The Teacher Training School located in Turku has over 1000 pupils as well as teachers and staff around 140. Further, around 170 subject teacher students intern there yearly. What’s more, this school in particular is rather international since one can hear around 40 languages there.
Both Finnish and English are official teaching languages as pupils may eventually graduate with an International Baccalaureate degree. Due to its diversity with people and school levels, the school offers great experience for a subject teacher student. But without further ado, let’s take a look on the school.
As a teacher student it’s fascinating to speculate ‘what kind of teacher will I become?’. Based on Dr. Sue Askew, an university lecturer in health education in the University College of London, I’ll go through present day models of teaching. They comprise of roles for teacher, goals of teaching, what’s the view on learning and how feedback is seen.
Role of teacher is to be an ‘expert’ and goals for teaching are to impart new knowledge, concepts and skills.
(This is fairly basic and could be seen as the minimum base for teaching). View of learning includes that a cognitive dimension is stressed. Learning is individual and affected by ability which is fixed. Learning involves increased understanding of new ideas, memorasing new facts, practising new skills and making decisions based on new information.
(Memorasing is currently losing ground in teaching, since understanding and making connections are more emphasized). Feedback discourse is considered as traditional discourse in which ‘expert’ gives information to others to help them improve. Main goal through feedback is to evaluate and it’s seen as a gift for the pupil.
(Feedback is then sort of given one-way. Most teachers I have encountered have utilized feedback in this manner).
Role of teacher is to be an expert. Goals incorporate facilitating the discovery of new knowledge, concepts and skills. And helping to make connections, discover meanings as well as to gain new insights. View of learning is based on cognitive dimension, although social dimension is recognised to some extent. Learning is affected by abilities which can be developed and is affected by experiences. Learning involves making connections between old and new experiences, integrating new knowledge and extending established schema.
(It’s important to see learning as an ability that can always be developed, as contrast it being somehow ‘fixed’ ability). Feedback discourse means an expanded discourse in which ‘experts’ enables others to gain understandings, make sense of experiences and make connections by the use of open questions and shared insight. Primary goal is to describe and discuss. Feedback is considered as two-way process.
Role of teacher is based more on an equal power dynamic. Teachers view themselves as learners. Goals include facilitating the discovery of new knowledge, concepts and skills. And to help make connections, discover meaning plus gain new insights. To practise self-reflection and facilitate a reflexive process in others about learning through a collaborative dialogue.
(In general I see this style progressive and good, but it could also weaken teacher’s credibility. Yet, it has to be acknowledged that a teacher is never ready and there’s always room for improvement). View of learning includes that the cognitive, emotional and social dimensions of learning are seen as interconnected and equally important. The view of learning is extended to include reflection on the learning process itself and meta-learning, that is learning about learning.
(This manner brings up sociological dimensions of teaching, which should be better understood in order to improve pedagogical thinking). Feedback discourse is based on expanded discourse involving a reciprocal process of talking about learning. Primary goal is to illuminate learning for all. Feedback is a dialogue, formed by loops connecting the participants.
(Finally, this manner stresses that feedback should go both ways and that teachers should also receive feedback from pupils).
As always, comments and feedback are most appreciated 😉
Technically speaking school curriculums are administrative documents, which include goals of teaching, desired information and skill levels, teaching methods, time needed for teaching/learning as well as actions needed from pupils and lastly evaluation of their learning. In theory, curriculums are based on values and norms of each society and they are built on a vision for future needs.Curriculums change as new information comes along, through transforms of political tendency and paradigm shifts. For instance Finnish basic education’s curriculum reform from 1994 was partly based on an analysis about quick change in economic environment. Finland was recovering from a deep recession caused by the collapse of Soviet Union. It was then that school system’s function concerning upbringing was recognised in a more profound way (to aid families in the midst of financial problems) and the need for lifelong learning was brought up, so that swift changes in the society wouldn’t cause too much disturbance.
Moreover, it’s possible to perceive from the school curriculums whether societies appreciate first and foremost that an individual is adapted to the society or are individual personalities taken more into account. Naturally it isn’t as black and white, due to the fact curriculums may involve many elements. In any case in Finland curriculums have transformed from emphasizing ‘collective good’ to ‘individuality’ and religious ‘lutherian morale’ to ‘rationality’ (whatever that in any given moment might be).
Another aspect to look at curriculums is to investigate how well they translate to real life scenarios. In Finland equality is an important factor in curriculums and in principle, they are neutral documents in which gender isn’t present, but girls and boys are rather treated as equal pupils. In that context equality is defined as equal rights and obligations for girls and boys covering family life, education, job market as well as broader society. Lahelma (1992) has been inspecting school curriculums and according to her pupils always represent a gender as well — despite of school’s agenda. And one can wonder, whether pursuiting creativity, spontaneity and responsibility means same things for girls and boys. Lahelma emphasizes how gender neutral curriculum always get ‘genderalized’ in a reality where teaching practices and educational content differentiate boys’ and girls’ lives according to a social hierarchy between the two genders. As it’s also been studied through several school textbook analyses that textbooks are connected first and foremost to masculine experience. It’s then a paradox to think that curriculums somewhat aim for equality and neutrality, yet real life school teaching scenarios could make pursuing them difficult. I’ll look school textbooks more into detail in later posts.
Many of us have been taught deeply about important historical events, about times when our country faced a moment of crisis. In the case of Finland, such instance is probably best known as the Winter War (1939—1940). While those struggles should not be forgotten or be left out from the curriculum, there are also other historical themes which could be taught to pupils more in depth.
It’s eventually a choice what we teach and how. A constant debate exists how much emphasis is to be put on certain topics and how the ever-present lack of time should be handled in teaching.Yet, I argue thatmarginal issues concerning for instance ethnical minorities could be addressed better through teaching. After all, we teach since we want to create awareness and improve critical thinking, not just reproduce lessons exactly the same way as was taught earlier.
Further, marginal issues should be more present during school lessons, because:
Today’s marginal issues could be tomorrow’s majority. During European history several natural scientific theories were put in margin due to the fact they didn’t fit into catholic church’s agenda.
It gives opportunities to explore new fields. Not everything has yet been researched and pupils should be encouraged to enter topics which aren’t mainstream.
They expand awareness. Teaching ultimately creates awareness and it’s our job to prepare pupils with better cognitive skills. Pupils learn to inspect a phenomenon through multiple angles.
They offer means to handle new knowledge. Pupils face new knowledge currently at the greatest speed ever. Handling and filtering incoming data is crucial. We don’t want anyone to feel powerless amidst information flow and that they can’t have an influence.
That’s a way to present pupils opportunities of discovery. The joy of making new findings and connecting them to earlier lessons is important for school motivation. It also underlines that anyone can make information discoveries.
All in all, this blog post leads us to question: What topics are left out of the curriculum and why?
(I’ll come to that more in future posts).
Please share if you have ideas concerning the topic.
These days we take education somewhat for granted in many parts of the world and perhaps rightly so. But I decided to go way back and inspect historical reasons for why the modern school system was created in the 18th and 19th century in Europe.
One explanation for modern school system is found through functional approach: schools were created in response for therepresentation dilemma. Before industrialisation and urbanisation seized Europe there wasn’t really a need for large-scale schools — parents taught their children all the necessary skills needed for instance in farming. But troubles appeared when factories started spreading, towns began changing and work places started moving farther away from the people. How could people learn without actually seeing how things were done in the industrialised society? School system was therefore needed to fill the knowledge gap.
Another explanation is to see schools as a product of modernisation, an evolution of societies, which was an evident result of the Age of Enlightenment (breakthrough in the 18th century). According to Zygmunt Bauman modern society could be described as a dream of humans to create order to world’s disorder and to be capable of ruling life through rationality and knowledge. Development of modern school system is a prime instance how that kind of order has been tried to achieve and maintain.
Thirdly, one could see schools being formed to gain social control. When legislation to restrict the use of child labor was put into effect in the most industrialized country in the world, England, in early 1800s a chain reaction leading to mass compulsory education began. It was common that everybody in worker families contributed by working in factories and it wasn’t until 1860 that use of child labor was effectively put to a halt. Parents had to work, often times for the whole day and children started roaming around cities, creating fears of social problems. That’s why schools were introduced — in a way to ‘store’ these children in a safe place of order.
Further, modern school system has been the central institution for separating people into different social and cultural layers. Main rule of thumb has been that the greater the degree, the greater the social and cultural status one has possessed. Schools are even as of today an important place where people find their calling, identify their own skills and compare them to others and eventually receive counsel to which area should they spesialize in.