Reframing Teacher Education: Towards the Integration of Phenomenon-Based Curriculum Reform and Organizational Culture

Abstract

In this article, we report a case study of our experiences of a curriculum reform process based on the principles of phenomenon-based learning in higher education in the context of Finnish teacher education. We explore how democracy and participation were present in the decision-making process, highlighting the challenges of promoting the phenomenon-based approach and collaboration. First, we describe the reform’s rationale, then the theoretical framework, methodology and the reform process. Next, we reflect on our experiences through documentary and interview data. The change process included representative and participative democracy approaches as well as an aristocratic approach. An individualistic culture became more collaborative, while the content-based curriculum evolved into a more phenomenon-based approach. Using an autoethnographic approach, we discuss our understanding of how the local teacher education community’s response to the curriculum changes and the organizational culture overall became more positive. We conclude that organizational power structures, the autonomy of teacher educators, and collegial trust and support were crucial to the reform process.

Keywords

• curriculum reform
• teacher education
• micropolitics
• autoethnographic approach

References

1. Achinstein, B. (2002). Conflict amid community: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. Teacher College Record, 104(3), 421–455. doi: 10.1111/1467-9620.00168
2. Ahtola, A., & Niemi, P. (2014). Does it work in Finland? School psychological services within a successful system of basic education. School Psychology International, 35(2), 136–151. doi: 10.1177/0143034312469161
3. Allan, E., & Estler, S. (2005). Diversity, privilege, and us: Collaborative curriculum transformation among educational leadership faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 29(3), 209–232. doi: 10.1007/s10755-005-1937-y
4. Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 35(4), 373–395.
5. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1996). Organizational learning II. Theory, method and practice. New York: Addison-Wesley.
6. Beach, D., & Bagley, C. (2013). Changing professional discourses in teacher education policy back towards a training paradigm. European Journal of Teacher Education, 36(4), 379–392. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2013.815162
7. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1991). The social construction of reality. 6th ed. London: Penguin Books.
8. Blase, J. (1991). The micropolitical perspective. In J. Blase (Ed.), The politics of life in schools (pp. 1–18). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

9. Bolander K., Josephson, A. Mann, S., & Lonka K. (2006). Teachers promoting expertise in medical education – Understanding the role of the core curriculum. Quality in Higher Education, 12, 41¬–55.
10. Boyle, M., & Parry K. 2007. Telling the whole story: The case for organizational autoethnography. Culture and Organization, 13(3), 185–190.
11. Butler, C., & Naukkarinen, A. (2017). Inclusion and democracy in England and Finland. In A. Raiker, & M. Rautiainen (Eds.), Educating for democracy in England and Finland: Principles and culture (pp. 109–126). Routledge.
12. Byman, R., Krokfors, L., Toom, A., Maaranen, K., Jyrhämä, R., Kynäslahti, H., & Kansanen, P. (2009). Educating inquiry-oriented teachers: Students’ attitudes and experiences towards research-based teacher education. Educational Research and Evaluation 15, 79–92. doi: 10.1080./13803610802591808
13. Caena, F. (2014). Comparative global perspectives on European teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 106–122. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2013.845165
14. Cherry, K. (2009). The problem of polity: Political participation and Aristotle’s best regime. The Journal of Politics, 71(4), 1406–1421. doi:10.1017/S002238160999003X
15. Collinson, V., Cook, T., & Conley, S. (2006). Organizational learning in schools and school systems: Improving learning, teaching, and leading. Theory into Practice, 45(2), 107–116. url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40071584.
16. Dee, J., & Heineman, W. (2016). Understanding the organizational context of academic program development. New Directions for Institutional Research 168, 9–35. doi:10.1002/ir.20158
17. Denzin, N. (1978). The research act. A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
18. Ellis, C. (2004). The ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
19. Ellis, C. (2007). Telling secrets, revealing lives: Relational ethics in research with intimate others. Qualitative Inquiry, 13, 3–29.
20. Ellis, C., Adams, T., & Bochner, A. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12(1), Art.10. url: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1589/3095.
21. Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: Researcher as subject. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 733–768). London: SAGE.
22. Farrell, L., Bourgeois-Law, G., Regehr, G., & Ajjawi, R. (2015). Autoethnography: Introducing “I” into medical education research. Medical Education, 49, 974–982.
23. Fasso, W., Knight, B., & Purnell, K. (2016). Distributed leadership of school curriculum change: An integrative approach. School Leadership & Management, 36(2), 204–220. doi: 10.1080/13632434.2016.1209177
24. Flessa, J. (2009). Educational micropolitics and distributed leadership. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(3), 331–349. doi: 10.1080/01619560902973522
25. Fullan, M. (2003). Successful school improvement: The implementation perspective and beyond. Buckingham: Open University Press.
26. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. New York, USA: Teachers College Press.
27. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
28. González-Calvo, G., & Arias-Carballal, M. (2017). Effects from audit culture and neoliberalism on university teaching: An autoethnographic perspective. Ethnography and Education (online, July 4, 2017), doi: 10.1080/17457823.2017.1347885
29. Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2009). The fourth way is a critical read for all educators for two reasons. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press (SAGE).
30. Harinen, P., & Halme, J. (2012). Hyvä, paha koulu. Kouluhyvinvointia hakemassa. Helsinki: Unigrafia.
31. Heikkinen, H. L. T., Aho, J., & Korhonen, H. (2015). Ope ei saa oppia. Opettajankoulutuksen jatkumon kehittäminen. Jyväskylän yliopisto: Koulutuksen tutkimuslaitos.
32. Hickey, A., & Austin, J. (2007). Pedagogies of self: Conscientising the personal to the social. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 3(1), 21–29. url: http://www.apacall.org.
33. Hinde, E. (2004). An examination of the effects of school culture on the process of change. Arizona West State University.
34. Holman Jones, S. (2005). Autoethnography: Making the personal political. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 763-791). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
35. Hopkins, N., & Tarnanen, M. (2017). Democracy and the curriculum: English and Finnish perspectives. In A. Raiker, & M. Rautiainen (Eds.), Educating for democracy in England and Finland: Principles and culture (pp. 69–80). London: Routledge.
36. Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
37. Hughes, S., & Noblit, G. (2017). Meta-ethnography of autoethnographies: A worked example of the method using educational studies. Ethnography and Education, (12)2, 211–227. doi: 10.1080/17457823.2016.1216322
38. Hökkä, P., & Eteläpelto, A. (2014). Seeking new perspectives on the development of teacher education: A study of the Finnish context. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(1), 39–52. doi: 10.1177/0022487113504220
39. Hökkä, P., Eteläpelto, A., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2010). Recent tensions and challenges in teacher education as manifested in curriculum discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 845–853. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.022
40. Jyrhämä, R., Kynäslahti, H., Krokfors, L., Byman, R., Maaranen K., Toom, A., & Kansanen, P. (2008). The appreciation and realisation of research-based teacher education: Finnish students’ experiences of teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 31, 1–16. doi: 10.1080./02619760701844993
41. Kelchtermans, G., & Ballet, K. (2002). Micropolitical literacy: Reconstructing a neglected dimension in teacher development. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(8), 755–767. doi: 10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00069-7
42. Kezar, A. (2012). Bottom-up/top-down leadership: Contradiction or hidden phenomenon. The Journal of Higher Education, 83(5), 725–760. doi: 10.1080/00221546.2012.11777264
43. Kohlbacher, F. (2005). The use of qualitative content analysis in case study research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(1), Art. 21, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0601211.
44. Law, E., Galton, M., & Wan, S. (2012). Distributed curriculum leadership in action: A Hong Kong case study. Education Management, Administration & Leadership, 38 (3), 286–303. doi: 10.1177/1741143209359714
45. Le Roux, C. (2017). Exploring rigour in autoethnographic research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(2), 195–207. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2016.1140965
46. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.
47. Lipscomp, M. (2012). Abductive reasoning and qualitative research. Nursing philosophy, 13(4), 244–256. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-769X.2011.00532.x
48. Maydell, E. (2010). Methodological and analytical dilemmas in autoethnographic research. Journal of Research Practice, 6(1), Article M5. url: http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/223/190.
49. Moilanen, P. (2015). A phenomenon-based curriculum for teacher education. In G. Pusztai, & T. Ceglédi (Eds.), Professional calling in higher education: Challenges of teacher education in the Carpathian Basin (pp. 12–18). Budapest: Partium Press.
50. National Board of Education (2014). Core curriculum of basic education. Helsinki, Finland: National Board of Education.
51. Naukkarinen, A. (2004). Osallistava opettajankoulutus. Henkilökunnan ja opiskelijoiden uskomusten sekä laitosorganisaation rakenteiden merkitys opettajankoulutuksen kehittämisessä. In S. Hämäläinen (Ed.), Opettajaprofession muutos ja opettajankoulutus (pp. 61–86). Jyväskylän yliopisto. Opettajankoulutuslaitos. Tutkimuksia 81. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä University Press.
52. Naukkarinen, A. (2010). From discrete to transformed? Developing inclusive primary school teacher education in a Finnish teacher education department. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10(s1), 185–196. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01168.x
53. Naukkarinen, A. (2018). Opettajan vastuu inklusiivisen kasvatuksen toteuttamisessa. In S. Saukkonen, & P. Moilanen (Eds.), Vastuuseen kasvaminen ja kasvattaminen (pp. 117–134). Kasvatusalan tutkimuksia, 76. Turku: Suomen kasvatustieteellinen seura. Open access
54. Naukkarinen, A., & Rautiainen, M. (2020). Metamorfoosi: välähdyksiä koulutuksen muutoksesta. In M. Tarnanen, & E. Kostiainen (Eds.), Ilmiömäistä!: ilmiölähtöinen lähestymistapa uudistamassa opettajuutta ja oppimista (pp. 85–98). Jyväskylän yliopisto. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:jyu-202003032256
55. Niemi, H., & Jakku-Sihvonen, R. (2011). Teacher education in Finland. In M. Zuljan, & J. Vogrinc (Eds.), European dimensions of teacher education, similarities and differences. (pp. 33–51). Slovenia: University of Ljubljana & The National School of Leadership in Education.
56. Parker-Jenkins, M. (2016). Problematising ethnography and case study: Reflections on using ethnographic techniques and researcher positioning. Ethnography and Education, 13(1), 18–33. doi: 10.1080/17457823.2016.1253028
57. Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J. &, Soini, T. (2015). Teachers’ professional agency and learning – from adaption to active modification in the teacher community. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 21(7), 811–830. doi10.1080/13540602.2014.995483
58. Rautiainen, M., Nikkola, T., Räihä, P., Saukkonen, S., & Moilanen, P. (2010). From disorder to new order: The complexity of creating a new educational culture. In C. Nygaard, N. Courtney, & C. Holtham (Eds.), Teaching creativity – creativity in teaching (pp. 189–202). Oxfordshire: Libri Publishing.
59. Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons. What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? New York: Teachers College Press.
60. Saukkonen, S., Moilanen, P., Mathew, D., & Rapley, E. (2017). Power, democracy and progressive schools. In. A. Raiker, & M. Rautiainen (Eds.), Educating for democracy in England and Finland: principles and culture (pp. 81–92). London: Routledge.
61. Schein, E. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. 4th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. url: http://site.ebrary.com/lib/jyvaskyla/reader.action?docID=10418988&ppg=89. Shanghai Ranking’s Global Ranking of Academic Subjects (2020). (http://www.shanghairanking.com/institution/university-of-jyvaskyla)
62. Simola, H. (2005). The Finnish miracle of PISA: Historical and sociological remarks on teaching and teacher education. Comparative Education, 41(4), 455–470. doi: 10.1080/03050060500317810
63. Skrtic, T. (1995). Special education and student disability as organizational pathologies: Toward a metatheory of school organization and change. In T. Skrtic (Ed.), Disability and democracy: Reconstructing (special) education for postmodernity (pp. 190–232). New York: Teachers College Press.
64. Starr, L. J. (2010). The use of autoethnography in educational research: Locating who we are in what we do. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education, 3(1), 1–9.
65. Tarnanen, M., & Kostiainen, E. (Eds.). (2020). Ilmiömäistä!: ilmiölähtöinen lähestymistapa uudistamassa opettajuutta ja oppimista. Jyväskylän yliopisto. https://www.uuttaluova.fi/download/1273/.
66. Thomas, W., & Thomas, D. (1932). The child in America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.¬ University of Jyväskylä. (2021). WE ARE JYU. https://www.jyu.fi/en/university/introduction-and-key-figures
67. Välijärvi, J., Kupari, P., Linnakylä, P., Reinikainen, P., Sulkunen, S., Törnroos, J., & Arffman, I. (2007). The Finnish success in PISA – And some reasons behind it. 2. PISA 2003. url: https://ktl.jyu.fi/julkaisut/julkaisuluettelo/julkaisut/2007/d084.
68. Wall, S. (2016). Toward a moderate autoethnography. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 15(1), 1–9. doi: 10.1177/1609406916674966
69. Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J., & Fisch, R. (1979). Muutoksen avaimet. Translated by I. Malinen. Jyväskylä: Gummerus.
70. Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19. url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2391875.
71. Wilson, M. A. F. (2014). Radical democratic schooling on the ground: Pedagogical ideals and realities in a Sudbury school. Ethnography and Education, 10(2), 121–136, doi: 10.1080/17457823.2014.959978
72. Ylimaki, R., & Bruner, C. (2011). Power and collaboration-consensus/conflict in curriculum leadership: Status quo or change? American Educational Research Journal, 48(6), 1258–1285. doi: 10.3102/0002831211409188
73. Østergaard, E., Lieblein, G., Bredland, T., & Francis, C. (2010). Students learning agroecology: Phenomenon-based education for responsible action. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 16, 23–37. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13892240903533053.