Material

6.1.1. National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2004 and 2014

The present study involved an analysis of the National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2004 and 2014 (hereinafter CC2004 and CC2014). This part of the dissertation aims to find answers to research question 1: What information literacy aspects can be found in Finnish Language and Literature subject in the national comprehensive school core curricula of 2004 and 2014?

The structure of the National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2014 differs from that of 2004, and for this reason, the 2014 text was restructured to resemble the 2004 text to facilitate a comparison of the two texts. The CC2004 was analysed first and compared to the CC2014 to discern any differences between the two consecutive texts and whether there are any changes. However, the presented information literacy representation only involves the CC2014. The justification for this is that the core curriculum is the one which will be in use for all from 2019 onwards.

At the final phase of the analysis and in an attempt to discern an emerging information literacy conception, the research material comprised the texts pertaining to the general part, the 7th–₉th _{grade level and the subject of Finnish Language and}

Literature. The general part was included because this section applies to all teaching and all subjects and, furthermore, the general part contains issues for all subjects on a general level, including school culture, working methods, learning environment and integrative instruction. Subsequently, all of the occurrences to texts regarding the 7th_–

9th _{grades and Finnish Language and Literature were collected and organized into a}

linear process representation. Since the Finnish Language and Literature teachers interviewed for the study taught the 7th _{grade, analysing the curriculum texts}

pertaining to that age group is justified.

A second reason for choosing only Finnish Language and Literature as opposed to all of the subjects is the vast amount of material it would entail. Additionally, there are reasons to believe that the information literacy conception in some other subjects can, in fact, be very different, for example:

- In Finnish as a Second Language, the curriculum states, “They [pupils] enhance their

66

(Finnish National Board of Education, 2016, p. 340). In the text concerning Finnish Language and Literature, ICT skills are not mentioned in association with information seeking but with producing texts.

- A similar type of emphasis was found in the text pertaining to the learning environment in Biology concerning learning environment: “Guiding the pupil to also

use electronic learning environments in acquiring, handling, analysing, and presenting biological information is essential in achieving the objectives of the instruction of biology.”

-

information and communication technology for acquiring, processing, and presenting information and research results and to support the pupil’s learning by using illustrative simulations.” Furthermore, the term and concept of research was emphasised in the

natural sciences, not in language studies

.

Therefore, during school years pupils’ understanding of information literacy is not constructed only in the Finnish Language and Literature subject. By the time they graduate from comprehensive school, their knowledge in information literacy is a result of teaching in all subjects, despite differences between the subjects, such as the above-mentioned.

67

6.1.2. Interviews

The selection of the participating schools began with consideration of the following criteria: 1) schools with a full-time professional librarian, 2) secondary schools of a similar type and 3) both the librarian and a Finnish Language and Literature teacher would volunteer to be interviewed. An advert for the interview was posted on the Kirjastot.fi website and in the Facebook group for the School Library Association in Finland. However, only one person notified her interest in partaking in an interview. After this, the possible schools were contacted directly by sending emails to the head masters.

The problematic issue in choosing participating schools was the low number of schools with school libraries and with educated school librarians. School libraries exist in just a few public schools, the few existing private schools and teacher training school. Choosing the participating schools from the same type of schools was important, as the profiles between these school types are somewhat different. Choosing the same type of schools provided more leverage for comparison.

To ensure that the interview results are roughly comparable, one type of school was chosen to represent the schools: teacher training schools. Certain times of the school year are dominated by the training periods. In these schools, the student teachers are also in contact with the school libraries. All but one of the selected teacher training schools fulfilled both requirements. One school had a school librarian present only for four days a week and did not have a professional degree in librarianship. This was a known decision and is based on being able to include similar types of schools in the study. This was a concession that needed to be done in order to keep other requirements, even if the desicion may have a slight impact on results.

Because of the requirements mentioned earlier, it was obvious that the only school librarian at the school was interviewed. Choosing a teacher to be interviewed was left to the school. The headmasters forwarded the names of the participating teachers. One school only had one teacher who taught the seventh grade at that time. In other schools, the teachers seemed to have been chosen because of their enthusiasm about the Finnish Language and Literature subject or the school library.

The headmasters all gave their permission to conduct the interviews, and the participants and the researcher signed an agreement concerning participation in the study as well as confidentiality and anonymity. A total of ten people were interviewed for the study, five representing each profession. The teachers were in different stages of their careers. Tables 6.1 and 6.2 give a closer picture of the age structure and working years of the interviewed persons. One had a doctoral degree and the rest had master’s degrees. The quotations in the results section are presented in English only. In discourse analytic approach, interviews are transcribed exactly as they were conducted. The interviews were conducted in Finnish and this could have revealed

68

too much about the interviewees due to the dialect they spoke. For this reason, the original spoken text was left out and the quotations are only presented in English.

Table 6.1. Interviewed teachers’ age structure and years of working. Names are pseudonyms.

Age Years from graduation Years in this school

Teacher 1 / Johanna 57 31 30

Teacher 2 / Sara 35 10 6

Teacher 3 / Hilda 58 36 8

Teacher 4 / Eveliina 38 10 years and 5 months 4 months Teacher 5 / Elisa 41 15 1 year 4 months

Table 6.2. Interviewed school librarians’ age structure and years of working. Names are pseudonyms.

Age Years from graduation

Years in this school

School librarian 1 / Ville 41 15 8.5 School librarian 2 / Kasperi 37 8 years 10 months 8 School librarian 3 / Anneli 63 33 12 School librarian 4 / Liisa 58 37 18 School librarian 5 / Pentti 59 25 19

The interview questions (Appendices 3 and 4) were piloted on one teacher and one librarian who currently collaborates with a school. Changes to the questions were made based on the issues that arose during the pilot. The average length of an actual research interview was 1 hour and 12 minutes, whereby the average length of an interview with a teacher was 56 minutes and with a school librarian 1 hour and 41 minutes. The participants did not receive the interview questions in advance. All the interview questions were provided on paper during the interviews. The participants had the liberty to think about their answers quietly before answering and even draw and write notes if they wished. The interviews were not conducted in a rush.

69

Figure 6.2. Analysis structure of the research interview material

Figure 6.3. The overall construction of the dissertation.