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).
