Amplifying the voice of pupils: using the diamond ranking method to explore integrative and collaborative learning in home economics education in Finland

ABSTRACT

Drawing on a sociocultural approach to learning, this article highlights comprehensive school pupils’ perspectives on working style and classroom pedagogy based on the integrative approach to learning. Using the diamond ranking method, seven groups of 8^th grade pupils ranked classroom practices according to their importance for succeeding in integrative and collaborative learning tasks. The study was conducted in the context of home economics education in Finland. Audio and video data were subjected to qualitative content analysis. The results indicate that working style to enhance interthinking and shared commitment to working was considered important, as were several practical elements such as computer use. Utilising knowledge from other school subjects was found to be challenging. The findings suggest that for the participating pupils, collaborative ways of working and the teacher’s pedagogical choices in providing tools and framing the task were the keys to successful working.

KEYWORDS:

• Integrative approach to learning
• sociocultural learning approach
• diamond ranking method
• pupil’s voice

Introduction

Following the demand to provide pupils 21st century skills in school education, there has been a trend to increase interdisciplinarity or, more broadly, integrative approach to learning. At the comprehensive school level, this means that instead of seeing the contents of school subjects as separate and distinct, their connections are emphasised. This integration of knowledge and skills aims to provide pupils with a synthesis of the topic in question (Spelt, Biemans, Tobi, Luning, & Mulder, 2009).

In Finland, the emphasis on the integrative approach to learning is seen in the latest curriculum reform (Finnish National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (FNCC), 2014), yet the aim to integrate the contents of school subjects has been acknowledged in the curricula since the 1970s. National research on the integrative approach to learning has recently investigated open and flexible learning environments (Niemi, 2020), focusing on the perspectives of teachers and headmasters (Braskén, Hemmi, & Kurtén, 2019; Mård & Hilli, 2020). Even though the importance of listening to pupils’ voice in the educational process has been emphasised (Bragg, 2007; Lehtomäki et al., 2014; Niemi, Kumpulainen, Lipponen, & Hilppö, 2015), pupils’ perspective on integrative approach to learning has not been widely studied. Some recent studies in the Finnish educational context (Eronen, Kokko, & Sormunen, 2019; Niemi & Kiilakoski, 2019; Tarnanen, Kaukonen, Kostiainen, & Toikka, 2019) demonstrate the keen interest in this area. Internationally, there is lack of research on pupils’ perspectives on the integrative approach to learning, despite it being emphasised as a 21st century skill in the latest curricula in several countries (Ananiadou & Claro, 2009).

Collaborative group work is often utilised in the integrative approach to learning, as is suggested in the Finnish curriculum (Finnish National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (FNCC), 2014). The potential of learning collaborative working skills through the integrative approach to learning has also been highlighted in previous studies exploring pupils’ perspectives (Eronen et al., 2019; Niemi & Kiilakoski, 2019; Tarnanen et al., 2019). Along with the sociocultural approach to learning adopted in this study, previous studies have emphasised the importance of interthinking when considering classroom practices that enhance pupils’ collaborative learning (Littleton & Mercer, 2013; Taar, 2017) together with the pedagogical choices of the teacher (Dawes, 2004; Edwards, 2009; Fernández, Wegerif, Mercer, & Rojas-Drummond, 2015; Venäläinen, 2010).

The present study focuses on pupils’ perspectives on the integrative approach to learning. The aim is to explore classroom practices that are beneficial for this kind of learning and to amplify pupils’ voices. The following research question is addressed: What classroom practices are perceived as beneficial by pupils working on an integrative and collaborative learning task in a home economics classroom? The classroom practices discussed are considered based on a sociocultural perspective, the ability to enhance interthinking and teacher-led pedagogical arrangements. Because of the interest in naturally integrative everyday practices in home economics, it is relevant to better understand how pupils connect and synthesise knowledge from different subjects while doing group work and solving collaborative learning tasks in the classroom (Janhonen-Abruquah & Palojoki, 2015).

Successful group work and collaborative learning tasks in the classroom

In Finland, where this study was implemented, the current curriculum aligns with sociocultural learning theory in emphasising pupil participation in school communities (Finnish National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (FNCC), 2014). In the sociocultural approach, learning is seen as a social process mediated by culturally framed tools and actualised within the zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Moll, 2014; Säljö, 2004; Vygotsky, 1962, 1978). To extend the concept of Mercer (2004; 2008; see also Fernández et al., 2015; Shokouhi & Shakouri, 2015) has contributed a temporal aspect focusing on the dialogic between participants as a phenomenon, where learning evolves through time and shared knowledge; this is called the intermental development zone (IDZ).

Following the approach framing the Finnish education context, the literature reviewed in this section discussing classroom practices beneficial for pupils in the integrative approach to learning also uses the sociocultural approach. These classroom practices exploit sociocultural ideas on learning – the role of social interaction to facilitate learning, the importance of peers and teachers to develop the ZPD and the role of language as a mediator of meaning (Vygotsky, 1962). Therefore, the section mainly concerns collaborative ways of working. In a school context, the important role of a teacher as an enabler of learning justifies the inclusion of teacher-related pedagogical aspects.

In studying group work, Littleton and Mercer (2013) introduced the term interthinking to describe the ability to think creatively and productively together during collaborative work. They argued that sociocultural learning contributes to students’ interthinking, a view supported by Taar (2017) in the context of home economics lessons. To maximise a working group’s learning potential, it is considered important to include all group members actively in discussions reflecting their knowledge (Littleton & Mercer, 2013; Soller, 2001). However, Rogoff (1990) contended that a strong leader may free other participants from responsibility and encourage them to advance their ideas. This view found support in Taar’s (2017) study, where student talk was more organised and dialogue was more extended if the group had a leader when working together on a shared task.

Taar (2017) found that the experience of working together had a strong effect on interthinking during group work. This aligns with Edwards’ (Edwards, 2005) argument that friendship makes group members feel more secure about the upcoming task and that familiarity with other group members’ working style is beneficial for collaboration. This further supports the view that there is a need for training in thinking together (Dawes, 2004), especially as students are often unable to adjust their dialogue to extend their ZPD (Rogoff, 1990). It is important to note that although peers are not always friends training can help them to learn how to think together. Previous studies have also reported that a positive group atmosphere positively affects student talk (Rogoff, 1990; Taar, 2017).

In this context, relevant pedagogical issues include task content and task difficulty (neither too easy nor too hard) and clarity of instructions, concepts and equipment use, as the task remains meaningless without adequate background knowledge (Fernández et al., 2015; Taar, 2017). An appropriate task allows students with different levels of knowledge to use interthinking to share and explain their knowledge to achieve a higher level of understanding (Edwards, 2009; Rogoff, 1990).

The learning task should guide students to use tools of various kinds. According to the sociocultural learning approach, these include 1) material tools such as books, written assignments and equipment; 2) psychological tools, mainly involving the use of language; and 3) other people, such as teachers or peers. Tools mediate meaning and in interthinking are the key to understanding (Taar, 2017; Venäläinen, 2010). The sociocultural approach also emphasises students’ role as collaborative participants rather than independent thinkers, requiring the teacher to support the relevant learning methods and to understand the importance of tools, especially the role of language (Vygotsky, 1978).

Integrative approach to learning

Recently, interdisciplinarity has gained renewed prominence as a component of 21^st century learning and future-focused discourse in school education (Hipkins, Bolstad, Boyd, & McDowall, 2014; Lenoir, Hasni, & Froelich, 2015), even though it is not a new phenomenon in enhancing learning and knowledge production (Beane, 1997; Winebug & Grossman, 2000). Approaches that emphasise integrative goals refer, for example, to an interdisciplinary curriculum (Pountney & McPhail, 2017), cross-curricular learning (Barnes, 2015) and 21^st century learning (Gilbert, 2005; McPhail & Rata, 2016) as means of strengthening pupils’ ability to combine knowledge and skills from several school subjects. While some approaches are more explicitly future-oriented (Gilbert, 2005; McPhail & Rata, 2016), others trust that an engaging and stimulating education will promote habitual lifelong learning (Barnes, 2015). Despite the prevailing emphasis on interdisciplinarity, an opposing view stresses the importance of baseline knowledge within each discipline as the key strategy for education (Gericke, Hudson, Olin-Scheller, & Stolare, 2018).

In the present study, the term integrative approach to learning in comprehensive education refers to the different ways of integrating and synthesising knowledge and skills from different school subjects. To achieve such synthesis, an interdisciplinary perspective is considered essential (Klein, 2002; Lenoir et al., 2015; Mansilla, 2010). As the integrative approach to learning is understood as ‘a process, not a fixed body of content’ (Klein, 2002, p. 9), it informs pedagogical choices, leaving room for different implementations while affording opportunities to adjust teaching according to pupils’ needs as the project or lesson proceeds. Problem-based learning, project learning, inquiry-based learning and phenomenon-based learning are examples of implementations where the integrative approach to learning may be exploited (Haapaniemi, Venäläinen, Malin, & Palojoki, 2019; Spelt et al., 2009). From the viewpoint of pupils, common to these implementations is that their active participation is at the centre of learning, and social interaction and collaboration between pupils is usually encouraged.

Despite the variety of pedagogical implementations, comprehensive school pupils’ ability to integrate and synthesise knowledge is not self-evident. Existing research identifies several potential barriers in this regard, such as insufficient linkage to everyday problems or experiences (Brante & Brunosson, 2014; Gilbert, Bulte, & Pilot, 2011; Marton, 2006) and teachers’ inability to support the creation of synthesis in the learning process (Illeris, 2018; Lattuca, Voigt, & Fath, 2004).

Materials and methods

Participatory research

This study draws on educational action research (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Hart & Bond, 1995; Kemmis, 2006) as a participatory methodology for exploring meaningful experiences among people in a pedagogical relationship (Niemi, Kumpulainen, & Lipponen, 2018; Niemi, Kumpulainen, Lipponen, & Hilppö, 2015b) and new ways of investigating classroom pedagogy (Niemi, Kumpulainen, & Lipponen, 2015a). Data collection methods support pupil agency (Gresalfi, Martin, Hand, & Greeno, 2009), which in school contexts means encouraging pupils to be active learners (Brown & Renshaw, 2006; Greeno, 2006) and to participate during lessons (Edwards & D’Arcy, 2004).

Diamond ranking method

Of the several available methods for exploring pupil perspectives (e.g. Brante & Brunosson, 2014; Lehtomäki et al., 2014; Niemi & Kiilakoski, 2019), the diamond ranking method was chosen for data collection because it can be integrated in the classroom learning task and because it gives pupils agency. Also referred to as ‘Diamond 9ʹ, this activity originally took the form of photo-elicitation (Clark, 2012). In classroom settings, diamond ranking is employed to explore pupils’ value positions using pre-written options rather than pictures (Clark, 2012; Hopkins, 2010). Written statements were also used in the present study. These were either written by the pupils themselves or chosen from a list prepared by the researchers based on the research literature described above regarding beneficial practices for collaborative work.

Participants working in pairs or threes choose nine options, which are then organised into a diamond shape with the most preferred option at the top and the most disliked at the bottom, annotated by comments and explanations (Clark, 2012; Clark, Laing, Tiplady, & Woolner, 2013; Woolner et al., 2010). Pupils rank the options during a discussion with their working groups. Each group is required ‘to make explicit the over-arching relationships by which they organise knowledge, thus making their understandings available for scrutiny and comparison’ (Clark, 2012, p. 223).

Study context and learning task

The study was conducted in Finland. The data were collected in home economics lessons, where learning tasks typically combine theory and practice, emphasising the ability to work collaboratively (Janhonen-Abruquah & Palojoki, 2015; Taar, 2017). The latest Finnish curriculum (Finnish National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (FNCC), 2014)¹ emphasises active involvement and dialogic interaction between pupils, teachers and the learning environment. The curriculum specifies seven transversal competence areas that inform the aims of every subject; for example, ‘thinking and learning to learn’ stresses the importance of the teacher’s role in guiding pupils to reflect on their learning. In addition, school culture should promote an integrative approach. To support the integration, comprehensive schools in Finland must provide a minimum of one multidisciplinary learning module per year for each pupil. While the curriculum provides loose guidelines for these modules, implementation is not regulated but is instead decided at the school level.

For the purposes of data collection, the researchers designed two learning tasks for home economics education (Janhonen-Abruquah & Palojoki, 2015). These used the principles of sociocultural learning, thus assigning pupils the role of active learners. The tasks were devised as collaborative group activities, affording opportunities for pupils to integrate knowledge from several subjects. The tasks related to global well-being; the participating teacher chose whichever of the two tasks they considered more appropriate. The teacher was also allowed to adapt the chosen task to meet the pupils’ needs, but this proved unnecessary.

The chosen task was to select three Agenda 2030 goals (UN General Assembly, 2015) and to argue how they related to ensuring the availability and sustainable management of clean water and sanitation (Goal 6). Goal 6 had previously been discussed in home economics lessons as part of the school’s multidisciplinary learning module in the preceding months; each subject teacher had chosen one Agenda 2030 goal and discussed it during their lessons.

Participants and data collection

The data were collected in autumn 2019 at a comprehensive school in southern Finland attended by grade 7–9 pupils (aged 13–16). The participating teacher was found through the social media network for home economics teachers. The participating students (aged 14–15) were from two of the teacher’s 8^th grade classes and were taking optional courses in home economics. Eighth graders were selected because home economics is usually compulsory in the seventh grade for all pupils, and during the seventh-grade course the basic content areas of home economics are covered. Therefore, it was reasonable to assume that the participating 8^th graders had studied enough home economics be able to understand its connections to other school subjects.

The method was pre-tested during a normal lesson in three 8^th grade classes at another school, and the instructions were clarified to eliminate ambiguities. It was then introduced to participating pupils three weeks before data collection commenced. The study data were gathered in two similar home economics lessons, each lasting 90 minutes. The structure of both lessons was similar; after participants had completed the consent forms, the first author briefly introduced the lesson theme. Pupils were then given the task instructions and printed information about the Agenda 2030 goals; they were also encouraged to use other sources of information, such as websites. Both the introduction and the written instructions reminded pupils to use their knowledge from other subjects. The interdisciplinary learning task was then completed in small working groups, in which pupils usually worked during home economics lessons, as recommended by the teacher. As some pupils were absent and some did not wish to participate, the number of pupils in each group varied from two to four.

After completing the learning task, the groups were asked to choose the nine most important practices (from a pre-prepared list of options) that helped them to work on the task; they were also encouraged to add their own options. They were then asked to rank these options using the diamond-shaped template. The pre-prepared options and the diamond ranking template were supplied both on a flash drive and on paper. Pupils used their own computers for their presentations and rankings, and both were saved to the flash drive for the researchers.

The lessons were video- and audio-recorded for data collection purposes. Each group was given its own audio recorder, and two cameras were used to collect video data. In total, the study produced about 8 hours (7:51:59) of audio data and about 3.5 hours (3:33:12) of video data. The teacher was interviewed immediately after the lessons to ensure the reliability of the data.

This study complies with the ethical principles of Helsinki University (Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity, 2013). Informed consent was obtained from all participants, including the home economics teacher, the pupils’ guardians, the pupils themselves and the relevant official authority – in this case, the school principal. Before the study, the researcher visited the school to tell the pupils about its purpose and how the data would be collected. The pupils were also informed that they could opt out of the study at any time and that this would not affect their participation in the lesson or their grade. Participants’ anonymity was guaranteed in all phases of the study by using code names (Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity, 2013).

Data Analysis

The data were subjected to qualitative analysis to develop a sense of the working styles of the pupil groups and the practices pupils considered beneficial for their work. The analysis was conducted by the first author, and the interpretations were arrived at by all authors in cooperation.

The analysis of beneficial practices drew on three types of data: 1) relevant discussions during group work and completion of the diamond ranking; 2) arguments advanced when presenting the rankings and 3) each group’s diamond rankings. The first and second types were used to validate the third, indicating reasons for the choices and rankings and confirming that the pupils shared a mutual understanding of those choices. In analysing these discussions, four of six pupil-written practices were replaced with pre-prepared options, as the data revealed that the intention was the same even though the pupil-written practices were more concisely written.

Qualitative content analysis was used in conjunction with a scoring system to rank the chosen practices in terms of their relative importance (Hopkins, 2010). A practice positioned at the top of the diamond scored 5; those positioned on the lines below scored 4, 3, 2 and 1, respectively (see Figure 1). Practices were scored and then aggregated to determine an overall score for each practice. There was no further quantitative analysis, but the frequencies reinforced the qualitative understanding of the data. Based on the principles of abductive analysis and theory-based content analysis, the practices that had the highest scores were grouped in terms of theoretical relationships and then re-grouped under broader themes (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2018).

Figure 1. Scoring of practices selected for diamond ranking

Finally, the video and audio data were analysed for pupil’s ability to utilise knowledge from other school subjects. This involved 1) identifying relevant discussions during group work and presentations where other subjects or their content were mentioned and 2) analysing answers after each presentation regarding whether the chosen goals had been discussed in other subject lessons.

Results

Relationship between working styles and selected practices

First, based on the literature, the qualitative analysis of the groups’ working styles revealed differences in their ways of interthinking, such as the ways of collaboration and argumentation, in leadership and in group atmosphere. Although each group worked differently, all quickly began working by themselves, discussing which Agenda 2030 goals to choose. Three of the seven groups reached the level of interthinking and a collaborative way of working almost throughout the whole task. Pupils in these groups shared and argued their ideas and questioned others’ ideas. Two of the groups achieved this stage only partly or only occasionally. One of the groups worked more co-operatively, dividing the work among pairs and individual participants without further collaboration, and one of the groups distinguished itself from the others by having almost no collaboration, as one of the pupils took a strong leadership role, making all the decisions.

The teacher regularly asked groups whether they needed any help and reminded them about the timeframe. The pupils did not ask the teacher for help but worked independently. All groups made use of the information provided about Agenda 2030 goals, and most searched for further information online. After the slide shows introducing the chosen Agenda 2030 goals were finished, the groups went on discussing the practices they would choose for their diamonds and created the diamonds. Finally, the slide shows and the created diamonds were presented to the other pupils. All groups succeeded in completing the learning task and diamond rankings and in giving their presentations within the specified timeframe.

Second, the practices that groups identified as important for working on the task were analysed. It was not surprising that the groups’ choices reflected their style of working. Those that worked collaboratively (groups 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) mostly chose practices emphasising collaborative group work. Conversely, those exhibiting a more co-operative style of working (groups 3 and 4) mainly selected practical elements related to the lesson or to the task itself. Notably, all groups’ diamonds included practical elements. Short descriptions of each group’s working style, practices the working groups chose for task utility and excerpts from group discussions illustrating the working style are presented in Table 1. The excerpts were chosen to exemplify typical discussions indicating the style of collaboration within the working group, although of course there was variation during the lesson.

Table 1. Group working styles and practices selected for diamond ranking.

Group	Group working style	Practices chosen for task utility	Excerpts from group discussions illustrating working style
1 (4 pupils)	Pupils mostly worked collaboratively and discussed the arguments around their ideas.	*Collaborative, respectful and active working style. * Familiarity among group members * Practical elements	(15:40–17:22) P1_1: I don’t know or I don’t remember what sanitation means. P2: It’s like … I don’t know how to explain it. P1_3: Explain what? P1_2: It’s keeping the water clean – water supply, water treatment, sewer system, washing hands, all that. P1_1: So sanitation is basically taking care of the water. Well, then it’s connected to the goal ‘Life beneath water’ …
2 (4 pupils)	Pupils worked collaboratively and elaborated on each other’s ideas.	* Collaborative and respectful working style * Practical elements	(9:21–10:45) P2_1: ‘Good health and well-being’ – how does it relate to clean water and sanitation? P2_2: Sanitation is important for health in general. P2_3: Like cleanliness. P2_2: And hygiene. P2_1: So I’ll write that sanitation is important for health in general. P2_2,P2_3,P2_4: Yeah. P2_2: And then we need to, yeah … And good sanitation prevents contagious diseases.
3 (4 pupils)	Pupils worked mainly in pairs, with limited collaboration.	* Practical elements	(25:30–26:22) P3_1: Should we change to ‘Good health and well-being’? We just looked at what sanitation means, as we didn’t remember. P3_2: Yeah, we’ll leave this ‘Climate action’ out if you found something. P3_1: Yeah, we can do this one. P3_3: So what was chosen? P3_2: Something about health, but they will do it.
4 (3 pupils)	One pupil clearly played the role of leader, selecting goals and writing the presentation. Others participated only rarely in the discussion.	* Dividing the work between participants * Good atmosphere in the group * Practical elements	(17:25–18:08) P4_1: I don’t think P3 has said anything while making the task. – P4_2: I think this was a pretty straightforward thing to do. P4_1: And you represented our whole group.
5 (4 pupils)	Pupils worked collaboratively throughout the task and elaborated with ease on each other’s ideas. The group was clearly content-oriented.	* Collaborative, respectful and working style * Familiarity among group members * Practical elements	(9:51–10:45) P5_1: Did you write ‘Good health and well-being’ yet? P5_2: Yeah, but now we need to argue it. P5_1: Well, if there are a lot of ill people and contagious diseases … P5_3: And when sanitation is poor, with open defaecation, diseases spread widely. P5_1: A lot. If healthcare was better, the number of diseases would decrease, and they would spread less. P5_3: Or at least not as widely or as fast. P5_1: So, this is how it advances [clear water and sanitation]. P5_3: And clean water enhances well-being so that child mortality ends. P5_4: Or gets lower.
6 (2 pupils)	Pupils mostly worked collaboratively, with one pupil more actively leading the discussion. This group utilised content knowledge from other subjects.	* Collaborative, respectful and content-focused working style * Practical elements	(2:10–3:00) P6_1: So, which goals relate to ‘Clean water and sanitation’? P6_2: Maybe ‘Good health and well-being’? P6_1: Yeah, that of course. And I would also think poverty, because then there is no water supply system, maybe not even dwellings, and problems with rainwater. P6_2: How many goals are there? (looking through the material) P6_1: Here they all are. Let’s first choose the important ones and leave out the ones that don’t fit. P6_2: Okay.
7 (4 pupils)	Pupils worked collaboratively, elaborated on each other’s ideas and questioned the arguments, with plenty of humour.	* Collaborative, respectful, content-focused and active working style * Familiarity among group members * Practical elements	P7_1: Let’s choose ‘Quality education’. P7_2: Yeah, it means that … P7_3: Yeah, it could be that you know how to clean the water … P7_1: And you don’t throw your litter anywhere and don’t leave water running from the tap … P7_3: Like they can afford taps!

To anonymise pupils, the first number in the fourth column refers to the group and the second to the individual pupil within the group.

Scoring of practices

For their diamonds, the pupils chose practices from every theory-based content area other than practices describing the teacher helping them progress. Table 2 lists the practices chosen by more than one group; during the analysis, content areas were broadly assigned to two categories – practical arrangements (related to pedagogical decisions made by the teacher regarding the task or the lesson) and working style (concerning the practices of a group or of a pupil within a group). The chosen practices were surprisingly evenly balanced across the content areas.

Table 2. Practices chosen by more than one group.

Practices	Practice relating to practical arrangements /working style	Total scores (scores given)
The technical equipment (e.g. computer) chosen to complete the task was functional.	Practical	20 (3, 3, 4, 4, 2, 2, 4, 2)
The group engaged in collaborative discussions related to the task.	Working style	20 (4, 4, 2, 5, 5)
Group members listened to each other’s thoughts/ideas.	Working style	17 (5, 4, 4, 4)
The materials provided (Agenda 2030 goals) helped to progress the task.	Practical	15 (2, 5, 5, 3)
The stated aim, instructions and concepts for the given task were clear.	Practical	14 (2, 3, 3, 4, 2)
All members of the group worked actively on the task.	Working style	11 (4, 3, 4)
There was a good atmosphere in the group.	Working style	10 (4, 3, 3)
It was easy to work with friends on a collaborative task.	Working style	9 (3, 4, 2)
The level of the given task was reasonable – neither too easy nor too difficult.	Practical	6 (3, 1, 2)
Enough time was allowed to complete the task.	Practical	6 (1, 3, 2)
Group members argued for the ideas they advanced.	Working style	6 (3, 3)
The participants played different roles within the group.	Working style	5 (1, 4)
The task was motivating and inspiring.	Practical	2 (1, 1)

Two practices achieved an overall score of 20. The practical item ‘The technical equipment (e.g. computer) chosen to complete the task was functional’ was chosen by all groups (although never as their top choice). Five groups chose a practice related to working style: ‘The group engaged in collaborative discussions related to the task’. Notably, five groups also chose ‘The aim set, instructions and concepts used for the task were clear’ as part of their diamond, although this garnered a much lower overall score (14).

There were two practices that two groups placed at the top of their diamonds: ‘The group engaged in collaborative discussions related to the task’ and ‘The materials provided (Agenda 2030 goals) helped to progress the task’. The former emphasises the importance of shared discussions, underlining the role of language as mediator and tool. The latter indicates that careful consideration should be given to the materials provided when working with a new topic or approach, as pupils see these as an important tool. Three other working style-related practices were also awarded the top position: ‘Group members listened to each other’s thoughts/ideas’; ‘The leader’s role played by one pupil in deciding which topics are included in the presentation’; and “The ability to ask for help from friends (other group members)”. The last of these is a self-written practice. Six of the seven top practices fall into the category of working style, indicating that this is the most important predictor of task success for these pupils.

The third part of the analysis concerned the ability to combine and synthesise knowledge from different school subjects, as this is the aim of the integrative approach to learning and was one of the aims of this learning task. Even when the groups produced reasonable and mostly well-argued presentations, according to the data they made little use of knowledge from other subjects even though instructed to do so. Only group 6 introduced an example from another lesson while working on the learning task.

Excerpt 1: group 6 (10:33)

P6_1

In biology lessons, we covered this same topic – clean water and sanitation.

P6_2

I remember nothing of it.

P6_1

Look, when people poop on the ground or near the shore, a lot of bacteria may end up in the river, which might be someone’s drinking water. And then they all get sick. Write this there, for the presentation.

After making their presentation, each group was asked whether their chosen goals had been discussed in other lessons. As illustrated by the quotes below, their answers were hesitant.

Researcher

“Have the goals you chose been discussed in other subject lessons?” (This question was asked after each presentation.)

Group 1:

(Whole group together)

“Hmm … I don’t remember”.

Group 2:

(Whole group together)

“We had something in biology … ”

Researcher

“Which one of the goals did you discuss in biology?”

P2_2

“Clean water and sanitation … ”

Group 3:

P3_2

“Well, in biology, we had something about water – not much though”.

Group 4:

P4_2

“No, I don’t think we had these goals in any other subject lessons”.

Group 5:

P5_3

“We had this sanitation in biology and good health and well-being in a very weird way in PE”.

P4_2

“And it was only at girls’ PE”. [commenting from group 4]

Group 6:

P6_2

“In biology, we covered water and sanitation”.

Group 7:

P7_1

“No, we really haven’t discussed these matters in any other lessons”.

These quotes show that the pupils had difficulty remembering whether these topics were discussed in other lessons and that they saw them as scattered, unconnected items.

To summarise the results, the working style of each group reflected the practices chosen for the diamond. This may be seen to indicate that the pupils were able to realistically assess their working styles, which increases the credibility of the results. Regarding chosen classroom practices for the diamonds, the collaborative, active and respectful way of working and the tools for helping the pupils to work through the task particularly stood out. The data included only a few verbal indications of combining knowledge gained from different school subjects.

Limitations of the study

Following the principles of participatory pedagogy, pupils engaged as active participants in the lesson and played their part responsibly by persisting with the learning and ranking tasks (Brown & Renshaw, 2006; Edwards & D’Arcy, 2004; Gresalfi et al., 2009). The choice of an educational action research approach seems justified, as the experiences reported by pupils seem reliable, and the diamond method provided useful information about classroom pedagogy from the perspective of the pupils (Niemi, Kumpulainen, Lipponen, & Hilppö, 2015b; Niemi et al., 2018). The structured use of the diamond method (i.e. based on ready-made practices) was appropriate for the time-limited lesson; that said, it would be useful to conduct further studies that require pupils themselves to list relevant practices, as here pupils provided only two self-written practices. This is significant, as some further relevant practices may have emerged if the pupils themselves were required to specify all the practices for the diamonds (Niemi, Kumpulainen, Lipponen, & Hilppö, 2015b). This limitation was at least partly overcome, as the video and audio data confirmed that the practices chosen by the groups related to their working styles and the teacher interviews confirmed that pupils worked in a way they had before.

The advantages of the diamond ranking method include ease of integration in everyday classroom practices and non-specificity to any subject or economic situation. However, the challenge of this method is the need for deep interpretation of the diamonds, as choices may differ from the expected meaning (Croghan, Griffin, Hunter, & Phoenix, 2008; Niemi et al., 2018). To address this issue, pupils presented their diamonds both visually and orally to other pupils, and the data from the learning task and the diamonds were combined with teacher interviews to ensure that practices were correctly interpreted. This use of triangulation also strengthened the reliability of the analysis, as it was performed by the first author but was agreed upon by all authors.

The combination of the Vygotskian approach and participatory research methods provided a fuller understanding of the pupils’ perspectives (Moll, 2014, p. 156), with the aim being to acquire rich data rather than generalisation (Cohen et al., 2018). To that extent, the results can only be viewed as preliminary, still possessing the power of applicability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In this study, it was important to give pupils a voice and study their learning experience as a crucial factor for educational success (Lehtomäki et al., 2014).

Discussion

Participatory pedagogy and the integrative approach to learning share similar epistemological assumptions – emphasising the social nature of teaching and learning, developing pupils’ thinking, engaging pupils in developing pedagogical practices in the classroom, using learning activities with cross-curricular themes and drawing on pupils’ experiences. These assumptions also inform the latest FNCC (Finnish National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (FNCC), 2014). Niemi et al. (2018) have argued that the Finnish curriculum supports the use of participatory pedagogy and diamond ranking for data collection, and in this study these methods proved useful in enabling pupils to share their perspectives on working styles and pedagogical practices associated with collaborative and integrative learning.

The study results supported the findings of previous studies conducted with the same age group and concerning pupils’ perspective. That is, the pupils mostly perceived their learning to benefit from teamwork and collaboration when using the integrative approach to learning (Eronen et al., 2019; Tarnanen et al., 2019). Here, the design of the learning task supported a sociocultural approach to learning, encouraging discussion and collaboration in almost all the groups (Vygotsky, 1978); each group had its own style of working, which was reflected by the practices chosen for ranking. Most groups viewed language as an important tool for collaborative and respectful working, and practices related to interthinking were identified as the most important for task completion. These results also align with previous research emphasising the importance of a collaborative working style for interthinking during group learning tasks (Littleton & Mercer, 2013; Soller, 2001; Taar, 2017). Several groups emphasised the ease of working with friends and linked this to effectiveness, along with a good working atmosphere. This supports the previous evidence that the experience of working together has a positive effect on collaboration (Edwards, 2005; Taar, 2017), as does a positive atmosphere (Rogoff, 1990).

Contrary to the previous results, our results failed to confirm that a strong group leader would encourage the other group members to share their ideas (Rogoff, 1990; Taar, 2017); in fact, they indicated the opposite. Regarding the working styles and concepts of ZPD and IDZ, the findings showed that pupils see group engagement in collaborative dialog as central to succeed in the learning task. This adds value to IDZ and the idea of shared communicative space where a joint, goal-directed task creates and maintains a dynamic shared understanding (Mercer, 2008). In the future, a more extensive integrative research project would allow the possibility of studying this temporal aspect of collaborative learning further.

In relation to practical arrangements involving teachers’ pedagogical choices, the technical equipment (especially the computer) was a notable aspect that the pupils saw as an important tool. This reflects the participating pupils being familiar with the use of computers to support collaborative work and the growing use of technology realising the emphasis on ICT skills in Finnish curriculum reforms (Finnish National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (FNCC), 2014). The extensive use of the given materials underlined their importance as a starting point for the learning task and a psychological tool for interthinking (Taar, 2017; Venäläinen, 2010). The level of task difficulty was considered appropriate, and the aim, instructions and concepts were seen as clear. These are the ways the teacher can support successful group work – by providing the tools for it and ensuring the pupils have sufficient knowledge to create a shared communicative space where everyone can understand the aim of the task, commit to working in collaboration and develop through interthinking (Fernández et al., 2015; Littleton & Mercer, 2013; Rogoff, 1990; Taar, 2017).

Based on the results of this study, it seemed difficult for the pupils to be able to synthesise knowledge from several school subjects. The analysis revealed only slight use of other subject knowledge, and the pupils seemed unused to applying knowledge from other contexts. These results suggest that pupils lacked a clear understanding of how the Agenda 2030 goals related to sustainable development, even though these issues had recently been discussed as part of the school’s multidisciplinary learning module in all school subjects. In the present case, linking the task more closely to some everyday problem might have helped create connections to the contents of other subjects (Brante & Brunosson, 2014; Gilbert et al., 2011; Marton, 2006).

More support from the teacher regarding calling upon knowledge acquired in other subjects during the working process might have been provided, thereby adjusting the process to reflect pupils’ needs (Illeris, 2018; Lattuca et al., 2004). This highlights the teacher’s contribution to learning to learn. Pupils cannot be expected to manage learning tasks and synthesise knowledge from several subjects properly unless they are first equipped with the requisite skills (Taar, 2017). This naturally presupposes that the teacher is willing to create new ways of working to generate opportunities to escape the subject-led working style (Eronen et al., 2019). As this is one aim of the current compulsory curriculum in many countries, exploring how to support teachers’ ability to enable pupils to learn the skill of synthesising knowledge would be an important focus of future research.

This study was conducted during Finnish home economics lessons and sought to give pupils an active role during the lessons and data collection. The prevailing emphasis on supporting pupils’ active role in the curriculum unites Nordic and Baltic countries, where home economics is taught in comprehensive schools (Beinert et al., 2020; Höijer, 2013; Taar, 2017; Venäläinen, 2010). Extending the study in the future to compare how pupils’ perspectives on the integrative approach to learning differs in these similar but distinct education systems would be beneficial. In these and many other countries, the integrative approach to learning is emphasised in the curriculum, yet as we have shown here for pupils, it seems difficult to reach. To ensure the pupils benefit from the integrative approach to learning, it is important to understand how they perceive integration as part of their everyday classroom practices and whether they perceive it as contributing to their learning. As a result, integration would not be just another teacher-led project or a single learning task among many.

Conclusion

From the perspective of these pupils, successful completion of a collaborative and integrative learning task depends crucially on whether groups’ ways of working support interthinking and the creation of a shared communicative space. Also important are appropriate pedagogical arrangements in terms of tools provided and task framing. In addition, the ability to synthesise knowledge from several school subjects is complex and requires clear and careful teacher guidance and appropriate learning tasks.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Elli Suninen and Rachel Troberg Foundation.

Notes on contributors

Janni Haapaniemi

Janni Haapaniemiis a PhD student of education at the Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland. She received her master’s degree in home economics from the Department of Teacher Education, University of Helsinki. Her current research interests are integrative approaches to learning and the development of home economics education.

Salla Venäläinen

Salla Venäläinenworks as a Senior Advisor of the Finnish Education Evaluation Centre. In 2010, she received her PhD in education from the Department of Teacher Education, University of Helsinki, Finland. Her main research interests are the effects of the 2014 national core curricula on school cultures and learning environments in Finland. Furthermore, she is interested in how teachers and pupils work together to create more favourable opportunities for educational work in schools as well as meaningful learning for pupils.

Anne Malin

Anne Malinis a PhD University Lecturer in education at the Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland. Her main interests are in flexible and versatile learning environments. She is also interested in subject-didactic questions related to the teaching and learning of Home Economics.

Päivi Palojoki

Professor Päivi Palojokiis the head of a research group, Food, culture and learning at the Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland. Her research focuses on subject-didactic questions related to the teaching and learning of Home Economics within various cultural settings and school levels, ranging from comprehensive school to higher education. She is especially interested in formal teaching and learning situations, such as in the classroom, but also examines informal learning environments such as homes or NGOs.

Notes

1. The FNCC 2014 was introduced gradually, as follows: grades 1–6 (ages 7–12) in 2016; 7th grade (ages 13–14) in 2017; 8th grade (ages 14–15) in 2018; and 9th grade (ages 15–16) in 2019.