Enterprise Education In Classroom Tandem

Author(s):

Janne Elo(presenting / submitting)Michaela Pörn(presenting)

Conference:

ECER 2015

Network:

27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching

Format:

Paper

Session Information

27 SES 10 B, Serious Games, Imitation, Enterprise Education

Paper Session

Time:

2015-09-10

15:30-17:00

Room:

202.Oktatóterem [C]

Chair:

Brian Hudson

Contribution

Enterprise education is a present topic in European debate on education. It has been a part of the Finnish national curriculum since 1994, in the form of a cross-curricular theme (Ministry of Education, 2009). Enterprise education has its primary focus “on the acquisition and development of personal skills, abilities and attributes that can be used in different contexts and throughout the life course”, whereas focus of entrepreneurship education is “on starting, growing and managing a business” (Jones & Iredale, 2010). The aim of this paper is to examine to what extent the tandem method, used in the teaching of the second national language (Finnish and Swedish), can be seen as a form of enterprise education. Although the research is conducted in a Finnish context, neither enterprise education, nor the tandem method, is restricted to this context and results should thus be of interest in a European and international context. Classroom tandem is a method in language education where two students with different mother tongues learn each other’s native languages in reciprocal cooperation. The students function, in turns, as a second language learner and as a model in the native language.

The paper has it´s point of departure in a comparison of to what extent principles for enterprise education, principles for the tandem method, and the general principles in the draft for the national curriculum 2016 coincide. Three common principles form the basis for the empirical research focusing on to what extent and how these principles occur in learning situations videotaped in tandem classrooms. A common denominator for enterprise education, the tandem method and the draft for the curriculum is that they are based on a social-constructivist view on learning (Seikkula-Leino, 2007; Firth & Wagner 2007; Karjalainen 2011; Kääntä 2010; Lilja 2010; Finnish National Board of Education, 2014).

The first common principle is authenticity. Authenticity is seen as a condition for an active and enterprising approach to learning (Seikkula, Leino, 2007; Ministry of Education, 2009; Backström-Widjeskog, 2008; Johannison, Madsèn & Wallentin, 2000). Authenticity is associated with the learner´s experience of learning as purposeful and related to subjectively relevant questions. This also emerges in the curriculum draft where the starting point in the students’ own questions and areas of interest is emphasized (Finnish national Board of Education, 2014). Tandem learning is based on authentic communication and interaction, both from a linguistic as well as a content perspective (Lightbown & Spada, 1999; Karjalainen, 2011).

The second common principle is activity. The learner’s activity is stressed both in the discourse of enterprise, as well as in the curriculum draft and in tandem learning (Seikkula-Leino, 2007; Ministry of Education, 2009; Falk-Lundqvist & Dannell, 2007; Johannison, Madsén & Wallentin, 2000; Finnish National Board of Education, 2014; Karjalainen, Pörn, Rusk & Björkskog, 2013, Holstein & Oomen-Welke 2006;). Johannison, Madsén and Wallentin (2000), however, stress that activity should not be understood as any kind of active busywork, but as an active focus on learning.

The third common principle in this paper is learning from mistakes and seeing mistakes as something positive. In the discourse of enterprise traditional teaching is criticized for stigmatizing mistakes and a positive approach to mistakes is emphasized (Seikkula-Leino, 2007). A positive approach to mistakes and learning from mistakes is also mentioned in the curriculum draft regarding the working culture of school as well as regarding the evaluation (Finnish National Board of Education, 2014). In the context of tandem learning mistakes are also seen as a central and positive opportunity for learning (Karjalainen, 2011).

Method

It is reasonable to empirically study, how the starting points of enterprise education and the draft for the curriculum 2016 arise in classroom tandem. The empirical data is collected within the teaching of the second national language (Finnish and Swedish) in an upper secondary school. The empirical data collected for this study consists of video recordings of all the interactions of four tandem dyads during three compulsory tandem courses and one optional course. The data was recorded with one video camera and one external microphone. The lessons have been recorded with the camera close to the tandem dyad so the gestures and gazes are fairly observable and the talk is clearly audible thanks to the external microphone. The external microphone was always placed on the L2 student. One researcher recorded the lessons from beginning to end. The data for this paper was analyzed in common data sessions, where both of the authors participated. The first step of the analysis was to identify, to what extent and how the common principles for enterprise education and tandem learning occur in the empirical data, and to outline more precisely some features for further research. The second step was to problematize the chosen features and to find examples where the features occur in tandem classrooms, but also examples from situations where these features do not come through in tandem learnings situations. The data has been transcribed and analyzed using conversational analytical (CA) conventions. The empirical research shows both such situations where these common features come through, but also situations where they do not come through in the data. Thus, we aim at demonstrating and discussing problematic situations concerning enterprise education and tandem teaching and learning.

Expected Outcomes

The theoretical comparison showed that enterprise education, the tandem method and the draft for the national curriculum 2016 had several common principles. From this perspective the tandem method could be seen as a form of enterprising education, supported by the pedagogical principles of the curriculum draft. The empirical research however shows that the situation is not unambiguous. The analysis showed several situations where the principles were not realized. The analysis showed situations where authenticity and learner activity was not apparent. The situation was rather characterized by a lack of effort and the avoiding of learning. The principles of tandem learning are thus not realized automatically. Attention has to be given to the nature of the tasks the students are engaged in. Other examples however showed both authentic interaction as well as an active approach to learning. In the tandem context lingual mistakes are made constantly and are seen as a part of the language learning process. This however does not mean that the students´ attitudes toward making mistakes are developed in a more positive direction. One cannot assume that the attitude towards mistakes becomes positive simply by making them. The meaning of making mistakes is thus different in a tandem context than in an enterprise context. In general one cannot make any statements on the development of the students enterprising traits, attitudes or mindset based on the data. Such a statement would rely entirely on the assumption that certain features or attributes of an educational context automatically develop enterprise. The fact that these principles are common for enterprise education, tandem teaching and the curriculum draft leads one to question whether these are actually characteristic for any of these. They could rather be perceived as general characteristics of a contemporary view on “good learning”, emerging in different context under different names.

References

Backström-Widjeskog, B. (2008) Du kan om du vill. Lärares tankar om fostran till företagsamhet Vasa: Åbo Akademi. Falk-Lundqvist, Å. & Danell, T. (2005). Företagsamt lärande i lärarutbildningen - att lära andra lära företagsamt. Umeå: Länsstyrelsen i Västerbotten. Finnish National Board of Education (2014). Grunderna för läroplanen för den grundläggande utbildningen: Kapitel 1–12. Utkast 19.09.2014. Downloaded 05 of November 2014, from http://www.oph.fi/lp2016/utkast_till_grunderna_for_laroplanen. Firth, A. & Wagner, J. (2007). Second/foreign language learning as a social accomplishment: Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 800–819. Holstein, S. & Oomen-Welke, I. (2006). Sprachen-Tandem für Paare, Kurse, Schulklassen. Ein Leitfaden für Kursleiter, Lehrpersonen, Migranten-betreuer und autonome Tandem-Partner. Freiburg im Breisgau: Fillibach Verlag. Johannison, B. & Madsén, T. & Wallentin, C. (2000). Aha! Företagsamt lärande! –en skola för förnyelse. Stockholm: Sveriges Utbildningsradio AB. Jones, B. & Iredale, N. (2010). Enterprise education as pedagogy. Education + Training (52/1), 7-19. Karjalainen, K. (2011). Interaktion som mål och medel i FinTandem – Strategier och orientering vid problem i språkproduktion. Acta Wasaensia nr 244, Språkvetenskap 43. Vaasa, Finland: University of Vaasa. Retrieved from http://www.uwasa.fi/materiaali/pdf/isbn_978-952-476-354-7.pdf Karjalainen, K., Pörn, M., Rusk, F. & Björkskog, L. (2013). Classroom tandem – Outlining a Model for Language Learning and Instruction. In: International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education (IEJEE). www.iejee.com/6_1_2013/IEJEE_6_1_karjalainen_rusk_porn_bjorkskog.pdf Kääntä, L. (2010). Teacher Turn-Allocation and Repair Practices in Classroom Interaction: A Multisemiotic Perspective. Jyväskylä studies in humanities 137. Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä. Lightbown, P. M. & N. Spada (2006). How Languages are Learned. Third edition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Lilja, N. (2010). Ongelmista oppimiseen: Toisen aloittamat korjausjaksot kakkoskielisessä keskustelussa. Jyväskylä studies in humanities 146. Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä. Ministry of Education (2009) Riktlinjer för fostran till företagsamhet. Helsinki: Ministry of Education. Seikkula-Leino, J. (2007). Opetussuunnitelmauu¬distus ja yrittäjyyskasvatuksen toteuttaminen (Opetusministeriön julkaisuja, 2007:28). Helsinki: Ministry of Education.

Author Information

Janne Elo (presenting / submitting)

Åbo Akademi University

Vasa

Michaela Pörn (presenting)

Åbo Akademi University, Finland

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.