Vocations and Learning

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 107–134 | Cite as

The Development of Teachers’ Intercultural Competence Using a Change Laboratory Method

Original Paper

Abstract

Immigration is an integral phenomenon of our globalising world. The increasing flow of people creates new challenges for educational institutions and workplaces. The purpose of this article is to address challenges that vocational teachers face with diversity at colleges and workplaces. Two research questions are addressed: how do teachers prepare immigrant students for working life? What challenges related to intercultural competence do teachers preparing immigrant students for working life face? The theoretical background lies in cultural–historical activity theory, developmental work research and in the concept of intercultural competence. The change laboratory method used in study is a formative intervention method evolved within developmental work research. The data comprised two change laboratories organised at the same vocational college in 2001 and 2011. The results showed that teachers’ work with multicultural students and groups can be developed by following five perspectives: preparation, reflection, contribution, guidance and responding. Intercultural competence is constructed contextually and is intertwined with activities such as teaching, facilitating students’ learning and cooperating with workplaces. The participants of the change laboratories experienced it as a good instrument for their intercultural work. Based on the results, some implications are suggested.

Keywords

Diversity Vocational education and training Intercultural competence Change laboratory Vocational teachers 

References

  1. Ahonen, H. (2008). Reciprocal development of the object and subject of learning: The renewal of the learning practices of front-line communities in a telecommunications company as part of the techno-economical paradigm change. Research report 218. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Education.Google Scholar
  2. Akkerman, S., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary-crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research. doi:10.3102/0034654311404435.
  3. Bakhtin, M. M. (1987). Speech genres and other late essays (V. W. McGee, Trans. 2nd paperback printing ed.). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bodrozic, Z. (2008). Post-industrial intervention: An activity-theoretical expedition tracing the proximal development of forms of conducting interventions. Research report 220. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Education.Google Scholar
  5. Boland, R. J., & Tenkasi, R. V. (1995). Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. Organization Science, 6(4), 350–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Chudzikowski, K., Ogliastri, E., Briscoe, J. P., Ituma, A., Reichel, A., Mayrhofer, W., & Khapova, S. N. (2012). Culture and context: understanding their influence upon careers. In J. P. Briscoe, D. T. Hall, & W. Mayrhofer (Eds.), Careers around the world. Individual and contextual perspectives (pp. 147–165). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: a once and future discipline. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. de Haan, M. (2012). Immigrant learning. In K. S. Gallagher, R. Goodyear, D. Brewer, & R. Rueda (Eds.), Urban education: a model for leadership and policy (pp. 328–341). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Deardorff, D. K. (Ed.). (2009). The SAGE Handbook of intercultural competence. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: an activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
  13. Engeström, R. (1999a). Toiminnan moniäänisyys: Tutkimus lääkärinvastaanottojen keskusteluista [Multivoicedness of activity: the study about discussions in the doctor’s surgery]. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Engeström, Y. (1999b). Innovative learning in work teams: analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 377–404). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive Learning at Work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–155.Google Scholar
  16. Engeström, Y. (2005). Developmental work research expanding activity theory in practice (Vol. 12). Berlin: Lehmanns Media.Google Scholar
  17. Engeström, Y., & Kerosuo, H. (2003). Boundary crossing and learning in creation of new work practice. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(7/8), 345–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Engeström, Y., & Miettinen, R. (1999). Introduction. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 1–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A.-L. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Engeström, Y., Pasanen, A., Toiviainen, H., & Haavisto, V. (2005). Expansive learning as collaborative concept formation at work. In K. Yamazumi, Y. Engeström, & H. Daniels (Eds.), New learning challenges: going beyond the industrial age system of school and work (pp. 47–77). Osaka: Kansai University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gutiérrez, K., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gutiérrez, K. D., Baquedano-López, P., & Tejeda, C. (1999). Rethinking diversity: hybridity and hybrid language practices in the Third Space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6(4), 286–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gutiérrez, K. D., Zitlali Morales, P., & Martinez, D. C. (2009). Re-mediating literacy: culture, difference, and learning for students from nondominant communities. Review of Research in Education, 33(1), 212–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harinen, P. (Ed.). (2003). Kamppailuja jäsenyyksistä: Etnisyys, kulttuuri ja kansalaisuus nuorten arjessa [Struggles for membership: ethnicity, culture and citizenship in young people’s everyday life]. Helsinki: Nuorisotutkimusverkosto.Google Scholar
  25. Hedegaard, M., & Chaiklin, S. (2005). Radical-local teaching and learning: a cultural–historical approach. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Helsinki Urban Facts (Helsingin tietokeskus). (2011). Helsingin ulkomaalaisväestö 2011 [Foreign population in Helsinki 2011]. Tilastoja 2011/41. Helsinki: Helsinki City.Google Scholar
  27. Hesote. (2009). Helsinki City College of Social and Health Care. http://www.hel.fi/hki/hesote/fi/Hesote+In+English. Accessed 17 October 2011.
  28. Holland, D., & Reeves, J. R. (1996). Activity theory and the view from somewhere: Team perspectives on the intellectual work of programming. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 257–282). Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  29. Iljenkov, E. V. (1977). Dialectical logic: essays on its history and theory. Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar
  30. Kajamaa, A. (2011). Unraveling the helix of change. Studies in Educational Sciences 241. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Institute of Behavioural Sciences.Google Scholar
  31. Kerosuo, H. (2006). Boundaries in action: an activity-theoretical study of development and change in health care for patients with multiple and chronic illnesses. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Education.Google Scholar
  32. Keskinen, S., Rastas, A., & Tuori, S. (Eds.). (2009). En ole rasisti, mutta … Maahanmuutosta, monikulttuurisuudesta ja kritiikistä [I’m not a racist, but … About immigration, multiculturality and critics]. Tampere: Vastapaino ja Nuorisotutkimusverkosto.Google Scholar
  33. Kozulin, A. (2003). Psychological tools and mediated learning. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kumpulainen, T. (2010). Koulutuksen määrälliset indikaattorit 2010 [Quantitative Indicators of Education 2010]. http://www.oph.fi/download/131649_VALMIS_Koulutuksen_maaralliset_indikaattorit_2010.pdf. Accessed 23 August 2011.
  35. Lasonen, J. (2009). Tavoitteena tunnustuksen antamisen tasavertaisuus [Striving for equality of recognition]. In J. Lasonen and M. Halonen, Kultuurienvälinen osaaminen koulutuksessa ja työelämässä [Intercultural competence in education and work] (pp. 145–154). Research in Educational Sciences 43. Jyväskylä: Finnish Education Research Association, FERA.Google Scholar
  36. Lasonen, J. (2010). Internationalization of higher education: a case study on college music teachers’ intercultural expertise. International Education, 40(1), 39–54.Google Scholar
  37. Lasonen, J., Halonen, M., Kemppainen, R.P. & Teräs, M. (2009). Monikultturisuus, kulttuurienvälisyys ja osaamisen tunnustuksen tarve [Multicultural, intercultural and recognition of competence]. In J. Lasonen, & M. Halonen, (Eds.), Kulttuurienvälinen osaaminen koulutuksessa ja työssä[Intercultural competence in education and work](pp.9–19). Research in Educational Sciences 43. Jyväskylä: Finnish Education Research Association, FERA.Google Scholar
  38. Lasonen, J., Teräs, M., & Sannino, A-L. (2011). Tunnustus, kokeminen ja ekspansiivinen oppiminen maahanmuuttajatutkimuksen käsitteellisinä resursseina [Recognition, experiencing and expansive learning as conceptual resources of immigration research]. In J. Lasonen & J. Ursin, Koulutus yhteiskunnan muutoksessa: jatkuvuuksia ja katkoksia [Education in changing society: continuities and discontinuities] (pp. 230–257). Research in Educational Sciences 53. Jyväskylä: Finnish Education Research Association, FERA.Google Scholar
  39. Leontjev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  40. Long, N. (2001). Development sociology: actor perspectives. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: social organization in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Ollman, B. (2003). Dance of the dialectic: steps in Marx’s method. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  43. Pihlaja, J. (2005). Learning in and for production: an activity-theoretical study of the historical development of distributed systems of generalizing. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Education.Google Scholar
  44. Rainio, P. (2003). Tietotyön malli koulun kehittämisessä: Muutoksen esteet, edellytykset ja mahdollisuudet opettajien puheessa [Knowledge work model in development of school: Obstacles, preconditions and opportunities in teachers’ talk] Tutkimusraportti No. 7. Helsinki: Helsinki University, Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research.Google Scholar
  45. Rainio, A. (2008). From resistance to involvement: examining agency and control in a playworld activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 15(2), 115–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rastas, A., Huttunen, L., & Löytty, O. (Eds.). (2005). Suomalainen vieraskirja: Kuinka käsitellä monikulttuurisuutta [A Finnish guestbook: how to deal with multiculturality]. Tampere: Vastapaino.Google Scholar
  47. Rathje, S. (2007). Intercultural competence: the status and future of a controversial concept. Language and Intercultural Communication, 7(4), 254–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Spitzberg, B. H., & Changnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing intercultural competence. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 2–52). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Star, S. L. (1989). The structure of ill-structured solutions: boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In L. Gasser, & M. N. Huhns (Eds.), Distributed artificial intelligence (Vol. 2, pp. 37–54). London: Pitman.Google Scholar
  50. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.Google Scholar
  51. Tuomi-Gröhn, T., & Engeström, Y. (Eds.). (2003). Between school and work: new perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  52. Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (2009). Methodological issues in researching intercultural competence. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 404–418). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  53. Virkkunen, J., & Ahonen, H. (2004). Transforming learning and knowledge creation on the shop floor. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 4(1), 57–72.Google Scholar
  54. Virkkunen, J., Engeström, Y., Helle, M., Pihlaja, J., & Poikela, R. (1997). The change laboratory—a tool for transforming work. In T. Alasoini, M. Kyllönen, & A. Kasvio (Eds.), Workplace innovations—a way of promoting competitiveness, welfare and employment (pp. 157–174). Helsinki: Ministry of Labour.Google Scholar
  55. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher mental processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Weber, S. (2003). Boundary-crossing in the context of intercultural learning. In T. Tuomi-Gröhn & Y. Engeström (Eds.), Between school and work: new perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing (pp. 157–177). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  57. Weber, S. (2005). Intercultural learning as identity negotiation. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  58. Weber, S., & Hofmuth, M. (2012). Messung unterschiedlicher Facetten von interkultureller Kompetenz [Measurement of diverse facets of intercultural competences]. In G. Niedermair (Ed.), Kompetenzen entwickeln, messen und bewerten [Developing, measuring and assessing competences]. Linz: Johannes Kepler Universität.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Behavioural Sciences, Center for Activity, Development and LearningUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Department of Career, Adult and Higher Education, College of EducationUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations