22 SES 11 B, Paper Session
The complex world full of wicked problems in which university students should be able to work and function as they graduate require more complex set of skills than traditional disciplinary knowledge. The model of Integrative pedagogy tries to incorporate important components of a learning environment in terms of developing students’ expertise. Integrative pedagogy model has been developed by Tynjälä (2010), and it integrates the components of professional expertise, i.e. theoretical, practical, self-regulative and sociocultural, (Tynjälä, 2014; Tynjälä & Gijbels, 2012; Tynjälä, Häkkinen, & Hämäläinen, 2014; Tynjälä, et al., 2016) by using mediating tools and processes that facilitate reflection (discussions, integrative thinking). In addition, the further developed model highlights the role of emotions in learning and professional development (Tynjälä et al., 2016). While developing students’ expertise theoretical, practical and self-regulation knowledge are central (Tynjälä et al., 2016). However, the integration of these is especially needed (Jääskelä, Nykänen & Tynjälä, 2018; Tynjälä, Välimaa, & Sarja, 2003). Especially favorable learning environments for developing problem-solving skills are those, which facilitates integration of theory and practice as well as working together with peer students and practices of assessing other students’ assignments (Virtanen & Tynjälä, 2019). Tynjälä et al. (2016) proposed that in accordance with integrative pedagogy, students are first introduced with theoretical concepts and after that students get theory into practice via exercises. After this, the topic is returned into theory via reflection, i.e. practice is examined through theoretical concepts. Significant in the model is the conceptualization of practical situations and reflecting on what has been learnt (Jääskelä et al., 2018).
Analysis of theoretical knowledge and practical experiences and the combining of these require tools, such as conversation, doing analytical tasks and self-reflection that, also, supports the skills to self-regulation (Tynjälä et al., 2016). However, students do not self-evidently understand how the knowledge learned during the course is related to practice (Milligan & Littlejohn, 2014). Students’ reflection is one of the key elements of integrative pedagogy, and hence, it is not enough only to discuss about experiences but also teachers’ pedagogical guidance is needed in this (Tynjälä et al., 2016).
According to earlier research, students seem to ask for more emphasis on practice in their courses, to develop their skills better (Crebert et al., 2004). It has been suggested that according to students’ view theory and practice are complementary parts of qualification, that is theoretical and practical knowledge are supporting each other (Collin & Tynjälä, 2003). Learning in a course that utilizes integrative pedagogy, is shown to support the learning of collaborative skills, field specific basic skills as well as generic skills in the experiences of a student (Tynjälä et al., 2016). Furthermore, utilization of integrative pedagogy is shown to support also problem-solving skills and an ability to solve professional problems (Virtanen & Tynjälä, 2018). Working in the interface of theory and practice supports problem-solving skills (Virtanen & Tynjälä, 2018). Self-evaluation is also supported by other evaluation and feedback exercises (Virtanen & Tynjälä, 2019).
Flipped classroom approach seem to support theoretically the components of integrative pedagogy in the learning environment. However, if approached systematically integrative pedagogy model potentially complements designing flipped learning pedagogical models in practice.
In this study, integrative pedagogy model was be used as a theoretical tool to investigate the potentials of the learning environments provided by flipped classroom design in different faculties to support students in developing their expertise. Accordingly, the following research questions were addressed: 1) How and by what means did flipped classroom learning environment support the integration of theory and practice? 2) How and by what means did flipped learning classroom learning environment support students’ self-reflection processes?
The context of the study was an educational development project, in which university teachers were supported in transforming their university level courses according to the principles of the flipped classroom or flipped learning approach. University teachers volunteered to participate in the development project and to work on their courses during the project, and the teachers were provided training through collaborative seminars. In the educational development project, there were two cohorts of altogether about one hundred participants from various disciplinary fields. The study used a data collected from university teachers (N = 22) teaching in a Finnish university. Seven of them were male and 15 were female. An email request to participate in the interview was sent to those teachers who had participated in the educational development project and had transformed their own teaching according to flipped classroom principles. The participants represented a variation in their amount of teaching in higher education. They also had differing fields as their branch of science. The participants were sufficiently representative of the fields in the university. Teachers were sent a briefing in which the nature of the research was described and consent to participate was requested. The teachers’ participation in the study was on a voluntary basis and they had the opportunity to withdraw from the study if they wanted to. Information about the participants is given in the reports without compromising their anonymity, for example in the descriptive citations from the interviews.
According to results university teachers considered the opportunity to focus on applying theoretical knowledge to practice as a key benefit of flipped classroom approach in combining theory and practice. More precisely, students seemed to focus on theoretical knowledge first in the pre-materials and after that apply that to practical knowledge in face-to-face session. Furthermore, teachers perceived that there was more time for applying and deepening achieved theoretical knowledge into practice during f-2-f time compared to traditional teaching. During the exercise, the teacher was able correct possible misconceptions or misunderstandings when students applied theory, for example in an authentic case, such as patient case. According to teachers, through utilizing flipped classroom approach, theories did not remain detached, but were better tied to the learner's experience. There were various pedagogical solutions to support the integration of theory and practice and teachers emphasized several tools such as conversations, various projects, and authentic cases or problems. In general, teachers seemed to think that flipped classroom approach supported and increased students’ reflection. Teachers utilized various ways to support and enhance students’ reflection. For example, there were discussions during f-2-f sessions but also various written exercises, such as learning diaries, portfolios, and essays. There were, for example, opportunities to reflect in f-2-f lessons themes learned from pre-material. Examining the temporal dimension, some teachers took advantage of reflection throughout the course, while some did not utilize reflection until in the end of the course. Furthermore, the tools for reflection were related to whether students did reflection together or alone. It seems to be important that conceptual and practical tools and opportunities for reflection are provided for students to achieve needed expertise. The results indicated that flipped classroom approach creates a good starting point for the implementation of integrative pedagogy and the development of expertise in higher education.
Crebert, G., Bates, M., Bell, B., Patrick, C. J., & Cragnolini, V. (2004). Developing generic skills at university, during work placement and in employment: graduates' perceptions. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(2), 147-165. doi: 10.1080/07294360042000206636 Tynjälä, P., Heikkinen, H., & Kiviniemi, U. (2011). Integratiivinen pedagogiikka opetusharjoittelussa. Kasvatus, 148(4), 302-315 Tynjälä, P., V. Slotte, J. Nieminen, K. Lonka, and E. Olkinuora. 2006. “From University to Working Life: Graduates’ Workplace Skills in Practice.” In Higher education and Working Life: Collaborations, Confrontations and Challenges edited by P. Tynjälä, J.Välimaa, and G. Boulton-Lewis, 73–88. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Tynjälä, P., A. Virtanen, U. Klemola, E. Kostiainen, and H. Rasku-Puttonen. 2016. “Developing Social Competence and Other Generic Skills in Teacher Education: Applying the Model of Integrative Pedagogy.” European Journal of Teacher Education 39 (3): 368–387. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2016.1171314 Tynjälä, P., J. Välimaa, and G. Boulton-Lewis. 2003. “Higher Education and Working Life: Collaboration, Confrontations and Challenges.” Advances in Learning and Instruction Series 46: 147–166. Virtanen, A., & Tynjälä, P. (2019). Factors explaining the learning of generic skills: a study of university students’ experiences. Teaching in Higher Education. 1-15. Doi: 10.1080/13562517.2018.1515195
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- 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.