Opetussuunnitelman mallin jäsennys : sisältö ja pedagogiikka kokonaisuuden rakentajina

Structuring of the Curriculum Design: Content and Pedagogy Constructing the Whole The object of this qualitative study is to structure curriculum design by drawing from the characteristics of subject content and pedagogy. The aim is to first outline the forms of content and pedagogy within the National Core Curriculum for Basic Education. By analysing these forms I then aim to construct a general view of the curriculum’s structure and its developmental potential as it relates to both current and future pedagogical and intellectual interests. The written curriculum is examined as part of the educational guidance system, which means that it is an administrative and juridical document that governs teacher action and has a pedagogical and intellectual character. Didactical schools, curriculum ideologies and curriculum-determinants are all discussed as means of approaching the curriculum model. Curriculum content itself is defined by the different forms and conceptions of knowledge. The representation of curriculum content can be defined to be either specific or integrated. Curriculum pedagogy is in turn defined on the basis of the prevailing conception of learning and teaching. The pedagogy within the curriculum can be open or closed depending on the extent of pedagogical freedom allowed. An examination of the pedagogical dimension also covers the subject of the interfaces between formal education and informal learning, which must be taken into consideration when developing school pedagogy and therefore also in the curriculum. The data of the study consists of two curriculum documents: The Finnish National Core Curriculum for Basic Education issued in 1994 and the present National core curriculum for basic education issued in 2004. The primary method used in the study is theory-based content analysis. On the one hand the aim of the analysis is to determine if the structure, i.e., model, of the curricula is built from unconnected, self-contained elements, or whether the separate parts make a coherent whole. On the other hand, the aim is also to examine the pedagogical features the two curricula contain. The basis of the study is not the systematic comparison of the curriculum documents, yet an analysis of two very distinct documents must also be based on an examination of their inherent differences. The results of the study show that the content in the analysed documents is not integrated. The boundaries between divisions are clearly defined and the curricula are subject-oriented and based on theoretical propositional knowledge. The pedagogy is mainly closed and based on strong guidance of content, structured student evaluation and measurable learning experiences. However, curriculum documents do have representations of integrated content: the themes covered early on in the core curriculum guidelines of 1994 permeate systematically the different divisions of the curriculum. The core curriculum guidelines of 2004 in turn reveal skills which create connections between subjects. The guidelines’ utilise out-of-school environments and accommodate learner experiences, and focus on flexible studying and emphasize individual learner needs. These characteristics reveal an open form of pedagogy. In light of these results, it is possible to reach an understanding of the content and pedagogical development possibilities of the curriculum. The essential viewpoints are then the setting of thematically-oriented aims as a basis for content development, the curriculum’s pedagogical structuring on the basis of the learning process and the enhancement of connections between curricular content and pedagogy in a purposeful way. Keywords: curriculum, curriculum theory, curriculum design, core curriculum guidelines, teaching content, pedagogy

Teaching in Higher Education : From Content-focused to Learning-focused Approaches to Teaching

The aim of this dissertation was to explore teaching in higher education from the teachers’ perspective. Two of the four studies analysed the effect of pedagogical training on approaches to teaching and on self-efficacy beliefs of teachers on teaching. Of these two studies, Study I analysed the effect of pedagogical training by applying a cross-sectional setting. The results showed that short training made teachers less student-centred and decreased their self-efficacy beliefs, as reported by the teachers themselves. However, more constant training enhanced the adoption of a student-centred approach to teaching and increased the self-efficacy beliefs of teachers as well. The teacher-focused approach to teaching was more resistant to change. Study II, on the other hand, applied a longitudinal setting. The results implied that among teachers who had not acquired more pedagogical training after Study II there were no changes in the student-focused approach scale between the measurements. However, teachers who had participated in further pedagogical training scored significantly higher on the scale measuring the student-focused approach to teaching. There were positive changes in the self-efficacy beliefs of teachers among teachers who had not participated in further training as well as among those who had. However, the analysis revealed that those teachers had the least teaching experience. Again, the teacher-focused approach was more resistant to change. Study III analysed approaches to teaching qualitatively by using a large and multidisciplinary sample in order to capture the variation in descriptions of teaching. Two broad categories of description were found: the learning-focused and the content-focused approach to teaching. The results implied that the purpose of teaching separates the two categories. In addition, the study aimed to identify different aspects of teaching in the higher-education context. Ten aspects of teaching were identified. While Study III explored teaching on a general level, Study IV analysed teaching on an individual level. The aim was to explore consonance and dissonance in the kinds of combinations of approaches to teaching university teachers adopt. The results showed that some teachers were clearly and systematically either learning- or content-focused. On the other hand, profiles of some teachers consisted of combinations of learning- and content-focused approaches or conceptions making their profiles dissonant. Three types of dissonance were identified. The four studies indicated that pedagogical training organised for university teachers is needed in order to enhance the development of their teaching. The results implied that the shift from content-focused or dissonant profiles towards consonant learning-focused profiles is a slow process and that teachers’ conceptions of teaching have to be addressed first in order to promote learning-focused teaching.

Subject Teacher Training and Teaching in English

The purpose of this Master s thesis is on one hand to find out how CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) teachers and English teachers perceive English and its use in teaching, and on the other hand, what they consider important in subject teacher education in English that is being planned and piloted in STEP Project at the University of Helsinki Department of Teacher Education. One research question is also what kind of language requirements teachers think CLIL teachers should have. The research results are viewed in light of previous research and literature on CLIL education. Six teachers participate in this study. Two of them are English teachers in the comprehensive school, two are class teachers in bilingual elementary education, and two are subject teachers in bilingual education, one of whom teaches in a lower secondary school and the other in an upper secondary school. One English teacher and one bilingual class teacher have graduated from a pilot class teacher program in English that started at the University of Helsinki in the middle of the 1990 s. The bilingual subject teachers are not trained in English but they have learned English elsewhere, which is a particular focus of interest in this study because it is expected that a great number of CLIL teachers in Finland do not have actual studies in English philology. The research method is interview and this is a qualitative case study. The interviews are recorded and transcribed for the ease of analysis. The English teachers do not always use English in their lessons and they would not feel confident in teaching another subject completely in English. All of the CLIL teachers trust their English skills in teaching, but the bilingual class teachers also use Finnish during lessons either because some teaching material is in Finnish, or they feel that rules and instructions are understood better in mother tongue or students English skills are not strong enough. One of the bilingual subject teachers is the only one who consciously uses only English in teaching and in discussions with students. Although teachers good English skills are generally considered important, only the teachers who have graduated from the class teacher education in English consider it important that CLIL teachers would have studies in English philology. Regarding the subject teacher education program in English, the respondents hope that its teachers will have strong enough English skills and that it will deliver what it promises. Having student teachers of different subjects studying together is considered beneficial. The results of the study show that acquiring teaching material in English continues to be the teachers own responsibility and a huge burden for the teachers, and there has, in fact, not been much progress in the matter since the beginning of CLIL education. The bilingual subject teachers think, however, that using one s own material can give new inspiration to teaching and enable the use of various pedagogical methods. Although it is questionable if the language competence requirements set for CLIL teachers by the Finnish Ministry of Education are not adhered to, it becomes apparent in the study that studies in English philology do not necessarily guarantee strong enough language skills for CLIL teaching, but teachers own personality and self-confidence have significance. Keywords: CLIL, bilingual education, English, subject teacher training, subject teacher education in English, STEP