Not yet but I do not know if someone else has discussed it; but I think that he [the Chief of Department] will ask about what kinds of thoughts have emerged here because he [the Chief of Department] gave me this task [ordered me to participate in the group].
The excerpts interestingly show some cultural barriers influencing the way the department is moving along the dimension of organizational silence and open communication. The phenomenon came up also during later meetings, as will be seen when diving deeper into the present culture at the FNDC.
Excerpt 6.17
..without values, enduring values, in a way without such energizing values this organization will not even sustain its vitality.
Paradoxically when the importance and the significance of the values was recognized it was also felt that it was not the duty of our group to focus on values and their meaningfulness – the parallel process to make a new strategy for the FNDC, led by the Commandant of the FNDC himself, seemed to be the most appropriate forum for such discussions. A more simplified version of the CHAT model was introduced by teacher K to be later explicitly elaborated by teacher I,
Excerpt 6.17
..I put it into a simplified form and emphasized three areas [issues]: teacher, student and outcome..it would be more motivating to work with such a simplified model than with the whole [the activity system] model which cannot be influenced by our group.
Later teacher I elaborated the idea into the form of a figure as presented below in figure 6.2:
Figure 6.2 Model proposed by a teacher
To highlight an essential point in the figure teacher I continued by saying,
..then this what [teacher D] spoke about, this production of knowledge..someone has to produce [also pedagogical] knowledge in this organization or it has to be got otherwise..
But what is the pedagogical expert organization in the FNDC capable to produce pedagogical knowledge or has the FNDC only one reasonable alternative for the need – to get pedagogical knowledge from outside of the FNDC? Interestingly the above mentioned knowledge production seems to be “hitting” on the cultural “walls” and barriers present at the FNDC, as already explained after the introduction of the principles of CHAT to the group during the second meeting,
Excerpt 6.18 (teacher E)
Here we have, as in Auschwitz, this cultural historical context. This [CHAT] was born in the Soviet Union where it was seen that the community has the power; [on the contrary] the American heroic legend tells the same story of a sheriff who shoots the deer [cf. the Leont’evian example of the ancient hunt told also to the group] and the community, especially the women, are just clapping their hands there.
Curiously, the teacher E does not locate the Finnish military culture on the dimension between the Soviet [or the culture represented by CHAT] and the American individualistic culture. As previously studied at the FDF (Halonen, forthcoming), during the past decades the Finnish military culture has seemed to be shifting between individualistic and communal edges.
Having different levels, the culture could be seen partly “hidden” in the individuals in their unconsciousness. Consequently, there is no reason to be surprised if the FNDC has been for some years expressing how it does value, for example, feelings of togetherness. But this comment leaves open the question about the authentic culture of the FNDC.
As has already been mentioned, also teacher E advised us to focus on culture (at the FNDC, the FDF and in Finland). In a way the dimension between an individual and the community comes to the fore. The group seemed to feel the centrality and essentiality of the shared enduring values. Despite of this the task (the value process or how to get people committed to the values) seemed to be more appropriate for the group making the new strategy for the FNDC led by the Commandant of the FNDC.
Teacher D explained how close our windows of opportunity seem to be by emphasizing
“evolutionary change” in the words below , Excerpt 6.19
..it does not matter what the outcome of our group turns out to be, recommendations to be used at the FNDC or not, the fact is that the world goes on in every case.
Curiously the teacher imagined ourselves as “the frogs in the Sengean boiler” being steadily boiled and unaware of the situation, just “drifting” and being satisfied by the current
situation at least publicly. This kind of view excluded the active role of the teachers but interestingly it was expressed by the very same teacher who sees teaching as a transmission kind of process done by “knowledgeable” teachers (cf. excerpt 6.3). The passive role of the teacher was not a shared point of view at the group according to several proposals (see e.g. figure 6.2 by teacher I).
As presented in excerpt 6.13, the pedagogical guidance or support at the FNDC has been arranged, when thinking positively, in a very scattered manner. Hence at the FNDC there are no formal methods for the teachers to develop their pedagogical competencies and capabilities.
Due to the fact that the researcher serves at the pedagogical “expert” organization of the FNDC130, he felt a need to take the initiative and act in a morally responsible manner as a representative of the pedagogic expert organization.
Since 2001 the researcher has been developing an evaluation tool for the teachers (cf.
chapter 5) and the teacher community at the FNDC. Also the development of the tool met quite severe resistance because the individuality of the teachers seemed to be threatened. But despite of this claimed “threat” there seemed to be relatively shared needs to give some pedagogical support and guidance for the teachers, as already shown during the first meetings.
In his explanations the researcher connected the ideas of shared enduring values, the espoused values of the FNDC (especially the expertise), “goodness” or “badness” of the teaching to the idea of an evaluation sheet for the teacher community. With the evaluation tool the current practices of the teachers was thought to be taken to the fore and to be developed by the resonation (societal progressive inquiries) with the social scientific theories combined by the pedagogical expert organization of the FNDC (the Department of Education).
The idea of simplifying the activity system model was introduced and elaborated by the teachers of the group (cf. excerpt 6.17 and figure 6.2). Despite of the claimed need to simplify and the need to focus on something “controllable”, the idea of the evaluation sheet and the method were valued as an interesting ones:
Excerpt 6.20 (teacher K)
This [project] is already in a good shape, as we already have some tools to develop these issues.
In the analysis of the fifth meeting, the teacher’s evaluation sheet idea will be discussed as well as the other initiatives of the teachers at the FNDC. During the second half of the third
130 Actually this could be only hypothesized when remembering the discussions in the other meetings.
meeting the discussion turned to the relationships between soldiers (“amateurs in pedagogy”) and civilians (“experts in pedagogy) and between military pedagogy and university pedagogy as explained by the words of teacher F,
Excerpt 6.21
..here we are in this meeting, and personally at least I am completely an amateur in these pedagogical issues, and it is a frightening thing as such to be debating on the basis of our personal intuitions..
But if then teacher F, and maybe some of the other teachers as well, feel themselves more or less as a amateur pedagogs, is this feeling expected and acceptable from the angle of soldiership? In a hierarchic military organization the official expectations and the exact acceptability is shown by the current leaders of the organization and ultimately by the commander [or in this case by the Commandant] in question. Later during the thematic interviews [the next chapter] some shared expectations of the managers of the FNDC are presented.
In the analysis of the fifth meeting there will be some examples of how to overcome the contradiction between civilian pedagogical and military pedagogical practice successfully. As shown in figures 6.1 and 6.2, at the FNDC there seems to be some need for pedagogical knowledge production also inside the college.