Intercultural Learning and Hybridity in the Culture Laboratory

The number of immigrant students in vocational education and training is steadily increasing in Finland. This poses challenges for teachers and schools. This research focuses on emerging questions of intercultural learning in the context of immigrant training, and on a method the Culture Laboratory that was developed in an attempt to respond to the challenges. The main methodological and theoretical framework lies in cultural-historical activity theory, developmental work research, and in the concepts of the intercultural and hybridity. The empirical material consists of videotaped recordings of discussions in the Culture Laboratory. The five main research questions focused on the strengths and limitations of the Culture Laboratory as a tool for intercultural learning, the significance of disturbances in it, the potential of suggestions for intercultural learning, paper as a mediating artifact , and the concept of intercultural space. The findings showed that the Culture Laboratory offered a solid background for developing intercultural learning. The disturbances manifested revealed a multitude of scripts and activities. It was also suggested that the structure of expansive learning could start from externalization instead of internalization. The suggestions the participants made opened up a hybrid learning space for intercultural development, and offered a good springboard for new ideas. Learning in Paperland posed both challenges and opportunities for immigrant students, and different paper trails emerged. Intercultural space in the Culture Laboratory was a developmental zone in which a hybrid process of observing, comparing, and creating took place. Key words: intercultural learning, immigrant training, cultural-historical activity theory, developmental work research,

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.