Phenomenal!

A Phenomenon-Based Approach Renewing Teaching and Learning

Editors: Mirja Tarnanen and Emma Kostiainen

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

Preface

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

---

Phenomenon-Based Learning

Mirja Tarnanen & Emma Kostiainen

mirja.tarnanen@jyu.fi

University of Jyväskylä

Abstract

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

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

---

The Future and Learning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toward Real Life and Its Challenges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(John Wheeler)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phenomenon-Based Study – Objectives, Methods, and Assessment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IIDA-MARIA PELTOMAA & AKI LUOSTARINEN

iida-maria.peltomaa@tuni.fi

University of Tampere

Abstract

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

Keywords: operating culture, sociocultural myths, development process

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

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

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

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

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

The Goal: A Learning Community

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

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

In a learning community (FNBE 2014):

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

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

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

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

Developing Operating Culture and Leadership

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Innovations, Implementation, and Professional Development

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

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

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

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

Awareness of Myths as a Promoter of Operating Culture

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

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

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

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

---

The Myth of Knowledge Transmission

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Myth of Efficiency

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

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

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

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

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

The Myth of Immutability

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Myth of Preparing for Tests

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

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

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

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

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

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

Awareness of Myths in Operating Culture Change

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

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

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

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

Toward an Operating Culture that Supports Phenomenon-Based Learning

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

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

Table 2. Levels of Operating Culture Change

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

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

Information Box

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emma Kostiainen & Mirja Tarnanen

emma.kostiainen@jyu.fi

University of Jyväskylä

Abstract

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

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

Starting Points for Educational Development Work

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

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

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

Toward a Phenomenon-Based Curriculum

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Relationship Between Curriculum and Operating Culture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Different Way of Studying

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 2. Features of phenomenon-based study.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“breaking away from old, rigid study habits,”

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

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

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

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

The Strengths and Bottlenecks of Phenomenon-Based Study

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 3. Thematic tensions in phenomenon-based study.

Challenges, engages

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

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

– Appropriately challenging and demanding vs. too difficult, vague

Creates uncertainty, leads to passivity

Authenticity, credibility

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

– Meaningful, authentic vs. artificial, overly emphasized

– Trust vs. doubt toward phenomenon-basedness

Artificiality, lack of credibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anchors of Students’ Interest and Motivation in Their Studies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interaction and relationships supporting group and individual learning

– Functional interaction with peers and teachers

– Being noticed, encouragement, trust, feedback

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

– Opportunity to influence

– Multidimensional perspectives

– Usefulness and new perspectives

Strengthening of professional identity and attachment to the field

– Experiences of development and challenge

– Positive image of the teaching profession and its motivational character

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Collaborative expertise and its quality

Opportunity: Increased collaboration and sharing

Challenge: Ensuring diversity of collaboration and managing workload

Learner-centeredness

Opportunity: Strong student participation

Challenge: Ability to engage students

Renewing and development-oriented critical operating culture

Opportunity: Increased flexibility, openness, and courage to experiment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Core Features of Education Based on Phenomenon-Basedness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Together Toward the New

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Information Box

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aki Luostarinen, Jessica Gillberg & Iida-Maria Peltomaa

aki@proedugo.fi

Otava Folk High School

Abstract

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Learning Community as the Goal of Sannainen School

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enabling Change

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

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

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

Dialogue and Learning Together as Drivers of Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sharing Knowledge and Creating New Knowledge in the Community

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caring Leadership Supporting Change

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

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

Shared Vision, Competent Individuals, and a Learning Community

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

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

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

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

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

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

School Practices

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

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

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

Planning and Implementing Thematic Modules

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

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

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

Example of a Thematic Study Module for Grade 3

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

Table 1. Subject-Specific Objectives

Subject: Environmental Studies

Contents

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

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

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

---

Subject: Religion

Contents

• The Creation narrative

Pupil Objectives (T1, 3, 11)

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

---

Subject: Mathematics

Contents

• Clock
• Calendar
• Day and night

Pupil Objectives (T2, 5)

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

---

Subject: Mother Tongue and Literature

Contents

Pupil Objectives (T3, 5–7, 10–12)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grade 3: Time and Space

Clock Times

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

Seasons

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

Concepts and Information Retrieval

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

Creation Theories

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

Working Skills

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

---

Participation, Activity, and Inquiry-Based Work

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

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

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

Joy in Learning and Working

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

What Was Learned During the Change Process?

Sharing and Working Together

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Course of the Process

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

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

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

Preconditions for Successful Change

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

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

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

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

---

Information Box

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Metamorphosis – Glimpses of Educational Change

Aimo Naukkarinen & Matti Rautiainen

aimo.naukkarinen@jyu.fi

University of Jyväskylä

Abstract

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

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

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

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

Prologue

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

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

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

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

Shedding the Emperor’s Old Clothes

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

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

Aimo Naukkarinen & Matti Rautiainen

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

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

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

Colleagues Criticize, the Caravan Moves On…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Defeats Goliath and Brings Light

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

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

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

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

Goliath Defeats David and David Rises from the Mat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Beginning of Structural Reforms

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

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

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

Coincidence or Not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

INITIAL STATE: Dissatisfaction with the prevailing situation

→ Critical analysis

→ Discussion of the need for change

→ Experiments

→ Strong participation of the community

→ Structural changes

→ Curriculum reform

Figure 1. Phases of educational change.

---

Information Box

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Student and Pupil Welfare Act 1287/2013 (2013)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part 2: Renewing Teacherhood, Agency, and Communality

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

MERJA KAUPPINEN, LEENA AARTO-PESONEN & EMMA KOSTIAINEN

merja.kauppinen@karvi.fi

Finnish Education Evaluation Centre

Abstract

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

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

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

Milestones of Renewing Learning

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

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

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

Phenomenon-Based Learning for Individuals and Small Groups

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tensions in Phenomenon-Based Learning

Enthusiastic Innovation or Uncertainty-Laden Chaos?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“…this content would need something extra that normally d

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

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

Liberation of Learning or Clinging to the Familiar?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, the data also revealed n

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joy of Learning or Strained Relationships?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phenomenon-Based Learning Experiences in Developing Teachers’ Professional Competence

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

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

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

Features of the Phenomenon-Based Learning Process

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

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

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

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

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

Guiding the Phenomenon-Based Learning Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

INFORMATION BOX

Guidelines for Guiding Phenomenon-Based Learning

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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