Learning outcomes in Finnish higher education from the perspective of comprehensive curriculum framework

Author(s):  
Sari Havu-Nuutinen ◽  
Sarika Kewalramani ◽  
Nikolai Veresov ◽  
Susanna Pöntinen ◽  
Sini Kontkanen

AbstractThis research is a comparative study of Finnish and Australian science curricula in early childhood education (EC). The study aims to figure out the constructivist components of the science curriculum in two countries as well as locate the similarities and differences in the rationale and aims, contents, learning outcomes, learning activities, teacher’s role and assessment. The curriculum analysis framework developed by Van den Akker (2003) was used as a methodological framework for the curricula analysis. Based on the theory-driven content analyses, findings show that both countries have several components of constructivist curriculum, but not always clearly focused on science education. The Australian Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) integrates children’s science learning within their five specific learning outcomes, whereas the Finnish national core curriculum for early childhood education and care has no defined learning outcomes in general. The Finnish curriculum more clearly than EYLF encompasses science and environmental education as a learning domain, within which children participate in targeted scientific activities to gain procedural knowledge in specific environmental-related concepts. More focus should be turned to the teachers’ role and assessment, which are not determined in science context in both countries. This international comparative study calls for the need of a considered EC curriculum framework that more explicitly has science domains with specifically defined rationale, aims, content areas, learning outcomes and assessment criteria. The implications lie in providing early childhood educators with tangible and theoretically solid curriculum framework and resources in order to foster scientific thinking in young children.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 543-543
Author(s):  
Joann Montepare

Abstract Age-friendly University (AFU) campuses are reshaping how we think about teaching and learning in higher education. In particular, intergenerational classrooms are on the rise as shifting age demographics call for institutions to create new opportunities for older learners and encourage intergenerational exchange. Age diverse classrooms have distinctive needs and dynamics that instructors, and students, will need to learn how to navigate. This presentation will describe outcomes of one AFU institution’s attempt to identify the challenges and triumphs of intergenerational classrooms through facilitated instructor and student reflections in different classrooms over the course of several semesters. Recommendations will be offered for enhancing intergenerational exchange in classrooms across disciplines, as well as evaluating attitudes, logistics, and learning outcomes. Part of a symposium sponsored by Intergenerational Learning, Research, and Community Engagement Interest Group.


2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sue Noy ◽  
Teresa Capetola ◽  
Rebecca Patrick

Purpose Education for Sustainability in Higher Education (ESHE) sits within and across disciplinary settings that share the need for a framework that provides a basis for pedagogy, assessment and learning outcomes (Kalsoom, 2019). ESHE strives to create transformative learning spaces that help students gain the knowledge and skills they need to understand and contribute to shaping a world based on communities living within the limits of earth’s resources. This paper aims to offer a novel solution to the challenge of teaching students from different disciplines struggling with the complexity of sustainability. Design/methodology/approach The paper explores the development of an interdisciplinary subject designed for undergraduate students from four faculties. It presents a case study of pedagogy that moves away from three pillars/concentric circles approaches towards practices based in systems thinking and interactive transformative learning. It describes the iterative process of developing and implementing an infographic: the “Sustainability Wheel of Fortune” (Wheel), to support constructive alignment of content, assessment tasks and learning outcomes. Findings The Wheel provides a holistic, interconnected and dynamic focus for framing content and teaching. The pedagogy aligns with sustainability competencies, builds in flexibility in response to changing times and student experiences and provides teachers and students with a common framework for interrogating the possibilities for sustainable futures. Originality/value The Wheel is a novel learning tool for contemporary sustainability education. It captures key elements of approaches to and concepts about sustainability, visually reinforces the idea of a holistic interconnected approach and provides a framework that supports the constructive pedagogy of an interdisciplinary sustainability subject.


2021 ◽  
pp. 95-101
Author(s):  
Yu.N. Pak ◽  
◽  
Zh.S. Nuguzhinov ◽  
D.Yu. Pak

Worked out is the analyzes of development of the Kazakhstan system of standardization of higher education on the example of several generations of state educational standards. Their features are examined in structural terms, as well as in terms of the requirements for the compulsory minimum of the educational content, the level of preparedness of graduates and learning outcomes. The dynamics of transformations in the context of expansion of universities academic freedoms, the ratio of compulsory and university components of educational programs is shown. The role of educational and methodological associations of universities of the Republic of Kazakhstan in the development of the regulatory and legal support of the educational process is emphasized. The relevance of introducing the competence-based approach in higher education on the basis of combining educational and professional standards is noted. It is shown that inconsistent and hasty reforms, uncompetitive level of teachers’ remuneration, expanding bureaucratization, underdeveloped quality assurance culture do not contribute to the successful modernization of higher education.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document