible explanations or interpretations of a phenomenon—in fact, it is precisely this multiplicity that is of interest, and through it a holistic understanding of the phenomenon is constructed.

In building this comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon, the teacher’s role as a guide is extremely important. The teacher guides learners to pose questions, investigate, seek information, reflect, and structure knowledge and understanding constructed from different perspectives. It is essential that learners are supported appropriately at different stages of learning and that teaching methods support both learning together and the construction of knowledge (e.g., Alfieri et al. 2011; Furtak et al. 2012).

Phenomenon-Based Study – Objectives, Methods, and Assessment

When planning phenomenon-based learning, as with any learning, consideration must be given to how learning objectives are formulated, what kind of learning environment is created, what the teacher’s role is, which working methods are used, and how learning is assessed (see Figure 2). Learning objectives are competence-based, and in them—as well as in assessment practices—attention is paid to the deepening of thinking and knowledge-processing skills as well as to interaction and teamwork skills. In formulating objectives, and especially in determining assessment methods and criteria, sharing responsibility between the teacher and learners is central.

The phenomenon that serves as the object of learning may be chosen by the learners themselves, but it may also be offered by the teacher or arise from the curriculum. Phenomena may vary in scope, as long as they include an observable or recognizable—often personal and experiential—perspective and can be approached from the viewpoints of different fields of knowledge. A phenomenon can be approached through various working methods, but it is natural to approach it through inquiry-based learning methods. Inquiry-based learning involves a communal knowledge-creation process that mirrors the stages of conducting research and in which the development of collaborative problem-solving skills is central (see, e.g., Hakkarainen, Lonka & Lipponen 2001; Pedaste et al. 2015; Pedaste & Sarapuu 2006).

At the initial stage, personal relevance and making one’s own observations are emphasized, since these are important for commitment to the learning process. In addition to the orientation phase, essential elements in inquiry-based learning include conceptualization, conducting investigation appropriate to the phenomenon, drawing conclusions and communicating them, as well as the continuous assessment of learning (Hakkarainen, Lonka & Lipponen 2001; Pedaste et al. 2015). These phases are not necessarily sequential; rather, they may overlap and repeat cyclically (Hakkarainen, Bollström-Huttunen, Pyysalo & Lonka 2005). The teacher’s task is to act as a guide in the learning process, helping to organize and structure the work, challenging learners through observations and questions to deepen their inquiry, and providing support to ensure successful collaboration (Drake & Burns 2004; Hakkarainen et al. 2005).

When planning phenomenon-based learning, it is also important to pay attention to what is meant by a learning environment. Learning environments refer to different physical spaces, contexts, and cultures in which learning takes place. They are also characterized by overlap, since learning occurs both in formal settings such as school and in various informal settings, including leisure time.

In phenomenon-based learning, it is characteristic of the learning environment that work is carried out collaboratively according to competence-based learning objectives and with a focus on problem solving (e.g., Häkkinen 2015). When the learning environment is learner-centered, it aims to strengthen agency in one’s own learning—that is, skills of advance planning, self-regulation, self-reflection, and belief in one’s own efficacy (Bandura 2006; Lam et al. 2013). Thus, learning environments can be seen as unique and constantly changing, since their formation is also influenced by learners, with their expectations, conceptions, and other backgrounds. It is therefore interesting to consider how different learning environments support and enable learning and how the guidance of learning processes, as well as purposeful selection of materials and application of technology, can influence learning.

When ways of learning and learning environments change, assessment practices also change. In other words, high-quality assessment is connected to the same foundations upon which teaching and learning are built; it is not something separate from pedagogical practices to be carried out or developed independently. The role of assessment in shaping what the learning environment becomes and how learning is understood more broadly is significant. Changing assessment therefore requires reflection on what guides assessment practices (Fuller & Skidmore 2014). What kinds of values, beliefs, and conceptions do we hold about the aims and tasks of assessment? If, in addition to individual work, group work and the development of thinking skills and self-regulation skills are central to learning, traditional assessment practices based on memorization and knowledge recall do not support such learning (e.g., Boud 2010). Instead of focusing mainly on naming, classifying, and describing, assessment provides information on how skills such as reasoning, analyzing, applying, and evaluating have developed.

Formative assessment during the learning process and the sharing of assessment responsibility are central in the assessment of phenomenon-based learning. Self-assessment is closely integrated into the learning of knowledge and skills, because goal-setting and reflection on one’s own learning are important factors in developing self-regulation skills (Schunk 2008). Furthermore, in learning situations where new knowledge is constructed and adopted collaboratively through teamwork and where learning objectives may be achieved in different ways, self- and peer assessment are meaningful forms of assessment (Shepherd 2000).

Sharing assessment responsibility, as well as self- and peer assessment, has also been shown to increase agency and ownership of one’s own learning, which is reflected, for example, in taking responsibility for one’s own learning (e.g., Sebba et al. 2008). The significance of teamwork in learning, in turn, prompts the question of how assessment guides group members to reflect on their activity within the group as well as each member’s own contribution to the group process and the achievement of goals (Crisp 2012). Both teacher-, self-, and peer assessment require assessment criteria in which the targets of assessment connected to competence-based objectives are consciously selected and described as levels of proficiency. The criteria may be created by the teacher, by the learners, or collaboratively. Because the criteria articulate what is considered important in assessment and what is sought through it, they provide a shared vocabulary for discussing and negotiating assessment principles and also for developing them. Such assessment also develops understanding of what and how it is intended to be learned.

Overall, phenomenon-based learning includes many familiar elements from other learning approaches. However, as its name suggests, it directs attention to the phenomena of the surrounding world as we perceive them. Yet this is not sufficient, because phenomena are often so complex that understanding them requires deeper investigation, activating, among other things, problem-solving skills. And because they are complex, we need multiple perspectives—the viewpoints of different subjects and fields of knowledge, as well as diverse expertise—brought together through teamwork and social knowledge construction. In our experience, even in a group that appears homogeneous in background, one often hears the remark when solving a problem: “I would never have been able to solve this alone.”

References

Alfieri, Louis; Brooks, Patricia J.; Aldrich, Naomi J.; Tenenbaum, Harriet R. (2011) Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103:1, 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021017

Bandura, Albert (2006) Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1:2, 164–180.

Barrows, Howard S. (1996) Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1996, 3–12.

Binkley, Marilyn; Erstad, Ola; Herman, Joan; Raizen, Senta; Ripley, Martin; Miller-Ricci, May; Rumble, Mike (2012) Defining twenty-first century skills. In Patrick Griffin, Barry McGaw & Esther Care (eds.) Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills. Dordrecht: Springer, 17–66.

Blackbourn, Joe M.; Bunch, Dennis; Fillingim, Jennifer; Conn, Thomas; Schillinger, Don; Dupree, Jeffery (2011) Challenging orthodoxy: problem-based learning in preservice teacher training. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 38:3–4, 140–153.

Boud, David (2010) Sustainable Assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22:2, 151–166.

Candy, Phillip C. (1991) Self-Direction for Lifelong Learning: A Comprehensive Guide to Theory and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Crisp, Geoffrey T. (2012) Integrative assessment: Reframing assessment practice for current and future learning. Assessment & Evaluation, 37:1, 33–43.

Dillenbourg, Pierre (1999) What do you mean by collaborative learning? In Pierre Dillenbourg (ed.) Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. Oxford: Elsevier, 1–19.

Drake, S. M. & Burns, R. C. (2004) Meeting Standards Through Integrated Curriculum. Alexandria: ASCD.

Ellis, Arthur K. (2014) Research on Educational Innovations. New York: Routledge.

Fuller, Matthew B. & Skidmore, Susan T. (2014) An exploration of factors influencing institutional cultures of assessment. International Journal of Educational Research, 65, 9–21.

Furtak, Erin M.; Seidel, Tina; Iverson, Heidi; Briggs, Derek C. (2012) Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching. Review of Educational Research, 82:3, 300–329. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457206

Hakkarainen, Kai; Lonka, Kirsti; Lipponen, Lasse (2001) Inquiry Learning: The Limits of Intelligent Activity and Their Transcendence. Porvoo: WSOY.

Hakkarainen, Kai; Bollström-Huttunen, Marianne; Pyysalo, Riikka; Lonka, Kirsti (2005) Inquiry Learning in Practice: A Guide for Teachers. Helsinki: WSOY.

Hesse, Friedrich; Care, Esther; Buder, Juergen; Sassenberg, Kai; Griffin, Patrick (2015) A framework for teachable collaborative problem-solving skills. In Patrick Griffin & Esther Care (eds.) Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills: Methods and Approach. Dordrecht: Springer, 37–56.

Hmelo-Silver, Cindy E. (2004) Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16:3, 235–266.

Häkkinen, Päivi (2015) Technology in supporting individual and collaborative learning. In Jarmo Viteli, Matti Sinko & Anna Hirsimäki (eds.) Interactive Technology in Education – Anniversary Publication – ITK 25 Years. Hämeen Summer University, 67–71.

Jacobs, George M.; Power, Michael A.; Loh, Wan Inn (2002) The Teacher’s Sourcebook for Cooperative Learning: Practical Techniques, Basic Principles, and Frequently Asked Questions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Crown Press.

Jokinen, Hannu; Taajamo, Matti; Välijärvi, Jouni (eds.) (2014) Pedagogical Expertise in Motion and Change – Challenges for Tomorrow. University of Jyväskylä: Finnish Institute for Educational Research.

Kalantzis, Mary & Cope, Bill (2016) Literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kauppila, Reijo A. (2007) The Human Way of Learning: An Introduction to the Socioconstructivist View of Learning. Jyväskylä: PS-kustannus.

Kilpi, Esko (2016) Perspectives on Work: Exploring Emerging Conceptualizations. Sitra Studies 16.

Knowles, Malcolm S. (1970) The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy. Cambridge: The Adult Education Company.

Krajcik, Joseph S. & Blumenfeld, Phyllis C. (2006) Project-based learning. In Keith R. Sawyer (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. New York: Cambridge, 317–333.

Krajcik, Joseph S.; Czerniak, Charlene M.; Berger, Carl F. (2002) Teaching Science in Elementary and Middle School Classrooms: A Project-Based Approach (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Lam, Chi Chung; Alviar-Martin, Theresa; Adler, Susan A.; Sim, Jasmine B.-Y. (2013) Curriculum integration in Singapore: Teachers’ perspectives and practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 31, 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.11.004

Lantolf, James P. & Thorne, Steven L. (2006) Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lehto, Juhani E. (2019) Learner-centeredness favors children of the educated. Helsingin Sanomat, 2.10.2019.

Lonka, Kirsti (2015) Insightful Learning. Helsinki: WSOY.

Lonka, Kirsti; Hietajärvi, Lauri; Hohti, Riikka; Nuorteva, Maija; Rainio, Anna Pauliina; Sandström, Niclas; Vaara, Lauri; Westling, Suvi Krista (2015) Toward inspiring learning through phenomenon-based approaches. In Hannele Cantell (ed.) How to Build Multidisciplinary Learning Modules. Helsinki: PS-Kustannus, 49–76.

Maina, Faith W. (2004) Authentic learning: Perspectives from contemporary educators. Journal of Authentic Learning, 1:1, 1–8.

OECD (2019) TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en

FNBE 2014 = Finnish National Agency for Education (2014) National Core Curriculum for Basic Education. Regulations and Guidelines 2014:96.

Pedaste, Margus; Mäeots, Mario; Siiman, Leo A.; de Jong, Ton; van Riesen, Siswa A. N.; Kamp, Ellen T.; Manoli, Constantinos C.; Zacharia, Zacharias C.; Tsourlidaki, Eleftheria (2015) Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003

Pedaste, Margus; Sarapuu, Tago (2006) Developing an effective support system for inquiry learning in a web-based environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22:1, 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00159.x

Pohjola, Kirsi (ed.) (2011) The New School: Learning in the Era of Media Culture. University of Jyväskylä: Finnish Institute for Educational Research.

Ranta, Elina (2015) Schools will gradually begin to combine subjects into “phenomenon-based” instruction. Iltasanomat, 25 March 2015.

Rule, Audrey C. (2006) The components of authentic learning. Journal of Authentic Learning, 3:1, 1–10.

Scardamalia, Marlene; Bereiter, Carl (2006) Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. Keith Sawyer (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press, 97–118.

Schunk, Dale H. (2008) Metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: Research recommendations. Educational Psychology Review, 20:4, 463–467.

Sebba, Judy; Deakin Crick, Ruth; Yu, Guoxing; Lawson, Hilary; Harlen, Wynne; Durant, Keren (2008) Systematic Review of Research Evidence of the Impact on Students in Secondary Schools of Self and Peer Assessment. London: Institute of Education, University of London.

Straus, Valerie (2015) No, Finland isn’t ditching traditional school subjects. Here’s what’s really happening. The Washington Post, 26 March 2015.

Uusitalo, Hannu (2001) Science, Research, and Thesis (7th ed.). Helsinki: WSOY.

Vettenranta, Jouni; Välijärvi, Jouni; Ahonen, Arto; Hautamäki, Jarkko; Hiltunen, Jenna; Leino, Kaisa; Lähteinen, Suvi; Nissinen, Kari; Nissinen, Virva; Puhakka, Eija; Rautopuro, Juhani; Vainikainen, Mari-Pauliina (2015) PISA 2015 First Results: At the Top Despite the Decline. Publications of the Ministry of Education and Culture 2016:41. Helsinki: Ministry of Education and Culture.

Vygotsky, Lev S. (1982) Thought and Language. Espoo: Weilin & Göös.

Østergaard, Edvin; Lieblein, Geir; Bredland, Tor Arvid; Francis, Charles (2010) Students learning agroecology: Phenomenon-based education for responsible action. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 16:1, 23–37.

Part 1: Phenomenon-Based Learning – Creating a New Operating Culture

The Challenges and Opportunities of an Operating Culture that Supports Phenomenon-Based Learning

IIDA-MARIA PELTOMAA & AKI LUOSTARINEN

iida-maria.peltomaa@tuni.fi

University of Tampere

Abstract

Every educational institution has its own distinctive operating culture, which can either hinder or enable development toward a direction considered important for the future. Enabling phenomenon-based learning sets certain challenges for the operating culture of educational institutions: among other things, collaboration between teachers, learner participation, diversification of assessment, and objectives related to transversal competencies require, in many institutions, a change in operating culture. At the same time, operating culture is guided by sociocultural myths—certain learned mental constructs—that can become obstacles to the implementation of educational decisions. Building an institution’s operating culture collaboratively and with awareness of these myths—addressing some of them and valuing others—requires openness within the work community to pedagogically grounded discussion. At its best, enabling development initiates a bidirectional process in which operating culture supports development, and development, in turn, transforms operating culture.

Keywords: operating culture, sociocultural myths, development process

The Significance and Development of an Educational Institution’s Operating Culture

Every educational institution has its own distinctive operating culture, which significantly influences upbringing and teaching and thereby learning and the quality of education experienced by learners. Operating culture is constructed, among other things, through interpretations of the norms guiding work and the goals of activity, pedagogy and professionalism, the community’s expertise and development, learning environments, and leadership and the organization, planning, implementation, and evaluation of work. Operating culture is everyday interaction and a mode of social engagement that reveals how people relate to one another and how highly collaboration, for example, is valued (FNBE 2014; Luostarinen & Peltomaa 2016; Katz et al. 2009; Hargreaves 2003). This article examines the challenges and opportunities of operating culture in an educational community implementing phenomenon-based teaching and learning.

The cultures of educational institutions can be roughly divided into two types according to how the community perceives their possibilities for development: fixed cultures or adaptable cultures. A fixed culture is perceived as something that essentially cannot be changed and to which people must adapt, rather than the culture adapting as the surrounding world and people change. The possibility of building a new culture is weak, and development occurs slowly—often even imperceptibly—as the result of the combined effect of many different factors. In an adaptable culture, organizations are seen as having a culture that can be developed, one that unites members of the community and encourages them to work actively and purposefully in the same direction. Through leadership and the development of employees’ own practices, cultural development can be guided toward a desired direction (Harisalo 2008, 272–273).

Developing operating culture in educational institutions is not a separate project detached from everyday work, but rather a change in daily activity and thinking. There must be awareness of operating culture as a whole and of its effects on the work, interaction, and attitudes of the educational community and its individual members. It is essential for members of the community to understand that the prevailing operating culture can either hinder or enable the development of activity in a direction considered important for the future. At its best, enabling development initiates a bidirectional process in which operating culture supports development and development, in turn, transforms operating culture. The process requires leadership of creativity and collaboration, a compassionate and enthusiastic atmosphere, psychological safety, and time. Central to the process is recognizing the different levels of operating culture, such as the personnel-related level or the structural and political level, that is, those related to power relations and roles (Spännäri 2017; Jarenko 2017; Luostarinen & Peltomaa 2016).

Although changing operating culture is at times difficult and there is no single easy or simple path to it, it is nevertheless not impossible. The experts in developing their own work and culture are the people who maintain, create, and live out that operating culture within their communities. These include teaching staff, institutional leadership, learners, and other actors within the operating culture. The development of an operating culture that enables phenomenon-based learning can therefore be viewed as communal experiential learning. In Kolb’s (1984) model of experiential learning, learning is seen as a cyclical, continuously developing and deepening process that acknowledges both unconscious and conscious levels of understanding. At the same time, experiential learning can also be understood as a reaction against teacher-centered and subject-bound educational approaches (Lemmetyinen 2004).

The Goal: A Learning Community

With the new curricula, the concept of the learning community has been incorporated into the national framework for general education. The National Core Curricula for Basic Education (FNBE 2014) and for Upper Secondary Education (FNBE 2015) challenge teachers to engage in new forms of collaboration and to develop operating culture in accordance with the principles of a learning organization (e.g., Senge 1993; Senge et al. 2012; Middlewood et al. 2005).

It is worthwhile to pause and reflect on the description of a learning community in relation to one’s own institution’s operating culture. How many of the points in the list below are realized well? Does any particular point prompt a fresh evaluation of the operating culture? What has led to certain aspects functioning well, while others still require development?

In a learning community (FNBE 2014):

• all members of the community are encouraged to learn—both pupils and students as well as adults within the community
• collaboration and experiences of participation are pursued
• time is taken to reflect on goals and regularly evaluate one’s own work
• unhurriedness is sought
• feedback from homes and other partners is taken into account
• knowledge gained from development work, evaluations, and research is utilized
• the importance of pedagogical and shared leadership is emphasized
• leadership focuses particularly on ensuring the conditions for learning
• conditions are created for learning together and from one another
• emphasis is placed on inquiry and experimentation
• experiences of enthusiasm and success are cultivated
• attempts are encouraged, and learning from mistakes is supported
• appropriate challenges are provided, and strengths are identified and utilized
• a positive and realistic self-concept is fostered, and a natural desire for experimentation and inquiry is developed
• the significance of physical activity for learning is understood, and a sedentary lifestyle is counteracted
• dedication to work, the effort required in learning, and completing tasks are valued

In addition to the characteristics of a learning community described in the National Core Curriculum for Basic Education, the goal is to create a culture in which teachers are proactive and cultivate informal collaboration practices that naturally become independent of time and place. Collaborative relationships are based on activity perceived as useful and valuable and are spontaneous, voluntary, and development-oriented in nature (Hargreaves 1994; Jarenko 2017). The building of a learning community is thus closely linked to the collaboration among teachers, peer networks, and collegial support required by a phenomenon-based culture. In other words, it concerns activity in which teachers work closely together to achieve shared goals and to develop themselves professionally. Peer networks also take into account networks beyond one’s own institution (see, e.g., Lassonde & Israel 2009; Mercier 2010; Rasku-Puttonen et al. 2011).

However, it has been noted that while Finnish teachers enjoy broad autonomy in comparison to other countries according to OECD TALIS data (OECD 2016a), collaboration between teachers and peer networking are significantly less common than in many comparison countries. The TALIS data also show that Finland ranks third from the bottom when lower secondary school principals are asked how often: 1) principals act to support collaboration among teachers in developing new teaching practices; 2) teachers take responsibility for improving their teaching skills; and 3) teachers feel responsible for their students’ learning outcomes (OECD 2016b).

A work culture among teaching staff that tends toward individualism and isolation thus creates challenges for collaboration (e.g., Hargreaves 2003). In educational institutions, it would be important to consciously manage the values and beliefs underlying collaboration and to examine enabling interaction relationships (Willman 2007, 15). The formation and maintenance of a learning community and an operating culture that supports phenomenon-based learning require shared processing and interpretation of the curriculum, as well as commitment from teaching staff and institutional leadership to development and to the implementation of new models of operation.

Developing Operating Culture and Leadership

Planning and coordinating a multilayered social change process affecting the work community are not simple tasks (Fullan 2013; Kanervio 2007). Leadership plays a decisive role in guiding cultural development in the desired direction (Harisalo 2008, 272–273). At the same time, it must be recognized that educational institutions usually do not have only one, but several simultaneous forms of operating culture. In particular, institutional leadership must be aware of the cultures prevailing within the community in order to support development in the desired direction, even though operating culture and its development are the responsibility of everyone participating in that culture (Hanö 2012, 96–98).

Trust, safety, compassion, shared enthusiasm, and a sense of community are core characteristics of an operating culture that supports phenomenon-based learning. Experiences related to trust have long-term effects on operating culture (Keskinen 2005, 79). Strengthening trust increases the capacity to accept new people and new ideas. In a climate of trust, others’ actions do not need to be monitored; instead, they are given space to act. This frees up resources for developmental activity (Ilmonen & Jokinen 2002, 95–97). Trust is an indispensable resource in a successful change process, as it includes the ability to take risks, tolerate uncertainty, and face new situations (Keskinen 2005, 83). Functional relationships between supervisors and subordinates thus require collaboration based on trust (Jokivuori 2004, 291). A sense of safety is also central when developing operating culture. The experience of safety facilitates interaction, learning, and a sense of belonging (Meehan 2011, 81–85). Promoting a compassionate and encouraging attitude toward others and their ideas within an educational institution, as well as strengthening the experience of meaningful work, fosters mutual trust and the construction of a psychologically safe atmosphere (Spännäri 2017; Jarenko 2017). The sense of community that promotes an operating culture supportive of phenomenon-based learning can therefore be seen as encompassing expectations and hopes of finding safety, trust, predictability, and continuity as a counterbalance to uncertainty (Saastamoinen 2012, 64).

Gustafsson (2011) presents three forms of leadership that are seen as beneficial in processes related to changes in operating culture: pedagogical, transformational, and symbolic leadership. Pedagogical leadership refers to leading educational activities and to developing the competence of employees and work communities (see also Kalliala 2012). A pedagogical leader must understand the processes of learning and guiding learning (Heikka & Waniganayake 2011). In leading change, a leader’s ability to create a vision and strategic competence are also central (Heikka 2014, 35–36).

Transformational leadership refers to leadership focused on the values and moral issues of the community (Gustafsson 2011, 131–132). In transformational leadership, the complexity of educational organizations and the participation of teaching staff are significant factors, and leadership involves, among other things, developing the morale and motivation of teaching staff by recognizing their needs, providing sufficient challenges, and developing the school’s vision (Blossing 2011, 179). According to Gustafsson (2011), transformational leadership has positive effects on employees’ self-esteem and initiative, which naturally influences the functioning of the entire institution.

Symbolic leadership is based on the idea that people interpret events through symbolic processes that are personally different for each individual. Symbolic leadership consists of linguistic, functional, and material dimensions. The linguistic dimension refers, for example, to the rhetoric used by leadership in situations of change. The functional dimension includes challenging routines and traditions related to the institution’s activities. The material dimension encompasses the institution’s physical environment, which inevitably influences the formation and development of operating culture. In seeking to guide the development of operating culture, a leader must understand the significance of these symbolic dimensions so that aspects of culture can be made more visible and cultural reservations can be addressed in relation to change (Gustafsson 2011, 131–135).

The construction of an operating culture that supports phenomenon-based learning can also be seen as involving the leadership of creativity. However, creativity cannot be led through coercion or command (Amabile et al. 2005). According to Rahkamo (2016), a leader can strive to create conditions favorable to creativity by stimulating six areas critical to creativity: 1) questioning and the exchange of ideas, which stimulate and create conditions for creative sparks; 2) forming a shared vision, which gathers and advances common understanding; 3) application, which builds strategy; 4) belief in one’s own work, which builds self-confidence; 5) inner drive, which inspires; and 6) perseverance, which trains and enables. Developing into a creative expert is a continuous spiral of development that requires hard work, repetition, and practice. Competence does not develop in a vacuum but in interaction with people and the environment, generating creative sparks. Creative sparks emerge collectively and are important in the development of new lines of thought.

In situations of change in operating culture within educational institutions, leadership faces demanding challenges. The support provided by institutional leadership to teaching staff—including good interaction and sufficient resources—has a significant impact on achieving the goals set for development work. Like teaching staff, institutional leaders must also confront the psychological and social challenges brought about by change, and without support, carrying out the change process may feel lonely and burdensome (Fullan 2013; Kanervio 2007). Leadership must also have access in its work to sufficient collegial support as well as support from its own superiors.

Innovations, Implementation, and Professional Development

Educational innovations guide development either by advancing existing processes or by introducing new practices. Innovativeness is not merely creative ideation; it also involves recognizing, experimenting with, and further developing ideas and new modes of action (OECD 2014; Spännäri 2017). New curricula guide institutions toward an operating culture that supports phenomenon-based learning, for example through multidisciplinary learning modules in basic education (FNBE 2014) and theme-based courses in upper secondary education (FNBE 2015). According to Sahlberg (2012), the field of education tends to develop innovations one after another without genuinely resolving the problem of implementation: do institutions focus on various experiments without producing sustainable change or the knowledge required for long-term development work? Also, when developing an operating culture that supports phenomenon-based learning, it is useful to identify those components that promote lasting change in operating culture. Observation, simulation, and evaluation should therefore be seen as key elements of educational innovation strategies (OECD 2014).

Although learners, guardians, and institutional leadership may be directly or indirectly involved in curriculum implementation processes, teachers are the primary implementers of curricula. For this reason, teachers’ motivation is a significant factor in the successful implementation of the curriculum (Makewa & Ngussa 2015). Curriculum implementation has been described, among others, by Aoki (1983), who emphasizes the significance of teacher agency by distinguishing between instrumental action and context-dependent practice. In instrumental action, the teacher’s role is seen as that of a faithful and efficient implementer whose subjectivity is not essential in the change process, because implementation is viewed primarily as an objective process. In implementation that emphasizes context-dependent practice, by contrast, the teacher is expected to have a deep understanding of the curriculum in order to adapt instruction according to the demands of each situation. The curriculum is interpreted and reflected upon critically, both from the perspective of the curriculum itself and from the perspective of one’s own professionalism in relation to the ongoing change.

Teachers’ lifelong learning and professional development are an integral part of strengthening both the learning community and the quality of education (McGee 2008). For example, Fullan (1991) states that teachers’ continuous professional development is an essential component in improving the quality of education. According to Maskit’s (2011) research findings, teachers’ orientation toward professional development significantly influences their attitudes toward pedagogical change: teachers who are professionally frustrated or nearing the end of their careers tend to respond more negatively to pedagogical changes than teachers who actively develop their competence or represent orientations of enthusiasm and growth. Rahkamo (2016), in turn, describes top-level expertise as being built on the development of creativity and creative problem-solving skills, which the work community can support by promoting psychological safety and a sense of meaningfulness regarding shared matters, as well as by showing interest in members of the community (Spännäri 2017; Jarenko 2017).

When considering in-service training and other measures supporting teachers’ professional development, it is appropriate to take into account Stevenson et al.’s (2015) claim regarding the emphasized role and capacity of educational institutions in developing teachers’ competence. At the same time, it is equally important to recognize the teacher’s own agency as a key factor in learning. Teachers should not be treated as externally changeable objects, but as agents who have the will to commit to and promote their own professional development (Vrasidas & Glass 2004).

Awareness of Myths as a Promoter of Operating Culture

In order to support teachers’ professional development, a deeper understanding is needed of how desirable new practices are implemented and of the factors that either hinder or facilitate change (Wermke 2010). Tobin and McRobbie (1996) have described the development of teaching staff’s daily practices by identifying four myths that may become obstacles to the implementation of educational decisions and innovations: the transmission of knowledge, efficiency, immutability, and preparing learners to succeed in tests. A myth in itself is neither good nor bad; rather, it is a sociocultural construct and a learned mental framework that either promotes or prevents change within an educational institution and that intuitively guides everyday choices and actions. Myths thus directly influence an institution’s operating culture, and their impact must be assessed and taken into account in change processes, educational decision-making, and the implementation of innovations.

The cross-disciplinary phenomenon-based learning described in curricula requires from an institution’s operating culture, from the organization of teaching, and from the learning process certain elements whose “myths of success” may either enable or hinder achievement. The following table compiles prerequisites and objectives for multidisciplinary learning modules described in the National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (FNBE 2014) in relation to these myths. Each objective drawn from the curriculum has been placed in the table under the myth that most likely promotes or prevents the achievement of that objective. Later in this chapter, the kinds of challenges each myth poses for the development of an operating culture that supports phenomenon-based learning are described in more detail. It is also necessary to consider what must be recognized and consciously dismantled in each myth so that it does not become an obstacle to change.

Table 1. Objectives of multidisciplinary learning modules (FNBE 2014) in relation to the school myths presented by Tobin & McRobbie (1996).

Transmission of knowledge	Efficiency	Immutability	Tests
Cooperation between subjects	Goal-oriented work	Learning community and development of transversal competence	Inquiry-based working approach, activity, and experientiality
Investigating wholes, breaking subject boundaries	Utilizing local resources in learning	Pupils have sufficient time to deepen their understanding of content and to work purposefully, diversely, and persistently	During the module, the competence demonstrated by the pupil is taken into account when forming subject-specific verbal assessments or grades
Addressing matters that belong to and broaden pupils’ experiential world	Pupils’ participation in planning	Opportunities to study in diverse and multi-age groups and to work with several different adults	Pupils are given feedback on their work during the learning process
Cooperation between the school and society	Raising questions that pupils perceive as meaningful and creating opportunities to address and advance them	The topics studied are current
Supporting agency that promotes a sustainable way of life	What is learned at school is connected to pupils’ lives, community, and society

---

The Myth of Knowledge Transmission

In the myth of knowledge transmission, the teacher’s authority as the primary source of knowledge and the pupil’s role as a recipient of knowledge are emphasized. The teacher’s authority as the manager of knowledge is highlighted. At the same time, however, it is also understood that the teacher acts as a facilitator of understanding for the learner. The teacher helps the learner understand the knowledge that the learner finds in textbooks or other materials (Tobin & McRobbie 1996).

One of the central objectives of multidisciplinary learning modules in the National Core Curriculum is, among other things, that a module “provides space for intellectual curiosity, experiences, and creativity, and challenges pupils in various interaction and language-use situations” (FNBE 2014, 32). In a phenomenon-based learning module, the teacher may act as one—but certainly not the only—source of knowledge and facilitator of understanding. When a module is constructed as functional, collaborative, and inquiry-based, facilitators of understanding other than the teacher (Tobin & McRobbie 1996, 231) may include, for example, another learner (a peer), another employee of the institution, or an external partner. The curriculum also encourages this: [the objective is] “to strengthen pupils’ participation and provide opportunities to be involved in planning the goals, contents, and working methods of study” as well as “to raise questions that pupils experience as meaningful and to create opportunities to address and advance them” (FNBE 2014, 32).

When learners solve problems together, they often remain with cognitive conflicts related to knowledge only briefly, and resolving these conflicts is inefficient because they do not always have sufficient competence to act constructively in conflict situations or to ask questions that lead to deeper understanding of the problem (e.g., Aarnio 2015; Valtanen 2016). Working across subject boundaries provides learners with a framework in which they can challenge themselves and others—supported and guided—to develop the competence needed to resolve conflict situations. If the authority to facilitate understanding of knowledge rests solely with the teacher, learners may not have access to sufficient support for learning. Aarnio (2015) and Valtanen (2016), like Tobin and McRobbie (1996), note that in conflict situations learners tend to rely heavily on the teacher, tutor, or another authority figure as facilitator of knowledge rather than challenging themselves and their group to resolve the conflict together. Phenomenon-based learning periods, and the practice of skills needed in problem-solving and conflict situations, may therefore challenge educational institutions to help learners achieve the competence required for further studies and future working life. Such competence includes, among other things, problem-solving ability, collaboration skills, the ability to generate new ideas and further develop them, and the skill to manage cognitive load and find meaning in phenomena across disciplinary boundaries (EU 2006; IFTF 2011).

What needs to be recognized and consciously dismantled in the myth of knowledge transmission? The myth challenges educational institutions to consider the following questions and perspectives so that it does not become an obstacle to developing an operating culture that supports phenomenon-based learning:

• The teacher challenges learners to ask questions that go deeper into cognitive conflicts related to knowledge and new ideation: the learner understands why the conflict has arisen and how it might be resolved together (e.g., Aarnio 2015).
• The teacher distributes the authority of knowledge transmission and facilitation of understanding from themselves to the learners, to various available materials, to other staff members of the institution, and to external partners (e.g., Valtanen 2016).
• In cross-disciplinary collaboration, the teacher trusts in the power of peer support, whereby competence that the teacher themselves may lack can be found among colleagues: a competent colleague can support and assist in new situations when the teacher dares to cross certain boundaries formed around their role and position.

• It remains important for the teacher to have strong command of subject matter—that is, the content being taught—but in guiding work, beyond mere transmission of knowledge, emphasis is placed on reflecting on one’s own work, understanding and guiding learning theories and the strategies used by learners, as well as collaboration skills (e.g., Rauste von Wright 2003).

The Myth of Efficiency

The myth of efficiency can be divided into four components: 1) the teacher controls learning and learners; 2) time is limited and divided into short segments; 3) covering content is more important than understanding; and 4) the schedule is managed by someone else—that is, the learner receives a ready-made timetable and work schedule from the teacher, who in turn often receives their own schedule ready-made from a higher authority, such as the principal or vice-principal. The myth of efficiency highlights especially how much time there is for actual learning in everyday institutional life, as described by Tobin and McRobbie’s (1996) interviewees. In the speech of teachers and pupils alike, the idea is repeated that the teacher’s primary responsibility is to cover predetermined content and objectives according to schedule. At the same time, a recurring experience is that the program and objectives fall further and further behind from lesson to lesson. In students’ experiences, emphasis is placed on the excessive amount of material to be learned, prioritizing memorization over understanding due to time constraints, and feelings of inadequacy despite working as diligently as possible.

When control of and responsibility for learning are shifted to the learner, it is often experienced that the (content-related) objectives set for learning cannot be achieved within the allotted time and that the schedule falls behind. In this way, the myth inhibits the change process aimed at inquiry-based, learner-activating, and self-directed learning. Self-directed learning requires the learner to have an effective internal control system, the ability to reflect on their own learning, and an emotional commitment to the learning event and its objectives (Vesterinen 2001). However, methods that activate learners have been found to positively affect interaction among learners as well as the overall emotional and learning climate (Tuohilampi 2016).

Phenomenon-based learning modules are one way to support the learner’s volitional control over their own learning. This can be pursued, for example, by organizing the learning environment in such a way that the affective dimension of learning is emphasized (experientiality, joy of learning, meaningfulness, emotions), and by enabling peer support and collaborative work among learners. In addition, it is important to ensure that information can be obtained from different sources and that the learner can practice applying knowledge, such as distinguishing essential from non-essential information from one another and focusing on essential information (Vesterinen 2001). Practicing and developing such skills requires time. It is noteworthy that, according to research (e.g., Pashler et al. 2008), activities that in the short term may appear to slow down the learning process from the perspective of covering content—such as presenting and solving different types of problems and spacing practice—produce deeper learning in the long term and enhance the transfer of learned knowledge. Unhurriedness as a prerequisite for learning is emphasized in the national core curricula that guide institutional activity and operating culture: “Operating methods and practices support – – an atmosphere of unhurriedness and safety” (FNBE 2015), and “Unhurriedness promotes the community’s learning [–] In school work, predictability and unhurriedness in everyday life are pursued” (FNBE 2014).

What in the myth of efficiency is essential to recognize, question, and consciously dismantle?

• The aim is to balance memorizing content with understanding what has been learned. The myth of efficiency may lead to the idea that the more content a learner remembers, the more they understand, even though these are cognitively different types of activity. Time must therefore be allocated to supporting understanding and promoting the application of knowledge, rather than rushing merely to memorize ever new content (Tobin & McRobbie 1996).
• The curriculum describes common objectives and content defined as essential and central for all. How much additional content has been introduced into textbooks compared to what the curriculum requires? Must a textbook always be completed in its entirety in order to achieve the curriculum’s objectives? Through what didactic and pedagogical means can a teacher ensure that as many learners as possible achieve at least the most essential nationally defined common learning objectives and learn the related core content?
• Are there sufficient learner-activating moments in the institution that positively affect the learning climate and learners’ personal and collective affective level, such as motivation, emotions related to learning, and the experience of meaningfulness? (Tuohilampi 2016)
• Is there unstructured time within the institution for ideation and reflection that generates innovative collaboration among both learners and teachers? (Spännäri et al. 2017)

The Myth of Immutability

The myth of immutability emphasizes the teacher’s responsibility to ensure that learning occurs according to certain standards and at a certain level, regardless of the learner group and the year from one year to the next. The myth is associated with the idea that even though the world surrounding the institution and the ways and objectives of learning change, the desired level and standards do not change, as these are determined partly through the teacher’s experiential knowledge rather than, for example, through curriculum requirements. The myth of immutability is characterized by maintaining high standards, preparing pupils for the next level of education, covering predetermined content, and viewing the curriculum as a document defined by actors outside the institution. Assessing the achievement of externally defined objectives in various learning situations remains the teacher’s responsibility.

Assessment is associated with traditions whose maintenance is believed to ensure that a certain level is preserved from year to year and that learners are prepared to move from one educational level to another, even if the chosen traditional assessment method does not best support learning (Tobin & McRobbie 1996). At the same time, curricula encourage teachers to provide instruction in which learners are encouraged toward creativity and problem-solving in the face of practical problems. Spännäri et al. (2017), however, note that the generation, further development, and implementation of new ideas are limited precisely by hierarchical and inflexible organizational structures, individualism and unhealthy competition, as well as a lack of encouragement. The challenge lies in the fact that while the teacher attempts to adhere to the myth of immutability and to control and authoritatively direct learning toward a certain direction and level, creativity cannot be led by command (Amabile et al. 2015); encouraging creativity is instead linked to both the teacher’s and the learner’s intrinsic motivation and experience of autonomy.

Phenomenon-based learning challenges the myth of immutability in that the content to be learned cannot be purely predetermined (“themes that interest pupils are sought as content for learning modules,” FNBE 2014, 32). The teacher must adapt ways of learning to the particular learner group and to the starting points and personal learning objectives of individual pupils, in addition to the common learning objectives for all. The curricula describe, for example, that “the objective is to raise questions that pupils experience as meaningful and to create opportunities to address and advance them” (FNBE 2014, 32), and that “the selection and development of study environments and methods are also based on students’ capacities, interests, views, and individual needs” (FNBE 2015, 14).

When planning learning and teaching in the implementation of curricula, the myth of immutability challenges institutions to evaluate whether subject-specific objectives and content are emphasized more or less than the objectives and content of the general part of the curriculum. If subject-specific and general objectives are in balance, the myth of immutability should not hinder the development of an operating culture that supports phenomenon-based learning. Developing the transversal competencies needed in the future, taking into account affective factors related to learning, engaging with current and local themes, and goal-oriented, learner-participatory and activating learning bring alongside traditional predetermined subject-specific knowledge content much that phenomenon-based learning modules can, for their part, address (e.g., FNBE 2014; Tuohilampi 2016; Spännäri 2017). A phenomenon-based learning period can thus function as a kind of laboratory for the entire institution’s operating culture, where teachers, learners, and other internal and external partners can experiment with different—partly new and partly familiar—ways of organizing learning (Liinamaa et al. 2016).

The myth of immutability challenges institutions to reflect on what constitutes consistent and equitable learning in relation to nationally defined objectives and learners’ personal learning paths. What in this myth is essential to recognize, question, and consciously dismantle?

• How does the principle of equality relate to learners’ personal learning needs and objectives? In teaching, it is important to consider what is common and essential for all in terms of objectives and content, and where differentiation upward or downward is possible without endangering the required level of instruction and preparedness for further studies (Tobin & McRobbie 1996).
• Does the teacher have the authority to define what and how learning occurs? How much of learning methods, objectives, and content is externally determined, and how much freedom does the teacher have to direct activity toward different content and objectives in different situations and with different learners? Does the operating culture leave room for both teacher and learner creativity? (Spännäri et al. 2017)
• In phenomenon-based learning modules, it is essential that the learner participates in planning content and methods as well as in defining and assessing the desired (personal) level of competence. Learners are challenged to consider how they know when they have succeeded and what constitutes sufficiently good competence in relation to their own or jointly set objectives. What is the relationship between learner participation and responsibility and the teacher’s responsibility?

The Myth of Preparing for Tests

The fourth myth influencing change processes and educational decision-making concerns preparing pupils to succeed in tests and examinations. According to Tobin and McRobbie (1996), the myth of preparing for tests and examinations appears at all levels of education. At the same time, curricula and legislation concerning educational institutions encourage diverse, learning-supportive, and motivating assessment, as well as the development of conditions for self- and peer assessmentas well as the development of transversal competence (FNBE 2014; FNBE 2015; Upper Secondary Education Act §17; Basic Education Act §22). The myth of preparing for tests can shift the attention of both teacher and learner away from personally meaningful factors, from the experience of purposefulness in working, and from free wonder and inquiry, toward what is essential to know for a grade-determining examination. This may occur especially when the myths of knowledge transmission and efficiency appear strongly at the same time. In their study, Afsar and Rehman (2015) found that precisely experiencing learning as meaningful and purposeful helped learners think critically, take responsibility, and seek solutions to problems. Increasing formative assessment alongside summative assessment makes it possible to direct attention to other meaningful factors in learning, such as perseverance, creativity, and systematic work (see also Virtanen et al. in this volume). When the spotlight of assessment highlights, in addition to memorizing content, the factors described above, it becomes easier for learners to experience these as important and valued aspects of their learning. After all, it is meaningful for learners to invest in what and how they are assessed (Virtanen et al. 2015).

Through feedback that is timely, sufficiently frequent, and connected in diverse ways to different learning objectives, a learner’s thinking can be made visible to themselves, to peers, and to the teacher, so that the issue is not merely repeating facts or demonstrating isolated competences. Through process-oriented formative feedback, the learner is offered the opportunity to examine and develop their own thinking and to recognize their progress during the learning process. The aim in feedback is a whole in which forward-looking formative assessment during the process (feedback for learning, assessment for learning) and summative assessment that consolidates learning (feedback on learning, assessment of learning) are combined. Feedback itself should also be a learning situation (feedback as learning, assessment as learning) (e.g., NCR 2004).

Phenomenon-based learning modules require shared goal-setting and understanding of objectives, consideration of the learner’s personal learning goals, and monitoring the achievement of objectives with the support of the teacher, the learner themselves, and the learner’s peers (see also FNBE 2014). The objectives combine both subject-specific content-related goals and goals related to transversal competence. The learning of the former has traditionally been measured through tests and examinations; the latter less so. Norrena and Kankaanranta (2012) state in their research report that learner-centered and collaborative pedagogy and assessment promote the development of certain transversal competences, including collaboration and interaction skills, problem-solving ability, critical thinking, creativity, and digital competence. The development of these competences was promoted by modifying given assignments so that they challenged learners to work together to solve learning-related problems. The level of competence was not measured through tests and examinations.

Ouakrim-Soivio (2017) emphasizes the context-bound nature of assessment. When selecting assessment methods, it is necessary to answer the questions why, what, and how assessment is conducted. The context of learning determines the chosen assessment method, which in turn influences the planning of the learning module. In phenomenon-based learning modules, the assessment of transversal competence and the quality of learning (as opposed to the quantity of learned content) is often emphasized, making methods that provide qualitative assessment information more justified. Learning modules highlight observation, various qualitative and integrative outputs such as blogs and portfolios, guidance and assessment discussions, and self- and peer assessment. A module may also include quantitative and summative assessment information, such as summative interim feedback and various tests, which complement qualitative assessment information and support learning. In this way, assessment is seen as an integral part of the entire learning process rather than a separate action, and its role is more to promote and guide learning than to describe the level of competence at a single moment (Virtanen et al. 2015).

The myth of preparing for tests may subtly shift the focus of learning toward succeeding in the test itself rather than toward understanding, learning, and applying what has been learned. What needs to be recognized and consciously dismantled in the myth of preparing for tests?

• The starting point and foundation of assessment is supporting learning and encouraging the learner (FNBE 2014; FNBE 2015; Upper Secondary Education Act §17; Basic Education Act §22). Competence measured through tests is only one part of the assessment process. Is the activity of both learner and teacher aimed primarily at succeeding in the test, or rather at promoting diverse learning?
• What does diverse demonstration and assessment of learning and competence mean? What kinds of opportunities are provided for learners to demonstrate competence? Can everything learned be measured through tests and examinations? Summative and formative assessment complement one another also in phenomenon-based learning periods, and both should support and promote learning and be encouraging. Summative assessment should also provide the teacher and learner with information about which learning objectives have already been achieved and what kinds of objectives should be set next (Ouakrim-Soivio 2017).
• In phenomenon-based learning modules, setting objectives and sharing responsibility for assessment with learners is important (FNBE 2014): What is the significance of setting and understanding objectives appropriate to the module and of monitoring their achievement? What authority does the learner have in the assessment process, and how are self- and peer assessment implemented at different stages of the learning process?

Awareness of Myths in Operating Culture Change

The myths defined by Tobin and McRobbie (1996) are over two decades old, yet they remain recognizable today also in the Finnish educational context. Phenomenon-based learning offers teachers the opportunity to address and, if necessary, let go of myths that hinder learning and changes in an institution’s operating culture. Long-term support for teachers in professional growth and change is important and challenging—professional identity does not change overnight, and the competence, tools, and methods required by new forms of learning are not adopted without the necessary in-service training, resources, practice, and collective effort.

The power of myths as intuitive mental frameworks guiding action is also linked to teachers’ mutual discussions when developing institutional work and planning phenomenon-based learning modules. At times, discussions related to development are justified precisely through intuitive feelings about the institution, the nature of knowledge, and learning, or by appealing to structures and practices to which people have become accustomed. Myths that hinder educational development may simultaneously have strong support both from individual teachers personally and from the broader social community. It is important in educational institutions to engage in pedagogically grounded discussion about what, according to the prevailing conception of learning, learning theories, and the general objectives of comprehensive education, is important for the learner. At the same time, teachers encounter the cognitively demanding, argument-based, and deepening discussion that learners themselves are encouraged to engage in, so that collaboration among teachers does not remain superficial distribution of tasks, maintenance of social relations, or resolution of disciplinary issues instead of pedagogical co-development (Tobin & McRobbie 1996; Lund 2016; Aarnio 2015; Hargreaves 2003). In this way, the teacher also becomes a reflective learner in the process of phenomenon-based learning, examining their own teacherhood and related practices, the pedagogical justifications of their choices and opinions, and their own attitudes—both individually and together with the wider institutional community (Elliott 2004).

Building an institution’s operating culture collaboratively and with awareness of myths—tackling some of them and valuing others—requires openness within the work community to pedagogically argued discussion (Lund 2016). Central factors of change also include compassion, that is, the ability and willingness to respond to others’ negative emotions in ways that alleviate suffering, and sympathetic joy, that is, the ability to respond to others’ joy, success, and enthusiasm. An atmosphere that supports interaction, trusting relationships, and the creation of shared meanings helps generate new and lasting practices (Spännäri et al. 2017). A compassionate work community does not cause its members to become distressed in the face of uncertainty, shortcomings, and the new; rather, the community recognizes the affective factors of change and seeks solutions to shortcomings. Sympathetic joy, in turn, helps members of the work community share joy and enthusiasm.

Shared enthusiasm in response to another person’s observation or idea can help dismantle those components of myths that hinder the development of an operating culture that supports phenomenon-based learning. Compassion and the experience of psychological safety, in turn, create space for the polyphony of the work community, for movement across different levels of change—such as personal, political, and structural levels—and for differing paces in the work of developing operating culture (Kanervio 2007; Spännäri et al. 2017; Jarenko 2017).

Toward an Operating Culture that Supports Phenomenon-Based Learning

As described in the introductory article of this volume, an operating culture that supports phenomenon-based learning is defined by its relationship to, among other things, authentic learning (e.g., Maina 2004; Rule 2006), problem-based learning (e.g., Barrows 1996; Hmelo-Silver 2004; Blackbourn et al. 2011), and project-based learning (e.g., Krajcik & Blumenfeld 2006; Krajcik, Czerniak & Berger 2002). In general education, the development of an operating culture that supports phenomenon-based learning is guided through curriculum reform and updates by multidisciplinary learning modules in basic education and theme-based courses in upper secondary education. The conceptions of learning expressed in the curricula, the general objectives of instruction, and the descriptions of institutional operating culture emphasize factors that support organizing learning across subject boundaries as part of learning.

Change in operating culture occurs at multiple levels. Phenomenon-based learning extends across many of these: the organization of learning, teachers’ motivation and professional development, the leadership of institutional work, as well as sociocultural myths and the effort to address them. As outlined in the table below, change in operating culture and the elements that support it can be examined at interrelated yet distinguishable levels: the personnel-related level and the structural, political, and symbolic levels (Kanervio 2007, 125).

Table 2. Levels of Operating Culture Change

Level	Obstacles to Change	Promoters of Change
Personnel-related	Uncertainty, feelings of incompetence, restlessness, personal needs	Practicing new competences and professional development, participation and involvement, psychological support and a sense of safety
Structural	Feeling of loss of clarity and stability, confusion, chaos	Interaction, reformulating and renegotiating formal procedures and structures
Political	Loss of sense of empowerment, camps of winners and losers	Creating situations in which common positions can be renegotiated and one’s own political place can be rediscovered
Symbolic	Loss of sense of meaningfulness and purpose of work, clinging to the old	Creating transition rituals and situations in which it is possible to express the difficulty of letting go and to rejoice in the new

Fostering shared enthusiasm, adopting a compassionate attitude toward others (Spännäri et al. 2017), becoming aware of the influence of myths (Tobin & McRobbie 1996), engaging in pedagogically grounded discussion based on them (Lund 2016), and leading pedagogical competence and creativity (Rahkamo 2016) create space within an educational institution to build a phenomenon-based operating culture. Such a culture offers learners the opportunity to experience what is being learned as meaningful, to experience a positive atmosphere for learning (Tuohilampi 2016), to examine holistic phenomena of the world from questions that are personally relevant (FNBE 2014) and that promote deep inquiry (Aarnio 2015), and to practice skills needed in the future (FNBE 2014; FNBE 2015; Norrena & Kankaanranta 2012). An innovative and phenomenon-based operating culture, along with psychological safety, can be promoted by rewarding social skills, allowing time to get to know one another, and building community. It is also essential to map and realize the learning dreams of both the teacher and learner communities (Jarenko 2017).

Information Box

• Educational institutions accustomed to communal modes of operation and where development work is experienced as a natural part of everyday work adapt to change more smoothly.
• Teachers’ motivation and leadership of competence are central prerequisites for developing an operating culture that supports phenomenon-based learning.
• Change in operating culture is a communal process that progresses as an experiential and cyclical, continuously developing and deepening process.

References

Aarnio, Matti (2015) Collaborative knowledge construction in the context of problem-based learning – Exploring learning from conflicting ideas and knowledge. Doctoral dissertation. University of Helsinki. Department of Behavioral Sciences. Educational Research 261.

Afsar, Bilal & Rehman, Maryam (2016) The relationship between workplace spirituality and innovative work behavior: The mediating role of perceived person–organization fit. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 12:4, 329–353.

Amabile, Teresa; Barsade, Sigal; Mueller, Jennifer; Staw, Barry (2015) Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly 50, 367–403.

Blossing, Ulf (2011) Can a principal implement pedagogical leadership? In Ulf Blossing (ed.) The School Leader in Focus: Knowledge, Values and Tools. Lund: Studentlitteratur, 175–191.

Elliott, John (2004) Making evidence-based practice educational. In Thomas, Gary & Pring, Richard (eds.) Evidence-Based Practice in Education. New York: Open University Press, 164–186.

EU (2006) Key Competencies for Lifelong Learning – A European Reference Framework. European Parliament. Accessed 18.9.2017. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32006H0962

Fullan, Michael (2013) Educational Change: Implementation and Continuation. In Wise, Christine; Bradshaw, Pete; Cartwright, Marion (eds.) Leading Professional Practice in Education. London: Sage, 111–123.

Gustafsson, Bengt-Åke (2011) School leadership and school culture. In Stephan Rapp (ed.) School Leadership: Leading the Development Work of Preschool and School. Stockholm: Norstedts Juridik AB, 119–140.

Hanö, Torbjörn (2012) Sustainable School Development: The Principal’s Work in Theory and Practice. Lund: Studentlitteratur AB.

Hargreaves, Andy (1994) Changing Teachers, Changing Times: Teachers’ Work and Culture in the Postmodern Age. Teachers College Press.

Hargreaves, Andy (2003) Teaching in the Knowledge Society: Education in the Age of Insecurity. Teachers College Press, Columbia University, New York.

Harisalo, Risto (2008) Organizational Theories. Tampere: Tampere University Press.

Heikka, Johanna & Waniganayake, Manjula (2011) Pedagogical leadership from a distributed perspective within the context of early childhood education. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice 14:4, 499–512.

Heikka, Johanna (2014) Distributed Pedagogical Leadership in Early Childhood Education. Doctoral dissertation. University of Tampere. Tampere: Juvenes Print – Suomen yliopistopaino.

IFTF (2011) Future Work Skills 2020. Institute for the Future. Accessed 18.9.2017. http://www.iftf.org/futureworkskills/

Ilmonen, Kaj & Jokinen, Kimmo (2002) Trust in the Modern World. University of Jyväskylä. Publication series SoPhi 60.

Jarenko, Karoliina (2017) Compassion, benevolence and psychological safety as prerequisites for renewal capacity. In Pessi, Anne Birgitta; Martela, Frank; Paakkanen, Miia (eds.) The Transformative Power of Compassion. Jyväskylä: PS-kustannus, 263–280.

Jokivuori, Pertti (2004) Commitment to the work organization and trust. Adult Education 4, 284–294.

Kalliala, Marjatta (2012) Childhood in Care? Adults’ Decisions and Children’s Experiences in Early Childhood Education. Tallinn: Gaudeamus.

Kanervio, Pekka (2007) Crisis and Renewal in One Finnish Private School. Doctoral dissertation. University of Jyväskylä. Department of Teacher Education. Accessed 24.9.2017. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-39-3095-0

Katz, Steven; Earl, Lorna; Ben, Sofia (2009) Building and Connecting Learning Communities: The Power of Networks for School Improvement. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.

Keskinen, Soili (2005) Subordinate Skills – Trust, Commitment and Agreement. Publication No. 59 in the Polemia series of the Municipal Development Foundation.

Keys, Carolyn & Bryan, Lynn (2001) Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38:6, 631–645.

Kolb, David (1984) Experiential Learning – Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall: New Jersey.

Lassonde, Cynthia & Israel, Susan (2009) Teacher Collaboration for Professional Learning: Facilitating Study, Research, and Inquiry Communities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lemmetyinen, Arja (2004) Action Research on the Strategic Development of Learning at the Turku School of Economics. Publications of the Turku School of Economics D-2:2004.

Liinamaa, Liisa; Luostarinen, Aki; Peltomaa, Iida-Maria (2016) A Backpack of Tips – A Guide to Multidisciplinary Learning Modules. Project publication. Mikkeli: Otava Folk High School.

Lorentzen, Marte (2017) Positioning at the Boundary – Teacher Specialists at the Interface of the School Administration and Teacher Staff. Conference presentation. ECER 2017.

Lund, Lea (2016) How Teachers Reflect on Their Pedagogy – Learning from Teachers’ Pedagogical Vocabulary. Journal of the International Society for Teacher Education – Teacher Reflections and Student Learning 20:2, 22–35.

Luostarinen, Aki & Peltomaa, Iida-Maria (2016) Recipes for Using the Curriculum. A Teacher’s Guide to Success at Work. Jyväskylä: PS-kustannus.

Meehan, Cricket (2011) The Right to Be Safe: Putting an End to Bullying Behavior. Minneapolis: Search Institute Press.

Mercier, Julien (2010) Collaborative and Individual Learning in Teaching: A Trajectory to Expertise in Pedagogical Reasoning. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Middlewood, David; Parker, Richard; Beere, Jackie (2005) Creating a Learning School. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

NRC (2004) How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Helsinki: WSOY.

Norrena, Juho & Kankaanranta, Marja (2012) Innovative Teaching and Learning: The Developing Ecosystem of Education – Results from the Second Year of the International ITL Study. University of Jyväskylä.

OECD (2016a) Teacher Professionalism. Teaching in Focus, No. 14, OECD Publishing, Paris.

OECD (2016b) School Leadership for Developing Professional Learning Communities. Teaching in Focus, No. 15, OECD Publishing, Paris.

FNBE (2014) National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2014. Regulations and Guidelines 2014:96. Helsinki: Finnish National Agency for Education.

FNBE (2015) National Core Curriculum for Upper Secondary Education 2015. Regulations and Guidelines 2015:48. Helsinki: Finnish National Agency for Education.

Oukarim-Soivio, Najat (2017) Assessment of Learning and Competence. Helsinki: Otava Publishing Company.

Pashler, Harold; McDaniel, Mark; Rohrer, Doug; Bjork, Robert (2008) Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 9:3, 106–119.

Rahkamo, Susanna (2016) The Path to Becoming a Successful Top Expert – A Study of the Collective Creativity of Five Multiple Finnish Olympic Champions. Doctoral dissertation. Aalto University publication series Doctoral Dissertations, 257/2016.

Rasku-Puttonen, Helena; Klemola, Ulla; Kostiainen, Emma (2011) Supporting student teachers’ social interaction competence in teacher education. In Marita Kontoniemi & Olli-Pekka Salo (eds.) Educating Teachers in the PISA Paradise: Perspectives on Teacher Education at a Finnish University. Jyväskylä Teacher Training School, 89–102.

Rauste-von Wright, Maijaliisa; von Wright, Johan; Soini, Tiina (2003) Learning and Education. Helsinki: Sanoma Pro.

Saastamoinen, Mikko (2012) Contemporary discussion on community. In Karin Filander & Marjatta Vanhalakka-Ruoho (eds.) Community in Motion. Jyväskylä: Kansanvalistusseura, 33–66.

Senge, Peter (1993) The Fifth Discipline – The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. London: Century Business.

Senge, Peter; Lucas, Timothy; Smith, Bryan; Dutton, Janis; Kleiner, Art; Cambron-McCabe, Nelda (2012) Schools That Learn: A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents, and Everyone Who Cares About Education. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Spännäri, Jenni; Juntunen, Elina; Ståhle, Pirjo (2017) The deep roots of innovativeness – Compassion, shared enthusiasm, and spirituality. In Anne Birgitta Pessi; Frank Martela; Miia Paakkanen (eds.) The Transformative Power of Compassion. Jyväskylä: PS-kustannus, 246–262.

Tobin, Kenneth & McRobbie, Campbell (1996) Cultural myths as constraints to the enacted science curriculum. Science Education 80:2, 223–241.

Tuohilampi, Laura (2016) Deepening Mathematics-Related Affect Research into Social and Cultural Contexts – Decline, Measurement, and the Significance of Students’ Multilevel Affect in Finland and Chile. Doctoral dissertation. University of Helsinki, Faculty of Behavioral Sciences.

Valtanen, Juri (2016) What Is the Problem? The Meaning of Problem in a Problem-Based Learning Context – Toward Problem-Aware Students. Doctoral dissertation. University of Tampere, Unit of Education.

Van den Akker, Jan (2007) Curriculum design research. In Tjeerd Plomp & Nienke Nieveen (eds.) An Introduction to Educational Design Research. Netherlands: SLO – Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development, 37–50.

Vesterinen, Pirkko (2001) Project Study and Learning in a University of Applied Sciences. Doctoral dissertation. University of Jyväskylä, Faculty of Education.

Virtanen, Viivi; Postareff, Liisa; Hailikari, Telle (2015) What kind of assessment supports lifelong learning? University Pedagogy 22:1, 3–11.

Willman, Arto (2001) Conflicting discourses of collaboration – A discourse-analytic perspective on classroom teachers’ interpretations of teamwork. Oulu: Oulu University Press.

Phenomenon-Based Curriculum – Renewing Teacherhood, Learning, and Operating Culture

Emma Kostiainen & Mirja Tarnanen

emma.kostiainen@jyu.fi

University of Jyväskylä

Abstract

The curriculum is regarded as a central document from the perspective of education, as it functions both as an instrument of educational policy and as a tool guiding instruction through its objectives and content. In this article, we examine a situation of change in teacher education in which the development of a phenomenon-based curriculum has aimed simultaneously to address changes in both the content of teaching and learning and in operating culture. Our goal is to explore how phenomenon-basedness is understood and how the change is experienced. The core data of our study consist of open-ended responses to a questionnaire answered by 97 students and 21 teacher educators. According to the results, phenomenon-basedness and development work bring with them learner-centeredness, communality, and multidimensional perspectives, but also uncertainty and experiences of lack of structure. A key question, therefore, is how change could be supported and phased in such a way that it does not create excessive burden and that sufficient time is appropriately allocated for development and professional growth.

Keywords: phenomenon-based curriculum, operating culture, teacher education

Starting Points for Educational Development Work

The operating culture of schools and educational institutions can be conceptualized and approached in different ways. In this article, we examine the relationship between operating culture and the curriculum when the curriculum is changed to support phenomenon-based learning. The curriculum is generally considered a central document in education, as it serves as a tool of societal and educational policy guidance and, through its objectives and content, as a tool guiding instruction (McKernan 2008). However, the curriculum is not the same as teaching itself, as numerous studies have shown a gap between the written curriculum and the enacted teaching (e.g., van den Akker 1988; Penuel et al. 2014). For this reason, in connection with curriculum reform it is important to examine the entire educational community with its values, beliefs, and practices. How is the teaching profession within the community understood within the community? Does individualism and working alone become emphasized, or communality and collaboration? Is feedback-centered peer learning characteristic of the community, or are giving and requesting feedback unfamiliar practices? Is development work built on individual interest, or is it something that must be negotiated and pursued collectively? (See also Taajamo et al. 2014.) What, in fact, changes when the curriculum changes—or does anything change at all?

In the curriculum reform examined here, the starting point—alongside phenomenon-basedness—was to develop the operating culture of the educational community. More broadly, successful and sustainable change in the operating culture of schools and educational institutions requires change at both the level of the school organization and the teacher community, including the entire staff. In educational communities, teachers play a central role in creating, maintaining, and transforming operating culture. In change processes, the values, beliefs, and practices of the community are emphasized, as well as how these manifest in everyday situations, since they gain new meanings and are negotiated both collectively and individually. It is also crucial how the teaching staff experience their ability to influence activities and how they perceive the support and resources provided for change work (e.g., Hargreaves 1994; Beijaard, Meijer & Verloop 2004; Fullan 2007).

Our aim is, on a research basis, to conceptualize how a phenomenon-based curriculum and learning are understood within the community and how students and teachers, as members of that community, experience and articulate the change. As our data, we use curriculum and operating culture development work carried out at the Department of Teacher Education at the University of Jyväskylä during the years 2014–2017.

Toward a Phenomenon-Based Curriculum

In this chapter, we describe the situation preceding the curriculum reform and the reform process within our community. Understanding the starting point in educational development work is important, as reform never arises from nothing or without reason. The differing views and tensions that emerge during reform must be examined and understood as part of the transformation of operating culture.

Unlike basic education, universities in Finland have considerable autonomy in planning and deciding on their own curricula. However, their formation is strongly influenced by institutional traditions and areas of special expertise (Karjalainen, Alha, Jaakkola & Lapinlampi 2007; Vitikka, Salminen & Annevirta 2012). Regardless of the educational institution in question, curriculum development always reflects the cultural, ideological, social, historical, and global issues that define each field. In addition to an institution’s internal goals and strengths, curriculum development is also guided by external demands, especially competence requirements arising from working life (Annala & Mäkinen 2011; Rautiainen, Vanhanen, Nuutinen & Virta 2014.) Within the framework of studies that grant formal qualification according to regulations and their formal requirements, this autonomy and freedom nevertheless make even comprehensive curriculum reforms possible. It can be thought that the issue concerns above all the vision and capacity of educational institutions to renew themselves and to develop their operations.

Curriculum development work typically involves both external and internal needs for change. In our own community, the need to develop and renew teacher education at a national level—considering the entire school system, the field of education, and working life—was evident. More generally, education in the field of education must be anticipatory and capable of examining itself and the surrounding societal phenomena critically and with a developmental orientation (see Darling-Hammond 2006). In our view, the phenomenon-based approach has points of connection with the changing world of work, which is increasingly characterized by future skills: teamwork, the ability for multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary collaboration and problem-solving, as well as creative and critical thinking (e.g., Binkley et al. 2012).

We also felt strongly the need to renew education locally, at the departmental level. The previous curriculum was structured according to the traditional division of educational science into its subdisciplines (philosophy of education, sociology of education, educational psychology, and pedagogy). A curriculum built on this foundation did not provide students with a coherent and holistic understanding of the challenges of the field of education and teaching, its field of practice, or its theoretical questions. Due to the many and sometimes conflicting expectations directed at the teaching profession and the demands for broad competence, teacher education curricula have been characterized by fragmentation and by the marginalization of certain themes, for example social and sociological issues (Jussila & Saari 1999; Rautiainen et al. 2014). Likewise, a curriculum based on the subdisciplines of educational science, and the education designed upon it, did not succeed in meaningfully integrating theoretical and practical knowledge into a comprehensive understanding, which is a typical problem and concern in teacher education internationally as well (Brouwer & Korthagen 2005; Hennissen, Beckers & Moerkerke 2017; Korthagen 2010). The ideal of the “practical craftsman” still appears strong in discourse, even though the academic nature of education is rarely questioned anymore (Rautiainen et al. 2014, 16). This desire for practice-oriented emphasis is also supported by graduate placement follow-up surveys (Placement Follow-up 2015). These suggest that graduates in education encounter a reality shock (see Brouwer & Korthagen 2005, 155) and, when assessing their working-life skills, experience significant deficiencies especially in the practical skills required for teaching tasks and in problem-solving skills.

The previous curriculum was therefore neither conceptually nor structurally sufficiently coherent, did not resolve the problem of fragmentation, and did not sufficiently challenge traditional conceptions of learning, teaching, and being a teacher.

Within the operating culture, there was also a need to engage students in taking broader responsibility for their own learning and to guide them toward a more critical and development-oriented stance toward their own field (see Niemi 2000). The capacity of teacher education to challenge graduating teachers toward renewal and innovation has been found internationally to be difficult (Brouwer & Korthagen 2005; Schelfhout et al. 2006). Securing the commitment of the entire community and ensuring teachers’ active role in implementing reforms is significant if even radical changes are to become lasting and sustainable (Fullan 2007; Maskit 2011).

The Relationship Between Curriculum and Operating Culture

In developing a phenomenon-based curriculum, the aim has been simultaneously to change and renew both the content and methods of teaching and learning and the operating culture (see also Peltomaa & Luostarinen in this volume). By operating culture, we refer to those practices experienced and lived by teachers and students that become visible in our activities and through which we form conceptions of our surrounding reality (see, e.g., Berger & Luckmann 1994; Brotherus 2004). The focus of examination is thus the relationship between layers of formal and informal culture (Gordon 1999). In other words, to what extent and in what ways the written curriculum and its implementation support—or fail to support—one another (see, e.g., Penuel et al. 2014; Kostiainen 2016).

Often, curriculum reforms focus primarily on updating and specifying the objectives and content of subjects, courses, or study modules rather than on operating culture. In such cases, the overall picture held by those responsible for individual parts of the curriculum may remain fragmented or thin. If the teaching staff do not perceive the curriculum as a coherent whole, the same cannot be expected of students. Previous research shows that the effectiveness of education is linked to how clear and collectively shared the vision of the curriculum, the structure of the degree program, and its key concepts are among teachers and students (Brouwer & Korthagen 2005; Canrinus, Bergem, Klette & Hammerness 2015; Darling-Hammond 1999).

When curricula are drafted in schools and educational institutions, in addition to fragmentation, the process may involve advocacy for the interests of one’s own subject content and territorial disputes (see Hökkä, Eteläpelto & Rasku-Puttonen 2010; Silander, Rautiainen & Kostiainen 2014). Periodic curriculum reform may also lead to mechanical updating of the document according to given guidelines and schedules. In such cases, insufficient attention may be paid to how teaching is actually implemented and what the overall goals and impact of education are. For example, impact studies of teacher education in Finland and elsewhere have repeatedly highlighted the ineffectiveness of education and the fact that it has not sufficiently promoted, for instance, active learning skills, t

Education, like many other systems, is a self-reinforcing system that maintains established ways of operating (Niemi 2000, 188). Operating and organizational culture—for example, the development of participation—has been a focus in our previous curriculum reforms as well, but embedding a new kind of operating culture has proven challenging (Naukkarinen 2004). For this reason, in connection with the curriculum reform, we set as a central goal expanding the reform work to include transformation of the operating culture into one that enables the implementation of a phenomenon-based curriculum. The aim was to integrate understanding of the curriculum as a theoretical and practical whole. In our development work, we repeatedly illustrated the relationship and coherence between curriculum and operating culture through the following figure (see Figure 1).

We adopted as the guiding slogan of the development work the idea of moving toward the teaching culture we aspire to. We asked—and continue to ask—ourselves:

• What kind of operating culture enables the realization of our curriculum?
• How do the contents of our curriculum and the operating culture meet?
• How do I change my own practice?

During the reform process, it is important to examine both phenomenon-basedness and operating culture critically. Phenomenon-basedness, both as a concept and as teaching practice and as part of the operating culture of education, is not unambiguous; rather, it has required—and continues to require—extensive negotiation of meaning among teachers and…

Figure 1. The relationship between a phenomenon-based curriculum and operating culture.

• What kind of operating culture enables the realization of our curriculum?
• How do I change my own practice?
• From which phenomena and contents is our curriculum built?
• How do I change teaching contents?
• How do the contents of our curriculum and the operating culture meet?
• How do we build our curriculum together among students—without forgetting other partners, such as cooperating schools?

In what follows, we examine how students and teachers understand phenomenon-basedness and how the changes brought by the curriculum are experienced. Our focus is particularly on students, since their role has typically been very limited in the evaluation of teacher education (Niemi 2000, 172). Before moving to the results, we present how the data were collected, what they consist of, and how they were analyzed.

The conceptions and experiences of teacher students and teacher educators were explored through an electronic survey that included both open-ended and structured questions about the curriculum and its implementation. The survey data were collected in 2017, when the phenomenon-based curriculum had been in force for its third academic year. In total, 97 students (57 class teacher students and 40 subject teacher students) and 21 teacher educators responded to the survey. Here, we focus particularly on the qualitative data from the survey, that is, the open-ended questions, which were analyzed using content analysis. Below, we describe the stages of the content analysis in more detail.

Responses to the open-ended questions were analyzed through data-driven content analysis, proceeding through phases of data reduction, thematic categorization, synthesis, and interpretation (Braun & Clarke 2006; Miles & Huberman 1994; Strauss & Corbin 1990). In the first phase of analysis, abstractions describing the phenomenon under study were identified in the data, and content categories were formed to describe them. In this phase, categories were created from the students’ and teachers’ responses, guided by questions emerging from the survey and linked to the research questions. The expressions under study were treated as meaningful units, which consisted of either individual words and concepts or entire sentences and larger thought entities (Ahonen 1994; Marton 1994). For example, the meaning units “learner-centeredness” and “involving students and making participation part of the planning and implementation of teaching” were coded into the same category describing strong student participation.

In the second phase of analysis, themes connecting the data were sought by comparing the created categories and examining their conceptual relationships. At this stage, the unifying conceptual themes were analyzed in light of the following questions:

1. What does phenomenon-basedness generate and produce in students’ experiences?
2. What kinds of tensions appear in students’ orientations?
3. What factors generate and produce a motivating and inspiring operating culture?
4. What opportunities and challenges do the phenomenon-based curriculum and operating culture generate and produce in the orientations of teacher educators?

In the third phase of analysis, the process moved to the level of interpretation of results, seeking to identify and recognize the central themes and core meanings. At this stage, the results were interpreted b

A Different Way of Studying

Students experienced the transition to a phenomenon-based curriculum as a significant change, both in terms of the perspectives offered by courses and in how they were implemented. This change has also challenged students to adopt a different way of studying. In the students’ view, phenomenon-basedness has

1. shifted learning toward a more inquiry-oriented direction that develops deeper understanding and has increased the breadth of content,
2. increased learner-centeredness and strengthened their agency, and
3. provided readiness to act collaboratively and thus to develop future-oriented teacherhood (see Figure 2).

Phenomenon-based study has increased an inquiry orientation and meaningful learning experiences. It challenges students to engage with difficult and puzzling questions that are meaningful and interesting to explore, investigate, and understand more deeply:

“I understand phenomenon-basedness as opening up important and difficult issues for ourselves together, and through that we learn something new about them – – bringing in different perspectives broadens one’s own knowledge and worldview.”

Likewise, the new way of learning has promoted multidisciplinarity and the understanding of wholes and connections. In phenomenon-based study modules, subject integration and the multidimensionality of the phenomena studied become possible. It also guides students to examine cause-and-effect relationships:

“For me, phenomenon-basedness means that I approach the subject/topic I am studying from the context of some larger whole; that is, I do not study only a single object, but try to understand it through everything to which it is connected.”

Figure 2. Features of phenomenon-based study.

• Inquiry-oriented and understanding-based learning, breadth
• Inquiry-oriented and meaningful learning
• Multidisciplinarity and understanding of connections
• Learner-centeredness and agency
• Student responsibility and needs
• Everyday life and topicality
• Collaborative teacherhood
• Cooperation and sharing
• New perspectives

According to the students, phenomenon-basedness has brought with it ways of working and practices that begin from their own needs and competences. They feel that they have responsibility, opportunities for choice and influence, and that studying is not based on ready-made or pre-defined topics given to them in advance:

“Students are not given ready answers or facts thrown at them immediately, but knowledge is built through some problem that we want to solve.”

Students’ descriptions of learning reflect the possibility of exercising their own agency and of engaging with issues and themes that are personally relevant and authentic:

“Learning starts from what the learner is interested in and what they want to explore and learn.”

In addition to an inquiry-oriented and understanding-based orientation and learner-centeredness, phenomenon-basedness also brings with it collaborative and future-building teacherhood. Reciprocity, working together, and interaction are experienced as particularly important and useful:

“There have been great opportunities to influence studies in terms of both content and ways of working – – it inspires the search for new perspectives and problem-solving by utilizing one’s own and others’ strengths. Interaction and collaboration inevitably become central tools instead of working alone, even though joint reflection and investigation of phenomena do not exclude individual effort.”

Embracing new ideas and adopting new ways of working have also been experienced as meaningful:

“breaking away from old, rigid study habits,”

“not getting stuck in old patterns and teaching what has always been taught” (see also Kauppinen et al. in this publication).

Attitudes toward phenomenon-basedness are not, however, unproblematic. It also evokes considerable uncertainty, contradictory feelings, and questions about how it should be understood. Teachers are expected to provide a clear, detailed, or unproblematic description of what is meant by phenomenon-basedness. Referring to and talking about phenomenon-basedness can also be experienced as overly emphasized:

“At the moment, phenomenon-basedness actually just frustrates me, because everything has been shoved under it.”

Students’ critical views reflect the fact that teachers do not provide ready-made answers and that teachers themselves may not necessarily share a unified understanding of what phenomenon-basedness is and how it is implemented.

The Strengths and Bottlenecks of Phenomenon-Based Study

From the perspective of research-based development of education and curriculum, it is particularly important to gain information and understanding about what is experienced as functional in education based on phenomenon-basedness and what is not—in other words, what kinds of tensions it generates (see Figure 3). Two thematic tensions were reflected in students’ experiences:

1. On the one hand, phenomenon-based study and learning challenge and engage students; on the other hand, they create uncertainty and can lead to passivity.
2. Phenomenon-basedness is characterized by a tension between experiences of authenticity and credibility and experiences of artificiality and lack of credibility.

A positive opportunity in phenomenon-basedness is that it challenges and engages students and gives responsibility to them, so that students feel trusted and that what they do and learn has meaning (see also Lestinen & Valleala in this publication). Students clearly want to challenge themselves, their competence, and their opportunities to learn and understand the phenomena studied broadly and deeply:

“phenomenon-basedness and good teaching have led in several courses to good discussions through which greater understanding has been achieved,”

“we were free to try out any kind of project at all – this kind of freedom blossomed in our group and we boldly experimented with very different ways of teaching and learning.”

Figure 3. Thematic tensions in phenomenon-based study.

Challenges, engages

– Broad, deep understanding vs. narrowness and superficiality of specific themes

– Student’s own interest vs. excessive expectation of self-direction

– Appropriately challenging and demanding vs. too difficult, vague

Creates uncertainty, leads to passivity

Authenticity, credibility

– Methods diverse and high-quality vs. implementation one-sided

– Meaningful, authentic vs. artificial, overly emphasized

– Trust vs. doubt toward phenomenon-basedness

Artificiality, lack of credibility

When the starting point is the student’s own interest, enthusiasm, and motivation, an inquiry-oriented and questioning approach to study is a natural way to examine phenomena. However, it is evident that phenomenon-based study challenges the student–teacher guidance relationship in a new way. When responsibility for studying rests primarily with the students themselves, they genuinely need guidance and support in selecting perspectives and in directing and deepening their examination of different phenomena. The themes to be studied and investigated are negotiated, the choice of perspectives is evaluated, supported or questioned, and compromises are made together with the supervisor. This requires considerable initiative from the student. Assessment is also discussed and negotiated, since it largely consists of self- and peer assessment rather than being solely the responsibility of the supervisor.

Phenomenon-basedness and broad freedom of choice may also lead to passivity and to making easy choices, so that studying becomes merely performing tasks. If students perceive the teacher’s role as too passive, or if they hesitate to seek guidance on their own initiative, concerns arise about learning and uncertainty about whether students are able to engage with essential themes and questions:

“Teachers would surely give advice, but often that advice comes in the form of ‘send an email or come by if you have questions.’ In busy everyday life and with group members’ differing schedules, this never happens – – in other words, students are left quite on their own without guidance, which is also partly the students’ own fault – – but perhaps teachers should intervene more intentionally, so that something more than just what we ourselves created would remain from the courses.”

When studying includes much freedom of choice and complex phenomena, the phenomena studied may appear as overly difficult wholes to grasp, or phenomenon-based study in general may seem too difficult. Working with broader thematic entities also raises uncertainty among students about whether studying becomes too superficial and whether some very important issues, theories, or research knowledge remain unaddressed and unlearned:

“A challenge is certainly ensuring that phenomenon-basedness is not used just for its own sake, but because it deepens learning of the course contents – – otherwise an important theoretical foundation on the topic is missing, and what is learned in the course depends largely on the group members’ interest in the topic.”

Phenomenon-based study is also characterized by experiences of authenticity and credibility, as well as artificiality and lack of credibility. Studying is experienced as meaningful especially when the working methods used support phenomenon-basedness. In such cases, the methods are varied and genuinely give space to students and their ideas. Likewise, a starting point for learning is that the phenomenon is as open as possible and that sufficient support is available during the learning process. When the questions and problems are authentic and arise from practices in the field of education, they build teacher identity broadly and in depth:

“Precisely the view constructed in the process of our activity and of the societal significance of teacherhood as a whole was the one that was featured in radio and television news – – I therefore dare to state that phenomenon-based work enables learning in line with objectives very well and brings with it abundant opportunities for other kinds of learning, as well as a powerful sense of the meaningfulness of learning and of what has been learned.”

Anchors of Students’ Interest and Motivation in Their Studies

One of the central goals of the curriculum reform has been to create and foster an operating culture that inspires and motivates students. Students’ interest and motivation arise in an operating culture in which they experience

1. interaction and relationships that support both group and individual learning,
2. ownership of their own learning, relevance to working life and future orientation, and
3. strengthening of their professional identity and attachment to the field (see Figure 4).

In meaningful learning, interaction and relationships that support both group and individual learning are important. At their best, students and teachers are significant resources for one another in terms of learning and well-being (see also Kostiainen et al. 2018). Especially relationships among students, interaction and shared discussions, mutual support, and sharing of ideas are of paramount importance:

“Peer support from other teacher students is absolutely inspiring.”

Students’ views strongly reflect that the operating culture of the program has emphasized that the learning unit is more a group than an individual. For example, in class teacher education, students work in home groups that examine teacherhood through different themes (such as collaborative teacherhood, multiprofessional orientation, well-being, language awareness) and study closely and over a long period within these groups—at least one academic year, typically several years, and some groups even for most of their studies.

Figure 4. Factors generating students’ interest and motivation in phenomenon-based study.

Interaction and relationships supporting group and individual learning

– Functional interaction with peers and teachers

– Being noticed, encouragement, trust, feedback

Ownership of learning, working-life relevance, and future orientation

– Opportunity to influence

– Multidimensional perspectives

– Usefulness and new perspectives

Strengthening of professional identity and attachment to the field

– Experiences of development and challenge

– Positive image of the teaching profession and its motivational character

Likewise, in subject teacher education, students work both in multidisciplinary groups composed of future subject teachers from different fields and in their own subject-specific groups. Especially studying in multidisciplinary groups is experienced as rewarding:

“Especially the mixed group [the group has motivated and inspired] and its supervisor! – – it has been absolutely amazing to exchange pedagogical views with teachers of other subjects as well.”

Teachers’ attitudes and their interaction with students are also experienced as important for the inspiration and motivation to learn. Although communality and group-based study are emphasized in the program, it is particularly meaningful that students feel seen as individuals, encouraged, and understood:

“The atmosphere [in the program] is good and encouraging – students are taken into account as individuals whenever possible.”

Ownership of one’s own learning, connection to working life, and orientation toward future competence are also motivating factors. Students value having a meaningful role in selecting the perspectives examined in their studies and that their interests are valued. This creates ownership of their own learning and engages them in multidimensional processes that are central to phenomenon-based study. This, in turn, requires that studying is flexible and that progress in studies is experienced as smooth:

“It’s nice to notice that the studies are progressing.”

It is also experienced as meaningful that studies and the phenomena examined are perceived as useful for future working life and the school of the future:

“It has been motivating that practical work has been present in the studies – – phenomena have been identified from real life and studies have been directed accordingly – – if, for example, differentiation has been on one’s mind, in our home group we have been able to reflect on the phenomenon together in more detail.”

The development and strengthening of professional identity and attachment to the field are likewise essential. Students are inspired and motivated when investing in their studies produces results and they perceive the development of their competence and the deepening of their understanding in their own area of expertise:

“The year has been busy, but rewarding – I feel that I have grown as a teacher more during this year than before.”

Students want to challenge themselves, and their expressions even reflect a “passion for studies.” When studying is inspiring and useful both in content and in implementation, it encourages them to learn more and more deeply, and thus to attach themselves more strongly to their field:

“The courses have been interesting and have motivated me to study – the desire to know more has been the biggest motivator this academic year,”

“In the studies, the move toward phenomenon-basedness has inspired me – – I have been motivated by my own desire to develop as a teacher and to understand learning processes – – in the phenomenon course in the advanced studies, especially the assessment component developed my own thinking.”

Opportunities and Challenges of a Phenomenon-Based Curriculum from Teachers’ Perspective

Creating a phenomenon-based curriculum and an operating culture that supports it is a long-term process. It requires significant work from the teacher community and extensive shared discussion and negotiation of meanings. It is crucial how teachers experience the educational reform, with its opportunities and challenges. Teachers see phenomenon-basedness as bringing challenges and opportunities in the following areas:

1. collaborative expertise and its quality,
2. learner-centeredness, and
3. a renewing and development-oriented critical operating culture (see Figure 5).

Teachers consider collaborative expertise and nurturing it to be important. They feel that the shift toward phenomenon-basedness has strengthened and increased collaboration and sharing among teachers. Working in teams composed of teachers from different fields has enabled multidimensional working methods that cross disciplinary and subject boundaries. In this way, different areas of expertise have been better expressed through collaboration:

“I have increasingly been able to work in teacher teams where each person’s strengths are taken into account and where a shared whole of competence is pursued – – from that, considerably more emerges than what a single teacher could produce alone – – my own competence has continuously developed as a result.”

Teachers experience being more strongly connected than before to the core and essential questions of education. The sense of collaborative expertise is reinforced by findings showing that a significant majority of teachers feel they are part of teams that develop their expertise, and that most also experience collaboration as rewarding.

Figure 5. Teachers’ views on the opportunities and challenges of a phenomenon-based curriculum and operating culture.

Collaborative expertise and its quality

Opportunity: Increased collaboration and sharing

Challenge: Ensuring diversity of collaboration and managing workload

Learner-centeredness

Opportunity: Strong student participation

Challenge: Ability to engage students

Renewing and development-oriented critical operating culture

Opportunity: Increased flexibility, openness, and courage to experiment

Challenge: Finding appropriate emphases (e.g., theory and practice)

Since phenomenon-basedness clearly creates a need for collaboration among teachers, their views highlight that the diversity and quality of collaboration must be nurtured and that well-being must be safeguarded:

“At times it feels that the danger of increased collaboration is that the number of teams genuinely engaged in collaboration and development work decreases – – when there are many [teams], not everyone can attend meetings anymore or has time to read others’ plans.”

Phenomenon-basedness has changed teachers’ ways of thinking about teaching and learning. Like students, teachers feel that learner-centeredness has increased and that a phenomenon-based approach gives students the opportunity to engage with phenomena that interest them. It has also altered the traditional roles of students and teachers. Student participation is strengthened, and the teacher’s role shifts more toward guidance:

“The student’s role is changing toward that of an active, critical agent.”

As with students, teachers experience that the strengthening of students’ roles in learning processes challenges the student–teacher guidance relationship in new ways. On the one hand, students must be engaged and required to show initiative and independence in making decisions and solutions; on the other hand, they must be skillfully guided in their own goals:

“Students do not want teacher-led instruction back, but rather expert support from the supervisor.”

Teachers’ descriptions reflect a shift in operating culture toward a more renewing direction. Slightly over half (57 percent) of the teachers who responded to the survey feel that the operating culture has changed in a positive direction as a result of the phenomenon-based curriculum. Their descriptions convey both satisfaction and development-oriented critical reflection toward the curriculum reform and the operating culture that seeks to support it.

Teachers expressing satisfaction highlight especially the desire for renewal, future orientation, and the courage to move toward a new, experimental operating culture:

“The idea and the fact that this step was taken [has been functional and successful in the phenomenon-based curriculum]—it is best to be in the future, it has also strengthened our collaborative groups and drawn us more closely to professional questions. I also emphasize flexibility – – within this curriculum there is the possibility to create various curriculum-aligned initiatives.”

Those expressing satisfaction also note that as collaboration increases, constructive criticism becomes part of the operating culture:

“I think this [phenomenon-based curriculum] is perhaps the most significant improvement – – the staff collaborates better than ever in my experience – – and critical and constructive voices are allowed to be heard in multidisciplinary expert tasks and working groups.”

Teachers who are more reserved about phenomenon-basedness are concerned that other development work, such as research, should not become isolated, but that education and other development work should support one another. Likewise their views also highlight that phenomenon-basedness itself—and development merely for the sake of development—must not become an end in itself.

Core Features of Education Based on Phenomenon-Basedness

Based on the conceptions of teachers and students, education built on a phenomenon-based curriculum is primarily characterized by:

1. the experience of agency (active – passive),
2. the experience of the development of professional identity and learning (deep, broad, meaningful – superficial, thin), and
3. the experience of operating culture (renewing – preserving).

These key factors are not separate from one another; rather, together they form a complementary understanding of how phenomenon-basedness and its core features can be characterized (see Figure 6).

Phenomenon-basedness appears to be clearly linked to how both students and teachers perceive the nature of agency: whether they experience their own and each other’s agency as active or passive. Phenomenon-based study and teaching offer students ample opportunities for active agency and for influencing the decisions they make. At their best, teachers trust students’ agency by giving them considerable responsibility. This should not mean that the teacher withdraws; on the contrary, the teacher should remain active in their role as a guide by being open to different alternatives and supporting students constructively. This requires commitment to interaction and negotiation of meanings from both students and teachers.

It is crucial how students and teachers interpret each other’s agency. If students and teachers experience their own agency as active, students take responsibility and demonstrate a desire to learn, while the teacher shows interest and provides appropriate support. In this way, learning can become meaningful, purposeful, and engaging in a shared learning process.

Figure 6. Core features of phenomenon-basedness and their relationships.

In development work, it is also central whether the operating culture is experienced as renewing or preserving. If an educational community acts in accordance with what it says, education is experienced as credible. Credibility appears to create an opportunity for genuine renewal and for doing things differently. When development and experimentation engage the entire community at the curriculum level—not only a few selected developers or development groups—renewal is seen as having purpose and meaning and as aiming toward communality.

It is noteworthy, however, that renewal and change do not occur quickly; development work requires time, practice, and even failures. In school communities, renewing and preserving structures and practices seem to coexist. When teachers encounter difficulties and uncertainty, it may be easy to revert to the old, familiar, and safe. Likewise, when a student experiences “vagueness,” they may interpret it as poor teaching. Based on such experiences, students and teachers may perceive phenomenon-basedness as superficial or contradictory.

A third essential factor characterizing phenomenon-basedness concerns experiences of professional identity and learning: are they experienced as deep, broad, and meaningful, or do they remain superficial and thin? When the phenomena studied arise from students’ own observations, experiences, and interests, they report committing to learning, challenging themselves, and noticing the deepening of their competence and understanding. This appears to inspire and encourage them to learn and investigate more. When phenomena are examined and investigated together and from different perspectives, their multidimensionality becomes visible. This may help in perceiving connections between issues and in linking phenomena to broader contexts. Structuring wholes and phenomena that are difficult to grasp seems to strengthen confidence in one’s professional identity within the field.

At the same time, students also experience uncertainty about whether they are able to differentiate or focus on appropriate and developmentally relevant themes within the phenomena they study. They need expert guidance and support for their choices and views. Learner-centeredness may also bring irresponsibility, choosing the easy path, and a performance-oriented mentality. This presents a difficult dilemma for teachers, since from their perspective, good education and skilled guidance require fostering ethics and responsibility in the face of questionable study orientations. In challenging situations that test the guidance relationship, teachers must be able to guide students while relating to them in an equal and respectful manner.

In light of our results, teachers have also experienced a strengthening of their own professional identity. The phenomenon-based curriculum and the operating culture supporting it have brought extensive collaboration and multidisciplinary sharing. Teachers both learn from one another and feel able to utilize their own special expertise in multidisciplinary teams and projects. Various experiments and working in multidisciplinary teams have provided a natural environment for reflecting on and developing their own work for examining their own work and for research-based development. Based on their responses, teachers feel that they are able to work at the core of the field of education and within their own areas of specialization, engaging with essential questions.

Together Toward the New

A curriculum based on phenomenon-basedness has changed the ways of studying and teaching in our community. In our own development work, it has been essential that the desire for curriculum reform emerged from teachers and students themselves and that this desire for renewal was taken seriously within the community. Moreover, it was crucial that the reform was implemented at the level of the entire curriculum rather than cautiously, for example by targeting only a few individual courses. Equally important was that, in the development work, attention was simultaneously directed toward the operating culture, with its practices and beliefs (Berger & Luckmann 1994; Brotherus 2004).

Our results show that phenomenon-basedness has brought perspectives and modes of operation that have long been regarded as challenges in educational institutions. The change has increased learner-centeredness, communality, and multidisciplinary and holistic understanding. It has also brought critical reflection, uncertainty, and failures in the cross-pressures between renewing and preserving operating cultures.

The shift toward a phenomenon-based curriculum and the operating culture supporting it has initiated a process that draws students and teachers to the core of the field of education and inspires them to investigate, experiment, understand, and share. The results also indicate that in phenomenon-based learning processes, it is natural to connect practical questions from one’s own field to theoretical frameworks in order to understand challenging phenomena, generalize while taking contextuality into account, and apply insights in one’s own work (see Korthagen 2010, 102–104). At its best, phenomenon-basedness has guided attention to what is meaningful in the field of education and in teacherhood.

Previous research shows that a well-designed and well-implemented curriculum integrates theoretical and practical understanding and inspires inquiry and the discovery of new connections between the topics studied. In education, such a whole provides space for agency and creates a strong foundation for the development of professional expertise (Buchman & Floden 1991; Darling-Hammond, Hammerness, Grossman, Rust & Shulman 2005). The effectiveness of education is thus seen as connected to how clear and collectively shared the vision of education, its structure, and its concepts are among teachers and students (Brouwer & Korthagen 2005; Canrinus, Bergem, Klette & Hammerness 2015; Darling-Hammond 1999; Senge et al. 2012).

The results of our reform work are encouraging, as students experienced ownership of their own learning and opportunities to influence it. Teachers’ own professional expertise has strengthened, supported by working in multidisciplinary teacher teams. In this sense, the development work was experienced as meaningful and as advancing one’s professionalism (Tao & Gao 2017). Overall, students’ and teachers’ conceptions and experiences of learner-centeredness, communality, and multidimensionality are largely shared. It is important to understand, however, that coherence and consistency do not mean that phenomenon-based curricula are approached or understood in the same way by everyone (Tatto 1996). Phenomenon-basedness does not seek consensus; rather, it may divide opinions and aims to bring forth diverse perspectives and approaches to the phenomena studied and to their implementation.

Our reform work shows that much effort is required to build shared understanding within phenomenon-based study and operating culture. It is therefore necessary to invest consciously in the ability to create and maintain constructive interaction by providing various opportunities for discussion, dialogue, and listening between teachers and students and among teachers themselves (see, e.g., Dinkelman 2011; Shagrir 2014). Development work in our community is still ongoing and must be viewed as a shared, continuously evolving dynamic process that is adjusted and recalibrated as needed (Bateman, Taylor, Janik & Logan 2008; Hammerness 2006). Thus, listening to others, collaborative inquiry, and responding to experiences continue.

---

Information Box

• Developing the curriculum and operating culture in parallel is more likely to lead to the curriculum being genuinely lived out in practice.
• Effective curriculum change is engaging, participatory, and purposefully negotiated. Phenomenon-basedness and education built upon it require extensive negotiation of meaning, development of practices, and challenge the student–teacher guidance relationship in new ways.
• Phenomenon-basedness increases learner-centeredness, communality, and multidimensionality, but also requires addressing fears and uncertainty.
• Development work must be understood as a continuous process and requires support from institutional leadership.

References

Ahonen, Sirkka (1994) Phenomenographic research. In Leena Syrjälä, Sirkka Ahonen, Seppo Saari & Eija Syrjäläinen (eds.) Methods of Qualitative Research. Helsinki: Kirjayhtymä Oy, 113–160.

Annala, Johanna & Mäkinen, Marita (2011) The higher education curriculum as an object of interpretation. In Marita Mäkinen, Vesa Korhonen, Johanna Annala, Pekka Kalli, Päivi Svärd & Veli-Matti Värri (eds.) High Tensions – Toward Participation-Creating Higher Education. Social Sciences / Educational Sciences, Tampere University Press, 104–129. http://urn.fi/urn:NBN:uta-3-938 (accessed 5 April 2017).

Bateman, Dianne; Taylor, Stephen; Janik, Elizabeth; Logan, Ann (2008) Curriculum Coherence and Student Success. Saint-Lambert: Champlain Saint-Lambert Cégep.

Beijaard, Douwe; Meijer, Paulien C.; Verloop, Nico (2004) Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education 20, 107–128.

Berger, Peter L. & Luckmann, Thomas (1994) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Translated by Vesa Raiskila (orig. 1966). Helsinki: Gaudeamus.

Binkley, Marilyn; Erstad, Ola; Herman, Joan; Raizen, Senta; Ripley, Martin; Miller-Ricci, May; Rumble, Mike (2012) Defining 21st century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw & E. Care (eds.) Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills, 17–66. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5

Braun, Virginia & Clarke, Victoria (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3:2, 77–101.

Brotherus, Annu (2004) The Operating Culture of Pre-Primary Education from the Child’s Perspective. University of Helsinki, Department of Applied Educational Science, Research Reports 251.

Brouwer, Niels & Korthagen, Fred A. (2005) Can teacher education make a difference? American Educational Research Journal 42, 153–224.

Buchman, Margret & Floden, Robert E. (1991) Programme coherence in teacher education: a view from the USA. Oxford Review of Education 17:1, 65–72.

Canrinus, Esther T.; Bergem, Ole Kristian; Klette, Kirsti; Hammerness, Karen (2015) Coherent teacher education programmes: taking a student perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies 49:3, 313–333.

Cochran-Smith, Marilyn & Zeichner, Kenneth M. (eds.) (2005) Studying Teacher Education: The Report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Darling-Hammond, Linda (1999) Educating teachers for the next century: rethinking practice and policy. In Gary A. Griffin (ed.) The Education of Teachers. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 221–256.

Darling-Hammond, Linda (2006) Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education 57:3, 300–314.

Darling-Hammond, Linda; Hammerness, Karen; Grossman, Pamela; Rust, Frances; Shulman, Lee (2005) The design of teacher education programs. In Linda Darling-Hammond & John Bransford (eds.) Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able to Do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 390–441.

Dinkelman, Todd (2011) Forming a teacher educator identity: uncertain standards, practice and relationships. Journal of Education for Teaching 37:3, 309–323.

Fullan, Michael (2007) The New Meaning of Educational Change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Gordon, Tuula (1999) Material culture and emotions in school. In Tarja Tolonen (ed.) Finnish School and Culture. Tampere: Vastapaino, 99–116.

Hammerness, Karen (2006) From coherence in theory to coherence in practice. Teachers College Record 108, 1241–1265.

Hargreaves, Andy (1994) Changing Teachers, Changing Times: Teachers’ Work and Culture in the Postmodern Age. London: Cassell.

Hennissen, Paul; Beckers, Hans; Moerkerke, George (2017) Linking practice to theory in teacher education: a growth in cognitive structures. Teaching and Teacher Education 63, 314–325.

Hökkä, Päivi; Eteläpelto, Anneli; Rasku-Puttonen, Helena (2010) Recent tensions and challenges in teacher education as manifested in curriculum discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education 26:4, 845–853.

Jussila, Juhani & Saari, Seppo (eds.) (1999) Teacher Education as a Builder of the Future. Evaluation of University-Based Teacher Education. Publications of the Higher Education Evaluation Council 11:1999. Helsinki: Edita.

Karjalainen, Asko; Alha, Katariina; Jaakkola, Elina; Lapinlampi, Tanja (eds.) (2007) Academic Curriculum Work. University of Oulu, Unit for the Development of Teaching. (accessed 5 April 2017).

Korthagen, Fred (2010) Situated learning theory and the pedagogy of teacher education: Toward an integrative view of teacher behavior and teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education 26:1, 98–106.

Kostiainen, Emma (2016) Operating culture makes the curriculum credible. Science Blog. (accessed 31 May 2017).

Kostiainen, Emma; Ukskoski, Tuija; Ruohotie-Lyhty, Maria; Kauppinen, Merja; Kainulainen, Johanna; Mäkinen, Tommi (2018) Meaningful learning in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education 71, 66–77.

McKernan, James (2008) Curriculum and Imagination: Process Theory, Pedagogy and Action Research. London: Routledge.

Marton, Ference (1994) Phenomenography. In Torsten Husén & T. Neville Postlethwaite (eds.) The International Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford: Pergamon, 4424–4429.

Maskit, Ditza (2011) Teachers’ attitudes toward pedagogical changes during various stages of professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education 27:5, 851–860.

Miles, Matthew B. & Huberman, A. Michael (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Naukkarinen, Aimo (2004) Participatory teacher education. The significance of staff and student beliefs and departmental organizational structures in developing teacher education. In Seppo Hämäläinen (ed.) The Change of the Teaching Profession and Teacher Education. University of Jyväskylä, Department of Teacher Education, Research Reports 81, 61–85.

Niemi, Hannele (2000) The effectiveness of teacher education. In Reijo Raivola (ed.) Effectiveness in Education. Research of the Academy of Finland’s Effectiveness of Education Programme. Publications of the Academy of Finland 1/2000. Helsinki: Edita, 169–154.

Penuel, William R.; Phillips, Rachel S.; Harris, Christopher J. (2014) Analysing teachers’ curriculum implementation from integrity and actor-oriented perspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies 46:6, 751–777.

Rautiainen, Matti; Vanhanen-Nuutinen, Liisa; Virta, Arja (2014) Democracy and Human Rights: Objectives and Contents in Teacher Education. Ministry of Education and Culture working group reports and studies 2014:18.

Schelfhout, Wouter; Dochy, Filip; Janssens, Steven; Struyven, Katrien; Gielen, Sarah; Sierens, Eline (2006) Educating for learning-focused teaching in teacher education: The need to link learning content with practice experiences within an inductive approach. Teaching and Teacher Education 22:7, 874–897.

Senge, Peter M.; Cambron-McCabe, Nelda; Lucas, Timothy; Smith, Bryan; Dutton, Janis; Kleiner, Art (2012) Schools That Learn: A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents, and Everyone Who Cares About Education. New York: Crown Business.

Shagrir, Leah (2015) Working with students in higher education – professional conceptions of teacher educators. Teaching in Higher Education 20:8, 783–794.

Graduate Placement Follow-up (2015) University of Jyväskylä, Career Services. (accessed 10 April 2017).

Silander, Tiina; Rautiainen, Matti; Kostiainen, Emma (2014) Who actually brings about change? Leaders of the Department of Teacher Education as architects of change work. In Päivi Hökkä, Susanna Paloniemi, Katja Vähäsantanen, Sanna Herranen, Mari Manninen & Anneli Eteläpelto (eds.) Strengthening Professional Agency and Workplace Learning: Creative Resources for Work! Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, 151–168.

Strauss, Anselm & Corbin, Juliet (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. London: Sage.

Taajamo, Matti; Puhakka, Eija; Välijärvi, Jouni (2014) The International Study of Teaching and Learning TALIS 2013: Initial Results for Lower Secondary School. Ministry of Education and Culture publications 2014:15. Helsinki: Ministry of Education and Culture.

Tao, Jian & Gao, Xuesong (2017) Teacher agency and identity commitment in curricular reform. Teaching and Teacher Education 63, 346–355.

Tatto, Maria Teresa (1996) Examining values and beliefs about teaching diverse students: understanding the challenges for teacher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 18:2, 155–180.

van den Akker, Jan J. (1988) Teacher as learner in curriculum implementation. Journal of Curriculum Studies 20:1, 47–55.

Vitikka, Erja; Salminen, Jaanet; Annevirta, Tiina (2012) Curriculum in Teacher Education: Treatment of Curriculum in Teacher Education Curricula. Finnish National Agency for Education, Memoranda 2012:4. (accessed 5 April 2017).

School as a Learning Community: Cross-Disciplinary Thematic Learning in Porvoo

Aki Luostarinen, Jessica Gillberg & Iida-Maria Peltomaa

aki@proedugo.fi

Otava Folk High School

Abstract

The new national core curriculum for basic education challenges schools to develop their operating culture in accordance with the principles of a learning community (see, e.g., principles guiding the development of operating culture, FNBE 2014). The integration of instruction, development of transversal competence, active learner agency, and diverse learning environments and methods—among other objectives—led the teacher community of Sannainen School in Porvoo to take up the challenge of transforming school culture. The aim was not to respond to these goals merely through isolated and disconnected experiments, but to implement a broader, school-wide change in operations.

This article describes the development work of a cross-disciplinary learning model created through the curriculum work of Sannainen School and examines how the change process influenced teachers’ curriculum competence, their sense of community, their experience of the meaningfulness of teaching and learning, and consequently the operating culture of the entire school community.

Keywords: operating culture, multidisciplinary learning modules, learning community, curriculum

---

Context: Toward Lifelong Learning in the Spirit of the New Curriculum

This case description is based on individual and group interviews with teachers at Sannainen School conducted in spring 2018, as well as on a written report by the school’s pedagogical coordinator, Jessica Gillberg, on the school’s change process. Sannainen School is a single-track primary school located in Sannainen, Porvoo. At the beginning of the change process, the school had six classroom teachers, one school assistant, and a pedagogical coordinator supporting the principal.

Inspired by the new curriculum process, the school decided to organize the core contents of nearly all subjects into multidisciplinary learning modules—integrative themes—for all grade levels in primary school. In the lower grades, six to seven themes are addressed during the school year; in the upper grades, four to five themes are addressed.

In this article, we respond to questions such as: What happened when the entire school curriculum was redesigned on a phenomenon-based foundation across all primary grade levels? And how does an organization transform its own operating culture? (see, e.g., Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995; Nonaka & von N

The school’s change process began in the 2016–2017 academic year, when it was recognized that everyday school work, operating culture, and established practices needed to change and renew so that school and learning would feel—both to teachers, assistants, and pupils—as they were imagined to feel and as described in the curriculum: “We wanted to rediscover the joy of learning, promote learning, and improve learning outcomes” (teacher).

At the same time, it was understood that renovating school culture would not succeed through isolated and disconnected experiments, but through a larger, unified change requiring everyone’s commitment. Individual experiments were seen to carry the risk that (a) the experiment would not be closely connected to a shared and common vision or would fail to shift practices in that direction; (b) collaboration among teachers would not meaningfully increase or qualitatively change; or (c) the everyday life and operating culture of pupils and teachers would remain unchanged apart from the duration of the experiment.

Building a new operating model required a change process in which the curriculum was carefully reviewed together and the shared school was systematically and comprehensively transformed to respond to both pupils’ and teachers’ learning needs and to the objectives of the curriculum. The teachers of the school jointly committed themselves to this change process.

The description of the change process is based on experiences gathered from teachers in 2018. The starting point was the new national core curriculum for basic education, whose implementation had been recognized as remaining superficial. The change aimed simultaneously to make the curriculum’s key developmental lines into genuine tools for learning and teaching and to create an operating culture capable of responding to the various challenges encountered in everyday school life.

The article presents teachers’ experiences of the change process and the transformation of the school’s operating culture as expressed in thematic individual interviews and semi-structured group interviews. The collected material is examined in accordance with the hermeneutic research tradition. Teachers’ experiences as builders of their operating culture and as active agents of change are not evaluated as right or wrong; rather, they are used to explore the factors meaningful for this particular community and this particular change process (Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2016). These experiences are also reflected against theories of learning communities and the development of operating culture.

The Learning Community as the Goal of Sannainen School

The National Core Curriculum for Basic Education encourages schools, among other things, to develop the entire school into a learning community, to increase cross-disciplinary collaboration and learning among both teachers and pupils, to promote the development of pupils’ transversal competence, and to provide an unhurried, participatory, and activating learning environment (FNBE 2014).

The change process began with a values discussion centered on the following key questions:

• What kind of school do we want to offer our pupils?
• How could we implement the central objectives of the curriculum?
• How could we create conditions for pupils to discover their own strengths and to learn together and from one another?

Clarifying a shared value base and articulating a future-guiding shared vision are central elements of a learning organization (see Senge’s model, e.g., Senge 1990; Senge et al. 1999; Senge et al. 2000). When the shared vision is clear, members of the community can strive toward it by learning individually and together and by helping others learn. A shared vision to which people commit is significant, because without it, implemented changes may steer the school in different directions. Changes may even conflict with one another, making a return to earlier—perhaps less effective—operating models more likely.

At the center of the change process was the pupil. Together, the teachers sought answers to questions such as: What knowledge and skills should a pupil take with them when leaving Sannainen School? How does the pupil relate to learning, to themselves, to their school community, and to the surrounding world? Through what solutions could the school strive for unhurriedness and create learning situations in which pupils have the opportunity to practice transversal competence and accumulate the knowledge that advances learning toward shared objectives?

Transforming the school’s operating culture and developing pupils’ transversal competence require learner-centered and knowledge-building environments (Scardamalia et al. 2012), in which pupils can act as planners of their own learning and in which knowledge is constructed collectively as a community. Learning should build bridges between formal, informal, and non-formal contexts. At the same time, structural practices and school infrastructure often support a teacher-centered operating culture. A teacher-centered culture, combined with Finnish teachers’ relatively limited collaboration and networking with other teachers (OECD 2016), challenges the development of phenomenon-based learning and learning communities in schools.

The goal of Sannainen School was to offer each pupil inspiring and versatile teaching and thereby provide the best possible foundation for lifelong learning. From the pupil’s perspective, the school defined the most important goals as follows:

• We encourage pupils to value themselves, recognize their uniqueness, individual strengths, and potential for growth, so that each pupil experiences themselves as valuable just as they are.

• We guide pupils to become aware of their own way of learning and to use this existing knowledge to advance their learning and to construct new meanings.
• We offer pupils the experience of genuine participation—that they can, in collaboration with others, build the functioning and well-being of their community.
• Learning takes place in interaction with others. It involves working, thinking, planning, and evaluating both individually and together.
• In the learning process, essential elements are pupils’ will and their developing ability to act and learn together.

Through the change process, Sannainen School gradually became—through purposeful and persistent collaboration—a genuinely learning community. Not all challenges could be solved at once, nor did everyday school life become problem-free during the first autumn of implementing the new model of school work. However, the school’s operating culture and guiding principles now enable each individual’s learning as part of a community, tolerance of uncertainty and incompleteness, and striving toward a shared goal.

“We are by no means finished; this is an ongoing learning process for all of us. With a mindset of smooth and joyful collaboration, we continue to develop better tools and innovations to find the best possible learning path for our pupils.” (teacher)

Enabling Change

The concept of the learning community described in the curriculum as a guiding principle for the entire operating culture of the school is very close to the concept of the learning organization (see, e.g., Senge 1990; Senge 1999; Senge 2000). According to Senge, the five core disciplines of a learning organization are:

1. personal mastery and learning,
2. team learning,
3. mental models as guides for action,
4. shared vision, and
5. systems thinking.

In a learning community, responsibility rests simultaneously with each individual and collectively with the entire community. No single member can exempt themselves from shared responsibility. The idea of being finished or complete must also be abandoned: the community lives in continuous change, in which the whole community must learn new things and regularly pause to reflect, adjust, experiment, and reflect again. Change becomes the fuel of everyday life, fostering dialogue and collaboration among community members.

Dialogue and Learning Together as Drivers of Change

Transforming operating culture is a challenging process for any community, because operating culture contains much that is unconscious and unarticulated—implicit and tacit knowledge that sustains certain ways of acting and traditions that may have existed for years or even decades. Habit and routine make everyday life easier in the midst of busy and demanding work, even if those established practices do not optimally promote, for example, collaboration among teachers or the development of pupils’ transversal competence (see, e.g., Halinen 2015; FNBE 2014).

Research on teachers’ pedagogical justifications (see, e.g., Lund 2016; Craig et al. 2013) has shown that when describing school practices and their own pedagogical decisions, teachers often articulate the underlying influences and rationales more in terms of their own feelings, beliefs, and school cultural traditions than in relation to learning theories or shared pedagogical principles. This was not the intention at Sannainen School; rather, the aim was precisely to ground all practices in the curriculum and in pupils’ needs.

“We should move away from simply following textbooks. Instead, we should genuinely think about teaching from the perspective of our own group and its pupils. Not in the sense that there is a book that must be covered and that learning is divided into units accordingly. The curriculum should be enough. One should look at the curriculum to see what needs to be done and then think about how to do it best with one’s own group. And in addition, goal awareness—that is, teaching children how to set goals for themselves and how much work is required to reach a set goal.” (teacher)

In individual and group interviews at Sannainen School, teachers no longer justify current practices with expressions such as “because this is how we’ve always done it” or “it just feels right to me.” Certainly, teachers’ professional competence (educational and didactic expertise) still includes tacit, experience-based knowledge developed through collaboration. However, the justifications for practice are now articulated in relation to the curriculum, shared agreements, and the diverse learning needs of heterogeneous pupil groups (for more on pedagogy-centered professional development, see, e.g., Dogan 2017).

Behind this shift lies the intensive, collective curriculum process of spring 2017, during which the school’s value base and shared vision became clearer. At each meeting, teachers carefully worked through the curriculum chapter by chapter together with the principal and the pedagogical coordinator: What is assessment? What should the operating culture be like? What is said about learning environments? What is the general value base and the objectives of basic education? What is differentiation and the individualization of learning? What about communality? Aki Luostarinen, Jessica Gillberg & Iida-Maria Peltomaa

In these discussions, teachers noticed how differently they understood and interpreted certain curriculum objectives—or even individual concepts—and how many different perspectives could be taken on the same issues. Shared dialogue generated shared understanding (cf. Senge’s core principles of the learning organization: shared vision, team learning, and practicing systems thinking; see, e.g., Senge 1999).

Lund’s (2016) research reinforces the importance of dialogue in teachers’ learning and in transferring learning into practice: when teachers were supported in collegial dialogue, they tended to deepen their understanding of their own beliefs and practices in relation to pedagogical objectives. These objectives, in turn, are grounded in broader learning theories or in the goals set in the curriculum. It is important to remember that the aim of dialogue is not unanimity; rather, critical pedagogical reflection supported by dialogue helps people learn together and can reveal unarticulated or hidden features of teachers’ everyday practice, thereby enabling the community to address factors that hinder desired change (Lund 2016; Flores 2006).

“In our community, there are different strengths that we can use in building the common good. We can continuously learn together and develop our practices to become ever clearer and more transparent.” (teacher)

Sharing Knowledge and Creating New Knowledge in the Community

Authentic dialogue has several functions within a community. On the one hand, it maintains social relationships and expresses a positive orientation toward other members. On the other hand, in dialogue members articulate their own thinking and present their various instructional and educational practices. The goal is not one-way knowledge transfer or merely supporting the learning of individual members; rather, dialogue should generate new understanding and knowledge that did not previously exist within the community. Sharing enriches thinking, creates shared understanding of goals, vision, and values, and also produces entirely new knowledge within the community. Purposeful and active listening is at least as important in dialogue as speaking.

Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) describe knowledge leadership and knowledge-based change. They distinguish between tacit (implicit) knowledge and explicit (articulable) knowledge. Tacit knowledge includes, for example, sensory and movement-related practical knowledge from which, among other things, nonverbal communication is formed. Open dialogue and appreciative collaboration require that what is said aloud is largely in harmony with the nonverbal communication that occurs largely unconsciously. The situational ability to communicate trust nonverbally—both among colleagues and with pupils—is tacit knowledge that a community can articulate and learn together. Likewise, within tacit knowledge, a distinction is made between individual and collective knowledge. It may be difficult for an individual member to clearly and precisely describe tacit knowledge, and it cannot be taught in the same way as, for example, capital cities or multiplication tables. Tacit knowledge becomes visible in practical activity and in a shared cyclical process in which unconscious socialization, conscious articulation and discussion, and individual and collective action follow one another in a circular manner (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995, SECI model):

S = Socialization. Tacit knowledge is transmitted from members of the community to others through observation, interpretation, dialogue, encounters, and the imitation and enactment of accepted practices. Socialization occurs continuously between members of the community. Established habits and modes of operation, ways of interacting, and attitudes toward other members shape how individuals act as part of the community (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995; Tammets 2012; Yeh et al. 2011).

E = Externalization (articulation and making visible). In order to analyze and transform tacit knowledge and the practices related to it, articulation is required. The community’s activity is described in concepts and processes that can become the subject of dialogue. Articulation can occur in face-to-face dialogue and on virtual platforms that complement and support it. In addition to discussion, teachers jointly create materials and articulate models and practices of action (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995; Tammets 2012; Yeh et al. 2011).

C = Combination. Existing practices are combined with newly learned knowledge and established objectives. Decisions are made about how goals and shared articulations become new practices in relation to, among other things, curriculum objectives. Combination involves improving existing practices and creating new models and knowledge based on what is already being done and what has been newly learned (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995; Tammets 2012; Yeh et al. 2011).

I = Internalization. In practice, conscious choices are made through which what has been newly learned and jointly agreed upon becomes new tacit knowledge. Practices become established as new community routines through rehearsal and practical implementation (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995; Tammets 2012; Yeh et al. 2011).

Caring Leadership Supporting Change

Promoting the SECI model and advancing a learning community in line with Senge’s objectives require time for dialogue but also leadership of the process. Caring leadership (Smylie et al. 2016) is reflected in an encouraging, meaning-making, and goal-oriented approach within the teachers’ mutual change process. The principles of caring leadership can also be extended to guiding teacherhood, in which the teacher can be seen as the leader of the learning processes of different members of a learning group. Caring leadership promotes teachers’ mutual development by influencing, among other things, teachers’ professional self-esteem and professional self-concept b

Caring leadership manifests in practice as openness, a positive atmosphere, listening, encouragement, articulating successes, and emphasizing the common good rather than fostering competitive positioning among individuals (Smylie et al. 2016; Atkins & Parker 2011). In situations of conflict, solutions are sought inclusively and collaboratively, prioritizing the interests of the entire school rather than those of a single member, even though individual needs, concerns, and personal and professional life situations are heard and taken into account in advancing shared goals and planning activities (e.g., Gössling & van Liedekerke 2014).

Shared Vision, Competent Individuals, and a Learning Community

One of the core principles of a learning organization is articulating and committing to a shared vision. Articulating a shared vision, personal learning, and collective team learning all require dialogue. In dialogue, the aim is not unanimity, but the articulation of thoughts, perspectives, and interpretations and discussion about them. From individual members—and from the community as a whole—this requires knowledge, understanding, and description of the issues under consideration (describe), the ability to engage in dialogue (discuss), and the willingness to adapt, apply, and modify existing understanding on the basis of shared reflection and conversation (adjust).

Shared learning, joint articulation, and team innovation are promoted, among other things, by team members’ prior experiences of working together, group size, and differences in members’ knowledge and skills regarding the issue under discussion (see, e.g., Jackson et al. 2003; Taylor & Greve 2006). At Sannainen School, much work was done at the beginning of the process to ensure a shared knowledge base. The curriculum was read thoroughly, and discussions ensured a shared understanding of its contents. The relatively small size of the teacher group made it easier for the entire school community to work and engage in dialogue together.

In collaboration and evaluation of knowledge, it is also important for the community to remember that knowledge is shaped by both individual and shared experiences of its truthfulness. Knowledge formed through experience and sufficiently reinforced may come to be regarded as truth, even if it is not based on research. Openly examining and unpacking such personal or socially developed “truths” is a prerequisite for finding shared understanding and meaning.

According to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995; Nonaka & von Krogh 2009), organizational knowledge arises precisely through sharing and through shared reflection and knowledge creation (cf. Polanyi 1962, for whom knowledge was rooted in individual cognition an attribute of the individual (Polanyi 1962), or Nelson and Winter (1982), for whom knowledge was an attribute of the organization—that is, an organization learns by finding better routines.

From Sannainen School’s shared dialogue and from both individual and collective work, future goals have taken shape, expressing the school’s values and vision through elements such as: “every pupil receives inspiring and versatile instruction” and “Sannainen School provides each pupil with the best possible start for lifelong learning.”

In teacher interviews, the experience of the school is described as strongly communal—“our school.” Teachers articulate how every member of the community, and everything related to the community, is genuinely the responsibility of each individual and of everyone together. This responsibility is willingly embraced, and at the same time, the aim is to create for pupils the experience of a safe community in which it is possible to turn to any adult for support.

School Practices

In the initial phase, strong leadership support was needed. During this stage, the curriculum was examined thoroughly at the school. Throughout the spring term, teachers met regularly for shared pedagogical afternoons. Without these allocated times, working toward a shared vision and achieving a shared understanding of the curriculum and the school’s goals would not have been possible.

With the introduction of thematic learning modules, subject-specific and 45-minute lesson-based timetables became unnecessary. The pupil’s annual weekly lesson allocation is maintained, but school days and weeks are no longer structured into 45-minute periods. Instead, they are organized as school days during which the theme—and the related subject objectives and general curriculum objectives—is advanced.

As a result of the intensive curriculum process and collaboration, joint planning became an integral part of teachers’ everyday work. At the same time, observations from the first school year indicate that while planning is carried out smoothly together in daily practice and support is available from the entire staff, there may have been fewer systematic reflective moments involving the whole school community. Group interviews revealed effective solutions and practices that colleagues had not yet shared with one another, as well as challenges that had not yet been collectively discussed amidst the busyness of daily life.

Planning and Implementing Thematic Modules

At Sannainen School, planning each thematic module begins with setting objectives. The objectives are based on the subject-specific goals defined in the curriculum for each grade span, as well as on the aim of broadly developing transversal competence. Instruction does not proceed according to the materials and exercises of a particular textbook series; rather, the teacher selects materials aligned with the objectives and suitable for their own pupil group. In this way, differentiated instruction and

“For the first time, I feel that I am truly good at my work and that I achieve the learning objectives together with my pupils. I have time to encounter my pupils and I know better where each of them stands in relation to the objectives.” (teacher)

The objectives of each thematic module are written clearly enough that the pupil also understands what is expected of them and how their work will be assessed. Consequently, when selecting materials, designing tasks, planning different phases of the thematic process, and choosing assessment methods, the diverse needs, prerequisites, and strengths of each pupil group can already be taken into account. Teachers collaborate in both planning and implementation so that each adult’s unique expertise and strengths can be utilized in the best possible way. Assessment criteria are created collaboratively for each thematic module in order to ensure better continuity from one module and grade level to the next and to make assessment within the school as comparable and equitable as possible.

Example of a Thematic Study Module for Grade 3

One of the third-grade thematic modules is “Time and Space.” For each thematic module, the key subject-specific objectives are described, as well as the transversal competence objectives that are particularly emphasized during the module. In the “Time and Space” module, the selected transversal competence emphases are: thinking and learning to learn (L1), multiliteracy (L4), and ICT competence (L5). These selected competence emphases influence how activities during the module are designed—what kinds of materials and tasks the teacher chooses and what the pupil does during the module—so that the pupil has the opportunity to practice these skills. The subject-specific objectives and the key contents of the period are described in the following table.

Table 1. Subject-Specific Objectives

Subject: Environmental Studies

Contents

• The origin of the Earth
• The structure of the Earth
• Daylight saving time / standard time
• Calendar
• The Moon, months
• Day and night
• Seasons
• The solar system
• Investigations, scientific experiments

Pupil Objectives (T4, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14)

• I describe the Big Bang theory.
• I read clock times and list the months.
• I explain why we have day and night.
• I name the seasons and explain why Finland has four seasons.
• I list the planets in our solar system and present more detailed facts about at least one planet.
• I use space-related concepts in the working process.

---

Subject: Religion

Contents

• The Creation narrative

Pupil Objectives (T1, 3, 11)

• I describe the Creation story according to the Bible.
• I give examples of other theories about the origin of the world.

---

Subject: Mathematics

Contents

• Clock
• Calendar
• Day and night

Pupil Objectives (T2, 5)

• I read clock times.
• I list the months.
• I explain why we have day and night.

---

Subject: Mother Tongue and Literature

Contents

Pupil Objectives (T3, 5–7, 10–12)

• I extract facts from texts and compile them into my own text.
• I write narrative texts and use dialogue.

The key concepts of the thematic module have been defined as:

• Big Bang
• Creation
• Galaxy – Milky Way
• Light-year
• Star – Sun
• Centrifugal force
• Gravity
• Attraction
• Gravitation
• Phases of the Moon
• Comets
• Day (24-hour period)
• Daylight saving time / standard time
• Concepts of time

In the assessment of the thematic module, it is considered important that the contents are built on the objectives of the curriculum. Assessment should support the decisions made in planning and implementation. In assessment, teachers consider it essential that the set objectives are understandable to the pupil and that the pupil can learn to evaluate and monitor their own progress.

To support this, among other tools, a four-level assessment scale has been developed, in which on each row the pupil progresses toward the same competence objective (see Table 2). Progress in mastering the objective is articulated through the new skills and knowledge achieved at each level.

Table 2. Example of an Assessment Matrix for a Multidisciplinary Learning Module

Grade 3: Time and Space

Clock Times

• I use the concepts: on the hour, half past, past, to.
• I mark hours and minutes on a clock.
• I read both analog and digital clocks.
• I use clock times in problem-solving.

Seasons

• I list the seasons in order.
• I explain which season each month belongs to.
• I list the months in order and explain why we have day and night.
• I explain what causes the change of seasons.

Concepts and Information Retrieval

• I name some of the planets in our solar system.
• I find information about planets and space-related concepts from books and the internet.
• I search for information about planets (and related concepts) and produce my own text based on that information.
• I use and explain key concepts related to the theme.

Creation Theories

• I give examples of theories about the origin of the universe.
• I briefly describe the biblical Creation narrative and the Big Bang theory.
• I compare similarities and differences between different creation theories.
• I express my own views about the origin of the world based on the presented theories and justify my views.

Working Skills

• I have completed all required tasks.
• I complete my tasks conscientiously and responsibly, doing my best.
• I am an active participant and contributor in lessons.
• I share my knowledge, help, and encourage my classmates.

---

Participation, Activity, and Inquiry-Based Work

In cross-disciplinary thematic learning, the pupil is an active agent who learns to set goals and solve problems both independently and together with others. The pupil is guided to become aware of their own ways of learning and thereby to build a foundation for lifelong learning.

Learning takes place in interaction with other pupils, teachers, and adults, as well as with different communities and learning environments. By working together, children learn to understand different perspectives, which in turn supports the broadening of their interests. Pupils practice giving and receiving feedback both in self-assessment and in peer assessment.

Pupils have clearly internalized the school’s values, attitudes, and ways of working better than before, now that both teachers and pupils share a common understanding of them. The use of varied working methods and learning environments is intentional. In selecting them, the specific characteristics of different subjects and the development of transversal competence are taken into account. Diverse working methods bring joy and experiences of success to learning. Functional methods and approaches that support self-direction and a sense of belonging strengthen motivation. The choice of methods also supports communal learning, in which competence and understanding are constructed in interaction with others. Pupils are guided to take responsibility for both their own and shared goals.

Joy in Learning and Working

At Sannainen School, integrating instruction has given both children and adults an entirely new spark in their work. Feedback received by teachers from pupils indicates that pupils now better understand their own learning process and feel more aware of objectives and of their own learning. Increased responsibility and diversity in learning are experienced positively. One pupil remarked that they can finally show how much they know now that they are allowed to guide their own learning process more freely. The teacher has planned the materials and tasks for the module, but the pupil can decide in what order to proceed, which sources to use, what daily goals to set, and on what schedule to achieve the objectives set for the entire module. Many pupils feel it is easier to understand the content being learned when they are not shifting from subject to subject and topic to topic every hour. Teachers have also noticed skills and strengths in pupils that traditional teaching methods did not succeed in utilizing within children’s learning processes.

What Was Learned During the Change Process?

Sharing and Working Together

Just as pupils’ work at Sannainen School is communal, the teaching staff has become a collaboratively learning professional community that operates as part of the school’s broader learning community. A learning professional community can be characterized as a group that systematically, reflectively, and continuously shares and discusses its teaching practices and pupils’ learning (Dogan et al. 2017). Such a community is characterized by six central features, which partly align with Senge’s description of a learning organization:

1. Shared and Encouraging Leadership. Principals and teachers participate in joint decision-making in a safe atmosphere. Power, authority, and decision-making are shared, and leadership emerges from within the community rather than flowing from the top down.
2. Shared Values and Vision. Shared values and vision answer the questions of why “we” exist, what we believe in, what we value, and what our purpose is. Activities and experiments that lack a shared vision cause confusion and may even lead to conflicts and distrust among members of the community (Kruse et al. 1995).

“We now have a shared goal and conception of learning known to everyone, which engages all our members and whose realization each teacher promotes through their own planning and work.” (teacher)

1. Collaborative Learning and Application. The community supports both individual and collective learning. Each teacher learns together with colleagues and pupils. The goal of the community is not merely to have individual members learn, but to create new shared knowledge that is applied in the community’s practices.

“In our community, conditions are created for experiences of enthusiasm and success, and each member is encouraged to try and to learn also from mistakes.” (teacher)

1. Shared and Open Personal Practices. Applying learned knowledge in practice occurs through articulating and sharing members’ personal practices. This helps to verbalize practical challenges in work and their solutions, and to compare learned knowledge with experiential knowledge.

“No one struggles alone anymore; instead, we have a shared goal and our competence is the result of collective and continuous work.” (teacher)

1. Supportive Conditions: Relationships and Structures. Conditions that encourage and support the community’s work include appropriate spaces, time, and activities that promote collaboration among teachers. Supportive conditions can be divided into those related to relationships and those related to structures. The community should include people who are willing to receive feedback, who are trusted, and who have a positive attitude toward colleagues and the work community. Structures that support teacher collaboration include spaces for meetings, physical proximity in daily work (shared and common areas for encounters), and allocated time for discussion and collaboration.

“Increased collaboration seems to increase joy in work. Of course, this requires teachers to commit to their work and lesson planning in an entirely different way, but at the same time our collaboration and shared expertise have developed so positively that it gives wings to motivation.” (teacher)

At Sannainen School, the materials, tasks, and assessment used in thematic studies are created collaboratively by teachers. Each teacher also independently prepares materials for upcoming themes, but communication with colleagues remains continuously open. When searching for materials, teachers are aware of the themes currently being implemented or planned in other grade levels. Sharing materials and tasks among teachers has become a natural part of everyday school life and collaboration. All materials and tasks created and implemented during each academic year are collected in a shared theme library for use, modification, and expansion by the following year’s teacher. Over the years, the shared theme library expands, and materials and tasks remain up to date from one implementation to the next.

Sharing and collaboration also characterize the participation of pupils and their guardians. Pupils and guardians take part in developing shared competence, and based on the feedback received from them, teachers are able to further develop the operating culture. The structural change in learning sparked lively discussion about whether this new form of learning suits everyone and whether it is of equal quality compared to the kind of school to which guardians and pupils were previously accustomed. At the same time, the change in atmosphere at school was reflected in pupils’ motivation and attitudes toward learning, and further in guardians’ motivation to participate in school development. Guardians voluntarily and gladly participate in decorating the school and in joint events. The way teachers approach collaboration, joint effort, challenges, and trying is mirrored in the actions of pupils and guardians as well. With each theme, pupils learn better to guide their own work, seek information, help one another, and view incompleteness as an opportunity rather than as a sign of failure that should not be shown publicly at school.

“In our community, appropriate challenges are given and dedication to work and completing tasks is valued.” (teacher)

Course of the Process

Spring 2017: The pedagogical coordinator begins work at Sannainen School. Teachers begin systematically and calmly reviewing the new curriculum during pedagogical afternoons. The curriculum had been discussed and read before, but understanding of its general objectives had largely been based on each teacher’s independently formed interpretations rather than on genuinely shared understanding. Each time, the chapter is first studied individually, after which interpretations, different perspectives, and the meaning of the text for everyday school work and pupils’ learning are shared and discussed collectively. Between pedagogical afternoons, teachers have time to process the curriculum themes discussed, to generate ideas for their practical application, and to prepare for upcoming sessions. The rhythm of shared and individual work helps teachers envision what kind of school they wish to build for their pupils in the spirit of the curriculum and in line with its learning objectives (cf. Nonaka & Takeuchi’s model of communal knowledge development). Instruction for the coming academic year begins to be planned thematically for all grade levels. The goal is that each grade level’s curriculum objectives are embedded within five to six themes.

Autumn 2017: The first thematic modules begin at the start of the academic year. Teachers experience uncertainty, but the experiences are positive. It is noticed that some of what was planned works, while some elements need to be adjusted during the module or revised for the following year. For pupils as well, the approach is new. In thematic learning, pupils practice forms of activity and competences that previously had not been developed to the same extent. Working together, committing to shared and self-defined learning objectives, scheduling work, evaluating one’s own work and final products, and so on are skills that pupils must practice during the modules.

Spring 2018: The construction and implementation of thematic modules continues. The teaching community reflects on its work in individual and group interviews. Assessment methods, criteria, and practices are further developed collaboratively. The goal is also to align end-of-year assessment models with thematic learning. Discussions about developing assessment and experimenting with different assessment models are conducted with the local education authorities and the Finnish National Agency for Education. The aim is to create learning structures that help achieve curriculum objectives while also ensuring that assessment corresponds to the choices made during learning—that is, what and how has been learned—and supports making prior learning visible and guiding future learning (summative and formative assessment that supports learning and the learner). Planning for the upcoming academic year begins.

Preconditions for Successful Change

From the experiences of Sannainen School, several essential characteristics of a learning community emerge that enable the successful implementation of a change process in a school. Change cannot remain as isolated experiments by individual staff members; it requires shared commitment and a shared understanding of the choices made and of the meaning of the school’s existence.

For a change process to succeed, the following are needed:

• Time for dialogue, in which it is ensured that everyone has the same information about the matter under consideration (for example, the objectives described in the curriculum) and in which a compromise is built regarding how what has been learned is applied to everyday school work. At Sannainen School, ample joint planning and designated working time were allocated to preparing for the change. Every member of the community participates in the discussion.
• A shared understanding of the school’s purpose, values, and vision. Values and vision are closely tied to everyday life. They are not goals detached from practice, but something that can be demonstrated in daily actions and omissions of individual people. All members of the community commit to the chosen values and vision.
• Independent study and work, as well as sharing and collaboration. Teaching remains independent work, but it is not carried out alone or separately from the rest of the community. Learning a new operating model requires individuals to learn new things and the community to engage in team learning. Sharing what has been learned and what is new, discussing what is unclear or unfamiliar, gathering information, applying knowledge in practice, and sharing good practices take place both in joint planning sessions and in everyday school work. Shared teacher spaces are actively used, and pedagogical discussions are approached openly. Allowing incompleteness, asking for ideas and help, and exchanging thoughts in daily life are encouraged.
• Caring, shared, and participatory leadership, in which the leader of the process is part of the community. The leader enables action, promotes and requires collaboration, and demonstrates that each person’s participation is equally important. The community is genuinely a community in which the goals and wishes of different actors are connected to national and local school objectives and to shared value and vision statements. The leader ensures that members receive necessary support and that there is a safe atmosphere for change, which requires accepting incompleteness, tolerating uncertainty, and making one’s own professional development visible within the community.
• Collaboration with guardians. When school work changes, guardians have questions about why new solutions are implemented and how they may affect pupils’ learning. Communication with guardians is open and transparent: the pedagogical foundations of decisions are explained and discussed openly. Guardians’ questions and concerns are treated with respect. Efforts are made to engage guardians in the school’s activities by inviting them to participate in joint projects. Guardians are part of the learning community.

• Time for pupils to practice the skills required by this new form of learning. For some pupils, thematic learning is a new way of attending school, and it requires patience, effort, and practice for the competences required by this way of working to develop and strengthen. The pupil understands both the objectives of work and learning and the actions required to achieve them. The pupil also actively participates in setting learning objectives and planning how to reach them.

---

Information Box

• Changing operating culture requires shared understanding of the curriculum and the communal development of curriculum competence. To achieve this, it is important that all teachers commit to and are motivated for the shared work.
• Going through a demanding curriculum process created a sense of a shared school (cf. the experience of “my classroom,” “my work”). Increased sense of belonging restored teachers’ experience of joy in work, which was also reflected in everyday encounters with pupils.
• Dialogical development and building a learning community require from teachers the ability to be open, to acknowledge incompleteness, and to commit to the fundamental values underlying their own work.R

References

Craig, Cheryl J.; Meijer, Paulien C.; Broeckmans, Jan (eds.) (2013) From Teacher Thinking to Teachers and Teaching: The Evolution of a Research Community – Advances in Research on Teaching, Vol. 19. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. doi: 10.1108/S1479-3687(2013)0000019037

Dogan, Selçuk (2017) The effect of pedagogy-focused professional development on teaching: A quasi-experimental evaluation using propensity score weighting. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Antonio, Texas.

Dogan, Selçuk; Tatık, R. Şamil; Yurtseven, Nihal (2017) Professional learning communities assessment: Adaptation, internal validity, and multidimensional model testing in the Turkish context. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice 17:4, 1203–1229.

Flores, Maria A. (2006) Being a novice teacher in two different settings: Struggles, continuities, and discontinuities. Teachers College Record 108:10, 2021–2052.

Gonzalez, Rosemary; Padilla, Amado M. (1997) The academic resilience of Mexican American high school students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 19:3, 301–317.

Gössling, Tobias; van Liedekerke, Luc (2014) The caring organization. Journal of Business Ethics 120:4, 437–440.

Halinen, Irmeli (2015) What is going on in Finland? – Curriculum Reform 2016.www.oph.fi/english/current_issues/101/0/what_is_going_on_in_finland_curriculum_reform_2016 (accessed 8 April 2018)

Jackson, Susan E.; Joshi, Aparna; Erhardt, Niclas L. (2003) Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management 29:6, 801–830.

Kruse, Sharon D.; Louis, Karen Seashore; Bryk, Anthony S. (1995) An emerging framework for analyzing school-based professional community. In Karen Seashore Louis & Sharon D. Kruse (eds.) Professionalism and Community: Perspectives on Reforming Urban Schools. Long Oaks: Corwin, 23–44.

Lund, Lea (2016) How Teachers Reflect on Their Pedagogy: Learning from Teachers’ Pedagogical Vocabulary. International Society for Teacher Education 20:2, 22–35.

Nelson, Richard R.; Winter, Sidney G. (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Nonaka, Ikujiro; Takeuchi, Hirotaka (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nonaka, Ikujiro; von Krogh, Georg (2009) Tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: Controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory. Organization Science 20:3, 635–652.

OECD (2016a) Teacher Professionalism. Teaching in Focus, No. 14, OECD Publishing, Paris.

OECD (2016b) School leadership for developing professional learning communities. Teaching in Focus, No. 15, OECD Publishing, Paris.

FNBE (2014) National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2014. Regulations and Guidelines 2014:96. Helsinki: Finnish National Agency for Education.

Polanyi, Michael (1962) Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy (corrected ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Scardamalia, Marlene; Bransford, John; Kozma, Bod; Quellmalz, Edys E. (2012) New assessment and environments for knowledge building. In Patrick Griffin, Barry McGaw & Esther Care (eds.) Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills. Dordrecht: Springer, 231–300.

Senge, Peter M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. London: Random House.

Senge, Peter; Kleiner, Art; Roberts, Charlotte; Ross, Richard; Roth, George; Smith, Bryan (1999) The Dance of Change: The Challenges of Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

Senge, Peter; Cambron-McCabe, Nelda; Lucas, Timothy; Smith, Bryan; Dutton, Janis; Kleiner, Art (2000) Schools That Learn: A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents, and Everyone Who Cares About Education. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

Smylie, Mark A.; Murphy, Joseph; Seashore Louis, Karen (2016) Caring school leadership: A multidisciplinary, cross-occupational model. American Journal of Education 123:1, 1–35.

Taylor, Alva; Greve, Henrich R. (2006) Superman or the Fantastic Four: Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. Academy of Management Journal 49:4, 723–740.

Tuomi, Jouni; Sarajärvi, Anneli (2006) Qualitative Research and Content Analysis. Helsinki: Tammi.

Wilson, Sandra M.; Ferch, Shann R. (2005) Enhancing resilience in the workplace through the practice of caring relationships. Organization Development Journal 23:4, 45–60.

Yeh, Yu-chu; Huang, Ling-yi; Yeh, Yi-ling (2011) Knowledge management in blended learning: Effects on professional development in creativity instruction. Computers & Education 56:1, 146–156.

Metamorphosis – Glimpses of Educational Change

Aimo Naukkarinen & Matti Rautiainen

aimo.naukkarinen@jyu.fi

University of Jyväskylä

Abstract

Technically easy, but socially extremely complex. This is how Michael Fullan (1995) summarized the core message of his work The New Meaning of Educational Change. In this article, we examine such a change process—one that is in principle simple, yet complex in many ways.

Our context is the Department of Teacher Education at the University of Jyväskylä, from the early 2000s up to the transition to a phenomenon-based curriculum in 2014. The events of that period illustrate more broadly the ways in which educational organizations both develop and remain stagnant. Both of us have been intensively involved in the development of teacher education since the early 2000s. Our text is based on analyzing and contextualizing our experiences, reflecting them against theoretical perspectives and broader frameworks shaping the development of teachers’ work and teacher education. In addition, we used email discussions and other official and unofficial documents related to curriculum processes as data.

We consider it necessary to describe the development of our department through two very different curriculum processes. We depict a period of internal and external change, the challenges to which the Department of Teacher Education had to respond through both cultural and substantive changes. We see that the issues discussed in this article are familiar to all educational organizations and thus provide a perspective on educational development and its “anatomy” more generally.

Keywords: Department of Teacher Education, curriculum thinking, operating culture, educational policy, inclusive education

Prologue

“Staff meeting in January 1999: contributions become emotional, at times even aggressive, and do not avoid disparaging views of other subjects and their relevance. The meeting continues unofficially in smaller groups, at separate coffee tables.”

Teacher education was academized in the 1970s. The reform had a clear objective: to raise teachers’ professional competence and to contribute to building the welfare state. Just as comprehensive school reform involved tensions, similar tensions were directed at teacher education. Many student teachers and teacher educators questioned the academization of teacher education, which meant an increase and emphasis on theoretical studies. Many saw teaching as a practical profession in which subject knowledge and related skills, as well as general education as practical activity, were central. There were fears that theoretical studies would weaken this and erode the core of teachers’ professional competence—practical teaching skills.

Internal tensions emerged within teacher education, relating not only to theory and practice but also to the content of education and to power relations among staff. The operating culture was based on an individualistic tradition, in which colleagues were more often seen as threats than as partners in collaboration. (See, e.g., Hökkä 2012; Rantala & Rautiainen 2013.)

These tensions and the development of teacher education began to be addressed in the late 1990s and early 2000s through various experiments (see, e.g., Nikkola, Rautiainen & Räihä 2013), with the aim of creating a holistic perspective on education—covering teaching, learning, curriculum, and operating culture. Alongside these experiments, change was also sought through curriculum reform.

Shedding the Emperor’s Old Clothes

“Development days in October 2003: A group of teachers and students reflect on how the curriculum of the Department of Teacher Education should be developed. There is too little focus in the studies on the learning process, school operating culture, and societal awareness, and far too much on teaching. Understanding at the level of the school community and society remains weak. The curriculum is atomistic and student life fragmented. The remedy: broader courses and less lecture-based instruction, more freedom for teachers and more responsibility and power for students.”

The curriculum of the Department of Teacher Education in the early 2000s could be summarized in one word: fragmented. This atomism can be seen as resulting from a tradition of working alone and from an outdated conception of knowledge. When a teacher specialized in a particular, often narrow area of expertise, they were able to incorporate that expertise autonomously into the curriculum as their own segment. When many teachers acted in this way, the curriculum became a patchwork quilt of expert domains. Atomism, combined with extensive lecture-based instruction, made collaborative teaching and coherent structuring of the curriculum difficult.

Aimo Naukkarinen & Matti Rautiainen

The progress of coherent curriculum development was hindered. (Naukkarinen 2004.) In addition, there was a large amount of content to be learned, and it was studied through fairly teacher-led and teacher-centered methods. As a result, the transmission of knowledge from teacher to student (transmission) was overly emphasized, while more equal interaction between teacher and student (transaction), let alone interaction that builds a learning community (transformation) (Patrikainen 1997; Sahlberg 1998), remained too limited. At the same time, the conception of knowledge was moving away from the idea of knowledge as permanent (static), yet knowledge was still most often separated from the surrounding reality (book knowledge). The integration of knowledge and action and experiential learning were limited.

Before the Bologna Process (Huusko & Välimaa 2005), it was common for students to have a large amount of lecture-based instruction. One perspective is that the high number of lectures was linked to a conception of the student as a passive recipient of knowledge. This conception may also have been reflected in the curriculum, where teaching was heavily emphasized but the learning process itself was not sufficiently addressed. During the 2000s, the Department of Teacher Education sought to support the formation of broader study modules and to strengthen students’ active, critical agency, but the operating culture did not bend easily toward this goal. One reason may have been that the change did not touch underlying beliefs (second-order change, Argyris & Schön 1996), but rather involved changes in practical working methods based on the same beliefs (first-order change, ibid.).

An expert organization and the staff’s highly specialized areas of expertise (Skrtic 1995), combined with the loose coupling of the work community (Weick 1976), make it difficult to grasp the curriculum as a whole. One’s own area of expertise is well mastered, but beyond it, understanding is more limited. Teachers’ willingness to abandon fragmentation and to increase scientific thinking thus depends partly on enabling collaborative structures among teachers and partly on examining personal beliefs and practical knowledge (theory-in-use). Both structures and beliefs must be renewed (Skrtic 1991; Naukkarinen 2000).

Colleagues Criticize, the Caravan Moves On…

“Curriculum process September 2004 – March 2005: Toward the end, negative criticism increases, directed at the content, working methods, and work arrangements of the forthcoming curriculum. Those responsible for planning should ensure that teachers’ areas of expertise are visible in the curriculum. They are criticized: they do not listen, do not discuss, treat people unequally, do not make use of proposals sent to them, communicate poorly, implementers did not have sufficient influence, the curriculum did not turn out good, and representative democracy did not function.”

As in many educational organizations, representativeness functioned as the organizing principle of curriculum work in the Department of Teacher Education. It worked well as long as planning and decision-making remained at a sufficiently general level. When personal interests and the defense of individual domains of expertise became more salient, representative democracy was no longer sufficient; more direct and participatory democracy would have been needed. In this situation, resistance to change and negative criticism increased from a small but vocal group.

The negative criticism described above stemmed, of course, largely from dissatisfaction with the actions of colleagues responsible for planning. In addition, it likely involved projecting ignorance and uncertainty onto key actors in the process. It can be interpreted that changes generate discomfort and a sense of threat, which are responded to partly with sound arguments but also with defensive routines (Argyris & Schön 1996)—that is, prevailing practices are criticized using arguments that are inappropriate in relation to official goals (for example, through belittling, ridicule, speaking beside the point, insinuation, or personal attacks). Some teachers suggested that others should organize collaboration among them. One perspective here was that collaboration among teachers was simply not customary. This may be a sign of an individualistic teaching culture—perhaps even a culture of learned helplessness in relation to cooperation. Since the early 2000s, efforts had been made to make the curriculum process and operating culture more collaborative (see, e.g., Naukkarinen 2004). Numerous cultural factors (including autonomy that limited opportunities for discussion, teaching alone, narrow study modules, and the failure to integrate the contents of modules) had over time created and maintained a culture of working alone.

The meeting at which the curriculum was approved in February 2005 serves as a good example of the tensions within the curriculum process and the negative criticism that emerged from them. Attendance was high, and the meeting was not a “turn-off” for participants; rather, the atmosphere was electric and anticipatory, professional passions thickening the air. Before the meeting, some teachers considered videotaping it to prevent misuse of power, and teachers from certain subjects planned to seek radio airtime to advance their cause. During the meeting, planning was criticized, and those responsible defended themselves: the process had been difficult, compromises had been made, and not all wishes could be fulfilled. After the meeting, the approval of the curriculum was appealed to the faculty, though without effect on its adoption.

In curriculum processes, the exercise of power is a delicate art. The meeting concerning the approval of the curriculum described above brought to light problems related to the use of power.

In the 2003–2005 process, the colleagues responsible for planning were lower in the academic hierarchy than some of the colleagues whose proposals were not accepted as such—or not accepted at all—into the curriculum. In a hierarchical organization, this can generate micropolitical power conflicts (Blase 1991). Another problematic issue was that the job descriptions of those responsible for planning did not cover all the areas of expertise in which they were making proposals and even decisions. In several respects, the coordinators thus crossed micropolitical boundary lines (Achinstein 2002): in some people’s view, they acted more visibly than their hierarchical position allowed, and in others’ view, they were too much insiders in areas where they should have remained more outsiders.

This “outsider to insider” dynamic was significant in that some teachers saw fault in the actions of those responsible for planning. Their willingness to take responsibility suited everyone, but the extent of that responsibility did not suit everyone. The intensity of the meeting can also be explained through professional identity. Everyone has a professional identity, and everyone forms at least some image of their colleagues’ identities. It can be interpreted that some of those who openly criticized the colleague responsible for planning at the meeting had experienced their own professional identity as shaken by unpleasant development ideas and decisions during the process. There is also the matter of personal taste: some simply did not like the curriculum for one reason or another. However, the central sources of dissatisfaction were related to working methods and selected content.

An essential question is whether shared expertise succeeded in the process or not. The 2003–2005 curriculum process, due to the dominant role of those responsible for planning and the strong emphasis on representative democracy, did not sufficiently encourage shared expertise. It is understandable that the feeling that one’s own area of expertise had not been sufficiently recognized in the curriculum caused disappointment—even bitterness.

Ultimately, opposing proposals regarding the curriculum led to voting. A process that ended in voting and in hurt feelings among some colleagues might have proceeded better through participatory democracy: teachers could have gathered together early enough in the process and perhaps reached consensus without voting. The problem with participatory democracy would have been that it might have been difficult to design the relevant studies as part of the entire curriculum, which representative democracy made possible.

Taking responsibility for the curriculum has been an ambiguous issue within the Department of Teacher Education. Previously, the department did not assign responsibility for study modules with nearly the same precision as was required in the 2003–2005 process. The curriculum process was the first serious attempt to assign responsibility and change the operating culture in this regard. Metamorphosis – Glimpses of Educational Change

It is typical in curriculum processes that, at the beginning, waves of innovation surge high and boldly, but as the process moves toward its end, they calm down, and ultimately the curriculum is approved through compromises. The final outcome then tends to be quite moderate compared to the initial state. The 2003–2005 curriculum process also began with ambitions for major changes. In the end, this curriculum, too, was fairly moderate, and it later became apparent from the teaching program that many teachers still taught small units alone, which did not support reducing fragmentation or increasing collaboration.

David Defeats Goliath and Brings Light

“Development days in October 2004: Students involved in the development work openly expressed their dissatisfaction with fragmented education that resonated poorly with theory and also presented their proposals for how studies and the curriculum should be organized. The students calmly stood by their arguments, while some teacher educators reacted very emotionally. The teacher educators clearly divided into two camps. Some stood behind the students. There was a sense that students were genuinely active developers of the community, not passive recipients.”

Learner-centeredness and the role of the active knowledge builder and participant had risen to the center of teacher education in the 1990s. However, this did not mean that students were genuinely included in development work. Although students were occasionally asked for their opinions and had representatives in various committees of the Department of Teacher Education, power relations remained clear. Teacher education modeled a school culture in which democratic features were minimal, as was participation in developing the community and in decision-making more generally. Even though Dewey’s idea of the “miniature society” and its implementation was discussed, in practice it was interpreted according to tradition as socialization, in which the teacher guides the pupil toward ideal citizenship, and where, instead of activity and criticality, submission and obedience prevail. (Rautiainen 2017.)

In the early 2000s, the situation began to change. Finnish youths’ low interest in politics and their limited opportunities for participation at school sparked broad public debate. As a result, several development projects were launched to improve democratic culture and participation in schools at all levels of education. Critical views of teacher education became more common within departments of teacher education and led to experiments that challenged tradition in many ways, including with regard to the position of the student. In Jyväskylä, one such initiative was the integration program launched in 2003 (see Nikkola, Rautiainen & Räihä 2013). Changes are communal processes, but also the role of individuals is significant, especially in the phases of generating ideas and initiating action. At the beginning of the 2000s, student teachers’ societal activity was found to be limited (Eronen, Värri & Syrjäläinen 2006), but there have always been students interested in societal issues and active in influencing them. In the early 2000s, several such individuals were present at the Department of Teacher Education who, as a group, were able to utilize—and understood the opportunity to utilize—the possibility of bringing forward their views. Ultimately, their contributions influenced not only the curriculum but also the operating culture.

Through active participation and discussion, students made themselves part of the development community. This was particularly significant for the development of teacher education. The community became more open and more receptive toward its students. However, in the re-creation of operating culture following the 2003–2005 curriculum process, the role of students remained more at the level of expectation than realization. Many factors influenced this, not least the fact that the enthusiastic and influence-oriented group graduated and left the community. Nevertheless, the ground had been prepared in such a way that future active students would encounter teacher educators interested in students’ ideas. Their role proved important in the 2012–2014 curriculum reform, in which student activists strongly supported the shift toward phenomenon-basedness and, together with teacher educators, envisioned the future of education.

Goliath Defeats David and David Rises from the Mat

“Planning special education and inclusion (e/i), autumn 2004 and spring 2007: Representatives of the Department of Special Education and the Department of Teacher Education reflect on the position of e/i within the studies of the Department of Teacher Education. Those critical of the current situation argued that separate courses in special education remained merely occasional variations and demanded that e/i content be taught according to a cross-cutting principle. It was agreed that e/i content would be taught within other study modules. A few study modules were organized jointly by both departments, with students from both departments participating. The issue resurfaced when updating the curriculum in spring 2007.”

Themes were written into the curriculum that were considered to belong to teacher education as a whole, across all its components. These included inquiry-based learning, multiculturalism, and inclusion. These themes were seen as reducing fragmentation and resonating more strongly with societal developments. However, implementing them in practice did not proceed as planned.

In the early 2000s, the spirit of the Salamanca Statement (1994) had only weakly reached the Department of Special Education and the Department of Teacher Education at the University of Jyväskylä. International ideas of inclusion did not initially spread rapidly in Finland at any level of education (Butler & Naukkarinen 2017). The emphasis on institutional care in legislation concerning persons with intellectual disabilities and the internationally high number of special classes and special schools within Finnish comprehensive education are megatrends indicating that before the late 1990s, the direction was not toward inclusion but toward categorization and the maintenance of separate curricula. The dual system of general and special education was strong in the early 2000s. Education and development work were strongly framed by traditional structures, beliefs, and interest representation rather than by inclusive goals set for society. (Naukkarinen 2010.)

Thus, in 2007, two credits were transferred from teaching practice to strengthening inclusive education. This was partly a matter of micropolitical bargaining: colleagues seeking change had to focus on a limited agenda rather than pursue too many at once, so that at least one would succeed. The transfer also aligned with the department head’s agenda. At the departmental meeting where the matter was presented to staff, some teachers strongly opposed the change. The head justified the decision by arguing that teaching practice in the normal school was not proceeding as it should and that it was therefore appropriate to transfer credits to studies conducted within the department. Tensions escalated, because the leadership group generally sought to make decisions through discussion, but in this case the head had acted against the group’s view. Consequently, the justification of the decision remained solely with the head. The meeting ultimately ended with the head leaving without sufficiently clarifying their position. The issue also reflected the relationship between tradition and power. Inclusion/special education (e/i) did not have a strong tradition as an interest group within the department; it was somewhat like a cuckoo chick in the nest of the Teacher Education owl. From this perspective, the strong role of the head can be seen as compensating for the weak history, small interest group, and limited power of e/i.

The credit transfer recalled the foundational reality of the old departmental culture, in which the bearer of the “right” message could secure the support of the head. What was intended as a minor, almost cosmetic change ultimately became a mirror reflecting the persistence of the operating culture and, on the other hand, the limited shared understanding of the curriculum’s foundations. Just as students sometimes struggled to determine whether their major was educational science or the studies of subjects taught in basic education, the thematic strands experienced a similar fate. They remained more of an administrative adjustment than a transformation of reality.

Nevertheless, the promotion of the inclusive strand was not entirely without change. The curriculum reform described above brought collaboration across the curriculum, particularly between class teacher and special education students and staff. The curriculum process generated a couple of joint initiatives between the departments a couple of joint study modules. A fine example of the spread of inclusive thinking within our department was that in autumn 2004, one lecturer proposed organizing a reading circle on inclusive education for staff. Although inclusive education was not formally part of their area of expertise, they took responsibility for leading the reading circle and learned alongside the others.

Amendments and supplements to the Basic Education Act (2010), the National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (FNBE 2014), and the Student Welfare Act (2013) are regulations that increasingly emphasize inclusive education in teacher education. A learning community, phenomenon-basedness, and inclusive education are now key concepts in both comprehensive school and teacher education. The decision made in autumn 2004 to study e/i content through a cross-cutting principle between the Department of Teacher Education and the Department of Special Education was ahead of its time in seeking to organize education in which future class teachers and special education teachers study together and thereby prepare for working life’s demands for multiprofessional collaboration and inclusion.

The Beginning of Structural Reforms

“In October 2010, we were in a situation where there was a desire to do more things together and to try something new, but the structures did not support it. The idea of a teaching-free Tuesday emerged, a day when there would be no teaching at all, but time would be reserved for collaboration among both teacher educators and students. The viability of the idea was tested by forming a semicircle, where staff positioned themselves according to how strongly they supported the proposal. Only two people stood on the opposite side of the semicircle—one firmly opposed, the other somewhere between uncertainty and resistance. The rest expressed either support or strong support for the reform.”

Following the curriculum reform, the operating culture had developed toward a new direction more slowly than expected. The anticipated “miracle” had not occurred, even though experiments were underway. These experiments still relied more on individuals than on the community as a whole. Staff discussion about doing things differently intensified, but again and again the main obstacle was identified as the difficulty of finding shared time—not only for implementing teaching but also for planning it. Students had likewise pointed out the difficulty of finding shared time for their own collaborative work.

Structural reform had been discussed repeatedly among leaders. The growing staff discourse about working together provided a strong argument for reform—so to speak, a “proposal that cannot be refused.” It was easy to propose the reform because it responded directly to staff wishes. The Tuesday reform created an opportunity for collaboration and gave the staff with space to come together and develop education and research within relatively flexible frameworks. The structural reform can be described as a tool for creating education that is future-oriented, theoretically grounded, experimental, and collaborative. The reform also included the idea of moving into a more chaotic state. In addition to the Tuesday reform, other structural changes were implemented, such as reorganizing timetables, renewing meeting practices, modifying work plans, and supporting team teaching. These reforms were taken up by those who had ideas about renewing education and strengthening research-based teacher education.

Coincidence or Not?

“Meeting of the faculty’s extended curriculum group in December 2012: In small-group discussions, the exchange of ideas began to circle around phenomena and phenomenon-basedness. For some reason, no one immediately dismissed them. Quite the opposite.”

Interestingly, since 2009, the introductory section of the curriculum had stated that the curriculum of the Department of Teacher Education was phenomenon-based. At the time, however, no real discussion had taken place about this, and few took it seriously. Instead, it allowed teacher educators to experiment with something resembling phenomenon-basedness, since the idea was not foreign at the individual level, even if it was at the organizational level. Now, however, the situation was different, because part of the staff wanted the curriculum to move more strongly toward subject integration and toward theoretical study emerging from authentic everyday questions approached from multiple perspectives. The Department of Teacher Education quickly seized this moment of temporary consensus and brought the idea of a curriculum structured around phenomena to the entire staff for consideration. Although the idea of phenomenon-basedness was strongly questioned from outside, it did not prevent the process that had begun within teacher education.

Was this a matter of coincidence, of seizing an opportunity, or something else? It is difficult to demonstrate the role of coincidence in historical processes (see, e.g., Koselleck 2004), even though in our own lives we recognize moments when unexpected and surprising events influence the course of our lives. Seizing an opportunity, by contrast, is a political configuration in which alternative ways of seeing become possible and lead to action. In this case, the element of coincidence culminated in who happened to attend the meeting. What followed was seizing the opportunity.

At the same time as the principled decision was made to explore the possibilities of phenomenon-basedness as the foundation of the curriculum, it was also decided that the process would become an ongoing project. For this reason, the work was initiated with the idea of a “blank space” that is, the staff’s task was to reflect, through phenomena, on what is important in teacher education. This phase, and especially the continuation of the process as a shared endeavor, made it possible for the curriculum not to remain merely a collection of fine phrases on paper, but to include a continuous mirror reflecting our own operating culture. Once the central phenomena of the curriculum had been selected, the curriculum work continued in such a way that staff could work in the group of their choice (or in more than one), and each group selected its own working methods and leader. In other words, the development work was carried forward by the entire staff, not just a small group enthusiastic about the issue.

In addition to staff commitment, the process was designed so that time was devoted to understanding phenomenon-basedness and clarifying its core ideas, while simultaneously enabling staff to develop ideas for practical implementation. Of course, not everything was smooth. Although most staff committed to the project and the final outcome emerged from negotiations and discussions seeking consensus, the initiative also faced resistance. Objections included claims that there was insufficient research evidence on phenomenon-basedness, that it would destroy the foundation of school subjects, and that it would also abandon the foundations of educational science. It was even described as “eccentricity” and as an unacademic approach to developing education.

Staff were required to refrain from writing detailed content lists reflecting their own areas of expertise and instead to prepare opportunities for students to select content. This was not easy for staff to internalize. A faculty-level shared curriculum was not viewed positively by everyone either. Some were alarmed by the idea of a curriculum in which studies are structured around questions negotiated and reflected upon together with students.

In any case, the result was a curriculum whose formulation—both in principles and in practices—differed radically from the previous reform (2003–2005), but which might not have been possible without those earlier stages.

Conclusion

In this article, we have described glimpses of educational change within a long-standing educational organization. We have presented these through our own experiences and sought to conceptualize them at a broader level as a model of educational change (Figure 1).

The process is cyclical: the circle turns again when we find ourselves dissatisfied with the current state. For this reason, dissatisfaction and the capacity to see differently should be welcomed, as they mark the beginning of something new.

INITIAL STATE: Dissatisfaction with the prevailing situation

→ Critical analysis

→ Discussion of the need for change

→ Experiments

→ Strong participation of the community

→ Structural changes

→ Curriculum reform

Figure 1. Phases of educational change.

---

Information Box

Educational change is a complex phenomenon and must be approached as such. It requires attention to multiple levels and the ability to move into uncertainty while simultaneously organizing the process into a logical-rational whole. The following elements are central to implementing change:

• Change is a communal process; members of the community must experience it as their own.
• Time must be invested in finding shared understanding—however much time it requires.
• Both structures and beliefs must be changed. Structures must evolve alongside ideas. If there is no time for collaboration, it must be created.
• The goal must be clear not only at the communal level but also in relation to each individual’s contribution.
• Conflicts are part of change and must be understood and addressed.
• In complex change processes, one must be prepared to apply different forms of democracy.

References

Achinstein, Betty (2002) Conflict amid community: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. Teachers College Record 104:3, 421–455. doi: 10.1111/1467-9620.00168.

Argyris, Chris & Schön, Donald (1996) Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and Practice. New York: Addison–Wesley.

Blase, Joseph (1991) The micropolitical perspective. In Joseph Blase (ed.) The Politics of Life in Schools. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, 1–18.

Butler, Cathal & Naukkarinen, Aimo (2017) Inclusion and democracy in England and Finland. In Andrea Raiker & Matti Rautiainen (eds.) Educating for Democracy in England and Finland: Principles and Culture. New York: Routledge, 109–126.

Fullan, Michael (1995) The New Meaning of Educational Change. London: Cassell.

Huusko, Mira & Välimaa, Jussi (2005) The Bologna Process in basic units. In Ritva Jakku-Sihvonen (ed.) New Kinds of Master’s Degrees: Developmental Lines in Education Studies. Jyväskylä: PS-kustannus, 55–72.

Hökkä, Päivi (2012) Teacher Educators Amid Conflicting Demands: Tensions Between Individual and Organizational Development. Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research 433. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.

Koselleck, Reinhart (2004) Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time. Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought. Translated into English by Keith Tribe. New York: Columbia University Press.

Naukkarinen, Aimo (2000) The significance of a constructionist perspective in building an inclusive school. Kasvatus 31:2, 159–170.

Naukkarinen, Aimo (2004) Participatory teacher education: The significance of staff and student beliefs and departmental organizational structures in developing teacher education. In Seppo Hämäläinen (ed.) The Change of the Teaching Profession and Teacher Education. University of Jyväskylä, Department of Teacher Education, Research Reports 81. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, 61–85.

Naukkarinen, Aimo (2010) From discrete to transformed? Developing inclusive primary school teacher education in a Finnish teacher education department. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 10:S1, 185–196.

Nikkola, Tiina; Rautiainen, Matti; Räihä, Pekka (2013) Another Way to Go to School. Tampere: Vastapaino.

Student and Pupil Welfare Act 1287/2013 (2013)

https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2013/20131287 (accessed 14 Dec 2017)

Patrikainen, Risto (1997) Conceptions of the human being, knowledge, and learning in the pedagogical thinking of class teachers. University of Joensuu, Publications in Education No. 36. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.

Amendments and Supplements to the Basic Education Act 2010 (2011) Regulations and Guidelines 2011:20. Helsinki: Finnish National Agency for Education.

http://www.oph.fi/download/132882_Perusopetuksen_opetussuunnitelman_perusteiden_muutokset_ja_taydennykset2010.pdf (accessed 14 Dec 2017)

National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2014 (2014) Regulations and Guidelines 2014:96. Helsinki: Finnish National Agency for Education.

http://www.oph.fi/download/163777_perusopetuksen_opetussuunnitelman_perusteet_2014.pdf (accessed 14 Dec 2017)

Rantala, Jukka & Rautiainen, Matti (eds.) (2013) From Seminar to Master’s Degree: The Academization of Class Teacher and Guidance Counselor Education from the 1970s to the 2010s. Jyväskylä: Finnish Educational Research Association.

Rautiainen, Matti (2017) On a cautious path: The history of democracy education in Finland. In Perttu Männistö, Matti Rautiainen & Liisa Vanhanen-Nuutinen (eds.) At the Sources of the Good: Democracy and Human Rights Education in Teaching Work. University of Jyväskylä, Department of Teacher Education, 56–65.

Sahlberg, Pasi (1998) As a Teacher in a Changing School. Helsinki: WSOY.

The Salamanca Statement (1994) The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality. Salamanca, Spain, June 7–10, 1994. UNESCO and Ministry of Education and Science of Spain. http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF

Silander, Tiina; Rautiainen, Matti; Kostiainen, Emma (2015) Who actually brings about change? Leaders of the Department of Teacher Education as architects of change work. In Päivi Hökkä, Susanna Paloniemi, Katja Vähäsantanen, Sanna Herranen, Mari Manninen & Anneli Eteläpelto (eds.) Strengthening Professional Agency and Workplace Learning: Creative Resources for Work! University of Jyväskylä, 151–168.

Skrtic, Thomas (1991) Behind Special Education. Denver: Love Publishing.

Skrtic, Thomas (1995) The functionalist view of special education and disability: Deconstructing the conventional knowledge tradition. In Thomas Skrtic (ed.) Disability and Democracy: Restructuring (Special) Education for Postmodernity. New York: Teachers College Press, 65–103.

Syrjäläinen, Eija; Eronen, Ari; Värri, Veli-Matti (2006) As told by student teachers: Student teachers’ societal orientation and their perceptions of their own opportunities for influence at the university. Research Reports 6 of the Research and Development Centre for Historical and Social Studies Education. University of Helsinki.

Weick, Karl (1976) Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly 21:1, 1–19. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2391875.

Part 2: Renewing Teacherhood, Agency, and Communality

Growing into Renewing Teacherhood – Phenomenon-Based Learning as Individual and Group Processes

MERJA KAUPPINEN, LEENA AARTO-PESONEN & EMMA KOSTIAINEN

merja.kauppinen@karvi.fi

Finnish Education Evaluation Centre

Abstract

Phenomenon-based learning challenges content-focused, subject-divided teaching culture by renewing learning practices associated with subject-based pedagogy. Phenomenon-based instruction breaks down the traditional content boundaries of school subjects, calls for tools and methods for guiding one’s own learning, and broadens the conception of learning from cognitive goals to include emotional dimensions and interactional processes.

Teacher students are socialized into phenomenon-based learning by “unlearning” subject-bound objectives and contents. They both study in a phenomenon-based way themselves and collaboratively design phenomenon-based learning modules, which they co-teach in practice classrooms. In this way, learning targets are conceptualized as broad and grounded in general skills of learning to learn and self-regulation. Structuring what has been learned through reflection—and the related work of attitudes and emotions—is central in phenomenon-based learning.

Keywords: teacher expertise, change in teacherhood, co-teaching, phenomenon-based learning, teacher education

Milestones of Renewing Learning

Subject-divided teaching stands at a turning point. Learning focused on the contents of a specific subject is undergoing transformation in increasingly globalized and technologized environments. The teacher’s expert role and the significance of school subjects are being challenged, as facts from different disciplines are easily accessible and can be applied and modeled for various needs.

Pressure for change in teaching also arises from the demands of working life: the need to find broadly skilled individuals whose competence extends beyond mastery of content (Andrade 2016). Critical thinking, problem-solving, interaction and teamwork skills, as well as the ability to reflect on one’s own thinking and action, are increasingly valued across fields. These skills are learned in authentic environments through doing, taking responsibility, and sharing both actions and thoughts.

With shifting emphases in learning, teachers’ work and teacher education are also renewing. Networked learning environments and the development of understanding developing dialogically challenge teachers, student teachers, and teacher educators to continuously develop their professional identity (Berry 2008). Under negotiation are both professional goals related to one’s own learning and teaching, as well as personal interests and attitudes toward the profession and toward pupils or students (Vähäsantanen 2015). In both growing into the teaching profession and working as a teacher, the importance of self-understanding is emphasized, as self-understanding functions like a lens through which the individual observes, gives meaning, and directs their own actions (Kelchtermans 2005, 2009). Reflecting on, directing, and evaluating one’s own actions are central working-life skills on which pedagogical development is based, regardless of educational field or level.

Phenomenon-Based Learning for Individuals and Small Groups

In this article, we examine how a teacher grows into phenomenon-based teaching and learning. Phenomena are situated in authentic environments: classroom situations, school practices, and encounters with other students and teachers. At the center of becoming a teacher are perceiving, structuring, and understanding matters and phenomena from the perspectives of individual and community development as well as teaching.

Our article is situated within phenomenon-based learning in teachers’ pedagogical studies, which emphasize, on the one hand, the individual study path and, on the other hand, the learning of the group (see Table 1). We believe that the same growth process lies ahead for all teachers who seek to develop in their work, regardless of career length.

We studied the individual study path in phenomenon-based adult education emphasizing independent work among students of physical education pedagogy. Group learning, in turn, was examined in multidisciplinary groups formed by students of Finnish language and literature and information technology. The data consisted of students’ learning diaries, assessments, feedback, and recorded discussions (see Table 1). The data were analyzed using an autoethnographic approach (Austin & Hickey 2007) and the constant comparative method (Boeije 2002; Glaser & Strauss 1974).

Our aim is to broaden and deepen understanding of phenomenon-based learning and its dimensions as experienced by these two student groups. We are interested in what kinds of meanings learning based on phenomenon-oriented work produces from the perspectives of the individual and the group. This knowledge helps in understanding phenomenon-based learning processes, on the basis of which learning support can be planned in different teacher communities, student groups, and various forms of educational programs.

Table 1. Description of Individual- and Group-Oriented Education and Data Collection

	Individual Study Path	Group Study Path
Subject and Degree Program	Physical Education \nMultiform pedagogical teacher studies for adult students	Finnish Language and Literature \nInformation Technology \nSubject teacher pedagogical studies
Students	29 adult students, some of whom worked as unqualified physical education teachers alongside their studies	Eight multidisciplinary groups (total 28 students) in supervised teaching practice
Phenomenon-Basedness in Learning	Individual phenomenon-based study and teaching experiences and their reflection independently and in small groups	Planning and implementation of a phenomenon-based learning module and reflection on the experience in small groups
Mode of Work	Collaborative learning during contact teaching periods \nIndependent work between contact periods	Collaborative small-group study in project-based teaching practice
Data	Learning diaries \nSelf- and peer assessments \nCourse feedback \n(90 pages)	Recorded reflective final discussions of small groups (8 groups), 50–90 minutes each \n(100 pages)

The phenomenon-based studies were designed to support the reciprocal relationship between students and their environments—that is, their agency (see also Lestinen & Valleala in this publication). The courses were based on problem-solving in project-based work and authentic learning environments. In addition, they aimed to assign responsibility to students and to give space to their own meaning-making regarding phenomena, their examination, and their impact on learning.

In the two-year studies based on individual work, students examined phenomena related to learning and guidance by reflecting in their educational autobiographies on factors that had influenced their learning. They also considered the need for change in contemporary schools based on their experiences and wrote in their learning diaries about phenomenon-based learning and their own phenomenon-based teaching experiences acquired in work. During contact periods, students discussed selected phenomena in small groups and shared their experiences.

In the studies based on collaborative work, students formed small groups in which they planned, implemented, and evaluated a phenomenon-based learning module as part of their teaching practice. The focus areas of the practice were subject integration and co-teaching (Kauppinen, Kemppinen & Järvelä 2016). Group work lasted approximately five months and was carried out in multidisciplinary groups in different ways depending on the theme of the learning module and the type of school (see Järvelä & Kauppinen 2012). In the final discussion of the practice, students reflected on the meaningfulness of phenomenon-based study: what pupils learned from the experiment and what they themselves gained as pedagogues.

From Teaching to Examining One’s Own Action – In Search of Understanding

We approached the documents and discussions following the principles of autoethnography, which enabled us as teacher-researchers to examine the experiences of individuals and the group while being ourselves present in the learning situations (Austin & Hickey 2007). The aim was to become sensitized to examining our own actions. Key tools in this work are analyzing the experiential nature of teaching and investigating learning processes. The desire to understand what we are doing and how questions arising in teaching should be examined is important for grasping the arc of learning and for developing teaching.

Phenomenon-based teaching gives rise to very different experiences and interpretations, which have led us as teacher-researchers to wonder together about the surrounding lifeworld and learning from it. The need to share perspectives and to discuss with colleagues one’s own thoughts, observations, doubts, hesitations, insights, and successes undoubtedly increases with a phenomenon-based curriculum (see also Kostiainen & Tarnanen in this publication). At the same time, analytical examination of teaching can at its best become a natural part of a teacher’s work and professional development.

In phenomenon-based instruction, teachers participate in learning processes in the same way as students. For this reason, teachers do not need to separate themselves as detached actors and observe learning situations as if from the outside (Chang, Ngunjiri & Hernandez 2016). Self-examination, reflective thinking, and personal knowledge function as tools for teachers’ professional development (Austin & Hickey 2007). Characteristic of phenomenon-based work is the courage to venture onto previously unfamiliar paths in teaching. Therefore, along the way, particular clusters of experiences emerge—experiences that teachers may reflect on for a long time, as they can be defined by strong shared emotional experiences. For this reason, approaching experiences as distinctive and emotionally charged, and processing them together through careful analysis, is important in building understanding (Chang et al. 2016). In this article, drawing on both our personal experiences and documented data, we have sought to identify features that are distinctive to phenomenon-based learning.

The Constant Comparative Method in Exploring the Meanings of Phenomenon-Based Learning

Our examination of phenomenon-based learning is based on the idea of the social nature of understanding: knowledge is formed in communities and emerges within a complex network of relationships—here, on the basis of the group’s observations (Schwandt 2000). Correspondingly, the dimensions of phenomenon-based learning become visible in teachers’ experience-based accounts of their own learning and professional development. Because experiences are relational in nature, through different kinds of relationships becoming articulated (Beijaard, Meijer & Verloop 2004; Korthagen 2004), we applied the constant comparative method in examining the meanings within the data (Boeije 2002; Glaser 1992; Glaser & Strauss 1974). By grouping and delimiting categories from the data and combining them, we sought to conceptualize the material and create a comprehensive description of the phenomenon under study.

The multiplicity and relationships of phenomenon-based learning open up by seeking similarities and differences in teacher students’ behavior, understanding, views, and perspectives. By compiling these features from the data and relating them to one another, we constructed a concept map that condensed five tensions describing phenomenon-based learning as experienced by individuals and groups. These are:

• enthusiasm generated by experimentation versus chaos
• freedom of learning versus structures
• the possibilities and challenges of renewing teacher and learner roles
• positive and negative emotional experiences
• mastery of subject content knowledge versus generic skills

In the following section, we present these dimensions of meaning and their characteristics. They emerged from tensions formed by students’ experiences and functioned as sites of professional growth both for teacher students and for us as teachers.

Tensions in Phenomenon-Based Learning

Enthusiastic Innovation or Uncertainty-Laden Chaos?

The unpredictability and uncertainty of outcomes inherent in phenomenon-based learning evoked strong experiences among future teachers, ranging from glowing enthusiasm and hopefulness to resistant disbelief. Teacher students observed similar reactions among their pupils:

“I feel like they [the upper secondary students] had quite a lot of fun. For example, I had those [social media] profiles and things like that, and it felt like they got excited about it in a completely different way.”

Students verbalized experiences at both extremes: in their studies, they perceived both new possibilities and non-functioning pedagogy, at times even chaotic. Experiences varied for the same student at different stages of study and among different students in the same group, voiced either in tones of enthusiasm or disbelief:

“It was surprising to notice how different feelings the phenomenon week aroused in us… For some, it seemed to represent exactly the kind of learner-centered and personally meaningful learning that has been called for. For others, it felt like chaos, where in the end no one really learns anything properly.”

These tension-filled experiences led future teachers to conclude that only after having guided phenomenon-based learning themselves do they dare to try it with their own pupils. In any case, all students had the opportunity in their studies to process

The opposition between the idealism of innovative phenomenon-based learning and, conversely, disbelief was visible among different students and between small groups. In a state of uncertainty, it was natural for a small group to grasp something familiar and safe, such as a learning method mastered by one member of the group, when everything else still felt unclear:

“It was nice that there was one person who actually had a clear idea. Then it was like, what if we used this instead. Why not—if it somehow goes wrong, that’s valuable too. But it turned out that it didn’t go wrong; the videos turned out really good.”

Ultimately, what proved central in phenomenon-based learning was the group’s enthusiasm to develop and adapt the learning method—camera-pen technique—because “you never know where it might lead.” The group’s willingness to experiment and their curiosity emerged as key factors in phenomenon-based learning.

Those working with an individual emphasis experienced phenomenon-based study as motivating and as generating new ideas, yet after completing their studies many did not feel ready to teach in a phenomenon-based way in their own workplace. Disbelief was directed, for example, at their own skills in guiding phenomenon-based work. The phenomenon itself was perceived as a puzzle, whose introduction into school would require guided practice in teacher education, careful preparation within the work community, dedicated shared planning time and implementation lessons, as well as thorough professional in-service training that offers concrete tools—in order to “avoid chaos.”

Phenomenon-based learning challenged students’ study routines in ways to which they were not accustomed. A flexible schedule, atypical divisions of responsibility between teacher and student, and the openness of objectives disrupted established roles and learning practices. Discomfort was also caused by the fact that learning inevitably involves failures and other strong emotional experiences—for school pupils, students, and teachers alike—when moving beyond subject-based goal setting and familiar subject matter, and when relinquishing the idealized notion of learning.

Future teachers raised several challenges of phenomenon-based learning that, in fact, represented a list of perceived deficiencies in relation to subject-content-based learning. Students found themselves missing detailed pre-set objectives, precise lesson plans, pre-structured content, clearly defined learning materials, and predefined criteria for pupils’ products.

What was most strongly called for was the clarity and structure of content-based learning, to which teacher students had been socialized over years along their own study paths. One small-group student summarized their negative feelings about the applicability of phenomenon-based teaching:

“…this content would need something extra that normally d

Students explained their various experiences of uncertainty and doubt through their own previous negative learning experiences, established ways of learning and studying, and individual ways of reacting to situations. Students strongly oriented toward security seemed at first to experience considerable uncertainty about the working method, while those more ready to throw themselves into the process expressed enthusiasm about the opportunity to explore something new:

“It probably hasn’t bothered me and [another student] that there’s this kind of slight vagueness. For us, it’s probably good that there isn’t such a strict structure, but I’ve seen in many colleagues that they start to feel anxious when they don’t know what’s going to happen and how much time they should budget. And also the fact that everything is new—you can’t rely on anything old.”

Liberation of Learning or Clinging to the Familiar?

The perceived meaningfulness or meaninglessness of phenomenon-based work led teacher students and teachers to the realm of educational-philosophical views. Teacher students’ thinking and actions were guided by very different conceptions of knowledge and learning, which were reflected, for example, in their attitudes toward phenomena. This tension between views became visible in knowledge construction: what one student experienced as superficial appeared to another as a deep dive into the core of a phenomenon.

Likewise, the idea of diversifying information-seeking skills was, for one student, a positive development, while for another it raised concerns that pupils’ readiness for phenomenon-based work would not suffice and that pupils would represent even more clearly the extremes of learning in the future. One student reflected in their learning diary on their experience of phenomenon-based teaching:

“One could ask whether everyone learned something during those three days? Or did it happen that some learned and had good experiences, while others spent three days lounging on the school sofas without really learning anything?”

Phenomenon-based learning was seen as requiring, in particular, the ability to delimit the topics under examination so that learning could even begin.

Future teachers also differed in their attitudes toward involving pupils and the increased freedom and responsibility that this entails. For some students, phenomenon-based work was an anticipated and meaningful “revolution in learning,” freeing the learner from rote memorization and excessive rules and transforming them into an autonomous individual constructing their own learning:

“I firmly believe that phenomenon-based learning will go down with young people like a hot knife through butter, because rote learning will fade into the background.”

Those studying with an individual emphasis felt encouraged and experienced their learning as intensified in phenomenon-based work, when they were able to influence their own learning, work in ways they preferred, and make decisions concerning their learning.

“I’ve personally felt that things from these [phenomenon-based] lessons have stayed in my mind much better than from a more traditional seminar or lecture. It probably comes from processing the issue on many different levels—socially, through my own reasoning, information seeking, dialogue, comparison, experiencing, experimenting, observing, doing.”

The freedom and responsibility gained, the encouragement toward an inquiry-oriented approach, and the support for drawing on one’s own experiences brought the desired sense of meaningfulness and personal relevance to learning for those in the individually oriented group. For some students working in small groups, however, phenomenon-based work meant “a senseless waste of time” compared to traditional teaching, limited acquisition of content, and vaguely defined learning objectives. These students preferred to adhere to familiar ways of teaching.

Among future teachers, excessive learner freedom prompted reflection on what counts as appropriate or inappropriate action in learning. There was a desire for greater clarity in activities and assignments, more precise guidance on what one was actually allowed to do and not do, what kind of product or outcome should result from studying, and according to what criteria learners’ products should be assessed. Phenomenon-based learning shook established structures of study and did not let students off easily; instead, it demanded effort in a constructive way.

In several small groups, support for the success of phenomenon-based instruction was sought especially in pupils’ performance: were the products such as had been anticipated in planning the learning module? Groups wanted to define criteria for a “successful performance or product,” whereby the final outcome of the learning process was taken as evidence of successful learning. Yet a product conceived as a measure of the effectiveness of phenomenon-based learning—and limited by predefined criteria—did not always function as expected.

For example, upper secondary students created authentic-sounding social media profiles for the protagonists of books, based on their own social media reality, which diverged from the predefined criteria set for the products. In such cases, teacher students had to work through their conceptions of learning and reflect on what kind of freedom in learning is desirable from the perspective of school goal setting.

This kind of analysis and reflection on one’s own conceptions in relation to classroom situations was experienced as demanding and even uncomfortable, but in its laboriousness also rewarding for some groups. In one classroom intervention, pupils’ texts were first assessed according to conventional characteristics of a good text (see Kauppinen & Hankala 2013), but in the end, the writing processes were also examined from the pupils’ emotional experiences. It was then observed that immersive, collaborative writing brought tremendous joy and satisfaction to pupils. This may strengthen writer identity and be highly valuable in learning in itself, even if the assessment criteria for texts do not capture this dimension of text production.

Whether future teachers found meaning in what was done and experienced during the phenomenon-based learning process became a culminating point in their attitude toward the method. In the student groups we examined, meaningfulness in phenomenon-based work emerged in different ways. Those studying individually constructed understanding of their learning through self-assessments, completed task modules, and shared reflective final discussions. In these discussions, the voices of staff rooms were also heard, as tasks had been developed in schools across Finland.

Those studying in small groups, in turn, structured the meaningfulness of their work in separate final discussions attended by all participants in the learning experiments, including school pupils through their course feedback. Building the big picture of the phenomena together helped students form shared understanding of what was actually learned (objectives) and how it was learned (the nature of the phenomenon-based learning process). Discussion clarified for students their own part and role within the complex collaboration, as they found it difficult to grasp the overall picture based solely on their own observations and details. Only shared reflection and dialogue helped students assign meaning to phenomenon-based work and made what was learned visible:

“I learned especially from my peers’ comments in class. The teaching idea presented by [another student] stayed with me. I draw a lot from such contributions, because my own thinking process gets ideas about how I could implement a similar practice in my own teaching work and how I would carry it out.”

Satisfaction with phenomenon-based work thus appears to be connected to how well a teacher or group of teachers ultimately succeeds in jointly making sense of their experiences.

Strengthened Agents in a Learning Community or Marginalized Individuals and Exhausted Teachers?

Phenomenon-based learning changes the roles of teachers and pupils. As learning environments expand and subject boundaries are broken down, the teacher’s role as a guide and supporter of learning is emphasized while the learner takes an active role in action. As communality intensifies, teachers and learners come to know one another better, creating opportunities to promote collaboration, interactive learning, and a positive atmosphere in many ways.

However, the data also revealed n

“I dare to cautiously claim that I spent the most working hours on this project—at least up until the point when the actual lessons began—compared, for example, to the Finnish language students. Just setting up the platform and figuring out permissions took an enormous amount of working hours, and I ran tests to see how different problem situations could be handled. But then situations arose that I hadn’t even thought about. It was something learned the hard way.”

In our experiments, phenomenon-based learning was built on authentic environments and real problems to be solved, which required constructing the operating culture of a learning community. Students following the individual path formed connections not only with each other but also with their local communities—colleagues, pupils, and those they guided.

“I asked, among others, a senior gym group how bullying appeared in their childhood. I believe that through my presentation I also broadened other [students’] understanding of the phenomenon, because instead of focusing on tools, I concentrated on concrete actions.”

Shared discussion about the phenomena selected as the basis for work and about questions arising from one’s own life, as well as collective processing of the phenomenon tasks at the end, were extremely important for those studying individually. The feeling that one could, through one’s own work, help other group members learn strengthened one’s teacher identity, sense of agency, and active communal knowledge construction. At the same time, this strengthening required perseverance, considerable work, and strong commitment from future teachers, which for many caused feelings of inadequacy and stress.

The learning modules implemented by small groups in classrooms, in turn, required solution-oriented action, flexible division of labor, and practical as well as emotional support within the group. The learning tasks followed authentic problem-solving situations, such as “How do search engines and browsers guide us in information seeking and simultaneously influence our worldview?” or “How can upper secondary students be encouraged to reflect on the problem of evil from the perspectives of literature, philosophy, and psychology?” Thus, they offered meaningful challenges both for teacher students and for pupils in the classrooms.

The authentic and non-subject-bound nature of the tasks transformed students’ (subject) roles, which also disrupted established working routines as instruction progressed. These changes compelled participants to take responsibility for shared action, and teacher students emphasized t

“All the lessons were such that either one [the Finnish language and literature student or the information technology student] could have taught them alone. We wouldn’t have needed both there, but it was really fun to collaborate—pleasant.”

Future teachers identified and named several characteristics of a good operating culture based on their phenomenon-based work, such as diverse support within the group, shared rules, the importance of taking responsibility individually or together, joint reflection on solutions, recognition of success, negotiation and information flow, organization of work, and trust and familiarity within one’s reference group. At the same time, however, they noted that they did not always act in accordance with these principles, even though doing so would have been sensible and, in retrospect, might have prevented conflicts.

Communality emerged in these student groups as one of the prerequisites of phenomenon-based learning. It offered opportunities to plan and implement both individual and shared learning processes and to engage in peer learning, but at the same time required commitment, responsibility, and the ability to work systematically (see Kauppinen, Järvelä & Kemppinen 2018).

Among the perceived possibilities of phenomenon-based learning were tasks that prompted classes and institutions to connect with broader educational, professional, and expert communities. Such implementations brought a societal perspective into learning and brought teacher students and working life closer together. They provided opportunities to practice skills of engagement and networking while strengthening one’s sense of agency (generic skills of studying). The expansion of learning environments through phenomenon-based tasks particularly enabled the use of media. In phenomenon-based work, sources of inspiration and information included not only course and textbooks but also television series, documentaries, online links, social media, books, magazines, and news.

Negative aspects of increased participation and autonomy were reported especially by those studying individually, based on their learning diaries. A perceived threat was that pupils might become lost in a labyrinth of information during lessons and possibly become marginalized. Students expressed strong doubts about whether phenomenon-based learning can adequately take into account pupils’ different learning styles, temperaments, and other characteristics. In addition, constantly changing learning environments were seen as a risk factor for restlessness:

“When planning phenomenon-based modules, students’ differences must be taken into account. For all pupils, studies conducted outside the classroom are not enjoyable. For some pupils, changing study spaces and people creates stress and disturbs learning.”

The significance—and also the difficulty—of constructive, functional interaction in teaching concerned students whose work was based on joint planning and implementation of instruction in groups. Particularly demanding proved to be the goal-oriented interaction necessary for a functioning learning community: the willingness to share one’s ideas and justify one’s views within the group, as well as the desire to understand perspectives and arguments differing from one’s own. Sensitivity to interaction is one of the key factors in a learning community, and what social skills mean in a teacher’s work became very concretely visible in phenomenon-based learning. In the end, collaboration and a culture of sharing felt entirely natural to all students within the teaching profession: “you have to get along with others.” The practices of functional interaction as part of phenomenon-based learning were taken for granted and their role was not questioned.

While those studying individually deepened their professional understanding and enjoyed the freedom to choose the phenomena they studied, the means of investigating them, and their learning environments during phenomenon-based study, those implementing phenomenon-based teaching periods in groups grew into the autonomy of the teaching profession during the learning periods. Through classroom interventions, they experienced what freedom and responsibility mean in practice in a teacher’s work. Unlike traditional teaching practice, small-group students had broader latitude in organizing instruction. Pedagogical choices concerned not only methods or materials but also the opportunity to select entire topical contents that resonated with themselves or with pupils, as well as the learning environments.

Accordingly, during lessons pupils built digital games and produced content for discussion forums, tested search engines and operating systems, and established contacts with working life. Learning targets had to be named not in terms of subject contents but as broader, generic skills and transversal learning goals, such as learning-to-learn skills, emotional skills, and learners’ own creative production. Working with new kinds of objectives and learning environments required effort from students. All those studying in multidisciplinary groups considered the workload invested in phenomenon-based learning to be substantial, as the groups implemented the entire arc of inquiry-based work—from broad idea generation and exploration of possibilities through implementation to evaluation of their own choices.

Phenomenon-based work provided students with foundations for an experimental, critically reflective (inquiry-oriented) teacherhood, which was valued as a counterbalance to the increased workload. In addition, teacher students encountered pupils’ suspicion and resistance to change toward any form of study deviating from traditional subject-based instruction.

Joy of Learning or Strained Relationships?

Phenomenon-based learning aroused emotions in both pupils and teacher students. Future teachers defined their learning-related emotions broadly, as an intertwined whole of feelings and sensations. The emotional spectrum included short-term emotional states and reactions as well as longer-term feelings, moods, and attitudes. Within this broad spectrum, a connection to growth as a teacher was evident, since emotions—whether conscious or unconscious—can shake, awaken, guide, restrain, or strengthen. Recognizing and processing experiences related to teaching and the emotions connected to them is nowadays considered one of the cornerstones of professional competence, for example in structural changes concerning education (Vähäsantanen 2015). Together with thinking, emotions can change action while simultaneously building an individual’s awareness of themselves and their environment (see also Aarto-Pesonen 2013, 78–79).

In our data, emotions appeared among teacher students as both individual and shared experiences, most often colored by strong experiential intensity:

“I believe that one of the most influential factors in my memorable learning experience was the strong emotional reactions it evoked. As a physically active person, the functional dance and music exercises with teachers, pupils, and visiting experts were fun and therefore also boosted our team spirit. Performing myself, in turn, aroused feelings of nervousness, which ultimately turned into feelings of success and competence. Recent research has also shown that learning can involve passion, commitment, immersion, and flow. All of these were awakened in me and in us by the [phenomenon-based] project I described.”

Current real-life phenomena and the personal relevance of learning generated joy in doing (see also Kostiainen and Tarnanen in this volume). When learning was based on one’s own interests, perceived needs, or problems, it became engaging—even enjoyable. At the same time, it ignited intrinsic motivation to find things out: “I learned everything because… something genuinely puzzled me, and I wanted answers or more information.”

When teacher students also succeeded in inspiring their pupils at school to examine issues more broadly, their work gained new momentum. At its best, collaboration radiated mutual enthusiasm for doing, and those studying individually even spoke in their learning diaries about the empowerment of all parties involved.

Future teachers were able to recognize the significance of emotions in learning, as they experienced the experiential nature of phenomenon-based work and the crossing of their own boundaries as supporting not only learning in general but also growth as a teacher and as a person.

All of this was experienced as demanding but at the same time rewarding. The awakening of emotions also helped with more lasting memory of what was learned.

Phenomenon-based work also evoked negative emotions that strained relationships and inflamed the atmosphere within groups. Problems in interaction, in turn, influenced teacher students’ attitudes toward phenomenon-based learning and even acted as obstacles to developing learning. The new way of working and increased collaboration with different actors were burdensome, as familiar and well-functioning routines were disrupted and developing new procedures required time and effort. Colleagues and fellow students were not always willing or able to collaborate, which eroded enthusiasm even for initiating phenomenon-based work:

“Phenomenon-based learning is something that seems to excite even experienced teachers at our school, and besides interest it also arouses criticism.”

In the experiments underlying this article, phenomenon-based learning is based on different relationships between actors. In particular, interaction within groups was emphasized. Because of the communal nature of the activity, sensitivity and empathy in interaction proved to be important sources of strength during the learning process. Correspondingly, feelings of anxiety and exclusion surfaced in many small groups due to the long duration of the work and its learner-centered mode of implementation. Planning and implementing the learning module required a comprehensive contribution from all group members. Under time pressure and as different aspects of one’s professional identity were put to the test, the division of labor and the atmosphere within the group became decisive in how phenomenon-based learning in the group was ultimately evaluated.

Future teachers named strong emotions in their experiences and also the need to share and process them. Emotional experiences were unpacked in staff rooms, in students’ shared social media groups, and in informal meetings. Students’ reflections revealed that many negative emotions stemmed from the unpredictability and uncertainty of the activity, which in turn led to poorly considered decisions and outcomes perceived as unsuccessful—even to crisis situations. Negative emotions could be resolved at the group level, but not always at the individual level.

“I haven’t really gained anything special from co-teaching because this project hasn’t met those expectations at all. We haven’t planned together, and when there are two subjects, one of which isn’t their compulsory subject, it’s been more like this person visited our Finnish lessons and then that was it.” (Student teacher of Finnish language and literature)

Overall, the peer group was perceived as significant in processing emotions: during classroom implementations as well as in final discussions, emotions were shared and understanding was built regarding their significance for learning. Teacher students could, for example, realize within their group why they had tried to avoid group tasks in planning and implementing the phenomenon-based learning module: “I’ve always hated group work.” Their own school experiences of unfair division of labor in group work had led them to avoid this method, and through phenomenon-based study these experiences were recognized and processed. For many students, their own group became a safe place to handle failures and experiences related to learning. Perhaps the staff room, at its best, is likewise a place that supports growth not only as a teacher but also as a human being.

What Do I Know and Understand—or Is It Necessary to Know and Understand Everything?

Phenomenon-based learning meant professional identity work for teacher students. Working with experts from different fields—representatives of other professions or other school subjects—led students to critically examine their own competence. Collaboration challenged their expertise, raising questions about what they know and whether it is necessary to know everything. Critical reflection on one’s own knowledge and skills led students to question school norms more broadly and encouraged them to consider what is essential in teaching and learning.

A tension-filled understanding of the benefits of phenomenon-based learning caused conflicts and disagreements among students. Some students reported only now concretely realizing how phenomenon-based work developed the skills needed in teaching or in contemporary society. Others emphasized the loose connection between knowledge beyond school subjects and pupils’ immediate goals, such as gaining admission to upper secondary school or graduating from it:

“Ninth-grade teachers said that for some ninth graders it felt like three days were wasted from normal schooling. Our school is quite elitist already in ninth grade, and many students stress about their grades because of applying to upper secondary school.”

Similarly, a few students in the multidisciplinary group complained about the uselessness of the phenomenon-based practice period for building pedagogical knowledge in their own subject: “this has taken a lot of time on pointless things.”

Phenomenon-based learning renewed routines of acquiring and processing knowledge, as it forced students to combine different fields of knowledge and approaches.

“That was the hardest lesson during this practice because it was new to me. No one has ever taught me how to evaluate the reliability of sources—how this even begins. First I had to find out myself and then explain it.”

Students had to build their competence broadly on the basis of all the learning environments with which they had contact. These included academic disciplines with their subject knowledge (conceptions of knowledge formation, contents, and disciplinary discourse), the (school-time) teaching tradition of their own subject, teaching experiences and previous work communities, as well as other forms of competence (hobbies and personal interests).

For example, a student of information technology realized through their hobby background that documentaries were excellent learning material when studying media influence in eighth grade. On the other hand, small-group students described encountering the limits of their own knowledge during lessons, when pupils asked questions about “the content of other subjects.” This was experienced as confusing, and in joint discussion the definition of generic knowledge and its relation to subject-specific content knowledge was considered.

A school culture based on boundaries and segments was challenged for future teachers, since learning that crosses subject or disciplinary boundaries is holistic. As a result, the interdependencies between different matters become more understandable. Students’ interest in other subjects or fields of science grew when individual matters were understood as part of a whole. Learning objectives could also be viewed from the perspective of pupils and the entirety of what was learned, not only from the standpoint of “one’s own” subject:

“In the final products [the videos], there were things I could have refined, but the pupils didn’t even think to ask. I didn’t see it as very important to start polishing some small details—they didn’t play such a significant role in the overall picture.”

Through phenomenon-basedness, teacher students began to view school learning more holistically, which led them to weigh different pedagogical options in relation to learning outcomes—for example, to analyze which factors influenced teachers’ pedagogical choices or the success of pupils’ work. Students began to make visible the possibilities and nature of their own subject, which appeared in reflections on the roles and place of different subjects within the subject palette. In doing so, students were also brought face to face with the fundamental questions of their own field of knowledge. In phenomenon-based work, they reached the interfaces between subjects and engaged with their epistemological core: “You rarely stop to think about what literature actually is—I only now stopped to think about it.”

Phenomenon-based study also challenged teacher educators’ expertise, particularly regarding the nature and status of subject content knowledge in relation to generic skills. For phenomenon-based work to begin at all, one’s own subject had to be encountered more broadly than as the sum of its central contents and skills (Järvelä & Kauppinen 2012). Ideas about learning outcomes and pupils’ creative production also had to be shared and negotiated during the learning process.

One of the most valuable lessons of phenomenon-based work for teacher students was realizing the significance of reflection in developing their own professional thinking and self-understanding. Students themselves noticed how they began to see causes and consequences in their actions and decisions, and how the focus of examination shifted from individual actors—pupils, fellow students, and teacher educators—to the operating environment. The significance of reflection in phenomenon-based learning lies precisely in developing metaskills: problem-solving ability, seeing cause and effect, analytical skills, and critical thinking in relation to one’s own action and environment.

Students working individually wrote that their self-understanding had strengthened: “While working, I learned a lot about myself, my own ways of acting, and my expectations for teachers and learning environments. There was a desire to renew my own thinking and at the same time to develop myself through my own experiences.” Students in small groups, in turn, noted that they had learned a great deal about what they would now do differently (with this knowledge), as they had opportunities during phenomenon-based work to learn from their own experiences. One’s understanding of personal competence and the possibilities of knowing develops self-understanding, which in the teaching profession must be continuously updated (Kauppinen, Kainulainen, Hökkä & Vähäsantanen 2017).

Phenomenon-Based Learning Experiences in Developing Teachers’ Professional Competence

In this article, we examined phenomenon-based education in two differently working student groups: a group emphasizing individually oriented learning and small groups emphasizing subject integration and co-teaching. We presented meanings constructed in phenomenon-based learning as tensions. By contrasting these strands inherent in learning, both opportunities for learning and points for reflection become visible.

The different types of educational choices concerning phenomenon-based learning proved fundamental, as the learning paths of individuals and groups differed with respect to emotional and communal factors. On the other hand, phenomenon-basedness produced meaningful learning experiences in both groups: among those studying individually, professional growth directed by personal development goals and emphasizing autonomy was highlighted, while in small groups the redefinition of teacherhood and the taught subject, as well as interaction within the group, was emphasized. In all cases, phenomenon-based pedagogy proved to be open in orientation and to assign responsibility to students.

This article is based on examining teacher students’ experiences, which provides one reference point for studying phenomenon-based learning. The approach particularly emphasizes the roles of actors in concrete operating environments. Owing to their work-life backgrounds, those completing their studies individually were able to examine phenomenon-based learning more broadly and concretely in various from concrete situations, and therefore reflection based on learning diaries, shared expertise, and evaluation of one’s own learning seemed to be suitable means of learning for them. By contrast, subject teacher students completing their teaching practice needed the support of a peer community in implementing phenomenon-based learning as well as in reflecting on what had been done and experienced; long-term supported classroom work and a reflective final discussion provided this opportunity.

Features of the Phenomenon-Based Learning Process

As teacher educators, we build understanding of phenomenon-based pedagogy together with our students. Our own understanding has grown especially through examining the relationship between phenomenon-based learning and content-based learning—that is, studying pre-defined topics and contents. We have observed that phenomenon-based and content-based perspectives on learning differ significantly in nature, as learning gains meaning in different ways within them. These differences can be described through a four-field framework in which learning is approached, on the one hand, from the perspective of clarity versus “uncertainty” in the learning process, and on the other hand, from the perspectives of certainty and uncertainty.

It is characteristic of phenomenon-based learning that there is “no point” in detailed plans; instead, learning requires a very open starting point. In addition, learners must be given the opportunity to step into a state of uncertainty (see Kostiainen, Klemola & Maylor 2017). Trust relationships—both within the group and between the group and the teacher—create security within the learning process. In content-based learning processes, by contrast, precise instructions are expected and required, and they are naturally provided. Uncertainty, or even the possibility of it, is treated as something to be rejected, and any ambiguity is interpreted primarily as poor quality of teaching or implementation (see Helsing 2007). The goal of content-based pedagogy is primarily to seek correct answers, and phenomenon-based learning may not even be recognized within such an approach.

Because content-based and phenomenon-based ways of learning differ in their starting points, their differences are also visible in learning practices and conceptions of learning. For example, when examining the course and locations of learning, it is interesting to consider from what starting point learning and related activity are discussed. Learners’ study goals and motivation often differ, so their interests and study practices may collide, resulting in conflicts. A learner seeking clarity and certainty may try to find explanations for experiences of failure or uncertainty outside themselves and their own work. Explanations for negative learning experiences are typically found in unclear objectives or instructions, or in problems of division of labor. Through guidance of the learning process, however, it is possible to move beyond a problem-focused orientation—by sharing experiences, sensing the group atmosphere, and to construct shared meanings for matters and phenomena. Perhaps not everyone feels they “get to the core” during the activity itself, but even in evaluating learning—for example, in a shared final discussion—one may realize something very essential, even the most important aspect for learning. It is therefore beneficial to include the entire arc of study in phenomenon-based work, from goal setting through action to evaluation, so that learners genuinely have the opportunity to influence their own learning.

The tension inherent in phenomenon-based learning is heightened by testing boundaries and crossing them. In this way, it challenges in many respects the established structures of education systems: ready-made instructions, school subjects with their disciplinary foundations, the structure of the school day and week, the demonstration and testing of learning, the role and power relations of pupils and teachers, and teachers’ expertise. In our experiments, phenomenon-based teaching and learning also proved to be an endurance discipline, as it challenged everyone involved in multiple ways during the learning process, for example in emotional work and in knowledge construction.

By relating the experiences and opinions arising from tensions in learning to one another, perspectives emerge that open up a multifaceted picture of reality and its phenomena. At its best, phenomenon-based learning—with its multiple perspectives—provides food for thought and opportunities for insight for both pupils and students. The multifaceted nature of reality (the phenomenon under examination) then becomes the driving force of phenomenon-based learning. Precisely because of this multiplicity of perspectives and diversity of experiences, phenomenon-based learning divides the opinions of teachers and students. Tensions related to both attitudes and experiences are captured aptly in a student’s learning diary excerpt: “If you are not for phenomenon-based learning, you are against it.”

Guiding the Phenomenon-Based Learning Process

What, then, is required of a teacher guiding phenomenon-based learning? Based on the experiments in our article, the teacher is required to possess exactly the same qualities as a student participating in the learning process: a flexible approach to working, an open, positive, and innovative mindset, patience regarding learning outcomes, skills in reflecting on one’s own actions and regulating emotions, courage to articulate one’s lack of understanding and learning opportunities, and readiness to confront both one’s own and others’ ignorance, frustration, and feelings of failure.

To succeed in this, the teacher needs trust that the shared experiences of the peer group will carry the process through its different stages—for example, that through dialogue it is possible to address the conflicting emotions of learners or colleagues. In addition, guiding phenomenon-based learning challenges not only the learner’s but also the teacher’s conception of knowledge, mastery of content knowledge, and pedagogical expertise. The teacher must have the ability to tolerate uncertainty and the courage not to script instruction in advance, as well as patience to proceed gradually, as well as a vision of the progression of learning, so that they can identify moments of learning and change direction when necessary.

Phenomenon-based learning requires a shift in conceptions of learning from both teachers and pupils, as it differs fundamentally from familiar, content-based learning. Anchoring the study process to predefined pedagogical solutions—such as naming and delimiting the phenomenon under study or selecting certain learning methods or tools—does not in itself produce phenomenon-based learning.

A “phenomenon” and the growth of understanding related to it constitute learning. A phenomenon may be an understanding that emerges during or as a result of the learning process, and it may also be formed collectively. Understanding may increase, for example, regarding the contents or theme addressed at the beginning of or during the learning process. Furthermore, understanding may grow concerning the process itself that has been gone through together.

When a teacher’s own mind contains contradictions regarding learning and its progression, and pupils demand boundaries and limits for their work, the teacher’s tolerance is put to the test. Some of us tolerate chaos and uncertainty better than others. What is essential in renewing pedagogy is to encounter experiences of endurance and coping together—already during studies or later within the teacher community. Trust in group members and communities is important so that phenomenon-based work does not become a divisive experience.

In guiding phenomenon-based learning, the teacher faces a pedagogical paradox (Kant): they teach students to relate critically to the very foundations upon which they (and the teacher themselves) simultaneously build their actions—whether this concerns subject content knowledge, pedagogical solutions, or guidance. Space should be given to criticality despite the risk of resistance and discomfort. According to Helsing (2007), critically examining one’s own actions is essential when developing one’s work and expertise in uncertain environments that involve multiple choices and possible answers. Encountering the pedagogical paradox is not easy, especially for student teachers, who often attempt during their practice to build their emerging professional identity on a sense of mastery of subject content and classroom management—precisely what they must learn to relinquish in phenomenon-based study (see also Berry 2008).

From the perspective of phenomenon-basedness, a central task of teacher education is to increase future teachers’ understanding of themselves and of others in different situations, communities, and environments (Aarto-Pesonen & Tynjälä 2017; Beijaard et al. 2004; Korthagen 2004). The challenge, in turn, is how accumulated understanding is transformed into teaching practices and becomes established as professional knowledge (e.g., Schepens, Aelterman & Vlerick 2009; Tynjälä 2004). If genuine change in teaching and study practices is desired, teacher communities need more shared expertise than at present in matters of upbringing, teaching, and learning; grasping what is essential in education, teaching, and learning, and engaging in dialogue about it. The modes of implementing phenomenon-based learning provide a strong foundation for such discussions. Regular meetings of teacher teams, conducted in the spirit of professional supervision, could offer support for developing phenomenon-based work and at the same time for teachers’ well-being amid reforms.

---

INFORMATION BOX

Guidelines for Guiding Phenomenon-Based Learning

• Pupils and teachers must pause to recognize what has been learned and reflect on their work. Create spaces for sharing learning and exchanging experiences. Articulate what is learned and how learning occurs. In phenomenon-based learning, this is especially important because of the experiential, situational, and communal nature of learning.
• Learning that develops teachers’ professionalism arises in relationships and in the tensions formed within them. Learning progresses through contrasting perspectives and intersecting issues generated by mirrors and the objects reflected. A mirror may take many forms: a group, a fellow learner, a teacher, the individual themselves with their experiential history, the modeling or conceptual system of another subject or field, an experience, an everyday example, or an observation. Courageously seek out different mirrors and experiment with what kinds of meanings different reflective surfaces produce.
• Learn more about experiential learning. The experiential nature of the phenomenon-based learning process leaves significant pedagogical traces not only on pupils but also on teachers. For example, trust—an essential element in teachers’ work, involving freedom and responsibility in educational action—becomes visible in phenomenon-based learning. The teacher students in our data were able to appreciate this experience and described it as markedly different from traditional study and practice.
• Reflect on the roles of pupils and teachers in different learning situations. Guiding phenomenon-based learning requires a flexible approach to the teacher’s role. The teacher must simultaneously promote the group’s self-directed activity, support the group by guiding its learning processes, encourage pupils to experiment, and sensitively address students’ individual support needs.

References

Aarto-Pesonen, Leena (2013) “This education has not made me just a PE teacher.” A substantive theory of the holistic process of professional growth of an adult learner in physical education teacher education. Studies in Sport, Physical Education and Health 192. University of Jyväskylä.

Aarto-Pesonen, Leena & Tynjälä, Päivi (2017) Dimensions of professional growth in work-related teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 42:1, 1–18.

Andrade, Maureen S. (2016) Curricular elements for learner success – 21st century skills. Journal of Education and Training Studies 2:8, 143–149.

Austin, Jon & Hickey, Andrew (2007) Autoethnography and teacher development. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences 2:2, 369–378.

Beijaard, Douwe; Meijer, Paulien C.; Verloop, Nico (2004) Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education 20, 107–176.

Berry, Amanda (2008) Tensions in Teaching about Teaching: Understanding Practice as Teacher Educator. Dordrecht: Springer.

Boeije, Hennie (2002) A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality & Quantity 36, 391–409.

Chang, Heewon; Ngunjiri, Faith W.; Hernandez, Kathy-Ann C. (2016) Collaborative Autoethnography (orig. 2013). London: Routledge.

Glaser, Barney G. (1992) Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, Barney G.; Strauss, Anselm L. (1974) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (6th ed.). Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Helsing, Deborah (2007) Regarding uncertainty in teachers and teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education 23, 1317–1333.

Järvelä, Ritva-Liisa & Kauppinen, Merja (2012) Subject pedagogy in collaboration: integrating information technology with Finnish language and literature in teacher education. Department of Teacher Education, University of Jyväskylä.

Kauppinen, Merja & Hankala, Mari (2013) From critic to discussion partner – a new approach to teaching writing. In Liisa Tainio, Kalle Juuti & Sara Routarinne (eds.) Subject Didactic Research as a Basis for Educational Policy Decision-Making. Publications of the Finnish Association for Subject Didactic Research. Subject Didactic Studies 4. Helsinki: Finnish Association for Subject Didactic Research, 213–231.

Kauppinen, Merja; Järvelä, Ritva-Liisa; Kemppinen, Marja (2018) “The learner’s best, not the subject’s interest”: teacher students’ growth into collegial responsibility. In Sakari Saukkonen & Pentti Moilanen (eds.) Growing into Responsibility and Educating for Responsibility. Publications of the Finnish Educational Research Association. Studies in Educational Sciences 76. Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association, 193–217.

Kauppinen, Merja; Kainulainen, Johanna; Hökkä, Päivi; Vähäsantanen, Katja (2017) Primary school teachers’ professional agency in the course of an in-service training programme. In Juanjo Mena, Ana García-Valcárcel Muñoz-Repiso, Francisco José García-Peñalvo & Marta Martín Del Pozo (eds.) Search and Research: Teacher Education for Contemporary Contexts. Aquilafuente 227. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, 455–464.

Kauppinen, Merja; Kemppinen, Marja; Järvelä, Ritva-Liisa (2016) Renewing teacher education: professional competence through co-teaching. In Olli-Pekka Salo & Marita Kontoniemi (eds.) Towards New Learning: University of Jyväskylä Teacher Training School – 150 Years of Developing School. Publications of Jyväskylä Teacher Training School 14. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, 299–315.

Kelchtermans, Geert (2005) Teachers’ emotions in educational reforms: Self-understanding, vulnerable commitment and micropolitical literacy. Teaching and Teacher Education 21, 995–1006.

Kelchtermans, Geert (2009) Who I am in how I teach is the message: Self-understanding, vulnerability and reflection. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 15:2, 257–272.

Korthagen, Fred (2004) In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education 20, 77–97.

Kostiainen, Emma; Klemola, Ulla; Maylor, Uvanney (2017) Searching the roots of democracy: Collaborative intervention in teacher education. In Andrea Raiker & Matti Rautiainen (eds.) Educating for Democracy in England and Finland: Principles and Culture. New York, NY: Routledge, 54–68.

Rosas, Scott R.; Kane, Mary (2012) Quality and rigor of the concept mapping methodology: A pooled study analysis. Evaluation and Program Planning 35:2, 236–245.

Schepens, Annemie; Aelterman, Antonia; Vlerick, Peter (2009) Student teachers’ professional identity formation: Between being born as a teacher and becoming one. Educational Studies 35:4, 361–378.

Schwandt, Thomas A. (2000) Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructivism. In Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (eds.) The Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 189–213.

Tynjälä, Päivi (2004) Expertise and work cultures in the teaching profession. Kasvatus 35:2, 174–189.

Vähäsantanen, Katja (2015) Professional agency in the stream of change: Understanding educational change and teachers’ professional identities. Teaching and Teacher Education 47, 1–12.

Assessment and Feedback Supporting Learning

ANNE VIRTANEN, TOMMI MÄKINEN, ULLA KLEMOLA, KIRSTI LAURITSALO & PÄIVI TYNJÄLÄ

anne.virtanen@jyu.fi

Finnish Institute for Educational Research

Abstract

The National Core Curriculum for Basic Education places greater emphasis on assessment than its predecessor. It also emphasizes the communal nature of learning. Consequently, assessment of learning must be developed and implemented in new types of learning environments that highlight collaborative learning and phenomenon-based instruction.

This article first describes current knowledge about assessment and feedback based on contemporary research literature. It then examines forms of assessment and feedback within a broad study module emphasizing collaborative modes of action and phenomena, and demonstrates their role in students’ learning. According to analyses based on survey data (N=48, n=29) and interviews (n=8), a wide range of assessment and feedback forms were used in the study module, and they appeared to significantly support students’ learning. However, teacher-provided assessment and feedback proved to be the most important form, which should be taken into account when developing phenomenon-based study and assessment practices.

Keywords: assessment, feedback, learning

Summative Assessment Practices Ensuring Learning, Formative Assessment Practices Supporting Learning

Assessment practices related to education have traditionally been divided into summative and formative forms (Ashenafi 2017). Summative assessment has been the dominant practice for decades (Boud 2000). Summative assessment refers to final assessment (Strijbos & Sluijsmans 2010), which indicates how well the learner has learned the things that were intended to be learned in the assessed module (Boud 2000).

The teacher is responsible for planning and implementing summative assessment, most often relying on a single source in assessment, such as an exam or another memory-based test (Strijbos & Sluijsmans 2010; Stuyven, Dochy & Janssens 2005). The primary purpose of summative assessment is thus to certify the level of learning outcomes (Boud 2000).

Discussion related to summative assessment has not been particularly positive in this millennium (Boud 2000; Postareff, Virtanen, Katajavuori & Lindblom-Ylänne 2012; Tarnanen 2016). It has been regarded, for example, as overly teacher-centered and exam-centered (Tarnanen 2016), and it has been found to test students’ competence rather than support their learning (Virtanen, Postareff & Hailikari 2015). Summative assessment is seen as directing students to focus on memorization and grades instead of learning (Stuyven, Dochy & Janssens 2005).

The purpose of formative assessment, by contrast, is to support the learner during the learning process (Ashenafi 2017; Black & Wiliam 1998; Boud 2000; Virtanen, Postareff & Hailikari 2015). In other words, its emphasis is on assessment during the learning process rather than after it (Boud 2000). In formative assessment, the learner receives feedback on their learning, which helps them identify their strengths and weaknesses and guide their progress (Ashenafi 2017; van Gennip, Segers & Tillema 2010; Virtanen, Postareff & Hailikari 2015). This also helps the teacher adapt their instruction to the progress of the teaching group (Ashenafi 2017; Black & Wiliam 1998).

Some researchers have viewed the goal of assessment even more broadly (Boud 2000; Virtanen, Postareff & Hailikari 2015). In addition to the current learning process, assessment should be constructed in such a way that it also supports the learner’s lifelong learning. Boud (2000) refers to this as sustainable assessment. The principle is that feedback received from learning should benefit the learner over the long term (Virtanen, Postareff & Hailikari 2015). Sustainable assessment refers more to a holistic way of thinking about assessment as part of individual development than to a single method or technique (Boud 2000). Assessment that supports lifelong learning can be seen as formative assessment, since it does not focus on the “final outcome” of learning but on an ongoing process, and it is usually based on multiple sources (Boud & Molloy 2013; Stuyven, Dochy & Janssens 2005; Virtanen, Postareff & Hailikari 2015). Sustainable assessment therefore makes versatile use of different assessment methods.

One cornerstone of formative assessment is learner activity (Strijbos & Sluijsmans 2010). The learner does not passively wait for feedback on their learning but actively participates in the assessment process. The emphasis on the learner’s own role is grounded in a constructivist conception of learning, in which the learner’s activity in the learning process is central (Loyens & Gijbels 2008; Tynjälä, Pirhonen, Vartiainen & Helle 2009). Similarly, the learner’s active role is central in phenomenon-based learning, in which the learner is brought to the phenomenon to explore questions that interest them (see also Tarnanen & Kostiainen in this volume). In assessment, methods that activate learners include, for example, self-assessment and peer assessment. These have been widely studied in recent years, and this research is discussed in the following section.

Self- and Peer Assessment Activating Learning

Self-assessment is a situation in which the learner evaluates their own competence and most often also reflects on their learning process (Andrade & Valtcheva 2009; Brown & Harris 2014; Kearney 2013; Virtanen, Postareff & Hailikari 2015). Self-assessment engages the learner more deeply in their own learning (Boud 2000; Kearney 2013), and it is also seen as encouraging learners to focus on the construction of knowledge and deeper understanding (Stuyven, Dochy & Janssens 2005).

Thus, self-assessment is a form of assessment, but it has also been viewed as a developer of self-regulation skills and as a competence that everyone should learn as part of their lifelong learning capabilities (Brown & Harris 2014). Research indicates that the ability to assess oneself and one’s own actions develops through experience and practice (Andrade & Valtcheva 2009; Stenström, Laine & Kuronen 2006). For this reason, self-assessment is practiced from the very beginning of basic education (FNBE 2014).

In peer assessment, a learner evaluates the performance of one or more fellow learners and receives feedback on their own performance from at least one peer (Kollar & Fischer 2010; Nicol, Thomson & Breslin 2014; Virtanen, Postareff & Hailikari 2015). Peer assessment offers multiple opportunities for learning and development. When evaluating others’ performances, the learner becomes familiar with assessment criteria and their application, and carefully examines at least one peer’s work (Nicol, Thomson & Breslin 2014; Virtanen, Postareff & Hailikari 2015). Assessing another learner’s work often leads the learner to evaluate their own work or actions in relation to others, so learning may also occur through giving peer feedback (Nicol, Thomson & Breslin 2014).

It has also been found that learning through peer assessment can be intensified and deepened by giving learners the opportunity to respond to the peer feedback they receive—for example, by asking clarifying questions, discussing it with others, or integrating it with prior knowledge (Carnes, Salter, Yang & Lam 2011; Nicol 2010). Since the ability to assess and make use of different assessment forms is one of the most important professional skills of a teacher, peer assessment is particularly recommended in teacher education (Kearney 2013; Raban & Litchfield 2007).

The reliability and fairness of peer assessment may raise doubts among both teachers and learners. Virtanen, Postareff and Hailikari (2015), reviewing several studies from this perspective, concluded that the grades given by teachers and students do not differ significantly from one another. Peer assessment—like self-assessment—can also be combined with teacher-conducted assessment. Many researchers recommend integrating peer assessment especially into situations and courses built around collaborative learning, since peer assessment itself is a practice that requires social interaction (Kollar & Fischer 2010; van Gennip, Segers & Tillema 2010). A safe atmosphere appears in peer assessment situations to enhance learners’ learning (van Gennip, Segers & Tillema 2010).

Self-assessment and peer assessment are also becoming more emphasized in basic education (FNBE 2014). Since autumn 2016, a new national core curriculum has been gradually implemented in basic education, in which assessment, for example, places emphasis on assessment that promotes learning (FNBE 2014, 47). Assessment now highlights learner activity more than before, which is reflected in the increased emphasis on self-assessment, peer assessment, and other assessment methods requiring learner activity (FNBE 2014, 47–49). In basic education, assessment is based on objectives and criteria (FNBE 2014, 48), which is also one of the current central emphases in the development of assessment (Tarnanen 2016; see also Tarnanen & Kostiainen in this publication). In other words, learners are not primarily compared with one another; instead, their competence is assessed against criteria (Tarnanen 2016).

One-Way and Dialogical Feedback Practices

The concepts of assessment and feedback are rarely defined explicitly in research literature in the field. Evans (2013) notes that neither has a single unambiguous definition; rather, assessment and feedback may take on different meanings in different contexts. Most often, assessment is used to refer to the evaluation of a course or other unit as a whole, whereas feedback is understood as a practice that supports this learning and assessment process—that is, feedback is part of the assessment process. For example, Boud and Molloy (2013) characterize feedback practices as part of the assessment process.

Within feedback research, two opposing approaches can be identified: the cognitive and the socioconstructivist (Ajjawi & Boud 2017; Evans 2013). The cognitive approach to feedback refers to feedback as one-way transmission of information—a form of “telling”—in which feedback is seen as a corrective measure (Ajjawi & Boud 2017; Evans 2013). In other words, an expert tells a passive listener, reader, or performer what was correct, what was incorrect, and how performance could be improved (Evans 2013). In such cases, there is no information, for example, about whether the recipient has read or heard the feedback, understood it, or acted upon it (Boud & Molloy 2013). This kind of one-way feedback also does not deeply develop subject-specific expertise (Sadler 2010).

By contrast, the socioconstructivist approach to feedback research is based on discussions, negotiations, and dialogues (Ajjawi & Boud 2017; Boud & Molloy 2013; Evans 2013). Through interaction, the learner has the opportunity to reach new understanding—without being told what that understanding should be (Archer 2010). Feedback is then seen as supporting learning, offering the student the opportunity to make their own corrections and improvements in their actions through interaction, based on the comments and suggestions they receive (Evans 2013). Such feedback supports the learner’s ability to guide, evaluate, and regulate their own learning (Boud & Molloy 2013).

Developing Assessment and Feedback Practices Begins with the Design of Teaching and Learning

A common feature of current assessment and feedback practices across educational levels is a certain unfinished, evolving character. It is known that diverse, interaction-based assessment and feedback practices that emphasize learner activity effectively support learners’ learning and development. Yet their large-scale implementation in teaching and learning still falters.

For example, research conducted at the University of Helsinki showed that teachers widely recognize different forms of assessment, but despite this, most still use traditional forms of assessment in their own teaching (Postareff, Virtanen, Katajavuori & Lindblom-Ylänne 2012). The reason may lie in teachers’ time pressure and heavy workload, or in the fact that the significance of assessment as part of the learning process is not fully understood (Deneen & Boud 2014). Parpala and Lindblom-Ylänne (2007), for instance, found that teachers do not see the connection between good teaching and assessment as particularly strong: only one out of twenty teachers mentioned assessment as part of good teaching.

Many researchers have emphasized the importance of designing the entire learning process in such a way that assessment and feedback practices are taken into account from the very beginning (Ajjawi & Boud 2017; Boud 2000; Postareff, Virtanen, Katajavuori & Lindblom-Ylänne 2012; Strijbos & Sluijsmans 2010; Tarnanen 2016). Biggs and Tang (2011) refer to this as constructive alignment, grounded in a constructivist conception of learning. It means that learning objectives, teaching and learning methods, and assessment practices are aligned with one another.

If, for example, the goal of instruction is to learn to apply certain theories, then an exam measuring rote memorization is not aligned with that goal. Opportunities to give and receive feedback should also be provided multiple times at different stages of a course or study module, as this promotes learning (Ajjawi & Boud 2017; Strijbos & Sluijsmans 2010). Learners should also have the opportunity to develop their work based on the feedback they receive during the course or other study unit (Carnes, Salter, Yang & Lam 2011; Nicol 2010).

Postareff and colleagues (2012) emphasize the importance of raising teachers’ awareness of the significance of assessment and its connection to learning. In their view, assessment practices should be developed together with teachers’ conceptions of assessment and, more broadly, of teaching itself, since without pedagogical awareness it is difficult for teachers to change assessment practices permanently.

Next, assessment and feedback forms are examined within one university-level study module, and later the study demonstrates their role in students’ learning and development. The research context is a module in pedagogical subject studies in physical education. What makes it particularly interesting from the perspective of assessment and feedback practices is its mode of operation, which is described in more detail below.

Phenomenon-Basedness Through Collaborative Modes of Action

The module in pedagogical subject studies in physical education (28 ECTS credits) is offered annually at the University of Jyväskylä, Department of Teacher Education. Physical education teacher students usually complete this module during their final or second-to-last year of study. Each year, approximately 45–60 students participate. At the Department of Teacher Education, they are guided by two teacher educators, each responsible for half of the group; these are referred to as “home groups.” In addition, 15–25 supervising teachers in different schools and institutions guide the teaching practice included in the module.

From the perspective of assessment and feedback practices, what makes this module interesting is its way of operating. Phenomenon-basedness has for years served as the starting point for its implementation. At the center is one phenomenon: enabling and supporting teachers’ professional growth. The courses within the module are grouped around promoting this goal.

When the curriculum of teacher pedagogical studies became phenomenon-based in autumn 2014, it brought some changes to the content of the physical education pedagogical studies, but above all, the reform changed the mode of teaching. The emphasis is now increasingly on students selecting, from the input provided by teachers, areas for deeper exploration based on their interests and developing expertise.

The shift in emphasis toward collaborative work required by phenomenon-basedness has also been supported by the long-term development work of the module’s teacher educators. For years, the module has been developed through, among other approaches, a collaborative operating model (e.g., Klemola 2009; Mäkinen, Klemola & Lauritsalo 2015; Virtanen, Mäkinen, Lauritsalo, Klemola & Tynjälä 2019).

The implementation model designed for the module is loosely based on:

1. Deci and Ryan’s (2000) self-determination theory (relatedness, autonomy/being heard, experiences of competence),
2. Gordon’s (2006) interaction model,
3. the teacher educators’ own research (e.g., Klemola 2009; Mäkinen, Klemola & Lauritsalo 2015; Tynjälä, Virtanen, Klemola, Kostiainen & Rasku-Puttonen 2016), and
4. their accumulated experience.

The model is implemented on four levels: at the level of the whole group, at the level of the home groups, at the level of other small groups, and in encounters with individual students (Mäkinen, Klemola & Lauritsalo 2015). Particular emphasis is placed on collaboration and communality within the physical education pedagogical studies module during the first week, but they are consciously maintained throughout the entire year. The aim of this approach is to ensure that all students feel safe in their studies, since instruction is largely based on discussion and collaborative work—students must be able to work together and trust one another over the course of the year. The implementation of these principles is reflected upon several times during the year. It has also been observed that investing effort at the beginning of the module strongly commits students to participation in the module’s activities (Mäkinen, Klemola & Lauritsalo 2015).

Strong student commitment is important because when instruction is based on collaboration—teaching others and learning from others—the quality of this collaboration must also be high. The teaching methods used in the module therefore grant students considerable freedom, but they also entail significant responsibility.

The module’s mode of operation thus includes elements that, as discussed earlier, provide a potential foundation for developing assessment and feedback practices. Such elements include the emphasis on forms of collaborative learning (see Kollar & Fischer 2010; van Gennip, Segers & Tillema 2010; Tynjälä, Virtanen, Klemola, Kostiainen & Rasku-Puttonen 2016) and the development of assessment and feedback practices in parallel with the systematic development of teaching (see Ajjawi & Boud 2017; Boud 2000; Postareff, Virtanen, Katajavuori & Lindblom-Ylänne 2012; Strijbos & Sluijsmans 2010).

The module is also interesting because of its duration: it is not a short, single course but a year-long entity. This makes it possible to examine the longer-term effects of assessment and feedback on learning.

Conducting the Study

The module has been examined through research since autumn 2015 in collaboration with the module’s teacher educators and researchers analyzing it (Virtanen, Mäkinen, Lauritsalo, Klemola & Tynjälä 2019). The purpose of the study described in this article is to highlight how assessment and feedback are integrated into the year-long module and what significance they have for physical education teacher students’ learning and development.

Among individual forms of assessment and feedback, the focus is on self- and peer assessment. The study explores to what extent these are learned and utilized during the final year and how their role is perceived in the process of becoming a physical education teacher.

Table 1 summarizes the target group, data, and analysis methods of the study described in this article. The interview themes were constructed to outline and deepen understanding of the pedagogical practices in the physical education pedagogical studies, drawing on current research with the help of current research literature. The questionnaire on generic skills and pedagogical practices supporting their learning is based on long-term development work carried out in vocational and higher education (e.g., Virtanen, Tynjälä & Valkonen 2005; Virtanen & Tynjälä 2019). In this study, only those parts of the data related to assessment, feedback, learning, and development are utilized (highlighted in bold in Table 1).

---

Table 1. Target Group, Data, and Analysis Methods of the Study

Data Type	Interview	Questionnaire
Target Group	Eight (n=8) students from the pedagogical subject studies in physical education, academic year 2014–2015 (four women, four men)	Students in pedagogical subject studies in physical education (N=48) from academic year 2015–2016, of whom 29 (60%) responded
Time of Data Collection	Approximately six months after completing the pedagogical subject studies in physical education, November–December 2015	Immediately after completing the pedagogical subject studies in physical education, spring–summer 2016
Content of Data Collection Instrument	Interview themes: 1. Recollection 2. Special practices (e.g., responsibility tasks, home groups) 3. Teachers 4. Atmosphere 5. Forms of learning and teaching 6. Assessment and feedback 7. Teaching practice practices	Questionnaire themes: 1. Learning of generic skills (45 items) during pedagogical subject studies in physical education (scale 1–5) – Evaluation of one’s own actions – Ability to evaluate others’ actions – Basic skills of one’s field/profession – Awareness of one’s own competence – Lifelong learning skills 2. Pedagogical practices in pedagogical subject studies in physical education (77 items) – Nine forms of assessment and feedback (scale 1–5)
Analysis Method	Qualitative content analysis (Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2004)	Mean distributions and correlation analysis (Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient) using SPSS

The questionnaire data were collected from the students immediately after the completion of the study module. The interview data, in contrast, were collected from the students six months after the completion of the pedagogical subject studies, so that they would have developed an understanding of the broader significance of the studies as part of their learning and development as physical education teachers.

The interview data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis (Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2004). The questionnaire data were analyzed using SPSS, based on mean distributions and Pearson’s product–moment correlation coefficient.

Diverse Assessment and Feedback Forms Supporting Learning

Physical education teacher students were asked to evaluate which assessment and feedback forms were used during the year-long study module. According to the students’ assessments, a wide range of assessment and feedback forms were utilized during the module (Table 2): self-assessment, giving and receiving feedback, teacher-provided assessment and feedback, and peer assessment. By contrast, exams or other tests were hardly used.

The assessment and feedback forms used in the module thus represent, in their diversity, practices of formative assessment (Ashenafi 2017; Boud 2000; Virtanen, Postareff & Hailikari 2015). Diverse assessment and feedback forms were not used only after teaching situations, but were also applied during instruction (Table 2), which previous research has found to support learners’ learning and development (Ajjawi & Boud 2017; Strijbos & Sluijsmans 2010).

Table 2. Means (min. 1, max. 5), standard deviations, and correlations between assessment and feedback forms and variables describing the professional development of physical education teacher students (n = 29).

Variable	M	SD
1. Traditional exams after a course	1.50	.75
2. Teacher-provided feedback/assessment during courses	3.79	.88
3. Teacher-provided feedback/assessment after courses	3.71	.76
4. Evaluation of one’s own work/performance (self-assessment) during courses	4.04	.79
5. Evaluation of one’s own work/performance (self-assessment) after courses	4.22	.58
6. Evaluation of others’ work/performance (peer assessment) during courses	3.57	.84
7. Evaluation of others’ work/performance (peer assessment) after courses	3.39	.86
8. Receiving feedback from other students	3.82	.86
9. Practicing giving feedback to other students	3.82	.86
10. Basic skills of one’s own field/profession	4.21	.73
11. Awareness of one’s own competence	4.03	.63
12. Lifelong learning skills	3.72	.75

• p < .05 ** p < .01

(The table also includes Pearson product–moment correlation coefficients between the variables.)

The study also examined how the assessment and feedback forms used during the module were related to students’ learning. Assessment and feedback appeared particularly to strengthen physical education teacher students’ awareness of their own competence and to develop their lifelong learning skills (Table 2). By contrast, the assessment and feedback forms surveyed were not associated with the development of basic skills in one’s own field or profession.

Among individual forms of assessment and feedback, teacher-provided assessment and feedback were especially important and appeared to promote students’ awareness of their own competence as well as their lifelong learning skills (Table 2). The teacher’s role in supporting students’ learning thus remains significant.

Self-Assessment Supporting Professional Growth

Physical education teacher students evaluated that they had learned a great deal of self-assessment skills during the module: the mean for evaluating one’s own actions was 4.03 (max. 5; SD .68). Based on interview analyses, self-assessment was partly linked to criterion-based assessment in individual courses, but above all, the entire year-long module in pedagogical subject studies in physical education was perceived as a year of self-evaluation and reflection.

Students particularly connected self-assessment and reflection to the development of their own teacherhood, which culminated in the practice of writing a teaching philosophy.

In the curriculum, the teaching philosophy is formally only a one-credit component (Study Plan for Pedagogical Subject Studies for Teachers 2014–2015, Physical Education), but in practice it is developed throughout the entire year. It is a practice model based on the development work of the module’s teacher educators, involving the processing of the foundations and justifications of the student’s teaching and educational thinking and action (Penttinen & Nupponen 2014, 228). According to the teacher educators, the teaching philosophy remains the guiding thread of the pedagogical subject studies in physical education.

In the research interviews, students were asked to evaluate the significance of their own teaching philosophy as part of the entire physical education teacher degree. All students described it in one way or another as a significant task in their studies, and for about half of them it had been one of the most important assignments during their entire university education.

Almost all students spontaneously mentioned in this context that they had already written their teaching philosophy once during their second year of studies. However, the difference between the earlier version and the one written in the final year was substantial, indicating that the process had progressed during their studies.

“Well, in my opinion, writing the teaching philosophy during teaching practice was much, much more meaningful than during the basic studies. I don’t know why it felt during the basic studies like something that just had to be done. But maybe at that point when of course when I’m about to graduate and with these things that I’ve now learned and gained knowledge and skills, that’s what I’ll take with me when I become a teacher. And then just the awareness that, for example, a principal might ask me what my educator identity is and so on—I somehow felt that this is really work for myself and not just for some credits.” (Student 5)

From a learning-theoretical perspective, what makes the teaching philosophy an excellent practice is precisely this process-oriented nature—working on it over a longer period of time, but also its placement within the studies. Physical education teacher students complete their pedagogical subject studies in their final year (in other subjects, the corresponding module is completed earlier). The teaching philosophy practice offers graduating physical education teachers the opportunity to make their own teacherhood visible and to become conscious of it. It also appears that through the teaching philosophy practice, students become not only aware of their teacherhood at that moment, but also acquire building blocks for strengthening and updating their competence and development in the future.

Previous research has shown, for example, that self-assessment promotes the development of one’s own competence (Stenström, Laine & Kuronen 2006), and learning self-assessment skills during studies has been considered an important competence from the perspective of lifelong learning (Virtanen 2013). In this study as well, the connection between self-assessment and lifelong learning skills is strong (Table 2). More broadly, the assessment and feedback forms used in the pedagogical subject studies in physical education were strongly associated with the development of lifelong learning skills (Table 2), indicating that assessment and feedback practices supporting lifelong learning are used during the module. At the same time, this reinforces earlier knowledge that formative assessment in its various forms supports lifelong learning (Boud 2000; Virtanen, Postareff & Hailikari 2015).

Peer Assessment Strengthening Recognition of One’s Own Competence

Physical education teacher students evaluated that they had also learned a great deal of peer assessment skills during the module: the mean for the ability to evaluate others’ actions was 4.00 (max. 5; SD .71). Based on both questionnaire and interview analyses, receiving and giving peer feedback particularly strengthened students’ recognition of their own competence (Table 2).

According to the interview analyses, the strengthening of competence recognition was not promoted solely by feedback received from peers; giving feedback to peers was also experienced as advancing one’s own learning and development.

In the interview analyses, it was observed that in this context students spoke more about feedback than about assessment, which corresponds to the understanding of feedback and assessment described earlier (Boud & Molloy 2013; Evans 2013): feedback is most often perceived as part of the learning and assessment process, whereas assessment is perceived more as part of a larger whole. Observing an individual practice lesson and providing an evaluation of it is therefore naturally referred to as feedback, since it is part of a broader process.

The analysis of the interview data also revealed another reality regarding peer assessment and feedback practices. Students found receiving and giving peer feedback useful, but the culture of evaluating one another’s performance was described as even too positive.

“Well, maybe it’s the same phenomenon that I, for example, don’t very willingly give critical or negative feedback—corrective feedback—to my fellow students. And I probably didn’t give it either. …in a way it can be a dangerous atmosphere if it becomes such that people don’t dare to say… …when the atmosphere is kind of good, people are afraid to break it. Even though it probably wouldn’t break.” (Student 6)

This phenomenon may be a result of the collaborative operating model developed in recent years by the teachers of the pedagogical subject studies in physical education (Klemola 2009; Mäkinen, Klemola & Lauritsalo 2015). At its center is, for example, creating and maintaining a safe atmosphere so that a discussion-based and interactive mode of action—grounded in teaching others and learning from others—can be possible and natural. The downside of this may be an overly positive atmosphere that no one dares or wants to disturb. The phenomenon of a positive feedback culture was also linked more broadly to physical education teacher education and may not be limited solely to the pedagogical subject studies module.

“In my opinion, it’s a bit of a broader problem in physical education that the feedback you get from teaching practice is usually kind of ‘yeah, yeah, it went well.’” (Student 4)

What Did We Learn?

The results obtained from the module are in line with current research-based knowledge: diverse assessment and feedback forms support learning. Our findings also illustrate how important assessment and feedback received during the learning process are for learning.

Although learner activity is currently emphasized both in phenomenon-based study and in the development of assessment practices, the most important form of assessment and feedback for learning in our study proved to be teacher-provided assessment and feedback. The teacher emerged as central despite the fact that the students in the study were in the final stage of their studies and thus presumably quite self-directed in their learning. If adult learners regard the teacher as this central to their learning, it can be assumed that the teacher’s significance is even more pronounced for children and young people at the beginning of their educational paths. Strong evidence of the teacher’s important role has also recently been found in supporting learning in technology-enhanced learning environments (Dillenbourg 2013; Hämäläinen & Cattaneo 2015). The teacher’s role is therefore not disappearing or diminishing even in contemporary teaching and learning situations, which should also be taken into account in developing phenomenon-based study and assessment practices.

Self- and peer assessment were found to support students’ learning, but they carried slightly different emphases. Self-assessment particularly supported the learner’s personal growth, whereas peer assessment helped learners understand the strengths and weaknesses of their own competence in relation to others. Peer assessment thus directs the learner’s gaze away from their own actions and development and toward the actions and development of others, and the learning that occurs through that comparison.

In the national core curriculum for basic education, the use of these two forms of assessment has taken into account the realities associated with learners’ age: self-assessment is introduced first, from the beginning of schooling, whereas peer assessment is gradually learned in the upper grades (FNBE 2014).

The use of peer assessment in our study was not unambiguous: students experienced the peer assessment culture during their teaching practice as overly positive. According to the students, critical feedback including suggestions for improvement from fellow learners would have helped them develop, but no one really wanted to give it for fear of disrupting the positive atmosphere of the study module. This observation shows that even in well-developed assessment and feedback practices there is still room for attention and improvement.

The development of peer assessment skills is supported and promoted by a positive atmosphere (e.g., van Gennip, Segers & Tillema 2010), toward which the module’s teachers had also developed their practices (Klemola 2009; Mäkinen, Klemola & Lauritsalo 2015). Alongside developing and maintaining a positive atmosphere, however, learners must be encouraged genuinely to express the areas and targets for improvement they observe. In this case, it is important to guide learners in the skill and practice of giving feedback constructively and without offending others, but also in receiving it and understanding that it advances their own learning and development.

The above also suggests that an assessment and feedback culture is never fully complete. Teachers must be given time to maintain and further develop a

One resource amid the constantly increasing workload of teachers is collaboration with colleagues. For example, the study module examined in this article is taught by two teachers who plan and implement their teaching together from beginning to end. Both teachers also have their own teaching groups, but instruction in them proceeds at the same pace so that, if necessary, a student can attend the other teacher’s group if they are unable to participate in their own group’s session for some reason. Research has shown that teacher collaboration benefits learners, teachers themselves, and the school as a whole (Vangrieken, Dochy, Raes & Kyndt 2015). Working with teaching colleagues has, for example, enabled learning naturally in the course of work (Töytäri, Tynjälä, Piirainen & Ilves 2016), which has also made it possible to update teachers’ pedagogical competence (Voogt, Pieters & Handelzalts 2016). Collaboration with colleagues is not easy for all teachers, since teachers, like others, are individuals with differences (Jao & McDougall 2016). Thus, working collaboratively with a colleague may require time and practice, but in the long term it frees up resources for other teaching tasks.

---

Information Box

• Pedagogical development: The most central current principle of assessment and feedback knowledge is linked to the planning of phenomenon-based learning and teaching: assessment and feedback forms must be designed together with the teaching and learning forms of the study module, and they must be aligned with one another.
• Teachers: Renewing assessment practices and involving students in them requires giving responsibility to students and trusting them.
• Schools: The teacher’s role is not disappearing or diminishing even in contemporary teaching and learning situations, which must also be taken into account in developing phenomenon-based study and assessment practices.
• Administration: Education providers (principals, leadership) must offer teachers sufficient time and opportunities to discuss assessment practices and their renewal together, and to support teacher collaboration in its various forms.

References

Ajjawi, Rola & Boud, David (2017) Researching feedback dialogue: an international analysis approach. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 42:2, 252–265.

Andrade, Heidi & Valtcheva, Anna (2009) Promoting learning and achievement through self-assessment. Theory into Practice 48, 12–19.

Archer, Julian C. (2010) State of the science in health professional education: Effective feedback. Medical Education 44, 101–108.

Ashenafi, Michael Mogessie (2017) Peer-assessment in higher education – twenty-first century practices, challenges and the way forward. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 42:2, 226–251.

Biggs, John & Tang, Catherine (2011) Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does. 4th ed. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Black, Paul & Wiliam, Dylan (1998) Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards through Classroom Assessment. Department of Education & Professional Studies. London: King’s College.

Boud, David (2000) Sustainable assessment: rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education 22:2, 151–167.

Boud, David & Molloy, Elisabeth (2013) Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 38:6, 698–712.

Brown, Gavin T. L. & Harris, Lois R. (2014) The future of self-assessment in classroom practice: Reframing self-assessment as a core competency. Frontline Learning Research 3, 2295–3159.

Carnes, David; Salter, Diane; Yang, Min; Lam, Joy (2011) Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education 36:4, 395–407.

Deci, Edward L. & Ryan, Richard M. (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 55, 68–78.

Deneen, Christopher & Boud, David (2014) Patterns of resistance in managing assessment change. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 39:5, 577–591.

Dillenbourg, Pierre (2013) Design for classroom orchestration. Computers & Education 69, 485–492.

Evans, Carol (2013) Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research 83:1, 70–120.

Gordon, Thomas (2006) Effective School. Trans. M. Savolainen. Helsinki: LK-kirjat.

Hämäläinen, Raija & Cattaneo, Alberto (2015) New TEL environments for vocational education – teachers’ instructional perspective. Vocations and Learning 8:2, 135–157.

Jao, Limin & McDougall, Doug (2016) Moving beyond the barriers: supporting meaningful teacher collaboration to improve secondary school mathematics. Teacher Development 20:4, 557–573.

Kearney, Sean (2013) Improving engagement: the use of ‘Authentic self- and peer-assessment for learning’ to enhance the student learning experience. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 38:7, 875–891.

Klemola, Ulla (2009) Development of interaction skills of student teachers in physical education subject teacher education. Doctoral dissertation. University of Jyväskylä. Studies in Sport, Physical Education and Health 139.

Kollar, Ingo & Fischer, Frank (2010) Peer assessment as collaborative learning: A cognitive perspective. Learning and Instruction 20, 344–348.

Loyens, Sofie M. M. & Gijbels, David (2008) Constructivist learning environments: introducing a multi-directional approach. Instructional Science 36:5–6, 351–357.

Mäkinen, Tommi; Klemola, Ulla; Lauritsalo, Kirsti (2015) Giving students a voice – A collaborative operating model in pedagogical subject studies for physical education students. Presentation at the “Days of Educational Science” conference, 19–20 November 2015, Vaasa, Finland.

Nicol, David (2010) From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35:5, 501–517.

Nicol, David; Thomson, Avril; Breslin, Caroline (2014) Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 39:1, 102–122.

FNBE (2014) National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2014. Regulations and guidelines of the Finnish National Agency for Education 2014:96. Helsinki: Finnish National Agency for Education.

Parpala, Anna & Lindblom-Ylänne, Sari (2007) University teachers’ conceptions of good teaching in the units of high-quality education. Studies in Educational Evaluation 33, 355–370.

Penttinen, Seppo & Nupponen, Heimo (2014) END – Former Young Didacticians. Phases in the development of teacher education and related physical education from 1974–2014 as implemented and experienced by lecturers in physical education didactics at teacher education departments. Rauma: University of Turku, Department of Teacher Education, Rauma Unit.

Postareff, Liisa; Virtanen, Viivi; Katajavuori, Niina; Lindblom-Ylänne, Sari (2012) Academics’ conceptions of assessment and their assessment practices. Studies in Educational Evaluation 38, 84–92.

Raban, Richard & Litchfield, Andrew (2007) Supporting peer-assessment of individual contributions in group work. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 23:1, 34–47.

Stenström, Marja-Leena; Laine, Kati; Kurvonen, Lauri (2006) Practice-oriented assessment – towards quality assurance through vocational skills demonstrations. In Marja-Leena Stenström & Kati Laine (eds.) Quality and Practice in Assessment: New Approaches in Work-Related Learning. University of Jyväskylä, Institute for Educational Research, 89–120.

Strijbos, Jan-Willem & Sluijsmans, Dominique (2010) Unravelling peer assessment: Methodological, functional and conceptual developments. Learning and Instruction 20, 265–269.

Struyven, Katrien; Dochy, Filip; Janssens, Steven (2005) Students’ perceptions about evaluation and assessment in higher education: A review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 30:4, 325–341.

Tarnanen, Mirja (2016) Do you love mistakes – do you develop assessment? Ruusupuisto News 2/2016. https://peda.net/jyu/ruusupuisto/uutisarkisto/2016-2/2-kehitatko-arviointia (accessed 30 June 2017).

Tuomi, Jukka & Sarajärvi, Anneli (2004) Qualitative Research and Content Analysis. Jyväskylä: Gummerus.

Tynjälä, Päivi; Pirhonen, Maritta; Vartiainen, Tero; Helle, Laura (2009) Educating IT project managers through project-based learning: A working-life perspective. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 24, 270–288.

Tynjälä, Päivi; Virtanen, Anne; Klemola, Ulla; Kostiainen, Emma; Rasku-Puttonen, Helena (2016) Developing social competence and other generic skills in teacher education: Applying the model of integrative pedagogy. European Journal of Teacher Education 39:3, 368–387.

Töytäri, Aija; Tynjälä, Päivi; Piirainen, Arja; Ilves, Vesa (2016) Higher education teachers’ descriptions of their own learning: a quantitative perspective. Higher Education Research & Development 35:6, 1284–1297.

Van Gennip, Nanine A. E.; Segers, Mien S. R.; Tillema, Harm H. (2010) Peer assessment as a collaborative learning activity: The role of interpersonal variables and conceptions. Learning and Instruction 20, 280–290.

Vangrieken, Katrien; Dochy, Filip; Raes, Elisabeth; Kyndt, Eva (2015) Teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educational Research Review 15, 17–40.

Voogt, Joke M.; Pieters, Jules M.; Handelzalts, Adam (2016) Teacher collaboration in curriculum design teams: effects, mechanisms and conditions. Educational Research and Evaluation 22:3–4, 121–140.

Virtanen, Anne (2013) Students’ learning in the workplace learning system of vocational initial education. Doctoral dissertation. University of Jyväskylä. Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Sociology 473.

Virtanen, Anne & Tynjälä, Päivi (2019) Factors explaining the learning of generic skills: A study of university students’ experiences. Teaching in Higher Education 24:7, 880–894.

Virtanen, Anne; Mäkinen, Tommi; Lauritsalo, Kirsti; Klemola, Ulla; Tynjälä, Päivi (2019) Atmosphere matters in learning. Ruusupuisto News 3/2019. https://peda.net/jyu/ruusupuisto/uutisarkisto/3-2019/2 (accessed 3 October 2019).

Virtanen, Anne; Tynjälä, Päivi; Valkonen, Sakari (2005) Workplace learning as evaluated by students in vocational institutions of the City of Helsinki. Publication Series A1 of the Education Department of the City of Helsinki.

Virtanen, Viivi; Postareff, Liisa; Hailikari, Telle (2015) What kind of assessment supports lifelong learning? University Pedagogy 22:1, 3–11.

Resources as Central in Pedagogy Promoting Agency

LEENA LESTINEN & ULLA MAIJA VALLEALA

leena.lestinen@jyu.fi

Finnish Institute for Educational Research

Abstract

The article discusses a pedagogical experiment and development work in primary teacher education. Phenomenon-based learning is examined as the development of students’ agency within a learning environment connected to working life. The focus of the analysis is on how students utilize social resources in peer relationships, in relationships with teacher educators, and in collaboration with classroom teachers in school partnerships.

The pedagogical framework is action research, which was integrated into the students’ studies over the course of an academic year. Thematic interviews conducted with student small groups and individual reflective writings showed that students largely experienced as meaningful a form of study that granted freedom and responsibility in a project aimed at developing pupil participation in primary schools. Equality and reciprocity built relational agency within social relationships. Addressing power relations is important in pedagogical environments that aim to strengthen agency.

Keywords: teacher education, teaching experiments, integrated instruction, agency, students

Participation and agency are emphasized in curricula and more broadly in educational discourse. They are central questions in education aimed at active and democratic citizenship (e.g., Hansen 2007; Government Resolution 2010; FNBE 2011; Kiilakoski et al. 2012; Rautiainen et al. 2014). Curricula and the operational cultures of communities, along with their practices, either provide opportunities that promote students’ agency or limit it. It is therefore essential to examine and reflect on how curricula are implemented in practice and how learners have experienced their realization. Although the environment in this article is teacher education, the content offers general points of reflection and insights for pedagogical development.

We understand agency as initiative-taking and committed action in interaction with the resources and structures of the environment. We are particularly interested in agency as it is formed within social relationships.

Agency Is Constructed and Enacted at Different Levels

The phenomenon of agency has been conceptualized at least in sociology, psychology, gender studies, and adult and educational sciences (Eteläpelto et al. 2014; Kauppila et al. 2015; Mäkinen 2015). The sociocultural approach to learning and development (Vygotsky 1978) encompasses differing theoretical perspectives on agency. What unites them is the view of learning as active social participation and an emphasis on the sociocultural context. However, for example, in the developmental subject-centered approach, the concept of agency is grounded in individual development, whereas in object-centered activity theory it is given less emphasis (Eteläpelto et al. 2014). Eteläpelto and colleagues therefore consider it important to discuss the theoretical background of the concept of agency when developing practices and pedagogy that aim to promote agency.

Agency is constructed at different levels in education (Table 1), which are interconnected. In micro-level research, we have situated the developing individual subject within their social and cultural context. We examine how students negotiate their agency in studies that included school collaboration.

Table 1. Levels of Analysis of Agency in Education (adapted from Ojala et al. 2009, 15–16)

Macro

Societal and education policy discussions and decisions in Finland – and also within the European Union and international organizations. These create the cultural climate of attitudes and the scope for action for teachers’ professional agency, students’ agency, and educational development.

Meso

The institutional and community level, represented by curricula, operational cultures and practices of education, their power structures and community dynamics. These delimit and enable individuals’ agency with their various resources.

Micro

The actions of individuals working and studying in education in different contexts and situations; how they define, experience, and negotiate their agency.

According to Klemenčič (2015, 11–12), student agency is a goal-oriented and self-reflective process during studies. In it, conceptions of the possibilities of agency in relation to power and one’s own will to act change and are constructed relationally, that is, within social relationships. The formation of these conceptions is shaped by structural and societal contexts of action. Thus, individuals and groups weigh active action based on goals and possibilities. In addition to previous experiences of agency, relationships with others and prevailing conditions influence this process.

Studying as a life phase and operational environment enables and shapes students’ agency in both formal and informal contexts (see Biesta & Tedder 2007). At different educational levels, students develop their agency in accordance with the curriculum in their studies, as well as through participation—and the possibility to participate actively and effectively—as individuals or as a group in the pedagogical and administrative processes of the community at different levels (see Wenger 1998). However, student agency as a comprehensive research object is only beginning to open up within education. In the following, we mainly describe pedagogical research conducted in primary teacher education: from what perspectives and in what ways agency has been examined.

A belief in one’s own efficacy has been considered the strongest explanation of agency—that is, intentional influence over one’s own actions and circumstances (Eteläpelto 2011; Bandura 1977, 1997). For example, in the Student Barometer 2012 survey, strong self-efficacy among university students consisted of positively evaluated study skills, teaching experienced as high quality, and positive expectations regarding the period after graduation (Klemettilä & Sulasalmi 2016). Strong perceived self-efficacy indicated good motivation, which in turn supports persistence even when facing difficulties. However, students as learners need support to strengthen their agency, which may be limited by various organizational practices, as Korpiaho’s (2014) participatory home-ethnography in the field of business studies demonstrates. According to that study, the sociocultural practices of the organization and students’ participation are inseparably connected.

Interaction in teaching has emerged in research on agency within primary teacher education. In situations of group discussions during a course, in which both teachers and students participated, students’ agency was identified as having transformative, relationally formed, and knowledge-related dimensions (Lipponen & Kumpulainen 2011). According to the study, responsible agency requires a change in the relationship between students and teachers. This entails crossing the novice–expert boundary, recognizing such crossings, and rewarding them. Long-term peer interaction has been examined in a corresponding group of students studying to become primary teachers through inquiry-based learning (Eteläpelto et al. 2005). Analysis of diverse data showed that individual learning experiences varied greatly. Active participants gained motivation from the group over three years for learning holistic teacherhood, whereas those who participated less or remained on the margins experienced emotionally negative learning experiences.

From the perspective of communal interaction, a strong sense of agency is expressed through an individual’s willingness to collaborate and build community, to develop within a professional community, and the ability to solve problems together and receive support from others. According to a first-year student survey in three teacher education departments, its formation requires an active attitude and motivation from the student (Toom et al. 2017). A pilot study by Juutilainen and colleagues (2014) suggested that already during the first year of study, agency may take the form of self-realization, as students create meaningful study paths. It is participation and influence as well as responsibility for one’s own learning and professional growth. Agency is thus connected not only to participation but also to the ability to shape one’s own path within the possibilities offered by the educational environment.

In teacher education, developing agency can be linked to the integration of theory and practice, reflection, and collaborative learning. When students are given opportunities to make choices, take responsibility, and engage in authentic tasks connected to school life, their sense of agency can be strengthened. At the same time, institutional structures and power relations may either enable or constrain such development.

From the perspective of relational agency, it is essential how students experience their relationships with peers, teacher educators, and school teachers. Equality, reciprocity, and trust support the emergence of agency, whereas rigid hierarchies and one-sided authority may weaken it. Thus, pedagogical environments that aim to promote agency must consciously address power relations and create space for dialogue and shared meaning-making.

In our pedagogical experiment within primary teacher education, students worked in small groups on projects aimed at increasing pupil participation in primary schools. The projects required collaboration with classroom teachers and engagement with school communities. Through this process, students had to negotiate their roles, responsibilities, and influence in relation to both peers and more experienced professionals.

The data from group interviews and individual reflective writings indicate that students largely experienced this mode of study—characterized by freedom and responsibility—as meaningful. They valued the opportunity to act autonomously while also being supported by peers and teacher educators. Social resources, such as encouragement from peers and constructive feedback from teacher educators, were central in enabling students to take initiative and persist in challenging situations.

However, the data also revealed tensions. Not all students experienced the same degree of agency; some felt uncertain about their competence or hesitant to assert themselves in collaborative settings. These differences highlight the importance of recognizing individual starting points and providing differentiated support within agency-promoting pedagogy.

Overall, the findings suggest that agency in teacher education is constructed relationally, through interaction with others and engagement in authentic practices. Pedagogical designs that combine responsibility, collaboration, and reflection—while remaining attentive to power relations—can create conditions that strengthen students’ agency as future teachers.

In studies, the key individual resources of agency consist of beliefs in one’s own efficacy and competence, as well as active participation in studies experienced as meaningful (Jääskelä et al. 2017). At the center of the concept of self-efficacy (Bandura 1977, 1997, 2001) is a person’s experienced agency within a social environment. The social relationships and practices of the environment are thus connected to the individual resources experienced by the student and to their development (see also Klemettilä & Sulasalmi 2016).

We examine particularly relational agency—that is, agency formed within relationships. Its starting point lies in the relationships and interaction climate prevailing in the environment. According to Edwards (2005, 2015), working within the framework of cultural-historical activity theory, relational agency refers to the ability to recognize others and oneself as resources for action, to work together with others, and to develop activity by drawing on the resources offered by others. She reminds us that relational agency is not the same as participation or cooperation.

Jääskelä and colleagues (2017) identify reciprocal teacher–student relationships and equal, supportive peer relationships within a climate of trust as key resource factors of relational agency. Dialogical relationships with teachers support students’ agency, especially when power and authority are recognized and addressed (Lipponen & Kumpulainen 2011; McNay 2003). A sense of agency is promoted by teachers’ support, acceptance, and fair treatment, as well as by functional peer relationships. Compared with teacher relationships, peer relationships are a more informal resource and serve as an arena for students’ emotional processing and reflection (Toom et al. 2017). Overall, a safe emotional environment is essential (Juutilainen et al. 2014).

Figure 1. Resources of Agency in Study (adapted from Jääskelä et al. 2017, 5–6).

Student Agency

– participation

– engagement

– influence

Individual Resources

– meaningfulness of study

– belief in one’s own efficacy

– belief in one’s own competence

– activeness of participation

Resources of Social Relationships

– power relations: equality among students; reciprocal teacher–student relationship

– supportive peer relationships

– trusting and safe atmosphere

Environmental Resources

– opportunities for active participation

– opportunities for choice

– opportunities to exert influence

Contextual or environmental resources of agency are provided to students through opportunities to participate actively and exert influence (Lipponen &

Agency is promoted when students are able to participate in environments and practices that develop academic and professional expertise (see Jääskelä et al. 2017). Future teachers are offered opportunities to recognize, conceptualize, analyze, and solve real challenges of teachers’ work (Toom et al. 2017). Such environments include complex classroom situations, curriculum work, and simulated or— as in this article—real development experiments in schools (Lipponen & Kumpulainen 2011; Toom et al. 2017; Ministry of Education 2007). Researching and developing school practices supports students’ responsible agency when their contribution is meaningful and valued (Lipponen & Kumpulainen 2011; Greeno 2006).

The study phase has been favorable for agency when belief in one’s efficacy and competence has strengthened through active and meaningful study. In an agency survey (Jääskelä et al. 2017), resources were found to be strongly interconnected in students’ experiences. Thus, phenomenon-based pedagogical arrangements that utilize relational and environmental resources can support individual agency.

Phenomenon-Basedness Through Action Research and School Collaboration

In the case described, students’ task was to study school practices and develop pupils’ communal participation, supported by teacher educators and school teachers. The collaboration project, conducted in the same form over two years, was designed to provide students with resources for agency. Working as researchers and developers in primary schools were first-year students in the master’s program in primary teacher education, organized in small groups. Most were adult students returning to study; a few had transitioned directly into master’s studies from earlier studies. Most had work experience in daycare centers or schools.

One justification for a phenomenon-based curriculum is to promote integration of studies and holistic mastery of subject matter. In the project, the broad phenomena studied and investigated were participation and communality within the school community. Phenomenon-basedness was implemented by integrating previously separate courses in terms of content so that they supported dialogue between theory and practice and the development of students’ expertise. The idea was that…

Leena Lestinen & Ulla Maija Valleala

…students draw on their theoretical studies as a foundation when implementing school projects through community art in their applied studies.

Researching and developing the school was structured using Stringer’s (2004) model of participatory action research. The courses were integrated longitudinally into its phases (Figure 2). Central to the model is identifying local solutions to problems in collaboration with all participants, as well as dialogue, reflection, and evaluation in order to develop shared understanding (Willis & Edwards 2014, 28).

At the beginning of the first action cycle, small groups received a thematic starting point from a classroom teacher in one of three participating primary schools. Based on this, they agreed upon and delimited a research and development focus, reconciling the needs and interests of the teacher, pupils, and students. A similar negotiation was repeated between teachers and new small groups at the beginning of the second cycle, when one additional school joined. In the review meetings, the groups and teachers reflected on the results achieved, aiming to further develop forms of communal participation and the functioning of groups in schools. During the second cycle, school visits were increased and pupils’ participation in project planning was strengthened.

Addressing phenomena across subject boundaries is a central feature of phenomenon-based pedagogy. In practice, working on an integrating phenomenon requires negotiation at the planning stage regarding the curriculum and how the contents of different subjects can be meaningfully and feasibly integrated into the phenomenon. In the project, integration was natural between the advanced studies course in educational sciences and a combined course in two arts subjects. Anchoring other multidisciplinary studies to the development of communality in schools through community art was more challenging. However, communality was planned to be realized in their projects to varying degrees.

Figure 2. Studies and School Work in the Observe, Reflect, Act Phases of Action Research (adapted from Stringer 2004).

Advanced Phenomenon Studies in Educational Sciences:

– Introduction to key concepts and the action research model

– Observation in the classroom and school environment

– Selection and delimitation of the development focus

Multidisciplinary Studies: two arts subjects combined, two knowledge subjects, and one cross-curricular theme:

– Introduction to perspectives and methods of community art

– Planning and implementation of a development project with pupils in the classroom and school environment

Autumn Semester:

OBSERVE & REFLECT

Spring Semester:

ACT

Phenomenon-based pedagogy encourages agency when it seeks to promote students’ activity and self-direction in learning (Lonka et al. 2015, 60). Accordingly, teacher educators provided the instructional content of their courses, but aimed to refrain from taking an active directive role in the content and activities of the project and school work. Like the classroom teachers, they positioned themselves primarily as resource persons. Power relations were intentionally softened by emphasizing the autonomy and decision-making authority of the small groups, as well as peer guidance and peer feedback in the planning and implementation of the projects.

To deepen pedagogical understanding, it is necessary to examine how resources of agency are utilized in interaction and action processes: (1) How did students interpret and enact agency in their social relationships as peers and in their interactions with teacher educators and classroom teachers? We also describe (2) how students experienced and understood anchoring their studies in school development and what they felt they had learned from it.

The research data consisted of thematic interviews with school-specific small groups of 3–5 students (N = 11) conducted during the autumn and spring semesters of the action cycles. The group interviews included open-ended questions and lasted approximately one hour. For this study, the sections related to interaction relationships, interactive working processes, and students’ own learning were selected (Stringer 2004; Hirsjärvi & Hurme 2006). The data also included individual reflective writings prepared by students as course assignments (N = 20).

The qualitative, theory-guided content analysis (Stringer 2004; Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2011) was directed and delimited by Edwards’s (2005, 2015) definition of relational agency and by the conceptualization of agency resources from the perspective of social relationships compiled by Jääskelä and colleagues (2017) (see Figure 1). The interconnections between different resource domains of study were also interpreted from an individual perspective.

In the following, research question 1 is addressed by presenting the findings narratively in their context and substantiating them with data excerpts under headings that highlight the central feature of each interaction relationship. Regarding question 2, the findings are examined as a whole in a separate section. In the excerpts marked with small-group interview codes, the symbol “>” indicates a change of speaker.

As Peers “In the Same Boat”

The master’s students’ group was described in one small group as “an amazing bunch” with “a real drive to get things done”: they had “come to learn and to do.” This self-definition was evidently shared, which motivated the group and carried it toward graduation. At the beginning, the “master’s students” enacted their agency by taking responsibility for forming their own group when the tutors did not do so. They mutually recognized the sense of efficacy and competence produced by prior education and life experience. There was interest and much to share in the courses.

“When we are master’s students, everyone has prior education. There may be work experience and we already have some knowledge and skills about these things—so if there’s discussion, of course we discuss, because we have so many opinions and we dare to present them. > – – I can stand behind my knowledge because I really know what I’m talking about. And then you get to hear the others’ perspectives.” (8)

On the other hand, differing backgrounds and goals for learning appeared in the small groups as conflicting expectations regarding studies and the level of investment in them. This required balancing and making compromises in joint work: “That’s part of the process specifically and for future working life—we’re all different.” (2) Relational agency was supported by the realization within the group that individual resources advanced collective action. At the same time, it had to be accepted that someone’s particular strength also entailed power and a demand for adaptation in the group’s activity.

Awareness of their shared position supported the smooth collaboration described in all small groups, and group formation fostered mutual trust. It was understood that “everyone works and puts in effort—there aren’t people just coasting along.” (7) This also applied to report writing, where division of labor had to be resolved together. Groups created space for individual participation in different ways with the help of Google Drive. A group might follow a clear division of labor because “we all have different views on how to express things.” (2) In other groups, a rather open and flexible working style was described. Tasks were agreed upon but not strictly assigned; work proceeded “by feel”: “We maybe divided something like you do this and so on. Then everyone kind of looked at where they could add something – –.” (9) A group could also proceed based on the idea that “everyone participates in everything”: “Everyone writes and no one gets offended about it. You can add something in between if it fits, and you can take something out completely.” (8)

The effort to distribute power evenly in report writing meant equalizing learning opportunities and resources. A shared responsibility in the groups was to compile the outputs into unified reports only at the end. The intention was to keep all members involved, even though experience showed that individual activity could vary.

For relational agency, the group’s ability to maintain a favorable emotional climate proved important. In open interaction, everyone could be themselves and trust that they would be understood. The outcome of the work could thus emerge alternately and flexibly through mutual resourcing: “Everyone can say their opinion and whether they have the energy or not—this kind of open system. > Everyone also understands if there’s more work and we don’t demand too much from each other. > One invests more in one thing and another in something else – –.” (6)

The sense of togetherness as a resource was strengthened through emotional support, which is significant in peer relationships. Even when feeling lost, “we’re in it together and you feel much better.” (4) Mutual support included processing the anxiety and difficult emotions that arose from the challenges and tensions of development work, when there was space and time for this kind of mental work. Communication could continue in WhatsApp in the evening as encouragement from the whole group, sustaining motivation toward a shared goal.

As Novices in the Academic Community

As adult students, they had to position themselves within the university as both a professional community of teachers and a scientific community, where studying involves expectations of independence and responsibility. Teacher educators held positional and expert authority, making the shaping of interaction with them significant for students. In the small groups, the group’s autonomy and its relationship to the educator’s authority had to be negotiated. For students prepared for intensive study, normative agency—meeting and adapting to the expectations of authority—may have felt purposeful. Uncertainty arose in interpreting what the educator wanted.

In all small groups, the openly defined responsibility for developing school practices caused initial confusion. Within the framework of the studies and the project, groups were given freedom to plan and decide on their work and to build collaboration both internally and with school teachers. After establishing a shared project and task orientation, groups had to structure the phenomenon-based task and its implementation in schools by utilizing observation and other working methods of the academic community. When giving feedback, the educator functioned as an academic mirror for the groups—reflecting how well scientific thinking and competence had been activated in their outputs.

“We started in the autumn and this began right away, and we went straight into the schools. Yet all of us are in primary teacher education for the first time and directly in a master’s program. It was quite a leap, in the sense that I personally had to really think—it's been a few years since my bachelor’s—how does this work again? How should we observe and how do you delimit a problem and so on. It was really challenging. > Only when we did the research report and received feedback did we realize that this is actually surprisingly official. > So – – it really has to be scientific.” (9)

In the small groups, varying expectations emerged regarding the educator relationship as a resource. Many would have preferred clearer instructions from the educator. With them, it would have been easy to proceed and do what was expected, especially if the group’s goal had not yet taken shape: “In a way we would have wanted, like in other courses, an A4 sheet with a bit clearer [instructions] about what we’re aiming for.” (7) A perceived difference from other studies surfaced, and students became aware of their own habitual ways of learning. In other groups, agreed-upon shared goals were sufficient, and it was not felt that the educators or teachers had restricted them. From the outset, the freedom to choose, make decisions, and influence one’s own activity and learning based on personal interest was motivating.

“In my opinion there were clear goals about what to do, and it was nice to have freedom. > There were no restrictions from the teacher education side, and correspondingly we weren’t restricted there [at the school] either. We were able to conduct research, even develop our own research question in the autumn—what we want and how we want to increase pupils’ [participation]. > Maybe also from that angle, when you can influence what interests you, you can really immerse yourself in it. In that way it’s a good thing. > It is motivating when you get to create something yourself.” (9)

Guidance and advice were available from the educators when requested. Several groups described that at the beginning, instead of direct instructions, they received understanding support from the educator. This included calming students’ anxiety, encouraging them, and strengthening their trust in the process and in proceeding based on the mutual understanding that emerged within the group. When the process stalled, maintaining mutual trust in the work was experienced as important. Students trusted that the educator had an overall picture of the project, which gradually became clearer to them as the process advanced. “She [the educator] knew what we were doing. > There was that sense of trust. > It was encouraging. > Yes.” (5)

Group-specific support from educators was also desired at later stages. Educators were perceived as emphasizing support from other small groups, but interaction with educators held a different significance for the group than interaction with peers. The freedom of action initially experienced as positive began to cause anxiety if students felt they did not receive answers to their questions from the educator. The study did not reveal that the need for expert authority’s feedback and approval had been explicitly discussed or reflected upon within the groups. It was not even challenged when the course educators presented differing interpretations of the group’s project task and its implementation. The group also adapted to the second educator’s interpretation and fulfilled this expectation, even though “it was really difficult at the end to change it [the project work at school] anymore.” (11)

Agency expressed as dissent was activated by the experience that starting the project simultaneously with university studies was demanding. The curriculum structure limited phenomenon-basedness, as students could not schedule the project studies according to their own development and interests. Delaying the studies or moving them to the following semester would have been preferred. Criticism was also directed at obtaining meaningful and reliable research data about everyday school life. Suggestions included a longer observation period, either continuously or divided across two semesters. In this way, the process would have been beneficial also from the perspective of inquiry-based learning.

As Colleagues at School

For students, the collaborating classroom teacher embodied the profession of primary teacher. Depending on the student’s individual background, the teacher was experienced as an expert and authority or as a colleague. The small groups had to negotiate their relationship with the teacher and organize their collaboration in such a way that the teacher’s position and participation were taken into account as a resource for the activity. As someone familiar with the school community, its operational culture, and teaching, the teacher organized joint activities between the groups and pupils. Differences between the school’s and the university’s activity systems created coordination challenges that had to be solved together in order to schedule and arrange the work. Students gained close contact with school life, which included changes in schedules and activities, unexpected situations, and urgency. These required adaptive ways of working.

A change of teacher during the school year became a significant learning experience in one small group. In the changed situation, students had to adapt to a different interaction style with the teacher, and mutual expectations had not been negotiated in advance. When the substitute teacher had remained in the background and given students space and authority to act independently within the agreed development theme, the class’s regular teacher assumed leadership. The teacher introduced a ready-made project theme, and the shift to it was experienced by students as “compulsory.” They complied with the justified implementation of the activity, even though it was difficult to let go of the theme previously agreed upon with the pupils. The group was left reflecting on their relationship to the teacher’s authority: had they relinquished their own genuine agency too easily?

“At first we tried to hint nicely that we would really like to continue the autumn project. In some way it bothered us that she didn’t take that up, and then we had to adopt [the new theme]. After that it was difficult to let go of the original idea.”

“Yes, and maybe we ourselves should have tried more strongly to hold on to what we did in the autumn. Did we give up too easily there? But then again, she is a certain kind of authority there—she is, after all, the classroom teacher.” (8)

On the other hand, the teacher could support the small group’s work indirectly. For example, during students’ observation sessions, the teacher created through her actions a classroom context in which the desired phenomenon was present. Only during the final observation session did it become clear that the teacher had thus directed attention toward the phenomenon without verbalizing it. The teacher “wanted us to grasp it [mutuality in group work], that we would find it there. She was very satisfied that we found it.” (9)

Later, the group reflected on their own agency in relation to this guidance: “It wasn’t difficult, it felt natural, but we did think about how much we were influenced by that guidance—would we have found anything ourselves without it – –.” (9) The teacher had also contributed to the group’s courage to try out an idea in the action project. The teacher “said genuinely that she was really proud that the autumn had, in a way, produced such a reflective process in us.” (9)

Overall, the small groups felt they had been welcomed at the school, and the positive expectations directed toward the development work even caused some initial nervousness. The groups reported having been given suitably free hands in their work—not complete freedom, which would have been experienced as difficult. Teachers were receptive and willing to collaborate, but were aware of their power position and understood the conditions necessary for students’ developing independence. “Nothing ready-made came from the school about what had to be done. > The teacher wanted us to come up with it ourselves, and once we had done so, [she] expressed her opinions.” (11)

In the local, phenomenon- and learner-centered action projects, the theme and working method inspired pupils toward creativity, initiative, and democratic participation. Teachers acted as partners who, through their knowledge of the community and its practices, helped move things forward in the school. They assisted in organizing collaboration across grade levels and in expanding projects within the school community. In one school, the project expanded into active participation across the entire school.

Future teachers also experienced reciprocity with practicing teachers. Through the teachers, students gained access to everyday school life and development work, and in mutual interaction, teachers also received something from them. For example, a joint interview with the school’s teachers was found among them to be a fruitful way of discussing school development. At the same time, it was recognized that without the community’s practical possibilities and initiative, the small group’s project might remain an isolated endeavor. Nevertheless, from the outset, students adopted a realistically optimistic attitude toward their role in school collaboration.

“Probably in the future it will be easier for teachers to implement projects like that when we, as external actors, come in and give that initial push—that it’s possible. It must be difficult as a teacher to suddenly launch a project in the middle of everyday school life. You can detach from that routine a bit when there’s that initial impulse that lays some groundwork. Surely in the future it will be easier to do it then.” (1)

Integration of Studies and One’s Own Learning

The school development process provided a long-term phenomenon-based learning experience in which students had the opportunity to act as active agents. Almost without exception, students considered studying the courses within the project meaningful. On the other hand, it was also experienced as a labor-intensive way of studying. There was a desire for stronger integration of the content courses into the project. Nevertheless, within the same school environment, they did not remain entirely disconnected course performances. Working on real development needs identified and specified in the school context was experienced as meaningful. It inspired and motivated students more than various simulated development experiments. It was considered beneficial that the project combined practice and theory by starting from school practice.

“We do have other courses like this where we just pull some phenomenon out of a hat and develop something around it. Here there was a real phenomenon that we got to work on. > And I personally liked that there was this kind of opportunity to complete it.” (9)

Observation in the school without a precisely defined assignment also strengthened students’ sense of efficacy once they had overcome the initial confusion and engaged with the observer role and task. It was significant that trust developed in the process: “When the issue starts processing in your mind and you move forward from there, it does become clearer. It has somehow taught that you shouldn’t worry too much at the beginning if something isn’t clear. It does become clearer over time.” (3)

A mode of operation emphasizing pedagogical openness and assigning responsibility to students proved favorable for the development of agency. The interactive school development work functioned as an authentic learning environment connected to working life. As students and as responsible implementers of the development project, they had to move from phase to phase together, courageously and actively, also through self-reflection. As a learning experience, “throwing oneself into uncertainty” was associated with coping in changing situations in working life. Such situations will require and test belief in one’s own efficacy.

“What we have learned from this is, in a way, throwing ourselves into uncertainty. That, in turn, is a prerequisite in changes in working life—you have to dare to throw yourself onto unfamiliar ground. You don’t necessarily know what is coming, but you just have to move forward with the knowledge you have, manage, and keep going. Surely many changes in working life remain unrealized because—people prefer to stay in what is familiar and safe.” (1)

By observing everyday activities and actively participating, students gained first-hand insight into school work, which also made the perspectives of both pupils and teachers concrete. The experience was realistic compared to students practicing teaching and learning among themselves at the university in a simulated manner. In interaction situations at school, it was sometimes necessary to quickly adapt one’s approach in relation to pupils’ level of understanding and readiness. Coping in such situations required and generated students’ mutual agency, when they had to “differentiate the activity on the fly.” (8) At the same time, a positive belief in shared competence may have been strengthened.

Action research introduced students to a method of collectively examining and developing school practices, which can be utilized in various ways to transform school routines. Students viewed it positively that the action cycle helped structure school activity through practical inquiry. However, more guidance would have been needed in the transition from observer and thinker to actor. At least one student developed the idea of applying the principles of action research to investigating their own teaching work, perhaps in shorter action cycles.

The general objective of the project was to develop pupils’ participation and communality at school. Current questions of participation were addressed locally, and the task was experienced as multifaceted. A strong sense of agency emerged when students had “put themselves on the line” to promote pupil participation in development projects. At the same time, they realized that bringing about change at the school level in practice requires effort that permeates the entire community.

“In my opinion it’s quite shocking to notice that we talk a lot about children’s participation and opportunities to influence and about implementing them, but in practice it doesn’t happen very much, at least in that context. > Implementing participation is not at all easy and it requires a great deal. It’s easy to start implementing it, but it requires the contribution and effort of the whole school.” (7)

Conclusion

In education grounded in phenomenon-based learning, regardless of educational level, it is important to examine agency. Education is expected to support the development of individuals capable of managing their lives and acting as active citizens, with the ability to make choices and decisions and to exercise power and influence. Power and empowerment can thus be seen both as resources and as goals of agency (Eteläpelto et al. 2011). The social aspect of the learning and action environment is significant when promoting agency and phenomenon-based learning.

Agency does not emerge in a vacuum; it takes shape within the social relationships of the learning and action environment. An independent and shared position as researchers and developers in the school appeared to promote students’ responsible agency. Implementing an open-ended task required not only interaction skills in peer relationships but also mutual agency. Learners with diverse backgrounds recognized and utilized one another’s resources in action where power was both shared and adapted to. This could mean adjusting individual learning goals and prioritizing the group’s goal-oriented activity. Further micro-level research is needed on how each learner experiences phenomenon-based pedagogical solutions in terms of developing and utilizing their own sense of efficacy and competence.

The construction of agency in the learner–expert relationship is a complex pedagogical issue to resolve in heterogeneous groups. Traditional conceptions of authority and differing expectations regarding relational resources are attached to these roles and would need to be addressed openly. Although attempts were made in the project to dismantle hierarchical power structures, more comprehensive processing would have been needed, along with stronger situational support for learners’ independence. Resistance, of course, also activated agency in the form of alternative thinking. Groups demonstrated competent agency, but they also constructed or adapted their activity normatively to meet authority’s expectations. While students may have wanted direct instructions from teacher educators, reciprocity in relation to teachers as colleagues within the school community was more equal.

Interestingly, the findings concerning agency align with Goffmanian frame analysis of study situations in teacher education (Mäensivu 2019). According to that analysis, students’ experiences and actions are shaped by implicit, culturally shared frames that are also difficult to change. In the frame analysis, hierarchy structured the relationship between students and teacher educators, while democracy structured peer relationships during collaborative work.

In practice, individual-level agency in learning and action environments is enabled and constrained by community-level structures and institutional power (Eteläpelto et al. 2011). A written curriculum may, in its objectives, support phenomenon-based study and learning, but its structure may still be based on regulation-defined study modules, as in teacher education (e.g., University of Jyväskylä 2017).

The flexibility and openness of the curriculum nevertheless made it possible to anchor different courses to a project progressing through action research. The implemented curriculum thus integrated studies and made the learning experience more holistic. Advancing phenomenon-basedness also requires that school teaching integrate thematic entities and subjects in experimental ways. Phenomenon-based pedagogy challenges teachers, both as individuals and as communities, to reflect on their relationship to the curriculum and on their agency in implementing it.

Phenomenon-based study often includes various forms of practical, project-like work. This is just as important for agency-promoting learning as the theoretical content of studies. In the collaboration project, learners’ time was directed toward becoming acquainted with an external action environment, negotiating within the small group and with partners, observing aspects of interest in the environment, structuring and delimiting them into a phenomenon to be investigated and developed through action. If such work remains an “extra task” in studies, phenomenon-based learning exhausts learners.

Studying constitutes a multi-path life phase during which learners are members of a given educational community. To enact and develop agency, there should be opportunities and encouragement to participate in the pedagogical and administrative processes of the community. For the master’s students, attachment to the educational community remained rather limited because primary teacher education was more intensive than usual in content and organization. All educational communities should be seen as environments for learners’ agency in action and learning, contributing in their part to the realization of a democratic society.

Within the European Union and international organizations, active citizenship has long been a widely endorsed goal. Various programs emphasize developing a culture of lifelong and life-wide learning and participation, demands that permeate and connect different levels of education. The problems of today’s world increasingly require not only active but also transformative civic agency. Teachers’ experiences and conceptions of agency are significant, as they educate entire age cohorts into citizenship (Kiilakoski et al. 2012).

Information Box

• Anchoring studies to cross-boundary collaborative projects is a promising way to implement a phenomenon-based curriculum. Examining real phenomena gives learning meaning and broadens experiences of social communities.

• Learners’ agency develops through genuine responsibility in their studies. This requires situational support from educators and addressing questions of power and authority.

• A challenge of phenomenon-based teaching lies in the heterogeneity of learner groups and differences in individual resources of agency.

• Agency is a multifaceted pedagogical development target across all educational practices and operational cultures. Promoting it is important for the realization of active citizenship and democracy.

References

Bandura, Albert (1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review 84:2, 191–215.

Bandura, Albert (1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Self-Control. New York: Freeman.

Bandura, Albert (2001) Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology 52, 1–26.

Biesta, Gert & Tedder, Michael (2007) Agency and learning in the life course: Toward an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults 39:2, 132–149.

Edwards, Anne (2005) Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research 43:3, 168–182.

Edwards, Anne (2015) Discussion: Recognising and realising teachers’ professional agency. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 21:6, 779–784.

Emirbayer, Mustafa & Mische, Ann (1998) What is agency? American Journal of Sociology 103:4, 962–1023.

Eteläpelto, Anneli (2011) What is agency and what is it needed for? Public lecture 24.8.2011.

Eteläpelto, Anneli; Heiskanen, Tuula; Collin, Kaija (2011) The multifaceted nature of power and agency. In Anneli Eteläpelto, Tuula Heiskanen & Kaija Collin (eds.) Power and Agency in Adult Education. Yearbook of Adult Education 49, 9–30.

Eteläpelto, Anneli; Littleton, Karen; Lahti, Jaana; Wirtanen, Sini (2005) Students’ accounts of their participation in an intensive long-term learning community. International Journal of Educational Research 43:3, 183–207.

Eteläpelto, Anneli; Vähäsantanen, Katja; Hökkä, Päivi; Paloniemi, Susanna (2014) How to conceptualize professional agency at work? Aikuiskasvatus 34:3, 202–215.

Greeno, James G. (2006) Authoritative, accountable positioning and connected, general knowing: Progressive themes in understanding transfer. Journal of the Learning Sciences 15:4, 537–547.

Hansen, Petteri (2007) In Search of Socially Engaged Teacherhood. Helsinki: Research and Development Centre for Historical-Social Education.

Heikonen, Lauri; Pietarinen, Janne; Pyhältö, Kirsi; Toom, Auli; Soini, Tiina (2017) Early career teachers’ sense of professional agency in the classroom: associations with turnover intentions and perceived inadequacy in teacher–student interaction. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 45:3, 250–266.

Hirsjärvi, Sirkka & Hurme, Helena (2006) Research Interview: Theory and Practice of the Thematic Interview. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino.

Juutilainen, Maaret; Metsäpelto, Riitta-Leena; Poikkeus, Anna-Maija (2014) Creating learning paths, influencing, participating: A pilot study on teacher students’ experiences of agency in their first-year small group studies. In Hannu L. T. Heikkinen, Josephine Moate & Marja-Kristiina Lerkkanen (eds.) Enabling Education: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Finnish Educational Research Association FERA 2013. Oulu: Finnish Educational Research Association, 139–164.

JY (2017) University of Jyväskylä. Curriculum for Primary Teacher Education 2017–2020.

Jääskelä, Päivikki; Klemola, Ulla; Valleala, Ulla Maija (2013) Through interaction, passion for learning and teaching: Results of university teaching development. In Päivikki Jääskelä, Ulla Klemola, Marja-Kristiina Lerkkanen, Anna-Maija Poikkeus, Helena Rasku-Puttonen & Anneli Eteläpelto (eds.) Together Toward Better Pedagogy: Interaction in Teaching and Learning. University of Jyväskylä, Finnish Institute for Educational Research, 21–31.

Jääskelä, Päivikki; Poikkeus, Anna-Maija; Vasalampi, Kati; Valleala, Ulla Maija; Rasku-Puttonen, Helena (2017) Assessing agency in university studies: Validation of the AUS Scale. Studies in Higher Education 42:11, 2061–2079.

Kauppila, Päivi Annika; Silvonen, Jussi; Vanhalakka-Ruoho, Marjatta (eds.) (2015) Agency, Guidance and the Life Course. University of Eastern Finland Publications. Reports and Studies in Education, Humanities and Technology 11. Joensuu: University of Eastern Finland.

Kiilakoski, Tomi; Gretschell, Anu; Nivala, Elina (2012) Participation, citizenship, well-being. In Anu Gretschell & Tomi Kiilakoski (eds.) A Lesson in Democracy. Youth Research Society Publications 118, 9–33.

Klemenčič, Manja (2015) What is student agency? An ontological exploration in the context of research on student engagement. In Manja Klemenčič, Sjur Bergan & Rok Primožič (eds.) Student Engagement in Europe: Society, Higher Education and Student Governance. Council of Europe Higher Education Series 20. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 11–29.

Klemettilä, Panu & Sulasalmi, Olli (2016) The connections between higher education students’ experiences of agency and study motivation. Master’s thesis. University of Oulu, Faculty of Education.

Kumpulainen, Kristiina; Krokfors, Leena; Lipponen, Lasse; Tissari, Varpu; Hilppö, Jaakko; Rajala, Antti (2010) Bridges of Learning: Toward Participatory Learning Environments. University of Helsinki.

Korpiaho, Kirsi (2014) The Student Learner on the Shelf: Practical Activity and Agency in Higher Education. Aalto University Publication Series. Doctoral Dissertations 164. Helsinki: Aalto University.

Lipponen, Lasse & Kumpulainen, Kristiina (2011) Acting as accountable authors: Creating interactional spaces for agency work in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education 27:5, 812–819.

Lonka, Kirsti; Hietajärvi, Lauri; Hohti, Riikka; Nuorteva, Maija; Rainio, Anna Pauliina; Sandström, Niclas; Vaara, Lauri; Westling, Suvi Krista (2015) Toward inspiring learning through phenomenon-based approaches. In Hannele Cantell (ed.) How to Build Multidisciplinary Learning Modules. Jyväskylä: PS-kustannus, 49–76.

Lonka, Kirsti & Westling, Suvi Krista (2018) Phenomenon-based learning. In Kirsti Lonka (ed.) Phenomenal Learning from Finland. Helsinki: Edita, 173–193.

McNay, Margaret (2003) Power and authority in teacher education. The Educational Forum 68:1, 72–81.

Mäensivu, Marja (2019) Hierarchy and democracy as structuring frames of study situations: A case study of the frames guiding primary teacher students’ experiences and actions. University of Jyväskylä. Faculty of Education and Psychology. JYU Dissertations 80.

Mäkinen, Sanna (2015) Perspectives on agency in youth transitions and life directions. In Päivi Annika Kauppila, Jussi Silvonen & Marjatta Vanhalakka-Ruoho (eds.) Agency, Guidance and the Life Course. University of Eastern Finland Publications. Reports and Studies in Education, Humanities and Technology 11. Joensuu: University of Eastern Finland, 103–127.

Ojala, Hanna; Palmu, Tarja; Saarinen, Jaana (2009) Staying in place and being in motion: Feminist openings to agency and gender. In Hanna Ojala, Tarja Palmu & Jaana Saarinen (eds.) Gender and Agency in Education. Tampere: Vastapaino, 13–38.

FNBE (2011) Report on Democracy Education. Finnish National Agency for Education. Reports and Studies 2011:27.

Ministry of Education (2007) Teacher Education 2020. Working group reports and studies 2007:44.

Rajala, Antti (2016) Toward an Agency-Centered Pedagogy: A Teacher’s Journey of Expanding the Context of School Learning. Department of Teacher Education, Faculty of Behavioural Sciences. Research Report 395. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.

Rautiainen, Matti; Vanhanen-Nuutinen, Liisa; Virta, Arja (2014) Democracy and Human Rights: Objectives and Contents in Teacher Education. Helsinki: Ministry of Education and Culture.

Ronkainen, Suvi (1999) Marked by Time and Place: Subjectivity, Knowledge and Agency. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.

Ruohotie-Lyhty, Maria & Moate, Josephine (2015) Proactive and reactive dimensions of life-course agency: Mapping student teachers’ language learning experiences. Language and Education 29:1, 46–61.

Stringer, Ernie (2004) Action Research in Education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Toom, Auli; Pietarinen, Janne; Soini, Tiina; Pyhältö, Kirsi (2017) How does the learning environment in teacher education cultivate first-year student teachers’ sense of professional agency in the professional community? Teaching and Teacher Education 63, 126–136.

Tuomi, Jouni & Sarajärvi, Anneli (2011) Qualitative Research and Content Analysis. (orig. 2002). Helsinki: Tammi.

Government of Finland (2010) Government Resolution on the Promotion of Democracy in Finland. Reports and Statements 17. Helsinki: Ministry of Justice.

Vygotsky, Lev S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Mental Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wenger, Etienne (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Willis, Jerry W. & Edwards, Claudia (eds.) (2014) Action Research: Models, Methods, and Examples. Applied Research in Education and the Social Sciences. Charlotte, NC: IAP.

Making the Invisible Visible – Teacher Students’ Beliefs and Intentions Regarding a Phenomenon-Based Learning Project in Science and Visual Arts

ANSSI LINDELL, ANNA-LEENA KÄHKÖNEN, ANTTI LEHTINEN, ANTTI LOKKA & ILKKA RATINEN

anssi.lindell@jyu.fi

University of Jyväskylä

Abstract

Learning does not become phenomenon-based merely by recording such a goal in curricula. It also requires, at minimum, that teachers understand the phenomenon-based orientation of the curriculum and act accordingly. In this article, we examine teacher students’ beliefs related to phenomenon-based teaching and the influence of those beliefs on their intention to teach in a phenomenon-based way. The context is the Checkpoint Leonardo project operating at the Department of Teacher Education at the University of Jyväskylä.

The data were collected through a questionnaire based on the Theory of Planned Behavior (n = 14), addressing students’ attitudes, rules and norms, and perceived controls related to phenomenon-based learning and teaching. Based on the responses, three students were interviewed. Teacher students generally held a positive attitude toward phenomenon-based teaching, although variation existed within the group. They expressed a desire for support from co-teaching and from the school’s operational culture. The article also presents questions concerning phenomenon-based teaching directed at different reference groups.

Keywords: teacher students, theory of planned behavior, attitudes, beliefs

STEAM Project Learning as the Starting Point of Checkpoint Leonardo

Science and visual arts share, in Albert Einstein’s words, “mystery, which is the unifying source of both science and art.” In both science and visual art, there is an effort to lift the veil on the invisible world through the senses and through thinking. Combining these fields is seen as strengthening creative thinking and creative action (Miller 2012; Kim & Park 2012; Park 2015), which are key skills in the society of the future (Eger 2013). An engineer who does not understand users, usability, and aesthetics develops poor and unproductive technology (Bailey 2016). Research shows that creativity is not a trait tied to giftedness as measured by traditional intelligence tests; it can be learned (Root-Bernstein 2015). However, learning creativity requires breaking down the boundaries between mathematically and scientifically oriented subjects grounded in logic and traditionally practice-oriented subjects such as visual arts and music (Henriksen 2014).

The European Commission (2017) seeks to reform higher education learning systems, as they are a key factor in building an equal, open, and democratic society as well as sustainable growth and employment. The system should motivate students to pursue fields in which there is, or is expected to be, a shortage of professionals. The program specifically mentions nursing, teaching, and interdisciplinary STEAM professions that combine science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics. Learning modules are recommended to be designed so that students can explore and solve everyday problems that interest them. Many contents of traditional science education remain quite distant from students’ everyday lives (Lemke 1990, 154). Barriers between school knowledge and surrounding reality can be lowered through art and hands-on activities.

Competence and education—along with the Teacher Education Development Program as part of it—are key initiatives of Finland’s current government program. To support the development program, a Teacher Education Forum representing different fields has been established (Ministry of Education and Culture 2016) to design new guidelines for initial teacher education, induction, and continuing professional development. The goal is broad-based teacher competence, creative expertise, and continuous professional self-development throughout the career (Lavonen 2016). Broad-based competence refers to pedagogical research competence and societal competence that go beyond teachers’ own subject-specific pedagogical and content knowledge. Teachers are expected to be able to harness subject-specific curriculum goals and methods for multidisciplinary investigation of everyday phenomena. Phenomena are approached through collective working methods, and learning is connected to the surrounding society. With this objective in mind, the Teacher Education Forum seeks to develop not only teachers’ individual competence but also the operational culture of communities, learning environments outside school, and communities formed by diverse learners.

The Checkpoint Leonardo project (CPL) aims at these goals through project-based learning (Figure 1). Its cornerstones are authentic, broad guiding questions; deep understanding of issues and contexts as a result of active inquiry; the use of diverse learner communities, tools, and learning environments; and project products that examine the guiding question from multiple perspectives (Krajcik et al. 1994). In the CPL project, we have developed a project-based learning model in which the guiding question relates to planning and guiding school pupils’ project-based instruction. Thus, there are two nested learning projects in the studies. At the core of the project groups are teacher students, who do not participate in the learning project designed for school pupils in the role of learners. Instead, the project products consist of pedagogical plans for integrative teaching contents, from which pedagogical model solutions guiding teachers’ own practice are also expected (Ball & Cohen 1996). The aim is not only to guide pupils’ active work but also to foster the willingness and ability to utilize resources outside the classroom and school, such as museums or companies and their personnel. The goal of the model is to educate teacher students not only in understanding the principles of multidisciplinary project-based learning but also in the practical skills of guiding projects. Such activity advances the Teacher Education Development Program’s objective of continuous learning: teachers learn to function as learners and facilitators also in later professional development projects during their careers.

How to Study the Intention to Teach in a Phenomenon-Based Way?

People’s intentions to perform a certain action can be examined, for example, through the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen 1991). According to the theory, the intention to do something is determined by personal attitude, social norms, and perceived behavioral control. Simplified, the TPB suggests that the strength of one’s intention depends on whether I want to do it, whether I think I should do it, and whether I am able to do it.

For example, perceived behavioral control includes all internal and external obstacles and facilitators experienced by a person, weighted according to how much they influence the action itself. If there is no money for hiking (an obstacle), one can still go to the nearby forest without money (small weight), but not very far (large weight). The theory can be used not only to explain and predict people’s b

The intention toward a particular type of behavior can be examined through direct questions concerning attitude, authorities, and behavioral control, as well as their relative weight (e.g., Glanz et al. 2008). Attitude can be studied by asking what is believed to be enjoyable, unpleasant, good, or bad about the activity. The influence of authorities and rules on intention can be examined by asking about beliefs regarding whose opinion recommends or discourages the activity. Beliefs related to perceived behavioral control concern what one knows how to do or is able to do.

Figure 1. Cornerstones of the Project-Based Learning Model (Krajcik et al. 1994).

Project product with multiple perspectives

Deep understanding as a result of inquiry

Diverse learning environments, communities, and tools

Guiding questions of the project

Method: Examining the Strength of Intentions

At the beginning of the study, the researchers involved in writing the article (n = 5) each responded to 27 open-ended questions concerning phenomenon-basedness, learning environments, and learner communities. The questions were divided into the components determining intention: attitudes, authorities, and behavioral control. From the responses concerning phenomenon-basedness, 35 statements were compiled and combined according to these components (12 + 9 + 14).

In a preliminary survey, 10 special education students evaluated the statements using a seven-point agree–disagree scale. In addition, the survey sought new factors influencing intention through direct and reverse questions: what other benefits (or disadvantages), which other parties support (or oppose), and what other factors help (or hinder) the integration of subjects in school instruction.

Means were calculated for the students’ responses to the statements, and from the 16 most significant statements (divided as 4 + 7 + 5 across the components), pairs of questions were constructed to measure beliefs and the perceived impact of their object.

The Strength of Intention as Numerical Indicators

In addition to direct questioning, the intention to act in a certain way can also be examined by calculating numerical indicators that reflect the strength of intention. The indicator is formed from two factors: belief and its weight. Attitude, social norm, and behavioral control are considered separately.

Attitude is determined by two factors:

• belief in the strength and direction of the effect of the behavior (on a scale of -3 … +3)

• evaluation of the desirability or undesirability of the consequences (on a scale of -3 … +3).

In accordance with the logic of the model, the outcome for attitude regarding a single issue is the product of these two numbers. The interpretation of the product is such that if the behavior strongly influences a positive outcome, the attitude toward the behavior is strongly positive. Attitude also shifts in a positive direction when the behavior reduces the occurrence of a negative outcome. For example: if a teacher believes that phenomenon-basedness promotes creative thinking (+3) and considers performances that deviate from model solutions to be beneficial (+3), the attitude toward phenomenon-basedness from the perspective of creativity is strongly positive (+9).

But what if the teacher does not believe that phenomenon-basedness promotes creative thinking at all (−3)? If, in addition, they evaluate deviation from model solutions as undesirable (−3), then from the perspective of creativity the teacher has no reason to avoid a phenomenon-based approach, and the attitude toward phenomenon-basedness is—perhaps somewhat surprisingly—the same (+9). The final numerical indicator for a respondent’s attitude is obtained by summing the products of all question pairs measuring the attitude dimension.

The social norm created by authorities can be determined similarly by summing the products of all question pairs related to authorities. These measure the following two factors:

• the individual’s belief about whether a given authority, for example pupils’ parents, considers the behavior unacceptable or desirable (−3 … +3)

• the motivation to comply with these authorities (1 … 7).

Finally, beliefs about the significance of behavioral control for the action itself can be assessed through question pairs composed of the following two factors:

• belief in the existence of the control factor, for example learning materials (1 … 7)

• perception of the control factor’s effect on the action, from hindering to facilitating (−3 … +3).

The Checkpoint Leonardo Häive Learning Project

We examined students’ intentions to guide phenomenon-based learning in their future work in connection with the Checkpoint Leonardo Häive learning project. Häive was the sixth in a series of STEAM learning projects launched in 2012 (r.jyu.fi/CPLN). It formed part of multidisciplinary studies in subjects and cross-curricular themes taught in basic education, undertaken by 15 special education students in spring 2017. Their competence objectives in the project were:

• to understand the significance of visual culture (multiliteracy) in different subjects

• to comprehend the role of visual arts as part of general education

• to strengthen their own conception of art and their expression

• to be able to design learning activities in which pupils investigate phenomena related to environmental studies

• to be able to design long-term, integrative learning modules

• to dare to try new things, think critically, utilize their own strengths in teaching, and evaluate their own actions.

The project was introduced through four 45-minute inquiry sessions related to the physics, chemistry, physiology, geometry of vision and visibility, and color interaction. Using simple tools, students investigated, for example, how light intensity and color affect visual contrast, resolution, and color perception. Another example of the inquiries was to find colors that appear the same against different background colors and, conversely, a color that appears as two different colors on different backgrounds.

After the introduction, three project groups were formed and tasked with designing a learning project for primary school pupils in accordance with the National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (FNBE 2014). In the project, pupils were to investigate visibility and camouflage through observations of protective colors and patterns, surface structures, shapes, and similar elements. For example, a museum was selected as a learning environment outside the school.

The learner community during the project included not only the school pupils and their teacher, the teacher students and their instructors, and museum staff, but also the CPL project steering group, which consists of experts from other local museums, the city’s social services, school teachers, and researchers. The steering group networked with the students, reviewed their preliminary plans, and provided comments and suggestions for improvement from their own areas of expertise. We also hoped to include pupils’ parents and representatives of companies in the steering group, but they have not yet been actively involved.

The project products consisted of three inquiry-based learning modules, each lasting three lessons, tested in both school and museum settings: Invisibility Cloak, Chameleon, and Camouflage.

During the project, teacher students reflected on their attitudes toward phenomenon-based teaching in the following ways:

• a preliminary survey before the project on their attitudes, authorities, and perceived controls related to phenomenon-based teaching

• a final survey after the project

• students’ self-assessment

• interviews with three students.

Fifteen special education students who participated in the learning project responded to the surveys. Responses to the question pairs were processed by calculating the previously described numerical indicators. Means were calculated by student, question pair, and component. Based on these responses, three students with differing orientations toward phenomenon-based teaching were selected t

Table 1. Description of the Data Collection Process

Event – Target Group – Attitudes – Rules and Norms – Control

Experts’ responses – 5 teacher educators – 27 questions in total concerning attitudes, rules and norms, and control

Preliminary survey – 10 special education students –

12 statements + open “what else?” question

9 statements + open “what else?” question

14 statements + open “what else?” question

Intervention (CPL Häive project) – 15 special education students

Most significant beliefs from the preliminary survey and their effect on intention – 14 special education students –

4 question pairs & open “what else?” question

7 question pairs & open “what else?” question

5 question pairs & open “what else?” question

Semi-structured interview – 3 special education students –

“Do you intend to…? Why…? +, −”

“Who supports it? Why? Do you agree?”

“What hinders? What promotes? Why?”

Attitudes, Social Norms, and Behavioral Control as Influences on Students’ Intentions

Using the calculated indicators, we examine the strongest and weakest influences on teacher students’ intention to teach in a phenomenon-based way. We also investigate the extent of variation in views within the group. Statistical significance was not calculated, as with such a small sample size the results are not generalizable.

Students’ Attitudes Toward Phenomenon-Based Teaching

Questions in the final survey that examined students’ attitudes revealed that students believed phenomenon-based teaching to be well suited for developing creativity, increasing motivation, and clarifying the connection between theory and practice in school (Figure 2). In this case, reverse logic was not needed; all respondents evaluated these outcomes as highly desirable and believed that phenomenon-basedness supports these functions.

Making the Invisible Visible – Teacher Students’ Beliefs and Intentions Regarding a Phenomenon-Based Learning Project in Science and Visual Arts

Students were more cautious in their views on the impact of phenomenon-basedness on pupils’ self-regulation. Nevertheless, they believed it would to some extent lead to the development of self-directed learning skills and considered these skills desirable. Interviews revealed that teacher students’ experience in special education and with pupils requiring special support led them to reflect on this issue: do some pupils need more teacher support or structured routines guiding their activity than phenomenon-based approaches are assumed to provide?

Social Norms Shaping Teacher Students’ Phenomenon-Based Teaching

Students’ beliefs about which authorities or groups support phenomenon-basedness varied (Figure 3). There was no clear consensus even on whether the current curriculum encourages phenomenon-based teaching!

Similarly, there was variation in how strongly students intended to comply with the norms of different authorities in their teaching. Interpretation of some authorities’ influence was complicated by the fact that students left certain items unanswered; nearly half of the responses were blank in questions concerning companies or professionals. At the individual level, for some students collaboration with companies influenced their intention to teach in a strongly negative way for some, and strongly positive for others. The image of cooperation with companies likely has a strong influence on responses—how positively should one view promotional caps and a tour of a company office? On the other hand, one might imagine a company expert visiting the classroom and offering the opportunity, for example, to test modeling clay made by the class in the company’s laboratory. A completely different question concerns what is actually offered to schools and what a teacher believes they can propose or request.

Figure 2. Some attitude factors influencing the student group’s intention to teach in a phenomenon-based way in primary school.

Leads to self-direction / better self-regulation

Leads to creative thinking

Motivates studying

Connects theory to practice

Strongly reduces – Somewhat reduces – Neutral – Somewhat promotes – Strongly promotes

Figure 3. Some social norm factors influencing the student group’s intention to teach in a phenomenon-based way in primary school.

Parents

Teachers

Pedagogical experts

Pupils

Curriculum

Strongly reduces – Somewhat reduces – Neutral – Somewhat promotes – Strongly promotes

When examining the whole group, however, three key authorities emerged whose social norms positively influenced students’ intentions to teach in a phenomenon-based way: pedagogical experts, the new curriculum, and pupils.

Teachers already working in the field were perceived as having a fairly strong influence on how students themselves would teach in the future, but views about practicing teachers’ attitudes toward phenomenon-basedness varied widely; the dispersion for this factor was the greatest among all survey responses. Based on interviews, assumptions varied depending on teachers’ years of service or educational level.

In the group average, practicing teachers appeared as a slightly positive social norm for phenomenon-based learning. One authority clearly reduced intentions toward phenomenon-based teaching: pupils’ parents. Based on the interviews, teacher students predicted that parents might be concerned that phenomenon-basedness differs from the type of schooling they themselves experienced. Students did not think they would entirely disregard parents’ concerns, but felt these would influence their actions to some extent.

Students’ Perceived Behavioral Controls Regarding Phenomenon-Based Teaching

Available resources were the only behavioral control factor clearly believed to hinder the implementation of phenomenon-based teaching (Figure 4). In students’ perceptions, resources were not sufficient. In the survey, these included both material resources, such as ready-made learning materials, and immaterial resources, such as available time.

Figure 4. Some perceived control factors influencing the student group’s intention to teach in a phenomenon-based way in primary school.

Resources

Operational culture

Training

Co-teaching

Strongly reduces – Somewhat reduces – Neutral – Somewhat promotes – Strongly promotes

The survey revealed two control factors that strongly and positively influenced intention: training (including in-service training) and co-teaching. Beliefs concerning the school’s operational culture as a control factor were contradictory. Responses showed considerable variation, particularly in beliefs about how operational culture would affect one’s own actions. Consequently, the group’s overall numerical indicator was close to zero—although operational culture was seen as significant in its influence on phenomenon-based teaching.

In interviews, students reflected fairly realistically on differences in school cultures, work communities, atmosphere, co-teaching, and collaboration in different schools. On the other hand, how can one know in advance what kind of work community one will end up in? None of the interviewees considered their own potential influence on the work community’s atmosphere or operational culture. In the interviews, the school appeared almost static, with permanently fixed teachers and especially fixed working methods.

Table 2 summarizes the influence of factors, according to the Theory of Planned Behavior, on students’ intentions to teach in a phenomenon-based way in their future careers.

Table 2. Summary of Some Factors Influencing the Student Group’s Intention to Teach in a Phenomenon-Based Way in Primary School

Factor’s Effect – Attitude – Social Norm – Behavioral Control

Strongly promotes

Leads to creative thinking

Motivates studying

Connects theory to practice

Pedagogical experts

Pupils

Curriculum

Training

Co-teaching

Somewhat promotes

Leads to self-direction / better self-regulation

Teachers

Neutral

Operational culture

Somewhat reduces

Parents

Resources

Strongly reduces

—

Three Types of Experiences

We explored differences in views within the respondent group by interviewing three students who related differently to phenomenon-based teaching—Oona, Pirkko, and Krista. The names and identifiable details have been changed. In the semi-structured interviews, the discussion first focused on phenomenon-basedness and the integration of subject contents integration of subject contents in school teaching through an introductory question, and then through questions measuring intention concerning attitudes, social norms, and external factors. By outlining different ways of thinking, we can offer reflections and encouragement suited to their needs. At the same time, we can better understand their concerns and find shared solutions for implementing curriculum-based teaching within the framework in which working life is perceived. The following descriptions of three students are based on the interviews and survey responses.

Oona the Adopter

Oona was selected for interview because, according to the preliminary survey, she believed phenomenon-basedness to be a good working method in relation to all attitude factors—more strongly than any of her peers. She was also strongly committed to guidance from pedagogical experts and the curriculum. In addition, Oona was receptive to pedagogical knowledge and guidance concerning the benefits of phenomenon-basedness.

In the follow-up survey, the strongest attitude factors influencing her intention toward phenomenon-based teaching that emerged in the interview were its motivating effect and its ability to connect theory to practice. In addition to increasing pupils’ motivation, Oona strongly felt that phenomenon-based learning also enhances school enjoyment. She believed that phenomenon-based learning gives pupils opportunities to use their skills in everyday life:

“It gives pupils skills and ways of thinking that can be better applied in real life and the world, rather than memorizing some smaller specific thing within a single subject.”

In her responses, Oona highlighted the position of pupils with special needs as learners and the position of special education teachers as educators. She suspected that “maybe phenomenon-based learning and integrating subjects does not suit all pupils—some need very routine-based learning.” However, she believed that teachers can differentiate phenomenon-based teaching so that it can suit all learners: “It doesn’t suit all pupils, but probably the teacher can influence that too, so that it would suit everyone.”

Regarding resources for phenomenon-based teaching, Oona particularly emphasized the opportunities offered by co-teaching and collaboration between teachers. As a threat to implementing phenomenon-based teaching, she identified a lack of motivation to develop oneself and one’s work. In her imagined scenario, “if things went badly and you graduate as a teacher and you’re fed up with the job and don’t have your own motivation to develop as a teacher, then it would probably be easier just to stick to the old pattern and subjects, and not do any phenomenon-based learning.”

Making the Invisible Visible – Teacher Students’ Beliefs and Intentions Regarding a Phenomenon-Based Learning Project in Science and Visual Arts

Among the strongest normative influences on Oona’s intention toward phenomenon-based teaching in the follow-up survey were researchers and the authorities responsible for the national core curriculum in basic education. She believed that their positions are based on research evidence:

“Because if this kind of phenomenon-based learning and integrating subjects is supported like this, then there must be some research results showing that it’s a good thing.”

Oona described believing that some parents might oppose phenomenon-based teaching, as they “may be worried that the child learns properly, and since they themselves went to school and learned in a certain way, there might be some resistance to something new.”

Within the teaching profession, Oona distinguished between newly qualified teachers and those who have worked longer in the field. In her view, changes in teacher education have influenced younger teachers’ attitudes. Phenomenon-based teaching is supported in this group “precisely because, like myself, they have already reflected on these issues so much during their studies and have kind of grown into it.”

After graduating from teacher education, Oona’s challenge will be to consider what her new reference group will be, as she has drawn much strength from teacher education and its pedagogical experts. Her strength may lie in her readiness to encourage her work community to reflect together on the relationship between phenomenon-basedness and learners with special needs, as well as on suitable implementation methods. Oona may also be a strong candidate for linking current initial teacher education with in-service training in creating a unified teacher education continuum of the CPL type.

Critical reflection question:

Is it even conceivable that all long-serving teachers have become stuck in routines? Do teacher students not meet experienced teachers in the field and discuss with them? Are these impressions formed through real encounters, or through media portrayals?

Pirkko the Pragmatist

In the preliminary survey, Pirkko represented a cautiously positive stance. She was selected for interview as a representative of the middle ground. Like Oona, she believed that phenomenon-basedness develops pupils’ competence and motivation and regarded all the listed attitude factors as desirable. On the other hand, she did not consider the influence of authorities or resources on her own teaching choices to be particularly strong.

In the final survey, however, Pirkko had shifted her position and especially viewed school resources and operational culture as factors that complicate phenomenon-based teaching. The view of the benefits of phenomenon-basedness as a guiding factor for action was considerably more moderate than at the beginning.

According to the survey, Pirkko believed that the particular benefit of phenomenon-basedness lies in its ability to connect theory with practice and with children’s everyday lives. It is important for her that perspectives arising from different subjects are brought together in a pedagogically justified way:

“If the implementation doesn’t work, then the thinking can get completely confused and you might not be able to see them as a whole—if they remain very separate or are combined in the wrong way.”

Pirkko felt that the benefits of phenomenon-based teaching are easily lost if there are flaws in implementation:

“Well, it [phenomenon-based teaching] is a good thing if the implementation works and the idea—that the phenomenon is examined from the perspectives of those subjects—is realized so that it’s not pointless. The implementation has to be good—if the implementation doesn’t work, then… is there any benefit in the end?”

Among behavioral control factors, Pirkko emphasized the significance of lack of resources as an obstacle to phenomenon-based teaching. These resources include both time and learning materials, which she saw as intertwined—it is difficult to implement phenomenon-based learning “if there isn’t enough time or resources to do it.” In her view, the use of the method would be supported primarily by “concrete examples—like ready-made learning materials, so that you wouldn’t have to build everything completely from scratch.”

For Pirkko, phenomenon-based teaching appears as a demanding method that requires skill to implement. In her self-assessment, she described being surprised that guiding phenomenon-based learning turned out to be “easier and less time-consuming than I thought.” However, some of her group members described in their self-assessments the sense of hurry that burdened the project. It is easy to see that when one sets high standards for oneself, a long planning and implementation period can further increase pressure.

At the end of the project, the authorities guiding Pirkko toward phenomenon-basedness were pedagogical experts and the national core curriculum for basic education. However, she perceived teachers themselves as hesitant about phenomenon-based teaching. In this opposition, the teacher is left alone to respond to (unrealistic) expectations.

Critical reflection question:

How high should the bar be set? What is sufficient time, for example, for project planning? How much should the teacher prepare a project in advance “from scratch”? What responsibility then remains for the pupils?

Making the Invisible Visible – Teacher Students’ Beliefs and Intentions Regarding a Phenomenon-Based Learning Project in Science and Visual Arts

“In practice, in my opinion, it’s like this: everyone except teachers supports it, but the teachers who would actually have to do the work are not quite on board yet.” In particular, the opinions of teachers in her own work community carry significant weight for Pirkko: “Yes, I would rather listen to the teachers [regarding phenomenon-based teaching].”

Pirkko’s challenge lies in her image of phenomenon-basedness as a difficult model requiring perfect performance, where deviations negate the benefits. With such a prior attitude, there is a high threshold to trying the method as a novice and accepting initial awkwardness. Her strength may be the other side of the same coin; it is clear that Pirkko strives to do her best in her work as a teacher. Because she is interested in new directions in teaching specifically within her own work community, she is likely to draw on her future colleagues’ experiments and efforts in developing her own teaching and to participate in shared development projects, where the support of a committed community can help overcome challenges.

Krista the Critical One

Krista was selected for interview because, based on the preliminary survey, the views of authorities did not strongly influence her intention to teach in a phenomenon-based way. She felt she would receive support for phenomenon-based teaching fairly evenly from nearly all the suggested control factors. Initially, her attitude toward phenomenon-based teaching—regarding creativity, motivation, and pupils’ autonomy—was strongly supportive, but in the final survey her view of how desirable these goals are had changed.

Like the others, Krista saw clarifying the connection between theory and practice as a meaningful aspect of phenomenon-based learning. She felt that by integrating subjects “you get more coherent wholes, so that the child understands the concrete background and it doesn’t remain in separate tracks, like this is just mother tongue or just environmental studies.” She responded positively to cross-subject experimentation but regarded project-based working methods as challenging in many ways. From her own experience, “during our studies we’ve had many of these phenomenon-based projects, and it’s quite exhausting too. There has to be a limit to how many there are at the same time.”

Krista longed for variation in working methods. She perceived the discourse around phenomenon-basedness as a demand to organize all teaching in a phenomenon-based and project-based way. She appealed: “Sometimes it’s nice to study by reading about a topic from a book and doing related tasks.”

Krista repeatedly raised the issue that a newly graduated teacher beginning work may have a certain threshold for implementing phenomenon-based teaching. She felt that she would first like to gain confidence in basic teaching skills—such as classroom management—before adopting phenomenon-based approaches: “If I think about starting work as a teacher, when you are new and it’s your first year, my resources would probably go more toward learning to work efficiently myself and managing the classroom with the pupils.”

She reflected on the possibility that phenomenon-based learning may simply not suit all pupils. While working as a substitute teacher, Krista had particularly noticed the importance of group dynamics:

“It’s the sum of many factors. With one group you can work more freely and implement more phenomenon-based, inquiry-type learning, and with other groups it just doesn’t work—if the group dynamics aren’t functioning, then you’re fighting all the time.”

From the strongest regulatory influences on phenomenon-based teaching identified in the follow-up survey, Krista highlighted teacher education as a factor promoting phenomenon-based teaching. Assignments in her class teacher studies enabled her to choose to design her work so that she intentionally integrated different subjects:

“In all the work I submitted, I planned in elements from different subjects. I thought about how I could take a perspective from each subject into this, so that my own thinking—and also teaching—would become easier, so that I would have some kind of foundation from having worked in that way before.”

At the same time, Krista felt that teacher education provides the basics, and that in practical teaching work one learns more about phenomenon-basedness:

“At this stage we’re still going largely on the basis of knowledge—we’ve tried and done some things—but it’s practice that really roots us more firmly in how we actually work. Now we know where we can get more information in practice.”

Krista experienced the treatment of phenomenon-basedness in her studies as very intensive and even responded somewhat ironically to the enthusiasm surrounding it. Nevertheless, she also saw benefits in this intensity:

“We who are studying now are in a very good position—we get this directly according to the new curriculum and we are, so to speak, brainwashed to think this way. That also makes it easier for us to take these tools into use.”

She considered continuing professional development during one’s career important for maintaining work motivation.

Critical reflection question:

Can teacher education institutions or university training schools offer practice experiences where one can move beyond the constraints of group dynamics and experiment with different teaching methods? Is the purpose of a teaching practicum to perform a perfectly implemented phenomenon-based unit in a classroom? Does an imperfect trial mean that phenomenon-basedness—and all other reforms as well—should be abandoned? because “that’s the solution for how you stay interested in your own work—when you continue educating yourself and gain additional knowledge.”

From the strongest normative influences on phenomenon-based teaching identified in the follow-up survey, Krista highlighted the teacher education institution and the national core curriculum for basic education as supporters of phenomenon-based teaching. Among teachers, Krista distinguished between class teachers and subject teachers. She felt that subject teachers focus on their own subject and may therefore resist phenomenon-based teaching:

“Maybe if you think from the primary school side, class teachers have probably already combined different subjects for a long time, since they have the opportunity—for example, if you’re teaching math, you can use the same content elsewhere too… or it happens almost unintentionally. But subject teachers look at things from the perspective of their own subject, so I would guess there’s more resistance there.”

Krista’s challenge is to find the courage to implement phenomenon-based teaching in practice. Based on her previous experiences, she is very aware of factors beyond her control that have complicated experiments. She sees teaching in her own classroom as a kind of trial by fire that must be passed before phenomenon-based teaching can truly be adopted. How much else will she perceive in her classroom as needing to be mastered and put in order before that trial has been completed?

Krista’s strength lies in her personal experience of certain challenges and her willingness to address, for example, issues of classroom spirit and group dynamics once the class is in her hands. She recognizes that ahead lies a long process of learning new skills together with the class and does not become discouraged even if achieving results takes time.

Conclusions

According to teacher students’ responses, the views of teacher educators and learning researchers on phenomenon-based learning are important to them. Likewise, the curriculum based on these views holds significance. Therefore, teacher education can positively influence teacher students’ intentions to teach in a phenomenon-based way; based on our results, their starting point is already “phenomenon-friendly.” However, after graduation they hope for support from co-teaching and the school’s operational culture in guiding phenomenon-based learning. This challenges their experienced future colleagues to collaborate in renewing teaching practices.

A second challenge is teacher students’ belief that pupils’ parents oppose phenomenon-based teaching. Some parents undoubtedly do oppose it, but the belief that such opposition is widespread is likely exaggerated. For this reason, we intend to create new opportunities for teacher students and pupils’ parents to encounter one another in the context of phenomenon-based learning and to investigate the issue further.

In this way, we can influence both parents’ attitudes toward phenomenon-based learning and teacher students’ beliefs about those attitudes.

Teacher students appear to be divided in their views on phenomenon-based teaching. Teacher education must support all perspectives. For example, Krista—introduced in this article—described how she experienced the many phenomenon-based projects during teacher education as excessive and exhausting. This is unlikely to be the intention of school reform; therefore, its implementation requires further development by students, teachers, parents, and other relevant stakeholders in the field.

For Reflection

Teachers occasionally make headlines by removing desks from the classroom. In this article, we have described an alternative in which, within the framework of STEAM integration, it is the pupils who are removed from the classroom—at least from time to time. Implementation is influenced by teachers, school operational cultures, and the mental and material resources of the surrounding community. At the end of the article, we propose reflection questions for different reference groups based on the results and what can be learned from them.

Are You Studying to Become a Teacher?

Read the descriptions of the three teacher students and consider which one you most align with. What concerns do you share? What interests and sources of enthusiasm? Then read the descriptions of the other two students and reflect on their feelings. Imagine working with them in the same school. What kind of support could you offer your colleague in experimenting with a phenomenon-based approach?

Are You Working as a Teacher?

Can you think of low-threshold initiatives that would allow both enthusiastic and cautious experimenters of phenomenon-basedness in your work community to receive support and acceptance for their approaches?

Below is one exercise that does not yet require anyone to implement phenomenon-based teaching but may serve as a welcome encouragement in your school—especially for colleagues who would like renewal and experimentation in teaching to occur collaboratively and with shared understanding.

1. Write down the names of people in your circle of acquaintances. After each name, note what the person does for work, hobbies, skills, etc. Then write down what kinds of phenomena are related to these.
2. Mark with a plus sign those people you could imagine inviting as experts into the learner community when your class investigates a phenomenon. Then record organizations and places related to these that you could imagine using as learning environments.
3. What benefit could you and your class offer to the people and organizations on the list?
4. Ask your colleagues to create a similar list and, in a joint professional meeting, explore what kind of learning network you could build together.

Are You a Teacher Educator?

Reflect, based on this article, which of the factors identified—and which others—affect students’ intentions to implement what you teach them. You can structure your thinking according to the Theory of Planned Behavior: Do you want to act this way? Should you act this way? Are you able to act this way? How can you influence these aspects?

Look for examples of phenomenon-based, cross-disciplinary learning materials and research (e.g., STEAM integration: http://r.jyu.fi/CPLN). Together with students, consider which subject-specific and transversal competence goals the research addresses. Also create example assessment questions related to them.

Do You Make Decisions?

The European Commission (2017) states that in many member states there is or will be a shortage of highly educated STEAM professionals, healthcare professionals, and teachers. In addition, all higher education students—regardless of major—should acquire broad competences, particularly in creativity, digital skills, numeracy, self-direction, critical thinking, and problem-solving.

How are these proposals taken into account in reforming higher education? (Some research is mentioned at the beginning of this chapter.) How will such higher education reform affect lower levels of education and the foundational knowledge required? Must one wait until a certain age to learn problem-solving, self-direction, or reflection skills?

Do You Produce Textbooks or Learning Materials?

A textbook is a good servant but a poor master. Some students wished for a different kind of textbook—one that guides away from textbook dependence, a book that makes traditional textbooks unnecessary. It may be difficult for authors to challenge the established role of textbooks in teaching. No ready-made material can respond to all the questions that arise from pupils in a particular class.

Because literacy and multiliteracy are essential learning goals within STEAM integration, learning materials should increasingly enable their practice. Could a textbook function more as a reference work than as a starting point or practical script for teaching curriculum? If not all chapters need to be covered, nor in numerical order, do they even need to be numbered? List all the details you can think of that have a similarly guiding effect in practical work.

Are You a Parent of a Schoolchild?

Based on this book, reflect on the following questions:

What new things would you like your child to learn or do at school? In what places, besides the classroom, do you think school groups could learn? What would pupils do and learn there? Whom would you like to see visiting school lessons? What would you want them to teach your children? Can you think of ways to participate in your child’s class activities, for example through your work, hobbies, or acquaintances? Give examples.

Share your answers with your child’s teacher and/or circulate the task among other parents you know.

Information Box

• As a group, teacher students have a fundamentally positive attitude toward phenomenon-based teaching.

• Students believe that pupils’ parents and some practicing teachers oppose phenomenon-based teaching.

• Beginning teachers need encouragement and reinforcement in phenomenon-based teaching through co-teaching and a phenomenon-friendly school culture.

• Individually, teacher students differ in their attitudes toward phenomenon-based teaching.

• Teacher educators must recognize and accept these differing attitudes in order to interpret and support their students in guiding phenomenon-based learning.

References

Ajzen, Icek (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50:2, 179–211.

Van den Akker, Jan (2007) Curriculum Design Research. In Tjeerd Plomp & Nienke Nieveen (eds.) An Introduction to Educational Design Research. Netherlands: SLO – Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development, 37–50.

Ball, Deborah & Cohen, David (1996) Reform by the book: What is—or might be—the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher 25:9, 6–8.

Bailey, Curt (2016) An Artist’s Argument for STEAM Education. Tech Directions 75:6, 24–25.

European Commission (2017) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a Renewed…

EU Agenda for Higher Education. Communication No. 247. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/education/files/he-com-2017-247_en.pdf (Accessed 22 June 2017)

Eger, John (2013) STEAM… Now! The STEAM Journal 1:1, 8.

Francis, Jillian; Eccles, Martin; Johnston, Marie; Walker, Anne; Grimshaw, Jeremy; Foy, Robbie; Kaner, Eileen; Smith, Liz; Bonetti, Debbie (2004) Constructing Questionnaires Based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A Manual for Health Services Researchers. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Centre for Health Services Research.

Glanz, Karen; Rimer, Barbara; Viswanath, Kasisomayajula (eds.) (2008) Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Henriksen, Danah (2014) Full STEAM ahead: Creativity in excellent STEM teaching practices. The STEAM Journal 1:2, 15.

Ministry of Education and Culture (2016) Guidelines for the Development of Teacher Education – Ideas and Proposals of the Teacher Education Forum. Publications of the Ministry of Education and Culture 2016:34. Helsinki: Minedu.

http://minedu.fi/opettajankoulutusfoorumi (retrieved from “Materials” 22 June 2017)

Kim, Yilip & Park, Namje (2012) The effect of STEAM education on elementary school students’ creativity improvement. In Computer Applications for Security, Control and System Engineering. Heidelberg: Springer, 115–121.

Krajcik, Joseph; Blumenfeld, Phyllis; Marx, Ronald; Soloway, Elliot (1994) A collaborative model for helping middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal 94:5, 483–497.

Lavonen, Jari (2016) Teacher Education Development Program. Lecture at the Research Days on Mathematics and Science Education, 27 October 2016, Joensuu.

Lemke, Jay (1990) Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Mathieson, Kieran (1991) Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research 2:3, 173–191.

Miller, Arthur (2012) Insights of Genius: Imagery and Creativity in Science and Art. New York: Springer.

Class Teacher Education Program (2016) Curriculum for Class Teacher Education for the Academic Year 2016–2017.

https://www.jyu.fi/edupsy/fi/laitokset/okl/opiskelu/luokanopettajakoulutus/luokanopettajakoulutus/Hyvksytty_LUOKO_opetusohjelma201617.pdf (Accessed 22 June 2017)

Finnish National Agency for Education (2014) National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2014. Regulations and Guidelines 2014:96. Helsinki: FNBE.

http://oph.fi/download/163777_perusopetuksen_opetussuunnitelman_perusteet_2014.pdf (Accessed 22 June 2017)

Park, Namje (2015) Development and application of an elementary STEAM career education program using LOGO programming and fractals learning. Advanced Science Letters 21:3, 549–552.

Root-Bernstein, Robert (2015) Arts and crafts as adjuncts to STEM education to foster creativity in gifted and talented students. Asia Pacific Education Review 16:2, 203–212.

The Destruction of a Subculture and the Birth of the New: How History Was Reborn

MATTI RAUTIAINEN & ANNA VEIJOLA

matti.a.rautiainen@jyu.fi

University of Jyväskylä

Abstract

Most school subjects have long historical roots that are reflected in their subcultures and lead representatives of the subject to regard many cultural features as self-evident. For this reason, reforming them is difficult. This article examines the subject of history in relation to its subculture and its reform, the key elements of which are inquiry-based learning and phenomenon-basedness. The focus is on history teacher education, whose reform has sought to build a new culture grounded not only in inquiry-based learning and phenomenon-basedness but also in the study of the nature of history itself.

The research data were collected from students (n = 25) who participated in history subject teacher education at the end of their pedagogical studies. The results show that the views of history subject teacher students regarding a reform-oriented culture of history teaching are highly heterogeneous. The findings raise questions about the responsibility of teacher education and about how differences in the pedagogical thinking of graduating teachers result in very different forms of teaching in the classroom.

Keywords: history teaching, learning history, inquiry-based learning

School Subjects and the School

Most schools in the world are structured around subjects. Their status is reflected in the fact that it is difficult to imagine a school without subjects. Subcultures have formed around subjects, maintained through various structural arrangements. These emphasize features that distinguish subjects from one another rather than phenomena that connect them. Thus, for example, languages, mathematical subjects, or arts and crafts are grouped into their own categories.

Subcultures are shaped not only by the tasks assigned to schools but also by the networks built around each subject, in which key actors include representatives of academic disciplines and subject teachers. In Finland, each subject or subject grouping has a strong national association. Learning materials—especially textbooks—also hold a strong position in Finnish teaching culture (see, for example, Heinonen 2005). Subjects, learning materials, and the subcultures and networks built around them are interconnected through multiple linkages.

For example, subject teachers are trained in university departments of their respective disciplines, and the authors of textbooks include not only subject teachers but also university researchers.

The English sociologist Ivor Goodson (2001, 2005) has described how school subjects are socially constructed and how a web forms around them in which different parties benefit from adhering to certain basic rules. For example, the fact that textbooks and curricula describe certain issues while leaving others outside is justified as serving the common good. When such a culture of subject teaching has functioned for several generations, many matters become self-evident among the groups and individuals belonging to the subculture. Those who think differently are regarded as strange and as not belonging to the group.

In Finland, the formation of most subject cultures dates back to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Their development was influenced not only by advocacy related to the advancement of the disciplines but also by nation-building and a strong civilizing mission (e.g., Ahonen 2017; Castrén 1992). In simplified terms, this civilizing mission can be said to have meant educating “wild” Finns into more civilized citizens—so that they would behave correctly, speak proper Finnish, and master certain basic skills in mathematics, handicrafts, geography, and other areas.

School subjects have long been defined by precise internal principles of their subcultures. Alongside these, Finnish basic education curricula have for decades emphasized broader cross-subject entities, which in the previous curriculum were pursued through thematic entities and are now referred to as multidisciplinary learning modules (FNBE 2004; FNBE 2014). In addition to subject integration and various thematic approaches, it is important to remember that a subject itself does not inherently hold self-evident value in school. Subjects are a way of organizing the goals assigned to schooling—goals that always connect to broader conceptions of knowledge, worldview, and human life. Subjects thus form partly separate, partly intertwined responses to the central aims of schooling. This is also true of history.

In his 1887 essay On the Use and Abuse of History for Life, Friedrich Nietzsche wrote that historians have both the ability and even the purpose of alienating history from human life—so that, for example, for a school pupil it becomes not only boring but also meaningless. The connection to life is lost, and history itself becomes an end in itself (Nietzsche 1999). We have assigned this essay to several history students completing their pedagogical studies. Even 140 years after its publication, students are able to grasp Nietzsche’s idea quite well, although some find it difficult to accept his criticism of professional historians. Nietzsche’s description and reflections bring vividly to the surface the question of how much history should be constructed from outside people’s lives and how much from themselves. The latter enables a stronger connection to life than the former.

This tension is also at the core of school learning in history. The essential question concerns the extent to which the study of history is dominated, on the one hand, by pupils’ perspectives and, on the other hand, by professionals’ perspectives—and how much this ultimately returns to the school’s larger questions: pupils’ questions and professionals’ questions.

History teaching has traditionally been constructed on a discipline-based foundation, guided by historical research and by those historical contents considered central in society, as well as—more recently—by skills associated with subject competence, which the national core curricula for basic education in 1994, 2003, and 2014 have consistently emphasized. This traditional form of teaching has been challenged by phenomenon-based learning, in which study is built more strongly around dialogue among participants, the holistic examination of real-world phenomena, and the search for meaning. In phenomenon-based learning, inquiry is likewise central: through it, students explore not only historical phenomena but especially the understanding of historical knowledge itself.

A subculture is never completely uniform. In a system based on trust and autonomy, various emphases are present in classroom reality, and only some of them become public through research reports or publications concerning the development of teaching. The history of history teaching in Finland also shows that as long as history has been taught to the people in formal schooling, different perspectives have appeared in professional discussions (Veijola & Rautiainen 2019).

In this article, we examine how the study of history and history teacher education have been developed in the direction of phenomenon-based and inquiry-based learning. The development has been exploratory in nature and has not been based on a specific model of inquiry learning or on a particular description of a phenomenon. In our examination, the phenomenon is positioned as a central idea that we have sought not only to understand but also to develop as part of studies in accordance with the principles presented in Figure 1. Although the contexts of our research are the subject culture of history and the education of history teachers, we describe the process in such a way that the questions and results raised are applicable to any school subject.

In phenomenon-based learning, the central aim is to enable teacher students and learners to find forms of teaching and study that produce meaningful and significant learning through inquiry, and in ways that are as participatory and learner-centered as possible. Such learning takes place within certain boundary conditions (such as space and time) and within the framework of goals set for teaching—especially the curriculum.

The Legacy of History and Its Future

At its simplest—or most difficult—history partly answers the question: who are we and where do we come from? We can never restore the past as it was. History is based on interpretations that are made not only through scientific methods but also through valuing the past. When the past is valued, certain elements are highlighted as meaningful and a particular perspective is emphasized as truth. World history and the present day are full of examples of such emphasis on a single perspective. Contemporary school history likewise emphasizes certain interpretations and viewpoints.

For example, the emphasis on Western countries is visible in the way we date the beginning of the Second World War to 1939, when the war began in Europe. It could just as well be considered to have begun in 1931, when Japan attacked Manchuria. Although curricula in both basic education and upper secondary school emphasize striving to understand the nature of historical knowledge—thereby foregrounding historical skills—the curriculum also plays a role in emphasizing national identity and Western value systems (see FNBE 2014, 2015).

There is also much that the tradition of history teaching has concealed within the subject itself in such a way that the entire profession has become more or less blind to it. One example is the gendered nature of history teaching. For instance, no critical analysis has been conducted of the gender images conveyed by history learning materials. Instead of history experts, the discussion has largely been maintained by journalists who have carried out content analyses of the position of women in history textbooks. The results have sparked discussion in both Finland and Sweden, as the analysis has shown that both Swedish and Finnish textbooks approach history from a strongly male perspective (Helsingin Sanomat 9 February 2015; Dagens Nyheter 15 January 2015). Women have largely been conspicuous by their absence in history textbooks.

Finnish teaching culture is characterized by a strong commitment to tradition, which creates unity within the teaching profession, since there are few regulations governing instruction that would otherwise standardize it. One example is the idea of model citizenship, which has historically been strong and continues to be so (see, e.g., Hakala 2007; Eronen, Värri & Syrjäläinen 2006). The tradition of history teaching is particularly strong in this respect, because its role in building national unity and Finnish identity has been central (Castrén 1992). One enduring expression of this tradition is the division of history into Finnish history and general history, especially in upper secondary education, but still also in several university history departments. In historical explanation, school history particularly emphasizes the relationship between cause and effect.

A Restless Time

Time is the central concept of history. History seeks to study—and thereby understand—the human being within a particular historical time. Jorma Kalela (2000) describes this process as an expedition into a foreign culture, the ultimate aim of which is to better understand oneself and one’s own culture. In Finnish school history teaching, however, time has at times taken on teleological features, as the emphasis on a national narrative in textbooks appears as a story highlighting the journey toward independence, the defense of independence (the wars), and the emergence of the Finnish success story (the welfare state) (see Ahonen 2017). In such an approach, the emphasis on causes and consequences is central. Causes are used to justify and give meaning to the birth of the independent Finnish state and the developments that followed.

The significance of cause and consequence is indisputable, not only in scientific historical explanation but also in historical understanding. However, time is more than a rational chain of causes and consequences emphasizing human action. If one cuts a slice of time and studies the human being within a particular historical period, the examination of time does not form a linear continuum. Instead, the phenomena within that time relate to one another and form an overall picture or understanding of that historical period. Such an approach to time and temporality was experimented with over a decade ago at the Jyväskylä Teacher Training School in the history teaching of one class in grades 7 and 8 (Rautiainen 2005). In the experiment, pupils followed the traditional chronological progression of history in their own textbook. Class time, however, was devoted to investigating phenomena in such a way that in each semester pupils had one research topic, which they explored in pairs or small groups. Over the course of two school years, the four themes selected for examination were nineteenth-century urbanization, the 1920s, the Second World War, and youth cultures after the Second World War.

The basic idea of the experiment was to combine pupils’ interests with an understanding of the nature of historical knowledge, especially its interpretive character. In this way, the aim was to unite not only the core objective of the historical discipline and the curriculum, but also to strongly acknowledge the child’s own agency in studying. In practice, the pupil was allowed to choose what aspect of each theme to study. In addition, the form of the final product was decided by the pupil (see also Hähkiöniemi et al. in this volume).

Below are two descriptions representing the development of two different types of pupils in the group over two years. All pupils in the experimental group can be placed in one or the other type.

“Y had already been interested in history in primary school. He was fascinated both by precise details and by exciting stories and events. In primary school, Y read the textbook diligently and raised his hand for every question in class. The same continued in lower secondary school. At times, however, his focus on studying itself would lapse during lessons if something engaging emerged in his mind or in the discussion.

The new inquiry-based approach gave Y a new opportunity to study history. Connecting his own interests to his studies led to combining ideas and experimenting. For example, Y tested for himself during a weekend trip what it was like to operate in cold conditions such as those soldiers experienced during the Second World War. Studying youth cultures, in turn, offered Y the opportunity to deepen his music hobby by exploring 1970s music and popular culture, and to combine this with his interest in film, resulting in his own movie about the life of the 1970s rock generation. At times, historical interpretation also took literary forms.

Z, at the beginning of seventh grade, was a withdrawn pupil who had very little interest in history. He never raised his hand, but on the other hand did not disturb others’ studying either. Adapting to the new way of working was difficult for Z. Conversations with him about what interested him were brief and usually led to “I don’t know” responses. The teacher nevertheless gave him time to think and tried to help him choose a topic.

Eventually, somewhat skeptically, Z took up a topic dealing with animals in a certain historical period—skeptical in the sense of whether studying and researching such a topic would really be possible in school history teaching. After this, Z worked purposefully and enthusiastically toward the goal.”

What both pupil types had in common was the broadening of historical thinking through their own research topics. Central to this opening was taking the learner’s interest into account and valuing it. Regardless of the topic, pupils inevitably encountered the key questions concerning the nature of historical knowledge. Personal searching for information and “hunting” for sources led every pupil to recognize the limited amount of preserved historical evidence. These experiences related to the nature of historical knowledge made it possible to hold shared discussions with the whole class—not only about the nature of historical knowledge but also about its significance.

In the experiment, time was connected not only to the study of history but also to pedagogy. When students had the opportunity to delve calmly and without haste into a particular historical phenomenon, it led to learning aligned with the objectives. Understanding the nature of historical knowledge requires time and learner-centered working methods. The same idea of unhurried time was applied, inspired by the experiment, to teacher education, where talk of inquiry-based learning had remained largely verbal. Only a few had tried the inquiry perspective in practice. In the early 2010s, the program was reformed so that it focused more strongly on inquiry-based learning, and experiments built around it became compulsory.

In this article, we examine whether the change made in the program influenced students’ pedagogical thinking and practice. We approach this from the perspective of inquiry-based learning, in which the investigated phenomena are central. Our research question is:

How did teacher students experience inquiry-based learning as a foundation for the teaching and study of history?

Discussion as a Mirror of Thinking

The data for this study were collected over two consecutive spring semesters from two groups of students studying to become history teachers. At the end of their pedagogical studies, each student was required to write a description of their own pedagogical thinking, no longer than two pages. In this description, two perspectives had to be considered: the school level (work community) and one’s own teaching.

Each student participated in an individual discussion in which the description of pedagogical thinking and any changes that had occurred during the pedagogical studies in relation to teaching, learning, and the teaching profession were examined. In addition, the following two questions were posed in the discussions:

1. What do you think about inquiry-based learning?
2. Do you see yourself as a teacher whose work is based on inquiry-based learning?

Discussions were held with all members of the graduating groups, totaling 25 students. Each discussion lasted between 30 and 60 minutes. The purpose of the discussions was not to collect research data, but to deepen the student’s own understanding of their teacher identity. In order to ensure that the discussion would be as open and safe as possible, it was decided not to record it. Instead, the researcher took notes, focusing on responses relevant to the two questions mentioned above.

Each participant was informed about the background and aims of the study and was then asked for consent to participate. One student declined. The ethical principles applied in the study were also explained, including that responses would be treated anonymously.

The data were analyzed using content analysis (Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2013). Students’ views on inquiry-based learning were grouped inductively into three types: supporter of inquiry-based learning; supporter with certain reservations; and critical toward inquiry-based learning. Particular attention in the analysis was paid to how students justified their stance either in favor of or against inquiry-based learning.

The groups that emerged from students’ meaning-making were united by their relationship to inquiry-based learning. One group consisted of those who had experienced an insight into inquiry-based learning during their studies. Another included those who saw so many obstacles to applying inquiry-based learning in school practice that their stance was not only reserved but, for some, even negative. Between these was the largest group numerically. These students responded enthusiastically to inquiry-based learning but saw obstacles and difficulties in transferring the ideas into practice.

From Doubt to Enthusiasm – Three Images of History Teaching

Better Than the Traditional

The fundamental task of teacher education is twofold. On the one hand, it must prepare students to face current school work and the teaching profession. On the other hand, it must critically examine the present and, through that critical analysis, seek a vision of how school should be developed—and strive toward this development already during teacher education.

In our data, seven students experienced the perspective on history and its learning presented in teacher education as so transformative for their pedagogical thinking that they saw it as forming the foundation of their work as history teachers.

“When I was told during my basic teacher studies about inquiry-based learning—a new way of teaching—I was horrified. I wanted to teach the way I had been taught. My resistance to change lasted about a year, until I embraced the ideas of the new teaching approach in spring 2015 through reflections in subject didactics classes and in a teacher seminar on philosophy of life education. Already in autumn 2014, the ‘Tollund Man’ exercise conducted for teacher students had blown my mind regarding the new teaching approach, but the final turning point came after reading Rancière’s The Ignorant Schoolmaster. What moved me most in the book was the idea that babies learn to walk, speak, and do ‘all the other baby things’ without anyone teaching them. According to Rancière, all people know how to learn—infancy proves that. When a child is sent to preschool, they begin to be taught. In preschool, the child is subjected to the idea that they do not know or cannot do anything unless the teacher teaches it to them. This idea of subordination is visible in the school system from preschool all the way to university. I want to fight against such a school system.”

Reflection on the relationship between a strong theoretical vision and concrete action was typical of all seven of these students. In addition, they spoke enthusiastically about the significance of their future work as teachers—not only for pupils but also for society. Their reflections were marked by both personal and collective perspectives. Their own professional agency and identity appeared strong. They were guided by the idea that they would act as teachers in the future and committed strongly to the profession already during their teaching practice.

According to the descriptions of pedagogical thinking and the interviews, this development was influenced by both successful and repeated experiences during teaching practice with learning modules designed according to inquiry-based learning. One student described these experiences as “far more rewarding than anything else.” In addition to personal experiences, discussions with students also revealed the discovery of theoretical understanding. In the quotation above, the student refers to the French thinker Jacques Rancière. In addition, Paulo Freire, Antonio Gramsci, and Lev Vygotsky appeared in students’ texts. Their own “emancipation” was reflected in a desire to implement more pupil-centered and critically oriented forms of learning in their teaching.

Another student described their pedagogical thinking by highlighting the role of pupils:

“In my teaching of history and social studies, the guiding ideas are inquiry-based learning and experientiality. By inquiry-based learning, I mainly mean that the teacher does not provide ready-made answers to everything but instead sparks pupils’ interest, encourages pupils to seek information themselves, and gives space for their own curiosity to awaken—thus enabling pupils to pose their own questions and search for answers to them. Through inquiry-based learning, pupils explore the issues at hand in ways other than merely listening to lectures, and at the same time acquire skills—such as information retrieval skills—that are useful beyond school life.”

The most important justification for inquiry-based learning was its potential to understand knowledge not only from multiple perspectives and thus more thoroughly, but also to enable the application of learned skills in one’s own life. Alongside information-seeking skills, students considered the development of critical thinking skills and the application of knowledge in everyday life to be important.

Although these students saw the task of the teacher as demanding, they differed most clearly from others in their greater trust in pupils’ ability to learn and in their own ability to teach according to their chosen approach. The students in this group had also found their own ways of teaching history and were able to justify them. They had a positive view of learning and confidence that their way of working was sensible.

“What, then, do I consider to be the principles that should guide these experiments? In my view, topics should be taught in a phenomenon-based way, and concepts should be pushed aside as much as possible. I believe that the topics themselves are exciting, but we ruin them by dressing them up in a dull conceptual form. This veil that hinders learning must be removed as often as possible. In practice, when I teach, I try to think about the topic by starting from the phenomenon itself and describing it in an understandable way, eliminating what I see as unnecessary and irrelevant elements from the context. This usually requires a deeper understanding of the topic in order to function in this way. Depending on the subject being taught, success in this varies, but in general I believe I have succeeded in this quite well.”

It is interesting how this student, on the one hand, wants to “push concepts aside,” yet on the other hand writes that this requires a “deeper understanding” of the subject. Deeper understanding of phenomena often requires conceptualization. In learning history, defining concepts has an important role, yet studying often reduces itself to memorizing definitions. The student quotation refers to this tradition, and the student seeks through their own practice to break with it—bringing learning closer to the pupil’s own life and toward more learner-centered approaches.

Behind these tensions is also the fact that adopting a new perspective is a slow process, involving not only a reconsideration of the role of the subject but also the processing of one’s conception of learning and teaching, as well as the construction of one’s teacher identity (see also Peltomaa & Luostarinen in this volume).

Not Everything Needs to Change

Three students in our data did not see inquiry-based learning as forming the foundation of their work—at least not yet (see also Lindell et al. in this volume).

“I have not yet internalized the deepest essence of inquiry-based learning, and that partly troubles me. In teaching practice, implementing and practicing it has also been difficult, since one only gets to teach a particular group for very short periods. During my own upper secondary course, I was able to engage with it a bit more, but even there it was limited by the fact that the course was taught jointly by three different people.”

Two students expressed uncertainty and a critical stance toward inquiry-based learning that stemmed from negative experiences. This was not so much a rejection of inquiry-based learning as a strong disappointment in themselves and in the structures of the program. According to these students, school structures did not sufficiently allow for the practice of inquiry-based learning. They also experienced collaboration with others as hindering rather than enabling inquiry-based learning. However, they were unable to propose alternatives other than increasing individual teaching time. This stands in strong contradiction to the communal goal of the program, according to which difficult questions are solved precisely through working together. The third student in this group, however, distanced themselves quite clearly from inquiry-based learning.

“Of course, the actual teaching component is also important in lessons, and I personally support traditional note-taking. Although I have recently become more enthusiastic about different applied learning methods, I do not think everything needs to change. For example, in history I feel that taking notes helps pupils structure the material they are studying more effectively.”

This student’s pedagogical thinking was strongly grounded in an individually experienced perspective. Their thinking emphasized not only their own school experiences, but also their understanding of themselves as a learner and their experiences of meaningful lessons during teaching practice. What was common to all three students was that they did not describe their conception of learning and teaching as a dialogue between theory and practice. Instead, they based their views largely on their own observations and experiences.

“I Would, But…”

More than half of the students studying to become history teachers (15 out of 25) considered inquiry-based learning an important way of studying history, but they saw it as partly idealistic and detached from practical realities.

“(I may have partly answered this already in the previous section, but) my biggest shortcoming is the lack of concrete methods. I have seen and heard wonderful lessons and even working methods that align with my pedagogical ideas, but I often feel that very little concrete remains in my hands. Many of the lessons taught by supervising teachers were also very different from what I had expected based on my studies. At times it felt challenging to carry Friday’s enthusiastic feeling into the following week’s actual teaching and concrete practice, especially when at school one still sensed that (real or imagined) pressure and scrutiny. I feel I am still at a stage where I only do what is offered on the basis of instructions and models; if the given examples and models have been good, then the lesson has gone well.”

For most students, their own school experience of history teaching had been very traditional, built around note-taking and teacher talk. Against this background, the emphasis in teacher education on inquiry-based learning and phenomenon-basedness was new, somewhat anxiety-provoking and doubt-inducing, yet at the same time intriguing. We assume this stems from the fact that teacher education encouraged reflection on the significance of history teaching and on the nature of historical knowledge itself. Students were also challenged to understand the complexity of historical knowledge. They wished to offer this insight to their own pupils, but doubts about its practical realization made them thoughtful and cautious.

The three most frequently mentioned obstacles were resources (especially time), tradition and the lack of concrete models, and the labor-intensive nature of teaching implemented according to inquiry-based principles. Pupils’ conservatism toward teaching and doubts about pupils’ ability to cope with difficult and demanding tasks were also mentioned. Nevertheless, within the group of teacher students there was an emphasis on hope and belief that their work would lead to the birth of a new culture rather than the repetition of the old one.

“It would often seem easier just to present the key content through slides and notes, when one does not trust the teaching power of more applied tasks and wants to save valuable time. Still, I do not want to become stuck in old methods, because in my view that would take away all meaningfulness from a teacher’s work. In any case, the guiding idea in my teaching is that the pupil carries out the thinking process themselves and that I, as the teacher, merely provide stimuli. It sounds rather cliché, but it is probably still good to write it down.”

The Contingency of Education

The Finnish education system emphasizes teacher personality. With Martti Haavio’s (1948) work, it became after the Second World War one of the central areas of development in teacher education. In an increasingly individualistic society, teacher personality has taken on a very free form, and very different solutions by teachers are considered legitimate. The students studied here are currently beginning their teaching careers in different parts of Finland. From the pupils’ perspective, there is a significant difference depending on whether they encounter a teacher committed to phenomenon-basedness and inquiry-based learning, or one who relies on note-taking and their own presentation. The same education thus seems to influence individuals in very different ways. What does this tell us?

Inquiry-based learning was at the center of the training throughout. In joint discussions during the program, students repeatedly expressed doubts about the possibilities of inquiry-based learning in “real life.” Each student engaged in an internal struggle between the new perspective and the traditional model of studying familiar from their own school years. This tension also represents a struggle between an academic, research-oriented stance and a more general, emotionally grounded conception. The majority of students set aside academic arguments and relied on their own experiences. The strongest support for inquiry-based learning and its adoption came from positive experiences and insights gained through its use, as well as from sustained practice in an upper secondary course. In contrast, scientific arguments—such as changes related to history teaching and their impact on learning in England, or the learning of scientific concepts (Vygotsky 1982)—inspired only two students in themselves. For the others, these became interesting only after experience. This illustrates how, in teacher education—whose nature is reflective—the integration of conceptual knowledge and experiential knowledge is emphasized. For those students who did not gain successful experiences of inquiry-based learning during their practice, their image of inquiry-based learning remained incomplete and their understanding of its possibilities insufficient.

Subjects have been seen as having strong academic tribal cultures (Ylijoki 1998). In her doctoral dissertation, Veijola (2013) studied the four-year process of students directly admitted to study to become history teachers. One of the central findings of the dissertation was the breaking of the academic tribal culture during pedagogical studies, especially subject didactics. In the education of history teachers described in this article, this breaking of tribal culture has been pursued in an even more purposeful way. It has led to a deepening of students’ pedagogical thinking in relation to inquiry-based learning and phenomenon-basedness, thus breaking students’ ties to their academic tribe (history). However, inquiry-based learning or phenomenon-basedness did not become a new strong tribal affiliation. The relationship to inquiry-based learning was based primarily on thinking formed through experience, rather than on examining the relationship between theory and experience. For this reason, a strong doubt remained in students’ thinking, crystallized in the question they often raised in our meetings: why do so few teachers teach in the way we are learning to teach in teacher education? We would hope that every teacher and teacher community would take up this core question.

Epilogue: The Possibility of a New Culture

We have often heard that, due to the nature of the discipline, phenomenon-basedness cannot be possible in the subject of history. The claim is peculiar, since history examines human action in the past. When we examine the past, we of course work with incomplete knowledge, but the starting point is in principle the same as when studying phenomena related to the present. A phenomenon-based approach to history requires taking seriously the doubts repeatedly raised by teacher students regarding the sufficiency of resources, the labor-intensive nature of teaching, and the absence of tradition and concrete models.

Experimenting together is a way to create a new culture, and we have sought to do this together with school teachers and with class and subject teacher students in training. The situation is excellent because it brings both teachers and students together to something new and thus makes them more equal with one another, since in new situations old, established patterns of action and thinking do not necessarily work. It also forces participants to confront a different pedagogical situation that cannot be ignored or avoided, but must be faced both theoretically and practically as a whole. One such shared step toward something new was carried out in Korpilahti in November 2016.

Juho Annala, a history teacher at Korpilahti lower secondary school, emphasizes an inquiry-oriented approach in his teaching and also offers a special elective course on historical research. When planning the continuation of our collaboration, Juho proposed an overnight school event in which pupils would spend six hours solving a problem related to a terrorist attack, beginning from a fictional initial situation in which a terrorist attack has just occurred in Finland and the pupils must identify the perpetrators before a new attack takes place. Students from the Department of Teacher Education chose as the cornerstone of the pedagogical plan the idea of an open game, in which the task to be solved would be clear, but the game itself would contain different paths and alternatives, from which pupils would have to find the correct one.

The game was launched in cooperation with YLE. The students created a special news broadcast at the YLE Central Finland studio, in which it was reported that a terrorist attack had occurred. This was shown to the pupils, who were then divided into small groups—the Korpilahti unit of the Security Intelligence Service. The school itself had been transformed into a miniature city, complete with a command center, a restaurant, houses and rooms, and a marketplace. For the task, separate online environments had also been created (including the website of a far-right group), as well as various simulated social realities. The game was designed so that different clues in various forms were continuously released, and each group had its own “home base,” where they constructed from the clues the most likely group behind the terrorist attack. Finally, when the clock struck midnight, the groups had to present their justified proposals identifying the perpetrators of the attack.

In their final report, the teacher students described their experience as follows:

“Overall, the project as a whole was extremely rewarding and educational not only for the pupils but also for us students. In our view, the goals we set were achieved well, and during the game the pupils were able to utilize many different research skills. For us students, planning and implementing the project was a good example of working and acting in the spirit of the new curriculum. We believe that in the future we will also be able to carry out similar projects successfully.”

Information Box

• Our research reinforced the understanding of how important it is in education and teaching to reflect on its deepest meaning and purpose. In the case of history teaching, the fundamental question is: why is it valuable to study history in school?

• School history teaching today emphasizes historical skills. Learning and developing these skills require pedagogical solutions in which pupils can practice and acquire them.

• Skills are not technical matters that can simply be taught; they require continuous reflection on the question of the meaning of history teaching.

• Experiments always require justification from those who carry them out, whereas old practices can continue without justification. This is not a sign of a professional community. Rather, teacher communities should strive to develop their culture of discussion through various forms of dialogue and discussion exercises so that they can identify the critical points of their own practice. There is no learning and developing community without the ability to see differently.

References

Ahonen, Sirkka (2017) The Many Myths of Finnishness. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.

Castrén, Matti J. (1992) History Teaching in a Changing Society. In Matti J. Castrén, Sirkka Ahonen, Pauli Arola, Keijo Elio & Arja Pilli (eds.) History at School. Helsinki: University Press, 11–47.

Goodson, Ivor (2001) Making the Curriculum: Essays on the Social Construction of Curriculum and School Subjects. Translated by Erja Moore. Joensuu: Joensuu University Press.

Goodson, Ivor (2005) Learning, Curriculum and Life Politics: The Selected Works of Ivor F. Goodson. London: Routledge.

Haavio, Martti (1948) Teacher Personality. Jyväskylä: Gummerus.

Hakala, Katariina (2007) The Position of the One Who Knows Better and the Space of Knowing Differently: Teacherhood (and Researcherhood) as a Pedagogical Relationship. Research Reports 212, Department of Education, University of Helsinki.

Heinonen, Juha-Pekka (2005) Curricula or Learning Materials? Primary School Teachers’ Conceptions of the Significance of Curricula and Learning Materials in Teaching. University of Helsinki, Department of Applied Educational Science.

Kalela, Jorma (2000) Historical Research and History. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.

Nietzsche, Friedrich (1999/1874) On the Use and Abuse of History for Life. Translated by Anssi Halmesvirta. Jyväskylä: JULPU.

Finnish National Board of Education (2004) National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2004. Regulation 1–3/011/2004. Helsinki: FNBE.

Finnish National Board of Education (2014) National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2014. Regulations and Guidelines 2014:96. Helsinki: FNBE.

Finnish National Board of Education (2015) National Core Curriculum for General Upper Secondary Education 2015. Regulations and Guidelines 2015:48. Helsinki: FNBE.

Rautiainen, Matti (2005) The Language of History – An Integration Experiment between History and Mother Tongue and Literature. In Kaija Nukarinen (ed.) The Training School Researches and Develops. Yearbook 2005 of the Jyväskylä Teacher Training School. Publications of the Jyväskylä Teacher Training School 8, 67–79.

Rautiainen, Matti & Kostiainen, Emma (2013) Inquiry-Based Learning – Confusion, Wonder, and Questions? In Mika Kangas, Liisa Lamminsivu-Risku & Kerttu Pylvänäinen (eds.) From Upper Secondary School to Working Life. Central Finland Upper Secondary Project, 13–14.

Syrjäläinen, Eija, Eronen, Ari & Värri, Veli-Matti (2006) Narratives of Student Teachers: Student Teachers’ Societal Orientation and Their Conceptions of Their Own Possibilities for Influence at the University. Final Report of the “Civic Influence as a Challenge” Project 2006. Research Reports 6, Research and Development Centre for Historical and Social Studies Education, University of Helsinki.

Tuomi, Jouni & Sarajärvi, Anneli (2013) Qualitative Research and Content Analysis. Helsinki: Tammi.

Veijola, Anna (2013) The Development of Pedagogical Thinking in Subject Teacher Education: A Study of Directly Admitted History Teacher Students. Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research 478. University of Jyväskylä.

Veijola, Anna & Rautiainen, Matti (2019) Nothing New Under the Sun: Change and Continuity in History Teaching. The Grand Narrative of the History of History Teaching in Finland. Article manuscript.

Vygotsky, Lev (1982/1934) Thinking and Speech. Translated by K. Varis and A. Koski-Jännes. Espoo: Weilin & Göös.

Ylijoki, Oili-Helena (1998) Academic Tribal Cultures and the Socialization of Novices. Tampere: Vastapaino.