How Do Teachers Make Sense of a New Infrastructure for Learning? Introducing the FUSE Studio in Finnish Schools

• In Event: 53.030 - FUSE Studios: Exploring the Adoption and Sustainability of an Informal STEM Education Innovation in and out of School

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate how Finnish teachers make sense of a new FUSE Studio infrastructure for learning. Infrastructure for learning refers to socio-materially mediated arrangements on which the school activity relies (Stevens, et al., 2016). Finnish schools represent an interesting site for researching the uptake of FUSE due to the unique nature of Finnish educational policy that centers on teachers’ autonomy (Sahlberg, 2011; Simola, 2015). Moreover, recently Finland launched new curriculum for basic education that introduces a more integrated instructional approach realized in project-based learning activities emphasizing students’ digital skills, collaboration and entrepreneurship (FNBE, 2014). It is within this cultural context, our study asks; How do Finnish teachers make sense of the FUSE infrastructure for learning? Which possibilities and tensions do teachers identify in the uptake of FUSE in their schools?

Informed by cultural-historical theorizing (Penuel, 2014) our study stresses teachers’ agency in educational reforms. This involves regarding teachers as valued participants in co-configuring educational reforms to address local needs (see also Hubbard, Mehan & Stein, 2006). From this perspective, how schools change reforms becomes at least an equally important research focus as how reforms change schools (Tyack & Cuban, 1997).

The empirical data derive from two public schools situated in culturally and socioeconomically heterogeneous suburbs of Helsinki; a primary school with 251 students (grades 1-6, aged between 7-12 years) and 16 teachers, and a comprehensive school with 500 students (grades 1-9, aged between 7-16 years) and 57 teachers. The primary data comprise 23 teachers’ and four principals’ accounts derived from semi-structured interviews conducted after a two-day in-service FUSE training program. The interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis (Kvale & Brinkmann 2009).

The analysis revealed critical themes unpacking the teachers’ sensemaking of FUSE. Namely, 1) FUSE as a possibility 2) FUSE as a tension, 3) FUSE within the operating culture and leadership of the school, and 4) FUSE and teacher agency and empowerment. Firstly, the teachers interpreted FUSE primarily as a useful concept that made the abstract goals of the new curriculum more manageable. Providing students with opportunities for making choices regarding their own learning was also appreciated. Yet, concerns were raised whether FUSE supported students adequately in regulating their engagement in learning towards instructional goals. Other tensions included concerns regarding the lack of resources and established practices in the maintenance of FUSE equipment, the difficulty in appropriating the new teacher role as a co-learner, organising the time and space for FUSE, connecting FUSE with the curricular goals, and assessing and supporting students’ progress in learning. Regarding the importance of school leadership and overall school culture, the findings foreground the pivotal role of the collective knowledge sharing in supporting teachers’ building of digital competences needed to implement FUSE. Finally, teachers’ local adjustments to FUSE were identified as an important means of accommodating institutional needs and personal empowerment.

In conclusion, the study highlights the complexity involved in the task of reforming school instruction and suggests that reforms can only succeed by involving the teachers as contributors to the process.

Authors

• Antti Juhani Rajala, University of Helsinki / Department of Teacher Education

• Kristiina P. Kumpulainen, University of Helsinki