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:

What does phenomenon-basedness generate and produce in students’ experiences?
What kinds of tensions appear in students’ orientations?
What factors generate and produce a motivating and inspiring operating culture?
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

shifted learning toward a more inquiry-oriented direction that develops deeper understanding and has increased the breadth of content,
increased learner-centeredness and strengthened their agency, and
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:

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.
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

interaction and relationships that support both group and individual learning,
ownership of their own learning, relevance to working life and future orientation, and
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:

collaborative expertise and its quality,
learner-centeredness, and
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:

the experience of agency (active – passive),
the experience of the development of professional identity and learning (deep, broad, meaningful – superficial, thin), and
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).