Harry CostnerSynthesis Research Report
FinlandUMUC EDTC 645
April 2014Dr. Tamara Blesh
Photo used by creative commons. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/15133799@N02/5436213119/
A simple Google search tells the story. Type in Finland education success
and you will find thousands of articles describing the “Finnish Miracle” or common
use of the term “education superpower”. Currently, the world is beating down a
path to the door of Finland’s Education Ministry to learn their secrets. Most of this
success is judged on the extremely high scores Finland delivers on the international
PISA tests. (Programme for International Student Assessment) There are many
basic educational and philosophical concepts that set Finland’s education system
apart. Below is a wonderful infographic created for Pasi Sahlberg’s lecture “Finnish
Lessons” at the recent Teaching and Learning Conference in Washington DC in
March of this year.
Photo retrieved from https://storify.com/susaw/teaching-and-learning-2014
As noted in this graphic, Finland values equity in education, supports daycare and
preschool, believes in the power of play, encourages the female voice in governance,
respects and supports the profession of teaching, discourages standardized tests,
and ignores teacher accountability measures.
So the question for this synthesis report is, how does this unique education
philosophy manifest itself in levels of technology integration, 21st century skills for
Finnish students, and the ability to promote ed-tech changes through teacher training
and professional development? To begin to answer these important questions, I have
examined scholarly articles from the early stages of Finnish ICT global awareness
(1999-2003), read current scholarly articles and reports on the levels and success of
ICT skills, implementation and teacher training, read recent Finland Ministry of
Education reports on long-term ICT education strategy, interviewed Finnish
teachers and education administrators, and finally investigated current journal
articles on recent Finnish global technology successes. Most all of this data,
information, and research all point to the same conclusion, Finland has been slow to
integrate technology and 21st century skills and learning methods into their teacher
training programs and curriculum, all they way through to the university level. In
2008, the Finland Ministry of Education presented their explanations and approach
to this lag in ICT integration. Below is a slide from this presentation. I think it says a
lot about the Finnish point of view on technology and education.
Slide image Retrieved from http://www.ebaltics.com/forum2008/Presentations/Kangasniemi.pdf
A thorough examination of Finnish scholarly articles from the early years of global
ICT awareness (1999-2003) reveals vast understanding and optimism about the
future technology could play in Finnish schools. In 2001, University of Helsinki and
Turku published a valuable study titled, “Teachers’ Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) Skills and Practices of Using ICT”. This study showed three
important facts. First, only a small number of teachers had adequate ICT skills.
Secondly, the issue was not access to technology but rather training and experience.
They lastly were able to show that “in the classroom, teachers who actively used ICT
emphasized (more than other teachers) the importance of using information technology
for supporting a research-like process of inquiry, collaborative learning, learners’ active
engagement in the knowledge-formation process, and the learnability of intelligence.
(Hakkarainen et al., 2001) This study was important in that it directly correlated the use
of technology in teaching with deeper levels of learning. In 2000, the Finnish
Government published a new ICT strategy in the “Information Strategy for Education and
Research.” This document sets an agenda for transforming Finland into an “information
society”. This strategy consisted of ten projects to achieve this goal including, ICT
teacher training, virtual schools, updating of technology infrastructure, and 21st century
skills for all citizens. The most important aspect of this document is the teacher training
initiative called OPE.fi. Below is a chart illustrating the three stages of Finnish ICT
teacher training.
(Niemi, 2003)
In, 2003, Hannele Niemi from the University of Helsknki, published a scholarly article
titled, “Toward a Learning Society in Finland: information and communications
technology in teacher education”. In her work, she praised the Finnish Ministry for
adopting these ICT goals. However, she was cautious about the methods of the
implementation. She states, “ICT is not a separate component in a teacher’s work. It
must be integrated as a natural element in teaching and developing instruction in
schools. ICT should also be a connecting factor, creating a culture of collaboration
and sharing in schools and teacher education” (Niemi, 2003). This is a vital clue to
understanding why Finnish ICT was slow to be adopted and integrated. As we look
at the next era we can see how viewing ICT as a separate entity, disconnected from
learning, proved to be a disservice to Finnish education.
All of the interviews we conducted with Finnish educators and
administrators all report the same conclusion. Finland has a lack of technology
integration, differing access to technology between regions/districts, and low “buy-
in” from veteran, traditional Finnish teachers. When asked about levels of ICT in
schools, a Finnish teacher and Fulbright scholar stated, “I think we could have
MUCH more. For being such an advanced country with a highly regarded
educational system, I am shocked at the little bit of resources our school has.”
(Marita J. interview 2014) A high level ICT administrator explained to me the
different levels of technology resources.
“The State funds municipalities and municipalities can quite freely decide what they do with the money. In big cities/municipalities there is an “Education department” (~school district)”
that guides how schools spend the money. “Education department” in the city is often responsible for buying computers etc. for schools etc. coordination.
There are big differences prioritizing technology and numbers of computer labs, tablets, laptops in schools.”
(Interview 2014, Helsinki ICT administrator)
This funding inequity is another vital clue to understanding this issue. Finnish
education is obsessed with equity except in technology funding. I am not sure why
this is the case. Perhaps it coincided with the global economic issues of the mid
2000’s. Perhaps it was a necessary way to spread costs and responsibilities through
national, regional, and school entities. Below is the organizational responsibility
chart for ICT strategies.
Slide image Retrieved from http://www.ebaltics.com/forum2008/Presentations/Kangasniemi.pdf
A further concept is to examine is the roll national attitudes toward technology
training as it relates to the concept of “digital natives”. A new study in 2012 by
Teemu Valtonen et al. titled “Facing Challenges with Teachers’ Use of ITC in Teaching
and Learning” states, “Today’s students have been described as digital natives and
net generation [3], [4]. The assumption is that these students have automatically
gained skills to use ICT as they have grown up in the knowledge society. Tapscott [4]
assumes that the net generation students are ready and willing to study with ICT
and that they also prefer discovery-based and collaborative learning practices.”
(Valtonen, 2012) In a recent education country study by the International
Federation for Information Processing, Finnish High School Director, Jari Koivisto,
states,
There have been no ICT teacher qualifying programmes in ICT at the Finnish teacher training universities since the beginning of 90’s when the new type of national framework curriculum was
published for the first time. The official doctrine at that time was that the students will excel in using computers by using the computers in connection with studies in different subjects, and no additional ICT
subject will be needed. The school children are skillful in surfing in the internet and they know how communicate in social networks. However the students have difficulties in creating a convincing written
document containing graphs and tables.(Koivisto, 2014)
As a media literacy educator, I have learned this lesson from Renee Hobbs. She states in
her Plan of Action, effective media literacy education helps schools move “beyond
the idea that access to media and technology is synonymous with the skillful use of
it.” (Hobbs, 2010)
Lastly, the technology attitudes of veteran teachers must be researched. The
technology education official from the city of Helsinki I interviewed put forward a
valid point. He argues that the very notion of unparalleled teacher autonomy
actually prevents technology innovation from taking hold in the country. He writes,
“In Finland principals, administration level, government, policies, national boards of
education, ministry of education etc. really see the importance of implementing
technology in schools and try to facilitate it in all means. On the other hand, teachers
in Finland are pedagogically autonomous and it is very difficult to give directions
that they’d have to integrate educational technology in learning and teaching.”
(Anonymous source 2014) Pasi Sahlberg, Harvard expert in Finnish education
echoes this sentiment when he talks about how Finnish teachers are reluctant to
give up the “the monopoly and authority of knowledge and information from
teachers and move teachers into a new role, that is to lead all students to their
sources of curiosity and passion, and to discovering what they really want to be."
(Rubin, 2013)
In conclusion, technology integration levels in Finnish schools and ICT teacher training
in Finland presents a complex situation. Government statutes and Ministry of Education
plans are all in place. The Finnish ed-tech community has presented a compelling
argument for the need and value of using technology to improve learning, address 21st
Century skills, and streamline workflow. (The national education tests in Finland are still
not scheduled to go fully digital until 2016 or 2019 depending on whom you believe.)
The net effects seems to be a lagging of implementing these plans due to funding issues,
attitudes toward technology, and the veteran teachers reluctant to adapt to a new role that
focuses on personalized learning. It must also be stated loudly that Finland ranks 7th in
global happiness (USA is 17), has low levels of income inequality, and rocks the PISA
tests. What more should be expected? What is the real incentive for Finland to engage in
systematic change for the sake of some iPads and increased email?
Additional information that would be helpful to fully understand Finland’s technology
use concerns recent successes in new technologies. Finland is investing in teaching
student’s coding in elementary education. Finland has also developed a wonderful niche
in game App development. I am curious if the “newness” of these fields has motivated
teachers and what if any changes have been made in the pedagogical approach to
teaching these technology skills. It would also be helpful to examine the political
climate of Finland. I feel a lot of USA global competiveness, capitalism, and fear has
driven increased American technology spending. Is there a fear of losing markets, jobs,
and money in Finland as there is here in the USA?
References:
Scholarly
Hakkarainen, K. et al.(2001) Teachers’ information and communication technology (ict)
skills and practices of using ict. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 9(2), 181-
197
Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and media literacy: A plan of action. Washington D. C.:
Aspen Institute.
Meilsalo, V. et al(2011) ICT in initial teacher training: Finland country report.
Department of Teacher Education University of Helsinki. Organization for Economic
Co-Operation and Development Report.
Niemi, H. (2003) Towards a learning society in finland: Information and
communications technology in teacher education. Technology, Pedagogy, and
Education. 12(1)
Rubin, C.M.(2013) The global search for education: Got tech?- Finland. Retrieved
from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/c-m-rubin/the-global-search-for-
edu_b_4257202.html
Rasinen, A.(2000). Developing technology education: In search of curriculum elements
for finnish general education schools. Jyaskyla Studies in Education, Psychology, and
Social Research. 171.
Valtonen, T. et al. (2012) Facing challenges with new teachers’ use of ict in teaching and
learning. Bulleting of the iEEE Technicak Committee on Learning Technology. 1(4)
Additional Resources and References:
Finland Ministry Of Education Presentation.(2008) Role of ICT in long term education
strategy in Finland. Retrieved from
http://www.ebaltics.com/forum2008/Presentations/Kangasniemi.pdf
Finland National Education Policy News. (2000) Retrieved from
http://etb.eun.org/eun.org2/eun/nl/print_preview.cfm?oid=1222
Kelly S. (2013) Finand eyes programming classes for elementary school students.
Retrieved from http://mashable.com/2013/11/16/finland-tech-education-schools/
Koivisto, J. (nd.) Education Country Report: Finland. Retrieved from http://ifip-
education.ning.com/page/country-report-finland
Kuittinen, T. (2013) 5 reasons why finnish apps are beating American rivals on the ipad
market. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/terokuittinen/2013/11/22/5-reasons-
why-finnish-apps-are-beating-american-rivals-on-us-ipad-market/
OECD and PISA(2014) Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/
Rubin, C.M.(2013) The global search for education: Got tech?- Finland. Retrieved
from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/c-m-rubin/the-global-search-for-
edu_b_4257202.html
Sahlberg, P. (2010) The secret to finland’s success: Educating Teachers. Retrieved from
https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/secret-finland%E2%80%99s-
success-educating-teachers.pdf
Storify on Teaching and Learning Conference. (2014) Finnish Lessons. Retrieved from
https://storify.com/susaw/teaching-and-learning-2014