La nueva revolución educativa de Finlandia: el aprendizaje de fenómenos
La Ressu es una de las primeras escuelas en poner en marcha la nueva reforma educativa de Finlandia, que propone incorporar la enseñanza de fenómenos en reemplazo de las materias o asignaturas artificialmente fragmentarias.
La reforma dio vuelta al mundo en estos días y generó un revuelo con información incompleta o exagerada: no se propone eliminar las materias tradicionales, pero sí habrá cambios graduales sustantivos hacia la enseñanza de fenómenos o tópicos.
El cambio forma parte de un nuevo marco curricular nacional, que se hará efectivo en agosto de 2016. La gran novedad es que todas las escuelas del país (de 7 a 16 años de edad) deberán incluir un período extendido anual de enseñanza basada en fenómenos (phenomenon-based teaching). Los fenómenos son tópicos que se abordan desde una perspectiva multidisciplinaria.
El cambio ya comenzó con la formación de los docentes y viene de una larga tradición de experimentación pedagógica en el país, tal como relata Pasi Shalberg en esta nota sobre la reforma.
La enseñanza basada en tópicos no es algo nuevo, existen todo tipo de antecedentes. Uno de ellos es el notable proyecto “Learning in depth”, liderado por el pedagogo inglés Kieran Egan, contado aquí en 90 segundos. Allí se propone que cada alumno estudie un tópico en profundidad durante toda su trayectoria escolar, hasta convertirse en un experto multidisciplinar y enseñar sobre ese tópico a toda la comunidad.
Lo excepcional del caso de Finlandia es que se trata de una reforma curricular sistémica. No es una experiencia aislada en una escuela, ni una propuesta de especialistas: es una política pública que cambiará profundamente la organización tradicional del sistema educativo.
El cambio abarca enseñar en base a problemas rompiendo la fragmentación arbitraria y esquemática en horarios de las asignaturas; generar el impulso al conocimiento empezando por grandes preguntas y no por medio un enfoque deductivo-enciclopédico; trabajar de a pares docentes, cambiando la disposición de los grupos y aulas.
Para que los docentes participen activamente ya se formó al 70% en esta nueva perspectiva y se les brindará un pequeño incentivo económico a aquellos que trabajen en la planificación grupal e interdisciplinaria de los fenómenos.
La reforma no termina en los fenómenos. El proyecto incluye un enfoque cada vez más colaborativo del aprendizaje, con grupos pequeños de alumnos resolviendo problemas y mejorando sus competencias comunicacionales al mismo tiempo.
También se propone una revolución en la participación de los alumnos, que protagonizarán ciertos componentes de la planificación del estudio de los fenómenos y tendrán una voz en evaluar qué han aprendido de ellos.
Más allá va Finlandia. En conjunto con la Universidad de Helsinki, el país lanzó un innovador programa que comenzó con los jardines de infantes y se planea expandir a todo el sistema: el aprendizaje basado en juegos. El Playful Learning Center es un laboratorio vivo de soluciones de enseñanza con juegos basados en la investigación de sus efectos. El centro es un nexo acelerador del vínculo entre la investigación académica y la industria de juegos educativos.
Marjo Kyllönen, manager de la educación en Helsinki, es una de las grandes promotoras de la “fenomenal” reforma. Helsinki avanzará más rápido: allí se estableció un mínimo de dos fenómenos por año. La escuela Ressu ya comenzó y es un ejemplo práctico de la reforma que mirará el mundo entero. Sus alumnos cantan “Don´t worry, be happy”. Quizás sea la metáfora de una nueva era educativa, donde aprender sea parte de un ejercicio de la voluntad y esté conectado con el placer. No en una sola escuela sino en un sistema educativo completo.
Maijo Kyllonen
She works as an education manager in Helsinki and is perhaps a contradictory personality. Her dissertation was also controversial. I think that her thoughts are not so unique but comform that what has happened in Finland.
My idea: Maybe the main idea of future school still is that we can have a sustainable live in our countries and on Earth and produce goods we need and make innovations to survive. And we need cooperative education (world) and we have a lot of phenomenas to understand and to develop different kind of methods to gain these goals. And after all organize all over the world education on the principles of Liberté, égalité, fraternité.
Ted talk Hamburg 2015
Ted talk Vilnius 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
ARTICLE buenisiismo ESTUDIAR
Dynamics in Education Politics and the Finnish PISA Miracle by
The international debate on Finnish educational “success” had made relevant a cultural and historical analysis of Finnish education, with a focus on the effects of the ongoing preoccupation with the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) results on basic education.
Such international comparisons demand a strong theoretical approach, in part because the contrastive analysis of empirical “facts” and “realities” requires that they be situated in relation to their local and, in this case, national systems and contexts. It may be assumed that the quantitative indicators agreed on in intergovernmental negotiations between senior bureaucrats do indeed provide valid comparisons of education systems, as is the conventional wisdom in the field of economics. Nevertheless, these remain value-loaded collections of indicators of development that offer at best parallel lines of comparative analysis. The Finnish case argues for strong theory-based conceptualizations as the basis for, first, complex comparison and, second, shared models of policy action and intervention.
The comparative education field faces four interlinked challenges. First, there is a lack of theory building and development in the field, where politically and ideologically motivated investigative large-scale assessment practices are defining the state of the art. Second, the focus of the studies tends to be on empirically measurable end products instead of documented processes, which makes it possible to generate competitive rankings but reveals little about specific and shared developmental processes in educational systems. Third, although complexity and contingency are widely accepted in the social world on the general level, they appear to seldom reach empirical studies; the vast majority of standard approaches still advocate simple explanatory models. Finally, and paradoxically enough, there is a form of intellectual nationalism that inhibits the conceptualization and understanding of the relationship between, for example, transnational processes and nation-states. In this regard, comparative education needs a strong and ambitious theory-based framework with the potential to incorporate sociohistorical complexity, cultural relationality, and sociological contingency. Without a strong theory-driven approach, it is hard to go beyond merely listing the similarities and differences that facilitate the rankings but blur the processes.
At the research unit for Sociology and Politics in Education (KUPOLI) at the University of Helsinki, a new conceptualization was formulated in early 2010s and an ambitious research plan, Comparative Analytics of Dynamics in Education Politics (CADEP), was launched. The thesis was that to progress beyond the state of the art and arrive at a comparative understanding of educational systems, it would be necessary to focus on dynamics, with a view to grasping the fluid and mobile nature of the subject. This heuristic starting point echoed relativistic dynamics in physics, characterized as a combination of relativistic and quantum theories to describe the relationships between the principal elements of a relativistic system and the forces acting on it. It is curious that, though on the conceptual level the dynamics of a system are constantly referred to as being among its key attributes, there has been little progress on the analytical level in the social sciences since the seminal work of Pitirim Sorokin in the 1950s. The CADEP develops conceptually the theoretical understanding of dynamics to resubmit a specific social field of education to scrutiny by analyzing the relations between the main actors and institutions and essential discursive formations and practices. It is assumed that given its connection with relations and movement, the concept of dynamics will not reduce a mobile and fluid subject of study to a stagnant and inanimate object. There are four constitutive dynamics that make the Finnish educational success story understandable. Success and failure in basic education seem to be relative, and to reflect intertwined dynamics in policymaking, governance, families’ educational strategies, and classroom cultures. The emphasis of the understanding is on the contingent, relational, and complex character of political history.
ARTICLE buenisiismo ESTUDIAR
Dynamics in Education Politics and the Finnish PISA Miracle by
Hannu Simola, Jaakko Kauko, Janne Varjo, Mira Kalalahti, and Fritjof Sahlström
Such international comparisons demand a strong theoretical approach, in part because the contrastive analysis of empirical “facts” and “realities” requires that they be situated in relation to their local and, in this case, national systems and contexts. It may be assumed that the quantitative indicators agreed on in intergovernmental negotiations between senior bureaucrats do indeed provide valid comparisons of education systems, as is the conventional wisdom in the field of economics. Nevertheless, these remain value-loaded collections of indicators of development that offer at best parallel lines of comparative analysis. The Finnish case argues for strong theory-based conceptualizations as the basis for, first, complex comparison and, second, shared models of policy action and intervention.
The comparative education field faces four interlinked challenges. First, there is a lack of theory building and development in the field, where politically and ideologically motivated investigative large-scale assessment practices are defining the state of the art. Second, the focus of the studies tends to be on empirically measurable end products instead of documented processes, which makes it possible to generate competitive rankings but reveals little about specific and shared developmental processes in educational systems. Third, although complexity and contingency are widely accepted in the social world on the general level, they appear to seldom reach empirical studies; the vast majority of standard approaches still advocate simple explanatory models. Finally, and paradoxically enough, there is a form of intellectual nationalism that inhibits the conceptualization and understanding of the relationship between, for example, transnational processes and nation-states. In this regard, comparative education needs a strong and ambitious theory-based framework with the potential to incorporate sociohistorical complexity, cultural relationality, and sociological contingency. Without a strong theory-driven approach, it is hard to go beyond merely listing the similarities and differences that facilitate the rankings but blur the processes.
At the research unit for Sociology and Politics in Education (KUPOLI) at the University of Helsinki, a new conceptualization was formulated in early 2010s and an ambitious research plan, Comparative Analytics of Dynamics in Education Politics (CADEP), was launched. The thesis was that to progress beyond the state of the art and arrive at a comparative understanding of educational systems, it would be necessary to focus on dynamics, with a view to grasping the fluid and mobile nature of the subject. This heuristic starting point echoed relativistic dynamics in physics, characterized as a combination of relativistic and quantum theories to describe the relationships between the principal elements of a relativistic system and the forces acting on it. It is curious that, though on the conceptual level the dynamics of a system are constantly referred to as being among its key attributes, there has been little progress on the analytical level in the social sciences since the seminal work of Pitirim Sorokin in the 1950s. The CADEP develops conceptually the theoretical understanding of dynamics to resubmit a specific social field of education to scrutiny by analyzing the relations between the main actors and institutions and essential discursive formations and practices. It is assumed that given its connection with relations and movement, the concept of dynamics will not reduce a mobile and fluid subject of study to a stagnant and inanimate object. There are four constitutive dynamics that make the Finnish educational success story understandable. Success and failure in basic education seem to be relative, and to reflect intertwined dynamics in policymaking, governance, families’ educational strategies, and classroom cultures. The emphasis of the understanding is on the contingent, relational, and complex character of political history.
Analysis how we teach our children. The methods and myths behind Finlands education success ESTUDIAR
All 6-year-olds attend half-day preschool, 75% of 3-to-5-year-olds in kindergarten.
Compulsory education is from age 7 to 16 and it is provided by publicly funded basic schools.
No private schools, no school uniforms, very few religious schools.
No stream or tracking during basic education.
Upper secondary education has two pathways: academic and vocational.
About 95% of basic school leavers attend upper secondary schools of their choice (close to 50-50 split between two pathways).
No external census-based standardised tests before matriculation examination at the end of academic upper secondary school.
Finland spends 5.7% of national wealth (GDP) on institutions in primary to higher education (2013).
Teachers earnings at the national average salaries and at the international average teacher salaries.
Finland facts
Top-performer in OECD’s PISA study (15-year-olds tested in reading, maths, science) since 2000.All 6-year-olds attend half-day preschool, 75% of 3-to-5-year-olds in kindergarten.
Compulsory education is from age 7 to 16 and it is provided by publicly funded basic schools.
No private schools, no school uniforms, very few religious schools.
No stream or tracking during basic education.
Upper secondary education has two pathways: academic and vocational.
About 95% of basic school leavers attend upper secondary schools of their choice (close to 50-50 split between two pathways).
No external census-based standardised tests before matriculation examination at the end of academic upper secondary school.
Finland spends 5.7% of national wealth (GDP) on institutions in primary to higher education (2013).
Teachers earnings at the national average salaries and at the international average teacher salaries.
