See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330711032

Home economics education: exploring integrative learning

Article  in  Educational Research · January 2019

DOI: 10.1080/00131881.2018.1564626

CITATIONS READS

10 17,963

4 authors, including:

Päivi Palojoki
University of Helsinki
57 PUBLICATIONS   379 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Educated girls and women in Tanzania: sociocultural interpretations on the meaning of education View project

Developing school dining in Finland View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Päivi Palojoki on 07 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2018.1564626

Home economics education: exploring integrative learning

Janni Haapaniemi a
, Salla Venäläinen b
, Anne Malin a
and Päivi Palojoki a

a
Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland; bFinnish Education Evaluation
Centre, Helsinki, Finland

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Background: The latest curriculum reforms in Finland have Received 13 November 2017
shifted the aims of education towards learning how to learn, Accepted 27 December 2018
and the secondary education sector is already required to KEYWORDS
teach integrative skills. This study seeks to understand how Integrative learning;
these curricular demands can be fulfilled in the context of the interdisciplinary;
subject of home economics in secondary education through an sociocultural learning
integrative approach to learning. This approach integrates theory; home economics
knowledge from different school subjects to help students education; twenty-first
gain a broader perspective, thereby helping develop integra- century skills
tive thinkers with interdisciplinary skills. The study adopts the
sociocultural learning approach, focusing on the tools used in
learning – material tools, psychological tools and other
humans as tools.
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to answer the following
research question: What kind of tools and pedagogical arrange-
ments support an approach to learning in home economics les-
sons that integrates other school subjects?
Methods: The data were collected from three Finnish comprehen-
sive schools in the form of audio and video recordings of five
different home economics lessons that followed the principles of
integrative learning. The collected data set underwent
a qualitative content analysis.
Results: The results describe the variations in home economics
lessons in terms of their implementation, supportive tools and
pedagogical arrangements used in the learning tasks. Analysis
indicated that all three kinds of tools – material, psychological
and other humans – were used to support the integrative
approach to learning. The pedagogical arrangements supporting
the integrative approach to learning were identified as differing in
terms of who led the integration; whether the integration was
based on knowledge, skills, experiences, methods or materials;
whether the pupils from different subjects were mixed in
a meaningful way; and whether the objectives and themes of
the lesson were of an integrative nature.
Conclusion: The study suggests that differences in the integrative
implementations of the lessons can complement each other; how-
ever, this is the case only if the integrative nature of the lessons is
clarified to the pupils.

CONTACT Janni Haapaniemi janni.haapaniemi@helsinki.fi

© 2019 NFER
2 J. HAAPANIEMI ET AL.

Introduction
The recent evolution towards a global knowledge society has, in many countries, led to
new demands from education – instead of focusing on the information that should be
learned, the primary goal of education has shifted towards the ability to learn and adapt
the learned knowledge and skills (Berner, Laaksolahti, and Kopola 2015; Tynjälä and
Gijbels 2012; Tynjälä, Stenström, and Saarnivaara 2012). An essential skill in the twenty-
first century is how to make sense of the complex flood of information. To enable this,
the education system has attempted to develop the notion of integrative thinkers – i.e.
students who have the ability to connect seemingly scattered information and make
decisions based on an overall perspective (Blackshields 2015; Huber and Hutchings
2004). Thus, education also tries to equip students with interdisciplinary skills, enabling
them to integrate knowledge from several disciplines (Spelt et al. 2009).
The aim of guiding students towards integrative thinking and interdisciplinary skills
has been addressed in higher education in particular (Huber and Hutchings 2004; Knight
et al. 2013; Newell 2010; Spelt et al. 2009; Tynjälä, Stenström, and Saarnivaara 2012).
However, it has, in many countries, also found its way into comprehensive education,
both at the levels of regulation and in the implementation of the curriculum (Baillat
2010; Brante and Brunosson 2014; Lenoir 2010; Rodríguez 2010; Segovia 2010).
In this study, the term integrative approach to learning is used to describe the goals of
educating integrative thinkers and providing interdisciplinary skills in comprehensive
schooling. There are several tools that can be used by pupils and teachers to achieve
these goals (see Vygotsky 1978). This study explores how these tools, together with
other pedagogical arrangements, i.e. arrangements in teaching and learning design, are
used in five Finnish home economics lessons to achieve the goal of establishing an
integrative approach to learning. The aim of this study is to understand how these tools
and pedagogical arrangements can support the integrative approach to learning.

The key concepts of this study

The concepts interdisciplinary and integration/integrative have previously been used in
multiple ways (Lenoir, Hasni, and Froelich 2015). For example, conceptual categorisa-
tions have been based on rationales of interdisciplinarity (Nikitina 2006), the degree of
disciplinary integration or interdisciplinary practice (Huutoniemi et al. 2010).
The key element of interdisciplinarity is usually considered to be the idea of the
synthesis of knowledge through the integration of disciplines (Spelt et al. 2009). It
focuses on cognitive advancement or on the ability to acquire something that can
only be acquired from an interdisciplinary perspective (Klein 2002; Lenoir, Hasni, and
Froelich 2015; Mansilla 2005). According to Klein (2002), interdisciplinarity in education is
‘a process, not a fixed body of content’ and, thus, as Lenoir, Hasni, and Froelich (2015,
67) pointed out, ‘the question of pedagogy is inescapable’.
In the educational context, it is important to separate the notions of interdisciplinarity
and multidisciplinarity. The former has a naturally integrative nature, while the latter has
an additive and juxtaposed nature, introducing multiple perspectives without support-
ing the integration of disciplinary knowledge throughout the curriculum (Klein 2010;
Lattuca 2001; Spelt et al. 2009). Further, transdisciplinarity has an even wider
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 3

perspective, as it is concerned with what lies between disciplines, across disciplines and
beyond all the disciplines, with the goal of developing an overarching synthesis (Lattuca
2003; Nicolescu 2014).
The integrative nature of interdisciplinarity is actualised through different forms of
implementation in the classroom. As Mansilla (2010) observes, ‘interdisciplinary learners
integrate information, data, techniques, tools, perspectives, concepts, and/or theories
from two or more disciplines to craft products, explain phenomena or solve problems in
a way that would have been unlikely through single-disciplinary means.’ This kind of
integration can inevitably only be supported in compulsory schools through the inter-
action between school subjects and pedagogical arrangements.
The idea of integration aimed at integrative thinking is also closely connected to the
idea of developing generic and, therefore, transferrable skills (Blackshields 2015; Tynjälä,
Stenström, and Saarnivaara 2012). This is especially related to higher education, while
gradually spreading elsewhere. For example, the idea of learning transversal competence
is one of the cornerstones of the most recent Finnish National Core Curriculum for Basic
Education (FNCC 2014). However, the idea of context-free generic skills has been met
with some criticism, and research has suggested the need for domain-specific knowl-
edge as a foundation for generic skills (Barrie 2007; Jones 2009a, 2009b). To overcome
this issue, Tynjälä and Gijbels (2012; see also Tynjälä, Häkkinen, and Hämäläinen 2014)
developed and proposed a model of integrative pedagogy applied to higher education
and consisting of four key components of expertise – theoretical, practical, self-
regulative and sociocultural knowledge. These are meant to be integrated by creating
learning environments wherein mediating tools and pedagogical arrangements – for
example, learning tasks – help to connect these types of knowledge. The aim of
combining these four types of knowledge can also be found in the curriculum of
Finnish comprehensive schools (FNCC 2014).
In this study, the term integrative approach to learning has been broadly used as an
overarching concept of comprehensive education to describe the idea of integrating
knowledge from different school subjects to provide a wider perspective, thus helping
impart interdisciplinary skills to educate integrative thinkers, which is also the goal of the
integrative pedagogy model. The framework of the model is also followed by focusing on
the mediating tools and pedagogical arrangements used during the integration of differ-
ent subjects in the classroom (Tynjälä and Gijbels 2012; Tynjälä, Häkkinen, and
Hämäläinen 2014).

Using tools in the sociocultural approach to learning

The model of integrative pedagogy has been derived from the sociocultural learning
approach (Tynjälä and Gijbels 2012), which emphasises the importance of both the
social and individual aspects of learning, with communality and participation comprising
the core of social learning (Säljö 2004; Vygotsky 1978). These ideas are also in line with
the curricular guidelines of the FNCC (2014, 26, original English version), which is defined
as being ‘based on a conception of learning that sees the pupils as active actors’.
Further, in the context of school, learning takes place through interaction with teachers
and peers, which emphasises the social nature of learning. In addition to focusing on the
social context of learning, the sociocultural learning approach also highlights two other
essential aspects of learning (Säljö 2004; Vygotsky 1978): according to this, development
4 J. HAAPANIEMI ET AL.

occurs in the zone of proximal development (ZPD), an area between the actual level of
performance and the learning potential, with assistance, for example, at school with
one’s teachers and peers. Second, there is a need for mediation: i.e. the tools used in
teaching, such as learning assignments, assessments and dialogues between students
and teachers. This mediation enables learning by increasing the student’s understanding
of his or her surrounding culture.
Learning is rarely separate from teaching; thus, the sociocultural learning approach
also challenges and changes the aims and means of teaching practices. To enable
integrative learning, it is suggested that teachers need to be integrative thinkers
themselves (Huber and Hutchings 2004) and careful consideration is needed about
what kinds of pedagogical arrangements teachers choose for each pupil and group to
enable their best possible development (Hall 2007). For example, group-work assign-
ments naturally enable the use of language as a tool for developing shared under-
standing between pupils. Combined with a teacher activating the dialogue by asking
questions, this differs remarkably from a teacher-led lecturing approach finalised with
a written text. When a pupil’s own activity and everyday concepts are seen as the
starting point for teaching (Tynjälä and Gijbels 2012; Vygotsky 1978), along with
a capable instructor such as a teacher or peer, the pupil learns and the scope of his or
her ZPD expands. In this way, learning is understood as a never-ending process (Säljö
2004; Vygotsky 1978).
According to Vygotsky (1978), learning takes place in a social environment and at the
interpersonal and intrapersonal levels. The tools of mediation are first seen externally at
the interpersonal level as the expert mediates learning: i.e. teaches the learner how to
use the tool – for example, the meaning of a new concept. These mediatory tools are
called psychological tools, and they are used to express thinking, for example, through
language, symbols, signs and different artefacts. Next, the learning process works at the
intrapersonal level, as the learner begins to use the tools in performing activities. For
example, the concept is learned first during the internal talk and then during conversa-
tion. During this internalisation, the interpersonal and intrapersonal levels mutually
inform each other, and the interpersonal process becomes intrapersonal, meaning that
the tools modify and transform the learner’s thinking processes as s/he begins to use
these new tools to express his or her own thinking (Hall 2007; Säljö 2004; Vygotsky
1978). Vygotsky (1978) describes three kinds of tools: (1) material tools, (2) psychological
tools and (3) other humans as tools. Together, these comprise physical, linguistic and
intellectual means that we use when trying to understand the environment around us
and how to act within it. Material tools are the equipment used in various processes,
which, therefore, only indirectly influence psychological processes. Language plays
a significant role in psychological tools, as it not only mediates meaning and concepts
but also shares meaning and constructs knowledge. Other human beings are used as
mediators of meaning through interpersonal communication (e.g. see excerpt 2).

The Finnish curriculum context

In Finland, the idea of integrating disciplines at the curriculum level first emerged as
early as 1970 (Vitikka 2009). The new curriculum (FNCC 2014, 52) emphasises the
integration of different school subjects even more: it makes it compulsory for each
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 5

pupils’ studies to ‘include at least one multidisciplinary learning module every

school year’. Its primary objective is to combine theory and practice in teaching, thus
enabling pupils to acquire competent skills in order to manage the complexity of
everyday life (FNCC 2014). During the data collection of this study, the 2014 reform
was gradually implemented in schools: Grades 1–6 implemented the reform in autumn
2016, seventh grade in autumn 2017, eighth grade in autumn 2018 and ninth grade
finally in autumn 2019.
In the new FNCC (2014), knowledge is seen continuously changing and expanding,
and the essential skills to learn at school are considered to be the ability to acquire
information, the ability to adapt one’s behaviour in new situations and the ability to
engage in lifelong learning (Ministry of Education and Culture 2010, 38). The FNCC
(2014, 33–39, 52) refers to the concept of integrative instructions when emphasising
the integrative nature of learning and the goal of imparting transversal competence
through the cooperation of subjects. These aims are similar to those of interdisciplinarity
and the model of integrative pedagogy. However, it is to be noted that multidisciplinary
modules or the cooperation of subjects may not automatically be interdisciplinary.

Research questions
The primary focus of this study is on the qualitative characteristics of the integrative
approach to learning in home economics education, which integrates several subjects,
as defined by the Ministry of Education and Culture (2010). Home economics as a school
subject enables collaboration with other subjects and includes integrative elements.
These characteristics have been used to describe home economics in every Finnish
national curriculum since 1970 (POPS 1970, 1985, 1994; FNCC 2004, 2014).1
Material and psychological tools, together with other humans as tools, are considered
as possible mediators of learning when implementing the integrative approach in home
economics lessons. This study also considers other pedagogical arrangements support-
ing this approach. Thus, the research question of this study is as follows: What kind of
tools and pedagogical arrangements support the integrative approach to learning in
home economics lessons that integrate other school subjects?

Methods
Data collection and ethical considerations
Three home economics teachers participated in the study. Two of them participated
voluntarily, after a call for participation was made on a teacher network for home
economics teachers using integrative teaching methods. The third teacher was invited
to participate via e-mail. The data collection was conducted during the spring of 2017 in
three schools, with a total of five different home economics lessons observed, some of
which taught the same topic with different pupil groups. A summary of the observed
lessons is presented in Table 2.
This study complies with the ethical principles of Helsinki University (Finnish
Advisory Board on Research Integrity 2013). Informed consent was obtained from
the three home economics teachers who participated, the pupils’ guardians and the
6 J. HAAPANIEMI ET AL.

official authority, for example school’s board members. Each school’s protocols
around gaining official consent were verified and followed. The petition form to
gain informed consent from the guardians was drafted by the researcher and
approved by the school principal and the home economics teacher. It was then
sent to the pupils’ guardians by the home economics teacher through the school
network. Those pupils whose guardians did not allow participation attended the
lesson but were not video or audio recorded by the researchers. In the third school,
written consent was additionally obtained directly from the ninth-grade pupils as
they were over 15 years old.
The home economics teachers told the pupils about the forthcoming study, and
ensured that they were aware of the purpose of the study and how the data would be
collected before every round of observation. The pupils were also informed of the
possibility of opting out of the study at any time and that it would not affect their
participation in the class or their assessment in the subject. The anonymity of the
participants has been secured in all phases of the study by using code names (Finnish
Advisory Board on Research Integrity 2013).
This study was implemented as a data-based case study (Cohen, Manion, and
Morrison 2018) among pupils from grades 7 to 9 (aged 13–15 years) (see also Brante
and Brunosson 2014; Gilbert 2011; Höijer 2013; Kivilehto 2011; Venäläinen 2010). The
qualitative data were collected through participatory observations and semi-
structured interviews, which were conducted in home economics classrooms imple-
menting the integrative approach to learning (see Table 1). These observations were
recorded using two video cameras and one audio recorder. One camera was set at
a fixed location, while the researcher used the other camera to record other inter-
esting action in the class. The observation was followed by interviews with the home
economics teachers, conducted within 2 weeks of the observation. During the inter-
views, short video clips were shown to the home economics teachers to remind
them about the activities in the classroom. This stimulated recall method was seen as
a useful way to deepen the interview themes and to help the teachers recall the

Table 1. Summary of the five integrative home economics lessons observed.

Duration of
Integrated Grade and pupil each Number of Learning
School subjects ages Topic/theme lessona observations environment
1 Home economics, 7th Karelian pies 3 × 45 min 2 Home economics
Mathematics, 13–14 years classroom
Swedish
1 Home economics, 8th Russian food 2 × 45 min 1 Home economics
Russian 14–15 years culture classroom
2 Home economics, 7th Pancakes, 3 × 45 min 3 Home economics
Crafts 13–14 years cooking over classroom,
a fire place camping ground
3 Home economics, 9th Chemical 2 × 45 min 1 Home economics
Chemistry, Arts 15–16 years reactions in classroom
cooking
3 Home economics, 9th Historical 2 × 45 min 1 Home economics
History 15–16 years pastries classroom
a
All the 45-min blocks of the lessons were held in a row: either running without breaks or with a 10–15-min break
between every block or some of the 45-min blocks.
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 7

students’ activities and instructions given to them in the classroom (Nind, Kilburn,
and Wiles 2015; Powell 2005).

Data analysis
The data analysis followed the guidelines of the content analysis method – a qualitative
analysis tool used to reduce the data and categorise it by area of interest (Cohen,
Manion, and Morrison 2018; Hsieh and Shannon 2005). First, the unit of analysis was
defined as a discussion or an action targeting a certain situation, activity or problem. For
example, the activity of a working group preparing Karelian pie dough (see examples
later in the paper) was considered as one unit of analysis. There were also other units of
analysis alongside, such as the teacher’s or the students’ comments on the
dough. Second, categories and more specific codes for analysing the tools used in the
lessons (material, psychological and other humans) were derived on the basis of socio-
cultural theory (Säljö 2004; Vygotsky 1978). This was followed by a theory-driven content
analysis of the data. A separate category was used to represent data wherein the
integration of subjects was clearly present, regardless of whether there were tools
involved. These data were analysed using the data-driven content analysis method
(Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2018). Third, the actual coding and categorisation of
the data was conducted. Fourth, the core categories of tools used and essential peda-
gogical arrangements affecting the integration of subjects in each lesson were identi-
fied, together with the qualitative differences between the lessons observed. Finally, the
identified tools were analysed to determine if they integrated other subjects and
whether they contained any links to the knowledge, skills, methods or materials of
other subjects. In turn, the identified pedagogical arrangements affecting the integra-
tion were examined and organised into descriptive categories. Since the focus was on
the description of the activities in the classroom and on their qualitative differences,
quantitative frequencies for comparison were not counted.
After the classroom observation, the video recordings of the home economics lessons
were watched several times and transcribed. Short video clips where there was integra-
tion of subjects, where different tools were used or where the objectives of the lesson
were discussed were selected and edited for the home economics teachers’ interviews.
For this study, interviews were used to deepen the researchers’ understanding of the
actions in the classroom and to understand the learning objectives set by the teacher to
guide the lessons.
After the interviews, the lesson videos were watched again, and categorised using the
Atlas.ti analysis program in terms of the tools used and including situations that featured
the integration of multiple subjects (see Table 2).
After categorising the videos, the audio recordings were listened to, thereby utilising
them to add any parts missing from the video recordings to the analysis.
8 J. HAAPANIEMI ET AL.

Table 2. Data analysis categories and examples.

Category Analysis codes Short description
(1) Material tools Equipment and materials used to Bowls, pans, rice, salt
perform the tasks
(2) Psychological tools Home economics Terms, equipment and skills
terms, equipment specially related to home
and skills economics and having
a special meaning or use
Terms, equipment and Terms, equipment and skills
skills related to specially related to other
other subjects subjects and having special
meaning or use
Language Sharing meaning and giving
general instructions through
spoken language
Written text, pictures Sharing meaning through
and symbols written text and symbols
(3) Other humans as Teacher(s) Teacher acting as ‘master’ or
tools mediator of meaning
Other adults/ Other adults/instructors acting
instructors as ‘masters’ or mediators of
meaning
Other pupils Other pupils acting as ‘masters’ Pupils asking each other for
or mediators of meaning or
reference; discussions related
to actions in the classroom
(4) Integrating subjects Parts of lesson clearly featuring Teacher giving instructions
the integration of subjects
Examples
Terms: rönttönen
(lingonberry pastry),
gluten free
Equipment: Karelian pie,
rolling pin, pasha mould
Skills: frying pancakes,
cleaning
Terms: period of growth,
evacuee
Equipment: test tube,
Orthodox Church candles
Teacher giving instructions
on how to melt chocolate,
students giving
presentations on Russian
food culture
Recipes, teacher drawing on
whiteboard, Russian
teacher showing pictures
of Russian dishes
Teacher giving specific
instructions to pupils
during food preparation,
pupils asking the teacher
for help
Elderly women teaching
pupils how to prepare
Karelian pies
help, pupils commenting
on other pupils’ actions
on how to divide the
dough (mathematics)

Findings
General observations
The home economics–Swedish–mathematics integration was part of a larger project. For
the purposes of this study, with its focus on home economics, the home economics
lessons were analysed on their own in order to identify how the integration was
implemented within this subject. It was evident that, in these lessons, it was difficult
to identify examples of integration between the three subjects. In these home economics
lessons, pupils made Karelian pies (Karjalanpiirakka). The teacher had invited some local
elderly women, who were experts at making these traditional pies, to attend the class.
For the home economics-Russian lesson, pupils and teachers from both subjects were
present. Pupils worked in groups organised by the home economics teacher and made
Russian quark pancakes, called syrniki, and tea.
The integration of home economics and crafts involved, for example, the use of the
frying pans that the pupils had made in their crafts lessons. The pupils and teachers
were taken on a short trip to cook on an open fire with their frying pans. An assistant
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 9

teacher also joined the second and third trips. The crafts pupils went to the camping
ground ahead to light the fire, while the home economics pupils prepared the pancake
dough and juice in the home economics classroom. The pancakes were cooked
together.
In a lesson combining home economics, chemistry and arts, home economics pupils
tested different chemical reactions using ingredients from their home economics class
and evaluated the results. One group tested yeast at different temperatures, one group
tested sodium carbonate’s reactions at different pH levels and two groups tested the
viscosity and elastic mass of dough created by gluten proteins. Additionally, every group
prepared cookies using the same recipe but with different kinds of sugar, and shaped
the cookies into chemistry-related shapes like beakers. For the lesson integrating home
economics and history, the working groups had chosen historical pastries in the pre-
vious lesson and familiarised themselves with the recipes. They proceeded to make the
pastries in this lesson.

Descriptions of case analyses

The analysis indicated that all of the lessons that were observed varied in terms of their
objectives, implementation and learning tasks. A short summary of the lessons is
presented in Table 3.
In the sections that follow, the detailed findings of the analysis are described and
illustrated with anonymised, translated quotations from the data.

Case analysis 1: combining home economics, mathematics and Swedish

In this lesson, although the integrative project was briefly mentioned at the beginning,
analysis suggested that there seemed to be no integration between these three sub-
jects, and neither did the lesson’s objectives refer to this. However, this is not to say
there was no integration per se: indeed, there were other subjects that were integrated
in the lesson. For example, information and terms from geography, biology and history
were introduced by the teacher (see excerpt 1), and also mathematics skills were
needed.

Excerpt 1: Karelian pie fillings (home economics–mathematics–Swedish

integration)
(Context: Teacher and pupils discuss what the typical fillings for Karelian pies are. Pupils
name rice, potato and carrot.)
Teacher: ‘Before rice was brought to Finland, barley was used, as it was grown here.
Where does rice grow?’
Pupil 1: ‘In Asia.’
Teacher: ‘Yes. As local products, you can use potato or barley. Then, what are these
berries?’ (Points the berries on the table.)
Pupil 2: ‘Lingonberries.’
Teacher:
 10

Table 3. Summary of lessons observed and their learning objectives, learning tasks and contents.
J. HAAPANIEMI ET AL.

Lesso- Learning objectivesa of

n Integrated subjects/grade Topic observed lesson Learning tasks Short description of contentsb
1 Home economics, Karelian pies Learning the history of Karelian Making Karelian pie dough and Teacher-led intro, working with tasks,
Mathematics, Swedish /7th pies, learning to make preparing the pies demonstration of preparing pies, preparing the
Karelian pies pies, eating, cleaning
2 Home economics, Russian /8th Russian food culture Learning the characteristics of Preparing syrniki and tea, quiz on Teacher-led intro, working on tasks, presentation
Russian food culture, Russian words on Russian food culture by students, word quiz
Learning to make syrniki by teacher, preparing syrniki and tea, eating,
(quark pancake) cleaning
3 Home economics, Crafts/7th Trip to fireplace to fry Participation, enjoyment of Preparing pancake dough and Teacher-led intro, working on tasks, walking to
pancakes being together juice, cooking pancakes over an a fireplace, frying and eating pancakes, walking
open fire to school, cleaning
4 Home economics, Chemistry, Chemical reactions in Understanding the chemical Testing different reactions, Teacher-led intro, working on tasks, closing
Arts /9th cooking reactions in cooking, the role answering question forms, discussion about the results, eating, cleaning
of sugar in cookie dough preparing cookies with different
kinds of sugars
5 Home economics, History/9th Historical pastries Preparing pastries and learning Preparing the pre-selected Teacher-led intro, working on tasks, eating,
their historical background pastries, answering question cleaning
forms
a
The learning objectives were either verbally defined by the teacher during the lessons or identified through the lesson’s contents.
b
The contents have been presented in the order in which they occurred during the lesson.
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 11

‘Yes. Lingonberries and potatoes are related to Kainuu [Northern Finland].’

(Points to an area on the map.)

The material tools used in this lesson were mainly typical home economics tools with
no support for integration, with the exception of a map used by the teacher to show
where certain places are located and how the tradition of making Karelian pies spread
across Finland (geography). The essential integrative psychological tool used was lan-
guage, but the teacher also drew on a whiteboard to demonstrate how to divide the
dough evenly (mathematics). Compared with other lessons, the distinctive element of
this lesson was the use of other humans who were acting, according to the analysis, as
‘tools’ in this context – i.e. the elderly women who shared their specialist knowledge by
demonstrating and assisting in the preparation of the Karelian pies. These visitors also
integrated history into the lesson by telling stories related to Karelia and Karelian pies
from their childhood.

Case analysis 2: combining home economics and Russian

This lesson’s learning objectives and theme already involved the integration of multiple
subjects. Accordingly, integration manifested itself in several aspects of the lesson. At
the beginning, two pieces of equipment which were often used in home economics
lessons – the samovar and the pasha mould – were presented, along with a discussion
on their relations to eastern food culture and tradition. Examples of Russian words
related to these artefacts were also introduced; information from other subjects (religion
and history) was introduced as well. The integration of subjects was also apparent
halfway through the lesson in the form of a presentation on Russian food culture
made by the pupils and a word quiz on Russian foods given by the teacher. Further,
the practical tasks, i.e. making the typical Russian dishes – served to incorporate both
subjects.
In this lesson, the samovar and pasha mould, together with the ingredients used
(such as quark), took on a new meaning as part of Russian food culture. Thus, they
served as both material and psychological tools. This may be understood in terms of
a transformation of a material tool into a psychological tool in the context of home
economics (Venäläinen 2010). According to Venäläinen, tools seen in a certain context or
by a certain person may often seem to be material in nature but may, in fact, have the
ability to play an essential role in conveying an action, process or cultural meaning.
Other psychological tools with an integrative nature were language, the presentation’s
text and the word quiz containing pictures and text. No support for integration could be
identified in the use of other humans as tools.
Examination of the pedagogical elements supporting integration led to an interesting
observation with regard to the pupils from different subjects’ lessons being taught
together. Evidence was not apparent in the analysis of pupils being encouraged to
share their knowledge and skills from either of the subjects so as to increase the lesson’s
integration. For example, pupils studying Russian were not involved in the word quiz.
Further, in the home economics tasks, the Russian and home economics pupils were not
systematically mixed and therefore were not able to work together on the same tasks,
sharing their knowledge and skills.
12 J. HAAPANIEMI ET AL.

Case analysis 3: combining home economics and crafts

In the analysis, this lesson was identified as having had more of a parallel structure than
an integrative nature: the preparation of the pans in the crafts lessons and the prepara-
tion of the pancake dough in the home economics lesson were done separately, even
though both had the common goal of frying pancakes. Despite this, no explicit teacher-
led integration was seen during the observed lesson. It is interesting to note that the
self-made pans would have potential for being used as a supportive material tool for
integration, as they could be used to combine the knowledge and skills of crafts and
home economics, for example, through a discussion about the material of the pans and
the extent to which the different pans were good for frying. However, compared with
the other observed lessons, this lesson did have one distinctive element: the teaching
and learning processes were conducted outside the classroom. This changed the nature
of the lesson, resulting in integration not actually being the main objective of the lesson;
thus, its parallel structure was adequate to meet its objectives.
Nonetheless, an example of student-led integration with mathematics did occur in
this lesson, at a point where the pupils discussed how much milk they had added to the
dough (see excerpt 2). During this discussion with their peers (in analysis terms, ‘other
humans as tools’), the measuring cup (i.e. the ‘material tool’) offered the students the
ability to learn the skill of measuring with different measuring cups in a home econom-
ics context (psychological tool). Also, mathematics knowledge was applied to overcome
a home economics problem (integrating subjects). This example shows how home
economics tasks naturally introduce knowledge from several subjects, even in a lesson
that did not specifically aim for the integration of knowledge.

Excerpt 2: adding milk (home economics–crafts integration)

(Context: Working group is mixing the pancake dough.)
Pupil 1: ‘There is one litre of milk already.’
Pupil 2: ‘No, there is not.’
Pupil 1: ‘Yes, there is.’
Pupil 2: ‘What was your maths grade?’
Pupil 3: ‘We’ve put 5 dL.’
Pupil 1: ‘Where is that measuring cup? (Is given the 500 ml measuring cup.) One litre.’
Pupil 2: ‘One p and t (pint). Hey, there is 1 L.’
Pupil 3: ‘500 ml is half a litre.’
Pupil 2: ‘So it was not one litre, because when we measured with this, it was not full.’
Pupil 1: ‘But the other milk carton was emptied. . .’
Pupil 3: ‘One litre is two of these [500 ml measuring cups].’

Case analysis 4: combining home economics, chemistry and the arts

During this lesson, a multifaceted integration of chemistry and home economics
occurred in line with the integrative objective and theme set for the lesson. At the
beginning, the teacher pointed out the integrative nature of the subjects through
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 13

a discussion about chemical reactions in cooking. During the tasks, the pupils used
equipment from their chemistry class – test tubes, a measuring glass and pH paper. The
learning tasks also bore a close resemblance to a chemistry lesson, as the ingredients
had to be weighed, reactions observed and results written down. Also, the findings were
presented to the others and collectively discussed.
With regard to the tools, the material tools were used in an integrative way by using
ingredients from home economics and equipment from chemistry. Psychological tools
were also mixed in with the subjects in multiple ways. Both chemistry and home
economics terms were used during the introduction, in the instruction papers and
during the closing discussion. The methods of working benefited from both chemistry
and home economics skills. The integration of the arts appeared relatively side-lined, but
all three subjects were combined as the pupils were supposed to prepare the cookie
dough in the shapes of symbols and equipment related to chemistry. Also, some
discussions supported the integration of these subjects and, thus, other humans were
used as tools as well.
Despite the integrative pedagogical arrangements and the fact that the teacher
clearly pointed out integration as a learning objective, analysis suggested some confu-
sion about the lesson’s purpose (see excerpt 3). This draws attention to the importance
of ensuring that pupils understand the connections between multiple subjects.

Excerpt 3: confusion about purpose (home economics–chemistry–arts

integration)
(Context: Two pupils are testing reactions with sodium carbonate. A third, who was
making cookies, arrives to see what the others are doing.)
Pupil 1: ‘That looks like Coke!’
Pupil 2: ‘It is syrup and water.’
Pupil 1: ‘Why do we do these kinds of chemistry things even though it’s not
a chemistry lesson? Why do we even do this?’

(No answer is given.)

Case analysis 5: combining home economics and history

Although this lesson intended to integrate both subjects, analysis suggested that this
was not evident in the implementation. At the beginning of the lesson, the teacher gave
every group a question form about the history of each pastry and encouraged the pupils
to find their answers during the lesson. Despite this, at the end of the lesson, the pupils
had not remembered to look for information and the concluding session was postponed
to the next lesson, due to a lack of time. The question form about the history of the
pastries would have been the main psychological tool supporting the integration, but it
was left unused during this lesson.
14 J. HAAPANIEMI ET AL.

Figure 1. Data-driven analysis: a summary of the descriptive categories in relation to the tools and
arrangements.
Source: authors’ own original figure created for use in this paper.

Discussion
All three types of tools described in sociocultural theory (Säljö 2004; Vygotsky 1978) and
analysed for their role in achieving integrated learning were found to have been used in
the lessons observed. Analysis indicated that material tools were found to support the
integration of subjects when physically present in the lessons. Psychological tools were
used in a supportive way, mostly in the form of written, drawn and spoken instructions;
through the use of terms, symbols and demonstrative pictures from different subjects;
and by setting integrative questions for the pupils. Overall, other humans were used as
tools most frequently; however, this only rarely supported the integrative approach to
learning. In the data-driven analysis, the descriptive categories for pedagogical arrange-
ments impacting the integration were identified as follows: who led the integration
(teacher/students); what kind of integration was present (knowledge/experience/skill/
methods/material based); whether the pupils from different subjects were mixed in
a meaningful way; and whether the theme and objectives of the lesson supported the
integrative approach. A summary is presented in Figure 1.
When arranging the lessons according to their holistic nature – i.e. diverse use of
supportive tools and pedagogical arrangements for the integration of subjects – the
home economics–chemistry–arts lesson was identified as having the most holistic
integrative approach to learning through its use of multiple tools and supportive
pedagogical arrangements. Also, the home economics–Russian lesson had a somewhat
versatile holistic, integrative approach; however, this was mostly limited to knowledge-
based integration. In the home economics–mathematics–Sweden lesson, multiple tools
were used to support the integrative approach to learning, but there appeared to be
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 15

a lack of supportive pedagogical arrangements. In the home economics–history lesson,

time did not allow the possibility of integration of the subjects’ knowledge; the home
economics–crafts lesson was seen to be more parallel than integrative in its approach.
The analysis suggests that there are multiple ways to introduce the integrated
approach to learning in home economics lessons more or less holistically and by using
a varying number of tools. However, using and valuing different implementations widens
and diversifies the integrative approach to learning. This chimes with Blackshields (2015),
which concludes that integrative learning is greater than the sum of its parts – which are
constantly reinvented in multiple ways using integrative pedagogies.
Regarding pupils, we argue that the teacher plays a critical role in addressing the goal
of achieving an integrative approach by encouraging, understanding and, thus, broad-
ening the pupils’ ZPD (Vygotsky 1978). When enhancing understanding of the integra-
tive approach, the key is to make it visible, no matter how holistic the integration
actually is (see excerpt 2). This is because pupils are still learning to comprehend the
connections between disparate concepts and thereby making them part of their intra-
personal thinking (Säljö 2004; Vygotsky 1978).
In the model of integrative pedagogy, integrative skills are seen to be developed in
learning environments through the use of appropriate pedagogical arrangements and
mediating tools in the learning tasks (Tynjälä, Häkkinen, and Hämäläinen 2014; Tynjälä,
Stenström, and Saarnivaara 2012). This suggests that the teacher should choose the
learning tasks carefully to ensure the best possible development (Hall 2007). The observed
lessons varied greatly in terms of their learning tasks as well as the learning objectives of
the tasks. Interestingly, in the two most holistic lessons, the objectives already required an
understanding of the integration between different subjects. Thus, it seems important to
plan learning tasks aimed at supporting the integrative approach to learning, with the
setting of suitable objectives forming a good starting point in this regard.

Limitations and future directions

The results from this small-scale qualitative analysis are not intended to be generalisable.
However, the qualitative analysis led to rich and detailed descriptions, holding the
potential to widen our perspective and offer examples to teachers, both of home
economics and other subjects, who may be planning or implementing integrative
learning. We argue that further studies should focus on the dialogue among pupils or
between pupils and the teacher, as data of this kind might offer fresh insights into how
to support the integration process in learning.

Conclusion
It is widely accepted that the primary goal of school education is to equip pupils with
the skills and knowledge they need for the future (Blackshields 2015; Ministry of
Education and Culture 2010; Tynjälä, Häkkinen, and Hämäläinen 2014). However, the
means to achieve this goal vary. When targeting integrative thinkers or imparting
integrative skills, this wide variety of means can be seen as an asset, since the future
is also diverse and unpredictable. In Finland, this diversity is also supported by the new
curriculum (FNCC, 2014). The qualitatively different ways of implementing the
16 J. HAAPANIEMI ET AL.

integrative approach complement each other, but only if their integrative nature is
discussed in the classroom. Hence, it is of utmost importance for the teacher to make
the integration visible and, thus, understandable for pupils, starting with establishing
the objectives of the lesson.
In light of this study, the path towards the holistic, integrative approach to learning
seems not to be linear but, rather, different in case of every school, teacher and pupil. In
addition to the pedagogical arrangements analysed here, there are also other elements
affecting the implementation of integrated learning in the classroom – differences in
school cultures, between teachers, between pupil groups and many others. No matter
what the starting point, sharing and analysing ideas and experiences from diverse
implementations offer opportunities to learn from each other, thereby enhancing devel-
opment towards a more holistic, integrative approach to learning.

Note
1. Currently, in Finland, home economics is a compulsory subject taught by subject teachers at
the lower secondary level, usually in the seventh grade (pupil aged 13–14 years). After this,
pupils can choose home economics as an optional subject according to school-specific
guidelines (FNCC 2014).

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

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

ORCID
Janni Haapaniemi http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3137-522X
Salla Venäläinen http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6823-6648
Anne Malin http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6567-7766
Päivi Palojoki http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7323-7015

References
Baillat, G. 2010. “In Search of Interdisciplinarity in Schools in France: From Curriculum to Practice.”
Issues in Integrative Studies 28: 170–207.
Barrie, S. C. 2007. “A Conceptual Framework for the Teaching and Learning of Generic Graduate
Attributes.” Studies in Higher Education 32 (4): 439–458. doi:10.1080/03075070701476100.
Berner, A.-S., H. Laaksolahti, and R. Kopola, eds. 2015. Maa, Jossa Kaikki Rakastavat Oppimista [A
Country Where Everyone Loves Learning]. Helsinki: Sitra.
Blackshields, D. 2015. Integrative Learning: International Research and Practice. London: Routledge.
Brante, G., and A. Brunosson. 2014. “To Double a Recipe: Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning of
Mathematical Content Knowledge in a Home Economics Setting.” Education Inquiry 5 (2):
301–318. doi:10.3402/edui.v5.23925.
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 17

Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2018. Research Methods in Education. 8th ed. Oxon:
Routledge.
Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity. 2013. Responsible Conduct of Research and
Procedures for Handling Allegations of Misconduct in Finland: Guidelines of the Finnish Advisory
Board on Research Integrity 2012. Helsinki: Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity.
Finnish National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (FNCC). 2004. National Core Curriculum for
Basic Education. Vammala: Finnish National Board of Education.
Finnish National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (FNCC). 2014. National Curriculum for Basic
Education 2014. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.
Gilbert, J. K. 2011. “Concept Development and Transfer in Context-Based Science Education.”
International Journal of Science Education 33 (6): 817–837. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.493185.
Hall, A. 2007. “Vygotsky Goes Online: Learning Design from a Socio-Cultural Perspective.” Learning
and Socio-Cultural Theory: Exploring Modern Vygotskian Perspectives 1 (1): 94–107.
Höijer, K. 2013. “Contested Food: The Construction of Home and Consumer Studies as a Cultural
Space.” PhD diss., Uppsala University.
Hsieh, H.-F., and S. Shannon. 2005. “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.” Qualitative
Health Research 15 (9): 1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687.
Huber, M. T., and P. Hutchings. 2004. Integrative Learning: Mapping the Terrain. The Academy in
Transition. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Huutoniemi, K., J. T. Klein, H. Bruun, and J. Hukkinen. 2010. “Analyzing Interdisciplinarity: Typology
and Indicators.” Research Policy 39 (1): 79–88. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2009.09.011.
Jones, A. 2009a. “Redisciplining Generic Attributes: The Disciplinary Context in Focus.” Studies in
Higher Education 34 (1): 85–100. doi:10.1080/03075070802602018.
Jones, A. 2009b. “Generic Attributes as Espoused Theory: The Importance of Context.” Higher
Education: the International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning 58 (2):
175–191. doi:10.1007/s10734-008-9189-2.
Kivilehto, S. 2011. ““Kyl Mä Varmaan Kohta Ymmärrän.”: Asunnon Suunnittelu -Opetusohjelma
Oppilaiden Ajattelun Ja Oppimisen Haastajana Peruskoulun Kotitalousopetuksessa [“I Will Soon
Understand.” The House Planning Program as an Enhancer of Pupils´ Thinking Skills and
Learning in Home Economics at Comprehensive School].” PhD diss., Helsinki University.
Klein, J. T. 2002. “Introduction. Interdisciplinarity Today: Why? What? and How?” In
Interdisciplinarity Education in K-12 and College: A Foundation for K-16 Dialogue, edited by
J. T. Klein, 1–17. New York, NY: Collage Board.
Klein, J. T. 2010. “A Taxonomy of Interdisciplinarity.” In The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity,
edited by R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, and C. Mitcham, 15–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Knight, D. B., L. R. Lattuca, E. W. Kimball, and R. D. Reason. 2013. “Understanding Interdisciplinarity:
Curricular and Organizational Features of Undergraduate Interdisciplinary Programs.” Innovative
Higher Education 38 (2): 143–158. doi:10.1007/s10755-012-9232-1.
Lattuca, L. R. 2001. Creating Interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary Research and Teaching among
College and University Faculty. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
Lattuca, L. R. 2003. “Creating Interdisciplinarity: Grounded Definitions from College and University
Faculty.” History of Intellectual Culture 3 (1): 1–20.
Lenoir, Y. 2010. “Interdisciplinarity in Quebec Schools: 40 Years of Problematic Implementation.”
Issues in Integrative Studies 28: 238–294.
Lenoir, Y., A. Hasni, and A. Froelich. 2015. “Curricular and Didactic Conceptions of Interdisciplinarity
in the Field of Education: A Socio-Historical Perspective.” Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies 33:
39–93.
Mansilla, V. B. 2005. “Assessing Student Work at Disciplinary Crossroads.” Change 37 (1): 14–21.
doi:10.3200/CHNG.37.1.14-21.
Mansilla, V. B. 2010. “Learning to Synthesize: The Development of Interdisciplinary Understanding.”
In The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, edited by R. Frodeman, 288–306. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ministry of Education and Culture. 2010. Perusopetus 2020 – Yleiset Valtakunnalliset Tavoitteet Ja
Tuntijako [Basic Education 2020 – National Objectives and Distribution of Teaching Hours].
 18 J. HAAPANIEMI ET AL.

Helsinki: Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture, Department for Education and Science
Policy.
Newell, W. H. 2010. “Undergraduate General Education.” In The Oxford Handbook of
Interdisciplinarity, edited by R. Frodeman, 360–371. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nicolescu, B. 2014. “Methodology of Transdisciplinarity.” World Futures 70 (3–4): 186–199.
doi:10.1080/02604027.2014.934631.
Nikitina, S. 2006. “Three Strategies for Interdisciplinary Teaching: Contextualizing, Conceptualizing,
and Problem-Centring.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 38 (3): 251–271. doi:10.1080/
00220270500422632.
Nind, M., D. Kilburn, and R. Wiles. 2015. “Using Video and Dialogue to Generate Pedagogic
Knowledge: Teachers, Learners and Researchers Reflecting Together on the Pedagogy of
Social Research Methods.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 18 (5):
561–576. doi:10.1080/13645579.2015.1062628.
POPS (Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet). 1994. Perusopetuksen Opetussuunnitelman
Perusteet [National Core Curriculum for Basic Education]. Helsinki: Opetushallitus.
POPS 1970 (Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet). 1970. Peruskoulun
Opetussuunnitelman Mietintö 2. Oppiaineiden Opetussuunnitelmat [National Core Curriculum
for Subjects in Basic Education 2.]. Helsinki: Valtion painatuskeskus.
POPS 1985 (Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet). 1985. Perusopetuksen
Opetussuunnitelman Perusteet [National Core Curriculum for Basic Education]. Helsinki:
Kouluhallitus.
Powell, E. 2005. “Conceptualising and Facilitating Active Learning: Teachers’ Video-Stimulated
Reflective Dialogues.” Reflective Practice 6 (3): 407–418. doi:10.1080/14623940500220202.
Rodríguez, J. G. 2010. “Interdisciplinarity and Research on Local Issues in Schools: Policies and
Experiences from Colombia.” Issues in Integrative Studies 28: 109–137.
Säljö, R. 2004. Oppimiskäytännöt: Sosiokulttuurinen Näkökulma [Learning Practices: Sociocultural
Perspective]. 2. rev ed. Helsinki: WSOY.
Segovia, I. 2010. “The Conception and Role of Interdisciplinarity in the Spanish Education System.”
Issues in Integrative Studies 28: 138–169.
Spelt, E. J. H., J. A. Hamr, H. T. Biemans, P. A. Luning, and M. Mulder. 2009. “Teaching and Learning
in Interdisciplinary Higher Education: A Systematic Review.” Educational Psychology Review 21
(4): 365–378. doi:10.1007/s10648-009-9113-z.
Tynjälä, P., and D. Gijbels. 2012. “Changing World: Changing Pedagogy.” In Transitions and
Transformations in Learning and Education, edited by P. Tynjälä, M.-L. Stenström, and
M. Saarnivaara, 205–222. New York: Springer.
Tynjälä, P., M.-L. Stenström, and M. Saarnivaara. 2012. “Introduction and Overview.” In Transitions
and Transformations in Learning and Education, edited by P. Tynjälä, M.-L. Stenström, and
M. Saarnivaara, 3–8. New York: Springer.
Tynjälä, P., P. Häkkinen, and R. Hämäläinen. 2014. “TEL@ Work: Toward Integration of Theory and
Practice.” British Journal of Educational Technology 45 (6): 990–1000. doi:10.1111/bjet.12164.
Venäläinen, S. 2010. “Interaction in the Multicultural Classroom: Towards Culturally Sensitive Home
Economics Education.” PhD diss., Helsinki University.
Vitikka, E. 2009. “Opetussuunnitelman Mallin Jäsennys: Sisältö Ja Pedagogiikka Kokonaisuuden
Rakentajina [Structuring of the Curriculum Design: Content and Pedagogy Constructing the
Whole].” PhD diss., Helsinki University.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

View publication stats