Autonomy seems to be one of the key factors of happiness, according to Raj Raghunathan in “If You’re So Smart, Why Aren’t You Happy?” The idea that you are free to make certain choices and decisions is emotionally satisfying, rather than having others make decisions for you and force you to follow what they want, instead of what you want.
One way that Finland grants autonomy to their students is by having an Independent Learning Week. Instead of having set lectures and lessons for that week, teachers simply assign certain tasks that must be done by the end of the week, and they give students large blocks of time to accomplish those tasks however and whenever they want, in no particular order.
Taking this idea a step further, students can co-plan a one-unit lesson with their teacher on a subject of their choice — for example: the use of solar energy — and design activities like quiz shows, having guest speakers, and so on, for this purpose. The main idea of this approach is that students are more likely to take interest and participate in the lesson as they were part of the decision-making process. There is ownership of the idea not just for the teacher but for the students as well.
The next factor is mastery, the feeling of competence in a specific area of study or discipline. Finnish schools focus on mastery by identifying the essentials of each subject matter and making sure the students become competent in those. A lot of traditional educators like loading up the curriculum with more and more material, thinking this will lead to more learning, which is often not the case.
Teachers focused on mastery should not be in a hurry to finish the entire book. Education is about how much the students learn, not about how much the teacher has taught. Finnish teachers take time to really ensure that their students have achieved competence, even going as far as letting students prove that they have learned the material — asking students open-ended questions and listening to their explanations.
Some teachers even have one-on-one sessions with students, telling them what grade they’re going to get and giving them a chance to respond, such that grades are not just a number teachers throw out, but it becomes a tool that both parties agree to use as a measure for the students’ competence at that point in time.
The final factor is having the correct mindset, and this applies more for the teachers than the students. Although of course, by principle of leadership, the students will naturally mirror what their teacher do and how they behave. The correct mindset is one of collaboration as compared to the current mindset of competition. Teachers in Finland are not so much into proving that they are “good” or “master” teachers, nor do they chase after degrees in order to flaunt these. In fact, this is what Walker writes about teachers in his school: “[They] were not just collaborating in the traditional sense…they were truly laboring together, sharing the burdens of teaching…helping each other track down resources they’d need for an upcoming lesson…discussing better ways to support needy students…analyzing the curriculum together…grading tests together…offering tech support to each other.”
Researchers Andy Hargreave and Dennis Shirley observe: “Teachers in Finland cooperate as a matter of habit, not just to complete assigned tasks…not just as an add-on when the workday is over…Cooperation is about how they create curriculum and how the work itself gets done.”
Originally published in Sunstar Davao.
Email me at andy@freethinking.me. View previous articles atwww.freethinking.me.
One Reply to “Learning from Finland (Part 2)”
Comments are closed.