Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Meeting Phenomenon-Based Learning
Insights from Art Education
Gaia Mazzola
MA Thesis 30 hp
Department of Visual Arts and Sloyd Education
Master’s programme in Visual Culture and Learning –
specialization Nordic Visual Studies and Art Education
VT 2020
Supervisors: Anette Göthlund, Jaana Brinck
Examiner: Fredrik Lindstrand
| 1
Abstract
The most recent Finnish national curriculum for basic education was implemented starting
from 2016. The curriculum calls for the development of learners’ transversal competences,
which are built on the broader discourse on 21st century skills and challenges. Phenomenon-
based learning, as a multidisciplinary approach, was formulated to address the new Finnish
curriculum, in order to help regular subject teaching to tackle the transversal competences.
As an artist, art educator and researcher, my interest was directed towards the
understanding of phenomenon-based learning from an art-educational perspective.
Therefore, this study brings insights from art education to phenomenon-based learning, in
order to open a discussion on the following questions: where do art education and
phenomenon-based learning meet? And following, how could teachers and learners benefit
from this encounter?
A post-structuralist view on art education forms the researcher’s perspective within the
study. Methodologically, a post-structural positioning was also taken, relying on the
a/r/tographical approach. A/r/tography is a performative arts-based research methodology
that recognizes the complexity of situations and articulates in-between them.
An arts-based workshop worked as a platform for exploration. Framed within a
phenomenon-based project, the workshop was conducted in collaboration with a class of 6th
graders and their teacher, in the City of Espoo, Finland. The a/r/tographical toolkit, built on
visual and performative ethnography, worked alongside workshopping as methods of data
collection and being with the material. The collected data include: visual and written field
notes, video recordings, audio recordings, a written questionnaire and a semi-structured
interview. Performing the material through theory revealed that art education and
phenomenon-based learning meet in the concepts of multidisciplinarity and engagement,
through different entanglements.
The study suggests that the encounter between art education and phenomenon-based
learning could benefit teachers and learners in different ways. In addition, the situation
experienced in this study holds some interesting challenges that leave space for further
developments.
Keywords: art education, phenomenon-based learning, multidisciplinarity, engagement,
a/r/tography
| 2
Table of content
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 4
1.1. INQUIRING THE PRACTICE ............................................................................................... 5
1.2. AIM AND RESEARCH QUESTION ...................................................................................... 6
2. CONTEXTUALIZATION ................................................................................................ 8
2.1. THE PARTNER-SCHOOL .................................................................................................. 8
2.2. WHY 6TH GRADERS? ....................................................................................................... 9
3. METHOD ..................................................................................................................... 11
3.1. ON PERFORMATIVITY AND ETHNOGRAPHY ..................................................................... 12
3.2. WORKSHOPPING ......................................................................................................... 13
3.2.1. CONTENT OF THE WORKSHOP ................................................................................... 14
3.3. DATA SET ................................................................................................................... 16
3.4. MULTIDISCIPLINARITY AND ENGAGEMENT ...................................................................... 16
3.5. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................... 17
4. THEORY: MEETING PHENOMENON-BASED LEARNING ........................................ 19
4.1. THE CONTEXT, THE LEARNER, THE TEACHER ................................................................. 20
4.2. PERSPECTIVE(S) FROM ART EDUCATION ....................................................................... 21
4.2.1. THE RHIZOME ........................................................................................................... 21
4.2.2. MULTIDISCIPLINARITY ............................................................................................... 23
4.2.3. ENGAGEMENT .......................................................................................................... 24
4.3. A NOTE ON METHODOLOGY: IN-BETWEEN WITH A/R/TOGRAPHY ....................................... 26
4.4. CONTRIBUTIONS TO RESEARCH ON PHBL ..................................................................... 27
5. NAVIGATION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE EVENTS THROUGH THEORY ...... 29
5.1. EMOTIONS – CREATIVE THINKING - AGENCY ................................................................... 29
5.2. ROLES – PERFORMATIVITY - COLLABORATION ................................................................ 36
5.3. HOW THE WORKSHOP EXPERIENCE WAS PERCEIVED ...................................................... 42
6. DISCUSSING THE OUTCOMES ................................................................................. 46
7. FINAL THOUGHTS ..................................................................................................... 49
8. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 51
9. APPENDIX .................................................................................................................. 54
| 3
Abbreviations
PhBL = Phenomenon-based Learning
NCBE = National Core Curriculum for Basic Education
NCECEC = National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care
| 4
1. Introduction
“If we want the child to become a creative person with a developed fantasy, not a
suffocated one (like in many adults), we need to make sure that the child memorizes
the biggest possible amount of information according to their capabilities, in order for
the them to be able to create more relations between these data and therefore be
able to solve problems when they occur. (…) In the first years of one’s life, one’s
individuality is shaped and will stay the same for the rest of it. It is educators’
responsibility whether this person will be a creative person.” (own translation-original
in Italian)1
Bruno Munari (1977)
Bruno Munari (1907-1998) was an Italian artist and designer. During the last twenty years of
his practice, he focused in promoting art education and artistic thinking to children, in order
to stimulate their creativity. He did so by initiating a series of laboratories called “Giocare con
l’Arte” (Eng: playing with Art) that were open for children of any age. The workshops were
considered a platform for investigation and knowledge encounters between children, their
parents and the educator. The children had an active role as explorers and the parents,
alongside the educator, assisted them in their exploration (Restelli & Sperati, 2009).
Together, they let the children be free to do and make mistakes. Nothing was ‘not good
enough’ or ‘wrong’. Munari advocated for experiencing and learning to be with uncertainty,
by pushing towards a creative use of errors. Errors bring knowledge and help us identify
what better direction could be taken.2
Born and raised in Italy, I moved to Finland in 2014 at the age of 21. I was about to graduate
from my bachelor studies in Painting and I freshly started working on my art educational
project, called cresceréarte.
‘cresceréarte’ in Italian is equal to ‘crescere é arte’, which means ‘growing is art’. It started
1 ”Se vogliamo che il bambino diventi una persona creativa, dotata di fantasia sviluppata e non soffocata (come
in molti adulti), noi dobbiamo quindi fare in modo che il bambino memorizzi più dati possibili, nei limiti delle sue possibilità, per permettergli di fare più relazioni possibili, per permettergli di risolvere i propri problemi ogni volta che si presentano. (…) Nei primi anni della sua vita, l’individuo si forma e resterà tale per tutta la sua vita. Dipende dagli educatori se questa persona sarà poi una persona creativa.” (Munari, 1977) 2 Munari’s workshopping legacy is still carried on by Bruno Munari Association (ABM). ABM organizes
workshops for children and trainings for adults willing to become registered BM educators ("I Laboratori Bruno Munari®", n.d.). The trainings and workshops are based on Metodo Bruno Munari® didactical methodology, which shares some values with the more popular Reggio Emilia Method - but maintains its own identity.
| 5
as an artistic response to a problem I had been working with during the previous years. The
more I got into my art studies, the more I perceived physical and mental disconnection
between the art world and people’s everyday life. I felt my communication through paint,
canvases and drawings was not efficient anymore. How can real communication happen, if
most of the people I want to talk with cannot understand my language? How can I involve
them directly in the making of this communication, in order to create a dialogue? I slowly
moved from a more traditional ways of doing visual art towards a more interactive way of
acting, working with the audience and engaging them in interactive installations and sewing
sessions. However, the educational turn within my artistic practice came once I encountered
Munari in my studies. His concept of art education was a great inspiration, that helped me to
shape my ideas.
Mainly focusing on children, cresceréarte brings arts-based workshops to different
educational environments, both informal and formal.
These workshops ultimately aim to shorten the distances between people and art, by making
the art-language more understandable. Though, the workshops do not focus on art per se.
Rather, they are designed to use art tools and artistic process to understand reality and
question it. By questioning and reflecting upon ourselves and our context, creativity and
critical thinking are stimulated.
My experience living in Finland further shaped my project and my thinking, through authors I
encountered during my master studies, through challenges I faced during my work practice
and by encountering inspiring people I met along the way. This thesis presents to the reader
a checkpoint into my experience as an always developing artist, thinker, researcher,
educator, person.
1.1. Inquiring the practice
With cresceréarte, in 2019, I started working as an art educator for the City of Espoo,
Finland, in the Culture Call project (Fin: Kulttuurikurkkaus). This educational project
organized art and culture workshops in kindergartens in Espoo municipality. The aim of
bringing professionals from the field of art and culture into kindergartens’ daily life was to
create a systematic collaboration between early childhood education and the cultural field,
which promoted the right of every child to experience art in its various forms (“Culture Call”,
2019).
Culture Call provided opportunity for each kindergarten to collaborate with an art and culture
actor once a semester. The collaboration could last from one to several days, according to
the content. However, it was not possible to create a strong and continuative relationship
between the external educator and the kindergarteners. The same problem occurred during
| 6
previous collaborations with other partners, such as primary schools in Finland and Italy.
These experiences were extremely valuable, but never allowed me to create a stronger bond
with the learners.
These encounters generate complex and valuable learning experiences for all parties: the
teachers, the external educator and the learners. In order for this experience to leave a
legacy, proposing content that meaningfully fits teachers’ programs and catches learners’
interests is crucial, but quite challenging.
My response to this challenge, both in early childhood education and primary school
settings, was to take children’s perspective as a starting point for creating the content of
every workshop. This response emerged from the idea that if the topic is relevant for the
learner, they will be more engaged in the learning (Saavedra et al., 2012).
However, the fact that my time in these kindergartens and schools was limited did not allow
me to get in direct contact with the children. Therefore, the topics were based on teachers’
observations of children’s interests and their own pedagogical goals.
While experiencing this situation, I started searching for clues on how to involve children
directly. I turned to the new Finnish national core curriculum for early childhood education
and care (NCECEC), which talked about ensuring the children with opportunities to
participate and influence in matters that concern them (Finnish National Board of Education,
2017). What sparked my interest though, was when I encountered the multidisciplinary
approach of phenomenon-based learning (PhBL) (Lonka et al.,2018) and its view on
learners, multidisciplinarity and engagement, which brought me to dig deeper into the new
Finnish national core curriculum for basic education (NCBE) (Finnish National Board of
Education, 2016).
1.2. Aim and Research question
According to NCBE, the learner is expected - on different levels - to be involved in the
making of their own learning and taking responsibility for it (Finnish National Board of
Education, 2016). This concept works in support of the idea that learners should develop
their sense of agency and their creativity, in order to become citizens that will be able to
master the 21st century skills (Saavedra et al., 2012; Lonka et al., 2018). The 21st century
skills are identified by Binkley et al. (2012) as: creativity and innovation, critical thinking and
decision making, learning to learn (metacognition), communication, collaboration,
information literacy, ICT literacy, local and global citizenship, life and career, cultural
awareness and social and personal responsibility. Mastering these skills will allow the
learners to navigate the complexity of the world we live in (Lonka et al., 2018).
| 7
PhBL is a multidisciplinary approach on learning that emerged in Finland as an articulation
on the new curriculum reforms on multidisciplinary learning modules (Finnish National Board
of Education, 2016). Phenomenon-based teaching focuses on the study of a phenomena by
helping the learners to build bridges between subjects and gives them freedom of
exploration (Lonka et al., 2018). According to this approach, the learners are seen as active
agents and their interests shall be taken into account in order to make the learning
meaningful (Lonka et al., 2018).
In the light of this framework, I started noticing parallels between PhBL and my existing
knowledge on post-structural art education, which sees art education as a platform for
emancipation, agency and exploration, where the learner is an active agent and the
educator acts as a scaffold for the learners (Richardson, 2017; St. Pierre, 2004; Munari,
1977). The aim of this study is, therefore, to find the connections where art education and
PhBL meet. The exploration will, hopefully, open further discussions on the subject. To guide
the inquiry, the research questions are formulated as such:
Where do art education and phenomenon-based learning meet?
And following, how could teachers and learners benefit from this encounter?
To investigate these questions, this study articulates on a workshop-experience held in a
public elementary school in Finland, in collaboration with a class of 6th graders and their
teacher.
| 8
2. Contextualization
Since the 1960s, Finland has always been working on promoting equality and providing free
education for its citizens. School days are currently relatively short and the amount of
workload at home is not as heavy as in other countries (Lonka et al., 2018). High-school and
universities are also tuition-free institutions. As far as my personal experience goes, being a
foreigner who has been living and studying in Finland and Sweden, I can state that the
difference between these two Nordic countries and my country of origin, Italy, is remarkable.
However, the overall European context they share hosts many similarities.
The study took place in collaboration with a class of 6th graders and their teacher in Espoo,
Finland. It was performed throughout three days and consisted of orientation, workshop and
feedback session.
With the intent of finding one partner school for the study to take place, I sent my proposal to
sixteen different schools in the Espoo area. The City of Espoo, located in southern Finland,
was selected because of the high number of Finnish-English speaking schools in the area,
mainly due to the presence of a high percentage of Swedish-speaking people and other
international inhabitants.3 Despite Finnish is a language I can speak, I framed my choice
towards English-Finnish speaking schools in order to be sure I would have been able to
express myself fully, if necessary. The selected school was the first to answer.
2.1. The partner-school
The partner-school is a state-funded institution which belongs to public education. Each
learner has equal opportunities within the school environment, including special needs
learners to whom special classes are organized and support is granted. The school includes
learners from different social backgrounds and cultures (based on my own observation), and
it emphasizes language learning. Some classes are working both in Finnish and English.
However, the partnering class used Finnish as a main language and the workshop was held
in Finnish.
In Finland, each school’s curriculum is developed according to the municipality’s curriculum,
which in turn goes by the guidelines of the NCBE (Finnish National Board of Education,
2016, section 1). On these basis, every class teacher is autonomous in making decisions
regarding the teaching content and their pedagogical approach.
NCBE calls for integrative instruction, facilitated by multidisciplinary learning modules.
Theme days, events, campaigns, study visits and school camps are ways for the learners to
3 Fin: suomenruotsalaiset. Finland has a big Swedish-speaking minority, which results in Swedish being
recognized as the second official national language.
| 9
create connections and relationships with society and its agents (Finnish National Board of
Education, 2016, section 4.4). The partner-teacher stated that their class did not have the
chance to extensively participate to such projects, apart from the yearly multidisciplinary-
week organized and carried out by the school. The learners were, therefore, extremely
curious to meet an art professional “from the outside” and did not know what to expect from
this experience (January 21st, 2020).
I did not have the opportunity to familiarize with the study environment beforehand, thus the
first encounter with the classroom and the learners happened during the first official meeting.
My first encounter with the partner-teacher, however, occurred a month and a half prior in a
casual setting.
2.2. Why 6th graders?
Contextually to this study, no relevant moves were yet made in Finnish primary education in
order to support children’s right to an accessible, free of charge and continuative art
education. Whereas thanks to projects like Culture Call and Art Testers (Fin:
Taidetestaajat), efforts to bring art and culture to public early childhood- and lower-
secondary education could be seen.4
In 2019, during a cresceréarte workshop held for 8th graders in a Finnish public school, I
had the pleasure to converse with their art educator about art education’s struggles in basic
education. During our discussion, a few problems in the system emerged. Firstly, fighting for
recognition of the subject both with parents and colleagues. Secondly, most of the art
educators working with 7th to 9th graders are struggling to keep learners interested because
of the lack of a proper background on the subject (art educator, personal conversation,
March 28, 2019). Art Testers’ website (www.taidetestaajat.fi) displays playful charts on data
collected during the experience. The charts show that the learners found the experience
interesting (20%), successful (14%) or diverse (13%) and that 34% of the learners that
encountered art through this campaign would “perhaps” do it again (“Taidetestaajat”, 2017).
What can be deduced from these numbers is that the art field stimulates curiosity in this
group of learners. However, only two visits during a school year are not sufficient to even
grasp the phenomena of Art. Continuity is lacking.
In the educational field Finland employs only professionals holding a master’s degree as a
minimum level of education. However, the structure of teaching changes based on the level
of education the teacher is working in. Whereas in lower-secondary education learners have
4 Art Testers (Fin: taidetestaajat) was an ambitious campaign occurred in 2017-2020, that brought all the 8th
graders in Finland to two organized visits in different artistic and cultural settings: one in their region and one in Helsinki (“Taidetestaajat,” 2017).
| 10
access to subject teachers, in primary education teaching is carried out by the class teacher
(Fin: luokanopettaja), who is engaged in the teaching of most of the subjects. A class
teacher can surely work interdisciplinary, but often they do not have the resources to shape
arts-based content to be connected to the other study realms (art educator, personal
communication, March 28, 2019; teacher, personal communication, March 16, 2020).
This background becomes problematic for 6th graders, who are about to approach lower-
secondary school where they will be faced with more complex arts-based content that they
might feel unsure to work with. The decision of working alongside this group during this
study aims to address this context within Finnish (art)education.
| 11
3. Method
The study was conducted as a case study. The study was methodologically framed within
a/r/tography (Springgay, Irwin, Leggo & Gouzouasis, 2008) and included workshopping as
an arts-based method.
Patricia Leavy (2018) presents an overview on the field of arts-based research, the umbrella
under which the methods selected for this study are located. Arts-based research hosts a variety
of different research genres, from literary to performative and educational. A/r/tography is
identified by Leavy (2018) as a performative genre. As a method, workshopping also calls for
performativity. However, its flexible nature allows it to be extremely adaptable to fit most of the
genres in the realm of arts-based research.
A/r/tography is a research methodology that focuses on the in-between of art practice,
research practice and educational practice (a /r /t ) (Irwin & Springgay, 2008). The ‘ography’
in ‘a/r/tography’ refers to its connections to ethnography due to the used methods, even
though a/r/tography still remains arts-based and shares many aspects with arts-based
educational research - also located under the same umbrella.5 There is no sharp way to
describe this methodology, however Irwin and Springgay (2008) highlight that it is practice-
based and it reflects on relationality and complexity.
As a post-structuralist methodology, a/r/tography puts the dichotomy of identity into
discussion and brings the idea that there is no identity as such, but rather the whole lies in
multiplicity (Irwin & Springgay, 2008; Deleuze & Guattari, 1987). In a/r/tography, the
researcher is often addressed as a/r/tographer because of their engagement in artistic,
research and teaching practice and the contiguity of the artist, researcher and teacher
identity. Being aware of the contiguity of this identity and aligning with it, with the choice of
using in the text the terms singularly or in pairs, I aim to highlight where I feel the artist, the
researcher or the teacher should be more visible. In order to do so, I chose to use the
following terms: (me)artist, (me)art educator, (me)researcher.
A/r/tography as a method builds on elements from visual and performative ethnography. Its
connections to post-structuralism will be discussed more thoroughly in chapter four. The
following section focuses on the ethnographic and performative aspects of a/r/tography, in
order to frame my positioning and actions within the study.
5 Arts-based educational research (ABER) is a research methodology that highlights art as a knowledge-
building tool through which problems within the educational discourse are addressed (Haywood Rolling, 2018).
| 12
3.1. On performativity and ethnography
Performativity is a key element in a/r/tography. Leggo (2008) suggests that professional life
and personal life exist contiguously, therefore the a/r/tographic inquiry is performed
autobiographically. “We need to write personally because we live personally” (p.5).
A/r/tography is defined as a living inquiry (Irwin & Springgay, 2008; Springgay, Irwin & Kind,
2005). The concept of ‘living’ stems from the idea of performativity as a way of being and
working with knowledge (Irwin & Springgay, 2008). Performativity can be carried out by
different means: written, artistic, educational or all of the above.
Performativity is discussed in a post-structural and feminist perspective by Barad (2003) as a
contestation of the representative power on language. She states: “representationalism is
the belief in the ontological distinction between representations and that which they purport
to represent” (2003, p. 804). Representationalism is challenged by the post-structural
discourse with the performative understanding, which “shifts the focus from linguistic
representations to discursive practices” (Barad, 2003, p. 807). Barad (2003) explains that a
discursive practice produces the knowledge rather than describes it, and produces it within
the intra-action of the discourse’s different agents. In the a/r/tographical approach the
a/r/tographer similarly aims towards creating the context that will be then studied, instead of
focusing on finding knowledge that is ‘already there’ and getting to the results (Irwin &
Springgay, 2008).
The context of this study was also created by the (me)researcher, with the purpose to better
understand the dynamics and theoretical implications within its discourse. The study
performs in a specific case, however this choice does not exclude the existence and value of
every other case. In the light of a/r/tography, the case is a positioning (Barad, 2003) of the
a/r/tographer within the (art)educational rhizome. The positioning within a discourse is
defined by Barad (2003) as an agential cut.
As a performative, practice-based research methodology, a/r/tography relies on and values
the experience each party had during the research process as part of the discourse. As
stated by Madison: “experience becomes the very seed of performance” (2011, p. 168). The
a/r/tographic inquiry puts the a/r/tographer in a both ethnographic and auto-ethnographic
position. The a/r/tographer necessarily works within the context of the study, which includes
them as an active part of it (Irwin & Springgay, 2008; Springgay, Irwin & Kind, 2005). The
observation is therefore focused on the totality of the participants - in this study’s case: the
teacher, the (me)art educator, the learners.
Subjectivity is strongly connected to performativity, as subjectivity encases a person’s life
experiences, socio-political-economical background and power-positioning (Madison, 2011).
| 13
A/r/tographical practice highlights participants’ subjectivity and wants to merge them in the
situation. ‘Merging’ in this framework works to value subjectivities as individuals, but
recognizing the common points between them within the shared context and the complexity
of the encounters (Madison, 2011; Irwin et al., 2008).
3.2. Workshopping
I have been using workshopping as a method even before I started my art educational
adventure with cresceréarte. Since it always proved to be an exceptional way to be with the
participants and merge artistic, educational and research practice, I believed it functioned as
an ideal co-host to the a/r/tographical approach.
Workshopping can be used in different contexts and provides the participants with a safe
environment for exploration and to foster creativity. This environment leaves the participants
free to investigate their ideas through different techniques. The educator is a professional in
the field and works as a scaffold for the participants. By doing so, they stimulate participants’
own reasoning and agency (Munari, 1977; Restelli & Sperati, 2008).
In the eye of PhBL, the study opted for a workshop that could bring learners’ interests to
discussion and use them to explore a phenomena multidisciplinarily. The workshop was built
on different arts-based techniques in order to facilitate the tasks, with the help of others
adapted from design practice. Thought-visualizing techniques - typically used in the field of
design - were used to stimulate thinking processes, visual presentations were shown in
order to inspire ideas and arts-based tools were explored with the support of the (me)art
educator/(me)artist.
Workshop planning started with a first informal meeting with the teacher in January 2020,
and continued through e-mail exchange until the content was ready.
During the meeting, different topics were touched upon, such as art education in primary
education, multidisciplinarity, learners’ engagement and which phenomena to address during
the workshop. The phenomena to be tackled in the workshop came as a proposal from the
teacher, which was: energy. The teacher selected the topic based on their program, since
the semester would have been “all about energy” (teacher, personal communication,
January 21, 2020).
The workshop was divided in three days within a two-weeks time span and it took place
between the end of February and the beginning of March 2020. The first day included
orientation and the first part of the workshop, while the second day was entirely dedicated to
the second part of the workshop. The third day hosted a feedback session with the
participants. In the following section, an overview on the events is presented.
| 14
3.2.1. Content of the workshop
The first day of the workshop started with
orientation, aimed to introduce myself and the
study to the participants and to get to know
them. Orientation included a small exercise
used to briefly get to know participants’ names.
The first part of the workshop followed right
after and consisted in bringing participants’
interests to surface. Every participant was
asked to write down (or draw) individually their
interests on sticky notes, which then were
collected all together on the door’s surface.
Collecting their interests on one surface
created the opportunity of getting an overview
on the variety of topics.
The participants were then asked to group
these interests into topics. They collectively
moved the sticky notes to the whiteboard (on
turnation) and finally individuated eight
different interest-topics.
Every participant was then asked to select
amongst the interest they wrote and leave on
the whiteboard only one, by taking the others
away. The amount of sticky notes diminished
and we were able to sort the eight interest-
topics and ended this section with four main
interest-groups: art, science, food and sport.
Each participant belonged to one interest-
group and they would have worked alongside
the other group-members in the following
meeting.
Picture 1
Picture 2
Picture 3
Picture 1, 2, 3. Workshop activities during the first day. Bringing learner’s interest to
discussion.
| 15
The day ended with an introduction to the topic
energy. As a conclusion, they were given a small
research task as a homework for the next
meeting. The task required the participants to
work individually and research their interest-topic
(e.g. food) combined to the word energy – the
chosen phenomena to tackle.
The second day of the workshop, a week after,
was mainly focused on making participants work
on their interest-topics related to the phenomena-
energy. Firstly, we discussed on the results of
their researches related to energy and explored
the classroom trying to find energy sources based
on our observations. Some participants had not
done their homework, therefore they did the
research during this first part of the day assisted
by the teacher.
Following, participants were asked to tackle the
phenomena-energy through the results from their
researches, networking with their group-members
towards an artistic interpretation of it. They were
shown a visual presentation on possible ways to
approach artistically these results – e.g. visually
or performatively. The day ended with each
interest-group presenting their final work and
commenting.
The last day was reserved to fill questionnaires
about the experience. Each interest-group was
given eleven questions, which required either a
colour-coded answer (red, yellow or green) or an
open-ended answer (see appendix B).
Picture 4, 5, 6. Workshop activities during the second day: discussing about learners’ research observations, exploring the classroom environment and experimenting with the art tools.
Picture 7. Feedback session with questionnaires.
Picture 4
Picture 5
Picture 6
Picture 7
| 16
3.3. Data set
The partner-class counted a total of 29 learners and one teacher. Learners’ age ranged from
11 to 12 years old (6th grade). As specified by the Finnish National Board on Research
Integrity (2019), the parents received beforehand a letter of consent to be signed, in which
the aim of the study, data collection and handling were presented (see appendix A). This led
to three learners not being granted the permission to participate by their parents. Data is,
therefore, based on 26 learners. It is important to point out that, due to flu season, not every
learner was present and the number diminished meeting after meeting. During the feedback
session some students were missing and unfortunately their point of view could not be
collected (see Table 1. In appendix).
The collected data are divided into audio material, visual field notes, video material, written
field notes and written feedback (see Table 1. in appendix). Most of the data were produced
with the research participants and collected with the help of the research assistant,6 who
was responsible for visual documentation. Photographs were taken as visual field notes to
document the process, videos and audios were recorded in order to capture details like
conversations, comments, facial and bodily expressions. During the second part of the
workshop audio recordings were taken from two of the interest-groups (food1-group and
science-group). 7 Video recordings instead focused primarily on the art group and the sport
group. The purpose of this was to cover, with different methods, all the groups that did not
include learners without a research participation permit. A feedback session was organized
to collect participants’ opinions with questionnaires. Teacher’s opinion was instead collected
before and after the workshop in the form of interviews.
Observation on site focused on dynamics between participants, teacher and (me)art
educator within the context: overall feeling, moods, engagement and disengagement,
facilitation, and so on. The observations were collected as field notes after every meeting.
3.4. Multidisciplinarity and engagement
Inspired by a/r/tography, my way of being with the produced material aimed to bring
rhizomatic relations to surface (Irwin et al., 2018). The rhizome is a post-structural concept
elaborated by Deleuze and Guattari (1987) to portray the complexity of reality (see chapter
four). As described by Irwin et al. (2018), a/r/tography can be considered a methodology that
“(…) provokes the creation of situations through inquiry, that responds to the evocative
nature of situation found within data, and that provides a reflective and reflexive stance to
situational inquiries”.
6 A research assistant was needed because in that very period I injured my arm and could not use it.
7 During the second part of the workshop, the learners were grouped in five interest-groups according to their
interest-topic. See chapter five.
| 17
In this framework, I performed a cut within the phenomena-PhBL and brought along insights
from art education. These insights worked as my positioning within PhBL. Once the
workshop experience was over, I started to investigate the material in order to find the
strands that could (re)connect the workshop-experience to the phenomena-PhBL. These
strands are defined by Barad (2003) as entanglements, which figuratively emphasize the
ideas of complexity and interconnection within the Deleuzeguattarian rhizome.
Through coding, different entanglements emerged: agency, educator’s role, curiosity,
uncertainty, engagement, disengagement, discussion, multidisciplinarity, collaboration,
scaffold.
Afterward, connections between these concepts started to become evident. Therefore, I
decided to create two main umbrella-topics: engagement and multidisciplinarity.
Engagement and multidisciplinarity, as the gathering of the found entanglements, are used
throughout the study for framing theory and performing the material.
3.5. Ethical considerations
As I noticed during my practice over the years, working with young ones can be ethically
tricky. This study specifically deals with 6th graders in a public institution; as suggested by
Rose (2016), we are talking about a very vulnerable group of research participants. Not only
they are underaged, they might also be not fully aware of what a ‘research’ is and what
being a ‘research participant’ means. The parents were invited to talk to their children and
check on their will to participate or not, in order to respect their perspective. The letter of
consent (see appendix A) was written so that the parents and the children could understand
participation was not compulsory (Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK,
2019), and that children would have still had the chance to enjoy their time with their
classmates.
In order to ensure that the learners understood what was happening, in addition to the letter
of consent, the workshop included an introductory orientation part in which I presented
myself as a researcher and I explained what the interest of the study was. In order to make
the situation less intimidating, the researcher assistant and I opted for a compact camera for
video material and visual field notes collection - instead of a more professional camera, and
used mobile phones instead of audio recorders to collect the audio material.
As an educator, the strongest ethical stance I could not compromise on was that learners
that did not receive the permission from their parents could still participate in the activities.
This is why, upon agreement with the teacher and negotiation with the research assistant,
every part of the workshop and data collection was designed in order to engage them in the
activities while being careful not to get any visual or non-visual data. Even the feedback
| 18
session was organized so that they could express their opinion regardless. Of course, their
contribution stays anonymous and was not included in data analysis.
The visual field notes taken during the workshop and used in this study were anonymized by
using skin/dark tones to blur participants’ faces. Rose (2016) explains that the discussion on
ethical anonymization has two main stands: pictures portraying participants should be
anonymized in order to protect their identities and privacy, however others support the idea
that anonymization can be dehumanising and disrespectful.
I am aware of the perception a reader could have while looking at the way the photos were
anonymized - to some they might appear rather disquieting. The choice of blurring faces
instead of superimposing emojis or other images, along with the choice of keeping the
photos as they were rather than translating them into digital drawings, was taken in an effort
to not distract from the surrounding visuals, and maintain as neutral an effect as possible.
Making the reader feel like ‘being with the (me)researcher’ was the aim. To impose my
interpretation of participants’ faces on their visual representations did not feel the most
ethical choice, since I did not ask them to pick for themselves. Asking participants to pick
their own ‘anonymization-filter’, however, could be a resolution for a future study.
| 19
4. Theory: meeting phenomenon-based learning
Try to imagine. You are ready to build your new dream house, but you are no expert. You
would firstly need to contact an architect and a quantity surveyor. Secondly, the three of you
should work alongside a construction engineer, so that ideas would be brought to surface
and evaluations on the terrain, soil, measurements and materials would be made properly.
Then, you would need to add to the team a plumber, which will take care of the piping
system and water supplies. Let’s not forget the electrician, the smith and others.
Every single expert brings to the table a different point of view on the same matter: building a
house.
Lonka and Westling (2018) similarly utilize the example of ‘building a school’ to showcase a
situation that requires the combination of different expertises. Architects, pedagogues,
psychologists, engineers and others are working in synergy in order to tackle the ‘building a
school’ phenomena (Lonka & Westling, 2018, p.175).
The name chosen for this approach ‘phenomenon-based learning’ emphasizes the idea that,
in order to develop problem-solving skills, creativity and critical thinking, the learner should
be involved in exploring a phenomena in a multidisciplinary way. The phenomena should be
connected to real-life situations (e.g. in our starting case ‘building a house’) and the learners
should be allowed to work together by bringing their personal experience and knowledge to
the table. Community-based projects are highly encouraged, so that learners can learn to
work alongside a broader range of people, apply the skills acquired in the formal learning
environment to real life situations and ultimately learn to analyze and question what happens
within the community - their context (Lonka et al., 2018).
The discussion on PhBL requires, as a starting point, the framing of the concept of learning,
based on PhBL’s theoretical background. As stated by Lonka et al. (2018), PhBL’s concept
of learning is rooted in L. S. Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory. It needs to be noticed that,
however, PhBL’s concept of learning appears to be conceptualized in a less static and linear
way compared to Vygotksy’s theorization.
PhBL’s view is aligned to NCBE, which sees the learning as a dynamic process that “takes
place in interaction with other pupils, the teachers and other adults, and various communities
and learning environments” (Finnish National Board of Education, 2016, section 2.3, p. 27).
In order to better explore PhBL, therefore, this chapter firstly presents the concept of
learning according to PhBL’s sociocultural background. Secondly, it proceeds to understand
PhBL from a post-structural art educational perspective. Important concepts expressed by
Lonka et al. (2018), with a particular note on the concepts of engagement and
multidisciplinarity, are viewed by bringing insights from art and art education. The concepts
| 20
emerged from the meeting between art education and PhBL are then used to navigate the
empirical material in chapter five.
4.1. The context, the learner, the teacher
According to the sociocultural theory, the upbringing of a child within a society is what forms
their way of learning, thinking, interacting and being. The tools that society uses to facilitate
and influence this process are cultural objects, social institutions and language. All of these
agents, through interaction, help human beings in their developmental processes and to
grow their cognitive potential (Schunk, 2012). Similarly, Lonka et al. (2018) state that “human
cognition is always embedded in a historical continuum of social community, culture, and its
tools” (p.39).
As specified by Schunk (2012), Vygotsky believed language was the most crucial among
these tools. Language plays a core role in our development, by helping us to form mental
functions: first we learn to use language to transmit our thinking externally, then we learn to
use it to self-regulate our actions and thoughts (Schunk, 2012). The language, as ‘inner
voice’, serves a self-regulatory function which allows the child to transform and internalize
the social environment (Schunk, 2012). This process of transformation and internalization is
what makes learning and development possible. Therefore, Vygotsky saw the learning
process as mediated by language and inseparable from the context in which it takes place -
both informal and formal.
The zone of proximal development is a concept that Vygotsky presented to clarify the limits
of this transformation and internalization process (Schunk, 2012). To explain this concept,
Lonka et al. (2018) associate it to the situation where a child is learning to ride a bicycle.
This situation challenges the learner with a task that cannot be performed without the help of
a more competent peer or adult. The interaction with the adult/peer, once internalized by the
learner, leads to a cognitive change and, therefore, to their development (Schunk, 2012).
Based on this concept, the role of the teacher is defined as a scaffold for the learner
(Schunk, 2012; Daniels, 2003).
Daniels (2003) review on authors engaged in social-constructivist learning theory highlights
the problems connected to the current use of the concept of ‘scaffolding’. The sociocultural
theory sees scaffolding as a collaboration between knowledges, where both teacher and
learner bring their own contribution (Schunk, 2012). However, Daniels (2003) argues that the
wide use of the term ‘scaffolding’ can undermine the depth of its meaning. ‘Too much’
scaffolding could potentially make the role of the learner uninfluential. Similarly, the concept
of ‘peer support’ should be carefully handled, because peer tutoring becomes efficient only
under specific circumstances and the pedagogical role of the educator could fade.
| 21
Moreover, the reframing of the teacher’s and learner’s role might create a sense of precarity,
both in teacher’s and learner’s experience. Symeonidis & Schwarz (2016) also move a
critique to this idea in the context of PhBL, by warning on the risk of giving learners too much
responsibility. The conception of the self-regulated learner, if brought too far, might lead to
learners receiving and taking the blame for their educational failures. The teacher should be
able to evaluate the real potential of their learners and act accordingly, which could become
tricky in a situation where learners have the role of creators and the teacher is ‘only’ a
scaffold (Symeonidis & Schwarz, 2016). Lonka and Westling (2018) also recognize the
challenges brought by the reframing of learners’ and teachers' role within PhBL. First and
foremost the challenge towards inherited preconceptions, which are the legacy of a
structured way of thinking. Moreover, the challenge for learners and teachers to cope with a
new set of situations, such as ambiguity, friction, discomfort and uncertainty.
4.2. Perspective(s) from art education
Vygotsky’s thoughts on society and learning leave many open channels towards other
theories. Deleuze and Guattari’s concept of rhizome (1987), a core point in post-
structuralism, can help to delve into the concept of multidisciplinarity, and therefore build a
bridge with PhBL. Moreover, an additional ‘post-structural art educational filter’ can bring
new insights on PhBL’s conceptualization of engagement.
In order to start the conversation, it is important to first understand what Gilles Deleuze and
Félix Guattari (1987) rhizomatic philosophy is and its relation to art and art education.
4.2.1. The rhizome
Deleuze and Guattari see art as the “Life in the living or the Living in the lived”
(Sauvagnargues, 2013, p. 172 as cited in Jagodzinski, 2016). A Life is something that exists
transcendentally, “it is a plane of existence, of genesis, the clamour of becoming”
(Jagodzinski, 2016, p.3). Art is therefore considered to be within the becoming of everything,
but still hidden under the stereotypes it is subjected to. The stereotypes regarding art see it
as limited to certain disciplines and see artistic practice as limited to certain topics, towards
which it usually behaves critically. Art has also common utilitarian aspects, such as
therapeutic, that “put art and design in the service economy of ‘doing’ that is quite distinct
from what art can ‘do’” (Jagodzinski, 2016, p.4). The possibilities of Art transcend these
boxing. As a Life, it exists rhizomatically within reality and the artist’s role is to be within it
and make it emerge in its natural truth – make it visible. As A Life, Art and art education shall
be committed towards the recognition of the One in multiplicity and the multiplicity in the One
(Jagodzinski, 2016); in this frame, the art educator joins the artist in this endeavor and both
share the responsibility of what turns visible and how.
| 22
The rhizomatic philosophy is the philosophy of the “in the middle, between things, interbeing,
intermezzo” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, p.25) - the philosophy of multiplicity. In nature, a
rhizomatic example would be fungi. Fungi expands in every direction in a non hierarchical
and multi-layered way, and every encounter expands the fungi even more. The intersecting
points allow nutrients and other information to navigate through the body of the fungi. There
is no ‘entry’ or ‘exit’. Rather, the fungi exists as a whole, as One, and becomes with the
context it is situated in.
Deleuze and Guattari (1987) identify six key concepts, which can be helpful to summarize
the idea of the rhizome: connection and heterogeneity, multiplicity, the principle of
asignifying rupture, the principle of cartography and decalcomania (pp. 7-13). According to
these principle, every point of the rhizome is potentially connected to any other point. The
number of connections increases with the expansion of the rhizome, which automatically
changes its nature according to the connections that were made. The rhizome has,
therefore, multiple definitions, which are ever-changing and co-present. The rhizome is One
in multiplicity and vice versa.
The rhizome can be ruptured/interrupted in a certain point. Like a scar becomes part of the
body on which it formed, a rupture into the rhizome becomes a temporary cut which then
becomes part of the rhizome’s multiplicity. “All of tree logic is a logic of tracing and
reproduction” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, p.12). The root-tree logic sees things linearly, as
traces that follow a scheme that can be then reproduced. The rhizome, instead, sees things
as a map. The map visualizes the openness of the rhizome, which highlights the connections
between fields and the different dimensions it includes. A map has multiple entries and no
formal exits. However, the rhizome does not exclude the concept of tracing. Once a cut is
made, tracing can be used to trace back to the rhizome/context by finding its streams.
PhBL focuses on the idea of phenomena. As suggested by Silander (2015), the phenomena
can be an authentic object of observation or a framework/motivation for things that need to
be learned. The concept of ‘phenomena’ within PhBL can be seen as a shifting entity, rather
than a stiff identity. It can be framed differently in order to serve the pedagogical purposes of
the case. “Boundaries do not sit still”, states Barad (2003, p. 817).
However, a phenomena cannot be entirely grasped. Symeonidis & Schwarz (2016) explain
the concept by giving the example of ‘weather’ as a phenomena. The perception of the
phenomena ‘weather’ is constructed on the manifestation of the intra-action between
different tangible (e.g. rain) and non-tangible (e.g. global warming) elements (Barad, 2003).
Though it remains a perception - a manifestation. A phenomena cannot be grasped in its
totality due to its complexity.
| 23
Based on these premises, the phenomena discussed in PhBL can be paralleled to the
Deleuzeguattarian rhizome. Therefore, the way to tackle a rhizome in an educational
environment is to make cuts within it, which provide positionings to trace the streams back to
the phenomena-map.
4.2.2. Multidisciplinarity
What is the difference between multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary? Multidisciplinary
means people from different disciplines working together, each drawing upon their
disciplinary knowledge. Interdisciplinary means integrating knowledge and methods from
different disciplines, using a real synthesis of approaches (Jensenius, 2020). Both the terms
point towards the merging of knowledges, however a multidisciplinary process emphasizes
networking.
A PhBL project uses multidisciplinarity in order for the learners and the teachers to network
towards the study of a phenomena. PhBL projects can help the learners to build a more
rhizomatic view on things, exploring the bridges and layers of disciplines - described by
Lonka et al. (2019) as a holistic view. 8 As argued by Symeonidis and Schwarz (2016), an
interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary approach can help grasping the complexity of a
phenomena. However we should be aware we cannot fully embrace it, just like we cannot
see the end of a rhizome. Every connection made by the learners, every subject taken into
account, will bring to other territories, which will bring to even further territories and so on.
PhBL’s take on multidisciplinarity fits the objectives expressed by NCBE, which require the
integration of multidisciplinary learning modules: every school, based on its own curriculum,
shall provide at least one multidisciplinary learning module per school year. The module
shall be long enough to allow the learners time for exploring the theme, and as many
subjects as possible shall be involved in exploring the topic (Finnish National Board of
Education, 2016, section 4.4).
According to Lonka et al. (2018), the multidisciplinary and networked exploration of a
phenomena develops the creative thinking in the learners. Creative thinking is what artists
like Bruno Munari have been trying to enhance in themselves and others - through art
8 PhBL’s approach to multidisciplinarity can be easily associated to STEAM education. STEAM stands for
Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics. STEAM as a way of thinking education, opposes to STEM education, which doesn’t include arts amongst the most relevant subjects. Both STEM and STEAM education call for collaboration between disciplines. Whereas STEM education recognizes creativity development as a way towards innovation – not necessarily art-based, STEAM education highlights the importance of art education to train creativity and facilitate the innovation process (Liao, 2016). Lonka et al. (2018) make the comparison themselves and argue that STEAM education is limiting, because its concept of ‘bridging’ is less organic and subject are kept as separated identities rather than part of a whole – like PhBL does.
| 24
education. Munari (1977) conceptualizes creativity as a combination of fantasy, imagination
and invention. A skill in-between entangled to the others that enables us to understand every
aspect of a problem - from the functional to the psychological one. On this basis, a bridge
can be built between the creative thinking and the rhizome, as creative thinking stimulates
the connection-making process necessary to grasp the rhizome - ergo, creative thinking
facilitates the rhizomatic thinking.
Recent researches in neurosciences at Helsinki University (Rodoniov, 2019; Huotilainen,
2019) have been exploring creativity and support the claim that creativity is a trainable skill.
Saavedra, Opfer, Perkins, Singmaster, & Stewart (2012) follow by explaining that creativity is
a characteristic that can be improved and requires structure. The advantage of artists and
other art practitioners, whether they received a formal or informal education in the field, is
that an artistic training in based on a different way of learning (Rodoniov, 2019).
Artistic learning processes make use of the creative thinking, which we previously
associated to the rhizomatic thinking. Munari (1977; 1981) believed training the creative
thinking was a process of exploration based on a trial-and-error model, scaffolded by the
parents and the educator – which resembles the process of transformation and
internalization recognized by the sociocultural theory (Schunk, 2012). The more information
a child is exposed to, the more ground for exploration there is (Munari, 1977).
Lonka et al. (2018) adhere to the idea of training the creative thinking. PhBL response was
to follow an inquiry-based pedagogical approach which exhorts the learners to ask questions
and seek for answers. Similarly, Munari (1981) highlighted the importance of questioning
during the process of exploration, in order for the trial-and-error model to become effective.
4.2.3. Engagement
NCBE articulates a series of transversal skills which need to be worked on in education.
These skills, called competences, are divided as so: 1) thinking and learning to learn 2)
cultural competence, interaction and self-expression 3) taking care of oneself and managing
daily life 4) multiliteracy 5) ICT competence 6) working life competence and
entrepreneurship 7) participation, involvement and building a sustainable future (Finnish
National Board of Education, 2016, section 3.3.).9 Together, they aim for lifelong learning.
Based on a post-structural view, the lifelong learning, or ‘real learning’, happens when the
learners’ needs are taken into account and they are supported in the process of making-
connections towards a rhizomatic view on reality (Atkinson, 2017). Munari (1977, 1981)
explains how connections are created by experiencing and testing. He also argues that the
9 These transversal skills are related to the list of 21
st century skills presented by Binkley et al. (2012).
| 25
educator’s role as scaffold is to expose the learners to the tools and the ‘raw material’: the
information. St. Pierre (2004) similarly argues that the role of the educator is to engage the
learning of the learners by bringing their knowledge to the table, rather than passively infuse
it. The learner is physically and mentally engaged to combine information and explore what
emerges.
The environment in which this exploration takes place is essential for the learning process. It
needs to create a safe space in which the learners feel it is ok to fail. In Munari’s educational
practice, the safe space was provided by the art workshop environment. Richardson (2017)
also considers art (and art-making situations) a safe platform for observing reality and being
with uncertainty. Lonka et al. (2018) moreover highlight that a learning environment should
be designed according to the users, in order not to outsmart them but rather make them feel
comfortable and supported.
Based on the sociocultural framework, phenomenon-based teaching recognizes the learner
as an active knowledge builder, and knowledge as the product of the encounter between
knowledges and contexts. Vygotsky identified that learning, as the product of this interaction,
requires the learner to be actively engaged in order for it to happen (Schunk, 2012).
However, a well scaffolded and safe learning environment does not necessarily lead to an
actually engaged learner.
“The problem at school is that students need to learn lots of things that they know nothing
about and that do not appear interesting at first sight” (Lonka et al., 2018, p.45). Interest is
considered more than an emotion. It is a status which is strictly connected to emotions. The
cognitive role of emotions within learning, according to Lonka et al. (2018), is to orient our
attention and strengthen our memory. When a learner feels curious, inspired, surprised or
challenged, they will feel their interest growing towards the topic.
While the interest grows, the motivation grows too. Lonka et al. (2018) explain that
motivation could be either intrinsic or extrinsic. Extrinsic motivation is commonly goal
oriented, meaning the learner feels motivated to perform the task because they want to
achieve a result (e.g. succeeding in an exam). However, if the learner can establish a
deeper connection with the task, the extrinsic motivation can turn into an intrinsic one.
Intrinsic motivation comes from within, and the learner feels directly connected to the task
and doesn’t feel obliged or in need to please others. Intrinsic motivation is affected by what
Lonka et al. (2018) call the four C’s : a meaningful context, sense of competence, sense of
| 26
control and curiosity.10 Contextualising a task helps the learner understand the
meaningfulness of it. The sense of competence is increased by pondering the level of the
task according to the level of the learner and providing adequate support. The sense of
control is achieved by making the learner feel they are capable and responsible of their own
learning, schedule-wise and interest-wise. Curiosity is what keeps the gears oiled and the
machine of engagement moving.
4.3. A note on methodology: in-between with a/r/tography
According to the previously presented framework, the artist and art educator share the
endeavor of recognizing the One in the multiplicity (Jagodzinski, 2016). An extra layer is
added to the discourse by a/r/tography, where the artist and art educator coexist (Springgay,
Irwin, Leggo & Gouzouasis, 2008). As a post-structuralist methodology, a/r/tography puts the
dichotomy of identity into discussion and similarly supports the idea that there is no identity
as such, but rather the whole lies in multiplicity (Irwin & Springgay, 2008). This coexistence
can be testified by the figure of the a/r/tographer, who believes practice and life are One and
develop between different realms. This concept, of course, applies not only to the
a/r/tographer, but also to the people interacting with them. The a/r/tographer becomes
according to these interactions, and the influence is mutual (Irwin & Springgay, 2008).
The rhizome articulates in what Deleuze and Guattari (1987) defined as foldings. Like an
origami, the more foldings there are, the more complex the body of the origami becomes.
Yet, despite its complexity, it is still One: an origami. As Jagodzinski (2016) highlights, the
term ‘folding’ is often encountered in post-structuralist theory reframed as ‘entanglement’
(Barad, 2003). Moreover, thanks to Barad (2003.), the Deleuzeguattarian concept of ‘cut’
becomes agential. The a/r/tographer is an agent that purposely and consciously cuts the
rhizome, in order to position themselves within a phenomena and work with the flow of the
unfolding situations. The phenomena is treated as a discourse that articulates through intra-
actions. As Barad (2003) proposes “discursive practices, are fully implicate in the dynamics
of intra-activity through which phenomena come to matter” (p.822).
The ‘a/r/tographical journey’ is a path many researchers undertake. A/r/tography as a
methodology allows the researcher (the a/r/tographer) to be with the intra-action and reflect
on the entanglements that emerge, being aware that these entanglements are only a fraction
of the phenomena they are positioned in.
10
In the context of intrinsic motivation, what Lonka et al. (2018) call the four C’s are not actually related to the homonymous four C’s from 21
st century skills. 21
st century skills’ four C’s include: creativity, critical thinking,
collaboration and communication, and they are part of a larger discourse (Binkley et al., 2012). Lonka et al. (2018), however, with PhBL aim to address all of the 21
st century skills in their complexity, and so does NCBE.
| 27
4.4. Contributions to research on PhBL
Thus far, researchers have been exploring the implementation of PhBL within different
realms. PhBL studies have been carried out internationally in diverse setting, in order to
investigate the implications of this approach in teaching and learning, and its possible
developments.
Wakil et al. (2019) experimented the effects of this approach on primary school learners in
Sulaimani city, Iraq. ICT was the subject towards which bridges were built, with the aim to
help the learners improve their ICT skills by applying them to other realms. The study
compares groups of learners that were taught ICT in a PhBL setting to groups of learners
that were tackling the same subjects but in a classical teaching method. The results show
that PhBL can better improve learners’ ICT skills and make them last longer, compared to
the situation where ICT was kept as a separated subject.
Yuliati and Parno (2018) explored problem-solving skills within a PhBL setting with high
school learners in Indonesia. The study investigates the impact of a PhBL approach to the
teaching of physics, which is mainly dominated by mathematical problem-solving. The study
highlights how mathematical procedures are still extremely embedded in the problem-solving
processes within the learning of physics, despite the integration of a phenomenon-based
project. The researchers eventually suggest a PhBL approach could be impactful in the case
teachers would consider physics as a phenomena to be taught holistically, rather than from a
mathematical perspective only - in order for learners’ problem-solving skills to be enhanced.
Paula Karlsson (2017) conducted a study where PhBL and the Finnish National Core
Curriculum are analyzed by bringing teachers’ perspective to discussion. The author
identifies different problem-areas, which emerged from the interviews they held with six
teachers from upper-comprehensive education in Finland. The problems concern co-
designing processes and multidisciplinarity, and are the following: getting PhBL started
within the already existing setting, finding a sustainable theme to be tackled, concerns about
the heavy workload (for both teachers and learners) and feeling of a forced changed on the
role of the teacher (Karlsson, 2017, p.105). According to these challenges, Karlsson (2017)
pinpoints different areas opened for development, such as: researching for a better co-
design atmosphere, a better engagement of the students and a more impacting transversal
learning (p.106).
Mira Kallio-Tavin (2016) ponders on the main concepts of PhBL and the challenges that this
multidisciplinary, collaborative, learner-led and contextual approach to teaching and learning
brings to art education. How to draw bridges between art education and other subjects?
Kallio-Tavin (2016) puts the emphasis on how contemporary art and art education should
| 28
walk hand in hand, in order to project art education into the probable, collaborative
educational future depicted by PhBL. That meaning, art education should similarly address
important societal topics and become a platform for learners to explore and question them.
This study contributes to the research on PhBL by bringing insights from art education, and
discussing challenges and positive aspects of this encounter. I found no research strictly
connected to the perspective presented by this study. The presented previous research is
what I found the most relevant, being my search narrowed by the language barrier. I am
aware of the existence of equally pertinent research in other languages, such as Finnish and
Swedish. Finland being the ‘motherland’ of PhBL, and Sweden with the ongoing discourse
on the Reggio Emilia pedagogical approach.
| 29
5. Navigation and interpretation of the events through theory
A/r/tographically, a positioning within the phenomena-PhBL has been made by initiating this
study (Irwin et al., 2018). This chapter proceeds to navigate the events of the workshop and
trace back to the discourse on PhBL previously presented in chapter four. In order to do so,
the streams of engagement and multidisciplinarity will be followed.
The navigation is performed by creating interruptions in the storytelling, which aim to bring
the reader back and forth between the events and the discourse. Each interruption is either
connected to engagement or multidisciplinarity, however it presents different concepts within
the umbrella-topics. Some of the concept are: emotions, roles, agency, curiosity, creative
thinking, rhizome and rhizomatic thinking, discomfort. The chapter lastly brings to the table
teacher’s and learners’ experience, which will be influential for the discussion.
5.1. Emotions – creative thinking - agency
It was February 25th 2020. The assistant and I arrived at the partner-school in the morning.
We walked upstairs and we were received by two learners and the teacher.
The first meeting was scheduled from 10 till 11:30 a.m. and included orientation and first part
of the workshop. Before starting, the teacher, the assistant and I agreed on how to group up
the participants and how the assistant should move within the space, in order to stick to
parents’ wishes on permission. Once all set, the learners came back from their break and
the teacher discretely grouped the ones with no permission so that we could start.
Orientation took part in the first half an hour and was meant to break the ice and get to know
each other. I started by presenting myself as a person, artist and art educator. I was told the
participants were curious about my nationality, therefore I got them giggling by saying some
sentences in Italian.
I consequently introduced myself as a researcher and as a student. The goal was to make
the participants aware of what will be done and why. Moreover, I unraveled the program for
the day and anticipated the content of the next meetings.
After this, I wanted to get to know participants’ names and characteristics in order to set the
mood and connect with them. I presented a small exercise to get to know each other that I
have been myself experimenting in the past: going in a ‘s’ shape, each participant should
state their own name, the neighbouring participant’s name and one adjective to describe
them.
| 30
ENGAGEMENT
Picture 8. Getting to know each other during the orientation part.
Establishing valuable emotional connection with the learners is extremely important. As
explained by Lonka et al. (2018), emotions play a relevant role in motivation and learning,
because positive emotions stimulate engagement. Lonka et al. (2018) divide them in: topic
emotions, social emotions, achievement emotions and epistemic emotions.
During the orientation part, due to the novelty of the situation for all the participants, the main
feelings emerged from observation were uncertainty and slight uneasiness, followed later on
by curiosity. The (me)art educator tried to make everyone at ease and created a more
relaxed atmosphere by laughing, making jokes and asking casual questions to the learners
and the teacher. Parallel to jokes and laughter, the way the (me)art educator physically
moved in the classroom also influenced the way the mood changed for all the participants.
Whereas stationing corresponded to a feeling of uneasiness, dynamism – walking through
the desks and getting closer to the learners – corresponded to a release of the sense on
uneasiness and arose curiosity.
Lonka et al. (2018) divide emotions in different themes: topic emotions, social emotions,
achievement emotions and epistemic emotions. The way the (me)art educator chose to
relate to the learners was meant to trigger positive social emotions - which are situational
and relational. If the environment fosters positive social emotions, they can transform into
achievement emotions, topic emotions or epistemic emotions – which, according to Lonka et
al. (2018) play a major role in engagement and learning. Moreover, positive social emotions
help to create bonds between people.
| 31
Back to school
Once the ice was broken, it was time to move on to the first part of our workshop.
The first part of the workshop aimed to bring participants’ interests to surface. In order to do
so, participants were given a bunch of sticky notes and were asked to write down as many
interests as they had - things they felt passionate about. Each participant wrote individually.
There was no limit on how many interests one could write, however it was required that each
sticky note had only one interest on it. A huge variety of interests emerged: sushi, pizza,
football, basketball, make-up, Netflix, drawing, painting, camping, learning about outer
space, playing Minecraft and so on.
Following, participants were asked to attach their sticky notes to the door, in order to collect
all the interests together and move forward to the second stage of the exercise: grouping
and selection.
Grouping the interests was no easy task, some difficulties were encountered in handling this
amount of material. However, the goal of creating a platform for discussion was achieved:
participants were vividly negotiating between each other on how to group the interests.
Umbrella-topics organically emerged on the whiteboard during the process. The whole
situation was supported by me, by directly participating in the sorting and incentivising
discussion.
MULTIDISCIPLINARITY
Picture 9. Negotiating and discussing about grouping during the sticky notes exercise
| 32
Picture 10. Negotiating and discussing the position of the sticky notes on the whiteboard.
In his educational practice, Munari (1977) exposed the learners to tools from different
disciplines and invited them to use these tools to reflect on the content of the inquiry.
Munari’s multidisciplinary approach related to the idea that an inquiry should be carried out
by including different points of view, in order to stimulate creativity.
The sticky notes exercise used in this section of the workshop was similarly adapted from
design practice. Visualizing thoughts on sticky notes suddenly turns them from abstract to
tangible – and movable. This technique therefore enhances the mobility of thoughts through
visuals.
By ‘mobile’ thought I aim to describe a thought that can ideally jump from point A to point B.
In this case’s workshop, from the door’s surface to the whiteboard. Inside our brain, from a
concept to another. A mobile thought works for/with the creative thinking – or rhizomatic
thinking (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987). As argued by Munari (1977), the creative thinking is
stimulated when the learner is helped to move from an experience to another, from a thought
to another. In this workshop, moving the sticky notes from one surface to the other during
the process of sorting and grouping gave the learners the possibility to train their creative
thinking, by creating connections between their own and others’ interests.
In addition, as suggested by PhBL (Lonka et al., 2018), during this part of the workshop the
learners elaborated their thinking and performed the sorting in a collaborative way, while
the (me)artist/(me)art educator worked as scaffold by helping with the task and sharing
personal ideas and insights.
| 33
Back to school
The result of the sorting process was a good amount of umbrella-topics: food, sport, art,
movie, nature, animals, science and games. 11 Next, we proceeded to select which interests
to keep and which to give up. Participants were asked to select only one of their interests by
leaving it on the whiteboard. Every other interest they wrote, should have been taken away
from the surface. This request functioned as a way of narrowing down the material and
getting to know what was really important for them.
After each participant selected their interest of choice, some of the umbrella-topics no longer
included sticky notes – and were therefore discarded. The umbrella-topics we were left with,
were: art, science, food, sport, movie and games. Together with the participants we decided
to combine some of them thematically, in order to have a narrower number of umbrella-
topics to work with. Eventually, the finalized umbrella-topics were: art (art+movie), science,
food and sport (sport+games).
ENGAGEMENT
Picture 11. Selecting the sticky notes that should stay on the whiteboard.
The process of selection enhances learners’ capability of making decisions, and makes them
understand that these decisions influence and are influenced by the context. Decision-
making – individual and collaborative - positions the learners as active agents within the
context. This positioning creates meaningfulness, which leads to engagement (Lonka et al.,
2018).
11
Finnish names of the umbrella-topics: ruoka (food), urheilu (sport), taide (art), elokuva (movie), luonto (nature), eläimet (animals), tiede (science), pelit (games).
| 34
PhBL (Lonka et al., 2018) pinpoints that peer confrontation is extremely important. The
partner-teacher highlights that learners in 6th grade are slowly becoming independent but
they are by no means ready, therefore friends (peers) become their new and most important
social point of reference (personal communication, January 21, 2020). The process of
selection is therefore influenced by the peers. Moreover, this process hosts emotions of
discomfort and friction, due to negotiation. Friction and discomfort are not usually classified
as positive emotions, however they still play a role in engagement (Lonka et al., 2018).
Therefore, the (me)educator aimed to create a safe-space, in order for the learners to be
able to cope with this emotions and keep the learning process going (Munari, 1977; Restelli
& Sperati, 2008).
Back to school
Now that interests were brought to surface and umbrella-topics emerged, participants were
given a short presentation regarding the second part of the workshop, followed by a small
task to be completed at home.
The presentation focused on energy - the phenomena the teacher and I agreed upon
beforehand. The idea of the presentation was to give a glimpse to the participants on what
the phenomena-energy is - or could be, by including different perspectives. In the end of the
presentation participants were asked to remember their own interest and the umbrella-topic
where it belonged. They were given a homework where the umbrella-topic defined their field
of investigation on the phenomena-energy. They were asked to individually search and write
down their observations on the phenomena-energy associated with their own umbrella-topic.
These observations would have been gathered during the following meeting in order to
proceed with the workshop.
| 35
MULTIDISCIPLINARITY and ENGAGEMENT
Picture 12. Learners were asked to make a small research at home about their interest combined with the
topic energy.
According to the feedback questionnaire (see appendix B), most of the learners knew little to
nothing about energy before the task was given. Therefore, the task aimed to make the
learners become acquainted with the phenomena, and consequently highlight the rhizomatic
connections towards it. This task, in the light of a/r/tography (Irwin & Springgay, 2008), can
be interpreted as the learners were invited to experience what the (me)researcher was
doing: to perform cuts and trace back to the phenomena. The cut-point, identified in this
case as the umbrella-topic, positioned each learner slightly differently within the phenomena
and worked as a framework for investigation.
The concept of performing cuts puts the learners in the position of being active agents
(Barad, 2003) within the study of the phenomena. In the context of the task, the role of the
(me)art educator/(me)artist was to make the rhizome visible (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987) by
initiating the process of discovery.
Back to school
After the task was given, the morning eventually came to an end. This first part of the
workshop was quite filled with content and the participants looked tired and ready to go for
lunch - and so were we! We greeted each other and the assistant and I left the class
accompanied by the teacher. It was time to prepare for day two.
| 36
5.2. Roles – performativity - collaboration
After a week, on March 3rd, my assistant and I adventured again into the school premises.
The meeting took place from 9 to 11.30 a.m. In the beginning the assistant and I shortly
briefed up with the teacher about the day’s program. Next, the day started from where we
left off the time before, by discussing about the phenomena-energy and collecting
participants’ observations from the task they were asked to complete at home.
However, a third of the participants did not actually do the task. The teacher felt compelled to
exhort the participants on their duties as research participants and learners. Moreover, the
teacher asked me for permission to temporarily divide the class in two groups. The ones who
did not do their task would have followed the teacher into another room, in order to catch up
on what they should have done at home. The rest of the class would have stayed with me
and proceeded with the regular program. In the end, they would have reunited before the
starting of recess at 9:45 a.m.
Considering I had foreseen a situation like this, I gave my consent. We decided to rearrange
the participants like so: since only one participant from the food-group was present, the
participants who did not do the task would have joined them. Since the total amount of
members in the new food-group became too high, we decided to split them in two: food1-
group and food2-group.
We both agreed on the fact that this change would have become beneficial for the study, as
an interesting confrontation could have emerged from this situation.
ENGAGEMENT
“The day didn’t go as planned because about one third of the learners didn’t do their
homework (9 in total). The teacher took responsibility for it and decided to make them
“do extra work” to responsibilize them (on 6th grade, they said, we work on the idea of
taking responsibility of one’s actions. Was it work skills?). (…) the teacher stepped
right in and made decision themselves.” (field notes, March 3, 2020)
Phenomenon-based projects rely on the engagement of the learners (being active agents)
and the presence of the teacher as a scaffold (Lonka et al., 2018). The events occurred
during the first part of the day highlight some challenges that could emerge in a PhBL
setting. As pointed out by Daniels (2003) and Symeonidis & Schwarz (2016), the concepts of
self-regulated learner and scaffolding could be problematic, since it could make the learners
feel they have too much responsibility (without properly mastering the self-regulation
abilities) and could undermine the pedagogical role of the teacher/educator. As observed in
the workshop events, some learners did not carry out their home task. The partner-teacher,
which by that point shared the space with the (me)art educator, took over and brought the
| 37
learners’ focus to the curricular objectives - enhancing the thinking and learning to learn,
self-care and managing everyday life, working life and entrepreneurship skills (Finnish
National Board of Education, 2016).
“I feel that it is part of my work as an educator to keep the rules equal. If we do
homework, we do it. And it applies to everyone. I don’t feel that when we have
projects ‘it’s kind of an exceptional thing that I don’t have to do my homework
because here is someone else’ ” (teacher, personal communication, March 16,
2020).
Back to school
Once the food-groups left, the rest of us proceeded with the program. We firstly collected
participants’ observations on the whiteboard, under the title “energy is…” (Fin: energia on…).
Secondly, we checked the vocabulary definition of ‘energy’ and discussed about it, drawing
parallels with their observations.
In order to investigate even more and contextualize the phenomena, I redirected
participants’ attention towards the classroom environment with a small exercise. They were
given sticky notes and were asked to attach them to wherever they thought ‘energy’ was
present. I participated as well, and during the exercise the learners were interacting with
both me and my assistant. By the end of the process us and the whole classroom were
covered in colourful sticky notes.
MULTIDISCIPLINARITY
| 38
Picture 13, 14. Participants searching for energy sources in the classroom environment.
PhBL advocates for applying the skills and knowledge developed in the formal learning
context to a real, every-day-life context (Lonka et al., 2018). During this exercise the learners
explored their surroundings by applying the knowledge they elaborated during research and
discussion. This process of contextualization shifted their perception of the formal learning
environment, by making it part of the phenomena they were investigating. Learners used
sticky notes to make visible the rhizomatic connections they discovered. It is also important
to highlight, that learners did this by physically navigating the space. Exploring the
environment by navigating it, allows the learners to experience the space - and therefore
perform it. As Madison (2011) and Irwin et al. (2008) explain, experience is the key to
performance and facilitates the learning. Drawing a parallel with PhBL, the holisticity that
Lonka & Westling (2018) cite does not only include the multidisciplinary view on the
phenomena, but also experiencing the community and performing within it.
Back to school
Participants went then off to recess. Once they were back, we divided them into the pre-
established interest-groups: art-group (4 participants), science-group (2 participants), sport-
group ( 6 participants), food1-group (4 participants) and food2-group (4 participants).
The workshop challenged the participants with the creation of a mood board. Each mood
board would have become the expression of each interest-group’s communal observations –
therefore, expression of their point of view on the phenomena-energy. Participants were
invited to share their observations with their group members, in order to include everyone’s
contribution and negotiate on how to express it.
To start, I gave a presentation about mood boards, in order to firstly introduce this design
| 39
tool and secondly suggest the possible artistic-twists it could take. Their final work could
have been a more traditional visual assemblage (e.g. collage) an installation or a
performance. The idea was to offer them different possibilities for exploration from an artistic
point of view - and see what happens.
MULTIDISCIPLINARITY
As argued by Richardson (2017), art practice produces a unique type of thinking. This
thinking allows the artist to be within the rhizome and perceive its strands (Deleuze &
Guattari, 1987). Richardson (2017) sees the artistic thinking as a method of inquiry beneficial
for learning processes. Due to its nature, the artistic thinking can be conceptually juxtaposed
with both the concepts of creative thinking (Munari, 1977) and rhizomatic thinking (Deleuze
& Guattari, 1987). As described, the learners were challenged with the creation of a mood
board as a tool for visualization. Mood boards are tools belonging to design practice, largely
utilized for thought-visualization. The (me)artist, however, adapted this design tool to the
arts-based workshop, by taking the concept and twisting it to engage the learners in an
artistic response. This appropriation was based on the idea that, as exemplified by Munari’s
work, design processes and tools foster creative thinking, such as art practice and tools
(Munari, 1977, 1981).
The (me)art educator contributes to the facilitation of this way of thinking, by suggesting the
learners some investigation tools from their artistic practice. The idea is, therefore, not to
passively pass on knowledge. Instead, to shoot out “concepts like arrows that are picked up
by chance and used in strange new ways” (St. Pierre, 2004, p.293). The same idea is
shared by Lonka et al. (2018) in their theorization of the role of the teacher. The beauty of
putting your personal knowledge to the table in a PhBL context lies in uncertainty. How
would learners react? Would they make my experience theirs? If so, how?
Back to school
Right after the task was presented, participants started to discuss and plan what kind of final
work to create. They had different materials available to use, such as painting, coloured
pencils, ink, papers, tape, glue. They were free to choose their own materials too, or the
ones already present in the classroom.
The process lasted for about 50 minutes. Artistic processes varied according to varying of
the chosen tool. The science-group decided to combine writing and drawing, and so did the
food2-group. The art-group planned for a three-dimensional collage, while the food1-group
went for a completely three-dimensional paper object. The sport-group opted for a
performative representation of their observations and went to rehearse in the corridor.
Food1-group and food2-group conducted their small research during that day – since they
| 40
haven’t done it at home, therefore their background was less strong than others’. However,
both groups decided to use their phones or ask the teacher to help them search for more
information, in order to deepen the research they did earlier and better support their content.
The teacher and I were present all the time to give support if needed. My intervention
included suggestions on how to integrate different materials or concepts, by helping the
participants to find alternative solutions. Overall, the participants acted quite independently
and negotiated their ways through the project(s).
MULTIDISCIPLINARITY and ENGAGEMENT
Picture 15. Food1-group working on their three-dimensional, paper-based object.
| 41
Picture 16. Teacher helping the food1-group finding extra information for their project.
NCBE’s objectives call for the development of learners’ socio-cultural competences,
interaction and self-expression skills (Finnish National Board of Education, 2016). Within a
phenomenon-based project, group work and negotiation pose different challenges. As
explained by Lonka et al. (2018), this setting stimulates learners’ agency and develops their
competences in relation to other peers. Not only do they need to stand for their own ideas,
but also to understand how to make their ideas work alongside others and find a common
ground. “Arting as event becomes a site and a moment when change happens, a
modulation takes place from one way of being to another” (Jagodzinski, 2016, p.6). The art-
based workshop, as an arting event, creates the platform for creative exploration of the self
and the context (Richardson, 2017) and gives the learners the possibility to express
themselves and be with others’ self-expressions – the possibility to perform.
Lonka and Westling (2018) emphasize the idea that learners should be exposed to
professionals from different fields, in order to collaborate with them and integrate new real-
life perspectives to the study of a phenomena. In the context of the study, by encountering
the (me)artist/(me)art educator, the learners had the chance to exchange insights with a
professional in the art and culture field - which, based on my experience, often occupies a
mis-perceived role in society. This exchange exposed the learners to a new perspective on
how to tackle a phenomena. According to the final questionnaire (see appendix B), learners
in fact perceived the (me)artist/(me)art educator’s way of doing things like something new in
their school experience.
| 42
Back to school
In the end of the morning every group had the chance to present their work to others.
Every interest-group approached presentation differently. Some participants were more
confident, others felt shyer. However, everyone brought their contribution and we shortly
commented on each final work.
After the presentations, the workshop was officially over.
I thanked everyone for their participation and asked whether there were questions,
comments or critics. No critics were moved, and the most common comment was that
participants felt the experience was interesting and curious.
It eventually was time for me and the assistant to leave. We greeted the participants and the
teacher, then left the school.
5.3. How the workshop experience was perceived
This section aims to suggest how this workshop experience was perceived by the learners
and the teacher, according to teacher’s oral feedback and learners’ written feedback-
questionnaires.
Learners’ feedback was collected two days after the end of the workshop, on March 5th.
Every learner was involved, even the ones who did not received the research permission
from their parents (see chapter three). The answers were mostly colour coded (green meant
‘agree’ / ‘yes’, red meant ‘disagree’ / ‘no’ and yellow meant ‘neither agree or disagree’ /
‘maybe’), however three questions out of ten encouraged the learners to leave comments
(see appendix B). Learners were divided in groups, which corresponded to the previously
used interest-groups. Each interest-group had the same questions, apart from the food1-
group and food2-group questionnaires that differed by one question (see question nr.6,
appendix B). This difference was made to better understand how the situation changed
according to whether the participants could choose their topic of interest or not.
Teacher’s feedback was collected by using a semi-structured interview. The communication
took place on March 16th electronically and lasted around thirty minutes.
During the call the teacher and I touched upon different topics regarding their experience
within the workshop. The questions worked as a guideline for discussion.
| 43
The learners
Picture 17. Using coloured stickers to complete the questionnaires during the feedback session.
In the matter of multidisciplinarity, learners felt they experienced a new way of approaching
art education compared to the one they are used to in their daily-life at school. Some
believed this new way of doing was fun and interesting, and consider the normal visual art
classes boring. Some thought art education was only about drawing and painting something.
The overall feeling about art education prior to this experience, though, was positive. The
perception of art education changed a bit for most of the learners, after our experience
together. A relevant comment made by one of the interest-groups states that “art can really
be taught in many different, more interesting ways than in our school” (see question nr.10,
appendix B). This comment suggests how some learners actually perceived the possibilities
of art education within a multidisciplinary context. One learner even stated that they
understood what energy was.
Learners, however, expressed quite different - but evenly distributed - opinions regarding the
efficiency of this experience. 1/3 of the learners believed this experience helped them
understand the phenomena-energy, 1/3 felt it perhaps did help, and the last 1/3 felt it
actually did not.
Regarding engagement, the majority of the learners stated they never got asked about their
interests in order to create content for school. The learners who explored the phenomena-
energy through their interest believed this made the process feel way more interesting, while
the ones who did not pick their interest-group (the learners who did not do the homework)
perceived the experience differently. Some felt it was not good because they could not
decide, some felt the experience was still interesting despite not having been able to tackle it
| 44
from their interest of choice. However, once asked whether they would like school to create
more content based on their interests, the opinions divided quite evenly between yes and
perhaps.
The teacher
The teacher and I discussed learners’ engagement within the workshop. I was interested in
understanding their point of view as their class teacher – and therefore, as a person that
knows them better than I do. The teacher said they felt learners were well engaged and
worked pretty nicely together, even though they were not putting all their energies in what we
were doing - which became visible once a third of the learners did not do their homework.
(me)researcher: “Do you believe the guest art educator was a problem in this
context? Perhaps the children perceived it as less of an authority compared to the
class teacher? ”
Teacher: “ What I think it is important is that children know that this is something that
continues and it is not just a ‘pop-up’ thing, you know. It applies also to when the
teacher falls ill and gets substituted, children might not take things so seriously
because their teacher is not there (…) It is important that you have good structure for
collaboration and that children also know that is part of the curricula, what we are
doing.”
(teacher, personal communication, March 16, 2020)
The discussion then moved to questions about multidisciplinarity. My goal was to understand
the teacher’s positioning regarding art education and multidisciplinary learning modules,
which are an integral part of NCBE (Finnish National Board of Education, 2016, section 4.4)
and find their expression in phenomenon-based projects.
The teacher is highly supportive to the idea of collaborating with art educators (and other art
professionals) in daily-school-life. In their opinion, it would be very beneficial to both
learners, teachers and curriculum making. Teachers - they state - need to carry out
multidisciplinary modules as requested by the curriculum. Of course art education is
included, but unfortunately not every teacher is familiar with arts-based methods and
therefore it might be overshadowed by other subjects. Having a professional from the field
could help to integrate the subject better.
(me)researcher: “After this collaboration, where we brought learners’ interests to
discussion, do you think you could use these interests to create a multidisciplinary
learning module?”
| 45
Teacher: “ Yes. Well, this kind of interest-creation processes are something that are
also part of our teacher education, we do similar things as you did in the class. I think
I would be able to do something similar, but not the same (…) You know, we are
quite in a hurry in our everyday work. It would be ideal to always start with learners’
interests but we do not always have time for that, because the requirement is too
large…think about what you did with us…it took almost three hours. In order to
satisfy curriculum requirements it would have took two lessons more, you know (…) I
really liked your way of working but in everyday life is too time consuming.”
(teacher, personal communication, March 16, 2020)
| 46
6. Discussing the outcomes
Where do art education and phenomenon-based learning meet?
And following, how could teachers and learners benefit from this encounter?
In this study, art education is considered both a field of practice and a subject on its own.
PhBL is an approach that elaborates on Finnish NCBE requirements for multidisciplinary
learning modules. Under a Deleuzeguattarian light, they are both part of the educational
rhizome. Driven by the research questions, the workshop-experience presented in this thesis
was meant as a test-platform for exploring the possibilities of the encounter between art
education and PhBL, by identifying and investigating where the two meet within the
educational rhizome. The workshop’s own identity turned out as being in between a
phenomenon-based project that relied on arts-based methods, and an arts-based workshop
that aimed for a phenomenon-based perspective.
Afterwards, the navigation of the workshop-experience through theory allowed many
entanglements between art education and PhBL to emerge. However, two concepts seemed
to hold all the others: multidisciplinarity and engagement. In retrospective, multidisciplinarity
and engagement were already evident from the very beginning of the study, when the
workshop was still in a planning-phase. This is so, due to two main reasons. First, my
a/r/tographical positioning within the study, which tightens my insights on art education to my
research practice. Second, the nature of PhBL, being multidisciplinarity and engagement
both its core concepts and critical points.
As identified by the teachers interviewed in Karlsson’s study (2017), practical PhBL
challenges are related to how to find a theme (phenomena) that can be properly tackled
multidisciplinarily, how to put learners in the right mindset to get PhBL started and how to
make the experience meaningful and engaging despite the lack of time and support. Time
management and feasibility were similarly pointed out by the partner-teacher as challenging
aspects in this study.
While sharing some aspects, the main difference between this study and Karlsson’s is
situational. Whereas in Karlsson’s study the teachers were the ones who conducted the
phenomenon-based projects, in this study the phenomenon-based project was carried out by
a person external to learners’ daily-context. This situation brought both positive results and
further challenges.
According to the partner-teacher, the presence of an external professional stimulates
learners’ curiosity and engagement (personal communication, January 21, 2020). As
observed in the orientation part of the workshop, learners were curious about me and my
origins. Curiosity is essential when talking about engagement, because of its role in
| 47
stimulating learners’ inner motivation (Lonka et al., 2018). However, during the second day
of the workshop-experience, one third of the learners did not do the homework they were
given. What can be interpreted from this situation is, that the presence of an external (me)art
educator might be perceived by the learners as more recreational than educational, and
therefore be counterproductive in matters of properly engaging the learners. In this context,
the partner-teacher highlights how important it is for learners to be aware that this kind of
‘pop-up’ projects are part of the curriculum, and therefore of their duty as learners (personal
communication, March 16, 2020). In retrospective, I question whether the workshop’s
orientation part could have been more thorough in explaining the aim of the experience and
the role of the learners. Lonka et al. (2018) argue that external motivation also plays a role in
engagement. Communicating clearly the objectives should* trigger in the learners the feel of
agency and willingness to achieve, which stimulate inner motivation (Lonka et al., 2018).
However, the partner-teacher stated that “this is something that happens all the time” – it is a
real school-life situation that an educator needs to learn to deal with (personal
communication, March 16, 2020).
Despite this challenge, the outcomes of this study suggest that the collaboration between a
class-teacher and an art educator could have long-term benefits for both learners and
curriculum-making. Learners’ and teacher’s feedback made visible how positively the arts-
based methods and contents were perceived. Their preconceptions and expectations
regarding this arts-based workshop varied, and their opinions once the experience was over
changed in some cases (see appendix B). The teacher was ready to expect “almost
everything” (personal communication, March 16, 2020), whereas most of the learners were
expecting a more traditional way of approaching art education.
The way learners perceived art education prior to this study is based on their personal every-
day school experience. Set upon Espoo City’s requirements ("Oppiaineet ja tuntijako", n.d.),
the partner-class’ programme includes one hour per week of visual art held by the partner-
teacher, and two hours of crafts held by a specialized teacher. The partner-teacher stated
the visual art classes they held are more traditional, due to the fact that they are not so
familiar with the art methods and their potentiality (personal communication, January 21,
2020). The objectives of visual art teaching that the partner-teacher follows, are the ones
expressed by NCBE (Finnish National Board of Education, 2016, section 14.4.11). Visual
production, perception and thinking are some of the core objectives for 6th graders, which
connect to the idea of being within visual culture – and, therefore, understanding
contemporary society. On top of the subject-specific objectives, there are the broader
objectives regarding engagement, creative thinking, agency and more.
| 48
The partner-teacher believes, that systematic collaborations with art educators would
positively support the class-teachers in the implementation of the objectives presented by
NCBE and enrich learners’ learning, by bringing a more insightful perspective on art
education - while relieving class-teachers’ already overwhelming workload (personal
communication, March 16, 2020).
As pondered by Kallio-Tavin, how could art education be bridged in a PhBL context?
Karlsson (2017) points out that the implementation of phenomenon-based projects makes
teachers’ workload grow even bigger – while work schedules stay the same. Based on the
study’s workshop-experience, the partner-teacher feels that having a professional within art
and art education could benefit the way phenomenon-based projects are carried out, and
how art education is bridged with the other subjects.
It is important to notice that Lonka and Westling (2018) talk about holistic approach on
learning. The Deleuzeguattarian concept of rhizome (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987) becomes
useful to understand how the art educator could bridge art education with other subjects, in
the lens of holism. Therefore, I believe a rephrasing of Kallio-Tavin’s previously cited
question is needed, in order to frame the discussion even better. How could art education be
a bridge in a PhBL context?
Barad (2003) explains, how post-structuralism challenges the paradigm of
representationalism – governed by language, as expressed in Vygotsky’s sociocultural
theory (Schunk, 2012) – by adding performativity. Through this study, some situations
emerged where learners clearly appeared more engaged. This was most seen during three
sections of the workshop: when the learners were grouping their interests by topic, while
they were applying their newly-created notions to the classroom environment, and when they
were working on their final projects. All these situations shared the common point of learners
being physically active and dealing with their interests through new methods.
Performativity is, according to Barad (2003) and Madison (2011), a channel of experience
and consequently learning. As observed from learners’ feedback, the majority was happy to
have had the chance to explore the phenomena by doing – even among the one who did not
work with their interest-topic (see appendix B). Performativity is related to embodiment and
doing, however it is an aspect of holism that I feel is not given enough attention in PhBL. Art
and art education can help to implement the holism in phenomenon-based projects, with the
challenge of not to be considered a mere utility (Jagodzinski, 2016) but rather a language of
body, visual and words.
| 49
7. Final thoughts
Picture 18. The food1-group presenting their final artwork.
Every subject, in contemporary teaching practices, holds its challenges for both learners and
teachers. When the PhBL lens is applied, challenges within a subject increase by having to
deal with other realms’ challenges. In order to tackle this situation, we need to learn to think
differently. As stated by Deleuze and Guattari (1987), “thought is not arborescent, and the
brain is not a rooted or ramified matter” (p.15). Shifting our brain to a rhizomatic way of
thinking, allows us to perceive the complexity and multiplicity of reality. The rhizome has no
‘entry’ or ‘exit’, neither should there be in the way we conceive and build knowledge.
Everything is contextual and knowledge lives in the streams of learning, in the in-between
(Irwin & Springgay, 2008).
Some learners stated that this arts-based workshop-experience actually helped them
understand the complexity of the phenomena-energy. However, the majority of them said
they either did not understand or only grasped it (see appendix B). This might be due to the
short amount of time spent together on the phenomena – considering how well perceived the
arts-based methods were. In comparison, the phenomenon-based projects described by
Yuliati and Parno (2018) and Wakil et al. (2019) are mostly of longer duration.
Time also affected the possibility to dig deeper in the concept of enhancing
creative/rhizomatic thinking. In a multidisciplinary context, art education - through its ways of
activating thoughts and reflections (Richardson, 2017) - could stimulate the creative thinking
and help the learners to become critical, emancipated beings. Many reflections on the
| 50
subject emerged while navigating the material through theory, which highlights the
importance of this entanglement. However, I feel the study does not provide enough
outcomes to properly address it.
The experience discussed in this thesis might be relevant for other researchers, who are
interested into getting to know PhBL from Finland and want to see some of its practical, real
life implications. This study does not want to present answers. Every entanglement
previously discussed is extremely connected to the context of the study and expands in
many directions outside of it. My hope is that one of these entanglements could be picked up
in the future from other researchers, in order to expand this study. Specifically, there is a
couple of entanglements that I believe could potentially make a good subject for further
studies.
Bringing learners’ interest into discussion through art education, as done in this study, could
be used from teachers to create multidisciplinary learning modules, that will help learners to
develop their creativity and critical thinking. Ideally, if a module or a project is built upon
learners’ interests, it engages them personally in the discussion (Lonka et al., 2018). This
study highlights, however, how time consuming the studied-process was. Therefore, a
further development for this experience, would be an exploration on how to make this
process less time-consuming and reproducible. Based on NCBE (Finnish National Board of
Education, 2016), multidisciplinary learning modules are held mainly on a school-level, not
singularly by each class. This is so, in order to create the best platform possible for
collaboration, meeting and multidisciplinarity. It would be interesting to expand this study by
bringing it on a school-level and see, which new entanglements and challenges would
emerge.
Lastly, as identified within my previous work experiences and confirmed by this study,
contiguity is an influential concept that I believe should be developed. Art education’s
performative way of conceiving learning has great potential in matter of engagement and
multidisciplinarity, however I believe this potential is fully expressed within a prolonged
collaboration with the study context.
| 51
8. References
Atkinson, D. (2017). What is art education, what might it become? In j. jagodzinski (Ed), What is art education? After Delueze and Guattari (pp. 143-160). New York: Palgrave.
Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801-831.
Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., Rumble, M. (2012). Defining Twenty-First Century Skills, In: Griffin, P., McGaw, P., Care, E. (eds.), Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills (pp. 17–66). New York: Springer, ISBN 978-94-007-2323-8 e-ISBN 978-94-007-2324-5, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5,
Christine Liao (2016) From Interdisciplinary to Transdisciplinary: An Arts-Integrated Approach to STEAM Education, Art Education, 69:6, 44-49, DOI: 10.1080/00043125.2016.1224873
Culture Call. (2019). Retrieved December 4, 2019, from https://www.espoo.fi/en-US/Culture_and_sport/Culture/For_teachers_and_educators/Culture_Call
Daniels, H. (2003). Vygotsky and Pedagogy. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1987). A Thousand Plateaus. (11th ed.). Trans. Brian Massumi. Vol. 2 of Capitalism and Schizophrenia. 2 vols. 1972-1980. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press
Finnish National Board of Education. (2016). National Core Curriculum for Basic Education. Helsinki.
Finnish National Board of Education. (2017). National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care. Helsinki.
Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK. (2019). The ethical principles of research with human participants and ethical review in the human sciences in Finland. Helsinki: Publications of the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK 3/2019.
Haywood Rolling, J. (2018). Arts-based Research in Education. In Leavy, P. (2018). Handbook of arts-based research (pp. 493-510). New York: The Guilford Press.
Huotilainen, M. (2019, November). Building Human Strengths - Neuroscientific Insights into Cognition and Skill Development. Presentation, Creating the Future III conference. Helsinki.
“I Laboratori Bruno Munari®”. Retrieved 4 November 2019, from http://www.brunomunari.it/index2.htm
Irwin, R., & Springgay, S. (2008). A/r/tography as a practice-based research. In S. Springgay, R. Irwin, C. Leggo & P. Gouzouasis, Being with A/r/tography (pp. xix-xxxiii). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Irwin, R., Beer, R., Springgay, S., Grauer, K., Xiong, G., & Bickel, B. (2008). The rhizomatic relations of a/r/tography. In S. Springgay, R. Irwin, C. Leggo & P. Gouzouasis, Being with A/r/tography (pp. 205-218). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
jagodzinski, J. (Ed.). (2016). What is art education? : After Deleuze and Guattari. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Jensenius, A. (2020). Disciplinarities: intra, cross, multi, inter, trans. Retrieved 26 April 2020, from https://www.arj.no/2012/03/12/disciplinarities-2/
Kallio-Tavin, M. (2016). Perceptions of the changes in the Finnish art education curriculum. Oktatás–Kutatás–Innováció, 7, 37.
| 52
Karlsson, P., Kallio-Tavin, M., korkeakoulu, T. j. s., School of Arts, D. a. A., Jalas, M., University, A. & Aalto-yliopisto. (2017). Teachers' perspective on the national core curriculum of basic education 2016 - Finding leverage in supporting upper-comprehensive school teachers with phenomenon-based learning and co-design.
Leavy, P. (2018). Handbook of arts-based research. New York: The Guilford Press.
Leggo, C. (2008) Autobiography: Researching Our Lives and Living Our Research. In Springgay, S., Irwin, R., Leggo, C., & Gouzouasis, P. (2008). Being with A/r/tography (pp. 3-23). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Lonka, K., Makkonen, J., Berg, M., Talvio, M., Maksniemi, E., Kruskopf, M., ... Westling, S. K. (2018). Phenomenal Learning from Finland. Helsinki: Edita.
Lonka, K., Westling, S. K. (2018) Phenomenon-based learning. In Lonka, K., Makkonen, J., Berg, M., Talvio, M., Maksniemi, E., Kruskopf, M., ... Westling, S. K. (2018). Phenomenal Learning from Finland.(p. 173-193). Helsinki: Edita.
Madison, D. S. (2011). Critical Ethnography: Methods, Ethics, and Performance. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
Munari, B. (1977). Fantasia (30th ed.). Gius. Bari: Laterza & Figli.
Munari, B. (1981). Da cosa nasce cosa (29th ed.). Bari: Laterza & Figli.
Oppiaineet ja tuntijako. Retrieved March 5, 2020, from https://www.espoo.fi/fi-fi/kasvatus_ja_opetus/perusopetus/opiskelu_peruskoulussa/opetussuunnitelma/Oppiaineet_ja_tuntijako
Restelli, B., & Sperati, S. (2008). A che gioco giochiamo? (2nd ed.). Verona: Corraini Edizioni.
Richardson, J. (2017). What art thinks. In j. jagodzinski (Ed), What is art education? After Deleuze and Guattari (pp. 111-126). New York: Palgrave.
Rodoniov, A. (2019, February). Creativity in Neurosciences. Presentation, Science Basement. Tiedekulma, Helsinki.
Rose, G. (2016). Visual methodologies: an introduction to researching with visual materials. (4th ed.). London: SAGE.
Saavedra, A. R., Opfer, V. D., Perkins, D., Singmaster, H., & Stewart, V. (2012). Teaching and Learning 21st Century Skills. Teaching and Learning, 37.
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: an educational perspective. (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Silander, P. (2015). Digital pedagogy. In Mattila, P. & Silander, P. (2015). How to create the school of the future. Revolutionary thinking and design from Finland (pp. 9-25). Oulu: Multprint.
Springgay, S., Irwin, R. & Kind, S. (2005). A/r/tography as Living Inquiry Through Art and Text. Qualitative Inquiry. 11. 897-912. 10.1177/1077800405280696.
St. Pierre, E. A. (2004) Deleuzian concepts for education: The subject undone. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 36(3), 283-296.
Symeonidis, V. & Schwarz, J. F. (2016). Phenomenon-Based Teaching and Learning through the Pedagogical Lenses of Phenomenology: The Recent Curriculum reform in Finland. Forum Oswiatowe, 28(2), 31-47. Retrieved from http://forumoswiatowe.pl/index.php/czasopismo/article/view/458.
| 53
Taidetestaajat. (2017). Retrieved December 9, 2019, from https://www.taidetestaajat.fi
Wakil, K., Rahman, R., Hasan, D., Mahmood, P., & Jalal, T. (2019). Phenomenon-based learning for teaching ICT subject through other subjects in primary schools. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 7 (13), 205-212. DOI: 10.18009/jcer.553507
Yuliati, L. & Parno, P. (2018). Exploration of Physics Problem-Solving Skills within Phenomenon-Based Learning in Senior High School Students. Proceedings of the International Conference on Education, 4(1), 97-103. https://doi.org/10.17501/icedu.2018.4111
| 54
9. Appendix
Table 1. Data and participants
Timeframe
Activity Participants (number, age, gender)
Data
21.01.2020 Free discussion with partner-teacher
- Recorded audio material
Tot: 51’ 33’’
25.02.2020
1,5h
First meeting with participants
n=24
11-12 years old
Boys=11
Girls=13
Recorded video material Tot: 38’ 31’’
Visual field notes
Tot: 277 photographs
Field notes
03.03.2020
2,5h
Second meeting with participants
n=20
11-12 years old
Boys=10
Girls=10
Recorded video material
Tot: 49’ 21’’
Recorded audio material
Tot: 84’ 26’’
Visual field notes
Tot: 104 photographs
Field notes
05.03.2020
0,75h
Feedback session with participants
n=17
11-12 years old
Boys=7
Girls=10
Recorded video material
Tot: 21’ 05’’
Written feedbacks
16.03.2020 Feedback session with partner-teacher
- Recorded audio material
Tot: 23’ 35’’
| 55
Appendix A
Letter of Consent
Letter of consent is written in Finnish. It contains, in order: self presentation, presentation of study aim, study time frame, data collection and data handling plan (anonymity), permit request.
Helsinki, 11.12.2019 Huoltajan Suostumus Tiedot-kirje tutkijalta
Lukekaa tarkasti ennen Huoltajan suostumus-lomake täyttämistä.
Hyvät Vanhemmat,
Nimeni on Gaia Mazzola. Olen taiteilija ja taidekasvattaja.
Olen Nordic Visual Studies and Art Education (NoVA) maisteriopiskelija. Opiskelen Konstfack yliopistossa Tukholmassa, mutta asun ja työskentelen Suomessa ja olen vaihto-opiskelija Aalto-yliopistossa.
Olen kirjoittamassa opinnäytettäni. Pro-gradu tutkimus tule olemaan yhteistyö _______koulun kanssa. Tutkimus koskee 6.luokkalaisia (tässä tapauksessa teidän lapset) ja heidän opettaja (________).
Tutkimuksessa haluan tutkia taidepajaympäristöä ala-asteen luokassa. Haluan ymmärtää ja tarkkailla mitä tapahtuu kun lapset, opettaja ja taidekasvattaja suunnittelevat yhdessä taidepaja-sisältöä ja jos tästä yhteistyö-prosessista voi syntyä mielenkiintoinen ja hyödyllinen opetusmenetelmä, joka arvostaa lasten omia ideoita ja tarjoa kaikille lapsille oikeutta laadukkaan ja ilmaiseen taidekasvatukseen. Tutkimus kestää 2 viikkoa. Kahdessa viikossa tavataan 3 kertaa: ensimmäisellä kerralla suunnitellaan sisältöä, toisella kerralla pidetään taidepaja, kolmas kerta on palauteistunto.
Tutkimuksen aikana aion ottaa kuvia tekemisestä ja videoita prosessista. En aio käyttää lasten nimeja opinnäyten kirjoittamisessa ja datan analyysissa. Tallennan videoita ja kuvia suojattuun ulko-asemaan, jota pidetään suojatussa varastossa omassa kodissani Helsingissä. Kuvia ja videoita poistetaan asemasta mahdollisimman pian gradu-suunnitelman mukaan.
Taidepajaa pidetään suomen kielellä. Opettaja on mukana koko ajan. Taidepaja toteutuu sisätiloissa.
Jos ette anna lupaa lapsillenne osallistumaan tutkimukseen, hän voi siitä huolimatta osallistua suunnittelemiseen ja taidepajaan kavereiden kanssa tekemällä samaa asioita, mutta hänestä ei saada dataa (kuvia, videoita, ideoita, mielipiteitä).
Ystävällisiä Terveisiä,
Gaia Mazzola
+358- - - - - - - - -
| 56
Appendix B
Feedback questionnaire
The questions listed below form the questionnaire that the participants (learners) were given during the feedback session meeting. Questions were both in English and Finnish. Answers are colour coded just like during the filling of the questionnaire. Comments are reported in Finnish and translated in English.
1 How much did you know about the topic ”energy” before these workshops? KUINKA PALJON TIESIT ”ENERGIA” AIHEESTA ENNEN TYÖPAJOJA? ● ●●●●● ●●●●● ●●●●● ●
2 Did you ever get asked about your interests in order to create content for school? ONKO KOSKAAN SINULTA KYSYNYT OMISTA KIINNOSTUKSISTA, KOULUN SISÄLLÖN LUOMISTA VARTEN? ●● ●● ●●●●● ●●●●● ●●●
3 What did you think about “art education” before we met? You have free word in here! SINULLA ON VAPAA SANA! MITÄ MIELTÄ OLIT/MITÄ LUULIT ”TAIDEKASVATUKSESTA” ENNEN KUN TAPAASIMME? ●●●●● ● ●●● ● “Ei oikein tiennyt, millaista se oli” I did not really know, how it was “Ei ollut mielipidettä” (x 3) No opinion ”Luulin, että piirrämme ja maalaamme jotain” I thought, that we draw and paint something ”EI minulla ollut mitään luuloja” I did not have any thought ”Ei oikeastaan mitään” Nothing, really ”Normaalit kuvaamataidon tunnit ovat tylsiä, mutta nämä työtavat/pajat olivat kiinnostavia ja hauskoja (kaikkien mielestä)” The normal visual art lessons are boring, but these way of working/workshops were interesting and fun (in everybody’s opinion)
4 Was Gaia’s way of doing things something new for you in your school experience? OLIKO SINULLE GAIAN MENETELMÄ/TAPA TEHDÄ ASIOITA JOTAKIN UUTTA OMASSA KOULUKOKEMUKSESSA? ●●●●● ●●●●● ●● ●●●●●
5 (Science, Art, Sport groups) Did you feel safe exploring the topic through your interests? Why? You have free word in here! SINULLA ON VAPAA SANA! TUNTUIKO TURVALLISTA TUTKIA AIHETTA OMAN KIINNOSTUKSEN KAUTTA? MIKSI? ●●●●● ● “Well, why wouldn’t it be safe?”
| 57
“Tämä tapa tutkia teki aiheesta monipuolisemman ja paljon mielenkiintoisemman (kaikkien mielestä)” This way of researching made the topic more diverse and way more interesting (in everybody’s opinion)
6 (Food1, Food2 groups) How did you feel exploring the topic not through your interests? Why? You have free word in here! SINULLA ON VAPAA SANA! MILTÄ TUNTUI TUTKIA AIHETTA ILMAN OMAA KIINNOSTUSTA KÄYTTÄMISTÄ? MIKSI? ● ● ●● ”Kivaa” Nice ”Ihan hyvältä koska opin paljon uutta energiasta!” Quite good because I learned a lot about energy! ”Se tuntui väärältä koska ei saanut päättää” It felt bad because I could not decide ”(?) ei ollut kivaa” It was not nice “Oli ihan kivaa ja hyvä aihe vaikka ei ollut oma kiinnostus” It was quite nice and a good topic even though it was not my interest ”Työskentely oli ihan kivaa ja hauskaa, vaikka en ollutkaan kiinnostunut aiheesta” The process was nice and fun, even though I was not interested in the topic ”Oli ihan kivaa tehdä työtä vaikkei aihe kiinnostunut minua” It was nice to work even though the topic did not interest me
7 Are you satisfied with the final result? OLETKO TYYTYVÄINEN OMAAN LOPPUTEOKSEEN? ●●●●● ●●●● ●●●●● ●●●
8 Did the workshop help you understand how complex the topic “energy” in reality? AUTTOIKO TÄMÄ TYÖPAJA SINUA YMMÄRTÄMÄÄN, KUINKA MONIMUOTKAISTA “ENERGIA” AIHE ON TODELLISUUDESSA? ●●●●● ●●●● ●●●●
9 Do you believe there should be more art educational classes in primary school? LUULETKO, ETTÄ ALAKOULUSSA PITÄISI OLLA ENEMMÄN TAIDEKASVATUS-TUNTIA? ●●●●● ●●●●● ●●● ●●● ●
10 Do you think school should create more content based on your interests? LUULETKO, ETTÄ KOULU VOISI PERUSTAA ENEMMÄN OPPITUNTIA OPPILAIDEN KIINNOSTUKSIIN? ●●●●● ●●● ●●●●● ● ●●●
11 How did your idea of “art education” change after this experience? You have free word in here! SINULLA ON VAPAA SANA! MITEN SINUN IDEA “TAIDEKASVATUKSESTA” ON MUUTTUNUT TÄMÄN KOKEMUKSEN JÄLKEEN?
| 58
● ●●●●● ●●● ● ”On se vähän muuttunut. En ennen tiennyt, että se olisi tälläistä” It has changed a little. Before I did not know that it would be like this. ”Sitten että tämä on muuttunut paljon” So that it changed a lot ”En tiedä” I do not know ”Olen ymmärtänyt mitä energia on” I understood what energy is ”No” ”Ei oikein mitenkään” (x2) Not really ”Taidetta voi opettaa todella monella erilaisella mielenkiintoisemmalla tavalla kuin meidän koulussa” Art can really be taught in many different, more interesting ways than in our school