Reflections on my journey towards culture-bound and intercultural education

Reflections on my journey towards culture-bound and intercultural education Pauli Kaikkonen Introduction This chapter deals with my development as a foreign language teacher and researcher, on the one hand, and my understanding of intercultural (foreign language) education, on the other. I begin by describing my starting position as a foreign language teacher. During my first steps as a teacher and researcher, I understood the inseparable connection between language and its background culture. In connection with my doctoral thesis and the first follow-up study, I realized that foreign language learning involved the perception of foreign and familiar both as a dialogical process with others and, at same time, as a very individual process. Eero Ropo & Riitta Jaatinen (eds), Subject Teacher Education in Transition: Educating Teachers for the Future Tampere: Tampere University Press, 111–136. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-359-016-8 112 Pauli Kaikkonen eero ropo & riitta jaatinen (Eds) My further research projects led me to use the notion of language education for foreign language teaching. In the increasingly global world, intercultural encounters between people are regular and require the use of different languages. I have chosen to describe the new situation using the word ‘intercultural’. I talk about intercultural education and intercultural foreign language learning or teaching in the same context. This is because I understand that the same principles can be seen both in intercultural foreign language learning and in intercultural or multicultural education. As part of my chronological path, I also discuss authenticity and identity and plurilingualism as significant conceptions of modern foreign language education. Finally, I discuss the main points of my current understanding and propose some central perspectives to foreign language education. The first steps towards the culturebound and intercultural approach From the beginning of my teaching career, I have been a foreign language teacher. The 1970s was dominated by structuralism in linguistics and behaviourism in the educational sciences. I worked three years as a German teacher in an upper secondary school before my appointment as the lecturer of German didactics at the University of Tampere (in 1977). Three years earlier, teacher education had become part of Finnish universities at the newly established department of teacher education. The situation gave me both the obligation and the possibility, as a rather young teacher, to reflect on my own teaching and to consider what kind of a world view, language conception and language teaching competences new teachers would need in their work. My considerations of teacher education and views of foreign language learning led me to develop learning materials for the Finnish comprehensive and upper secondary schools in 1979 with a group of Reflections on my journey towards culture-bound and intercultural education 113Subject teacher education in transition four teachers of German. One of our central ideas was that the learning material in school should be as authentic as possible. Authenticity was thus one of the leading conceptions paving the way to my beginning research work. However, my interpretation of authenticity at the end of the 1970s was narrow compared to my later understanding of it. At that time, authenticity was mostly understood as correct language use and cultural information of the target countries. The second important conception was communicative competence, particularly the oral competence in the use of foreign languages. At that time, however, the teaching of competences for communication was rather minute because of the strong influence of structuralism in linguistics. To develop new learning materials, I set up a collaborative fiveyear teaching project at the Department of Teacher Education in the University of Tampere with three other teacher colleagues in German, focusing first on the 8th and 9th grades in comprehensive education. The project was later expanded for a further three years at the upper secondary school level. The comprehensive school learning material called Komm mit 8–13 was published by the WSOY printing house (1980–1985). From the beginning of the project, we assumed an aspiration to connect with the living worlds of the 14to 15-year-old pupils. Through our teacher contacts in German schools, we asked German pupils of the same age to write about their lives, opinions and interests in the themes that we considered the learning material should include. In this way, we obtained rich, authentic material as the basis for the texts and exercises that we developed together. The learning material project was completed in 1985. While it did not produce research papers, it created a solid base for my theoretical thinking and later studies. 114 Pauli Kaikkonen eero ropo & riitta jaatinen (Eds) Relationship between language and culture The connection between language and culture is collective by nature. The fact that people belong to various groups naturally implies that the language used, or the languages used, are culture-bound. For human beings, language is a basic way of existing in the world. It is by means of language that we express ourselves and connect with fellow individuals. By means of language and by using language, we examine and evaluate the world, ask questions that are important to us, tell others about ourselves, set up relationships with others and listen to them and their notions of the world and themselves. Language is also a means of expressing membership in a variety of collective groups, participation in our ways of living, and seeing the world and human beings as part of it. But simultaneously, we also dissociate ourselves from certain groups, i.e. from people who think and act in a different way. By means of language we also express our non-commitment to a certain set of values and to people who think and act in a certain way. By expressing our commitment and noncommitment, we, in fact, reveal who we are and what we are like (Kaikkonen 2012a). Language depends deeply on culture, being a product of a particular culture. Languages differ from each other in several respects. Each language has its own sentence structure, sounds and vocabulary. The prevailing culture has developed or defined the way in which a particular language is written. The words of a language provide a great deal of information about their cultural past, but it is still not a matter of course that we are able to comprehend this information. In most cases we do not pay any attention to the cultural origin, or narrative, of the words in our mother tongue. A language is further connected with extra-linguistic factors in a variety of ways, such as gestures, facial expressions, body language, the rituals, symbols and other signs that have been established in practice, as well as the non-linguistic signals that we both send and receive. Reflections on my journey towards culture-bound and intercultural education 115Subject teacher education in transition Moreover, our language is influenced, for instance, by our notions of time, space and gender. A language is used for communication and interpreted as part of the person’s overall behaviour by the participants. Communication invariably includes meanings other than linguistic ones. As human languages are culture-bound, they are linked to the other factors that are present in their respective cultures. (Kaikkonen 1994; 2001; 2004; 2012a.) The fact that language and culture are so deeply intertwined is very significant for foreign language teaching and learning. This was the point of view that I had already considered as a young language teacher when wondering about the contents of existing learning materials, classroom teaching methods, and the principles of teacher education that resulted in my own classroom behaviour. Understanding the language as being deeply rooted in its background culture led me to teach the foreign language in a culture-oriented way, by sensitising pupils to foreign language culture and foreignness, actively making perceptions of foreign linguistic behaviour and becoming, at the same time, aware of their automatized linguistic and culture-bound behaviours (e.g. Kaikkonen 1997b). Becoming a researcher of culture-bound foreign language learning and teaching In 1986, I received the opportunity to conduct full-time research for half a year’s time with funding by the Finnish Ministry of Education and the Academy of Austria. The time at the Teacher Training University in Graz was crucial for my thinking about learning and teaching foreign languages. I was now able to acquaint myself with qualitative research and its possibilities in fieldwork. I also deepened my understanding of experiential learning and teaching in foreign languages (cf. Puchta & Schratz 1984), and of the plurality of the conception of culture. As a result, I was able to outline an action 116 Pauli Kaikkonen eero ropo & riitta jaatinen (Eds) research experiment to study the learners’ and teachers’ perceptions and experiences of foreign language and culture learning. The experimental project was conducted in 1989–1990. Ten German language students participated in it, Burkhart Bendel (lecturer) and myself, from the University of Tampere. As a result of this project, I finished my doctoral thesis Erlebte Landeskunde (Kaikkonen 1991). It deepened my understanding of authenticity towards the language user’s authentic action, producing a change of perspective as a new notion that included a comparison of and reflection on two different language cultures, introducing the conception of an authentic encounter. I summarised the conclusions of the thesis briefly as follows: A central function of the stay in Germany, besides giving opportunities for observation, contact and information-gathering, was to allow the participating students to test their previous assumptions enabling them to verify or falsify them. An important result was that the teaching experiment and its procedures were able to change the participants’ cultural awareness (Kaikkonen 1991, 175). At that time, intercultural foreign language teaching was in search of its forms at least in Central Europe, and thus my doctoral thesis aroused a great amount of interest among foreign language education researchers. As the result of this, I had the opportunity to participate in several international seminars and conferences. The action research approach provided an excellent way to connect theory with practice. It led to conducting further research with students at the upper secondary school level. Thus an action research study on culture-oriented foreign language teaching was launched in collaboration with Tuula Pantzar and Jari Aarnio, the lecturers in German and French at the Teacher Training School affiliated with the University of Tampere (Kaikkonen 1993; 1995). The project comprised a two-year teaching experiment with 16to 17-year-old students aimed at producing a curriculum that would take into account the deep connection between language and culture, and thus help the Reflections on my journey towards culture-bound and intercultural education 117Subject teacher education in transition learners grow out of the shell of their mother tongue and their own culture. The research project was also aimed at developing an active learner role through simulations and mental image training. The project thus included a number of activities with the students of French and German involving site visits or online work. Moreover, there were several classroom encounters with adult native speakers of French and German including a great deal of reflective, collaborative and dialogical action (Kaikkonen 1998b). The results of the study can be summarised as follows: the action research Culture and Foreign Language Learning indicated that a foreign language has to be studied with its cultural background. Moreover, it became clear that foreign language learning as a traditional school subject could help pupils grow towards intercultural understanding and intercultural learning to some extent only. It is obvious that pupils have been guided to consider other people, be pluralistic, and think globally in all school subjects. According to this approach, however, to achieve intercultural learning, the curriculum should be developed in such a way that it also includes all the basic fundamentals of intercultural learning: an individual’s own culture, his or her own cultural behaviour, and his or her own language on the one hand, and foreign cultures, strange behaviour, and foreign languages on the other. So, familiarity and foreignness are the experiences the pupils should be exposed to in school continuously. (Kaikkonen 1997a, b.) The research project helped me understand that foreign language learning has to deal with intercultural learning. To be efficient, intercultural learning should not be limited to foreign language education only; it should be part of the entire school curriculum. These demands have been understood well in the latest school curricula in Finland. 118 Pauli Kaikkonen eero ropo & riitta jaatinen (Eds) Towards cooperative and networked language and culture education In 1994, together with Professor Viljo Kohonen, we started a collaborative long-term research and development project together, the OK project. It was an intensive three-year project designed and led by the two of us in collegial collaboration. It was carried out in six schools in Tampere and Nokia with 40 participating teachers and their pupils (see Kohonen in this volume). The project included classes from comprehensive to upper secondary schools. In addition to our shared responsibility, I was in charge of research on intercultural learning. The project findings were published in three edited collections of papers written by both the participating schoolteachers and researchers of the Department of Teacher Education. The project also resulted in several studies that were published both nationally and internationally (e. g. Kohonen & Kaikkonen 1996; Kaikkonen 1998a; Kohonen & Kaikkonen 2001). Moreover, members of the project group participated in several European seminars, coordinated by the Council of Europe, and in different international research seminars and conferences. In this way, a large international network was built up for disseminating the findings. The experiences of the participating teachers and pupils yielded a great deal of new understanding of dialogical and reflective action and the challenges of encountering foreignness. In addition, the project revealed the importance of a whole-school approach in supporting the learners’ intercultural education and understanding of otherness, similarity and difference. Learners clearly progressed towards the global world and intercultural challenges (Kaikkonen 1999). The project also functioned as excellent in-service education for the participating teachers, facilitating them to commit themselves to reflecting on and reporting their classroom experiences for a sufficiently long period of time (Kohonen 1999). Reflections on my journey towards culture-bound and intercultural education 119Subject teacher education in transition In 1998, I was appointed as the professor of foreign language pedagogy at the University of Jyväskylä, acting in this position for the following 11 years. My collaboration with the Department of Teacher Education at the University of Tampere, particularly with Professor Viljo Kohonen continued seamlessly. In 1999, we established a nation-wide series of the so-called VikiPeda conferences in foreign language education, aimed at supporting the pedagogical research at the departments of teacher education in Finnish universities, and disseminating the findings to language teachers nationally. These conferences took place biannually at each university and were coordinated by us and organised by the local university researchers. Through the funding by the Ministry of Education, it was possible to invite internationally distinguished researchers of foreign language education to all of these conferences1. My research orientation as a professor at the University of Jyväskylä continued in the direction that I had assumed at the Department of Teacher Education in Tampere. My basic theoretical assumptions matured in the collegial work with active researchers in Jyväskylä and in the fruitful collaboration with different universities and research centres, especially with colleagues at the universities in Tampere, Turku and Oulu. While in Jyväskylä, and during my visiting researcher year at the Pedagogical University of Heidelberg, it became clear to me that my conception of authenticity had to be widened beyond language and cultural authenticity. This led me to the realisation that authenticity is deeply connected with experience and the meaning given to it. Next, I discuss my expanding understanding of authenticity in some more detail. Authenticity means something genuine that originates from the person himself or herself, as indicated by its Greek root word (authentes = originator, maker). The person who initiates something 1 The conferences were held in Jyväskylä (1999 and 2013), Tampere (2001), Oulu 2003, Turku (2005), Helsinki (2007), Joensuu (2009) and Vaasa (2011). The conference papers were published by the local university, from the second volume onwards in English and/or German (see also Kohonen in this volume). 126 Pauli Kaikkonen eero ropo & riitta jaatinen (Eds) On the other hand, there is the principle of difference, in which the notions of authenticity are recognised. In according to this principle, different characteristics, needs and abilities vary from individual to individual and from one group to another. The principles of equality and difference are realised in tension with each other: the principle of equality calls for equal treatment of all people, while the principle of difference calls for the perception of differences between individuals and groups. Intercultural education and learning is carried out in this tension and exists at the demarcation line between the two conflicting principles. Conclusion: discussion and theses of foreign language education Teaching and learning foreign languages takes place as interplay between own and foreign. Foreign language learners have their native language(s) and culture(s) in the background. When learning a new language, they also encounter a new (language) culture. The task of teaching is to guide learners to grow beyond the borders set by their own culture(s) and native languages(s). This requires (1) sensitisation to diversity, (2) ability to make conscious observations about the native and foreign language, behaviour and environment, and (3) readiness to seek and gather information on linguistic and cultural standards in both cultures (Kaikkonen 2001). Foreign language education thus targets an active language learner with socially responsible learner autonomy (e. g. Kohonen 2012). Modern language education also aims at producing plurilingual and pluricultural language users. This is a logical aim in the current multilingual and multicultural world. The premises can be manifold: one can be plurilingual because of one’s family or immigration, or if one has lived in a foreign language culture, or wants to be able to use different languages in different situations in life. Due to the Reflections on my journey towards culture-bound and intercultural education 127Subject teacher education in transition very essence of pluriligualism, language educators must take into consideration the learner’s different languages: the native language as the language of personal emotions and as the first tool for interpreting the surrounding world, and any other languages in early childhood, as well as the foreign languages chosen by the learner. At the same time, the learner’s language identity needs to be considered and developed. An important principle in language education is also seeing the learner as a person and an active language user from the very beginning, rather than seeing him or her as a recipient of information who is expected to draw that information from the treasury of knowledge after school in real life-situations (cf. Ruohotie-Lyhty et al. 2008). What is extremely importantly is that learners must be able to experience from the beginning that they can use the new language to do something that is real and meaningful to them, irrespective of the fact that their language usage can at first be deficient and scanty. (Kaikkonen 2012a.) In language education, one of the aims is intercultural learning, which requires giving the relevant grounds for a description of what exactly interculturalism implies from the various points of view. Intercultural knowledge is not only knowledge that is known to be true. Due to its nature that relates to otherness and foreignness, it is always negotiable knowledge and therefore requires dialogical and authentic learning processes. According to its basic meaning in Greek, dialogue means that those engaged in it enter into a kind of intermediate space (dia=through, in between) in which their knowledge, understanding and concepts of the world (logos) are raised for joint contemplation (Kaikkonen 2005b). The teacher plays a crucial role in introducing foreign language learners to intercultural encounters (cf. Jaatinen 2014). Intercultural learning requires an initiation of several experiential processes. Not merely cognitive, these processes also include as essential elements the pupils’ affective, emotional and social behaviour and learning (cf. 128 Pauli Kaikkonen eero ropo & riitta jaatinen (Eds) Nyman & Kaikkonen 2013). Thus it would be justified to talk about holistic learning and guidance towards it. That means learning to live in a multilinguistic and multicultural world, where encounters with diversity and foreignness are part of everyday life. Thus it seems rather odd that teachers should be able to assess their students’ intercultural experience and learning just by means of tests (cf. Byram 2009). What is called metacognitive learning is also an essential part of these processes. In the final analysis, we are concerned with enhancing a process whereby pupils become full members of society and learn to live in the international global world. It is thus a central task of education to enable an individual to become the type of person that is required in the life of today’s world and tomorrow. To sum up, I propose a number of theses for modern foreign language education based on the research findings and thoughts discussed above. As I see it, foreign language education emphasizes the following human, linguistic and pedagogical aspects: Reflections on my journey towards culture-bound and intercultural education 129Subject teacher education in transition Theses of foreign language education – Due to their nature, human beings are holistic actors, i. e. thinking, feeling, knowing and acting persons in contact with other people. The goal of schooling is to educate whole persons, human beings, who trust in their experience (Jaatinen 2001; cf. also Jaatinen 2007; Kohonen in this volume). – Language is an essential part of human identity. Languages other than the native language can also have an important role in the development of the learners’ identity (Kaikkonen 2007; Kaikkonen 2009a). Human beings are plurilingual in different ways (Lüdi 2003). – Language functions above all as a medium of speech, whereby human interaction is very versatile, and non-verbal communication plays a substantial role in it (e.g. Kaikkonen 2001). – Foreign language education involves cooperation between language, culture and identity. All of these are equally important and influence each other. (Hu 2003; Kaikkonen 2010.) – Language is in a natural and obligatory contact with its cultural background. When we speak a foreign language, the culture of the native language has an influence on it through interference. Consequently, foreign language education does not propose the native language competence as its goal, but an intercultural communicative competence (Kaikkonen 2012a, b). – Learning a foreign language is meaningful in authentic situations. This means that learners are creators and coorganisers of their learning and linguistic action (e. g. Kaikkonen 2002). – Experiences and coming to terms with their possible conflicts are useful and educational in foreign language learning. A significant intercultural foreign language learning process is dialogical. It is based on the respect for each other, on an authentic stance and equal rights of participation for all persons involved (Kaikkonen 2007; 2009b). 130 Pauli Kaikkonen eero ropo & riitta jaatinen (Eds) References Bausinger, H. 1999. Intercultural demands and cultural identity. In T. Vestergaard (ed.) Language, culture and identity. Aalborg: Aalborg University Press, 11-23. Bredella, L. & Delanoy W. (eds.) 1999. Interkultureller Fremdsprachenunterricht. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Byram, M. 2009. Evaluation and/or assessment of intercultural competence. In A. Hu & M. Byram (eds.) Interkulturelle Kompetenz und fremdsprachliches Lernen. Intercultural competence and foreign language learning. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 215-234. Donath, R. & Volkmer, I. (eds.) 2000. Das Transatlantische Klassenzimmer. Tips und Ideen für die Online-Projekte in der Schule. Hamburg: Edition Köber-Stiftung. Hildén, R. & Salo, O-P. (eds.) 2011. Kielikasvatus tänään ja huomenna. Opetussuunnitelmat, opettajankoulutus ja kielenopettajan arki. Helsinki: WSOY. Hu, A. 2003. Mehrsprachigkeit, Identitätsund Kulturtheorie: Tendenzen der Konvergenz. In I. De Florio-Hansen & A. Hu (eds.) Plurilingualität und Identität. Zur Selbstund Fremdwahrnehmung mehrsprachiger Menschen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 1-23. Jaatinen, R. 2001. Autobiographical knowledge in foreign language education and teacher development. In V. Kohonen, R. Jaatinen, P. Kaikkonen & J. Lehtovaara: Experiential learning in foreign language education. Harlow: Pearson Education, 106-140. Jaatinen, R. 2007. Learning Languages, Learning Life-skills. Autobiographical Reflexive Approach to Teaching and Learning a Foreign Language. New York: Springer. Jaatinen, R. 2014. Promoting interculturalism in primary school children through the development of encountering skills: a case study in two Finnish schools. Education 3-13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2 013.877951. 12p. Kaikkonen, P. 1991. Erlebte Kulturund Landeskunde. Ein Weg zur Aktivierung und Intensivierung des Kulturbewußtseins der Fremdsprachenlernenden – eine Untersuchung mit LehrerstudentInnen. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis ser A vol 325. Reflections on my journey towards culture-bound and intercultural education 131Subject teacher education in transition Kaikkonen, P. 1993. Kulttuuri ja vieraan kielen oppiminen. Tapaustutkimus lukiolaisten ranskan ja saksan kielen ja kulttuurin oppimisen opetuskokeilusta. Osa 1. Tampereen opettajankoulutuslaitoksen julkaisuja A16. Kaikkonen, P. 1994. Kulttuuri ja vieraan kielen oppiminen. Helsinki: WSOY. Kaikkonen, P. (toim.) 1995. Kulttuuri ja vieraan kielen oppiminen osa II. Tapaustutkimus lukiolaisten saksan ja ranskan kielen ja kulttuurin oppimisen opetuskokeilusta. Tampereen yliopiston opettajakoulutuslaitoksen julkaisuja A1. Kaikkonen, P. 1997a. Fremdverstehen durch schulischen Fremdsprachenunterricht. Einige Aspekte zum interkulturellen Lernen. Info DaF 24 (1), 78–86). Kaikkonen, P. 1997b. Learning a culture and a foreign language at school – aspects of intercultural learning. Language Learning Journal March 1997, No 15, 47-51. Kaikkonen, P. 1998a. Entwicklung der Schulkultur. Perspektiven aus finnischer Sicht. In E. Rauscher (ed.) Schulentwicklung in Europa. Wien: ÖBV Pädägogischer Verlag, 51-65. Kaikkonen, P. 1998b. Kohti kulttuurienvälistä vieraan kielen oppimista. In P. Kaikkonen & V. Kohonen (eds.) Kokemuksellisen kielenopetuksen jäljillä. Tampereen yliopiston opettajakoulutuslaitoksen julkaisuja A14, 11-24. Kaikkonen, P. 1999. Kulttuurien välinen kasvatus ja kansainvälisyyskasvatus kouluopetuksen tavoitteena – oppilaiden näkökulmia. In P. Kaikkonen & V. Kohonen (eds.) Elävä opetussuunnitelma 3. OK-projektin vaikuttavuuden arviointia. Tampereen yliopiston opettajakoulutuslaitoksen julkaisuja A19, 127-143. Kaikkonen, P. 2000. Autenttisuus ja sen merkitys kulttuurienvälisessä vieraan kielen opetuksessa. In P. Kaikkonen & V. Kohonen (eds.) Minne menet kielikasvatus? Näkökulmia kielipedagogiikkaan. Jyväskylän yliopiston opettajankoulutuslaitos, 49-61. Kaikkonen, P. 2001. Intercultural learning through foreign language education. In V. Kohonen, R. Jaatinen, P. Kaikkonen & J. Lehtovaara Experiential learning in foreign language education. London: Pearson Education, 61-105. Kaikkonen, P. 2002. Authentizität und authentische Erfahrung in einem interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht. Info DaF 29 (1), 3-12. 132 Pauli Kaikkonen eero ropo & riitta jaatinen (Eds) Kaikkonen, P. 2004. Vierauden keskellä. Vierauden, monikulttuurisuuden ja kulttuurienvälisen kasvatuksen aineksia. University of Jyväskylä. Department of Teacher Education. Kaikkonen, P. 2005a. Fremdsprachenunterricht zwischen Moderne und Postmoderne. Info DaF 32 (4), 297–305. Kaikkonen, P. 2005b. Kielikasvatus koulun vieraan kielen opetuksen kehyksenä. In V. Kohonen (ed.) Eurooppalainen kielisalkku. Helsinki: WSOY, 45–58. Kaikkonen, P. 2005c. Monikielinen ja monikulttuurinen identiteetti – kielenopetuksenkin haasteena. In J. Smeds, K. Sarmavuori, E. Laakkonen & R. De Cillia (eds.) Multicultural communities, multilingual practice. Monikulttuuriset yhteisöt, monikielinen käytäntö. Festschrift für Annikki Koskensalo zum 60. Geburtstag. Annales universitatis Turkuensis, Humaniora Ser. B 285, 89–100. Kaikkonen, P. 2007. Interkulturelles Lernen in einem multikulturellen Europa – Fremdsprachliches Lernen im Spannungsfeld. In A.H. Hilligus & M.A. Kreienbaum (eds.) Europakompetenz – durch Begegnung lernen. Opladen & Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich, 35–51. Kaikkonen, P. 2009a. Der Mensch und seine Identität – Perspektiven zur Verständigung der sprachlichen Identität und zur Problematik des plurilingualen Sprechers. In R. Kantelinen & P. Pollari (eds.) Language Education and Lifelong Learning. University of Eastern Finland. School of Applied Educational Science and Teacher Education, 85–102. Kaikkonen, P. 2009b. Fremdsprachliches Lernen in einer sich postmodern nennenden Welt – einige Bemerkungen und Forschungsergebnisse. In A. Koskensalo, J. Smeds & R. de Cillia (eds.) The Role of Language in Culture and Education. Sprache als kulturelle Herausforderung. Berlin: LIT Verlag, 355–371. Kaikkonen, P. 2010. Auf dem Weg zum jungen Fremdsprachenlehrer – von der Lehrerbildung zur Schule. In J. Abel & G. Faust (eds.) Wirkt Lehrerbildung? Antworten aus der empirischen Forschung. Münster: Waxman, 173–186. Kaikkonen, P. 2012a. Language, culture and identity as key concepts of intercultural learning. In M. Bendtsen, M. Björklund, L. Forsman & K. Sjöholm (eds.) Global Trends Meet Local Needs. Åbo Akademi University. Reports from the Faculty of Education No 33, 17–33. Reflections on my journey towards culture-bound and intercultural education 133Subject teacher education in transition Kaikkonen, P. 2012b. Sprache, sprachliche Identität und Plulingualität – gemeinschaftliche und subjektive Natur der Perspektiven. In A. Koskensalo, J. Smeds, R. De Cillia & Á. Huguet (eds.) Language. Competence-Change-Contact. Sprache. Kompetenz-Kontakt-Wandel. Berlin: LIT Verlag, 177–191. Kara, H. 2007. “Ermutige mich Deutsch zu sprechen” Portfolio als Evaluationsform von mündlichen Leistungen. Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research 315. Karjala, K. 2003. Neulanreiästä panoraamaksi. Ruotsin kulttuurikuvan ainekset eräissä keskikoulun ja B-ruotsin vuosina 1961–2002 painetuissa oppikirjoissa. Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research 214. Kohonen, V. 1994. Salkkuarvioinnin mahdollisuuksia opettajan ammatillisen kehittymisen tukena. In P. Linnakylä, P. Pollari & S. Takala (eds.) Portfolio arvioinnin ja oppimisen tukena. Finnish Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä, 33–50. Kohonen 1999. Uudistuva opettajuus ja koulukulttuurin muutos OKprojektin päätösvaiheessa. In Kaikkonen, P. & Kohonen, V. (eds.) Elävä opetussuunnitelma 3. OK-projektin vaikuttavuuden arviointia. Reports from the Department of Teacher Education in Tampere University A19, 37–63. Kohonen, V. 2001. Towards experiential foreign language education. In V. Kohonen, R. Jaatinen, P. Kaikkonen & J. Lehtovaara Experiential learning in foreign language education. London: Pearson Education, 8–60. Kohonen, V. (ed.) 2005. Eurooppalainen kielisalkku. Helsinki: WSOY. Kohonen, V. 2012. Developing autonomy through ELP-oriented pedagogy. Exploring the interplay of shallow and deep structures in a major change within language education. In B. Kühn & M.L. Pérez Cavana (eds.) Perspectives from the European Language Portfolio. Learner autonomy and self assessment. London & New York: Routledge, 23– 42. Kohonen, V & Kaikkonen, P. 1996. Exploring new ways of in-service teacher education: an action research project. European Journal of Intercultural Studies 7 (3), 42–59. 134 Pauli Kaikkonen eero ropo & riitta jaatinen (Eds) Kohonen, V. & Kaikkonen, P. 2001. Towards a collegial school culture: fostering new teacher professionalism and student autonomy through an action research project. In Benton, N. & Benton, R. (eds.) Te rito o te mātauranga: Experiential learning for the third millennium: Selected papers from the seventh conference of the International Consortium for Experiential Learning, Auckland, Aotearoa / New Zealand, December 4-8, 2000. Auckland: James Henare Māori Research Centre, University of Auckland, 79–93. Kohonen, V. & Pajukanta, U. (eds.) 2000. Eurooppalainen kielisalkku – kokemuksia EKS-projektin alkutaipaleelta. Reports from the Department of Teacher Education in Tampere University A23. Kohonen, V. & Pajukanta, U. (eds.) 2003. Eurooppalainen kielisalkku 2 – EKS-projektin päätösvaiheen tuloksia. Reports from the Department of Teacher Education in Tampere University A28. Kolu, U. 1999. Vuorovaikutteisen arvioinnin kokeilu Pyynikin koulussa vuosina 1995–1998. In P. Kaikkonen & V. Kohonen (eds.) Elävä opetussuunnitelma 2. Opettajien ääniä: opettajat tutkivat työtään. Reports from the Department of Teacher Education in Tampere University A18, 9–37. Larzén, E. 2005. In pursuit of an intercultural dimension in EFL-teaching. Exploring cognitions among Finland-Swedish Comprehensive School teachers. Åbo Akademi University Press. Lehtomäki, P. 1997. Portfolion käyttö aihekokonaisuuksien opiskelussa. In P. Kaikkonen & V. Kohonen (eds.) Elävä opetussuunnitelma 1. Koulujen ja yliopiston yhteinen toimintatutkimus opettajuuden ja opetussuunnitelman kehittymisestä. Reports from the Department of Teacher Education in Tampere University A9, 163–181. Lehtovaara, J. 2001. What is it – (FL) teaching? In V. Kohonen, R. Jaatinen, P. Kaikkonen & J. Lehtovaara Experiential learning in foreign language education. London: Pearson Education, 141-176. Lüdi, G. 2003. Mehrsprachige Repertoires und plurielle Identität von Migranten: Chancen und Probleme. In I. De Florio-Hansen & A. Hu (eds.) Plurilingualität und Identität. Zur Selbstund Fremdwahrnehmung mehrsprachiger Menschen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 39–58. Nieke, W. 2000. Interkulturelle Erziehung und Bildung. Wertorientierungen im Alltag. Opladen: Leske+Budrich. Reflections on my journey towards culture-bound and intercultural education 135Subject teacher education in transition Nyman, T. 2009. Nuoren vieraan kielen opettajan pedagogisen ajattelun ja ammatillisen asiantuntijuuden kehittyminen. Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research 368. Nyman, T. & Kaikkonen, P. 2013. What kind of learning environment do newly qualified teachers create? Scandinavial Journal of Educational Research, 57 (2), 167–181. Pajukanta, U. 1999. Portfolio suullisen kielitaidon ja reflektoinnin ohjaamisen välineenä. In P. Kaikkonen & V. Kohonen (eds.) Elävä opetussuunnitelma 2. Opettajien ääniä: opettajat tutkivat työtään. Reports from the Department of Teacher Education in Tampere University A18, 109–118. Puchta, H. & Schratz M. 1984. Handelndes Lernen. München: Hueber Verlag. Raunio, P. 2013. Työhön Suomeen? Tutkimus työperusteiseen maahanmuuttoon liittyvistä koulutusprosesseista. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 1851. Rosa, H. 1998. Identität und kulturelle Praxis. Politische Philosophie nach Charles Taylor. Frankfurt: Campus. Rasinen, T. 2006. Näkökulmia vieraskieliseen perusopetukseen. Koulun kehittämishankkeesta koulun toimintakulttuuriksi. Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research 281. Ruohotie-Lyhty, M. 2011. Opettajuuden alkutaival. Vastavalmistuneen vieraan kielen opettajan toimijuus ja ammatillinen kehittyminen. Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research 410. Ruohotie-Lyhty, M., Nyman, T. & Kaikkonen, P. 2008. Von der Lehramtsstudentin zur jungen Fremdsprachenlehrerin. In S. Tella (ed.) From brawn to brain: strong signals in foreign language education. University of Helsinki. Department of Applied Sciences of Education 290, 207–225. Sen, A. 2006. Identity and violence: the illusion of destiny. New York & London: W.W.Norton. Taajamo, M. 2005. Ulkomaiset opiskelijat Suomessa. Kokemuksia opiskelusta ja oppimisesta, elämästä ja erilaisuudesta. University of Jyväskylä, Finnish Institute for Educational Research. van Lier, L. 1996. Interaction in the language curriculum. Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. London and New York: Longman.