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.