Language Centres at a Crossroads

This presentation will describe a process of collaborative and participatory development of teaching with a model that the authors piloted in their integrated teaching project in 2019 (Kosonen et al., forthcoming). The model is based on the principles of evaluation for development and empowerment evaluation (cf. Atjonen 2015; Fetterman & Wandersman 2005) and draws insights from participatory curriculum development (Alexander & Hjortsø 2019) as well as the brokering "at the interfaces of pedagogical and disciplinary communities" promoted by Clavert et al. (2018: 960).

In the presentation, the proposed model will be discussed using the pilot as a concrete example. The model includes 1) a preliminary meeting of a panel of actors, experts, and stakeholders (including the teachers); 2) planning and designing a course based on the preliminary meeting of the panel; 3) implementing the course(s) and collecting student feedback; 4) teachers' reflective analyses of the course(s) that they taught; 5) teachers' nutshell poster to present the results of their analyses 6) a meeting of the panel of actors, experts, and stakeholders (including the teachers) to discuss and reflect on the results.

In a time-efficient manner, the panel convenes only for one hour at the start and at the end of the process, first to discuss the aims, the plans and the design of the course(s), and at the end, the outcome of the implemented course(s). The focus of the panel is not only on the teaching but also on the administrative perspective as well as the meta-perspective of the process, including the students' perspective and study paths.

The presentation will be structured following Atjonen's (2015) criteria for evaluation for development. These principles include 1) using participatory methods and self-evaluation in the evaluation process; 2) identifying and involving the stakeholders; 3) using multiple methods in the gathering of data; 4) enhancing social interaction through the use of collaborative and community-based methods; 5) using context-sensitive approaches; 6) using process-approaches and continuous, up-to-date feedback, not just assessment at the end of the process; 7) using future-oriented, formative feedback, "feedforward"; and 8) promoting transparency throughout the process.

The authors propose that the model they piloted empowers the actors with its participatory, democratic, and formative focus. Furthermore, the authors suggest that the model builds the actors' capacity for a more holistic and interactive approach to analysing and developing their work. At the same time, the model promotes collaborative and collegial learning among the actors. (402 words)

Kuvailemme esityksessä kehittävän arvioinnin mallia, jonka pilotoimme kielikeskuksen kieli- ja viestintäopintojen sekä oikeustieteiden laitoksen opetuksen integrointihankkeen yhteydessä 2019 (ks. Kosonen et al., tulossa). Malli, jota kutsumme kehitysriiheksi, perustuu voimaannuttavaan, osallistavaan sekä kehittävään opetuksen arviointiin, jossa toimijat, asiantuntijat ja sidosryhmät ovat aktiivisesti mukana (cf. Alexander & Hjortsø 2019; Atjonen 2015; Fetterman & Wandersman 2005). Lisäksi kehitysriihi-työmuodolla on yhtymäkohtia yhteistoiminnalliseen, pedagogisia ja tieteenalakohtaisia rajoja ylittävään kehittämisen malliin, jota Clavert et al. (2018) ovat esitelleet. Kehitysriihi-työmuoto kuvaillaan esityksessä integrointihankkeesta saatujen konkreettisten esimerkkien avulla. Esityksen kieli on englanti.

References:

• Alexander, I.A. & Hjortsø, C.N. (2019). 'Sources of complexity in participatory curriculum development: an activity system and stakeholder analysis approach to the analyses of tensions and contradictions'. Higher Education 77: 301-322.
• Atjonen, P. (2015). Kehittävä arviointi kasvatusalalla. (Evaluation for Development in the Field of Education). Joensuu: Kirjokansi. Clavert, M., Löfström, E., Niemi, H. & Nevgi, A. (2018). 'Change agency as a way of promoting pedagogical development in academic communities: A longitudinal study.' Teaching in Higher Education 23/8: 945-962.
• Fetterman, D.M. & Wandersman, A. (eds.) (2005). Empowerment Evaluation Principles in Practice. New York: The Guilford Press.
• Kosonen, J., Kohonen, S. & Kettunen, S. (forthcoming). 'Kehittävä arviointi kielten ja oikeustieteen opetuksen integrointihankkeessa' ('Evaluation for development in an integrated teaching project: Law and language studies'). Yliopistopedagogiikka. Journal of University Pedagogy. https://lehti.yliopistopedagogiikka.fi/journal-of-university-pedagogy/

Susanna Kohonen (PhD) works as a Lecturer in Academic and Legal English at the Language Centre of the University of Eastern Finland (UEF). She has participated in several projects to develop language teaching in higher education, for example with Flipped Classroom/Flipped Learning methods and the principles of lifelong learning. Her research interests lie in the fusion of participatory and online learning, combining elements of Drama Pedagogy and digital learning environments. Dr Kohonen received the UEF Excellent Teaching Practitioner Award in 2018.

Jonna Kosonen (MSc) works as a University Teacher in Administrative Law at the Law School of the University of Eastern Finland (UEF). She is currently conducting research in the legal questions concerning higher education, and is actively involved in the development of education on departmental and university-wide levels, especially in the field of lifelong learning. In addition, Ms Kosonen works as a legal expert at the University of Eastern Finland. Ms Kosonen received the UEF Excellent Teaching Practitioner Award in 2020.

Sinikka Kettunen (MA) works as a University Teacher in Academic and Legal Swedish at the Language Centre of the University of Eastern Finland (UEF). Ms Kettunen has participated in several projects to develop language teaching in higher education, for example with Flipped Classroom/Flipped Learning methods, the principles of lifelong learning, as well as by designing digital learning environments to increase flexibility in language studies.