Advertisement

OPEART: Music Theatre Productions Within Teacher Education: Enhancing Communal Engaged Learning

  • Antti Juvonen
  • Susan O’Neill
  • Pekka Räihä
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Business, Arts and Humanities book series (PSBAH)

Abstract

The Finnish school produces good results; however, reports by teachers and students suggest a lack of enjoyment in schools with an atmosphere described as unapproachable. This atmosphere has resulted in school enjoyment problems in Finnish schools. To implement changes in schools, it is necessary to address changes in teacher education. We describe an innovative teacher education program that provides opportunities for enhancing communal engaged learning. The program includes music theatre as a basic element and focuses on expression, cooperative learning and experiential learning. The program is called OpeArt, which started in Savonlinna, Finland, in 2014. In this program, students encounter elements supporting their growth as teachers in and through theatre/drama and expressive processes and elements. The program contributes to the development of personality, creativity, courage, self-expression, collaboration and project execution. The basic elements of the OpeArt program are phenomenon based, with project-, cooperative- and inquiry-based learning. Students are encouraged to expand outside their comfort zones and explore their limits and possibilities by experiencing new personal and artistic horizons.

Keywords

Teacher education OpeArt Expression education Music theatre Communal engaged learning 

References

  1. Barth, R. 1970. When Children Enjoy School: Some Lessons from Britain. Childhood Education 46 (4): 195–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bolton, G. 2010. Reflective Practice: Writing and Professional Development, 3rd ed. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Britzman, D.P. 1986. Cultural Myths in Making a Teacher: Biography and Social Structure in Teacher Education. Harvard Educational Review X: 442–456.Google Scholar
  4. Britzman, D.P. 2003. After Education. Anne Freud, Melanie Klein and Psychoanalytic Histories of Learning. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bryson, C., and L. Hand. 2007. Promoting Student Engagement. Paper presented at the Higher Education Research & Development Society of Australia Conference, July, in Adelaide, Australia.Google Scholar
  6. Christenson, S.L., A.L. Reschly, and C. Wylie. 2012. Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dewey, J. 1913. Interest and Effort in Education. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dewey, J. 1933. How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. New York: D. C. Heath.Google Scholar
  9. Eisner, E. 2004. What Can Education Learn from the Arts about the Practice of Education? International Journal of Education and the Arts 5 (4). Retreived from http://ijea.asu.edu/v5n4/.
  10. Fraser, K., D. Gosling, M.D. Sorcinelli. 2010. Conceptualizing Evolving Models of Educational Development. In Pathways to the Profession of Educational Development. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, ed. J. McDonald and D. Stockley, 49–58. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  11. Fullan, M. 2004. Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco, CA: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  12. Fullan, M. 2007. The New Meaning of Educational Change, 4th ed. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  13. Furrer, C., and E. Skinner. 2003. Sense of Relatedness as a Factor in Children’s Academic Engagement and Performance. Journal of Educational Psychology 95 (1): 148–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gorard, S., and B.H. See. 2011. How Can We Enhance Enjoyment of Secondary School? The Student View. British Educational Research Journal 37 (4): 671–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gorard, S., J. Lumby, A. Briggs, M. Morrison, I. Hall, F. Maringe, and S. Wright. 2009. 14–19 Reforms: QCA Centre Research Study, Commentary on the Baseline of Evidence 2007–2008. London: QCA.Google Scholar
  16. Greene, M. 1995. Releasing the Imagination. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  17. Hannus-Gullmets, B. 1984. Kouluviihtyvyys Pohjoismaissa [School Enjoyment in Scandinavian Countries]. Helsinki: Kouluhallitus, Kokeilu ja tutkimus-toimisto.Google Scholar
  18. Harinen, P., and J. Halme. 2012. Hyvä paha koulu. Kouluhyvinvointia hakemassa. [The Good, Bad School. Searching for Wellbeing at School]. Nuorisotutkimusseura. Verkkojulkaisuja 56. http://www.nuorisotutkimusseura.fi/julkaisuja/Hyva_paha_koulu.pdf.
  19. Haywood, B.K., and J.C. Besley. 2014. Education, Outreach, and Inclusive Engagement: Towards Integrated Indicators of Successful Program Outcomes in Participatory Science. Public Understanding of Science 23 (1): 92–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hirsto, L., and T. Löytönen. 2011. Kehittämisen kolmas tila: Yliopisto-opetus kehittämisen kohteena [The Third Stage of Developing: University as a Target of Development]. Aikuiskasvatus 31 (4): 255–266.Google Scholar
  21. James, W. 1890. The Principles of Psychology (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Holt.Google Scholar
  22. Kiilakoski, T. 2010. Vertaissovittelu konfliktinkohtaamisen keinona koulussa [The Peer Conciliation as a Way of Meeting Conflict Situations at School]. Nuorisotutkimus 1 (28): 89–92.Google Scholar
  23. Kolb, D.A. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Kolb, A.Y., and D.A. Kolb. 2005. Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing Experiential Learning in Higher Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education 4 (2): 193–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Linnankylä, P. and A. Malin. 1997. Oppilaiden profiloituminen kouluviihtyvyyden arvioinnissa [The profilation of the pupils in the school enjoyment evaluation] Kasvatus: Suomen kasvatustieteellinen aikakauskirja 28 (1997): 2, 1. artikkeli. Retrieved from http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:ELE-534165.
  26. Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., C. Kohnle, and F. Fischer. 2011. Computer-Supported Collaborative Inquiry Learning and Classroom Scripts: Effects on Help-Seeking Processes and Learning Outcomes. Learning and Instruction 21 (2): 257–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Martin, J. 2007. Educating Communal Agents: Building on the Perspectivism of G.H. Mead. Educational Theory 57 (4): 435–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martin, J., and A.-M. McLellan. 2013. The Education of Selves: How Psychology Transformed Students. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mead, G.H. 1934. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Nikkola, T. 2011. Oppimisen esteet ja mahdollisuudet ryhmässä: Syyllisyyden kehittyminen syntipukki-ilmiöksi opiskeluryhmässä ohjaajan tulkitsemana [The Obstacles and Possibilities for Learning in a Group: The Development from Feelings of Guilt to the Phenomenon of Being a Scapegoat in a Student Group Interpreted by the Supervisor]. Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research 422: 21–25. https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bitstream/handle/123456789/36994/9789513945053.pdf?sequence=1.
  31. Nikkola, T., P. Räihä, P. Moilanen, M. Rautiainen, and S. Saukkonen. 2008. Towards a Deeper Understanding of Learning in Teacher Education. In Understanding Learning-Centered Higher Education, ed. C. Nygaard and C. Holtham, 251–263. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
  32. Nikkola, T., M. Rautiainen, and P. Räihä (eds.). 2013. Toinen tapa käydä koulua: Kokemuksen, kielen ja tiedon suhde oppimisessa [Another Way of School Education: The Relation of Experiences, Language and Knowledge in Learning]. Tampere: Vastapaino.Google Scholar
  33. Ojanen, S. 2001. Ohjauksesta oivallukseen: Ohjausteorian kehittelyä [From Supervision to Inspiration: Developing a Theory for Supervision], 2nd edn. Helsinki: Palmenia.Google Scholar
  34. Räihä, P. 2010. Koskaan et muuttua saa! Luokanopettajakoulutuksen opiskelijavalintojen uudistamisen vaikeudesta [You May Never Change! About the Difficulty of Renewing Teacher Education Incoming Tests]. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 1559: 401–403.Google Scholar
  35. Salminen, J. 2012. Koulun pirulliset dilemma [The Devilish Dilemmas of School]. Helsinki: Kustannusosakeyhtiö Teos.Google Scholar
  36. Simon Fraser University. 2014. Mission Statement, Simon Fraser University. Retrieved from https://www.sfu.ca/pres/mission.html.
  37. Shaun, R. (ed.). 2008. Creating Inclusive Campus Environments for Cross-Cultural Learning and Student Engagement. Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.Google Scholar
  38. Stables, A. 1990. Differences between Pupils from Mixed and Single-Sex Schools in Their Enjoyment of School Subjects in Their Attitudes to Science and to School. Educational Review 42 (3): 221–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Toshalis, E., and M.J. Nakkula. 2012. Motivation, Engagement, and Student Voice: The Students at the Center Series. Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.Google Scholar
  40. Vygotsky, L. 1986. Thought and Language. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  41. Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Eastern FinlandSavonlinnaFinland
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada
  3. 3.School of EducationUniversity of TampereTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations