In oduc ion
The his o y o Finnish subjec eache
educa ion wi h special e e ence o he
de elopmen a he Uni e si y o Tampe e
Ee o Ropo, Rii a Jaa inen and Te o Au io
Teache s in he Finnish school sys em
In his in oduc o y chap e , ou aim is o desc ibe some o he
his o y and con ex o Finnish subjec eache educa ion. Al hough
ou pe spec i e is based on de eloping eache educa ion a he
Uni e si y o Tampe e, we belie e ha also na ional de elopmen and
wo ld-wide heo e ical pe spec i es a e highligh ed in he chap e s.
In his in oduc ion we will ocus on he his o y o Finnish eache
educa ion and also p esen an o e iew o he con en s o he book.
Each o he chap e s is conce ned wi h depic ing a esea ch and
Ee o Ropo & Rii a Jaa inen (eds),
Subjec Teache Educa ion in T ansi ion: Educa ing Teache s o he Fu u e
Tampe e: Tampe e Uni e si y P ess, 9–24.
h p://u n. i/URN:ISBN:978-952-359-016-8
10
Ee o Ropo, Rii a Jaa inen and Te o Au io
ee o opo & ii a jaa inen (Eds)
de elopmen p ojec o se e al p ojec s and conside ing i s o hei
con ibu ion o eache educa ion.
In Finnish eache educa ion, we can dis inguish ou eache
ca ego ies. The eache s in hese ca ego ies ha e ecei ed a di e en
ype o educa ion based on his o y and educa ional adi ions. Ea ly
childhood educa ion eache s (kinde ga en eache s) ha e been
educa ed a kinde ga en eache educa ion ins i u ions since he
ea ly 20 h cen u y. These ins i u ions we e combined wi h uni e si ies
in 1995 and he ea ly childhood educa ion eache deg ee became a
bachelo le el (3 y s.) academic deg ee.
P ima y school eache s (class eache s) wo k in g ades 1 h ough
6 in he Finnish schools. This eache ca ego y o igina es om he
1860s when he i s elemen a y school eache educa ion ins i u ion
(‘kansakoulunope ajaseminaa i’ in Finnish) was es ablished in
Jy äskylä. The ins i u ions loca ed in di e en pa s o he coun y
we e combined wi h uni e si ies in 1974 when acul ies o educa ion
we e es ablished. The p ima y school eache ’s deg ee was a h ee-yea
p og amme a he bachelo le el un il 1979 when i was legisla ed o
become a i e-yea mas e ’s deg ee in educa ional sciences.
In Finland, subjec eache s, i.e. eache s specialized in eaching
a subjec o subjec s, ha e been educa ed a he uni e si y le el since
he beginning o public educa ion and eache educa ion in he 19 h
cen u y. F om he e y beginning, subjec eache educa ion adop ed
he eache aining school sys em (‘no maalikoulussa ha joi elu’)
in which he s uden eache s p ac ised in special, s a e owned
schools a e hei uni e si y deg ee. The eache educa ion in eache
aining schools was a one-yea in e nship ype o pe iod du ing
which s uden eache s p ac ised eaching unde he supe ision o
expe ienced subjec eache s (‘auskul oin i’).
The o iginal sys em p e ailed un il 1974 when all eache aining
schools we e combined wi h di e en uni e si ies. A new mas e ’s
deg ee p og amme o p ima y school eache s commenced in 1979.
All uni e si y deg ee p og ammes we e also e o med, and Teache ’s
In oduc ion
11Subjec eache educa ion in ansi ion
Pedagogical S udies, including bo h heo e ical and p ac ical s udies,
became a equi ed mino subjec o all eache s, including subjec
eache s. The main con en a eas o he Teache ’s Pedagogical S udies
we e legisla ed o include h ee domains, namely, basic s udies in
educa ion, subjec didac ics (including subjec didac ic esea ch),
and eaching p ac ice in schools. Uni e si ies o e ing he mas e ’s
deg ees we e, and s ill a e, au onomous in designing he goals and
con en s o eache educa ion. Howe e , on he na ional le el, i was
ag eed om he e y beginning ha each domain should encompass
abou one hi d o he o al Teache ’s Pedagogical S udies (cu en ly
60 ECTS, i.e. Eu opean C edi T ans e Sys em c edi s).
The easons o his ype o e o m in la e 1970s and ea ly 1980s
we e pa ly due o he o e all e o m o he Finnish school sys em.
Since he 1970s he new comp ehensi e school (‘pe uskoulu’) has
o e ed gene al 9-yea educa ion o all. Ea lie , in he dual sys em,
subjec eache s had been wo king wi h hose s uden s who had
applied and been admi ed o 8-yea (lowe and uppe ) seconda y
schools (‘oppikoulu’ and ‘lukio’) gi ing access o uni e si y s udies.
I was also e iden ha esea ch in di e en domains and disciplines
had b ough a lo o new pe spec i es o school educa ion and eache s’
oles (see, e.g., Mandl e al. 1990; Ca e e o e al. 1991, Jaakkola e al.
1995).
This same subjec eache educa ion model also sp ead o eache
educa ion in oca ional educa ion. Acco ding o he cu en
legisla ion, in addi ion o subjec s udies and/o oca ional con en
s udies and wo k expe ience, eache s in oca ional schools and
uni e si ies o applied sciences mus ha e 60 (ECTS) in Teache ’s
Pedagogical S udies.
12
Ee o Ropo, Rii a Jaa inen and Te o Au io
ee o opo & ii a jaa inen (Eds)
Re o ming subjec eache educa ion in he 1990s
In he ea ly 1990s, i became ob ious a he Facul y o Educa ion a
he Uni e si y o Tampe e ha concep ions o subjec eaching and
eache s needed heo e ical and p ac ical upda ing. This upda ing
ocused on hose subjec eache educa ion p og ammes ha he
Uni e si y o Tampe e o e ed, namely, languages, his o y and social
sciences, and ma hema ics and na u al sciences. One incen i e o his
need was he de elopmen in he 1980s when Teache ’s Pedagogical
S udies we e included as a mino subjec in he mas e ’s deg ees. The
adi ional way o quali ying as a subjec eache a e he deg ee was
eplaced wi h mino subjec s udies du ing he 3 d- o 4 h-yea s udies.
This de elopmen in he way o quali ying was no only p ac ical
bu i ga e an oppo uni y o complemen and in ensi y he s udies’
heo y s. p ac ice discou ses and o upda e he s udies in he subjec
didac ics based on bo h he subjec -speci ic s udies a subjec acul ies
and in-school aining.
The p e ailing designing p inciple was o econs uc he subjec -
speci ic con en s in o pedagogically ele an and meaning ul
modules, adjus ing hese modules o di e en age and g ade le els,
and designing lea ning goals bene i ing s uden s’ knowledge and
aes he ic, p ac ical and mo al esou ces. This simple model is
ypically called a ansmission model in which he eache s deli e
he equi ed knowledge. S uden s a e conside ed as ecipien s whose
du y is o acqui e he knowledge, ul illing he equi emen s o lea n
acco ding o he cu icula. The eache is, acco ding o his model,
a mo al and cogni i e au ho i y who should be able o speci y wha
knowledge is wo h knowing o he s uden s. This concep ion o
eaching and eache s, which acco ding o cu en heo e ical models
was o e simpli ied and based on inco ec gene aliza ions o he
lea ning p ocesses, was he leading p inciple in de eloping heo ies
o eaching and lea ning. (Au io 2006/2012.)
In oduc ion
13Subjec eache educa ion in ansi ion
This adi ional hinking abou eaching was challenged by a leas
wo heo e ical discou ses. The i s one is ela ed o he de elopmen s
in he unde s anding o he lea ning concep . This de elopmen can be
summa ized as a change om conside ing lea ning as acquisi ion o
unde s anding i as men al and social cons uc ion in which s uden s
make in e p e a ions based on hei own his o y and au obiog aphy,
and he social con ex o he si ua ion in which he p ocess akes
place (see, e.g., Au io 2006/2012; Leh o aa a 1996; Ropo & Vä i 2003;
Jaa inen 2007). This ans o ma ion b oke he causal model be ween
eaching and lea ning, equi ing changes in eache s’ hinking abou
ins uc ion. Howe e , basing he cu icula and assessmen on he
idea o causali y be ween eaching and lea ning is s ill p e alen in
se e al educa ional sys ems ou side Finland.
De elopmen s in he lea ning heo ies also challenged adi ional
hinking abou subjec didac ics and cu iculum. I was e iden ha
p o ound unde s anding o school educa ion was needed in subjec
eache educa ion. The i s s ep was a concep ual change om
eache aining o eache educa ion. This change also challenged
he p e ious unde s anding o school eaching. (Au io 2006/2012;
Leh o aa a 2001; Ropo & Vä i 2003; Kohonen e al. 2001.) The
beginning o new hinking did no lean explici ly on any speci ic
heo iza ion. Howe e , i was ecognized ha he new pos mode n
e a, as i was desc ibed, equi ed new ideas o he educa ion o
indi iduals o he new subjec i i y and iden i ies, as well as global
ci izenship (Doll 1993; Au io 2006). Theo e ical unde s anding o
new di ec ions de eloped quickly in he 1990s, and he p og ess ook
di e en pa hs in he a ious domains o subjec didac ics. (see, e.g.,
Kohonen 1992a, b, c; Kohonen 2001; Leh o aa a 2001; Jaa inen 2001;
Kaikkonen 2001; Sil e be g 1999.)
Anglo-Ame ican heo iza ion o educa ional psychology and
emphasis on empi ical esea ch we e popula in all beha iou al
sciences since Wo ld Wa II, a e he collapse o Ge many.
Concu en ly, No dic educa ion and eache educa ion es ed on

14
Ee o Ropo, Rii a Jaa inen and Te o Au io
ee o opo & ii a jaa inen (Eds)
he ideas o he Ge man didac ics and he concep o Bildung, in
pa icula . (Au io 2006/2012.) A e he i s Finnish PISA esul s in
2000 which indica ed ha Finland had succeeded su p isingly well,
i was no clea wha had been he key ac o s con ibu ing o hose
achie emen s. Acco ding o some esea che s he No dic adi ions
o applying philosophy-based hinking in educa ion may ha e been
he mos signi ican co ne s ones o he Finnish success (c . Au io
2006).
Re ospec i ely, and in espec o he cu en heo iza ion in he so-
called Cu iculum S udies, he Tampe e subjec eache educa ion was
a an -ga dis in he 1990s. The Tampe e p og amme was an ou side
in he mains eam quan i a i e pe spec i es o educa ional sciences
and hei inc easingly ecognized es ic ions in desc ibing human
beings as subjec s and indi iduals ha ing a his o y, a p esen and a
u u e. This c i icism ocused on eache educa ion and pa icula ly
on school educa ion and he limi a ions in unde s anding s uden s
as holis ic human beings. (Ropo e al. 1995.) Ou side Finland, his
ecogni ion was inc easingly p esen , o ins ance, in he US whe e
he Reconcep ualiza ion Mo emen in cu iculum and i s de elope s
and ollowe s became mo e ecognized by schola s all o e he
wo ld, including dynamically p og essing China which has e o med
i s educa ion sys em based on ideas om he Reconcep ualiza ion
Mo emen . (Doll 1993; Pina e al. 1995; Pina 2012, 2014; Hende son
e al. 2015; Au io 2014a, b; Hua 2014.)
In Tampe e, he de elopmen s s a ing om language eache
educa ion sp ead li le by li le o o he subjec domains (see, e.g.,
Leh o aa a 2001; Kohonen 2001). In his mo emen , i was ypical
o conside school eaching and lea ning om he mo e holis ic
pe spec i es, emphasizing dialogical and democ a ic ideals as goals
and me hods o ins uc ion. Expe ien ial lea ning, as well as opening
he cul u al and con ex ual aspec s o lea ning, ende ed new
pe spec i es o li e in he class oom and lea ning a subjec . I also
became e iden ha unde s anding lea ning di e ences equi ed
In oduc ion
15Subjec eache educa ion in ansi ion
unde s anding hem om he pe spec i e o he au obiog aphies
and li e his o ies o he s uden s. (Kohonen e .al. 2001.) All hese
heo e ical expansions equi ed new expe ise, o ins ance, in
philosophy, back- acking o he ideals o ea ly Finnish heo is s,
such as Ahlman, Hollo, and Salomaa in eache educa ion in he ea ly
20 h cen u y.
I can be a gued ha he de elopmen o he holis ic app oach
in which he eache au onomy and eedom om me hodological
es ic ions o he inc easingly mechanis ic educa ional hinking is,
pe haps, one o he ew key ac o s in Finnish educa ion success. This
mo emen can also be ega ded as a kind o ‘ accina ion’ agains he
‘ eaching o he es ’ mo emen ha has sp ead all o e he wo ld.
This s ong emphasis on es ing and es esul s, o en in he o m
o s anda dized, na ional es ing as he main e idence o lea ning
achie emen s, has ne e eached Finland (Wes bu y 2000; Au io
2017.)
Assessmen as an essen ial pa o cu iculum and school eaching
was widely ecognised in he depa men o Tampe e eache
educa ion in he 1990s. Howe e , he solu ion was no o de elop i in
he di ec ion o quan i a i e assessmen bu o enhance sel - e lec ion
in au hen ic con ex s and de elop me hods o quali a i e e alua ion
in which au obiog aphical and in e p e a i e pe spec i es could be
aken in o accoun be e . This ype o assessmen does no aim a
in o ming ou side s abou he success and achie emen s in ela ion
o o he s uden s. Ra he , i s pu pose is o enhance pe sonal goal-
se ing and sel -e alua ion in e ms o lea ning du ing he cou se o
one’s li e and in e p e a ions o pe sonal expe iences in one’s own
au obiog aphy. (See Kohonen’s chap e in his olume.)
The chap e s in his book illus a e implica ions and de elopmen s
o eache educa ion o 21s -cen u y schools. Teache s should
be educa ed o wo k o he u u e and wi h he gene a ion ha
will in luence ha u u e. Al hough he e a e commonly sha ed
concep ions o wha he u u e holds, consensus is lacking on he
16
Ee o Ropo, Rii a Jaa inen and Te o Au io
ee o opo & ii a jaa inen (Eds)
global le el. Na a i es o he u u e di e on he basis o indi idual,
social and cul u al his o ies, adi ions, and expec a ions. Teache s as
pa o he global communi y and as ep esen a i es o educa ion a e
in a c ucial ole in ensu ing ha he complex dialogue and sea ch o
solu ions o inc easingly complica ed ques ions con inue in e hically
and mo ally esponsible ways and di ec ions. The de elopmen s
in eache educa ion ha we ha e b ie ly ou lined abo e ha e been
successes - howe e , no hing is inal.
O ganiza ion o he book
In hei chap e , Pe cep ions on collabo a ion, ime managemen
and meaning ulness: Millennials’ inno a ions in he subjec eache
educa ion p og amme, Ma i a Mäkinen, Johanna Annala and Jy i
Lindén p esen he highligh s o cu en s uden eache s’ pe cep ions
o he subjec eache educa ion p og amme (STEP). They a gue ha
s uden eache s ep esen one o he key g oups ha mus be hea d in
o de o main ain he e iciency o eache educa ion when acing 21s -
cen u y challenges, and sugges ha he no ion o social p ac ice ha
builds on he connec ion be ween he p ac ices o he p og amme
and he social na u e o he s uden eache s should be a d i ing o ce
in he design, implemen a ion and upda ing o eache educa ion
p og ammes. The chap e aims o deepen he unde s anding o
s uden eache s’ pe cep ions o eache educa ion h ough he lens o
gene a ion heo ies. By lis ening o and unde s anding hese eache s’
oices, eache educa o s can elimina e misunde s andings based on
in ui i e and aci gene a ional di e ences.
Viljo Kohonen’s chap e , Ad ancing language educa ion in he
con ex o de eloping he Eu opean Language Po olio in Finland,
aces he p ocesses o de eloping o eign language educa ion and he
Eu opean Language Po olio (ELP) wi hin he Council o Eu ope,
S asbou g. The ELP de elopmen s in Finland a e examined as pa o
In oduc ion
17Subjec eache educa ion in ansi ion
he Council’s inno a i e wo k on o eign language eaching aimed a
p omo ing socially esponsible lea ne au onomy and sel -assessmen
in language educa ion, spanning hi y yea s ( om he ea ly 1980s
o 2014). The Finnish ELP-o ien ed esea ch and de elopmen
wo k desc ibed in he chap e was conduc ed in se e al in ensi e
collabo a i e p ojec s managed and led by P o esso Kohonen,
in ol ing uni e si y depa men s o eache educa ion and nume ous
p ima y and seconda y school language eache s and hei pupils.
In he chap e , E e yday mul idisciplina i y: Con essions o a
mo he ongue eache educa o , Pi jo Vai inen discusses mo he
ongue didac ics and subjec -speci ic didac ics p esen ing he iews
h ough a na a i e o a eache educa o ’s p o essional iden i y. She
explo es he eaching and ac i i ies in subjec eache educa ion a
he Uni e si y o Tampe e wi h ocus on he signi icance o e lec ion
and esea ch in de eloping au onomous eache s. She includes he
his o y and adi ion o mo he ongue eaching in Finland and he
con ibu ions o he o me colleagues in he na a i e ela ing o he
pe sonal choices and easoning o hem. Du ing he wen y yea s
o he ca ee as a eache educa o , she has conside ed e lec ion and
esea ch o be he basis o eache educa ion and ega ds subjec
didac ics as a pe spec i e o eache hood, o being a eache .
In his chap e , Re lec ions on my jou ney owa ds cul u e-
bound and in e cul u al educa ion, Pauli Kaikkonen unco e s and
discusses his pe sonal de elopmen as a o eign language eache
and esea che and also highligh s he impo ance o his esea ch
and de elopmen p ojec s as a esou ce o expand his unde s anding
o in e cul u al ( o eign language) educa ion. As pa o his
au obiog aphical and ch onological jou ney p esen ed in he chap e ,
he also discusses ‘au hen ici y’, ‘iden i y’ and ‘plu ilingualism’ as
signi ican concep ions o mode n o eign language educa ion. A he
end, Kaikkonen e eals he main poin s o his cu en unde s anding
and p oposes a ew cen al and impo an pe spec i es ( heses) o
o eign language educa ion.
24
Ee o Ropo, Rii a Jaa inen and Te o Au io
ee o opo & ii a jaa inen (Eds)
Men kowski, M., Roge s, G., Dohe y, A., Loacke , G., Ha , J. R., Ricka ds,
W., & Diez, M. (2000). Lea ning ha las s: In eg a ing lea ning,
de elopmen , and pe o mance in college and beyond. San F ancisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pina , W. 2012. Cu iculum S udies in he Uni ed S a es: In ellec ual
His o ies, P esen Ci cums ances. New Yo k: Palg a e Macmillan.
Pina , W. 2014. In oduc ion. In W. Pina (ed.) Cu iculum S udies in China:
In ellec ual His o ies, P esen Ci cums ances. New Yo k: Palg a e
Macmillan, 1–28.
Pina , W., Reynolds, W., Sla e y, P. & Taubman, P. 1995. Unde s anding
Cu iculum. An In oduc ion o he S udy o His o ical and
Con empo a y Cu iculum Discou ses. New Yo k: E lbaum.
Ropo, E., Au io T., & Jaakkola R. 1995. Pos mode n o de and cu iculum
e o m: Some hough s on de eloping cu icula o p omo e li elong
lea ning. In M. Klasson, J. Manninen, S. Tøsse & B. Wahlg en (eds.)
Social Change and Adul Educa ion Resea ch: Adul Educa ion
Resea ch in No dic Coun ies 1994. Linköping, 111–123.
Ropo, E. & Vä i, V-M. 2003. Teache Iden i y and he Ideologies o
Teaching: Some Rema ks on he In e play. In D. T uei , W. E. Doll,
H. Wang & W.E. Pina (eds.) The In e na ionaliza ion o Cu iculum
S udies. Selec ed P oceedings om he LSU Con e ence 2000. Pe e
Lang, 261–270.
Sil e be g, H. 1999. Pe uskoulun yläas een oppilaan geome inen käsi e ie o.
Ac a Elec onica Uni e si a is Tampe ensis: 6. Tampe e: Tampe e
Uni e si y P ess.
Vuo io, J. 2015. Ope ajankoulu uksen monikul uu inen ho ison i −
Kuulumisia-koulu uksen aiku a uuden a ioin i. Kas a us ie-
eiden yksikkö. Kas a us ie eiden p o g adu - u kielma. Tampe een
yliopis o. u n. i/URN:NBN: i:u a-2015062.
Wes bu y, I. 2000. Teaching as a Re lec i e P ac ice: Wha Migh Didak ik
Teach Cu iculum? In S. Hopmann, K. Riqua s & I. Wes bu y (eds.)
Teaching as a Re lec i e P ac ice: The Ge man Didak ik T adi ion.
New Yo k: Rou ledge, 15–40.