Phenomenal!

A Phenomenon-Based Approach Renewing Teaching and Learning

Editors: Mirja Tarnanen and Emma Kostiainen

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

Here is the complete, untruncated translation of page 7:

---

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 and…

remain 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.