General description of the study

In my case study I search for meanings of intercultural learning. I ask how the meaning of intercultural learning revels itself in the discursive context, how the teacher enhances the learners’ learning processes in her own professional praxis and how the learner experiences intercultural learning in his/her life world. I analyse and interpret meanings as a reflective practioner within my own working community in the North Karelia University of Applied Sciences. (1)

Theoretical background

Equal encountering is a base for humanity and one of the main aims of intercultural education. I discuss intercultural competence as a holistic intercultural competence (2). When intercultural competence is explored as a holistic approach, the main emphasis lies in a profound acceptance and understanding of diversity in our world. There is a deep need to accept the uniqueness and variations of characteristics in humanity (3).

The concepts of culture, multiculturalism and transculturalism are useful in exploring the diversity. We need a mirror to reflect ourselves and the reality around us, and it is culture that gives us that mirror. Multiculturalism reflects the questions of difference, power, majority and minority, wealth and politics (4). Transculturalism fuses the concepts of culture and multiculturalism (5). Culture, multiculturalism and transculturalism form a base to diversity.

The sense of difference is archaic and built into all of us. The understanding of difference and equality is a demanding and probably never ending process, which continues throughout our life time. Difference can be a sense of personal minority or majority, an idea about being different from the others or finding someone different from oneself (6). This distinction between the senses of difference is related to power, control, familiarity or strangeness. Exploring the concept of difference helps the learner to understand her own identity.  

Language gives us a path to our inner world and enables us to reflect the reality inside and around us. Language helps us to categorise and understand phenomena; this in turn supports inner talk and the learning processes. Language helps us to build an understanding about our identities and the other. However, language is always bound to the outside world, it comes alive and gets meaning when used and by the user – meaning making reflects the mind and the mind reflects the world (7). The learner needs to understand the diversity, complexity and cultural bonds of language, too.

The teacher may support the learner with help of humane pedagogy. The teacher’s starting point is his/her concept of human together with the concepts, knowledge and beliefs of learning (8). The concept of human is crucial. When the teacher believes in the non-questionable value of being and appreciates learners, his/her methods and the encountering of the learner are supportive, enhancing and activating. It is important to activate the learner to take the responsibility of his/her learning. However, this does not mean leaving the learner alone but enabling him/her to get meaningful experiences, challenging him/her to think and reflect.

1.Timonen, L. 2011. Internationalise or step aside? A case study of meaning making in international competence and intercultural learning in the spaces of encounter… Publications of the University of Eastern Finland. Dissertations in Education, Humanities, and Theology, 16. 2.Timonen, L. 2011. Ibid. 3.V. Kohonen, R. Jaatinen, P. Kaikkonen and J. Lehtovaara (eds.) 2001 Experiential Learning in Foreign Language Education. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited; Nieto, S. and Bode, P. 2008. Affirming Diversity. The Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural Education. Boston: Pearson / Ally & Bacon. 4.S. Hall and P. du Gay (eds.) 1996. Questions of cultural identity. London: SAGE. 5.Welsch, W. 2009. On the Acquisition and Procession of Communalities. In F. Schulze-Engler and S. Helff (eds.) Transcultural English Studies. Theories, Fictions, Realities. Cross/Cultures 102. ASNEL. Papers 12. 3 – 36. 6.Kaikkonen, P. 2001. Intercultural learning in foreign language education. In V.Kohonen, R. Jaatinen, P. Kaikkonen and J. Lehtovaara (eds.) Experiential Learning in Foreign Language Education. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 61 – 105. 7.Bruner, J. 1986. Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge: Vintage Books, 1996. The Culture of Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; Gadamer, H-G. 1975. Truth and Method. London: Sheet and Ward. 8.Husu, J. 2002. Representing the practice of teachers’ pedagogical knowing. Finnish Educational Research Association. Research in Educational Sciences. Turku: FERA. 9.Guba, E. and Lincoln, Y. 2005. Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions and Emerging Confluences. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Puclications, 191 – 215. 10.Alvesson, M. and Sköldberg, K. 2000. Reflexive Methodology. New Vistas for Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications; Gadamer, H-G. 1975. Ibid.; Heidegger, M. 1962. Being and Time. New York: Harper & Row. 11.Kvale, S. 1996. InterViews. An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. London: Sage Publications; Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.